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

22/05/2020 - Council Tax, NNDR, Housing Benefit Overpayments and Former Client Rent Arrears - Irrecoverable Debt, Quarter 4, 2019/20 ref: 1198    Recommendations Approved (subject to call-in)

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 22/05/2020

Effective from: 02/06/2020

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 Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration gave to the writing off the irrecoverable debt as shown in paragraph 5.1 of the report.

 

3.               That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration noted the amounts shown in paragraph 6.1 of the report as written-off under officer delegated authority.

 

Reasons for Decision 

The recommendation to write-off the amounts detailed in this 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 distress proceedings.


22/05/2020 - Disposal of 24 homes in Hounslow to a new buyer ref: 1197    Recommendations Approved (subject to call-in)

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 22/05/2020

Effective from: 02/06/2020

Decision:

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

 

2.              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the disposal of 24 units in Hounslow to the specified organisation at the agreed disposal price as detailed in the report.

 

3.              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration delegated authority to the Director of Housing, in conjunction with the Director of Law, to agree the contract terms and to conclude the contract.

 

Reasons for Decision

Approval of the recommendations will enable the City Council to dispose of the 24 Housing Revenue Account owned units. The income received will be reinvested in replacement homes to be used for Social Housing.


18/05/2020 - Revision of the Council's National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary Relief Guidelines in respect of the Local Discretionary Business Rate Revaluation Relief scheme for 2020/21 ref: 1196    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 18/05/2020

Effective from: 18/05/2020

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the revised National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary Relief guidelines as shown in Appendix A of the report.

Reason for Decision 

1.         The proposed guidelines at Appendix A of the report will, by providing criteria to be considered when making decisions, assist with robust and consistent decision-making.

 

2.         That delegated authority is given to the Director of Revenues and Benefits to amend the scheme entitlement percentage during the financial year if it appears that the not all of the government funding will be utilised by the scheme’s deadline (30 September 2021).


16/05/2020 - Expenditure from the Warwick, Tachbrook and Churchill Ward Budgets ref: 1195    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 16/05/2020

Effective from: 16/05/2020

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:

18 May 2020

Implementation Date:

18 May 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/10/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Churchill; Tachbrook; Warwick;

Lead officer: Janis Best


15/05/2020 - Financial Measures to respond to COVID-19 ref: 1194    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member appproval sought to take various financial measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 15/05/2020

Effective from: 23/05/2020

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved:

1.1.The financial governance related to COVID-19 expenditure as per section 7 and the revised approval routes to ensure a co-ordinated consistent response to the operational needs that arise from the pandemic. 

1.2.The allocation of any COVID-19 government funding to be delegated to the Executive Director of Finance and Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration.

1.3.The financial support measures for the Council’s commercial tenants as noted in paragraph 6.7 of the report and delegated authority to the Executive Director of Finance and Resources to extend this in line with the financial governance as noted in section 7.

1.4.The brokerage facility as part of the Westminster Connects platform, as per paragraphs 6.9 to 6.12 of the report.

1.5.The continuation of immediate payment terms, even as the Council enters BAU with the IBC.

1.6.The income and debt management policies and delegations of these policies during the current crisis as per section 8 of the report.

1.7.That Westminster City Council act as the lead borough for the London Strategic Coordination Group for the provision of additional mortuary space across London, incurring all initial expenditure on the instructions of the mortuaries planning group and subsequently recovering this from the other London boroughs as set out in section 9 of the report.

1.8.The types of relief (as outlined in section 10) the Council may offer to suppliers in line with the financial approval limits set out in section 7. 

Reasons for Decision

1.     COVID-19 is impacting everything the Council does and is having an adverse effect on the economy and the resident and business communities that the Council serves. The Leader, Cabinet, Executive Leadership Team and other council officers are responding to this crisis daily.

2.     In the current circumstances where the Council is functioning outside of business as usual it is important to have an agreed financial framework within which the Council operates. This report sets out how the financial framework can be adapted within the boundaries of the financial regulations and the scheme of delegation. This ensures financial decisions are linked to operational and strategic needs specific to the Council’s response to the crisis, with decisions being made at the appropriate level and by the appropriate individual or group.

3.     The recommendations as set out in section 2 of the report and the Council’s financial management of the situation as outlined in sections 6-8 are considered to be the most appropriate and efficient way to assist the aforementioned groups to respond to this international pandemic.


14/05/2020 - Central London Cycle Grid: Quietway from St John's Wood to Marylebone - Design and Implementation ref: 1193    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways

Decision published: 12/05/2020

Effective from: 22/05/2020

Decision:

Recommendations

1.     The Cabinet Member for Environment and Highwaysreaffirmed the City Council’s support for the Quietway St John’s Wood to Marylebone scheme, as part of the Central London Cycle Grid, and agreed to it being implemented.

 

2.     Approval was granted by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Highwaysto undertake design and implementation of the proposed Quietway St John’s Wood to Marylebone scheme, as part of the Central London Cycle Grid.

 

3.     The Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways gave delegated authority to the Executive Director for City Management and Communities to agree final scheme proposals and to enter into any necessary legal agreements with Transport for London, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways.

 

4.     The Cabinet Member for Environment and Highwaysgave delegated authority to the Executive Director for City Management and Communities to make any requisite traffic regulation orders associated with the scheme.

 

5.     The Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways approved capital expenditure to the sum of £3,402,074to complete the scheme.

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

1.      The proposed scheme will contribute to the adopted November 2013 and subsequent updated November 2016 City of Westminster City Plan objectives. It is intended that this scheme will:

 

·         Provide legible and safer routes for cycle traffic.

·         Improve the public realm and pedestrian facilities.

·         Improve health. This will be achieved in part by encouraging more everyday journeys to be made by active transportation. Improvements to pedestrian facilities are also proposed as part of the scheme.

·         Encourage more people to cycle. This will be achieved by implementing a scheme suitable for all people who want to cycle in the area, particularly those wishing to avoid some of the busier, highly trafficked main roads.

·         Reduce CO2 emissions. This will be achieved in part by encouraging modal shift from private motor vehicles to bicycles.

·         Reduce overcrowding on public transport. This will be achieved in part by encouraging more journeys to be made by bicycle.

 

Wards affected: Abbey Road; Bryanston and Dorset Square; Church Street; Regent's Park;


06/05/2020 - Expenditure from the Warwick Ward Budget for Hanging Baskets ref: 1192    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 06/05/2020

Effective from: 06/05/2020

Decision:

Notice is hereby given that the Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital has made the following executive decision on the above mentioned subject for the reason set out below.

 

 

Summary of Decision

 

That expenditure of £16,153.80 to commission Hanging Baskets 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:

6 May 2020

Implementation Date:

6 May 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/9/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Warwick;

Lead officer: Janis Best


06/05/2020 - Expenditure from the Vincent Square Ward Budget for Hanging Baskets ref: 1191    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 06/05/2020

Effective from: 06/05/2020

Decision:

Notice is hereby given that the Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital has made the following executive decision on the above mentioned subject for the reason set out below.

 

 

Summary of Decision

 

That expenditure of £10,627.50 to commission Hanging Baskets 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:

6 May 2020

Implementation Date:

6 May 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/8/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Vincent Square;

Lead officer: Janis Best


06/05/2020 - Expenditure from the Little Venice Ward Budget for Hanging Baskets ref: 1190    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 06/05/2020

Effective from: 06/05/2020

Decision:

SUBJECT: 

Expenditure from the Little Venice Ward Budget for Hanging Baskets

 

 

Notice is hereby given thatthe Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital has made the following executive decision on the above mentioned subject for the reason set out below.

 

 

Summary of Decision

 

That expenditure of £21,255 to commission Hanging Baskets 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:

6 May 2020

Implementation Date:

6 May 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/7/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Little Venice;

Lead officer: Janis Best


06/05/2020 - Expenditure from the Abbey Ward Budget for Hanging Baskets ref: 1189    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 06/05/2020

Effective from: 06/05/2020

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That expenditure of £14,736.80 to commission Hanging Baskets 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:

6 May 2020

Implementation Date:

6 May 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/6/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Abbey Road;

Lead officer: Janis Best


29/04/2020 - Rating Advisory Panel 10.03.2020: Determination of National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary and Hardship Relief Applications ref: 1188    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 29/04/2020

Effective from: 29/04/2020

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 10th March 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: Susan Bush


21/01/2020 - Westminster Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and pooled Section 106 contributions – Project Allocations (Q4) ref: 1187    Recommendations Approved (subject to call-in)

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

Decision Maker: Cabinet CIL Committee

Decision published: 27/04/2020

Effective from: 29/01/2020

Decision:

The Cabinet CIL Committee:

 

1.       Approved the expenditure of £7.856m from Westminster’s City CIL Strategic Portion.

(i)              Burlington Gardens Public Realm

(ii)            Westbourne Terrace Bridge Road

(iii)           Westminster Schools Travel Plan Programme 2019-20

(iv)           Rochester Road/ Greycoat Place Junction Improvements

(v)            Oxford Street District: Ramillies Street Public Realm

(vi)           Sayers Croft: Loxwood Hall Refurbishment

(vii)         Community Water Fountains

(viii)        Paddington Recreation Ground Sports Facilities

(ix)           King Solomon Academy Accessibility Improvements

(x)            St Luke’s CE School Infrastructure Improvements

(xi)           Queen’s Park Primary School SEN Learning Space

(xii)         Harrow Road Community Business School

(xiii)        Living Pillar Trial

(xiv)       CCTV Libraries and Leisure

 

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: Michael Clarkson


24/04/2020 - St James's Neighbourhood Forum Re-designation ref: 1186    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business and Planning

Decision published: 24/04/2020

Effective from: 24/04/2020

Decision:

That the St James’s Neighbourhood Forum be re-designated for a further period of 5 years and a formal designation notice be published under delegated authority by the Director of Policy and Projects.

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

The City Council is required to assess whether the purpose of the neighbourhood forum reflects (in general terms) the character of the area. The application submitted by the Forum for re-designation states that the Forum was established to promote and improve the economic and environmental wellbeing of the area. It also makes clear that the continued preparation of a neighbourhood plan is a priority for the Forum. The Forum has carried out significant initial work on the neighbourhood plan and will carry out consultation on a draft plan in the upcoming months. The main purpose for the existence of the St James’s Neighbourhood Forum is therefore stronger now than when it was initially designated.

 

Consultation on the re-designation of the St James’s Neighbourhood Forum highlighted support for the application and no objections or competing applications had been received.

 

Stuart Love,

Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON 

SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

24 April 2020

Implementation Date:

 

24 April 2020

Reference:

 

CMfB&P/4/2019/20

 

Wards affected: St James's;

Lead officer: Ezra Wallace


23/04/2020 - Public consultation - Proposed borough-wide 20mph Limit ref: 1185    Recommendations Approved

Between 17 September 2019 and 10 December 2019 a public consultation of a proposed 20mph Limit across the City of Westminster Highway Network was undertaken. This report advises on the findings of the consultation and presents a recommendation for consideration and approval.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways

Decision published: 23/04/2020

Effective from: 01/05/2020

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways agreed that the proposed borough-wide 20mph scheme be implemented on the basis of:

 

·       Final design and delivery on the street be subject to the ongoing changes to the City Council’s services as it manages the current COVID-19 crisis and when an agreed point in the future is reached where the delivery of new schemes can be re-activated again

·       The results of the recent public consultation that ended on 10 December 2019, where two thirds of the respondents supported the proposed scheme;

·       The supporting killed and serious injury casualty related collisions evidence which indicates that these have flatlined since 2015 and that many of these relate to collisions with ‘vulnerable’ pedestrians and cyclists, of which a borough-wide 20mph limit can greatly reduce the severity of such;

·       The supporting evidence of the 2017 trial of 39 20mph zones where demonstrable reductions in recorded speed were evident;

·       Government legislation that empowers the City Council to consider the implementation of a borough-wide 20mph limit across its Highway Network;

·       The proposed Communications Plan that is set out in section 9 and appendix 4 of this report which includes the additional items set out in paragraph 9.3, which in particular seeks approval for the placing of 20mph limit messaging on City Council contracted vehicles and the hiring of advertising space on the backs of selected London buses;

·       The proposed Highways Scheme of 20mph on-street signs that is set out in section 10 of this report; and

·       The proposed estimated £1,406,887 cost of implementing the combined Communications Plan and Highways Scheme programme in 2020/21, as set out in Section 11 of the report.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

1.              In 2018 there were three fatalities on Westminster’s combined highway network and a further 269 individuals were seriously injured. By reducing our Borough-wide speed limit from 30mph to 20mph will mean that a person is five times more likely to survive if it is in a collision with a motorised vehicle.             

 

2.        A 20mph Westminster speed limit will also encourage a calmer and more respectful street environment for all of us who live, work, study or visit our great city. The proposal will also seek to encourage more to walk and cycle which in turn will deliver wider health and wellbeing benefits across all age groups.

 

3.        66% of respondents to the recent public consultation of a borough-wide 20mph Limit were in support of the proposed scheme and a 20mph borough is also a key aim of our City for All ambition to develop a Greener and Cleaner Westminster.

Wards affected: (All Wards);


15/04/2020 - Westminster Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) - Project Allocations (Q1) ref: 1184    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business and Planning

Decision published: 15/04/2020

Effective from: 23/04/2020

Decision:

The Cabinet Member for Business and Planning was asked to:

 

1.      Approve the allocation of £0.272m from Westminster’s Neighbourhood CIL Portion. This covered the provisional allocation of funding for the projects set out in Appendix C, as follows:

(i)          Bishop’s Bridge Public Realm Action Plan

(ii)         Norfolk Square Gardens Showcase Garden

(iii)       Star Street Green Space Improvements

(iv)       Edgware Road Insights Study

(v)        Central Island Improvements for Elgin Avenue

(vi)       Charing Cross Road Area Public Realm

 

2.      Note the recommendations on further project proposals for Westminster’s Neighbourhood CIL Portion, as submitted by local communities.

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.

 

Lead officer: Ezra Wallace


09/04/2020 - Minor amendment to the Council's Council Tax Support Scheme for 2020/21 due to the Government's Covid-19 response regarding Working Tax Credits ref: 1183    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 09/04/2020

Effective from: 09/04/2020

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration gave approval to increase the disregard that is applied to earnings by £20 per week within the Council’s Council Tax Support scheme.

 

Reason for Decision 

The recommendation aligns with the principles of City for All and ensures that the government’s recent increase in working tax credit, announced as part of the Covid-19 response, is not clawed back from the borough’s claimants via the Council’s Council Tax Support calculation.


31/03/2020 - Minor amendment to the Council's Council Tax Support Scheme for 2020/21 ref: 1181    For Determination

Cabinet Member approval sought for a minor amendment to be made to the Council Tax Support Scheme.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 31/03/2020

Effective from: 31/03/2020

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Properrty and Regeneration approved the removal of the “two child limit” from the Council’s Council Tax Support scheme with effect from 1 April 2020.

Reason for Decision 

The recommendation aligns with the principles of the Council’s City for All and the estimated cost is not considered significant.


31/03/2020 - Delivery of residential care services from Carlton Dene and Westmead ref: 1180    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 31/03/2020

Effective from: 31/03/2020

Decision:

1.        That this report be exempt from publication under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person (including the authority holding that information)

 

2.              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the granting of new leases to the organisation as detailed in the report for a term in line with the terms and length of the services contract awarded to the organisation already and to be co-terminous with the service contract in existence.

 

Reasons for Decision 

The fundamental reason for granting leases is to ensure and secure immediate continuity of essential services to vulnerable residents currently living within Carlton Dene and Westmead or in need of the services at these homes.


30/03/2020 - Expenditure from the Ward Budgets for Harrow Road, Westbourne and Maida Vale ref: 1179    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 30/03/2020

Effective from: 30/03/2020

Decision:

That expenditure of £20,587.07 for North Paddington Food Bank in respect of the Covid-19 Food Aid Response 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:

30 March 2020

Implementation Date:

30 March 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/3/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Harrow Road; Maida Vale; Westbourne;

Lead officer: Janis Best


30/03/2020 - Expenditure from the Ward Budgets for Churchill, Church Street, Harrow Road, Maida Vale, Queen's Park and Westbourne ref: 1178    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community Services and Digital

Decision published: 30/03/2020

Effective from: 30/03/2020

Decision:

That expenditure of £20,000 to commission The Z2K Advice Clinic 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:

30 March 2020

Implementation Date:

30 March 2020

Reference:

 

CMfCS&D/5/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Church Street; Churchill; Harrow Road; Maida Vale; Queen's Park; Westbourne;

Lead officer: Janis Best


26/03/2020 - Contract Award of a Supported Housing Service for Adults - Transitional and Housing Led Units ref: 1177    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for contract award.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Housing Services

Decision published: 26/03/2020

Effective from: 03/04/2020

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 that information).

 

2.        That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services approved the decision to award the contract to the preferred bidder as part of a competitive tender process for the period from 1st July 2020 to 30th June 2024 for a total amount as set out in the report, with an optional one year extension.

  

3.        That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services delegated authority to the Director of Housing to consider/approve taking up the option of the one year extension, as allowed for within the contract conditions.

 

Reasons for Decision 

Regulation 72 (1) of the Public Contract Regulations 2015 require that for any variation clauses to be lawful they must be couched in ‘clear, precise and unequivocal’ terms, that state the scope and nature of possible modifications. This contract must be put onto a compliant contractual footing with clear start/expiry dates and provisions to extend that do not continue indefinitely.

 


26/03/2020 - Contract Extensions and Direct Awards for Rough Sleeping Services ref: 1175    For Determination

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Public Protection and Licensing

Decision published: 26/03/2020

Effective from: 03/04/2020

Decision:

2.       Recommendations

2.1       The report was 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).

 

2.2       The Cabinet Member for Public Protection & Licensing approved a waiver of the Procurement Code to permit the direct award of the services for the initial contract period 1st April 2020 to 31st March 2022; with provision to extend on a 1 year plus 1 year basis; with each year of the contract having  a break clause to terminate the contract of three months.

 

2.3       The Cabinet Member for Public Protection & Licensing noted that the funding for the contracts will be from existing general fund budgets and external grant funding.  It was noted that only the first year of funding has been confirmed by preferred bidder and should additional funding not be available in year 2 the Council shall look to terminate the contract. 

 

2.4       The Cabinet Member for Public Protection & Licensing noted that the extension to the contracts will depend upon the availability and continuation of the RSI funding from Central Government.

 

2.5       The Cabinet Member for Public Protection & Licensing delegated authority to the Executive Director of City Management & Communities to consider/approve taking up the options to extend of 1 year plus 1 year on each contract in Appendix 1.

 

3.        Reasons for Decision 

3.1.         Regulation 72 (1) of the Public Contract Regulations 2015 require that for any variation clauses to be lawful they must be couched in ‘clear, precise and unequivocal’ terms, that state the scope and nature of possible modifications. The ‘review clauses’ in many of the existing contracts that enable the contracts to be rolled on without limit would therefore not be considered lawful. The contracts must be put onto a compliant contractual footing with clear start/expiry dates and provisions to extend that do not continue indefinitely.

3.2.         The current ‘expiry date’ for these services are 31st March 2020 and further extensions to the contracts are therefore sought to maintain continuity of service in order to meet the requirements of grant funding set out by the preferred bidder.

3.3.         At present, all the contracts are closely monitored and, as recorded in capitalesourcing, are considered to meet the Contract Managers’ expectations.

 


25/03/2020 - Contract Award for Temporary Agency Workers ref: 1173    Recommendations Approved

Approval from the Leader of the Council sought for the contract award for temporary agency workers.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 25/03/2020

Effective from: 02/04/2020

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 person (including the authority holding that information).

2.        That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the direct award of a new contract to the preferred bidder on the YPO2 Framework (Option 3) with a call off for two years with an option to renew up to a further two years

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The rationale for this decision is that this ensures continuity of services and is the lowest risk option.


16/03/2020 - CLCH Health Visiting Contract - Direct Award ref: 1170    Recommendations Approved

This report is requesting approval to proceed with a direct award to Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust (CLCH) for a period of two years to deliver the Health Visiting service. The current contract will expire on the 31 March 2020.

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

Decision published: 16/03/2020

Effective from: 24/03/2020

Decision:

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health approve a direct award, and a waiver from the WCC Procurement code, to CLCH for the delivery of the Health Visiting Service contract. The contract would be for a period of two years from the 1 April 2020 until the 31 March 2022. The total cost of the two-year contract was £6,920,656.

REASON FOR DECISION

1)              The Health Visiting service was a mandatory requirement for local authorities to provide; how this was delivered is for local decision. This two-year direct award ensured continuity of service whilst an option for a longer term transformed model was developed across a pre-birth to five pathway. It would provide time to explore alternative ways of delivering the mandatory requirements to have greatest impact.

2)              It was a critical time in transforming the model and to ensure all systems within the pre-birth to five programme and that pathways were aligned.The vision of the programme was to improve integration across the partnership and to reshape the delivery of the Healthy Child Programme. This would improve outcomes linked to early years development, school readiness, speech, language and communication.

3)              The current contracts were extended for a period of one year until 31 March 2020. The complexities of this transformation programme and the EYTA project end date of March 2020, resulted in a delay to re-procurement.  The recommendation to progress with a direct award aligned to the wider transformation programme was considered the best option.  

4)              The current provider, CLCH, had been fully engaged within the pre-birth to five redesign work. Negotiations with the provider had enabled the authorities to test new ways of working whilst maintaining the quality of the service.

 

5)              To ensure we gave children the best start in life the foundations for children to maintain good physical and mental health, healthy relationships and educational achievement need to be embedded across the partnership.  Collaboration had resulted in shared principles across public health and children services based on national and local ambitions to provide children with the best start in life by delivering:

·       reduced inequalities across key markers of maternal and child health

·       reduced rates of infant mortality and low birthweight

·       improved rates of key protective factors linked to better child health outcomes, such as maternal mental health and breastfeeding

·       higher rates of childhood immunisation

·       more children ready to learn by the age of two and ready to start school by the age of five

·       lower rates of tooth decay and hospital attendances due to preventable accidents and illnesses

Wards affected: (All Wards);


13/03/2020 - Corporate Property Service ref: 1169    Recommendations Approved

Report to approve the reorganisation of the property service

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 13/03/2020

Effective from: 21/03/2020

Decision:

1.              That following formal consultation with staff and unions, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration gave approval for the new proposed structure to be implemented.

 

2.              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration agreed that a Director of Property and Strategic Asset Management be added to the structure to provide dedicated focus and oversight of the Corporate Property portfolio.

 

3.              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration agreed that the new structure be implemented by 1st April 2020.

Reasons for Decision

 

Having considered staff feedback and the recommendations from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) to reorganise and implement a new Corporate Landlord model, it was been agreed to consult staff and unions on a proposed new structure.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Natalie Roberts


11/03/2020 - Procurement Services Restructure ref: 1168    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for the restructure of Procurement Services.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 11/03/2020

Effective from: 19/03/2020

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 that information).

 

2.        That Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration agreed to the implementation of the proposed Procurement Services structure as detailed in the report, to take effect from 6th April 2020.

 

3.        That Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration authorised the relevant officers (in this case, the Executive Director for Finance and Resources and his nominated delegates) to undertake such recruitment activities as are necessary to populate the new structure, in line with the Council’s normal policies and procedures.

 

4.        That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration notes that in line with Council policy, employees on the Council's Talent Pool who are in a redundancy situation will be given priority consideration for the new post(s) created prior to the post(s) being advertised and noted that this may include providing training to the redeployee, where appropriate, subject to costs and individual potential benefit.

 

Reasons for Decision 

The reason for this decision is to implement the organisational changes required to enable the council’s new Procurement Service to come into operational effect from 6th April 2020.


10/03/2020 - Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Charging Strategy 2019 - 2025 ref: 1167    For Determination

Strategy to support growth of Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure to meet objectives of the Clean Air Manifesto.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways

Decision published: 10/03/2020

Effective from: 18/03/2020

Decision:

2.     Recommendations

2.1   The Cabinet Member for Environment and City Management approved adoption of the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Strategy 2020 – 25.

 

 

3.     Reasons for Decision 

3.1   To support the achievement of City for All (Cleaner, Greener and Safer) objectives and specifically the air quality and carbon neutrality targets.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


10/03/2020 - Planned Preventive Maintenance 2020/21 for Highways, Lighting, Bridges and Structures ref: 1166    Recommendations Approved

Planned Preventative Maintenance (PPM) programme for 2020/21 in respect of Highways, Public Lighting & Bridges and Structures

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways

Decision published: 10/03/2020

Effective from: 18/03/2020

Decision:

2.                 Recommendations

2.1              The detailed proposals for the Highways PPM programme for 2020/21 at an estimated gross cost of £6,576,000 as detailed in Section 5.1 and Appendix A was approved.

 

2.2              The detailed proposals for the Bridges and Structures PPM programme for 2020/21 at an estimated gross cost of £1,730,000, as detailed in Section 5.2 was approved.

 

2.3              The detailed proposals for Public Lighting PPM programme for 2020/21 at an estimated gross cost of £3,271,000, as detailed in Section 5.3 and Appendix E, was approved.

 

2.4              The gross capital expenditure of £11,577,000 (net capital expenditure of £10,632,000) for 2020/21, comprising the annual PPM programmes for the City Council’s Highways, Public Lighting & Bridges and Structures was approved.

 

2.5              The Cabinet Member for Environment and  Highways delegated to the Executive Director of City Management and Communities the authority to make changes to the programmes agreed in recommendations 2.1 to 2.4, 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

3.1              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.

3.2              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.

3.3              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 2021/22.

3.4              The 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);


06/03/2020 - Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel: (18.02.2020) Determination of Discretionary Housing Payment Review Applications ref: 1164    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 06/03/2020

Effective from: 06/03/2020

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 on18 February 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 in Appendix A of the report, which are more fully set out in the case papers submitted to the Panel.


06/03/2020 - Rating Advisory Panel 28.01.2020: Determination of National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary and Hardship Relief Applications ref: 1165    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 06/03/2020

Effective from: 06/03/2020

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 28th January 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: Susan Bush


06/03/2020 - Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel: (14.01.2020) Determination of Discretionary Housing Payment Review Applications ref: 1163    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 06/03/2020

Effective from: 06/03/2020

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 on14 January 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 in Appendix A of the report, which are more fully set out in the case papers submitted to the Panel.


12/11/2019 - 100 Wardour, Ground Floor, 100 Wardour Street, London, W1F 0TN ref: 1162    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Licensing Sub-Committee (5)

Made at meeting: 12/11/2019 - Licensing Sub-Committee (5)

Decision published: 05/03/2020

Effective from: 12/11/2019

Decision:

LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE No. 5

Tuesday 12th November 2019

 

Membership:              Councillor Murad Gassanly (Chairman), Councillor Louise Hyams and Councillor Aicha Less

 

Legal Adviser:                         Horatio Chance

Policy Adviser:                        None present

Committee Officer:                  Artemis Kassi

Presenting Officer:                  Michelle Steward

 

Relevant Representations: Environmental Health Service, Licensing Authority, Westminster City Inspectors and six local residents (all in support of the review application)                                                      

 

Present: Richard Brown (Westminster Citizen Advice Bureau on behalf of the Applicants for the review); David Steele, Andy MacKay, Lucinda MacKay,  Alan Geeves and Issac Romanov (Applicants for the review); Mustafa Abdo (witness for the applicants); Anil Drayan (Environmental Health); Angela Seaward (Licensing Authority); Stephen Walsh QC (Counsel on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder); Elizabeth Southorn and Francesca Burnett Hall, Harris Hagan Solicitors (on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder); David Loewi, Chief Operating Officer and Deputy Chairman, Michael Farquhar, Operations Director and Leslie Kwarteng, Senior General Manager and DPS, (all on behalf of D&D London Limited and the Premises Licence Holder, 100 Wardour Limited); Euan MacKenzie, Autograph Technical Audio Engineer (on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder), Richard Vivian, Big Sky Acoustics (on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder) and Lee Montague, Cole Jarman Acoustic Experts (on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder), Racheal Ejuetami (City Inspector).

 

Apologies: Jane Doyle (The Soho Society)

 

100 Wardour, Ground Floor, Wardour Street London, W1F 0TN (“the Premises”) 19/02509/LIREVP

 

1.

On 1st March 2019 an application had been submitted by David Steele, Andy MacKay, Lucinda MacKay, Alan Geeves and Issac Romanov (the Applicants) for a review of the premises licence for 100 Wardour, Ground Floor, Wardour Street London, W1F 0TN (the Premises) on the grounds of prevention of public nuisance. The Premises were situated within the West End Cumulative Impact Area. Subsequently, there had been a hearing on 16th May 2019 where the Licensing Sub-Committee determined to adjourn for a period of not less than three (3) months to allow the Environmental Health Service to test sound equipment, including a noise limiter at the premises. The Licensing Sub-Committee had before it the application subsequent to the May adjournment.

 

Ms Michelle Steward (Presenting Officer) outlined the Application and confirmed that five local residents had applied to review the Premises Licence and that representations had also been received from Environmental Health Services, the Licensing Authority, Westminster City Inspectors and six other residents.  Mr Richard Brown, (Westminster Citizen’s Advice Bureau) was representing residents. The Licensing Officer advised that late representations had been received from the Applicants, an objector and the Environmental Health Service and that all documentation had been circulated to all parties.

 

Mr Richard Brown addressed the Sub-Committee and introduced the residents who were present at the review hearing. Mr Brown advised that his representation to the Sub-Committee earlier in the week contained additional submission with four key points set out as follows:

 

1.     That it was vital to resolution that residents and the Sub-Committee be able to understand what had gone on;

2.     At what levels the noise limiters had been set;

3.     Why they had been set at those levels; and

4.     Whether residents and the Sub-Committee could have full confidence going forward that the levels set would be appropriate for inaudibility.

 

Mr Brown recapitulated for the Sub-Committee that the Applicants were all long-term residents, that their main residence was in Soho Lofts and that they had experienced noise nuisance for decades since the 1990s. He referred to the Applicants’ statements and the impact that the situation has had on them as a local community. Mr Brown also recapitulated the decision by the Sub-Committee at the May hearing that the Sub-Committee was determined to find a permanent solution to the issues and that any measures needed to be embedded and tested.

 

Mr Brown advised that since the May adjournment there had been four sessions of noise testing. Mr Brown referred to the update from Mr David Steele at page 207 which set out the narrative of the testing and also referred to a meeting between David Steele, David Loewi, Michael Farqhuar and Leslie Kwarteng. Mr Brown referred the Sub-Committee to the meeting on 23rd October 2019 and to the chronology at page 144 (Anil Drayan’s memo). Mr Brown mentioned the differing levels required in different areas of the Premises, including for example in the atrium.

 

Mr Brown elaborated that at the first testing on 14th June 2019, levels were set for four areas on their own dedicated, separate sound systems and that Mr Crockford and other officers had been involved in that. Levels were set at 99 decibels for a live band and 98 decibels for a DJ, though Flat 38 was not tested. On 26th July 2019, officers reconvened as music had been heard and over a period of some months, there had been further complaints from residents. Further testing was carried out on 2nd October, undertaken by Anil Drayan and two other officers, focusing on the band in the basement and determining that band music noise was inaudible at 97 decibels with a buffer of 3 decibels to 94 decibels but that the DJ settings were different. On 4th and 5th October, further visits were made as nuisance had been heard at Flat 15. This resulted in a lengthy, final attempt to set the limiters on 23rd October. Mr Brown highlighted that two points of concern to the residents had emerged from all of this: namely at what level the limiters were set and the fact that the limiter appeared to have drifted from where it was set on 2nd October. Mr Steele believed that the level was 88 decibels and requested screen shots of messages between Mr Crockford and Mr Mackenzie. Mr Brown observed that Mr Steele was happy with levels at that point.

 

Mr Brown also raised the issue of whether the limiters were in fact fit for purpose and mentioned historic issues. Mr Brown referred to a further issue with noise outside on dispersal and referred to evidence from Mr Mackay. Mr Brown queried how the testing had advanced matters, noting that residents were initially pleased after the testing on 23rd October but that this dispelled. He further observed that the hearing in May had occurred after inconclusive testing and that the review application was now being heard after inconclusive testing. Mr Brown also observed that the levels of inaudibility and the integrity of the sound limiters were in question.

   

Mr David Steele addressed the Sub-Committee and mentioned that initial optimism had given way following random incidents of noise nuisance. Mr Steele referred to the precision setting of limiters so that if a limiter failed even once, then it was obvious that there was an issue; for it to fail six times was a serious issue. Mr Steele mentioned that he had first raised this with Westminster on 3rd July. Mr Steele then referred to the test results of 23rd October, which he found hard to understand particularly how the level went up to 93 decibels. He particularly referred to figures mentioned in the screenshots, including a figure of 97decibels, a figure which was not mentioned in a report. Mr Steele observed that even after the third test he could still hear noise and queried why the noise could not be heard after the second and fourth tests. Mr Steele referred to levels jumping from 97 to 99 decibels after the alleged reduction, leading to overall inability to draw conclusions from the tests. He also queried whether the limiter had worked over the previous two years. Mr Steele had arrived at a point where he thought that they were on the brink of feeling that the problem was close to being resolved when it became clear that the limiter was not being set at the levels they had thought. Mr Steele observed that three decibels was a considerable leap. He also queried when the management had known that the limiter was not working.

 

The Sub-Committee requested information as to communication from the Premises with the residents over the six-month period. David Steele characterised responses as non-committal when faced with specific dates and times of noise occurrence. Mr Steele pointed out that he had worked with limiters and compressors over forty years. Mr Steele felt that the noise levels were evident.

 

The statement from Mr Steele in support of the review application appears at page 25 of the agenda papers.

 

Mr Alan Geeves addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that he resided in Flat 21, 2nd Floor, Soho Lofts. Mr Geeves advised that he considered the problem remedied  only on the basis that he had installed triple glazing in his flat. He pointed out that as he considered the problem now remedied , he had not gone through the recent testing. He explained to the Sub-Committee that his bedroom faced onto the well, which was where most of the noise had originated. However, Mr Geeves commented that during the heat of the summer, he had had the windows open. This had led to recurrence of noise nuisance to such an extent that he would now be installing air-conditioning to avoid opening his windows in the summer. He explained to the Sub-Committee that this had left him feeling angry and without any trust in the process, as this had continued over many years with the Premises adjusting the noise levels.

 

The statement from Mr Geeves in support of the review application appears at page 33 of the agenda papers.

 

Mr Mustafa Abdo addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that he was the Maintenance Building Manager for Soho Lofts and resident in Flat 18. Mr Abdo explained his experience of the testing, including music being inaudible during the testing then audible when close to the window and inadequate levels being set. He observed that his wife’s working patterns meant that rest was necessary and airflow in his flat meant that they needed to open the windows. 

 

The statement from Mr Abdo in support of the review application appears at page 35 of the agenda papers.

 

Andy MacKay, resident of flat 38, 3rd Floor Soho Lofts, addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that there has been noise, and queried the testing being carried during the day when there were other background noises and during the night when there was no other noise. He referred to nuisance over the last six months. He stated that he did not know what level of sound proofing had been installed but that there had not been an expectation of a discotheque there. He referred to further soundproofing of the Premises being a possibility and also referred to general problems in the street due to large drinking and music establishments in Soho.

 

The statement from Mr and Mrs MacKay in support of the review application appears at page 28 of the agenda papers.

 

Isaac Romanov addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that he resided in Flat 16 of Soho Lofts. Mr Romanov advised that he both reiterated and agreed with the review Applicants, that there were periods of improvement but that there would be periods of erratic breaching. He observed that during the periods when the music went up, there had to be ways of limiting the breach, either through technical means or a human monitor of the situation.

 

The statement from Mr Romanov in support of the review application appears at page 30 of the agenda papers.

 

The Chairman observed that the objective of the adjournment had been to find a compromise solution and that the purpose of the current review hearing was to assess what progress, if any, had been made in that time. The Chairman invited a summary of the situation since the May deferral from the residents, whether effort had been made by the management. David Steele opined that the Premises Licence Holders had not minded turning the volume down slightly but that, once they had discovered the levels of reduction that would be required, this had been less acceptable to them, particularly (he felt) when they discovered that noise levels would have to be less than 91 dB. Mr Steele referred to the levels of security protecting the limiter though it appeared not to work. He referred to assurances given 20 years ago that the limiters would work and solve the problem. The Sub-Committee queried the bypassing of the limiters. Mr Steele considered that the process was simply that of tweaking.

 

The Licensing Authority maintained its representations and support of the review and to support the historic enforcement. The Sub-Committee heard that it was accepted that there had been historic nuisance.

 

The Environmental Health Service, represented by Mr Anil Drayan, advised the Sub-Committee that the Premises had co-operated with officers in reducing the volume during testing and setting to go as far as necessary to achieve inaudibility. Mr Drayan corrected the record and stated that conversations (Anil Drayan/John Crockford) had been overheard and misunderstood, and that at no point had the level been at 88 decibels. Mr Drayan explained that Euan Mackenzie had used the limiter to reduce some speakers which were more prevalent. He also stated that since 23rd October there had been no reports to him or to the Noise Team about nuisance. Mr Drayan mentioned that there had been some frequency testing conducted, in trying to find noise leakage potentially in order to enhance any noise insulation measures. He particularly referred the Sub-Committee to his own statement at the second paragraph of page 151 (Wednesday 23rd October 2019) and emphasised:

 

“…experience has shown that nuisance can be caused by how loud music is played at, i.e. the average noise level during a certain time period and the frequency at which it is played.”

 

Mr Drayan discussed the nuisance from bass frequencies, including how a bass frequency at 70 decibels could constitute nuisance and mentioned the discovery on 23rd October of a (previously unknown) subwoofer at the ground floor level when John Crockford had still been reporting nuisance, but nuisance related to bass frequency. Mr Drayan explained how this had led to turning off everything and turning on the sound systems individually and that this had allowed them to identify the subwoofer as a source of nuisance, even at 70 decibels. Mr Drayan stated that in his experience when establishing noise nuisance and sound limits, the way to proceed was to use bass-heavy music as this would establish what controls for any sound limiter were needed. Mr Drayan explained that the type of sound limiter being used was of an automatic volume control, which did not measure the sound levels but instead measured how much power was going through the amp and from the amp through to the speakers.

 

Mr Drayan also explained how a sound level meter would then be used to measure output from the speakers and that when the band had played, it had played mainly high frequencies. Mr Drayan further explained that when the sound meter level was set using the band music, it was at 94 decibels on 2nd October. He elaborated that when testing was carried out on 23rd October, they had used bass heavy DJ music so that as well as high frequencies, there were also low input frequencies which had raised the level from 94 decibels to 97 decibels. Mr Drayan explained that this had led to further discussions with Euan MacKenzie to determine what had led to the increase as Mr Drayan had thought that DJ music had featured in previous testing.

 

Mr Drayan provided the Sub-Committee with context, namely that he himself had only had involvement in this case since 30th September 2019 and due to this as far as he knew at the time the cause of nuisance was the acoustic drum set controlled by the sound limiter. He explained that, because of this, using the sound limiter, they had reduced the noise from the electronic drum set from 98 decibels to 94 decibels, but that straightaway, on the following weekend Mr Steele had reported noise nuisance again. Mr Drayan then sought detailed information from Mr Steele about noise incidents on 3rd and 4th October as well as on the previous six instances, including precise timings, of noise nuisance reported. Mr Drayan stated that, upon his examination of the information concerning the incidents of 3rd and 4th October, it was clear that the nuisance related to DJ music. He also stated that a further round of testing was arranged, with the earliest date being 23rd October due to availability of parties involved. This testing had started using band music and DJ music later, and Mr Drayan observed that variation in the band configuration from that of 2nd October led to variation in the sound levels measured. However, Mr Drayan added that, with sound levels which accounted for bass and high frequencies, he did not expect the sound level to vary greatly from the set level.

 

The Sub-Committee sought clarification about the level at which the limiter had been set and Mr Drayan confirmed that this had been set at 91 db. The Sub-Committee also sought clarification from the review Applicants whether noise had been heard since 23rd October. Mr Steele confirmed that noise had not been heard since 23rd October but observed that, over 20 years, there was usually no noise prior to hearings and that the last time that there had been noise nuisance was 4th and 5th October. Mr Drayan added that previously there had not been configuration of the sound limiter for all the frequencies but that this had now been done. Mr Drayan also mentioned that discussions with the Police and that there had been no dispersal issues for these Premises in over a year.

 

Mr Stephen Walsh QC, (representing 100 Wardour Street Limited, the Premises Licence Holder) addressed the Sub-Committee and advised that D&D London Limited, the proprietor Company for 100 Wardour Street, had made efforts to facilitate testing within the Premises and resident flats, where possible, that the Premises  had engaged a number of acoustic experts with different specialisms at a cost of £112,000, had liaised with the Environment Health Service, had written to all residents so that testing could be carried out in their flats with varied response. Mr Walsh also explained that the Premises Licence Holder had offered to pay for an acoustic expert consultant for Mr Steele. He stated that D&D London Limited was keen to work with residents, pay for an acoustic consultant and work with Environmental Health. He added that a contact telephone number for the Duty Manager had been provided as requested at the previous hearing and since that hearing, no complaints or contact had been made to the Premises using that number. He stated that this number was periodically tested. Mr Walsh stated that in addition as far as the Premises Licence Holder was aware, other than the complaints relating to 4th and 5th October there had not been any complaints to the City Council’s Noise Team.

                                                     

Mr Walsh advised that, whilst the Licence Holder was aware of issues, it was not accepted that the Licence Holder had not done all that it could to liaise with residents to resolve any noise differences. Concerning the setting of the limiter and testing, Mr Walsh advised the Sub-Committee that this was a longer process than a one-off setting and that there had been interruptions to the testing, including building works noises. Mr Walsh observed that because the issues had been addressed and assessed over time, it had been possible to identify and isolate individual issues, including the acoustic drums and stated that the Licence Holder was happy to comply with a condition removing acoustic drums. He stressed that testing history was extensive and had started on 14th June, 26th July, through July to September, 2nd October, 23rd October and 8th November.

 

Mr Walsh discussed resident concerns expressed about noises heard in July at 14:00 hours and 16:00 hours but stated that music does not begin in the venue until 20:00 hours. Mr Walsh further stated that acoustic consultants had examined issues again and that it was unfair to characterise the situation as arising from a failing system. The position of D&D London and its consultants had come to an identification of the exact problem, namely the live music/limiter issue, which had been resolved, and the recorded music played through the DJ desk, which had now been fully assessed. Mr Walsh stated that there was absolute confidence now that the noise limiting device could be set at a level which satisfied the Environmental Health Team that noise nuisance would not result and because the noise limiting device was in a position where there would be consistent, reliable results.

 

Mr Walsh introduced the Licence Holder’s acoustic consultant, Mr Richard Vivian, who was familiar with the working practices of the City Council. Mr Vivian explained to the Sub-Committee that his expertise was specifically in music and entertainment noise. Mr Vivian stated that there was no question that all parties wanted the limiter to be set and work, that much ground had been covered in discussions of the irregularities and inconsistencies, and the need to remove acoustic drums and backline from the stage, and the need to reduce monitor levels on the stage through a comprehensive in-ear monitor system.

 

Mr Vivian clarified for the Sub-Committee points which had featured in the discussions. Mr Vivian clarified decibel measurements and changes in decibels and stated that under field conditions a three-decibel step would be audible, whereas 0.1 decibel was insignificant. Mr Vivian mentioned that every measurement mentioned during the review hearing, namely the A-weighted measurement, did not include base, though this had been used as an indicator even though it filtered out bass and was not a measure of the primary problem, namely bass. Mr Vivian referred to and agreed with Mr Drayan’s comment about testing, namely that when testing sound systems, this would be performed using the worst problem as the baseline for resolving the problem. Mr Vivian referred to the construction of the building, which was a conversion from the 1990s and observed that it had not been subjected to certain building regulation tests that would now be carried out and included a number of elements that made it more vulnerable to noise transmission, including bare steel and bare brick walls, in part due to the heritage nature of the site. Mr Vivian stated that, because of these structural considerations, it was essential that the operation of the Premises by the Licence Holder was to the gold standard of these limiters. It was stated that the limiter specified here was a BSS sound web limiter, a piece of hardware into which software is programmed. Mr Vivian had seen the limiter on 23rd October, set at the ‘silver standard’, perfectly adequate for most applications, but stated that because of the nature and complexity of this building there was an extra safety net, namely a two-stage limiter system which was now in place. Mr Vivian concluded that it was unfortunate that this had gone on, though not unique, but that observed that his suggestion of the two-stage limiter, which had now been implemented, was the ‘gold standard’.

 

The Sub-Committee clarified that the new system in place used the gold standard two-stage limiter, as described by Mr Vivian, which could not be bypassed and that there would be no use of drums. The Legal Adviser to the Sub-Committee queried whether the industry had a definition of the ‘gold standard’ referred to. In reply Mr Vivian stated that there was not an industry definition as such but that this system was considered best practice and observed that he provided training to officers from other boroughs on how limiters are set and configured. Mr Vivian opined that it was his “tried and tested” gold standard. The Sub-Committee queried whether this two-stage limiter could be tampered with and who had access to it. The Sub-Committee also referred to images at page 55 of the Agenda papers, which indicated that some bands would bring in their own amps and mixing systems. The Sub-Committee was assured that management policy stipulated that no additional amplifiers would be brought inside the Premises. Mr Drayan referred to special conditions to overcome this problem, including management sign off that the band had been informed of the maximum music noise level for the audience, all amplified music to be played through the in-house sound system, any acoustic equipment to be limited to low-sound volume instrumentation: all this was to be assessed and signed off by management. Mr Walsh confirmed that bands were informed of conditions and could not bring their own equipment in at all for the purposes of amplification and that this had been the situation for some considerable time at the venue and explained that this was why the existing sound system had been invested in at a cost of £80,000 and why the management was happy to comply with the proposed condition. On the point of whether the limiter system could be by-passed, Mr Vivian further advised and assured the Sub-Committee that the limiter was a plain steel box in the equipment rack located away from any bands or DJs, there were no external control buttons, it was only accessible by a network interface to a PC with dedicated software and password protected, and that it was unlikely for interference or by-pass to be possible. Mr Walsh advised that this specific point had previously been made at the hearing in May and that Autograph had given evidence on this.

 

The Sub-Committee requested clarification as to the number of limiters. Mr Vivian advised that one limiter controls everything, namely the ratios, maintaining the controlled sound-levels throughout the areas under discussion. The Sub-Committee queried whether other measures existed, such as soundproofing, and whether more could be done. Mr Vivian and Mr Neil Jarman advised that following a fire, additional lining was put in and cladding of columns had been done, whilst noting that this was not to the level of a recording studio. Anil Drayan explained the difficulties of sound-proofing and noise escape. Mr Vivian advised that soft furnishings do not reduce the level of noise transmitted to other areas but that the building had functioned and could continue to function as a multi-use building with structurally connected operations. Anil Drayan observed that the base transmission was the cause of the issues in this review.

 

Mr Walsh presented the Sub-Committee with a set of Conditions and commented that the first condition listed reflected the provisions which had been requested by the Applicant and the Environmental Health Officer. He advised that a condition removing the deregulation provisions contained in section 177A of the Licensing Act 2003 would be accepted and the request to replace Conditions 15, 16, 17 and 41 of the Premises Licence had been addressed within the proposed conditions. He advised that it was accepted that ‘inaudibility’ should be the appropriate condition, referring to the City Council’s Model Condition 11 and confirmed that advice would be sought from Environmental Health on appropriate sound levels.

 

Mr Walsh discussed compliance with, breach and enforcement of conditions, including noise abatement notices. Mr Walsh offered conditions, which had been proposed by schedule at the previous hearing, including no noise on orderly dispersal. He noted that the Police did not have concerns on this issue and that the Premises had amended its queuing, dispersal and smoking policies so as to ensure that there was SIA supervision of queues and that smoking was supervised in the designated area. Mr Walsh advised that a dedicated telephone number had been made available and would continue to be available. Mr Walsh expressed concern about the enforceability of the condition concerning acoustic instrumentation and following discussions this was amended to require no playing of acoustic drums. Mr Walsh stated that a condition which required the password for the noise limiter to be held solely by the installers would be acceptable and this measure would safeguard the Licence Holders from being accused of tampering with the device.

 

The Applicant referred to the testing conducted on 23rd October and pointed out that the highest live peak average was 96.4 decibels (at page 159). Mr Steele stated that it was live peak playing which would constitute nuisance. Mr Anil Drayan discussed testing figures versus live peak averages, which explained the use of the LEQ levels, not peak levels. Mr Drayan observed that in the weekends since the October testing there had been no nuisance reported and that Mr Steele’s flat was above the double-woofers. He explained that noise was not travelling through the building but was generally airborne sound and that this had complicated matters but stated that he was confident that they had resolved the issue now. Mr Drayan stated that, if these new measures were not effective, then the Premises would need to see with the residents whether additional measures were necessary over time.

 

The Applicant queried why the limiter had failed to limit in the past and Mr Drayan discussed the operation of the limiter. Mr Vivian explained that the limiter existed as a physical piece of hardware and that it needed to be programmed, in essence with a ‘music store’ of equipment. Mr Vivian explained that the new configuration contains a super limiter which will control everything, using the reference levels signed off on 23rd October.

 

Mr Brown observed that the resources which had been required for this matter had been onerous, including council officer time. Mr Brown referred to the Cole Jarman reports that there were different levels for different areas of the Premises and also to the 2017 levels, including for the Billiard Room, which had been lower. Mr Brown observed that the video clip evidence submitted had been for the atrium area. Mr Brown queried whether the music on the ground floor could be overridden. Mr Brown also summarised the testing history going back over decades and observed that there had been previous assurances that measures would result in resolution for the residents. He opined that using conditions would require trust, when there was evidence that certainty of resolution was necessary. Mr Brown stated that the Applicant would not want to lose Condition 14 of the Premises Licence under any circumstances and that whilst matters have improved it was still not resolved. He observed that it was taking too much on trust for a system that in his opinion only two or three people present understood. Mr Steele observed that there were limiter failings over many years and reported on 4th July.

 

The Sub-Committee considered the interests of residents as well as wider policy implications and noted that there had been a loss of live music venues in the West End. The Sub-Committee noted the assurances given by the Applicant as to the functionality of the limiter and the ongoing commitment that this was to be kept in proper working order and continually monitored so as to prevent nuisance.

 

 

 

Decision:

 

Having listened carefully to the evidence from all parties, the Sub-Committee considered that the review application had been both a difficult decision and a complex review. The Sub-Committee noted the technical evidence given by all parties in respect of the noise sound limiter but realises that it has to strike the right balance which will ultimately have the effect of promoting the licensing objectives as well as improving the lives of local residents. The Sub-Committee recognised the seriousness of the issues before it and that these issues had direct impact on residents’ quality of life in terms of noise nuisance they have suffered. The Sub-Committee took the view that the condition it imposed regarding the sound noise limiter (condition 42) would give some comfort to local residents that this is to be properly maintained and monitored by the operator and if there were any potential difficulties in the operator fulfilling their obligations under this specific condition Environmental Health should be advised of this.

 

The Sub-Committee had considered the evidence before it on its merits, in accordance with paragraphs 11.1-11.23 on pages 89-92 of the Revised Home Office Guidance (2018) and the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee had also considered technical evidence from Environmental Health and sound experts and, on the whole, was satisfied that the operator had taken proportionate and credible steps to deal with the issue of noise nuisance that residents had clearly endured for some considerable time. However, the Sub-Committee has to strike the right balance when considering what remedial action should be taken so as not to disadvantage either party and, on this occasion, felt that it was appropriate to impose conditions on the licence having regard to the powers it has available to it under section 52 (4) of the Licensing Act 2003.

 

It was the Sub-Committee’s considered view that the tests undertaken in Mr Steele’s home had revealed some elements of noise break out from the Premises whilst that test was being undertaken. However, the Sub-Committee was reassured by Mr Drayan’s evidence that appropriate levels had been firmly applied to the sound limiter and was reassured by the operator that these would be correctly applied hereafter and monitored in all areas of the Premises. The Sub-Committee having regard to all of the circumstances decided to impose additional conditions on the premises licence so as to ensure the promotion of the public nuisance licensing objective as set out below.

 

The Sub-Committee encouraged the operator and the residents to continue dialogue and work to improve the ongoing relationship. The Sub-Committee further stated that the Committee, the Council, Environmental Health, the wider Licensing team would be paying careful attention to ensure that the conditions now imposed on the premises licence were strictly adhered to. The Sub-Committee understood the strength of residents’ feelings and expressed the hope that the conditions set the standard, resulted in immediate improvement and strengthened the monitoring regime.

 

The Sub-Committee decided to impose a number of additional conditions on the Premises Licence that it considered appropriate and proportionate that would help promote the licensing objectives.

 

LICENCE

 

Licensable activities authorised by the licence:

 

Performance of Dance

Performance of Live Music

Playing of Recorded Music

Anything of a similar description to Live Music, Recorded Music or Performance of Dance

Late Night Refreshment

Private Entertainment consisting of dancing, music or other entertainment of a like kind for consideration and with a view to profit

Sale by Retail of Alcohol

 

The times the licence authorises the carrying out of licensable activities:

 

Performance of Dance

            Monday to Wednesday:          09:00 to 02:00

            Thursday to Saturday:            09:00 to 03:00

 

Performance of Live Music

            Monday to Wednesday:          09:00 to 02:00

            Thursday to Saturday:            09:00 to 03:00

 

Playing of Recorded Music

 

Anything of a similar description to Live Music, Recorded Music or Performance of Dance

            Monday to Wednesday:          09:00 to 02:00

            Thursday to Saturday:            09:00 to 03:00

 

Late Night Refreshment

            Monday to Wednesday:          23:00 to 02:30

            Thursday to Saturday:            23:00 to 03:30

 

Private Entertainment consisting of dancing, music or other entertainment of a like kind for consideration and with a view to profit

 

Sale by Retail of Alcohol

            Monday to Wednesday:          10:00 to 02:00

            Thursday to Saturday:            10:00 to 03:00

            Sunday:                                   12:00 to 22:30

 

For times authorised for Christmas, New Year and Good Friday see conditions

 

The opening hours of the premises:

 

Monday to Wednesday:          09:00 to 02:30

Thursday to Saturday:            09:00 to 03:30

Sunday:                                   12:00 to 23:00

 

 

Where the licence authorises supplies of alcohol, whether these are on and/or off supplies:

 

Alcohol is supplied for consumption both on and off the Premises.

 

 

CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE LICENCE

 

Mandatory Conditions:

 

1. No supply of alcohol may be made at a time when there is no designated premises supervisor in respect of this licence.

 

2. No supply of alcohol may be made at a time when the designated premises supervisor does not hold a personal licence, or the personal licence is suspended.

 

3. Every supply of alcohol under this licence must be made or authorised by a person who holds a personal licence.

 

4.        

(1) The responsible person must ensure that staff on relevant premises do not                                                                                                                                                               carry out, arrange or participate in any irresponsible promotions in relation to the premises.

 

(2) In this paragraph, an irresponsible promotion means any one or more of the following activities, or substantially similar activities, carried on for the purpose of encouraging the sale or supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises —

           

(a) games or other activities which require or encourage, or are designed to require or encourage, individuals to:

 

(i) drink a quantity of alcohol within a time limit (other than to drink alcohol sold or supplied on the premises before the cessation of the period in which the responsible person is authorised to sell or supply alcohol), or

 

(ii) drink as much alcohol as possible (whether within a time limit or otherwise);

 

(b) provision of unlimited or unspecified quantities of alcohol free or for a fixed or discounted fee to the public or to a group defined by a particular characteristic in a manner which carries a significant risk of undermining a licensing objective;

 

(c) provision of free or discounted alcohol or any other thing as a prize to encourage or reward the purchase and consumption of alcohol over a period of 24 hours or less in a manner which carries a significant risk of undermining a licensing objective;

 

(d) selling or supplying alcohol in association with promotional posters or flyers on, or in the vicinity of, the premises which can reasonably be considered to condone, encourage or glamorise anti-social behaviour or to refer to the effects of    drunkenness in any favourable manner;

 

(e) dispensing alcohol directly by one person into the mouth of another (other than where that other person is unable to drink without assistance by reason of a disability).

 

5. The responsible person must ensure that free potable water is provided on request to customers where it is reasonably available.

 

6.        

(1) The premises licence holder or club premises certificate holder must ensure that an age verification policy is adopted in respect of the premises in relation to the sale or supply of alcohol.

 

(2) The designated premises supervisor in relation to the premises licence must ensure that the supply of alcohol at the premises is carried on in accordance with the age verification policy.

 

(3) The policy must require individuals who appear to the responsible person to be under 18 years of age (or such older age as may be specified in the policy) to produce on request, before being served alcohol, identification bearing their photograph, date of birth and either—

(a) a holographic mark, or

(b) an ultraviolet feature.

 

7. The responsible person must ensure that—

 

(a) where any of the following alcoholic drinks is sold or supplied for consumption on the premises (other than alcoholic drinks sold or supplied having been made up in advance ready for sale or supply in a securely closed container) it is available to customers in the following measures—

 

(i)              beer or cider: ½ pint;

 

(ii)             gin, rum, vodka or whisky: 25 ml or 35 ml; and

 

                        (iii)       still wine in a glass: 125 ml;

           

(b) these measures are displayed in a menu, price list or other printed material which is available to customers on the premises; and

 

(c) where a customer does not in relation to a sale of alcohol specify the quantity of alcohol to be sold, the customer is made aware that these measures are available.

           

A responsible person in relation to a licensed premises means the holder of the premise licence in respect of the premises, the designated premises supervisor (if any) or any individual aged 18 or over who is authorised by either the licence holder or designated premises supervisor. For premises with a club premises certificate, any member or officer of the club present on the premises in a capacity that which enables him to prevent the supply of alcohol.

 

8(i) A relevant person shall ensure that no alcohol is sold or supplied for consumption on or off the premises for a price which is less than the permitted price.

           

8(ii) For the purposes of the condition set out in paragraph 8(i) above

 

(a)   "duty" is to be construed in accordance with the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979;

 

(b)   "permitted price" is the price found by applying the formula –

 

            P = D+(DxV)

 

Where -

(i) P is the permitted price,

(ii) D is the amount of duty chargeable in relation to the alcohol as if the duty were charged on the date of the sale or supply of the alcohol, and

(iii) V is the rate of value added tax chargeable in relation to the alcohol as if the   value added tax were charged on the date of the sale or supply of the alcohol;

(c) "relevant person" means, in relation to premises in respect of which there is in             force a premises licence –

 

(i) the holder of the premises licence,

(ii) the designated premises supervisor (if any) in respect of such a licence, or

(iii) the personal licence holder who makes or authorises a supply of alcohol under such a licence;

 

(d) "relevant person" means, in relation to premises in respect of which there is in force a club premises certificate, any member or officer of the club present on the premises in a capacity which enables the member or officer to prevent the supply in question; and

           

(e) "value added tax" means value added tax charged in accordance with the Value Added Tax Act 1994.

 

8(iii). Where the permitted price given by Paragraph 8(ii)(b) above would (apart from this paragraph) not be a whole number of pennies, the price given by that sub-paragraph shall be taken to be the price actually given by that sub-paragraph rounded up to the nearest penny.

 

8(iv). (1) Sub-paragraph 8(iv)(2) below applies where the permitted price given by Paragraph 8(ii)(b) above on a day ("the first day") would be different from the permitted price on the next day ("the second day") as a result of a change to the rate of duty or value added tax.

 

(2) The permitted price which would apply on the first day applies to sales or supplies of alcohol which take place before the expiry of the period of 14 days beginning on the second day.

 

9. All persons guarding premises against unauthorised access or occupation or against outbreaks of disorder or against damage (door supervisors) must be licensed by the Security Industry Authority.

 

Conditions relating to regulated entertainment

 

10. This licence is subject to all the former Rules of Management for Places of Public Entertainment licensed by Westminster City Council, in force from 4 September 1998 and incorporating amendments agreed by the Council on 25 October 1999, 30 June 2000, 16 January 2001 and 1 October 2001.

 

11. On New Year’s Eve the premises can remain open for the purpose of providing regulated entertainment from the time when the provision of regulated entertainment must otherwise cease on New Year’s Eve to the time when regulated entertainment can commence on New Year’s Day (or until midnight on New Year’s Eve where no regulated entertainment takes place on New Year’s Day).

 

12. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule of Management No. 6, the premises may be kept open under this licence from 23:00 on each of the days Monday to Wednesday to 02:00 on the day following and from 23:00 on each of the days Thursday to Saturday to 03:00 on the day following.

 

13. An attendant shall be on duty in the ground floor Cloakroom the whole time it is in use.

 

14. Music levels shall be maintained at such level as is specified by Environmental Health from time to time so as to ensure that music shall not be audible nor otherwise cause nuisance to occupiers of the residential properties above.

 

15. Without prejudice to condition 14 above, a noise limiter shall be fitted to the musical amplification system in agreement and to the satisfaction of officers from the Environmental Health noise section. The operational panel shall be secured and the system shall not be altered without prior agreement with the Environmental Health Officer.

 

16. No alteration or modification to any existing sound system(s) should be effected without prior knowledge of an authorised Officer of the Environmental Health Department.

 

17. Any additional sound generating equipment shall not be used on the premises without being routed through the sound limiter.

 

18. That on the ground floor music is limited either to:

 

(a)   The playing of pre-recorded music until 01:00 only; or

(b)   Premises management through the dedicated DJ station until 01:00 only; or

(c)   Live performance of unamplified acoustic music (not to exceed five musicians at any one time) until 00:00 midnight only.

 

19. All refuse is stored off the public highway outside of designated collection hours.

 

20. Bottles and glass shall not be deposited outside the premises after 22:00 and before 08:00.

 

21. The pavement from the building line to the kerb edge, and to include the gutter/channel at its junction with the kerb edge, in the vicinity of the premises is swept at regular intervals whilst customers are queuing to enter the premises, and litter and sweepings collected and stored in accordance with the approved refuse storage arrangements.

 

22. At the close of business each day the premises are open for business, the licensee shall ensure that the pavement from the building line to the kerb edge immediately outside the premises, and to include the gutter/channel at its junction with the kerb edge, is swept and litter and sweepings collected and stored in accordance with the approved refuse storage arrangements.

 

23. No unauthorised advertisements of any kind (including placard, poster, sticker, flyer, picture, letter, sign or other mark) is inscribed or affixed upon the surface of the highway, or upon any building, structure, works, street furniture, tree, or any other property, or is distributed on street to the public, that advertises or promotes the establishment, its premises, or any of its events, facilities, goods or services.

 

24. Any door supervisor employed at the premises shall be registered with Westminster City Council.

 

25. The number of persons accommodated at any one time (excluding staff) shall not exceed: Basement – 412, Ground Floor – 460.

 

Conditions for Sale of Alcohol

 

26.     Substantial food and suitable beverages other than intoxicating liquor (including drinking water) shall be available during the whole of the permitted hours in all parts of the premises where intoxicating liquor is sold or supplied.

 

27. No striptease, no nudity and all persons on the premises to be decently attired.

 

28. There shall be no payment made by or on behalf of the licensees to any person for bringing customers to the premises.

 

29. There shall be no gaming on the premises, other than machines authorised by Part III of the Gaming Act 1968 or by the Licensing Justices in accordance with Section 6 of the Gaming Act 1968.

 

30. Where persons are admitted to the premises by prior invitation, to a bona fide function or as specifically invited guests of the proprietor, a list of their names shall be kept at reception for inspection by the Police.

 

Conditions which reproduce the effect of any restriction imposed on the use of the premises by specified enactments

 

31. Mondays to Saturdays:

(a) Subject to the following paragraphs, the permitted hours shall commence at 10:00 and extend until 02:00 Monday to Wednesday and to 03:00 Thursday to Saturday the following morning except-

 

(i) the permitted hours shall end at midnight on any day on which music and dancing is not provided after midnight; and

(ii) on any day that music and dancing end between 00:00 midnight and 02:00 Monday to Wednesday and to 03:00 Thursday to Saturday the following morning, the permitted hours shall end when the music and dancing end.

 

(b) In relation to the morning on which summer time begins, paragraph (a) of this condition shall have effect-

 

(i) with the substitution of reference to 04:00 for reference to 03:00.

 

(c) The sale of alcohol must be ancillary to the use of the premises for music and dancing and substantial refreshment.

 

(d) The permitted hours on New Year’s Eve will extend to the start of permitted hours on the following day, or if there are no permitted hours on 1 January, to 00:00 on New Year’s Eve.

 

NOTE – The above restrictions do not prohibit:

 

a) during the first 30 minutes after the above hours, the consumption of alcohol on the premises;

 

b) during the first 20 minutes after the above hours, the taking of alcohol from the premises unless the alcohol is supplied or taken in an open vessel;

 

c) the sale or supply of alcohol to or the consumption of alcohol by any person residing in the licensed premises;

 

d) the ordering of alcohol to be consumed off the premises, or the despatch by the vendor of the alcohol so ordered;

 

e) the sale of alcohol to a trader or registered club for the purposes of the trade or club;

 

f) the sale or supply of alcohol to any canteen or mess, being a canteen in which the sale or supply of alcohol is carried out under the authority of the Secretary of State or an authorised mess of members of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces;

 

g) the taking of alcohol from the premises by a person residing there;

 

h) the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises to any private friends of a person residing there who are bona fide entertained by him at his own expense, or the consumption of alcohol by persons so supplied;

 

i) the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises to persons employed there for the purposes of the business carried on by the holder of the licence, or the consumption of liquor so supplied, if the liquor is supplied at the expense of their employer or of the person carrying on or in charge of the business on the premises.

 

In this condition, any reference to a person residing in the premises shall be construed as including a person not residing there but carrying on or in charge of the business on the premises.

 

Sunday

(a) On Sundays, other than Christmas Day or New Year’s Eve, 12:00 noon to 22:30;

(b) On New Year’s Eve on a Sunday, 12:00 to 22: 30;

(c) On New Year’s Eve from the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on the following day (or, if there are no permitted hours on the following day, 00:00 midnight on 31st December. 

 

NOTE – The above restrictions do not prohibit:

 

a) during the first 20 minutes after the above hours, the consumption of alcohol on the premises;

 

b) during the first 20 minutes after the above hours, the taking of alcohol from the premises unless the alcohol is supplied or taken in an open vessel;

 

c) during the first 30 minutes after the above hours, the consumption of alcohol on the premises by persons taking table meals there if the alcohol was supplied for consumption as ancillary to the meals;

 

d) the sale or supply of alcohol to or the consumption of alcohol by any person residing in the licensed premises;

 

e) the ordering of alcohol to be consumed off the premises, or the despatch by the vendor of the alcohol so ordered;

 

f) the sale of alcohol to a trader or registered club for the purposes of the trade or club;

 

g) the sale or supply of alcohol to any canteen or mess, being a canteen in which the sale or supply of alcohol is carried out under the authority of the Secretary of State or an authorised mess of members of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces;

h) the taking of alcohol from the premises by a person residing there;

 

i) the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises to any private friends of a person residing there who are bona fide entertained by him at his own expense, or the consumption of alcohol by persons so supplied;

 

i) the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises to persons employed there for the purposes of the business carried on by the holder of the licence, or the consumption of liquor so supplied, if the liquor is supplied at the expense of their employer or of the person carrying on or in charge of the business on the premises.

 

In this condition, any reference to any person residing in the premises shall be construed as including a person not residing there but carrying on or in charge of the business on the premises.

 

32. No person under 14 shall be in the bar of the licensed premises during the permitted hours unless one of the following applies:

 

a) he is the child of the holder of the premises licence;

b) he resides in the premises but is not employed there;

c) he is in the bar solely for the purpose of passing to or from some part of the premises which is not a bar and to or from which there is no other convenient means of access or egress; or

d) the bar is in railway refreshment rooms or other premises constructed, fitted and intended to be used bona fide for any purpose to which the holding of the licence is ancillary.

 

In this condition "bar" includes any place exclusively or mainly used for the consumption of intoxicating liquor. But an area is not a bar when it is usual for it to be, and it is, set apart for the service of table meals and alcohol is only sold or supplied to persons as an ancillary to their table meals.

 

33. If any entertainment is provided for children or if an entertainment is provided at which the majority of persons attending are children, then, if the number of children attending the entertainment exceeds 100, it shall be the duty of the holder of the premises licence:

 

a) to station and keep stationed wherever necessary a sufficient number of adult attendants, properly instructed as to their duties, to prevent more children or other persons being admitted to the building, or to any part thereof, than the building or part can properly accommodate,

b) to control the movement of the children and other persons admitted while entering and leaving the building or any part thereof, and

c) to take all other reasonable precautions for the safety of the children.

 

34. The terminal hour for late night refreshment on New Year’s Eve is extended to 05:00 on New Year’s Day.

 

Conditions attached by the Licensing Authority after a hearing

 

35. The premises shall install and maintain a comprehensive CCTV system as per the minimum requirements of the Westminster Police Licensing Team. All entry and exit points will be covered enabling frontal identification of every person entering in any light condition. The CCTV system shall continually record whilst the premises is open for licensable activities and during all times when customers remain on the premises. All recordings shall be stored for a minimum period of 31 days with date and time stamping. Viewing of recordings shall be made available immediately upon the request of Police or authorised officer throughout the entire 31-day period.

 

36. A staff member from the premises who is conversant with the operation of the CCTV system shall be on the premises at all times when the premises are open. This staff member must be able to provide a Police or authorised council officer copies of recent CCTV images or data with the absolute minimum of delay when requested.

 

37. An accident log shall be kept at the premises and made available on request to an authorised officer of Westminster City Council or the Police, which will record the following:

 

a) all crimes reported to the venue;

b) all ejections of patrons;

c) any complaints received;

d) any incidents of disorder;

e) all seizures of drug or offensive weapons;

f) any faults in the CCTV system or searching equipment or scanning equipment;

g) any refusal of the sale of alcohols;

h) any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service.

 

38. On the Basement Floor, no glass drinking vessels shall be served and used within the Bar Area (shown marked on the licensing drawing L91 revision A dated 25 October 2005).

 

39. All glass bottles in the basement Floor Bar Area (shown marked on the licensing drawing L91 revision A dated 25 October 2005) are to be decanted into polycarbonate or non-glass vessels after 23:00 with the exception of champagne or bottles of spirits with a minimum size of 70cl supplied by waiter/waitress service to tables. Staff will clear all empty champagne and spirit bottles promptly. Customers shall not be permitted to carry bottles from the table/Bar Area.

 

40.  The proposed new area shall be covered by no more than two CCTV cameras.

 

41.  All speakers in the new area will be routed through the existing noise limiters in accordance with conditions 16 and 17 of the existing Premises Licence.

 

42.  A noise limiter must be fitted to the musical amplification system set at a level determined by and to the satisfaction of an authorised officer of the Environmental Health Service, so as to ensure that no noise nuisance is caused to local residents or businesses. The operational panel of the noise limiter shall then be secured by key or password to the satisfaction of officers from the Environmental Health Service and access shall only be by persons authorised by the Premises Licence holder. The limiter shall not be altered without prior agreement with the Environmental Health Service. No alteration or modification to any existing sound system(s) should be effected without prior knowledge of an authorised Officer of the Environmental Health Service. No additional sound generating equipment shall be used on the premises without being routed through the sound limiter device.

 

43.  No noise generated on the premises, or by its associated plant or equipment, shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance.

 

44.  All windows and external doors shall be kept closed after 21:00 hours, or at any time when regulated entertainment takes place, except for the immediate access and egress of persons.

 

45. Notices shall be prominently displayed at all exits requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and businesses and leave the area quietly.

 

46. Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises, e.g. to smoke, shall be limited to three (3) persons at any one time monitored by one SIA door supervisor.

 

47. A direct telephone number for the manager at the premises shall be publicly available at all times the premises are open. This telephone number is to be made available to residents and businesses in the vicinity.

 

48. The licence holder shall ensure that any queue to enter the premises which forms outside the premises is orderly and supervised by door staff so as to ensure that there is no public nuisance or obstruction to the public highway.

 

49. Patrons permitted to temporarily leave and then re-enter the premises, e.g. to smoke, shall not be permitted to take drinks or glass containers with them.

 

50. Anytime that a band plays at the premises, a member of management shall sign this off after assessing the following has been satisfactorily carried out:

i) band informed of maximum music noise level for the audience;

ii) all amplified music to be played through the in-house sound system;

iii) any acoustic equipment shall be limited to low sound volume instrumentation (such as tambourines, flutes, etc);

iv) a record of this sign-off shall be kept for at least six (6) months and made available on request to an authorised officer of the Council; and

v) there shall be no playing of loud acoustic drums at the premises.

 

Condition on the disapplication of section 177A of the Licensing Act 2003

 

51. Section 177A of the Licensing Act 2003 relating to the performance of live music will not apply.

 

 

 

Wards affected: West End;


02/03/2020 - St Marylebone Bridge Special School ref: 1161    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 02/03/2020

Effective from: 02/03/2020

Decision:

1.         That the Cabinet Members for Economic Development, Education and Skills, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Housing Services:

 

i.       Noted the grant of Planning Permission on 12th November 2019 for the new special school on part of the site of Wilberforce Primary Academy

 

ii.     Approved the Heads of Terms agreed by the Council and United Learning Trust (ULT), including payment of up to £1.875M to ULT for building works at Wilberforce Primary Academy (including VAT if charged) together with additional contributions from SEN capital grant and Community Infrastructure Levy.

 

iii.    Approved taking a surrender of the existing 125-year lease of the Wilberforce Primary Academy school site and the grant of new 125-year leases to Wilberforce Primary Academy and St Marylebone Bridge Special School.

 

iv.    Terminated the Agreement for Lease of a small parcel of land in the Housing Revenue Account which is within the curtilage of the school site, and approve its appropriation from the Housing Revenue Account to the General Fund

 

v.     Authorised the Director of Law to negotiate and sign the Agreement for Lease on the terms set out by the Secretary of State for Education in respect of the Special School

 

vi.    Noted that the Council have invited tenders and selected a contractor from the DfE Framework and a further recommendation will be brought forward in accordance with the Council’s usual procedures.

 

2.         That the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Education and Skills, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Housing Services agreed to delegate further negotiations to the Executive Director of Children Services, the Executive Director, Growth, Planning and Housing and the Director of Law.        

 

3.         That the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Education and Skills and the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property authorise the Executive Director, Growth, Planning and Housing and the Bi-Borough Director of Law to implement the recommendations set out in the report.

 

 

 

 

Reasons for Decision

 

Planning permission was granted for the new special school to be built at the site of Wilberforce Primary Academy on 12 November 2019. The Council has entered into a Self-Delivery Agreement with the DfE to construct the school within the DfE’s budget. Tenders have been invited and a contractor has been selected. The Council has agreed the terms for a surrender of that part of the existing Wilberforce Primary Academy site required for the special school and for two new 125-year leases: one for Wilberforce Primary Academy and the other for St Marylebone Bridge Special School. Approval is sought for a series of actions required to give effect to the project.

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

2 March 2020

Implementation Date:

 

9 March 2020 at 5pm

Reference:

 

CMfEDE&S, CMfHS, CMfFP&R/7/2019/20

 

Lead officer: Alan Wharton


27/02/2020 - Healthy Families Healthy Communities ' Change for Life Award ref: 1160    For Determination

Cabinet Member approval sought for contract award.

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

Decision published: 27/02/2020

Effective from: 06/03/2020

Decision:

1.              RECOMMENDATIONS

 

1.1.         That Part B of 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 person (including the authority holding that information).

 

1.2.         That the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health approve the award of a contract to Family Action for a term of three years commencing 1st April 2020 to 31st March 2023, with the option to extend for a further two years until 31st March 2025, subject to performance and financial constraints.   The contract price for three-year term was £1,006,095. The two-year extension cost would be £680,353 making a five-year total contract value of £1,686,448.

 

1.3.         That the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health delegate approval to exercise the option to extend the WCC contract to the Executive Director for Adults Social Care and Health

 

 

2.              REASONS FOR DECISION

 

2.1.       The previous service model was made up of two lots: Lot 1 and Lot 2:

 

Lot 1 – Provision of Planning, Policy and Workforce Development.  This ended in line with the contracted expectations on 31 July 2018.

 

Lot 2 – Provision of the Obesity Prevention and Lifestyle Weight Management Service.  It was agreed to extend this with contract variations for a further yearto July 2019.

 

2.2.         The move to Bi-Borough arrangements and a review of the contract in early 2018 led to the recommendation to discontinue Lot 2 on completion of the one-year extension. It was agreed that to continue the contract and extend in its current form was not a viable option.

2.3.         During this extension period, different options were explored to ensure improved health and wellbeing outcomes. The need to deliver a more holistic approach to streamline systems and make efficiencies was evident throughout the review and in discussion with stakeholders.

 

2.4.         The Tackling Childhood Obesity Programme (TCOT) came to an end in 2019 allowing us to bring together a whole systems approach to tackling obesity. This had enabled the design of a three-strand programme of organisational capacity building, health promotion services and neighbourhood projects accommodating the learning from previous projects that would form part of the wider health promotion ‘Change4Life’ programme.

 

2.5.         The start date of the new service was planned for 1st April 2020.  The core requirement of the new service was the support for overweight children identified by the statutory National Child Measurement Programme (NCMP) which measured all children in reception and year 6 in the autumn and spring terms. It was timely that the new service began in April 2020 as it would work with children identified by the NCMP in the school summer term and throughout the summer months.

 


24/02/2020 - Rating Advisory Panel 14.01.2020: Determination of National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary and Hardship Relief Applications ref: 1158    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 24/02/2020

Effective from: 24/02/2020

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 14th January 2020 and determined the applications for National Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary 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.

 

Lead officer: Susan Bush


24/02/2020 - Approval of Annual Rents and Charges in the Housing Revenue Account for 2020-21 ref: 1156    Recommendations Approved

Report to seek approval to change rents in line with Legislation and the Government’s Policy statement on rents for social housing. To set the Housing Revenue Account tenant rents and other charges for the financial year 2020/21. The City Council is required by law to give tenants at least 28 days’ notice of any variation to the rent charged.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Housing Services

Decision published: 24/02/2020

Effective from: 24/02/2020

Decision:

1.                        That in order to comply with the provisions of The Rents for Social Housing policy for 2020/21, the Cabinet Member for Housing Services approved an increase of the Housing Revenue Accounts (HRA) rents by 2.7% from the 6April 2020.

2.                        That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services noted 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 6 April2020.

3.                        That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services gave approval for tenant service charges be varied in line with estimated actual costs for 2020/21 from Monday 6April 2020.

4.                        That the Cabinet Member for Environment and Highways gave approval for charges for car parking and parking spaces to be increased by 2.4% (RPI as at September 2019) from Monday 6April  2020.

5.                        That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services gave approval for charges for sheds and garages to be increased by 2.4% (RPI as at September 2019) from Monday 6April  2020.

Reasons for Decision

 

To set the HRA tenant rents and other charges for the financial year 2020/21. The City Council is required by law to give tenants at least 28 days’ notice of any variation to the rentcharged.

 


17/02/2020 - Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum Re-designation ref: 1153    Recommendations Approved

A report to recommend the re-designation of the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business and Planning

Decision published: 20/02/2020

Effective from: 17/02/2020

Decision:

2.0      RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1      That the Cabinet Member for Business and Planning agreed to re-designate the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum for a further period of 5 years and a formal designation notice will be published under delegated authority of the Director of Policy and Projects.

 

3.0      REASONS FOR DECISION 

3.1        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.

 

3.2        The legislation states that a local planning authority may designate an organisation or body as a neighbourhood forum if the authority is satisfied that a number of conditions (in the table below) have been met. The existing Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum meets all of these conditions, and there has been no change in this since the original designation.

 

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

 

3.3        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 Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum stands at over 200 members, and that the Forum represents the interests of local residents and businesses, including the New West End Company (NWEC). The list of members has also been provided by the Forum.

 

3.4        The City Council is also required to assess whether the purpose of the neighbourhood forum reflects (in general terms) the character of the area. The application submitted by the Forum for re-designation states that the Forum was established to promote, enhance and improve the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the area. It also makes clear that the continued preparation of a neighbourhood plan that addresses planning and development matters, public realm improvement projects, and environmental policies, is a priority for the Forum. The Forum has already carried out significant work on the neighbourhood plan and have carried out consultation on a draft plan in the Summer 2019. The main purpose for the existence of the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum is therefore stronger now than when it was initially designated.

 

 

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

 

Wards affected: Marylebone High Street; West End;

Lead officer: Michela Leoni


19/02/2020 - Homelessness Strategy ref: 1155    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for Homelessness Strategy.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Housing Services

Decision published: 19/02/2020

Effective from: 27/02/2020

Decision:

1.              That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services agreed the Homelessness Strategy 2019 – 2024 as set out in Appendix B of the report.

 

2.        That the Cabinet Member for Housing agreed the Homelessness Strategy 2019 – 2024 Action Plan in Appendix C of the report and that noted it be updated regularly.

 

3.        That the Cabinet Member for Housing Services delegated authority to the Director responsible for Housing to update the Action Plan in conjunction with the Cabinet Member responsible for Housing. 

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

The Homelessness Act 2002 and the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 require local authorities to have in place a Homelessness Strategy informed by the results of Homelessness Review. A new Homelessness Strategy is also needed to ensure that the council is doing everything possible to prevent and respond to homelessness in the city.  


18/02/2020 - Award of Contract for Residential Care Services at Carlton Dene and Westmead ref: 1154    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought foir award of contract.

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

Decision published: 18/02/2020

Effective from: 18/02/2020

Decision:

1.              That the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health agrees that the report be exempt from publication under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person (including the authority holding that information) and it contains information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

 

2.              That the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health gave approval by way of a direct award to enter into contract with the preferred bid for the period and costs as set out in the report.

 

3.              That the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health noted that this waiver approval and contract award was sought in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, Part 2, regulation 32, which enables the use of a negotiated procedure without prior publication when the need is extremely urgent arising for unforeseeable events.

 

4.              That the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health delegated to the director of Adult Social Care and Public Health authority to agree to, in consultation with him, exercise the extension provisions in the contract which permit it to be extended for a maximum cumulation period and costs as set out in the report.  

 

5.              That the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health acknowledged and agreed that a waiver was supported by the Council’s Chief Procurement Officer to the requirements and process of Section 3.14 to conduct a competitive exercise in accordance of the borough’s Procurement Code.  

 

6.              That the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health noted the legal comments in section 11 of the report, and that a balanced approach to risk management be taken as set out in section 7of the report.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

The fundamental reason for awarding the interim contract to the preferred bidder is to ensure and secure immediate continuity of essential services to vulnerable residents currently living within Carlton Dene and Westmead or in need of the services at these homes.


17/02/2020 - Westminster Hospital Green Plaque ref: 1152    Recommendations Approved

Commemorative Green Plaque for Westminster Hospital at Westminster Green, 8 Dean Ryle Street, Horseferry Road, SW1P 4DA

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Business and Planning

Decision published: 17/02/2020

Effective from: 17/02/2020

Decision:

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

 

Summary of Decision

 

That the nomination for a Green Plaque to commemorate the former Middlesex Hospital Medical School be approved. 

 

Reasons for decision

 

A Green Plaque will mark the valuable research that took place in the city’s former hospital and the contribution it made to world medicine. The identification of the hormone Aldosterone stimulated a new period of research into the regulation of salt and water balance, blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. Doctors and scientists across the world continue to study the hormone and more than 40,000 papers have been published.

 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

17 February 2020

Implementation Date:

17 February 2020

Reference:

 

CMf B&P/2/2019-20

 

Wards affected: Vincent Square;

Lead officer: Claire Appleby


17/02/2020 - Lisson Grove Office, Frampton Street London NW8 ref: 1151    Recommendations Approved

The refurbishment of Ground, Mezzanine and First floor offices

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 17/02/2020

Effective from: 25/02/2020

Decision:

1.               That this report is 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) and information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings under paragraph 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

2.         That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the capital spend against the Lisson Grove Refurbishment Programme budget for the costs as detailed in the report and noted the revenue spend for decant costs.

 

3.         That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration delegated authority to the Director of Corporate Finance and Property to procure, agree contracts and appoint consultants and building contractors for the Lisson Grove Refurbishment Contract.

 

Reasons for Decision 

The rationale for supporting this decision is as follows:

 

(1)        The refurbishment will provide an improved, more modern and agile working environment for staff that champions the Westminster Way of working enabling staff to deliver the very best for our residents.

(2)       Deliver our “City For All” vision by providing our residents and visitors a smarter and improved environment to access our services.

(3)       Contribute to the regeneration of the Church Street area.

Wards affected: Church Street;

Lead officer: Anne McCann, Steven Morrice


13/02/2020 - Council Tax, National Non-Domestic Rates, Housing Benefit Overpayments and Former Client Rent Arrears - Irrecoverable Debts - Quarter 3 2019/20 ref: 1150    Recommendations Approved

A report requesting write off of specific debts - Quarter 3 (2019/20)

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 13/02/2020

Effective from: 21/02/2020

Decision:

1.              That this 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 the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the writing off of the irrecoverable debt shown as shown in paragraph 5.1 of the report.

 

3.              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration noted that the amounts shown in paragraph 6.1 of the report as written off under officer delegated authority.

 

Reasons for Decision 

The recommendation to write-off the amounts detailed in this 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 distress proceedings.

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Martin Hinckley


06/02/2020 - Renovation Works at The Portman Centre to create a new Family Hub ref: 1149    For Determination

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 06/02/2020

Effective from: 15/02/2020

Decision:

Recommendations

That the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration grant approval to enter into a contract for works at Portman Children’s Centre with Diamond Build Plc, for the value of £2,262,328.00.

Reasons for Decision  

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

3.1 The tender evaluation report (Gate 3) was presented to the Procurement Assurance Board (PAB) on the 21 January 2020. PAB approved the recommendation of the Bi Borough Executive Director of Children’s Services and Executive Director of Finance and Resources to award the contracts to Dimond Build Plc.     

 

3.2       The Gate 3 paper and the cost consultant commercial tender review are attached as       Appendix D

(1)    Take the opportunity to remodel and alter the building by creating a fit for purpose family hub achieving the Council’s objective

(2)    The existing building is in need of Health and Safety Works to ensure the staircase serving the building is compliant from a Building Control and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) perspective

(3)    The current heating system including boilers and distribution pipework is at the end of its lifespan and requires complete renewal. 

3.2   The Portman Centre is one of three sites identified to become a family hub.  Now that the building has been vacated by the service end users an opportunity has arisen to undertake the heating renewal and remodelling work in one single phase whilst the building is unoccupied.  This will enable the work to be undertaken in the most efficient timescale.  

3.3   The proposed project will create a larger, more welcoming, reception area, a new two-storey extension to the rear of the existing building creating an outside/inside space.  The two-storey extension will increase the area of the nursery on the ground floor and provide additional office accommodation and space for general community use on the first floor.

3.4   The proposed works will also comprise re-configuring and re-modelling the internal layout of the building creating a better use of space for the community culminating in a new Family Hub.  The work will also include installing a new DDA compliant lift, which will extend to the roof terrace, enabling service users with a physical disability to maximise their access to utilising the space.

3.5   As stated in item 3.1 the proposed work will include replacing the existing heating system with a far more enhanced system which will produce cost savings on heating bills creating a far more energy efficient building contributing to one of the City for All objectives in creating a greener city.

3.6   By undertaking the work included in items 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4, the new Centre will enhance the                 standard of services that it offers, provide more effective care for families, and create a new    Family Service capable of supporting the community in a far more efficient and effective way.

Lead officer: Andrew Ioannou


03/02/2020 - 300 Harrow Road - Outline Business Case ref: 1148    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought for the Outline Business Case.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 03/02/2020

Effective from: 11/02/2020

Decision:

1.          That Part B of 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 that information).

2.          That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Housing Services agreed:

1)          The Outline Business Case for the 300 Harrow Road scheme on the basis that there is an opportunity to deliver a housing led scheme in line with the Council’s strategic objectives.

2)          That Option 5 is the Preferred Way Forward for this development site. Option 5 outlines a scheme with 49% affordable housing (based on floorspace) which will be delivered through the Westminster Housing Investments Limited (WHIL) in a single phase;

3)          That the number and tenure of affordable housing units proposed delivers good value for the Council;

4)          To approve a spend of an additional £8.75M in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), increasing the total approval to £9.55m, to take the project to Full Business Case (FBC) stage, which will be recovered in full from Westminster Housing Developments Limited (WHDL) upon signing of the Agreement for Lease;

5)          That the development of the scheme will be delivered through the WHIL and WHDL, with work carried out by Council officers and recharged to the WHIL;

6)          To delegate authority to the Executive Director of Growth Planning and Housing in consultation with the Bi-Borough Director of Law to appropriate for planning purposes the site shown edged red on the attached plan  comprising the Warwick Community Hall, Harrow Road Nursery and car park, and to exercise powers under section 203 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to override third party rights.

7)          To delegate authority to the Executive Director of Growth, Planning and Housing to enter into a Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking. The report sets out details and reasons for this undertaking.

8)          That Westminster City Council, WHIL and WHDL can enter into contracts as necessary to Final Business Case, including for pre- contract design and enabling works.

Reasons for the Decision

 

Outline Business Case

1.          The site at 300 Harrow Road provides a valuable opportunity to deliver new homes, jobs and community facilities for local people. The site comprises the Community Hall and Harrow Road Nursery. These two low rise buildings, the surrounding land and car park are owned by Westminster City Council, therefore this site offers a cost effective opportunity to upgrade the community amenities and deliver new mixed tenure homes to meet the needs of local people.

 

2.          The proposed scheme will provide:

·     a new community hall;

·     a purpose built nursery;

·     family sized affordable rent homes;

·     intermediate rent (below market rent) homes;

·     private homes;

·     affordable workspace;

·     a canal side café; and

·     significant green landscaping, opening up the canal.


29/01/2020 - Arrangement for Demolition and Construction Work including Initial Demolition Notices for Ebury Bridge Estate and Vacant Possession in line with the Decant Policy for Housing Renewal Areas ref: 1147    Recommendations Approved

Officer Report

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 29/01/2020

Effective from: 29/01/2020

Decision:

1.      That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration:

         (i)         Approved formal Decant Status – for all secure tenants on the Ebury Bridge Estate.

         (ii)        Approved the implementation of the Policy for Tenants in Housing Renewal Areas across Ebury Bridge Estate.

         (iii)        Authorised the serving of Demolition Notices (initial and final) in accordance with the Housing Act 1985 to secure tenants on the Ebury Bridge Estate.

 

(iv)       Delegated to the Executive Director of Growth Planning and Housing, the authority to take all necessary steps to implement the policy and serve the Demolition Notices.

2.       Agreed to delegate the serving of the notices subject to the oversight and authority of the Executive Director of Growth, Planning and Housing to:

           (i)       Implement a process of serving Demotion Notices.

           (ii)      Ensure effective communications continue with secure tenants to support them through the process and provide detail for the reason the initial demolition notice are required.

(iii)           Continue to work with secure tenants to implement their rehousing choices – both temporary and permanently, off-site and inter-estate as appropriate.

           (iv)      Take all other steps as necessary.

3.        That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration noted that no new spending commitments arise from this report.

Reasons for Decisions

The drivers for decision making are:

(i)              To enable the Council to proceed with the redevelopment of the estate without incurring further costs or unanticipated programme delays.

(ii)             To support an accelerated vacant possession resulting in more new homes earlier.

(iii)            Provide a high-quality neighbourhood offering a ladder of opportunities for existing and new residents to live and work in the area.

(iv)          Acknowledge and take into consideration the views of existing residents and those waiting to return to provide a range of new homes as quickly as practicable.

(v)             To make best use of the Council’s assets in delivery of its objectives and relieving the pressure on the housing waiting list, especially family sized, lifetime homes.

 

Wards affected: Churchill;

Lead officer: David Thompson


29/01/2020 - National Non-Domestic Rates Relief for Grass Roots Music Venues ref: 1146    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Leader of the Council

Decision published: 29/01/2020

Effective from: 29/01/2020

Decision:

That the Leader of the Council gave approval to provide a Business Rate National Non-Domestic Rates “Localism” allowance of a 100% of the annual net business rate liability under section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, as amended by the Localism Act 2011, to organisations occupying properties that meet the criteria outlined in section 4 of this report (up to the State Aid annual limit). 

 

Reason for Decision

 

The proposed National Non-Domestic Rates “Localism” allowance supports the Council’s commitment under the City Plan to support Grassroots Music venues in the Soho Special Policy Area.  The Soho Special Policy Area is shown in Appendix A of the report.


24/01/2020 - St. Marylebone Bridge Special School - Contract Award ref: 1145    Recommendations Approved (subject to call-in)

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Education and Skills

Decision published: 24/01/2020

Effective from: 24/01/2020

Decision:

 

1.     That Part B of this report be exempt from disclosure under s100B(2) and Schedule 12 A 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).

 

2.     That a Pre-Construction Services Agreement (PCSA) for the development of St. Marylebone Bridge Special School with Galliford Try Building Limited, for the value of £384,285.55 be approved.

 

3.     That the Bi Borough Executive Director of Children’s Services be authorised to award the second stage (construction phase) contract to Galliford Try Building Limited for the value of £8,796,015.09.

 

4.     That Galliford Try provide a performance bond for the value of £4,268.84 at the Council’s expense.

 

5.     That the Director of Law be given delegated authority to negotiate and sign an Agreement for Lease with the DfE and any other agreements necessary to give effect to the decision set out above including but not limited to the PCSA, the build contract and performance bond.

 

 

The Council has reached agreement with the Department for Education to build a new special school to replace the interim accommodation at 17-23 Third Avenue.

 

The tender evaluation report (Gate 3) was presented to the Procurement Assurance Board (PAB) on the 26 November 2019. PAB approved the recommendation of the Executive Director of Children’s Services to award the contracts to Galliford Try Building Limited.     

 

The proposed contract value is within the programme budget negotiated with the Department for Education. Overall expenditure is in line with the Pre-Tender Estimate and has been verified by Finance.

 


23/01/2020 - St Martins Lane BIDS ref: 1144    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Leader of the Council

Decision published: 23/01/2020

Effective from: 23/01/2020

Decision:

That the HOLBA’s proposal to establish new Occupier and Property

Owner BIDs for St Martin’s Lane be approved.

 

That the Chief Executive as Returning Officer and “Ballot Holder” hold a ballot on behalf of HOLBA for each new proposed BID.

 

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 service specifications for all services which the City Council will deliver throughout the BIDs’ duration and any other necessary matters for the proposed BIDs in consultation with the appropriate officers.

 

HOLBA has a strong collaborative relationship with the City Council.

Examples include:

·        Targeting the problem of unregulated waste together resulting in Piccadilly and St James’s area having a 70% reduction in unregulated waste.

·        Continuously working together on street cleansing to keep the area clean.

·        Partnership working to address illegal street trading in Leicester Square.

·        Placing the issue of pedicabs on the government agenda with the ultimate objective of a legislative change.

·        There is ongoing work with the events team at Westminster City Council to understand road closures and protests, so HOLBA can notify members of protests and / or road closures in a timely fashion to help manage freight, deliveries and visitors to the area.

·        Collaborative working to deliver the Leicester Square brand identity and guidelines and hosting HOLBA’s annual summer screening in Leicester Square. More recent collaborative working to introduce exciting new film related statues to the Leicester Square area.

·        Partnership working to deliver a seasonal planting scheme across our public spaces.

·        The Leicester Square redevelopment which was completed in 2012 was an example of public and private collaboration – between Westminster City Council, Heart of London and property owners in the area.

·        Partnership working to raise standards in the evening and night-time economy, with regular pub watch meetings which council officers attend, Purple Flag and the introduction of Best Bar None.

·        Work between HOLBA and the Integrated Street Engagement Unit and the tasking group to help rough sleepers and clear tents on Great Windmill Street

·        Guest speakers from Westminster City Council contributing to numerous Perspective events for HOLBA members.

 

As with HOLBA’s existing BIDs it is anticipated that the new BIDs for St Martin’s Lane will 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 HOLBA’s BIDs 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.

 

 

 

Lead officer: Ezra Wallace


21/01/2020 - Business Rate Pool ref: 1141    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 21/01/2020

Effective from: 21/01/2020

Decision:

1.              That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the Council’s formal commitment to be a member of the London-wide business rates Pooling arrangement (with distributions of any surplus as set out in the Pooling Memorandum of Understanding) for 2020/21 under the powers contained within the Constitution to determine policy in respect of business rates.

 

2.              That the Council’s Section 151 Officer be delegated authority to agree the operational details of the pooling arrangements with the participating authorities and to enter the Pooling Memorandum of Understanding.

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

The offer for London to enter a Pooling arrangement, as contained in the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement, requires each London Borough and the Greater London Authority to review and notify the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government by 16 January 2020 if it decides to withdraw from the pool.

 

Lead officer: Gerald Almeroth


17/01/2020 - Petition: Blomfield Mews ref: 1140    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member response to petition in respect of Blomfield Mews.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 17/01/2020

Effective from: 17/01/2020

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration:

 

·                            Noted the submitted petition from the local community and acknowledged the concerns of those who have signed it regarding the Blomfield Mews proposal.

 

·                            Acknowledged the need to develop on the currently under-utilised site in order to deliver 14 much needed affordable homes in the area, contributing to the Council’s City For All priorities to deliver an increase in levels of affordable housing for the residents of Westminster.

 

 

·                            Committed to engage with the local community and ward members on the proposed development and the next steps.

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

1.              The proposal at Blomfield Mews delivers new affordable homes for local people on what is currently a poor-quality brownfield garage site, meeting the key objectives of the adopted City Plan.

 

2.              The Planning Applications (Major) Sub-Committee on 24 September 2019, after considering all the material planning considerations, which included all the concerns raised in the subsequent petition to which this report relates, resolved to grant conditional permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement. The basis on which the Sub-Committee found the proposed development to be acceptable is set out in detail in the officers report to the Planning Applications (Major) Sub-Committee on 24 September 2019 (hereafter ‘the Committee report’). The Committee report and minutes, are at Appendix B.


13/01/2020 - Belgravia Neighbourhood Forum Re-designation and Chelsea Barracks Neighbourhood Area Application ref: 1139    Recommendations Approved

Approval required to re-designate Belgravia Neighbourhood Forum in advance of current designation expiring

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Place Shaping and Planning

Decision published: 13/01/2020

Effective from: 13/01/2020

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the Cabinet Member agreed to:

a) re-designate the Belgravia Neighbourhood Forum for a further period of 5 years and a formal designation notice be published under delegated authority by the Director of Policy, Performance and Communications;

b) maintain the existing boundaries of Belgravia Neighbourhood Area and Ebury Bridge Neighbourhood Area; and

c) reject the proposal to designate a new Chelsea Barracks Neighbourhood Area and a formal decision document be published under delegated authority of the Director of Policy, Performance and Communications.

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

Re-designation of Belgravia Neighbourhood Forum

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 (or re-designation) of a neighbourhood forum.  The legislation states that a local planning authority may designate an organisation or body as a neighbourhood forum if the authority is satisfied that a number of conditions are met as set out in the report.

The City Council is 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 Belgravia Neighbourhood Forum states that membership stands at over 300 members who live or work in the neighbourhood area. It further states that membership has been drawn widely from the designated area and the list of members have also been provided by the Forum. Post-code mapping the addresses provided confirms wide membership across the neighbourhood area, as shown in Appendix 4 of the report.  Notably this includes a significant number of members within the area proposed for inclusion in the application for a new Chelsea Barracks Neighbourhood Area.

In determining the application for re-designation, the City Council is also required to assess whether the purpose of the neighbourhood forum reflects (in general terms) the character of the area. The application submitted by Belgravia Neighbourhood Forum states that the Forum was established in response to the Localism Act with the express purpose of promoting and improving the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of Belgravia. It also states that this is being addressed through the production of a neighbourhood plan that addresses matters of importance to residents and workers.

As set out in the report, consultation responses on the re-designation of the Belgravia Neighbourhood Forum were largely supportive, albeit a small number of objections were received (some of which were submitted outside of the consultation period).

 

Chelsea Barracks Neighbourhood Area application

 

Section 61G of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted into the Act by the Localism Act, and supplemented through the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017) sets out that:

·       applications for neighbourhood areas must be made by an organisation that is or is capable of becoming a neighbourhood forum

·       neighbourhood areas cannot overlap with one another;

·       that in determining any neighbourhood area application, the local planning authority can modify existing designations;

·       that in determining an application, the local planning authority must have regard to the desirability of maintaining the boundaries of existing neighbourhood areas; and

·       that if the application is refused, the local planning authority must give their reasons to the applicant.

 

The Chelsea Barracks Neighbourhood Area application refers to the establishment of a minimum 21 representatives from a broad mix of residents, local businesses and other key stakeholders. However, at the time of writing (12 weeks since the Neighbourhood Area application was submitted) no evidence has been provided to support this - despite officers encouraging the applicant to also put forward a Neighbourhood Forum application concurrent with the Neighbourhood Area application to support its case. It is therefore currently unclear if a representative, open and inclusive group exists to take forward neighbourhood planning in the area.

 

As shown at Appendix 1 of the report, the proposed Chelsea Barracks Neighbourhood Area would result in an overlapping of neighbourhood areas with the existing Belgravia Neighbourhood Area. If supported, it would therefore necessitate amendments to the boundary of Belgravia Neighbourhood Area – an area where an established group with an open and inclusive membership already exists to take forward neighbourhood planning matters.

 

In terms of the desirability of amending neighbourhood area boundaries, regard needs to be had to existing planning designations in the proposed area, and the progress Belgravia Neighbourhood Forum have made on neighbourhood planning matters. Importantly, all of Belgravia Conservation Area, and all of Pimlico Road Local Centre, fall within the existing Belgravia Neighbourhood Area. The proposed Chelsea Barracks Neighbourhood Area application would result in both designations being split across separate neighbourhood areas, therefore risking inconsistent policy approaches coming forward through separate neighbourhood plans. Furthermore, as set out in section 9 below, protecting the heritage of the area and enhancing Pimlico Road as a retail and community hub, have both been identified by Belgravia Neighbourhood Forum as key priorities that they intend to address in the Belgravia Neighbourhood Plan.

 

As was the case when Belgravia Neighbourhood Area and Ebury Bridge Neighbourhood Area were originally designated, it is maintained that the permitted plans for the Chelsea Barracks site are of a character and orientation that is in keeping with that of the wider Belgravia Neighbourhood Area. Finally, consultation on the Chelsea Barracks Neighbourhood Area application has generated only one letter of support, and a number of objections, as set out in the report.

 

For all these reasons, the Chelsea Barracks Neighbourhood Area is rejected and no changes to the boundaries of the existing Belgravia Neighbourhood Area or Ebury Bridge Neighbourhood Area are considered necessary.

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

13 January 2020

Implementation Date:

 

13 January 2020

Reference:

 

CMfPS&P/11/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Churchill; Knightsbridge and Belgravia; Warwick;

Lead officer: Sean Walsh


02/01/2020 - Council Tax Discounts (including Council Tax Local Reduction Scheme) and Council Tax Base report ref: 1138    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 02/01/2020

Effective from: 02/01/2020

Decision:

1.            That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and  Regeneration approved the following recommendations to be made to the Council for the financial year 2020/21:-

 

(i)            that the Council Tax discount for second homes remains at 0%

(ii)          the Council Tax discounts for empty properties, including the discounts that replaced the previous Class A and C Council Tax exemptions, remain at 0%. 

(iii)         that a Long-Term Empty Property Premium continues at the maximum percentage allowed for by the current legislation, which is for 2020/21:

 

-       Properties empty between 2 years - 5 years:            100% Increase

-       Properties empty over 5 years:                                    200% Increase

 

(iv)          That the Head of Revenues and Benefits be given delegated authority to determine any individual local discount applications received from

Council Taxpayers during the 2020/21 financial year under section 13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. 

           

2.         That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration recommended that the Council approves the same Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2020/21 which has operated successfully since 2013/14 and that the following be noted: The scheme is based on the Default Scheme Regulations, updated to reflect changes made via the Prescribed Requirements Amendment Regulations and with War Disabled Pensions, War Widow, Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation scheme payments disregarded in full when calculating a claimant’s income. A minor change is proposed for 2020/21. The Scheme applies a capital cut off limit of £16,000, so that anyone with savings of £16,000 or more is not entitled to Council Tax Support. It is proposed that any capital and income received as a result of a charitable or support payment connected with the Grenfell Tower fire is fully disregarded when deciding eligibility for Council Tax Support. This is expected to only apply to a small number of households who have been permanently rehoused in Westminster after losing their homes in the Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk. This is a change recommended by central government to all local authorities.

 

3.         That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration recommended that the Council agrees that the Council Tax Base for 2020/21 for the Whole City is 132,698.31equivalent Band D properties, for Montpelier Square alone 97.08 equivalent Band D properties and for Queen’s Park 3,554.14 equivalent Band D properties.

 

4.         That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration recommended that the Council agrees that the figures as set out in 3. above for the Council Tax Base for 2020/21 be used by the Council to make a determination pursuant to the requirements of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

1.         The taxbase decision is sought in order that the Council complies with the requirements of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

 

2.         The retention of the same levels of Council Tax discount for empty properties and second homes will continue to deliver additional Council Tax income for the Council without disadvantaging any vulnerable members of the community.

 

3.         The recommendation to allow the Head of Revenues and Benefits to continue to determine any individual local discount claims will enable assistance to be given to individual Council Taxpayers if required, especially as there is no longer the ability for taxpayers to claim Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) in relation to their Council Tax liability. This also provides the mechanism for granting the local Council Tax discount for Care Leavers.

 

4.         The Council’s proposed Council Tax Reduction Scheme will mean that the level of Council Tax Support provided to the borough’s working age claimants will effectively mirror that previously provided under the national Council Tax Benefit scheme.

 

5.         The recommendation to set the Long-Term Empty Property Premium at the new maximum allowed for within current legislation aligns with the Council’s City for All agenda and the Council’s aim of a fairer Council Tax system for all residents. 

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


24/12/2019 - Mayfair Neighbourhood Plan ref: 1137    Recommendations Approved

Approval sought to make i.e. adopt the Mayfair Neighbourhood Plan following its support at referendum

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Place Shaping and Planning

Decision published: 24/12/2019

Effective from: 24/12/2019

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

That the Cabinet Member approved that the Mayfair Neighbourhood Plan be formally made part of the Statutory Development Plan, following the referendum held on 31 October 2019.

 

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

To meet the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Localism Act 2011, the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, and the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended). 

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

24 December 2019

Implementation Date:

 

24 December 2019

Reference:

 

CMfPS&P/10/2019/20

 

Wards affected: Knightsbridge and Belgravia; West End;

Lead officer: Sean Walsh


19/12/2019 - Proposed Scheme at the Portman Children Centre ref: 1136    Recommendations Approved

Re-modelling, refurbishing and renewing the heating system at the Children Centre. 

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 19/12/2019

Effective from: 31/12/2019

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Family Services and Public Health, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Education and Skills agreed approval to spend of up to £2.951m for the re-modelling of the building and the renewal of the existing heating system at the Portman Children Centre, 12 Salisbury Street, London, NW8 8DE.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

1)              The key reasons and rationale for supporting this decision were as follows:

 

(1)    Take the opportunity to remodel and alter the building by creating a fit for purpose family hub achieving the council’s objective;

(2)    The existing building was in need of Health and Safety Works to ensure the staircase serving the building is compliant from a Building Control and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) perspective

(3)     The current heating system including boilers and distribution pipework was at the end of its lifespan and required complete renewal.

 

2)        The Portman Children Centre was one of three sites identified to become a family hub.  Now that the building had been vacated by the service end users an opportunity had risen to undertake the heating renewal and remodelling work in one single phase and whilst the building was unoccupied.  This would enable the work to be undertaken in the most efficient timescale.

 

3)        The proposed project would create a larger more welcoming reception area, a new two-storey extension to the rear of the Children Centre creating an outside/inside space.  The two-storey extension would essentially increase the area of the nursery on the ground floor and provide additional office accommodation and space for general community use on the first floor.

 

4)        The proposed works would also comprise re-configuring and re-modelling the internal layout of the building creating a better use of space for the community culminating in a new Family Hub.  The work would also include installing a new DDA compliant lift, which would extend to the roof terrace enabling service users with a physical disability to maximise their access to utilising the space.

 

5)        As stated in item 1) the proposed work will include replacing the existing heating system with a far more enhanced system which would produce cost savings on heating bills creating a far more energy efficient building contributing to one of the City for all objectives in creating a greener city.

 

6)        By undertaking the work included in item’s 1), 3) and 4) would mean that the new Family Hub would increase the standard of services that it offered, provide more effective care for families which would create a new Family Hub Service capable of supporting the community in a far more efficient way.


13/12/2019 - Nomination and Appointment of Local Authority School Governors ref: 1131    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Education and Skills

Decision published: 13/12/2019

Effective from: 13/12/2019

Decision:

Summary of Decision

 

1.         That the appendix to the report be exempt from public disclosure by virtue of paragraph 1 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) – Information Relating to a Particular Individual.

 

2.         That the recommendations of the Local Authority School Governors Advisory Panel set out in Appendix A to the report be approved.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

Every maintained school governing body must contain at least one local authority appointed school governor.

 

Stuart Love, Chief Executive,

Westminster City Hall,

64 Victoria Street

LONDON SW1E 6QP

 

Publication Date:

 

13 December 2019

Implementation Date:

 

13 December 2019

Reference:

 

CMfEDE&C/4/2019/2020

 

Lead officer: Jackie Saddington


13/12/2019 - Petition: The Jubilee Site Re-Development Project ref: 1130    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member to consider response to the petition.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 13/12/2019

Effective from: 13/12/2019

Decision:

That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration and Cabinet Member for Sports, Culture and Community;

 

·                 Acknowledge Queen’s Park residents’ request for Phase 2 of the Moberly and Jubilee Sport Centre Regeneration to commence.

·                 Recognise the need for this former Jubilee Sports Centre site to be redeveloped and create 56 new homes and a new community sports centre as granted in the detailed planning consent.

·                 Support the delivery of a community sports centre on the former Jubilee Sports Centre site.

 

 

Reasons for Decision 

 

A forthcoming key decision was due regarding ‘Enabling the redevelopment of Jubilee Sports Centre’. This is in relation to the development of a new community sports centre and 56 homes on the former Jubilee Sports Centre site.

 

Following full consideration of the petition it was considered that the requests raised and illustrated in section 1.1) are aligned with the subject matter of this forthcoming key decision. Approval of the recommendations contained within this report will indicate further recognition of the need to commence Phase 2 of the Moberly and Jubilee Sports Centre Regeneration as quickly as possible.


12/12/2019 - Enabling the redevelopment of Jubilee Sport Centre ref: 1129    For Determination

The development of a new community sports centre and 56 homes on the former Jubilee Sports Centre site.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 12/12/2019

Effective from: 20/12/2019

Decision:

1.                Recommendations

1.1             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 that information).

1.2             That the Cabinet Members agreed to;

·      Approve Phase 2 of this project to proceed, in accordance with the steps outlined in this report.

 

·      Authorise a mitigation payment as capital expenditure, subject to any required Secretary of State consent and no State Aid implications being confirmed as detailed in the legal implications (section 9) of this report.

 

·      Approve additional budget for:

 

·               securing the site

·               carrying out minor pre-commencement works prior to the completion of the legal agreements to allow an accelerated construction works programme

·               property and legal advice associated with the delivery of Phase 2 of this project.

·               procurement of fit-out works and FF&E equipment for the new community Jubilee Sports Centre.

 

·     Approve for the General Fund to invest into WHIL to forward fund 19 units on Jubilee phase 2, subject to approval of the WHIL board.

 

·      Delegate authority to the Executive Director of Growth Planning and Housing working with the Director of Law to;

 

·                          Agree the negotiated mitigation position with EcoWorld to reduce the land value to zero.

·                          Approve all necessary legal documentation and variations as required for the project. This is including but not limited to, making variations required in the Development Agreement, entering into supplemental agreements regarding the forward fund of the 19 homes and any other agreement as deemed necessary to facilitate the delivery of the scheme, subject to Section 123 valuation.

·                          If required, apply for Secretary of State consent, to enable Phase 2 of this project to proceed.

·                          Finalise the ‘Post Planning Appraisal’ for the project as required by the Development Agreement’s mitigation clause and as detailed in the Financial Implications section of this report.

 

2.                Reasons for Decision

2.1             Approval of the recommendations contained within this report would enable the Active Queens Park project to conclude and realise a significant capital investment in new sports facilities within the Queens Park area. As part of this, this decision would permit the Jubilee Sports Centre to be constructed now, in accordance with the current detailed planning consent.

2.2             Cabinet Member approval was now required for the project to enable Council officers to agree to the negotiated mitigation position with EcoWorld to permit the commencement of Phase 2 of this project.

2.3             Since the closure of Jubilee Sports Centre, the site had been illegally occupied and attracted graffiti. This had been managed and rectified by Council Officers but a start on site would help to alleviate these issues for the benefit of the local neighbourhood going forward.

Wards affected: Queen's Park;

Lead officer: Dominic Wilde


10/12/2019 - Discretionary Housing Payment Review Advisory Panel: (19.11.2019) Determination of Discretionary Housing Payment Review Applications ref: 1127    Recommendations Approved

Cabinet Member approval sought.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 10/12/2019

Effective from: 10/12/2019

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 19 November 2019.

 

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 in Appendix A of the report, which are more fully set out in the case papers submitted to the Panel.


10/12/2019 - Council Tax and NNDR Quarterly Write-off report ref: 1128    Recommendations Approved

Contains write-offs for noting and write offs for approval where the debt is greater than £100,000

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration

Decision published: 10/12/2019

Effective from: 18/12/2019

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 Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration approved the writing off the irrecoverable debt as shown in paragraph 5.1 of the report.

 

3.            That the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Regeneration noted the amounts shown in paragraph 6.1 of the report as written-off under officer delegated authority.

 

Reasons for Decision 

The recommendation to write-off the amounts detailed in this 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 distress proceedings.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Martin Hinckley


19/12/2019 - The Greater London Dockless Vehicle Hire Byelaw ref: 1134    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Environment and City Management

Decision published: 11/11/2019

Effective from: 19/12/2019

Decision:

2.        Recommendations

2.1      The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment and City Management approved the delegation of the City Council’s authority to make the byelaws to LC TEC, so that a single byelaw can be created across all the London Boroughs at the request of the LC TEC members, for a pan-London dockless regulatory approach.

 

2.2      The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment and City Management delegated authority to the Executive Director for City Management and Communities to agree on a final byelaw and to enter into any necessary legal agreements with TfL. In consultation with the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment and City Management where necessary.

 

 

3.        Reasons for Decision

 

3.1      The proposed byelaw defines clearly that no dockless operators shall cause or permit dockless vehicles to be placed on any highway or public place, other than a permitted dockless parking space agreed by the Authority or private land owners. Failure to comply with the byelaw will result in prosecution of offending operators.

 

3.2      The proposed byelaw also states that no dockless operator can offer the hiring of a dockless vehicle other than on terms which prohibit the hirer from leaving the vehicle on any section of highway or other public place other than within a designated ‘dockless parking space’.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Steve Tse


17/12/2019 - Central London Cycle Grid: Quite Cycle Way Fitzrovia to Pimlico ref: 1133    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Environment and City Management

Decision published: 11/11/2019

Effective from: 26/12/2019

Decision:

2.        Recommendations

 

2.1      The Cabinet Member for Cabinet Member for Environment and City Management reaffirmed the City Council’s support for the Quietway Fitzrovia to Pimlico scheme, as part of the Central London Cycle Grid, and agreed to it being implemented.

 

2.2      Approval was granted by the Cabinet Member for Environment and City Management for officers to undertake design and implementation of the proposed Quietway Fitzrovia to Pimlico scheme, as part of the Central London Cycle Grid.

 

2.3      The Cabinet Member for Environment and City Management gave delegated authority to the Executive Director for City Management and Communities to agree final scheme proposals and to enter into any necessary legal agreements with Transport for London, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and City Management.

 

2.4      The Cabinet Member for Environment and City Management gave delegated authority to the Executive Director for City Management and Communities to make any requisite traffic regulation orders associated with the scheme.

 

2.5      The Cabinet Member for Environment and City Management approved capital expenditure in the sum of £1,484,827to complete the scheme.

 

3.        Reasons for Decision

 

3.1      The proposed scheme will contribute to the adopted November 2013 and subsequent updated November 2016 City of Westminster City Plan objectives. It is intended that this scheme will:

·         Provide legible and safer routes for cycle traffic.

·         Improve the public realm and pedestrian facilities.

·         Improve health. This will be achieved in part by encouraging more everyday journeys to be made by active transportation. Improvements to pedestrian facilities are also proposed as part of the scheme.

·         Encourage more people to cycle. This will be achieved by implementing a scheme suitable for all people who want to cycle in the area, particularly those wishing to avoid some of the busier, highly trafficked main roads.

·         Reduce CO2 emissions. This will be achieved in part by encouraging modal shift from private motor vehicles to bicycles.

·         Reduce overcrowding on public transport. This will be achieved in part by encouraging more journeys to be made by bicycle.

 

Wards affected: Marylebone High Street; St James's; Vincent Square; West End;

Lead officer: Anthony Sabato