Agenda and minutes

To note any changes to the membership.

1.1      There were no apologies for absence.  All Members of the Committee were present at the meeting.

To receive declarations by Members and Officers of the existence and nature of any personal or prejudicial interests in matters on this agenda.

2.1      Three Members of the Committee made declarations in respect of item 5 on the agenda, Neighbourhood Planning in Westminster.  Councillor Glanz declared he is a member of the Mayfair, Soho, Fitzrovia West and Marylebone Neighbourhood Forums.  Councillor Scarborough declared that she is a member of Marylebone and Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forums.  Councillor Williams declared that he is a member of Belgravia Neighbourhood Forum.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2015.

3.1      RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 2 March 2015 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record of proceedings.

Question And Answer Session With The Cabinet Member For The Built Environment, Councillor Robert Davis.

Cabinet Member Updates for City Management (Appendix 2) and Sustainability And Parking (Appendix 3) – to follow.

4.1       The Committee received written updates from the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment, the Cabinet Member for City Management and the Cabinet Member for Sustainability and Parking on significant matters within their portfolios.  

4.2       The Chairman welcomed Councillor Davis, the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment, to the meeting.  He asked him if there was anything that he wished to highlight that was of particular significance to the Built Environment portfolio and that had not featured in the written update.  The Cabinet Member informed the Committee that it was a difficult period for the Council as a raft of planning legislation had been introduced by the Government prior to the General Election, some of which was beneficial to the Council but some of which was not so helpful.  The Council had been lobbying on the legislation and there was now a pause whilst the result of the General Election was awaited.   

4.3       The Committee put questions to and received responses from Councillor Davis on the following matters that were relevant to the Built Environment portfolio:     

4.4      The Chairman asked the Cabinet Member in response to his previous comments what his biggest concerns were in terms of measures that might be taken at Central Government level.  Councillor Davis replied that his biggest concern was a view that Westminster as a local authority should have less planning powers.  Permitted development rights were in vogue allowing certain types of development without the need for planning permission.  The Government had recently published a new use class order, distinguishing what changes could be made within the same use class without the need for planning permission.  This had created a number of substantial new changes.  Many of these were conditioned, requiring the applicant to meet the criteria set out in a number of tests.  It was a complicated process and was a burden on officers at a time of limited staff resources.  Any applicants that were confused by the process would require clarification from officers.  The Council would also seek to lobby the Government on fees to cover the costs of planning and adequate staff resources at one of the most active planning authorities in the country.           

4.5      Crossrail – Councillor Hyams asked Councillor Davis about the public realm strategy for Hanover Square Gardens and whether this included the recreation of a vista connecting Hanover and Cavendish Squares.  Those present heard that Councillor Davis had been introduced to Todd Longstaffe-Gowan, an eminent landscape architect by Councillor Hyams.  Councillor Davis added that Mr Longstaffe-Gowan had written a book about the view between Hanover and Cavendish Squares.  He was now involved with the public realm strategy and was a member of the Public Realm Review Panel which Councillor Davis chairs.  The Great Portland Estate had commissioned the public realm consultancy Publica, whose founding director is Lucy Musgrave, a renowned strategic planning architect, to develop a public realm strategy for Hanover Square Gardens and the surrounding area.  It was proposed to keep the current road system  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.1       Martin Low, City Transport Advisor, provided the Committee with an update in relation to the recent cycling fatality near the junction of Horseferry Road and Millbank.  The Council and Transport for London (‘TfL’) were very saddened by the tragic death of Moira Gemmell.  The outcome of the coroner’s inquest was awaited.  The Council and TfL would be taking steps to ensure that the junction was made safer.  TfL accepted that the current junction could be improved upon and had financial provision in its ‘Better Junctions’ programme, which focussed on those junctions where there were problems which needed to be tackled.  Mr Low stated that it was particularly important that the revised scheme that is implemented is developed in consultation with road users, including cyclists.   

5.2       The Chairman encouraged officers to consider the Committee as a potential resource to assist the public engagement process.  This could include major junctions which impacted on road users being in the Work Programme, the Committee publicising and promoting the involvement of road users in the consultation process or re-opening the Cycling Strategy Task Group.  Mr Low responded that he believed that it would be of benefit for such a task group to be formed. 

5.3       Councillor Hyams asked Mr Low to provide an update on the Kingsway fire caused by electrical fault.  He advised the Committee that a huge amount of work had been done by Camden and Westminster Councils at Member and officer level.  The good news was that power and gas supplies had been restored.  However, there were still some communication issues due to cables being destroyed by the fire.  A number of businesses were still being adversely affected as a result.  There was a forensic examination taking place to establish why the fire had occurred.  All the utilities had a vested interest in the outcome of the investigation given the disruption to residents and businesses and the costs caused by the damage to the network.  Depending on the outcome of the investigation, the matter could potentially be the subject of an item brought before the Committee at a future meeting or a task group should Members decide this was appropriate.

Report of the Director of Policy, Performance and Communications.

6.1      The report received by the Committee sought Members’ views on the key aspects of the Council’s approach to neighbourhood planning; namely, the approach to neighbourhood areas, neighbourhood forums and neighbourhood plan production.  Tom Kimber, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report.  This had been a lengthy evolving process with The Localism Act (2011) and Neighbourhood Planning Regulations (2012) having formally enabled representative community groups to undertake neighbourhood planning.  There had been a large degree of interest in neighbourhood planning in comparison with other London boroughs.  The Council had now designated 21 neighbourhood areas and 8 neighbourhood forums with further applications for neighbourhood forums having been received.  In addition the Queen's Park Community Council had been created from 1 April 2014 with the election of parish councillors taking place in May 2014.

6.2      Mr Kimber stated that Central Government’s intention is for neighbourhood planning to be carried out by a representative body who reflect the wider community such as residents and those who work in the area and has the potential to consist of Members of the Council as well.  There was an opportunity for the members of the representative body to produce a neighbourhood plan.  There was a change in emphasis in terms of how the Council operated.  Previously planning documents were produced and the community’s views were sought as part of the consultation.  For the first time, the Council was facilitating and enabling communities to form their own planning policies.

6.3      The Committee heard evidence from witnesses Sara Duncan of the Church Street Neighbourhood Forum and Wendy Shillam of the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum.  Ms Duncan informed those present that she is the recently elected Chairman of Church Street Neighbourhood Forum and is a local resident.  The Forum had been designated in August 2014.  It was run by a number of committed individuals who had been active in the community for a long time.  The initial work for the neighbourhood plan had commenced with the inaugural meeting having taken place three weeks previously.  Members of the Forum were in the process of establishing the evidence base and hoped to finish this in the next four to six weeks.  All members of the forum were voluntary however and it depended on the access they were able to obtain to information and the communication they were able to have with each other.  Ms Duncan thanked Mr Kimber for assisting the Forum in terms of understanding what was involved with neighbourhood planning, what could be achieved and managing expectations.  The intended timetable for completing the neighbourhood plan was approximately 18 months.  After establishing the evidence base, the next stage would be to put a business engagement strategy in place, including looking at different ways to engage with local residents in order that they help to contribute to the plan.  Ms Duncan emphasised that technical support was required as members of the forum did not have previous experience of writing policies.  She commented that it would be useful if the Council could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Report of The Chief Executive, CityWest Homes.

7.1      David Wickersham, Technical Adviser, Technical Services, CityWest Homes, introduced the report.  This had, as the Chairman stated, been produced swiftly in response to concerns raised by Members at the previous meeting in March.  Mr Wickersham explained that there had been issues with water supply failures before the Millennium but these had largely been as a result of burst pipes.  However, in 2003 Thames Water had declared their intention to reduce water pressures across London.  They were adamant that they were entitled to do so.  This was the backdrop to a lot of the problems with the housing stock over the last dozen years.  Currently there was a continuing issue where a resident of Tollgate House was suffering considerably from a lack of water in her flat.  This included not being able to flush the toilet which was intolerable.     

7.2      Mr Wickersham stated that CityWest Homes and Westminster City Council maintained a robust view, having received advice from legal officers and counsel opinion, that Thames Water are under an absolute obligation under the Water Industry Act 1991 to supply water to the premises that was supplied at the date of privatisation.  The Government had clearly put an anchor in the legislation that where domestic premises were supplied with water since before privatisation the private companies would be bound to maintain those domestic supplies.  Mr Wickersham added that Thames Water had to date reached a very different conclusion with the view that it had no obligation to supply water at any pressure higher than one bar.  This would only supply water to taps up to the third floor of a building.  When a resident above the third floor does suffer water supply failure through low pressure, Thames Water often advised the resident that it was the landlord’s fault for not fitting a water pump.  The anomaly was that in certain locations such as Kemp House Thames Water had offered to finance the installation of water pumps.  Leaseholders would then be taking on the responsibility to maintain those pumps with the electricity running costs. 

7.3       The Chairman stated that officers had requested a steer from Members on the potential options available in respect of this issue.   These options were set out in the appendices containing exempt information in agenda item 11.  Mr Low drew Members’ attention to the suggestion that Council seeks the agreement of Thames Water to a protocol requiring that, in the event of supply failure, Thames Water investigates the problem.  If attributable to insufficiency of mains pressure Thames Water either reinstates sufficient pressure or installs pumps, retaining responsibility for maintenance, replacement and running costs.  The Committee decided to discuss the commercially sensitive documents in private session. 

7.4      RESOLVED: That under Section 100 (A)(4) and Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business because they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information on the grounds shown below and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Committee to consider whether it wishes to issue any press releases in relation to its work.

8.1      The remainder of the meeting was held in public session.  The Committee decided not to produce a press release in relation to the items on the agenda at this time.

Report of the Scrutiny Manager.

9.1      Mark Ewbank, Scrutiny Manager, introduced the item.  He advised Members that the Work Programme was a working draft.  Their comments on the items set out for 2015/16 were sought.  Some of the topics in the Work Programme were scheduled to specifically coincide with developments such as Transport for London’s proposed implementation of the twenty four hour service on the London underground at weekends which would be discussed at the September meeting.  Others resulted from actions at previous meetings of the Committee including a review of broadband coverage in Westminster at the February 2016 meeting, one year after this had been scrutinised by the Committee.

9.2      The Chairman suggested that the 22 June meeting be held in another part of the borough away from City Hall.  He had encouraged meeting out in the community for previous policy and scrutiny meetings that he had chaired.  The two way flows item particularly lent itself to Members, prior to the meeting, walking along part of the route of the Baker Street scheme in North Marylebone with officers to consider the impact of the proposals first hand.

9.3      Councillor Williams proposed a follow-up item on air quality to add to the Work Programme.  Councillor Rampulla referred to the fact that the procurement strategy for the waste disposal contract had been discussed at the January meeting and that it had been envisaged that the item could be brought before the Committee to be scrutinised when the implications of the tenders, including in terms of what the market was offering, were understood.  It was agreed that officers would be consulted regarding when it would be most appropriate for this item to be scheduled.  The Chairman made the point that the Work Programme was a working, evolving document and any ideas relating to it should be forwarded to Mr Ewbank.

9.4       ACTION: That officers be consulted regarding when it would be most appropriate for a waste disposal contract item to be scheduled (Mark Ewbank, Scrutiny Manager, Mark Banks, Group Manager (Waste and Parks) and Phil Robson, Waste and Recycling Manager).

9.5       RESOLVED: That any views of Committee Members on potential items for the Work Programme be forwarded to Mark Ewbank, Scrutiny Manager.

10.1    There was no additional business for the Committee to consider.