To receive declarations by members and officers of the existence and nature of any personal or prejudicial interests in matters on this agenda.
Minutes:
2.1 The Chairman explained that a week before the meeting, all six Members of the Committee were provided with a full set of papers including a detailed officer’s report on each application; together with bundles of every single letter or e-mail received in respect of every application, including all letters and emails containing objections or giving support. Members of the Committee read through everything in detail prior to the meeting. Accordingly, if an issue or comment made by a correspondent was not specifically mentioned at this meeting in the officers’ presentation or by Members of the Committee, it did not mean that the issue had been ignored. Members will have read about the issue and comments made by correspondents in the papers read prior to the meeting.
2.2 Councillor Mohindra declared that in respect of Items 1 and 2 he had attended pre-planning minutes with the applicants, the minutes of which were contained within the agenda papers. In respect of Item 4 he declared that he had a prejudicial interest and would therefore step down from the Sub-Committee and leave the room during the consideration of this item.
2.3 Councillor Boothroyd declared that he was Head of Research and Psephology for Thorncliffe, whose clients were companies applying for planning permission from various local authorities. No current schemes were in Westminster; if there were he would be precluded from working on them under the company’s code of conduct.
2.4 Councillor Boothroyd further declared that some Thorncliffe clients had also engaged planning consultants who were separately representing the applicants: DP9 on Items 1, 2, and 3, Gerald Eve on item 4, and Rolfe Judd on item 5. However, he did not deal directly with clients or other members of project teams, and planning consultants were not themselves clients.
In respect of Item 1, he had no input into the consultation response put in on behalf of the Labour group; it was put in by Cllr Paul Dimoldenberg who was a friend. Several friends lived in Dolphin Square but he had not discussed the application with them.
In respect of Item 3, representations had been made by Cllr Pancho Lewis who was a friend. Councillor Boothroyd was also a member of previous committees deciding applications on the site.
In respect of Item 4, he was a member of previous committees deciding applications on this site.
In respect of Item 5, he went to a briefing and had a tour of their property holdings given by the applicant on 9 May 2019.
2.5 Councillor Gassanly declared that in respect of Item 1, he had friends who lived at Dolphin Square but he had not discussed the application with them. He also represented Westminster City Council on the Board of Westminster Community Homes.
2.6 Councillor Barraclough declared that in respect of Item 1, he had no input into the consultation response put in on behalf of the Labour Group; it was put in by Cllr Paul Dimoldenberg who was a friend. Several friends lived in Dolphin Square but he had not discussed the application with them. In respect of Item 5, he had attended a briefing tour provided by the applicant of its property holdings on 9 May 2019.
2.7 The Council’s Design Officer, Susanna Miller, declared that in respect of Item 1 she had previously worked for Eric Parry Architects, however as this was 16 years previously it was not considered a prejudicial interest.