Agenda and draft minutes

To note any changes to the membership.  Councillor Peter Cuthbertson to replace Councillor Jacqui Wilkinson at the meeting.

1.1      Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Louise Hyams and Jacqui Wilkinson.  Councillor Barbara Arzymanow replaced Councillor Hyams and Councillor Peter Cuthbertson replaced Councillor Wilkinson.

1.2      Jonathan Deacon, Senior Committee & Governance Officer, opened the meeting.  Councillor Ian Adams had advised him prior to the meeting that he was likely to be delayed but would definitely be in attendance later in the meeting.  Councillor Adams had proposed that Councillor Cameron Thomson chaired the meeting until he arrived.  This required a resolution to be passed by the Committee.

1.3      RESOLVED: That Councillor Thomson chair the meeting until such time as Councillor Adams is in attendance.

To receive declarations by Members and Officers of any personal or prejudicial interests in matters relating to this agenda.

2.1      Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg declared in respect of the Baker Street Two Way Project agenda item that he lives on the corner of Marylebone Road and Lisson Grove.  He did not consider this to be a prejudicial interest that would require him to withdraw from the meeting for this item.     

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 22 June 2015.

3.1       RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 22 June 2015 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record of proceedings.

Question And Answer Session With The Cabinet Member For the built environment

Written Updates from the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment, the Cabinet Member for City Management and the Cabinet Member for Sustainability and Parking – 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 Robert Davis, Cabinet Member for the Built Environment to the meeting.  The Committee put questions to and received responses from Councillor Davis on a number of matters that were relevant to the Built Environment portfolio, including the following:  

·           Councillor Davis was asked whether he would consider looking at enacting non-immediate Article 4 Directions to protect public houses in addition to combating the loss of office space to residential accommodation and the proliferation of basement extensions.  It was believed that Wandsworth had adopted this measure to protect public houses.  He replied that it was not possible to charge a fee for the Article 4 Directions which meant there were limited resources.  However, he would be willing to investigate this option.

·           He advised that the Marylebone and Maida Hill Neighbourhood Forums had recently been designated.  Two neighbourhood forums that were yet to be designated were Pimlico and Churchill Gardens.

·           He stated that the principle of the sponsorship of the Marble Arch maze / digital advent calendar had only been discussed at this stage.  It had not yet been decided who the sponsor would be.  The proposals would generate income for the City and add to the festive activities.

·           In response to a question on the motivation for the Baker Street Two Way Project, Councillor Davis replied that its inspiration was the success of the Piccadilly Two Way Scheme which improved the flow of traffic in Piccadilly, St James’s and Pall Mall and removed the one way urban motorway, creating a friendlier public realm.  The Council and Transport for London (‘TfL’) had worked on proposals for the Baker Street Two Way Project to design a public realm scheme that would be more user friendly for pedestrians, residents and businesses.  The public consultation had now concluded and he and the officers would re-examine the proposals and take on board what the residents were writing in their submissions. 

·           Councillor Davis was asked if the proposals were intended to deliver something which was more pedestrian, bus and cycle friendly, where would the cars and heavier vehicles be diverted to?  Also had consideration been given to use of short term car parks for park and ride schemes?  The Cabinet Member replied that the Council/TfL modelling showed that most traffic was looking to head north/south and not east/west.  They would use Gloucester Place or Baker Street and there would be no need for traffic to divert to side streets.  It was up to the Council to persuade local residents of this.  In terms of introducing a park and ride scheme, he had been involved with a previous Council scheme in partnership with a commercial company which had operated from the Council’s car park under Hyde Park which was underused.  This had given people the opportunity to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Report of the Principal Policy Officer

5.1       The Committee received a report on the current work to update the Council’s Code of Construction Practice which had previously been published in 2008.  The report also sought the Committee’s views on key matters for consideration.  Barry Smith, Head of City Policy & Strategy, introduced the report.  The revised Code was in line with updates having taken place in relation to policies and good practice.  It was also felt that the revised Code should be more attuned to the scale and nature of development in Westminster, particularly smaller to medium sized developments with their impact on residents.  This included the works involved in basement developments.  Officers had sought to widen the scope of the Code so that there were three levels of schemes.  Level one included large infrastructure type projects such as Crossrail and also other strategic developments.  Level 2 included large mixed use developments and level 3 applied to minor commercial / householder developments.  

5.2       Mr Smith stated that currently the Code was secured by planning condition and the compliance monitoring was funded by Section 106 agreement.  Town planning legislation and regulations in themselves provided limited powers to control the construction process and its impacts.  The Code offered an appropriate mechanism for doing this through other regulatory powers.  Mr Smith advised that given funding constraints, under the new Code the financial responsibility for enforcement management would shift to the developer or the householder in the case of basements.

5.3       Mr Smith referred to the fact that the Council was currently out to consultation on the basements policy which was due to conclude the day after this meeting.  An appendix to the draft Code of Construction Practice report proposed that if the Council was to charge for construction management impacts and recoup costs, an average estimate would be approximately £8k for a service provided under the Code relating to a basement development.  This included advice to applicants on their construction management plan, noise and dust mitigation and monitoring and site visits.

5.4       Mr Smith and Nina Miles, Principal Policy Officer, took Members through what were perceived to be the six key issues at the current time for developing the new Code prior to there being a public consultation.  These included should the Code be extended to a wider number of developments and should a cost neutral regime be adopted?  It was only possible to charge in order to recover the Council’s costs.  Also what were the Committee’s views on the working hours that should be permitted for developments, particularly basements?  Should works not be permitted at weekends to give neighbours some peace and quiet or would this unduly delay the construction process?  Also should specific encouragement be given to construction firms to employ a local workforce with up to 10% of their total workforce being comprised of local people?  It was also proposed that the revised Code would include measures to create awareness of cyclists by HGV vehicles on construction sites.

5.5       Officers advised Members of the following in response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Verbal briefing by Graham King, Head of Strategic Transport Planning & Public Realm.

6.1       Graham King, Head of Strategic Transport Planning & Public Realm provided the Committee with a verbal update on the Project.  The public consultation exercise that the Council had carried out had run for two months until the beginning of August 2015 and over 1500 responses had been received.  Officers were currently analysing and reviewing all of the responses in great depth and were sharing information with colleagues in TfL.  TfL has responsibility for traffic signals, buses and specific roads in the area and had contributed significantly to the funding of the Project.  A very detailed response from Council officers to the public consultation was expected by the end of September.  A full report would be provided to the Committee for the next meeting on 9 November which would be prior to any decision making process by the Cabinet Member in respect of the Project. 

6.2       Mr King stated that officers would continue to consult the St Marylebone Society & the North Marylebone Traffic Group and Marylebone Association on the issues they have raised particularly on the matter of the displacement of traffic onto residential streets.  The two amenity societies had addressed the Committee at the previous meeting in June at the University of Westminster Campus in Marylebone Road and had submitted detailed comments in the public consultation.  Officers were also due to meet shortly with a group called Marylebone First, located slightly to thewest of Gloucester Place.  There would be a response from Officers to detailed comments about specific design issues and impacts to some of the institutions in the area.  These included Francis Holland School and St Cyprian’s Church at Clarence Gate that were situated on a key junction.  There was St Mary’s Church School in Bryanston Square and St Mary’s Church in York Street and also London Business School’s submission in relation to their use of Council House in Marylebone Road and also their premises in Park Road. 

6.3       Mr King stated that a number of residents had made the point that they had not received the information the Council had supplied with the consultation.  He advised that officers were continuing to examine this and had checked with the delivery companies why these had not been received.  It was known that the vehicles had been to the correct locations as a result of tracking systems.  There had been several hundred cases of delivery company employees being refused access.  11500 leaflets had been produced and 2000 had been directly mailed.  Although there were some residents who had said that they had not been able to comment, Mr King was confident that responses had been received from across the area affected by the proposals covered all the potential issues.  The Council now had an invaluable database to ensure that information could be forwarded to local groups who represent a wide range of interests.   

6.4       Mr King advised Members of the following in response to questions from the Committee:

·           In response to a question as to whether the Committee would have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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

7.1      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.

Action Tracker – to follow.

8.1      Mark Ewbank, Scrutiny Manager, introduced the report.  The Committee considered the items in the Work Programme for the Council year 2015/16.  In addition to the Baker Street Two Way Project, it was agreed that the items scheduled on the agenda for the next meeting in November would be Crossrail 2 and the Cycle Superhighway.

8.2      RESOLVED: That the items in the Work Programme for rounds 3 (the meeting on 9 November 2015) to 6 (the meeting on 12 April 2016) in 2015/16 be as set out in the report.

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