Decisions

Use the below search options at the bottom of the page to find information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the council’s decision making bodies.

Alternatively you can visit the officer decisions page for information on officer delegated decisions that have been taken by council officers.

Decisions published

28/05/2021 - Rating Advisory Panel - 20.04.2021 ref: 1352    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Membe approval sought for recommendatkions of the Rating Advisory Panel.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 16/06/2021

Effective from: 28/05/2021

Decision:

1.     That this report and appendices be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 Schedule 12A, Part 1, Paragraph 3, as amended, in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of an individual.

 

2.    That the Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City approved the recommendations of the Rating Advisory Panel held on 20th April 2021 and determined the applications for National Non-Domestic Ratings Discretionary and Hardship relief as set out in Appendix A of the report.

 


08/06/2021 - Virtual Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel: (12.01.21 and 19.01.21) Determination of Discretionary Housing Payment Review Applications ref: 1354    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 08/06/2021

Effective from: 08/06/2021

Decision:

1.         That Appendix A to this report be exempt from public disclosure by virtue of paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 because the applications involve the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to an individual.

           

2.         That the Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City approved the recommendations of the Virtual Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel meetings of 12 and 19 January 2021 respectivley..

 

Reasons for Decision 

The Virtual Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel has set out the reasons for the recommendations in each case considered by the Panel in the recommendations as set out in Appendix A of the report, which are more fully set out in the case papers submitted to the Panel.


27/05/2021 - Windrush Generation Green Plaque ref: 1351    Recommendations Approved

Nomination for a Green Plaque at Paddington Station in honour of the arrival of the Windrush Generation into central London from 1948 to 1973.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 27/05/2021

Effective from: 27/05/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the nomination for a commemorative Green Plaque to the Windrush Generation be approved, subject to Listed Building Consent.

 

 

Reasons for Decision

 

2 

The arrival of HMT Empire Windrush has become an important landmark in the history of modern Britain. Images of Caribbean passengers filing down the gangplank have come to symbolise the significant contribution the Windrush Generation has made to the infrastructure, economy and culture of Britain.

 

Windrush Day was introduced in 2018 on the 70th anniversary of the first landing of Caribbean immigrants. The day honours the huge contribution that the Caribbean community has made to Britain. It is intended to unveil this Westminster Green Plaque on Windrush Day 2021, at the site where many immigrants set foot in London for the first time.

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON  SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

27 May 2021

Implementation Date:

 

27 May 2021

 

Wards affected: Hyde Park;

Lead officer: Claire Appleby


25/05/2021 - Publication of a Bi-Borough School Inclusion Strategy ref: 1350    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Young People and Learning

Decision published: 25/05/2021

Effective from: 25/05/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the publication of the Bi-Borough inclusion strategy’ be approved.

Reasons for Decision

 

The publication of the Bi-Borough inclusion strategy will support the Council’s commitment to reduce exclusion rates across the borough and to ensure those that have been or who are at risk of exclusion are well supported. This is referenced in the WCC City for All Strategy “ensure all our children can access our excellent schools which celebrate the diversity of our communities and promote inclusion”

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON  SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

25 May 2021

Implementation Date:

 

25 May 2021

 

Lead officer: Ian Heggs


24/05/2021 - Westminster Local Education Partnership ref: 1349    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for proposals regarding future of the Westminster Local Education Partnership.

Decision Maker: Leader of the Council

Decision published: 24/05/2021

Effective from: 24/05/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

  • That the Westminster Local Education Partnership be wound up with a share of the funds remaining, after legal or professional fees, any creditors or other liabilities etc. are paid,  to be returned to the Council be approved.
  • That Cabinet passes a Special Resolution substantially in the form of the draft Special Resolution attached at appendix 1 of the report to wind up the Westminster LEP be approved.
  • That delegated authority be given to the Executive Director of Finance and Resources to execute all necessary documentation once agreed, to implement the liquidation of the LEP, and novate or otherwise transfer to the Council the various contracts required to give effect to the proposals set out in this report.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

After completion of all works and services required by the entity and with no future requirement for the entity, it is proposed to close the company.

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

24 May 2021

Implementation Date:

 

24 May 2021

Reference:

 

CMfLA/4/2020-2021

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Gerald Almeroth


04/05/2021 - Marble Arch Mound - Update on Design, commission and construction of the showcase event (May 2021) ref: 1348    Recommendations Approved

This report provides an update on the sourcing and financial approach for delivering the showcase event of the Marble Arch Mound (“the Mound”), a temporary 24m-high hill structure located at Marble Arch, with a viewing platform at the summit. The Mound will have a green aesthetic incorporating a foliage overlay, encompassing grass, trees and associated greenery.

 

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for City Management

Decision published: 11/05/2021

Effective from: 19/05/2021

Decision:

1.1.         That the appendices to this report be exempt from disclosure by virtue of s100A and Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

1.2.         That the Cabinet Member for City Management:

a)        Approved the Mound to progress to site construction to enable its delivery according to the required timeframes.

b)        Approved the overall design development approach and means to reduce overall net costs through legacy planning and income generation activities.

c)        Approved expenditure for the construction works on the understanding that the project team will work to refine and reduce this figure where possible through design development, legacy planning and income generation. In the event it transpires that the project budget is at risk of being exceeded, a further report will be submitted setting out the risks and quantum of exceeding the project budget and seeking further approval.

2.              Reasons for Decision

2.1.         The Mound is intended to be a showcase attraction, expected to bring 280,000 ticketed visitors with millions passing by. It is expected to create a renewed excitement about the area, attract more people to it, support local businesses through increasing dwell time and help resurrect the West End’s economic recovery.

 

Wards affected: Knightsbridge and Belgravia;

Lead officer: Jenny Escobar


10/05/2021 - Policy Guidelines for Discretionary NNDR reliefs, including NNDR Hardship Relief ref: 1346    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 10/05/2021

Effective from: 18/05/2021

Decision:

1.              That approval be given to the revised version of the Council’s Policy Guidelines for Discretionary NNDR reliefs as shown at Appendix B to the report.

 

2.              That approval be given to continue to fund NNDR Hardship claims received before 1 April 2021 but not determined until 2021/22 under the Council’s 30% Business Rate Retention scheme contribution.

 

 

1.         The proposal will address the increase in NNDR Hardship relief claims resulting from the pandemic received before 1 April 2021

2.         The report also updates the Council’s Policy Guidelines in terms of the government’s Expanded Retail Discount scheme for 2021/22, which is implemented under Section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

 

 

Lead officer: Martin Hinckley


10/05/2021 - Rating Advisory Panel 9.3.2021 ref: 1345    Recommendations Approved

Business Rates Discretionary and Hardship Relief

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 10/05/2021

Effective from: 10/05/2021

Decision:

 

 

1.         That Appendix A to the report be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 Schedule 12A, Part 1, Paragraph 3, as amended, in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of an individual.

 

2.        That the Cabinet Member approved the recommendations of the Rating Advisory Panel held on 9th March 2021 and determined the applications for NNDR Discretionary and Hardship relief set out in Appendix A to the report.

 

 

The Rating Advisory Panel has set out the reasons for the recommendations in each case considered by the Panel in the recommendations in Appendix A to the report.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Gemma Williams


10/05/2021 - Council Tax, NNDR, Housing Benefit Overpayments, Former Client Rent Arrears and Sundry Irrecoverable Debt, Quarter 4 2020/21 ref: 1347    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 10/05/2021

Effective from: 10/05/2021

Decision:

 

1.             That the report be declared exempt from publication as the business to be transacted involves the disclosure of information as prescribed by paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Act relating to information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority).

 

2.             That approval be given to write-off the amounts shown in Appendix 1 of the report.

 

3.             That the amounts shown in Section 6 of the report as written-off under officer delegated authority be noted.

 

 

 

2 

The recommendation to write-off the amounts detailed in the report is proposed as all other avenues available to the Council for the recovery of these debts have been exhausted, including, where appropriate, the issue of court and distress proceedings.

 

Lead officer: Martin Hinckley


06/05/2021 - Regent Street - Temporary Highway Improvement Works ref: 1344    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for City Management

Decision published: 06/05/2021

Effective from: 15/05/2021

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for City Management:

 

1.1         Approved the detailed design and scheme implementation of the enhanced temporary highway improvements for a minimum 18-month period, set out in section 4.2 of this report, and as shown on the plan included in Appendix B.

1.2         Approved the necessary capital expenditure totalling £2,683,307 for the detailed design and scheme implementation of the scheme. All costs are to be recovered in full by The Crown Estate in accordance with the section 278 agreement.

1.3         Delegated authority to the Executive Director of City Management to enter into an agreement with The Crown Estate under section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 for the delivered Regent Street Enhanced Temporary Highway Improvements scheme.

1.4         Delegated authority to the Executive Director of City Management for the modification of traffic regulation orders in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, necessary to accommodate the enhanced temporary highway improvements for a minimum 18-month period.

 

1.5         The objective of the temporary arrangement is to significantly improve the accessibility, functionality and local amenity of the public realm along the Regent Street corridor for a minimum 18 month period which will entice visitors back to the area supporting the local economy.

1.6         The plans are shown in Appendix B and included the following temporary interventions:

·       Widening of the footways with temporary materials creating approximately 5,000 square meters of additional space for pedestrians, to improve visitors’ experience, support social distancing and improve accessibility.

·       Improved provision for cyclists, including the introduction of cycle lanes and new cycle parking hubs and stands

 

·       Enhancing bus stops with accessible boarding and space for waiting

 

·       Planters with trees and greenery introduced helping to boost biodiversity, improve air quality, and provide visual public security protection, further enhancing Regent’s Street’s iconic John Nash design.

 

·       New seating installed, creating places for people to pause and rest

 

·       Adjusting surface water drainage across the scheme.

 

Wards affected: St James's;


05/05/2021 - Soho Neighbourhood Plan Decision Statement ref: 1343    Recommendations Approved

To consider the examiner's recommendations on the Soho Neighbourhood Plan and whether to proceed to referendum

 

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business, Licensing and Planning

Decision published: 05/05/2021

Effective from: 05/05/2021

Decision:

The Cabinet Member agreed:

A)     That the recommendations of the examiner as set out in the council’s decision statement (set out at Appendix 1 to the report) be accepted.

 

B)     That in accordance with the examiner’s recommendation, the Soho Neighbourhood Plan, as modified in Appendix 2 to the report, proceed to two referendums (as is required for designated business neighbourhood areas).

C)     That in accordance with the examiner’s recommendation, the referendum area be restricted to the neighbourhood area designated by the council on 5th April 2013 as the Soho Neighbourhood Area.

 

D)     That if the results of the two referendums are in support of the approval of the plan, the council proceeds to formally make the plan.

 

The examiner’s recommendations will ensure the Soho Neighbourhood Plan is clear and effective as a framework for making decisions on planning applications in the Soho Neighbourhood Area. The recommendations address the concerns raised by the council and other stakeholders, and ensure the plan meets the basic conditions prescribed by legislation.

 

Before a neighbourhood plan can be made, it is a statutory requirement that it is first subject to two referendums in areas that are designated as business neighbourhood areas. Before this happens, the council must publish a decision statement setting out the actions it proposes to take in response to the examiner’s report.

 

Wards affected: West End;

Lead officer: Marina Molla Bolta


04/05/2021 - Determination of Discretionary Housing Payment Review Application 23.03.21 ref: 1341    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 04/05/2021

Effective from: 04/05/2021

Decision:

           Recommendations

 

1.         That Appendix A to the report be exempt from public disclosure by virtue of paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 because the applications involve the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to an individual.

           

2.         That the Cabinet Member approved the recommendations of the Virtual Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel meeting of 23 March 2021

 

           Reasons for Decision 

           The Virtual Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel has set out the reasons for the recommendations in each case considered by the Panel in the recommendations in Appendix A, which are more fully set out in the case papers submitted to the Panel.

 

Lead officer: Gwyn Thomas


04/05/2021 - Determination of Discretionary Housing Payment Review Application 06.04.21 ref: 1342    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 04/05/2021

Effective from: 04/05/2021

Decision:

Recommendations

 

1.         That Appendix A to the report be exempt from public disclosure by virtue of paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 because the applications involve the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to an individual.

           

2.         That the Cabinet Member approved the recommendations of the Virtual Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel meeting of 6 April  2021

 

Reasons for Decision 

The Virtual Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel has set out the reasons for the recommendations in each case considered by the Panel in the recommendations in Appendix A, which are more fully set out in the case papers submitted to the Panel.

Lead officer: Gwyn Thomas


28/04/2021 - Approval of Expenditure from the Ward Budget of Marylebone High Street ref: 1340    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration

Decision published: 28/04/2021

Effective from: 28/04/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £34,590.15 to commission Summer and Winter Hanging Baskets for 2021-2022 be approved.

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

28 April 2021

Implementation Date:

28 April 2021

Reference:

 

CMfC&R/19/20/21

 

Wards affected: Marylebone High Street;

Lead officer: Janis Best


28/04/2021 - Approval of Expenditure from the Ward Budget of Maida Vale ref: 1339    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration

Decision published: 28/04/2021

Effective from: 28/04/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £20,287.05 to commission Summer and Winter Hanging Baskets for 2021-2022 be approved.

 

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

28 April 2021

Implementation Date:

28 April 2021

Reference:

 

CMfC&R/18/20/21

 

Wards affected: Maida Vale;

Lead officer: Janis Best


28/04/2021 - Approval of Expenditure from the Ward Budget of Warwick Ward ref: 1338    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration

Decision published: 28/04/2021

Effective from: 28/04/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £16,638.30 to commission Summer and Winter Hanging Baskets for 2021-2022 be approved.

 

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

28 April 2021

Implementation Date:

28 April 2021

Reference:

 

CMfC&R/17/20/21

 

Wards affected: Warwick;

Lead officer: Janis Best


15/04/2021 - Housing in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Additional Licensing Scheme ref: 1337    Recommendations Approved

Decision to recommend the Housing in Multiple Occupation Additional Licensing Scheme to Full Council for decision

 

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration

Decision published: 15/04/2021

Effective from: 15/04/2021

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration:

·            Recommended the HMO Additional Licensing scheme to Full Council for adoption at its meeting on 21 April 2021 having considered the results of a 10 week statutory consultation period.

 

·            Recommended the designation (attached as Appendix D in the report) which set out HMOs that would be subject to additional licensing under section 56(1)(a) of the Housing Act 2004.

·            Recommended that the designation was made on the 23rd April 2021 and came into force on the 30th August 2021 and lasted for a period of 5 years from that date.

·            Recommended the licensing conditions and amenity standards proposed at “Draft Additional Licensing Scheme” (attached as Appendix A to the report).

·            Recommended the proposed licence fee structure (attached as Appendix E to the report).

Background, including Policy Context

          

The aim of the project was to design and implementan Additional Licensing Scheme to improve housing standards and the management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) within the private rented sector in Westminster as part of a wider Private Rented Sector (PRS) Strategy.

 

Lead officer: Alex Woodman


12/04/2021 - CIL and S106 Allocations - Apr 21 ref: 1336    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet CIL Committee

Decision published: 15/04/2021

Effective from: 21/04/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

Notice is hereby given that Cabinet CIL Committee, has made the following executive decision on the above mentioned subject for the reasons set out below.

 

The report seeks to allocate CIL and s106 developer contributions to infrastructure projects to support growth in Westminster following receipts of monies from development.

 

Recommendations

 

1.1.          The Cabinet CIL Committee is asked:

 

To approve the following Neighbourhood CIL bids for allocation:

 

i)                New Zebra Crossing in Westbourne Grove

ii)               Permanent Catenary Infrastructure

iii)              Victoria Street Greening

iv)             Changing Lives: New Welsh Slate Roof

To defer the following applications:

i)                Villiers Street Insight Study

To approve the following Section 106 bids:

i)                Low Carbon Streets

 

Reasons for Decision  

 

In order to ensure robust and effective expenditure and reporting in line with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and in accordance with the council’s strategic priorities, CIL spending policy statement and its framework for resource allocation and management.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Amit Mistry


09/04/2021 - IT Digital Partners Framework ref: 1335    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 09/04/2021

Effective from: 17/04/2021

Decision:

To approve the contract award for the delivery of the IT Digital Partners Framework requirement to the suppliers listed below. 

IT Digital Partners Framework Winners

Lots

Description

Score

Winners

Lot 1

Smart City Technologies

79.48%

Perform Green

Lot 2

Microsoft Dynamics CRM

77.44%

Code DSS

Lot 3

User Centred Design and Digital Delivery

69.86%

Nudge Digital

Lot 4

Drupal based Web Technologies

92.03%

Zoocha

Lot 5

Application Development and Integration

76.00%

Head Cannel

Lot 6

Cyber Security

75.64%

Actica

Lot 7a

General Lot LSE

84.36%

Infosys

Lot 7b

General Lot LSE

77.32%

NetCompany

Lot 7c

General Lot LSE

73.34%

Version 1

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

1)              The above suppliers scored highest following the evaluation process against their technical and commercial responses and presentation clarifications to the Invitation to Tender.  The full tender process was outlined in the report.

 

2)              The framework was for the period starting from 1st May 2021 to 30th April 2023 with the option to extend for an additional period of 2 of years.  The full contract term was for 4 years at a total contract value of £10,000,000.

 

3)              The approval was sought on a ‘zero commit’ framework with 9 suppliers with permitted spend up to £10million, across WCC and RBKC, over two years with an option to extend for further 2 years.

 

4)              The contract value had not been allocated per lot or per Council, but rather taking the totality of the framework requirement into consideration.

 


09/04/2021 - Luton Street: Request for approval to transfer headlease ref: 1329    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration

Decision published: 09/04/2021

Effective from: 09/04/2021

Decision:

2.        Recommendations

2.1      The Cabinet Member Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration gave:

                i.          Approval for the Council to acquire the headlease from the LLP.

               ii.          Delegated authority to the Executive Director of Growth, Planning and Housing, to agree the necessary agreements, contracts and deeds as required to effect the acquisition of the headlease from the LLP.  The Cabinet Member will be updated on a regular basis.

2.2      The Cabinet Member noted the Council’s Housing Services, will provide tenancy management services to all the affordable homes, including the intermediate homes within the scheme and full management services to the 3 homes at Fisherton Street and that, in consultation with Corporate Property, the Council's Corporate Property directorate is responsible for the sports and community centre.

2.3      The Cabinet Member noted that upon transfer of the headlease to the Council, the Council will need to enter into a novation agreement in relation to the managing agent in order to become the client of the managing agent.

3.        Reasons for Decision

3.1      Timing is critical for the Luton Street scheme as residential marketing is well advanced and is close to the point where in the contract documents the LLP's exit strategy needs to be set.

3.2      The LLP needs to exit the scheme before exchange of contracts on the 55th  market sale home (i.e. more than 50% exchanged). By contracting to transfer the headlease to the Council, this issue will be resolved. 

3.3      The LLP is understandably already putting in place arrangements to procure a managing agent for the scheme.  That managing agent will be appointed this year prior to Practical Completion (PC) of the scheme, to ensure a soft landing. If the Council takes the headlease as described in this report, it will inherit the managing agent at the same time, until the term of the managing agent appointment comes to an end.  Going forward, it will be open to the Council to consider the appropriate option for the future management arrangements.

 

Wards affected: Church Street;


01/04/2021 - Extension of Coroners Court ref: 1332    For Determination

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 01/04/2021

Effective from: 01/04/2021

Decision:

1.      That this report be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972     Schedule 12A, Part 1, paragraph 3 (as amended), in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding).

2.      That the Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City gave approval to the Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking- stopping up order for the subject section of land adjacent to the West Courtyard of the Coroners Court.

Reasons for Decision

1.   The key reasons and rationale for supporting this decision are as follows: 

(1)  The stopping up of the subject planter and section of land on which it sits will significantly assist in facilitating the proposed works to the Coroner’s Court and enable the provision of a garden of reflection for visitors and staff

(2)  There is no other area within the existing boundary of the Court where such a garden could be provided

(3)  The Court’s current accommodation is not adequate to meet the Coroner’s Services requirements

(4)  The new accommodation will deliver a better service and 

(5)  Will enable the implementation of the strategic decision to close a former Coroner’s office.  

2.   The requirement to provide additional accommodation for the Coroner’s Services has been recognised by the Council since 2007 and a delay in providing the additional accommodation increases the risk of the deterioration of service and increasing capital costs of the extension/improvement project.


31/03/2021 - Update to the Procurement Code ref: 1331    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 31/03/2021

Effective from: 31/03/2021

Decision:

1)       That the Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City approved the latest version of the Procurement Code as appended within Appendix 1 of the report.

2)       That the Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City delegated authority to the Director of Commercial Partnerships to make any future editorial changes to the Procurement Code, in consultation with the Executive Director of Finance and Resources and the Cabinet Member.

Reasons for Decision 

 

1)        The Procurement Code served as a guide to Officers, giving practical effect to the Council priorities whilst at the same time mitigating against commercial and compliance risk. It provided the legal and procedural framework for the procurement of works, goods and services, underpinned the Procurement & Commercial Services operating model and:

 

o   detailed the appropriate governance, procurement thresholds and approval processes;

o   set out the Councils approach to procurement activity according to risk & contract value.

 

2)        The current version of the Procurement Code was now out of date and did not reflect the working practices of the departments new operating model or new and evolving Council priorities.

 


31/03/2021 - Kemp House, 90-104 Berwick Street, W1F 0QT section 106 Second Deed of Variation ref: 1330    Recommendations Approved

Approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 31/03/2021

Effective from: 31/03/2021

Decision:

1)                That the Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City approved the terms of the Deed of Variation to the S106 Agreement and authorised that the City Council, as freehold owner of the site, enter into this agreement.

2)                That the Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City delegated authority to the Head of Strategic Asset Management to authorise entry into any future deeds of variation in relation to this site and overarching S.106 Agreement, which did not propose to materially alter the substantive obligations or vary the Council’s liability (as freehold landowner of the site).

Reasons for Decision

1)                 CityWest Homes (an arms length management arm of the City Council which no longer exists and as of 31 March 2019 all management functions had been returned to the City Council), negotiated on behalf of the City Council to purchase four units of affordable housing accommodation at the proposed redevelopment of the podium adjacent to Kemp House, a Council-owned residential block in Soho (see Cabinet Member Report “Purchase of four new affordable housing units adjoining Kemp House, Berwick Street”).

2)                 Berwick Street Securities/PMB Holdings were the Developer, having leased the site from the City Council in June 2015 for a term of 125 years (see Cabinet Member Report “Berwick Street: Grant of New Head Lease”). The Developer received planning permission (13/12007/FULL) and entered into a S106 Agreement on 20 February 2015. The proposals include new retail units on ground floor with 16 residential units above (including 4 affordable) and a hotel. The development proposals retain the existing Kemp House.

3)                 Under the terms of the section 106 agreement, two of the units were to be let on affordable rents capped at £183 per week, whilst the other two units would be let as intermediate rent, one capped at £189 per week, whilst the fourth would be capped at £264 per week. All units were approximately 81m2 in area and comprise 3 bedroom 4 person accommodation. 

4)                 A deed of variation had been negotiated which amended the tenure of the units to enable them to be provided as social rented units, which was the City Council’s preferred form of affordable housing, and could be managed pursuant to the City Council’s existing allocations policy. 

5)                 The report also recommended that future deeds of variation, which do not propose to materially alter the terms of the overarching S.106 agreement, were dealt with at officer level. This was proposed so Cabinet Member approval was not required for straightforward administrative decisions which had no differing implications from the original decision, with a view to efficient decision making and the appropriate use of resources.

6)                 The S.106 Agreement was being entered into by the City Council both as landowner and as the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority’s authority to enter into the agreement derived from a delegated report pursuant to the scheme of delegation resolving to approve the application to vary the S.106 Agreement. The City Council as landowner required a separate Cabinet Member decision to enter into the agreement in that capacity.


01/04/2021 - Leisure Contract Variation ref: 1333    Recommendations Approved

Since the Government introduced emergency laws and ancillary industry guidance in light of the coronavirus pandemic, the contract between the Council and the leisure service contractor have been subject to change in law provisions as set out under the terms of the contract.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for City Management

Decision published: 31/03/2021

Effective from: 01/04/2021

Decision:

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL

 

STATEMENT OF DECISION

 

SUBJECT: 

Leisure Contract Variation

 

Notice is hereby given that Councillor Melvyn Caplan, Member for City Management,has made the following executive decision on the above mentioned subject for the reasons set out below.

 

Since the Government introduced emergency laws and ancillary industry guidance in light of the coronavirus pandemic, the contract between the Council and the leisure service contractor have been subject to change in law provisions as set out under the terms of the contract.)

 

Recommendations

 

The report be exempt from disclosure by virtue of s100A and Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

 

The Cabinet Member for City Management approved the contract variation per Appendix B and delegated authority to the Executive Director of Environment and City Management to complete the contractual arrangements.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

It is of key strategic importance to the Council to reach a consensus and agreement with SLM on the contract variation in order to assure continuity of services and enable them to be open to residents in line with Government guidelines. It is also key that the conditions imposed on the Council with respect to its statutory duties, and any applicable grant funding or relief are in turn applied to the contractor and adhered to so as not to compromise relevant funding.

 

This decision has been taken as a matter of urgency and has been approved by the Chairman of the Finance, Smart City and City Management Policy and Scrutiny Committee and the Chief Executive.

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

 

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON 

SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

01 April 2021

Implementation Date:

 

01 April 2021

Reference:

CMfE&CM/06/2021

sssssssssssssssssssssss

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Stephen Muldoon


30/03/2021 - Ebury Phase 2 Advanced Budget ref: 1328    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approcal sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 30/03/2021

Effective from: 09/04/2021

Decision:

1.              Recommendations

1.1.         That Appendix B of the report is exempt from disclosure as it involves the disclosure of information as prescribed by paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule12A to the Local Government Act 1972, (as amended), in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority).

1.2.         The Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City and the Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration approved an advanced budget of £5.1M to progress the detailed design and associated works (as detailed in sections 3.7 to 3.12 of this report) for Phase 2A up to completion of RIBA Stage 3.

1.3.         The Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration delegated authority to the Executive Director of Growth, Planning and Housing, to award appointments to the consultants to form the design team for commencing the Phase 2A design works, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration.

2.              Reasons for Decisions

2.1.         Decisions around the delivery route for Phase 2 are to be taken in due course through an Outline Business Case and subsequent Cabinet Member Report that is currently being developed and due to be presented and formalised in Summer 2021.

2.2.         The total Phase 2 budget for Ebury was agreed by full Council on 3rd March 2021 as part of the approval of the council’s capital programme.

2.3.         An advanced budget approval is important to maintain a continuation of activity on the Ebury delivery programme because (subject to planning permission and subject to further Council decisions) it is viewed as beneficial if there can be a start date of Spring 2021 for the Phase 2A design work, which supports a proposed start on site in March 2023 for Phase 2A.

2.4.         An advanced budget approval is required in order to spend against the various consultant appointments up to completion of RIBA Stage 3 for Phase 2A.

2.5.         Subject to the approvals and delegated authority requested in this report, the project team can appoint the necessary consultants to form the design team for Phase 2A.

2.6.         The fee for these appointments will be for the entirety of Phase 2 however the spend against them will be managed by the parameters set out in this report.

2.7.         The advanced budget of £5.1M shall be used to appoint the following key consultants required for Phase 2A:

§  Architect

§  Multi-disciplinary Design Team

§  Project Manager/Employers Agent

§  Planning & Viability Consultant

2.8.         All contracts will include clauses to allow for termination at the end of each RIBA Stage if the Council did not wish to continue with the appointment.

2.9.         In addition to the termination clauses, the contracts will also be set up on the basis that they are capable of novation to a third-party Contracting Authority. This is in the event that a Delivery Partner is confirmed as the preferred delivery route through the Outline Business Case in Summer 2021 and therefore contracts need to allow for flexibility in the appointing party.  

2.10.     A portion of the advanced budget also allows for Phase 2 associated work relating to commercial and residential valuation advice, viability and delivery support, relocation of existing retail elements and an accelerated demolition of Bridge House in Phase 2A.

2.11.     If approved, the Hybrid Outline Consent for Phase 2 will include planning conditions governing many elements of the ongoing redevelopment, including all future demolition on the site. 

2.12.     The relevant planning condition would be fully cleared prior to the demolition of any of the Phase 2 buildings and would be post determination of the Hybrid Planning Application.

2.13.     Further reports will be submitted for future budget approvals for the remainder of Phase 2. No further spend will occur once the advanced budget is used and a further report will be submitted to ask for approval to spend after this point.

2.14.     Subject to further Council approvals around Phase 2, the above-mentioned key consultants will continue for the entirety of Phase 2. It is anticipated the Council may need to appoint a Compliance Monitoring Team and Sales Agent later in the programme and subject to further Council approvals.

2.15.     Full details of the budget requested is included within Appendix B of this report.

2.16.     Good progress has been made to date in enabling the scheme and the proposals in this report will maintain that momentum and continue delivery of the Council’s promises to the existing community.

 

 

Lead officer: David Thompson


29/03/2021 - Supply and Allocation of Social Housing 2020/21 ref: 1326    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Housing

Decision published: 29/03/2021

Effective from: 29/03/2021

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Housing:

 

Agreed the proposed approach to social lettings set out in table 4 and Appendix B and that it was noted that this approach could change due to the impact of the pandemic, if a further emergency approach was needed for example.  

 

Noted the temporary approach to employment points, as set out in 4.11–4.15 sections of the report.

 

Agreed the Action Plan for procuring private rented properties for homeless households for 2020/21 in Appendix D. This would form part of the Accommodation Procurement Policy for Homeless Households. 

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

The City Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme was read alongside the annual Supply and Allocation of Social Housing Report, which set out the proportion of social housing the council expected to let to the different groups in need. These lettings projections were needed to guide the approach to lettings during the year. 

 

The Supply and Allocation of Social Housing Report was also needed to consider wider policy and lettings issues relating to social housing and in particular to consider the impacts of the council’s homelessness policies agreed in 2017.


18/03/2021 - 10.00 AM: Bellaria Restaurant, 71 Great Titchfield St, London W1W 6RB ref: 1325    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Licensing Sub-Committee (2)

Made at meeting: 18/03/2021 - Licensing Sub-Committee (2)

Decision published: 29/03/2021

Effective from: 18/03/2021

Decision:

Present:                   Mr NimetOner (applicant); Ms Ilkay Cinco Oner (representing the applicant); Mr Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster, Licensing Project (representing residents); Mr Gareth Hughes, Counsel (representing the Langham Court Hotel); Mr Yoram Blumann, representing the Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association; Mr Christopher Sharp, Mr Austen Callison, and Ms Barbara Corr (objectors).

Representations:    Representations had been received from the Environmental Health Service (EHS); The Licensing Authority, and Residents.

Applicant:                Mr Nimet Oner

Ward:                       West End

CIA[1]:                         Not applicable

Summary of Application

The application was for a new premises licence.

 

INTRODUCTION

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the Members of the Sub-Committee and the Council Officers who would be supporting the Sub-Committee. The Chairman explained the procedure that would be followed at the meeting before inviting the Presenting Officer, Ms Jessica Donovan, to present the report.

PRESENTATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS

Ms Jessica Donovan, Senior Licensing Officer

Ms Donovan summarised the application as set out in the report before the Sub-Committee, noting that, during the consultation process, the applicant had withdrawn the application for the “Performance of Dance”.

Ms Donovan stated that representations had been received from the Environmental Health Service (EHS), residents, and the Langham Court Hotel, represented by Mr Gareth Hughes, Counsel, Keystone Law. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) had also made representations but these had subsequently been withdrawn following agreement with the applicant on proposed conditions to be attached to the Premises Licence.

An additional submission had been received from Mr Richard Brown and this had been included in the Additional Information Pack circulated to Members.

Ms Ilkay Cinco Oner, Premises Leaseholder (On Behalf of the Applicant)

Ms Oner, stated that she was the leaseholder of the premises which were managed by Mr Oner. Having reviewed the objections to the application, it had been decided to withdraw the application for “Performance of Dance” and to prepare a response to the queries raised by neighbours, which had been circulated with the papers before the subcommittee.[2]

Ms Oner stated that the applicant did not wish to cause any nuisance or disruption to the neighbours. She stated that it was a very small restaurant accommodating 28 people upstairs and 30 people downstairs. The application was for an extension of the premises’ hours on Thursday to Saturday with the Performance of Music restricted to downstairs.

Ms Oner stated that, regarding the dispersal of patrons and management of the smoking area, the applicant was willing to consider any proposals that might be put forward by residents. In addition, a member of staff would be employed to manage the door and ensure there was no disturbance as patrons left the premises.

The reason for applying to extend the hours during which the premises could operate was because the limited space within the premises meant that, if customers arrived at 8 PM, there was not enough time to do a second cover during the evening. Therefore, by extending the hours, it would be possible to cater for two covers during the evening. Also, the downstairs area was used primarily for group bookings of between 10 and 15. If a group arrived at 9 PM, the tendency was for that group to want to stay later in the evening.

Ms Oner noted that concerns had expressed about the premises becoming a bar. She emphasised that the premises would not become a bar: there would be no vertical drinking, and the sale of alcohol would be ancillary to a meal and would be by table service only.

In conclusion, Ms Oner stated that the applicant was willing to discuss any concerns anyone might have about the application, noting that the applicant had accepted the conditions proposed by the MPS.

In response to questions by Members, Ms Oner and Mr Oner provided the following information.

(a)  Regarding the music proposed for the basement area, this would be background music or a person playing a saxophone or a guitar. There would not be hard-core drum and bass and/or a resident DJ. In addition, the music would be unplugged, acoustic music and would not be amplified.

(b)  Regarding noise nuisance complaints, the applicant had never received any noise abatement or other documentation relating to noise complaints.

(c)  Regarding bookings by large groups, if this was an evening booking, often the menu would have been agreed in advance and would consist of 3 to 4 courses with an expectation that the group would stay for 2 to 3 hours.

(d)  The proposed door staff would be SIA registered door supervisors who would be employed on Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings.

Mr David Nevitt, Environmental Health Service

Mr Nevitt stated that the Environmental Health Service (EHS) had maintained its representation as there were several objections by residents and because the application was beyond the Council’s policy on Core Hours.

Referring to the existing Premises Licence at Appendix 1 of the report before the subcommittee, Mr Nevitt noted that there was nothing in the conditions to prohibit the applicant from operating the basement area as a bar. The only caveats to this were that substantial food and suitable beverages other than intoxicating liquor should be available during the whole of the permitted hours in all parts of the premises where intoxicating liquor was sold; and that intoxicating liquor would only be served at the external tables if it was ancillary to a table meal, and not after 22:00 hours.

Mr Nevitt then referred to the Plans in the report before the subcommittee, noting that, in relation to the proposal for live entertainment, there was no acoustic lobby at the entrance to the premises.

The applicant, having been advised by the EHS that the hours applied for would attract a lot of representations from residents, the applicant had subsequently amended the application and reduced the proposed applied-for hours the premises would be open to the public and the hours for licensable activities. In response, the EHS proposed that Model Condition (MC) 38: alcohol will only be supplied to people who are seated and taking a table meal, should apply after 23:00 hours. This would mean that, at the later hours, the premises could only operate as a restaurant and not become a late-night bar. It was also proposed that, after 23:00 hours, entertainment be restricted to the basement thereby containing any noise to the basement area.

In addition, the EHS had requested there be door supervisors from 10 PM, and that there be an agreed designated smoking area.

Mr Nevitt stated there was no history of noise complaints from these premises which had been operating for quite a long time as a restaurant. In addition, the Sub-Committee had granted licences to premises to operate as a restaurant up until 1 AM where there had been no history of complaints relating to the premises; where there were appropriate conditions attached to the licence; and where there were measures in place to promote the Licensing Objectives.

Mr Richard Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster, Licensing Project (On Behalf of Residents & Others)

Mr Brown noted that the premises was in the middle of Fitzrovia in a residential area and not near to any tube stations thereby giving rise to concerns about dispersal and possible noise nuisance.

It was apparent from the representations made by residents that there was a lot of goodwill towards the restaurant and residents wished the restaurant success when it reopened. However, it was not accurate to say there had been no noise complaints about the premises. In so doing, he noted that one of the representations referred to a visit by Council officers to the premises in response to a noise complaint about a speaker outside the premises. In addition, complaints had been made to Mr Blumann of the Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association (FNA). Mr Brown then referred to specific complaints set out in the representations.

Having summarised the complaints set out in the representations, Mr Brown proposed that, should the application be granted, this would exacerbate existing concerns about noise nuisance which might otherwise be managed within the existing licence conditions. He noted that the applied-for hours were beyond core hours and, therefore, a stricter policy regime would apply when considering any extension of the existing hours. This was set out in Paragraph 6 of his submission on Page 8 of the Additional Information Pack.

The location of the premises and its proximity to the nearest underground stations meant that customers using public transport would have to walk through residential areas as late as 2 AM to get to the underground stations.

Regarding the use of the outside tables and chairs, it was noted that the premises licence conditions required the sale of alcohol to persons seated outside to cease at 10 PM. If the Sub-Committee was minded to extend the operating hours, it may wish to consider a condition that the outside tables and chairs are not available for use after 10 PM.

Mr Brown stated that residents were opposed to the application to allow live music until midnight, noting there was no acoustic lobby at the entrance to the premises, and no proposals to install a sound limiter. There was, therefore, a concern on the part of residents that, if granted, the application would allow the premises to become a late-night venue and not simply a restaurant.

Residents would also like to see conditions restricting servicing of the premises to suitable times.

Mr Brown referred to the policy considerations set out in Paragraph 6 of his Submission, in particular, Paragraph E8 of the Core Hours Policy (HRS1) in the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (SoLP), which emphasised the link between a late terminal hour and dispersal; and Policy PN1 (Prevention of Public Nuisance) and the application of that policy in accordance with the criteria and consideration set out in the SoLP,

In conclusion, Mr Brown stated that, to grant the application, any extension of the hours the premises were open to the public to 01:00 hours or 01:30 hours would cause a nuisance notwithstanding the best intentions of the applicant.

Presentations by Residents

At this stage of the proceedings, the subcommittee, at the invitation of Mr Brown, heard representations from some of the residents who were present at the meeting and who had submitted written representations opposing the application.

In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Nevitt (EHS) stated that consideration had been given to possible noise nuisance as a consequence of using the basement area for live music. As the basement area was of limited capacity and self-contained, and as the music would not be amplified, it was his considered opinion that playing live music in the basement area would not give rise to a nuisance.

Mr Nevitt went on to say that, on checking the Council’s records for noise complaints relating to these premises, there had been a complaint in 2017 about the use of speakers outside the premises which had resulted in Council officers visiting the premises. On that occasion, it was not held that the speakers constituted a nuisance.[3] He also noted that live and recorded music were not regulated activities before 11 PM. Therefore, he felt it was a reasonable compromise to restrict live music to the basement area.

Gareth Hughes, Counsel (on behalf of the Langham Court Hotel)

Mr Hughes stated that he represented the Langham Court hotel which was immediately adjacent to Bellaria Restaurant. It had been noted that recorded and live music was not subject to regulation before 23:00 hours. However, both were subject to noise controls and environmental protection.

It was Mr Hughes’ submission there was too little evidence in the application to support the late hours sought by the applicant. Therefore, the application must fail. He proposed that the existing hours, which were within the Council’s Core Hours, were reasonable for premises operating as a restaurant, and his client had no objection to the current operation of the premises.

Mr Hughes noted the Sub-Committee had previously considered an application in respect of these premises which had subsequently been withdrawn. He noted that the present application did not improve upon that previous application or present any additional evidence. He suggested that the Sub-Committee might have expected to see Dispersal and Management Plans as part of the application. Most importantly, there was no acoustic report.

Regarding the Licensing Objective of the Prevention of Public Nuisance, there was nothing in the application to say how the applicant would promote this objective or measures to ameliorate possible noise nuisance, particularly given there was a party wall between the premises and the Langham Court hotel next door.

Mr Hughes then referred to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (SoLP) as set out in his letter on Page 82 of the papers before the subcommittee. In his letter, he had referred to the Council’s Core Hours policy, in particular, the provisions of Paragraph B which referred to the proximity of residential accommodation. He stated that, even if music was restricted to the basement area, there was a concern that, because there was a party wall between the applicant’s premises and the Langham Court hotel, guests staying in the neighbouring property would be disturbed. Furthermore, without an acoustic report, there was no evidence to indicate there would be no transmission of sound through the party wall.

In conclusion, Mr Hughes stated it was a poor application that did not satisfy the Council’s SoLP; did not comply with the requirements of the Licensing Objective of the Prevention of Public Nuisance; and that the existing premises licence was a perfectly satisfactory licence.

In response to a number of questions, Mr Hughes provided the following information.

(a)  There were two entrances to the restaurant as indicated on the Plans in the papers before the subcommittee: an entrance on the corner of great Titchfield Street and Langham Street; and an entrance on Langham Street, adjacent to the Langham Court hotel.

Ms Oner confirmed that the entrance on Langham Street, which led into the premises’ kitchen area, had never been used, including use as an emergency exit, in the 15 years that the applicant had operated the premises.

(b)  The concern was not the use of the doors on Langham Street, but the late-night use of the tables on the pavement outside these doors which were close to guest bedrooms in the adjacent Langham Court hotel.

(c)   On the other side of the party wall in the basement area of the restaurant was an unoccupied room in the Langham Court hotel. The concern was that any sound in the restaurant basement area would transmit up through the party wall causing a disturbance to residents in the guest bedrooms adjacent to the applicant’s premises.

(d)  The Langham Court hotel had a 24-hour Hotel licence but there was no late-night drinking in the Hotel, and the hotel restaurant was open only at breakfast time when it offered continental breakfasts.

The Chairman referred to the licence conditions proposed by the Responsible Authorities and Ms Oner confirmed that the applicant had agreed to these conditions. In addition, Ms Oner said that the applicant would be willing to reduce the applied-for hours that the premises were open to the public on Thursday to Saturday from 1:30 AM to 1 AM.

Questions by Officers

In response to questions by the subcommittee’s Legal Officer, Ms Viviene Walker, Ms Oner provided the following information.

(a)  Use of the tables and chairs outside the restaurant, in keeping with the present arrangement, would not be permitted after 11 PM.

(b)  There would be a designated smoking area outside the premises and the number of persons allowed to use the designated smoking area at any one time would be restricted to 6 persons, or possibly 2 or 3 persons, if required by the subcommittee.

SUMMING UP

Mr Nevitt, Environmental Health Service (EHS)

In summing up his representations, Mr Nevitt stated that, in response to questions in the Meeting Chat, he could provide the following information.

(a)  The applicant already provided live music in the basement area and there had been no complaints from the Langham Court hotel that there was noise nuisance affecting guests. Also, Mr Hughes had confirmed there was an unoccupied space on the other side of the party wall in the basement area of the restaurant. Therefore, he was of the opinion that any transmission of sound through the party wall was not sufficient to create a nuisance. However, should that change, the EHS could deal with any concerns at that time.

(b)  Regarding the tables and chairs outside the premises, 11 PM was a standard terminal hour for the use of tables and chairs outside restaurants. Regarding the use of tables and chairs by smokers, it would be for the applicant to show that they were managing the designated smoking area in an appropriate manner.

There was scope for an area outside the premises under one of the awnings to be to accommodate a designated smoking area. In addition, the applicant had proposed that the door supervisor would be responsible for managing the smoking area.

In conclusion, the EHS was satisfied that the proposed conditions agreed with the applicant were sufficient to address the concerns that had been raised. The only matter that remained outstanding was that of the application being beyond the Council’s Core Hours policy, and that was a matter for the Sub-Committee to determine.

Mr Brown, Citizens Advice Westminster, Licensing Project

Mr Brown noted that Mr Nevitt’s explanation that the speaker outside the premises (referred to in an objector’s representations on Page 12 of the report before the subcommittee) was not deemed to be causing a nuisance would explain why there was no record of complaints associated with the premises.

Regarding tables and chairs, if these were not to be used after 11 PM, and they could not be taken inside the premises, then it would be necessary to render them unusable from 11 PM, should the application be granted.

Mr Brown stated that those objecting to the application remained of the view that the current operating hours were appropriate, and that case law made the appropriateness of the proposed operating hours a prime consideration for the subcommittee.

Mr Brown proposed that, extending the hours of operation would allow people to drink more and, therefore, there would be increased levels of noise until later into the night with a greater likelihood of residents’ sleep being interrupted as people dispersed.

Regarding Mr Nevitt’s comments that the Council had granted 1 AM licences to restaurants where there had been no previous complaints, Mr Brown noted that there had been complaints in relation to these premises. There had also been 24 representations from residents objecting to the application and this was highly relevant when determining the application.

Mr Brown noted the comments by the Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association (FNA) when it stated –

“There are quite a few long-established restaurants and cafés, coexisting with a large residential population. This has long been the case. It is part of the character of the area. Typically, those establishments hold premises licences for core hours, and there is a good relationship between the residents and those restaurants.”[4]

Mr Brown asked that the sensitive balance in this area be maintained, noting that residents supported the restaurant, including the alfresco dining scheme, and wished the premises luck when it reopened.

In conclusion, Mr Brown stated that any increase in the operating hours would not promote the Licensing Objectives. Therefore, the application should be refused.

Mr Hughes On Behalf of the Langham Court Hotel

Mr Hughes stated that this was an unsatisfactory application and, on behalf of the Langham Court hotel, he echoed the comments of Mr Brown regarding the number of representations that had been received from residents opposing the application.

He stated that the Sub-Committee might be prepared to exercise some latitude where there were only a few objectors to an application. However, on this occasion, there were a lot of objectors.

Mr Hughes went on to say that, when an application for a premises licence for premises adjoining a sensitive property, be it a hotel or residential property, there was an expectation that the applicant would submit an acoustic report. Because of the party wall, it was to be expected that noise from the restaurant basement area when live music was performed would be transmitted through the party wall up the building and into the adjoining guest rooms of the Langham Court hotel.

People exiting the premises at 1:30 AM and walking past the Langham Court hotel would be only yards away from the hotel bedroom windows. As such, any noise made by people at that sensitive hour, notwithstanding their being a SIA door supervisor at the premises, would cause a disturbance to the hotel residents in those guest rooms.

Mr Hughes noted that a similar application had been submitted and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant at the end of last year. He stated that the present application before the Sub-Committee showed no improvement on the previous application and was not supported by accompanying reports. The application had done nothing to address the concerns previously expressed and, therefore, nothing had changed since the previous application. Accordingly, he asked that the Sub-Committee refuse the application and that the premises be allowed to continue to operate in accordance with its existing satisfactory premises licence.

Ms Ilkay Cinco Oner, on Behalf of the Applicant

The Chairman invited Ms Oner to sum up her presentation and address a number of issues raised during the course of the proceedings.

In response, Ms Oner stated that the restaurant opened at 12 midday and there were no deliveries before that 10 AM. Regarding refuse collections and the use of the tables and chairs, the applicant worked with Westminster City Council on arrangements for refuse collection, and external tables were folded and the tables and chairs stacked against the wall after 11 PM.

Regarding noise and the Council’s policy on Core Hours, Ms Oner stated that there were many restaurants within the vicinity, two of which had late-night licences and which had been operating for many years. She said that she was not aware of any noise complaints having been made about these two late-night premises.

Measures to reduce noise levels included the proposal to employ a SIA door supervisor to ensure that people did not congregate outside the premises. The applicant would also make arrangements to order taxis, including Uber, for customers, or to provide them with the telephone numbers of taxi firms. In addition, the premises was located no more than a 7-minute walk from Oxford and Great Portland Street Underground stations.

The applicant did not wish to cause any nuisance to its neighbours. In response to complaints about the speaker outside the premises, the applicant had taken the speaker down. Ms Oner stated that the applicant wished to live in harmony with the neighbours and that the applicant would do everything possible to ensure there was no noise nuisance and to comply with any conditions that the Sub-Committee might attach to the premises licence.

ADJOURNMENT

At this stage in the proceedings, the Chairman adjourned the meeting to allow Members to retire to consider their decision. He stated that the Sub-Committee would not announce its decision today but that a summary of the decision would be sent to the various parties within five working days.

The Chairman then closed the live part of the virtual meeting.

DECISION

It was the Sub-Committee’s decision to Approve the application, as set out in the Summary Decision attached to these minutes as an Appendix.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Having read the report by the Director of Public Protection and Licensing that was before it; the written submissions of the applicant and those parties objecting to the application; and, having heard presentations and representations by, and/or on behalf of, those parties present at the proceedings, as well as the responses by those parties to questions put to them by Members of the Sub-Committee, the Sub-Committee was satisfied that, in accordance with the Home Office Guidance,[5] and on the evidence before it, it was reasonable, appropriate and proportionate, in all the circumstances, to APPROVE the application.

In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee took the following matters into consideration.

1.    Having agreed proposed conditions with the applicant, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) had subsequently withdrawn its representations on the application.

2.    Following discussions with Environmental Health Services (EHS) officers, the applicant had agreed to a number of proposed conditions and had agreed to amend the application to reduce the hours that the premises would be open to the public Thursday to Saturday, as set out in the application.

3.    During the course of the proceedings, the applicant had stated that he would be prepared to reduce further the hours the premises were open to the public on Thursday to Saturday, as set out in the amended application.

4.    Live and recorded music was played in the basement area of the premises and, during the time the applicant had operated these premises, this had not given rise to any noise complaints from residents or the adjoining Langham Court hotel.

5.    The reason given by the applicant for wishing to extend the hours for licensable activities on Thursdays to Saturdays was to allow the applicant to cater for two covers on those evenings. Extending the hours that the premises were open to the public by one hour on Thursdays to Saturdays would allow the applicant to achieve that objective.

6.    The measures proposed by the applicant to promote the Licensing Objective of the Prevention of Public Nuisance, including the employing a SIA badged door supervisor from 10 PM on Thursdays to Saturdays, along with the licence conditions agreed with the MPS and the EHS were sufficient.

The meeting ended at:

 

Chairman:                                                       Date:

 

 



[1] Cumulative Impact Area

[2] Agenda: page 70 of the report of the Director of Public Protection & Licensing.

 

[3] In response to the complaint, the applicant had removed the speakers notwithstanding that council officers were of the view that they did not cause a nuisance.

[4] Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association representation; page 22 of the report of the Director of Public Protection & Licensing

[5] Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, April 2018

Wards affected: West End;


26/03/2021 - Adoption of Westminster's City Plan 2019 - 2040 ref: 1323    Recommendations Approved

Westminster's City Plan 2019 - 2040 has been through statutory public examination and has been found sound subject to modifications, which have been made. The Plan is therefore recommended for adoption at Full Council.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business, Licensing and Planning

Decision published: 26/03/2021

Effective from: 26/03/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the Cabinet Member agreed:

 

That the contents of the Inspector’s report (attached at Appendix 1 of the report) be noted.

 

That Westminster’s City Plan 2019 - 2040 (attached at Appendix 2 of the report) and the associated Policies Map (attached at Appendix 3 of the report) incorporating the schedule of main modifications (attached at Appendix 4 of the report) be recommended to the next Full Council for adoption.

 

That the Full Council be recommended to delegate authority to the Director of Policy and Projects to undertake all necessary procedural steps required by Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012(as amended) in relation to the adoption of the City Plan and Policies Map, including:

 

·       issuing an adoption statement (Regulation 26) (see Appendix 5 of the report) publicly and to the Secretary of State

·       giving notice of the adoption to anyone who asked to be notified (Regulation 26)

·       making the new Plan, adoption statement and sustainability appraisal report publicly available (Regulation 26 and 35)

 

 

Reasons for Decision

 

To enable the council to manage the sustainable development of Westminster by adopting the policies in the City Plan 2019 – 2040 and the Policies Map to the City Plan pursuant to Regulation 26 and 35 of theTown and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

26 March 2021

Implementation Date:

26 March 2021

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Kimberley Hopkins


22/03/2021 - Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Plan Decision Statement ref: 1322    Recommendations Approved

Seeking approval to make examiner's suggested modifications to the neighbourhood plan and proceed to referendum

 

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business, Licensing and Planning

Decision published: 22/03/2021

Effective from: 22/03/2021

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member agreed:

1.          That the recommendations of the examiner as set out in the council’s decision statement (Appendix 1 to the report) be accepted.

 

2.          That the examiner’s recommendation that the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Plan, as modified in Appendix 2 to the report, proceed to two referendums (as is required for designated business neighbourhoodareas).

3.          That in accordance with the examiner’s recommendation, the referendum area be restricted the neighbourhood area designated by the council on 28th March 2014 as the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Area.

4.          That if the results of the two referendums are in support of the approval of the plan, the council proceeds to formally make the plan.

 

1.      The examiner’s recommendations will ensure the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Plan is clear and effective as a framework for making decisions on planning applications in the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Area. They address the concerns raised by the council and other stakeholders, and ensure the plan meets the basic conditions prescribed by legislation.

 

2.      Before a neighbourhood plan can be made, it is a statutory requirement that it is first subject to two referendums in areas that are designated as business neighbourhood areas. Before this happens, the council must publish a decision statement setting out the actions it proposes to take in response to the examiner’s report.

 

Wards affected: Marylebone High Street; West End;

Lead officer: Michela Leoni


18/03/2021 - Approval of Expenditure from the Ward Budget of Hyde Park ref: 1321    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Leader of the Council

Decision published: 18/03/2021

Effective from: 18/03/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £10,566.54 in order to commission Capital funding to carry out essential electrical works at St John’s Church in Hyde Park be approved.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The proposals in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement.

 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

18 March 2021

Implementation Date:

 

18 March 2021

Reference:

 

CMfLA/3/2020-2021

 

Wards affected: Hyde Park;

Lead officer: Janis Best


17/03/2021 - Council Tax, NNDR, Housing Benefit Overpayments, Former Client Rent Arrears and Sundry debt - Irrecoverable Debt, Quarter 3 2020/21 ref: 1320    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for write-offs.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 17/03/2021

Effective from: 25/03/2021

Decision:

1)     That the report be declared exempt from publication as, the business to be transacted involves the disclosure of information as prescribed by paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Act relating to information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority).

 

2)     That the amounts shown under paragraph 5.1 of this report were approved for write-off.

 

3)     That the amounts shown in paragraph 6.1 as written-off under officer delegated authority be noted.

 

 

Reasons for Decision 

4) 

The recommendation to write-off the amounts detailed in this report was proposed as all other avenues available to the Council for the recovery of these debts had been exhausted, including, where appropriate, the issue of court and distress proceedings.

 


15/03/2021 - Approval of Expenditure from the Ward Budget of Vincent Square ref: 1318    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration

Decision published: 15/03/2021

Effective from: 15/03/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £10,946.25 to commission Summer and Winter Hanging Baskets for 2021-2022 be approved.

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

15 March 2021

Implementation Date:

15 March 2021

Reference:

 

CMfC&R/11/20/21

 

Wards affected: Vincent Square;

Lead officer: Clare O'Keefe


15/03/2021 - Approval of Expenditure from the Ward Budget of Abbey Road ref: 1317    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration

Decision published: 15/03/2021

Effective from: 15/03/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £19,265.40 to commission Summer and Winter Hanging Baskets for 2021-2022 be approved.

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

15 March 2021

Implementation Date:

15 March 2021

Reference:

 

CMfC&R/10/20/21

 

Wards affected: Abbey Road;

Lead officer: Clare O'Keefe


15/03/2021 - Approval of Expenditure from the Ward Budget of Little Venice ref: 1316    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration

Decision published: 15/03/2021

Effective from: 15/03/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £22,487.40 to commission Summer and Winter Hanging Baskets for 2021-2022 be approved.

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

15 March 2021

Implementation Date:

15 March 2021

Reference:

 

CMfC&R/9/20/21

 

Wards affected: Little Venice;

Lead officer: Clare O'Keefe


10/03/2021 - Nova Place Section 106 Agreement ref: 1314    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 10/03/2021

Effective from: 10/03/2021

Decision:

1.    That the report be treated as not for publication as it contains exempt information under paragraphs 1 and 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, (as amended) in that it contains information relating to any individual and information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

 

2.    Approved for WCC to elect for receipt of the Community Space Contribution, in lieu of a lease of space in Nova Place, prior to the impending 11 March 2021 deadline.  This will require service of a notice before 11 March 2021, with payment becoming due within 28 days of the date the notice is served.

 

 

 

1.    Under a Section 106 Agreement, first entered into in 2009, Land Securities contracted to include an element of community space within the Nova development. The original Section 106 Agreement has been amended several times as the scheme has evolved. The most recent and final amendment was made in March 2020, in conjunction with the granting of planning permission for development of the last remaining Nova plot on the east side of the site.

 

2.    WCC has decided to serve early notice on Land Securities and take the funding available from the Section 106 Agreement for future community space projects or, after 5 years, affordable housing provision.

 

3.    The council may at any time between the date of the consent (12 March 2020) and the last date an agreement for lease can be completed (11 March 2023), serve a notice opting for the index linked commuted sum in lieu of the lease. If the option is exercised before 11 March 2021 the payment is accessible within 28 days although after this date the Council would be required to wait until 11 March 2023.

 

 

 

 

 


10/03/2021 - Preferred Way Forward at Huguenot House. ref: 1313    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for preferred option with regard to the future of Huguenot House.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 10/03/2021

Effective from: 18/03/2021

Decision:

 

1.          Noted the outcomes of the Huguenot House options consultation, completed in January 2021 as further detailed in section 7 and appendix 1 to the report.

 

2.          Agreed to the preferred way forward for Huguenot House, namely redevelopment (Option 7).

 

 

 

 

3.          The options consultation for Huguenot House was open from 2017 to January 2021. During this period, all Huguenot House residents were consulted, alongside a wide range of key stakeholders. In order to progress with a preferred way forward, the consultation process needs to be concluded and the outcomes noted.

 

4.          The views expressed during the consultation period varied, with no clear preference for a way forward. It can be concluded that opinions differed between secure tenants, resident leaseholders, non-resident leaseholders, and local organisations and other stakeholders who engaged with the consultation.

 

5.          In total, seven options have been considered for the future of Huguenot House. Following detailed analysis of the benefits, economics and the conclusions from the stakeholder consultation, it is recommended that the preferred way forward be redevelopment of the building (option 7). It is considered that redevelopment provides the best opportunity to meet the agreed project objectives. A discussion of the proposed project objectives and their analysis is provided in section 8 of the report (with further detail provided in appendix 4).

 

 


09/03/2021 - Church Street - Serving the Demolition Notices, (Approval for service of Initial Demolition Notices for Gayhurst House) ref: 1312    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for demolition notices.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration

Decision published: 09/03/2021

Effective from: 09/03/2021

Decision:

Recommendations

 

That the Cabinet Member: -

(a)   authorised the principle of serving of Demolition Notices (Initial and Final) in accordance with the Housing Act 1985, on all Gayhurst House residents (such properties more particularly set out in section 5.5 of this report), and

 

(b)   delegated approval of all related documentation and service of such Demolition Notices (Initial and Final) on Gayhurst House residents to the Executive Director of Growth Planning and Housing.

 

Reason(s) for Decision

 

The reason for this decision is that the Council anticipated demolition of properties in Gayhurst House within a period of seven years and therefore it is desirable to serve appropriate notices to reduce risk and cost for the Council.

 

Wards affected: Church Street;


08/03/2021 - Energy Efficiency Programme<br/><br/>Retrofit Accelerator ref: 1311    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 08/03/2021

Effective from: 16/03/2021

Decision:

1.         That appendix 1 to the report be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A Part 1, paragraph 3 (as amended), in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

 

2.         That approval be given for the contract award to the successful bidder (see Gate 3 Contract Award Report - Appendix 1 to the report).

 

3.         That approval be given for the proposed programme governance structure (see Appendix 2 to the report).

 

 

1.         The successful bidder provided the highest scoring return to the invitation to tender, subsequent to moderation by the evaluation panel.

 

 

Lead officer: Gerald Almeroth


08/03/2021 - Annual Review of Housing Revenue Account Rent and Associated HRA Charges 2021-22 ref: 1310    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for City Management

Decision published: 08/03/2021

Effective from: 08/03/2021

Decision:

 

 

1.                         That in order to comply with the provisions of The Rents for Social Housing policy for 2021/22, the Cabinet Member for Housing approves an increase of the HRA rents by 1.5% from the 5April 2021. This is the maximum permitted under the Rent Standard 2020.

2.                         That the Cabinet Member for Housing notes that the Council continues to exercise its discretion under the rent restructuring policy to set rents for new tenants and transfers on all re-lets at formula target rent from Monday 5 April2021.

3.                         That the Cabinet Member for Housing gives approval for tenant service charges to be varied in line with estimated actual costs for 2021/22 from Monday 5April 2021.

4.                         That the Cabinet Member for City Management gives approval for charges for car parking and parking spaces to be increased by 1.1% (RPI as at September 2020) from Monday 5April 2021.

5.                         That the Cabinet Member for Housing gives approval for charges for sheds and garages to be increased by 1.1% (RPI as at September 2020) from Monday 5April 2021 with a review to follow in early 2021.

6.                         The previously agreed approach for the calculation of the Block Cleaning (BCCN) and Estate Contract Cleaning (ECCN) element of service charge is maintained with the costs being pooled. This approach will be reviewed annually and also when the contract is re-let.

 

 

To set the HRA tenant rents and other charges for the financial year 2021/22. The City Council is required by law to give tenants at least 28 days’ notice of any variation to the rentcharged.

 

Wards affected: Bryanston and Dorset Square; Hyde Park; Knightsbridge and Belgravia; West End;

Lead officer: Debbie Jackson


30/03/2021 - Marble Arch Mound - Design, commission, construction and operation of the showcase event ref: 1327    Recommendations Approved

This report seeks a number of decisions regarding the sourcing and financial approach for delivering the showcase event of the Marble Arch Mound (“the Mound”), a temporary structure located at Marble Arch which replicates a natural mound with a viewing platform at the summit.

 

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for City Management

Decision published: 08/03/2021

Effective from: 09/04/2021

Decision:

Recommendations

1.1.         The appendices to this report be exempt from disclosure by virtue of s100A and Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

1.2.         That the Cabinet Member for City Management:

a)        Approved the sourcing approach of two packages, using FM Conway for the design & build elements and procuring, via tender, the event management service provider.

b)        Approved the design development proceeding in parallel to the Planning Application of the Mound in order to achieve the ambitious commencement date.

c)        Approved the high-level capital and gross revenue expenditure of up to £2m on the understanding that the Project team will work to refine and reduce this figure where possible. In the event it transpires that the project budget is at risk of being exceeded, a further report will be submitted setting out the risks and quantum of exceeding the project budget and seeking further approval. The net cost has the potential to be substantially lower due to the various potential income streams referred to in the report.

d)        Approved the approach of the Project team exploring risk mitigation options such as purchase (and capitalisation) of scaffolding subject to standard governance requirements and delegations.

 

Reasons for Decision

1.3.         The Mound is intended to be a showcase attraction and will be challenging to deliver in the timescales available. It comprises a unique temporary structure to be designed and built for the public to access and enjoy views from the summit. It is quickly apparent that there is no single provider that could provide the entire spectrum of requirements as part of its own core business. It would either require a contractor to further develop the design and build the structure while subcontracting the events management package; or an events management organisation which would need to sub-contract the design development and build package.

1.4.         While the requirement could be procured as a single package, there would inevitably be some significant sub-contracting required under such an approach. This approach typically reduces Council involvement in the selection of sub-contractors but adds management costs to the sub-contracted element. The Council should retain its control over selection of the providers of the two key specialisms by directly selecting and appointing both the works contractor and the event management service provider as both entities will be pivotal to a successful outcome. There is no apparent advantage in the Council ceding that selection to a third party under a sub-contract arrangement.

1.5.         For the design & build contractor, the timeline for procuring the contractor and then delivering the design and build requirements is approximately 18 weeks to procure and 16 weeks to design and build, for a total of 34 weeks. This would result in a commencement date of approximately late September 2021.

1.6.         By utilising an existing contract with appropriate, relevant scope, the commencement date could be achieved in approximately 18 weeks (some time is needed to develop the specification / deliverables for the existing contractor).

1.7.         The Council has identified its existing contract Highways Maintenance Management and Public Realm Projects (also known as Highways Framework Contract A) as having the appropriate scope and instruction mechanism for delivering the design and build package. The Highways Framework Contract A is valid to end March 2023 and is with FM Conway.

1.8.         The reasons supporting this decision are:

a)        The contract scope includes temporary structures.

b)        Ability to rapidly instruct the contractor via Task Service Order (TSO) process.

c)        The contractor is not tied to a named sub-consultant designer. It will either detail in its proposal how its in-house resources will fulfil these requirements, or if sub-contracted, it has to identify the sub-contractor and detail the reasons for the sub-contractor selection. There is a contractual right for the Council and its officers to be consulted on TSO’s so the Council can reject any proposed specialist designer (under sub-contract) where the Council has concerns that the proposed sub-contractor cannot suitably deliver the unusual requirement.

d)        Good relevant experience – Illuminated River Project.

e)        Recent positive experience of rapid roll-out of emergency works during Covid19.

f)          Competitive pricing arrangements based on economies of scale due to the significant aggregate annual spend under Highways framework A.

1.9.         Please see appendix 2 for details of alternate contracts considered.

1.10.     For the event management element, the scope will include but not be limited to the following:

a)        Plan, resource and operate the showcase event for a period of 6 months initially (with option for a further 6 months in case the event is extended due to popular demand).

 

Wards affected: Bryanston and Dorset Square; Hyde Park; Knightsbridge and Belgravia; West End;

Lead officer: Rakesh Vaghela


05/03/2021 - Planned Preventative Maintenance (PPM) programme for 2021/22 in respect of Highways, Public Lighting & Bridges and Structures ref: 1309    For Determination

Annual report seeking approval to implement schemes funded from the annual Highways Planned Preventative Maintenance (PPM) budget

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for City Management

Decision published: 05/03/2021

Effective from: 13/03/2021

Decision:

1.                 That the detailed proposals for the Highways PPM programme for 2021/22 at an estimated gross cost of £7,723,000 as detailed in Section 5.1 and Appendix A of the report be approved.

 

2.                 That the detailed proposals for the Bridges and Structures PPM programme for 2021/22 at an estimated gross cost of £1,285,000, as detailed in Section 5.2 of the report be approved.

 

3.                 That the detailed proposals for Public Lighting PPM programme for 2021/22 at an estimated gross cost of £4,278,000, as detailed in Section 5.3 and Appendix E of the report, be approved.

 

4.                 That the gross capital expenditure of £13,286,000 (net capital expenditure of £12,786,000) for 2021/22, comprising of £11,736,000 from the annual PPM programmes for the City Council’s Highways, Public Lighting & Bridges and Structures; £400,000 from the Low Carbon Streets Capital Programme, £400,000 from the Deep Drainage Capital Programme and £250,000 from the Asset Inventory Update Capital Programme line, be approved.

 

5.                 That the Cabinet Member for City Management delegated to the Director, City Highways the authority to make changes to the programmes agreed in recommendations 2.1 to 2.4 of the report, subject to the proviso that the overall budget is not exceeded and that the Cabinet Member is consulted on any significant changes.

 

3.                Reasons for Decision

1.                 All assets deteriorate over time and any work aimed at maintaining the durability of the asset is classed as programmed maintenance. Such work prolongs the life of the asset and/or maintains structural capacity and is therefore considered as capital expenditure.

2.                 Each year the City Council’s regular inspection and testing programmes determine the current condition of the various highway assets (Carriageways, Footways, Lighting and Bridges & Structures) and identifies the forward investment needs that will keep the highway network in a safe and reliable condition.

3.                 Provision has been made in the capital programme for this expenditure to enable these programmes of work to be implemented together with preparation of forward programmes of work for 2022/23.

4.                 The proposed Planned Preventative Maintenance programme set out in this report will ensure that the City Council’s highway assets remain safe and effective and support the City for All agenda.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Andy Foster


02/03/2021 - Expenditure from the Ward Budgets for Warwick, Tachbrook and Churchill ref: 1308    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration

Decision published: 02/03/2021

Effective from: 02/03/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £14,000 to commission the Pimlico Neighbourhood Forum be approved.

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

2 March 2021

Implementation Date:

2 March 2021

Reference:

 

CMfC&R/4/020/21

 

Wards affected: Churchill; Tachbrook; Warwick;

Lead officer: Clare O'Keefe


02/03/2021 - Approval of Expenditure from the Ward Budget of St James's, Warwick, Queen's Park and Bayswater ref: 1306    Recommendations Approved

This report seeks approval for the expenditure of £10,237.50 from the St James’s, Warwick, Queen’s Park and Bayswater Ward Budgets in order to commission:

(a) Westminster Creative Collective by the City Lions, Innovation and Change, WCC Libraries and Children Services Teams.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration

Decision published: 02/03/2021

Effective from: 02/03/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £10,237.50 to commission Westminster Creative Collective by the City Lions, Innovation and Change, WCC Libraries and Children Services Teams be approved.

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

2 March 2021

Implementation Date:

2 March 2021

Reference:

 

CMfC&R/2/2020/21

 

Wards affected: Bayswater; Queen's Park; St James's; Warwick;

Lead officer: Matt Gaskin


24/02/2021 - Additional Restrictions Grant Scheme - Proposed Revised Criteria and Top-up Roll-in ref: 1305    Recommendations Approved

Cabimet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance and Smart City

Decision published: 24/02/2021

Effective from: 24/02/2021

Decision:

That the proposals to revise the existing criteria of the Additional Restrictions Grant scheme as outlined in Section 5 of the report be approved.

 

Reasons for Decision 

The proposed revisions to the existing Additional Restrictions Grant scheme seek to provide the most appropriate method of administration and support the types of business that the government has requested local authorities support within the City Council’s limited funding allocation.


22/02/2021 - Home Improvement Agency Grant Policy ref: 1303    Recommendations Approved (subject to call-in)

A revised HIA Grant Policy to support vulnerable people remain independent in their own home using Better Care Fund allocation from Government

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration

Decision published: 22/02/2021

Effective from: 03/02/2021

Decision:

2.0       Recommendations

 

(i)         That the Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration approves the Home Improvement Grants and Assistance & Leaseholder Relocation Assistance Policy (Appendix A)

 

(ii)        That delegated authority is given to the Director of Public Protection and Licensing to approve minor modifications and updates to the policy in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration.

 

(iii)       That the policy, if approved, will be implemented 28 days following the public notification of policy change

 

 

 

 

3.0       Reason for Decision

 

3.1       To approve the Home Improvement Grants and Assistance & Leaseholder Relocation Assistance Policy to ensure Westminster continues to meet our vulnerable residents’ needs for remaining safe, healthy and independent at home, as well as enable the grant of relocation loans for our leaseholders in housing renewal areas

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Annette Acik


11/02/2021 - Core Drugs and Alcohol Treatment Service ref: 1302    For Determination

Request to award two contracts to deliver support to residents who have issues with substance misuse. Tackling drug and alcohol misuse is a priority for Public Health in the borough and these substance misuse services play a pivotal role in the delivery of the vision and outcomes set out within the Public Health Outcomes Framework. One contract will support adults who have issues with drugs and alcohol and one contract will deliver support for adults with alcohol-specific issues. They work jointly to offer tailored support to individuals dependant on their needs. These new contracts are due to start on 1 July 2021.

 

The over-arching aim of this contract award is to continue service provision for residents across Westminster. We will utilise early learning from the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure services are able to offer innovative outreach and enhanced digital support for our residents and will work flexibly to respond to emerging health and social needs.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health

Decision published: 11/02/2021

Effective from: 12/02/2021

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health approved the contract award as set out in the table below:

 

Lot / Contract

Supplier

Five Year Term

Optional Extension Period (2 years)

Total

Lot 1 Substance Misuse Treatment Service

Turning Point Service Ltd

£13,138,398.52

£5,310,943

£18,449,341.25

Lot 2 Alcohol Specific Treatment Service

Change, Grow, Live Services Ltd

£5,218,249.73

£2,210,496

£7,428,745.75

 

That the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health delegated approval to exercise the option to extend each contract to the Executive Director of Adult Social Care and Public Health.

 

The existing contracts for Core Drug and Alcohol Treatment Services were due to expire on 31st March 2021 however these were extended in November 2020 for a period of three months and will now expire on 30th June 2021. This was due to delays during the procurement strategy stage which left an insufficient time for the mobilisation of the new contracts. Each new contract was planned to commence on 1st July 2021 for a period of five years, with an option to extend for a further two-year period (subject to performance).

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Bernie Flaherty


10/02/2021 - Re-Designation of Marylebone Neighbourhood Forum ref: 1301    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business, Licensing and Planning

Decision published: 10/02/2021

Effective from: 10/02/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the Cabinet Member for Business, Licensing and Planning agreed to re- designate the Marylebone Neighbourhood Forum for a further period of 5 years and a formal designation notice is published under delegated authority of the Director of Policy andProjects.

 

Reasons for Decision

Section 61F (7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted into the Act by the Localism Act, Schedule 9) sets out the conditions that a neighbourhood forum must meet, as well as the considerations that a local planningauthority musttake intoaccount whendetermining anapplication for the designation of a neighbourhood forum. These legislative aspects are set out in greater detail in Section 6 of thereport.

 

The legislation states that a local planning authority may designate an organisationor bodyas aneighbourhood forumif theauthority issatisfied that a number of conditions (in the table below) have been met. The existing Marylebone Neighbourhood Forum meets all of these conditions, and there has been no change in this since the originaldesignation.

 

Condition

Met?

Established for the express purpose of promoting or improving the social, economic or environmental well-being of an area?

Yes

Membership open to individuals who live or work in the area (or are elected members of the City Council);

Yes

Membership includes a minimum of 21 individuals each of whom lives or works (or is an elected member) in the area?

Yes

The neighbourhood forum has a written constitution?

Yes

 

The City Council is also required to have regard to whether membership is drawn from different places in the neighbourhood area concerned and from different sections of the community in that area. The application submitted by the Forum indicates that membership of the Marylebone Neighbourhood Forum is over 430 members, and that the Forum represents the interests of local residents and businesses. The list of members has also been provided by the Forum, and the application states that the Forum have a committee made up of 18 members, which represent both resident and business interests.

 

The City Council is also required to assess whether the purpose of the neighbourhood forum reflects(in generalterms) thecharacter ofthe area.The application submittedby theForum forre-designation statesthat theyshare a vision for Marylebone to be a vibrant place to live, work, visit, shop or study. TheForum statesthat theyare workinghard andcollaboratively, reflectingthe range ofinterests ofthe stakeholdersand users,to developa Neighbourhood Plan to improve thearea.

 

Consultation on the re-designation of the Marylebone Neighbourhood Forum highlighted some support for the application, and no objections or competing applications. Further details are provided in section 9 of the report.

 

 

 

Wards affected: Marylebone High Street;

Lead officer: Ezra Wallace


09/02/2021 - Maida Hill Neighbourhood Forum Re-designation ref: 1300    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business, Licensing and Planning

Decision published: 10/02/2021

Effective from: 09/02/2021

Decision:

Notice is hereby given that the Cabinet Member for Business, Licensing and Planning,has made the following executive decision on the above mentioned subject for the reasons set out below.

 

Summary of Decision

 

That the Cabinet Member for Business, Licensing and Planning agreed to re- designate the Maida Hill Neighbourhood Forum for a further period of 5 years and a formal designation notice is published under delegated authority of the Director of Policy andProjects.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

Section 61F (7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted into the Act by the Localism Act, Schedule 9) sets out the conditions that a neighbourhood forum must meet, as well as the considerations that a local planning authority must take into account when determining an application for the designation of a neighbourhood forum. These legislative aspects are set out ingreaterdetailinSection6of thereport.

 

The legislation states that a local planning authority may designate an organisationorbodyasa neighbourhood forum iftheauthorityissatisfiedthat anumber ofconditions (inthetablebelow)havebeenmet. TheexistingMaidaHillNeighbourhoodForum meetsalloftheseconditions,andtherehasbeen nochange inthissincetheoriginaldesignation.

 

Condition

Met?

Established fortheexpress purposeof promotingor improvingthe social economic or environmental well-being of anarea?

Yes

Membership open to individuals who live or work in the area (or

are elected members of the City Council);

Yes

Membership includes a minimum of 21 individuals each of whom lives or works (or is an elected member) in the area?

Yes

The neighbourhood forum has a written constitution?

Yes

 

The City Council is also required to have regard to whether membership is drawnfromdifferentplacesintheneighbourhoodarea concerned andfrom different sections of the community in that area. The application submitted by theForumindicates thatmembershipoftheMaidaHillNeighbourhood  Forum isat least25 members,andthattheForumrepresentstheinterestsoflocal residentsand businesses.Thelistofmembers hasalsobeen providedbythe Forum. The application also mentions that the Forum have an emailing list of 500 local people and 30 localcommunity organisations.

 

The City Council is also required to assess whether the purposeof the neighbourhood forumreflects(ingeneralterms)thecharacterof thearea.The application submitted by the Forum for re-designation states that theForumwas established to promote: A good mix of facilities and amenities, an attractive character and identity, a healthier environment, a good qualityphysical environment, a low carbon footprint and local employment and enterprise.Thestatementofpurposealsooutlines thattheforumwillimprove the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the area using itsplanninginfluence.

 

Consultation onthere-designationoftheMaidaHillNeighbourhoodForum highlighted support for the application, no objections, or competing applications.Furtherdetailsare provided in section9 ofthereport.

 

 

 

 

Wards affected: Maida Vale;

Lead officer: Ezra Wallace


18/06/2021 - Footway Parking for Rental e-scooters ref: 1298    Recommendations Approved

A Cabinet Member decision is needed to make exemptions for DfT type-approved rental e-scooters to be allowed to be parked on the footway.

 

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for City Management

Decision published: 04/02/2021

Effective from: 18/06/2021

Decision:

2.1      The Cabinet Member for City Management approved the list of proposed ten unused footway locations set out in (Appendix C) for rental e-scooter parking.

 

3.        Reasons for Decision

 

3.1      The rider and/ or operator of any mechanically propelled vehicles parked with one or more wheels on the footway is currently guilty of an offence under the Greater London Councils (General Powers) Act 1974. Agreement to the above recommendations in this report will provide exemption for the City Council to permit rental e-scooters to park on strictly designated highway locations in Westminster for the trial period.

 

3.2      This approach will enable the City Council to monitor and assess the impacts of both footway and carriageway designated parking bays for rental e-scooters and better understand how micromobility vehicles can be safely accommodated on Westminster’s Streets.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Steve Tse


03/02/2021 - Private Rented Sector Strategy ref: 1297    Recommendations Approved

Strategy to help ensure Westminster has a well run and managed private rented sector where properties are of good quality.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration

Decision published: 03/02/2021

Effective from: 03/02/2021

Decision:

That the Private Rented Sector Strategy and Action Plan 2021 – 2025 were approved.

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

Westminster had the largest private rented sector in England at c.53,000 properties and it was the largest tenure in the city. Although the council’s Housing Strategy Direction of Travel Statement: 2015 covered general aims for the sector, including regularly reviewing the case for introducing discretionary licensing, a dedicated private rented sector strategy had been developed in response to a new independent report into the sector in 2019.

 

The report highlighted issues with the quality and management of some private rented sector homes in the city and its findings supported the introduction of a licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), which was an aim of the strategy, (subject to having considered the results of a separate consultation). The report had also provided the impetus to look more broadly at the sector and the strategy included a wider range of plans to support it.  

Lead officer: Cecily Herdman


29/01/2021 - CIL and S106 Allocations ref: 1296    Recommendations Approved

To determine the allocation of CIL and S106 funds for the winter round of applications.

Decision Maker: Cabinet CIL Committee

Decision published: 29/01/2021

Effective from: 05/02/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

Notice is hereby given that Cabinet CIL Committee, has made the following executive decision on the above mentioned subject for the reasons set out below.

 

The report seeks to allocate CIL and s106 developer contributions to infrastructure projects to support growth in Westminster following receipts of monies from development.

 

Recommendations

 

The Cabinet CIL Committee approved the following Neighbourhood CIL bids for allocation:

 

 i)         Blomfield Road Public Realm

ii)         External Play Area for College Park School

iii)         Air Quality and Traffic Monitoring in Soho

iv)        Soho Parish School Gates Replacement

v)         Digital Waste Infrastructure for Soho

vi)        Greening and Landscaping Scoping for Soho

 

Approved the following Carbon Offset Section 106 bids:

 

vii)       Energy metering, monitoring, and targeting improvements at ZSL London Zoo

viii)       Westminster Carbon Reduction Targets: Solar Panels and Batteries for Schools (in principle)

 

Reasons for Decision  

 

In order to ensure robust and effective expenditure and reporting in line with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and in accordance with the council’s strategic priorities, CIL spending policy statement and its framework for resource allocation and management.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Amit Mistry


25/01/2021 - Westminster City Council's Constitution for "The SACRE" ref: 1295    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Young People and Learning

Decision published: 25/01/2021

Effective from: 25/01/2021

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Younger People and Learning approved the recommendation of “The SACRE” to adopt from 1stFebruary 2021 the constitution set out at Appendix A as Westminster's constitution for “The SACRE”.

 

          

“The SACRE”, having taken advice from the adviser to “The SACRE” and the Local Authority adviser, had concluded that the revised constitution for “The SACRE” would best serve “The SACRE” needs.  

 

All groups of “The SACRE” had contributed to the recommendation and unanimously agreed to adopt the constitution once agreed by the Local Authority. 

 

Lead officer: Jackie Saddington


21/01/2021 - Approval of Expenditure from the Ward Budget of Regent’s Park ref: 1294    Recommendations Approved

This report seeks approval for the expenditure of £17,000.00 from the Regent’s Park Ward Budget in order to commission:

(a) The Gate Restaurant Movement Strategy Hospitality Scheme Planters

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Communities and Regeneration

Decision published: 21/01/2021

Effective from: 21/01/2021

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £17,000 to commission St John’s Wood High Street Movement Strategy Hospitality Scheme Planters as detailed in the report be approved.

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

21 January 2021

Implementation Date:

21 January 2021

Reference:

 

CMfC&R/1/2020/21

 

Wards affected: Regent's Park;

Lead officer: Janis Best


25/11/2020 - ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS URGENT ref: 1292    Recommendations Approved (subject to call-in)

Decision Maker: Licensing Committee

Made at meeting: 25/11/2020 - Licensing Committee

Decision published: 05/01/2021

Effective from: 25/11/2020

Decision:

7.1       There was no other business raised by the Committee.

 


31/12/2020 - Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel: (24.11.20) Determination of Discretionary Housing Payment Review Applications ref: 1290    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 31/12/2020

Effective from: 31/12/2020

Decision:

1.         That Appendix A to this report be exempt from public disclosure by virtue of paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 because the applications involve the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to an individual.

           

2.         That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the recommendations of the Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel meeting held on 24 November 2020.

 

Reasons for Decision 

The Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel has set out the reasons for the recommendations in each case considered by the Panel in the recommendations as set out in Appendix A of the report, which are more fully set out in the case papers submitted to the Panel.


31/12/2020 - Rating Advisory Panel 08/12/2020 ref: 1291    Recommendations Approved

Determination of NNDR Discretionary and Hardship Relief Applications

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 31/12/2020

Effective from: 31/12/2020

Decision:

1.              That this report and appendices be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 Schedule 12A, Part 1, Paragraph 3, as amended, in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of an individual.

 

2.       That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the recommendations of the Rating Advisory Panel held on 8th December 2020 and determined the applications for National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary and Hardship relief as set out in Appendix A of the report.

Reasons for Decision

 

The Rating Advisory Panel has set out the reasons for the recommendations in each case considered by the Panel in the recommendations in Appendix A of the report.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Gemma Williams


31/12/2020 - PiP Funding ref: 1289    Recommendations Approved

To review and agree on-going budget requirements for the Partners in Practice programme which funds the Clinical Practice team in Children's services.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 31/12/2020

Effective from: 09/01/2021

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration agreed a budget growth of £0.578m as a means of bridging the gap in funding that will otherwise arise because of the cessation of the Partners in Practice (PiP) programme and noted that this will enable the crucial work being undertaken by the Clinical Practice team to continue in 2020/21 and beyond.

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

1.              The Clinical Practice Team received funding from the Partners in Practice (PiP) programme between 2016/17 and 2019/20.  The team has been pivotal in keeping Looked After Children (LAC) and Child Protection numbers at a significantly lower rate than the national average. 

 

2.              The annual cost of the team is £0.578m, however costs avoided because of lower than average LAC numbers and Child Protection orders when compared to the national average are estimated at £5.700m.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Rikin Tailor


21/12/2020 - NWEC Property & Occupier BIDs Renewal Ballots ref: 1288    Recommendations Approved

New West End Company Property & Occupier BIDs Renewal Ballots

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business and Planning

Decision published: 21/12/2020

Effective from: 21/12/2020

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

  1. That the NWEC’s Occupier and Property Owner BIDs’ Renewal & Alteration Proposal be endorsed.

 

  1. That the Chief Executive be requested as the City Council’s Returning Officer and “ballot holder” to hold a ballot for NWEC’s Occupier and Property Owner BIDs’ Renewal & Alteration Proposal be approved.

 

  1. That the Director of Law be authorised on behalf of the City Council to enter into the necessary legal agreements for collection of the BID Levy. In addition, deal with related service specifications for all other connected services which the City Council is required to deliver throughout the BID’s term and any other necessary legal matters in respect of the Whitehall BID Proposal as instructed and in consultation with the appropriate officers.

 

Reasons for Decision 

NWEC has a strong collaborative relationship with the City Council. Notable achievements over the last three years include:

·       Securing ‘International Centre’ policy status for the district in the West End

·       50% fewer buses on Oxford Street & Regent Street

·       £150m Oxford Street improvement plan confirmed in 2019 following a complex cross party working and advocacy campaign

·       £10m Bond Street Scheme completed

·       £2m extra funding raised for the £12m transformation of Hanover Square

·       £18m East Mayfair public realm enhancement programme secured with partners

·       £10m additional non-BID levy raised and re-invested into the area

·       £20m in local business rates relief fund returned in 2018 to West End businesses through our advocacy and facilitated through Westminster City Council

·       Implemented a pilot West End freight and waste consolidation service which reduced number of waste vehicles in East Mayfair by 17.5%

·       £60m district reputation media coverage reaching 250m people locally & globally

 

It is anticipated that NWEC will continue to play an active part in the joint working arrangements Westminster has set up for BIDs to liaise with City Council members and officers, to enable new ideas, plans and initiatives of mutual concern to be discussed prior to public launch. Officers will also continue to encourage NWEC as with all BIDs to work collaboratively with each other on joint initiatives so as to avoid duplication of resources and contact with the City Council.

 

This report describes the Proposal that has been submitted by NWEC to secure a further five-year term for their Occupier and property Owner BIDs. These do not conflict with City Council policies.

 

Stuart Love,

Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

21 December 2020

Implementation Date:

 

21 December 2020

Reference:

 

CMfB&P/12/2020/21

 

Wards affected: Bryanston and Dorset Square; Marylebone High Street; West End;

Lead officer: Haylea Asadi


21/12/2020 - Whitehall BID Ballot ref: 1287    Recommendations Approved

A new BID for Whitehall for a proposed 2 year term which will then merge with Victoria Westminster BID

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business and Planning

Decision published: 21/12/2020

Effective from: 21/12/2020

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

  1. That the Whitehall BID Proposal be endorsed.

 

  1. That the Chief Executive be requested as the City Council’s Returning Officer and “ballot holder” to hold a ballot for the Whitehall BID Proposal be approved.

 

  1. That the Director of Law be authorised on behalf of the City Council to enter into the necessary legal agreements for collection of the BID Levy. In addition, deal with related service specifications for all other connected services which the City Council is required to deliver throughout the BID’s term and any other necessary legal matters in respect of the Whitehall BID Proposal as instructed and in consultation with the appropriate officers.

 

Reasons for Decision 

Victoria Westminster BID Ltd has been instrumental in delivering significant changes within the area over the last two years and has contributed to and created meaningful achievements during this time. Examples of these are:

·       Working with the Victoria BID and Westminster City Council to regenerate Christchurch Gardens as a world class urban green space

·       Joining a radio link system connected businesses to local Met Police teams

·       Providing dedicated cleaning teams including night-time cleaning and security teams

·       Daily reporting of issues to the local authority and relevant stakeholders for action

·       Delivering an updated public realm strategy for the area

·       Installing an annual Christmas installation near Parliament Square on Storey’s Gate

·       Circulating thousands of local discount ‘Privilege Cards’

·       Commissioning a Vibrancy Report to help inform strategic decisions

·       Local businesses have donated thousands of Christmas gifts to nominated charities

It is anticipated that as with the other South Westminster BIDs, the proposed Whitehall BID will play an active part in the joint working arrangements the City Council has set up for all BIDs to liaise with City Council members and officers, to enable new ideas, plans and initiatives of mutual concern to be discussed prior to public launch. Officers will also continue to encourage all BIDs to work collaboratively with each other on joint initiatives so as to avoid duplication of resources and contact with the City Council.

 

This report describes the Proposal that has been submitted by Victoria Westminster BID to secure a new BID for Whitehall. These do not conflict with City Council policies.

 

Stuart Love,

Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

21 December 2020

Implementation Date:

 

21 December 2020

Reference:

 

CMfB&P/12/2020/21

 

Wards affected: St James's;

Lead officer: Haylea Asadi


21/12/2020 - Approval of Expenditure from the Ward Budget of Vincent Square ref: 1286    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 21/12/2020

Effective from: 21/12/2020

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £10,000 to commission Anchor Court Security Works which includes the installation of the following items be approved.

 

• Secure number-locked vehicle gate – off Douglas Street

• Secure number-locked pedestrian gate – off Carey Place, into the car park

• Higher wrought iron fencing – around the car park

• Automatic-opening electronic connections to the building fire safety systems

 

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

21 December 2020

Implementation Date:

21 December 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/10/2020/21

 

Wards affected: Vincent Square;

Lead officer: Janis Best


21/12/2020 - Ward Budget for Upperdeckers Programme 2021 ref: 1285    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 21/12/2020

Effective from: 21/12/2020

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the expenditure of £14,175 to commission the Upperdeckers Programme be approved.

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposal in this report will support the Council’s wider equalities and diversity agenda by focusing on addressing local issues with enhanced local engagement. 

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

21 December 2020

Implementation Date:

21 December 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/11/2020/21

 

Wards affected: Churchill; Tachbrook; Warwick;

Lead officer: Janis Best


21/12/2020 - Contract Award for School Age Speech and Language Therapy Services ref: 1284    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Children's Services

Decision published: 21/12/2020

Effective from: 31/12/2020

Decision:

1)              The Cabinet Member for Children’s Services approved the recommendation to award a contract to Central London Community Healthcare (CLCH) for SLT services for Children and Young People from school age up to 25 for a period of 24 months commencing on 1st October 2020. The contract values were outlined in section 7 of the report.

 

1)              The current contract for the delivery of SLT Services (School Age to 25) was awarded in March 2019. This contract agreed to an award of 12 months with the option to extend for 6 months.

2)              The optional 6 month extension was taken up by the Executive Director for Children’s Services in March 2020 just before lockdown to ensure that the service were able to maintain delivery both of SLT and Covid Support Services locally.

3)              The current arrangement came to an end on 30th September 2020 and the paper proposed a new award to CLCH to continue delivering SLT services.

 

Lead officer: Sarah Newman


17/12/2020 - New Business Grants - Discretionary Schemes report ref: 1283    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for proposals regarding new business grants involving discretionary schemes.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 17/12/2020

Effective from: 17/12/2020

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the two proposed discretionary schemes as outlined in Section 5 of the report.

 

Reasons for Decision

The two proposed schemes seek to provide the most appropriate method to support the types of business that the government has requested that local authorities support within the Council’s relatively small funding allocations.


17/12/2020 - Realignment of Claimant Contact Facilities for the Council's Benefits service ref: 1282    Recommendations Approved

The recommendation in this report will realign the customer contact facilities available for Benefits service claimants following the experience of the current pandemic and will produce some medium term savings as other external buildings are vacated and released by other Council services.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 17/12/2020

Effective from: 24/12/2020

Decision:

`1.      That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the Orchardson Street benefit reception site to not be re-opened and that the property is vacated by the Benefits service to enable bee other Council services to move into the building.

 

 

Reasons for Decision

 

1.              The recommendation in this report is made as it has been proved over the last nine months during the pandemic that the Council can provide the service in a different way. The various alternatives to face to face contact during this period have proved successful with no reduction in customer service to the borough’s claimants. These methods of contact include via the telephone, webchat, e-mail, on-line forms, white mail and the Council’s Benefits visiting service. In addition, in the future the Vauxhall Bridge Road Benefit reception site will re-open when it is considered safe to do so.

 

2.              The realignment of the customer contact facilities available for Benefits service claimants following the experience of the current pandemic will also produce some medium-term savings as other external buildings are vacated and released by other Council services.