Meeting: Planning Sub-Committee (Planning Briefs and Local
Date of meeting: Tuesday 14 October 2008 at 6.30pm
Alastair Moss (Chairman)
Also Present: Harvey Marshall (all attending for item 7)
Senior Committee and Scrutiny Officer
Details: Tel: 020 7641 3160
Fax: 020 7641 2917
1.1 There were no changes to the Membership.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
2.1 All members of the majority party on the membership declared in respect of
item 7 (Revised Planning Briefs for sites including i) Amberley Road Adult
Education Centre, Amberley Road, W9; ii) Ebury Bridge Adult Education
Centre, Sutherland Street, SW1 and iii) Moxon Street Car Park, W1) that they
knew those members of the majority party who were present in the public
2.2 Councillor Alastair Moss further declared in respect of item 7 that he had met
with the Marylebone Association a number of weeks prior to the meeting to
hear their views on Moxon Street Car Park but he had not expressed any
opinions. He further declared that he had previously shopped at the farmers
market on the Moxon Street site.
2.3 Councillor Tim Mitchell further declared in respect of item 7 that he had a
personal interest in respect of the Amberley Road Adult Education site.
However, he advised that he would be leaving to chair another meeting before
the Sub-Committee reached the item.
2.4 Councillor Angela Harvey further declared in respect of item 7 that she was a
supporter of farmers’ markets in London and that until very recently she had
lived close to the Ebury Bridge Adult Education Centre. She declared in
respect of item 8 (North Westminster Community School site, W2 – Draft
Planning Brief for Consultation) that she knew architect Terry Farrell, who had
made representations on the brief, in her former capacity as the Cabinet
Member for Housing when he had been a commissioner on the Westminster
Housing Commission. She also declared in respect of item 8 that Pimlico
School was in her ward. Councillor Harvey then declared a prejudicial interest
in respect of items 7 and 8 in that she had been a member of the Cabinet
when it had previously taken decisions on both issues. In light of this she
advised that she would not take part in the consideration of these items.
2.5 Councillor David Boothroyd declared in respect of Item 7 that the Amberley
Road Adult Education Centre was located in his ward. He also declared in
respect of the same item that he was a member of the Westbourne
Neighbourhood Forum Management Board but that he had not been involved
in drafting the content of its representation though he had explained the
process and some of the technical language. He also declared that several of
the people who had submitted objections on the Moxon Street site were
known to him as was Regie Kibel who had made some comments on the
The minutes of the meeting on 2 September 2008 were signed as a correct
record of proceedings.
4. RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CREDITS
4.1 The report set out proposals for operating a system of Residential Credits to
be used in connection with the future Local Development Mixed Use policy.
4.2 Consideration of the item was deferred due to the number of items on the
5. THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK: DRAFT REVISED LOCAL
5.1 Lisa O’Donnell, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report which set out
the revised Local Development Scheme that had been agreed by the Cabinet
Member for the Built Environment for submission to Secretary of State and the
Mayor of London for approval.
5.2 The Sub-Committee considered the report, which it was asked to note, and
asked questions of the relevant officers present.
5.2 RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
6. THE MAYOR’S ‘PLANNING FOR A BETTER LONDON’ CONSULTATION
6.1 Barry Smith, Head of City Planning (Policy), introduced the report which
outlined the Mayor of London’s recently produced ‘Planning for a better
London’ consultation report. The Sub-Committee was asked to give its views
on the key issues raised within the consultation document and the City
Council’s initial views. The Sub-Committee’s views would inform the City
Council’s formal response to the consultation.
6.2 The Sub-Committee considered the report and asked questions of the
relevant officers present.
6.3 The Sub-Committee noted in respect of the timetable for changes to the
London Plan that the proposed alterations would come too late to be reflected
in the City Council’s Strategy which was currently at the Preferred Options
Stage. Members supported the City Council’s desire for clarification over the
extent to which the Mayor would strictly use policies contained within the
recently revised London Plan, and to what extent greater flexibility would be
applied and they requested that this be prominently outlined in the City
Council’s response to the consultation.
6.4 The Head of City Planning (Policy) tabled a note and Lisa O’Donnell provided
an oral update on the consultation to date on the Core Strategy – Preferred
Options which Members had requested at the Sub-Committee’s last meeting.
6.5 The Sub-Committee re-iterated its view that the consultation on the Core
Strategy needed to be publicised as far and wide as possible including in the
Westminster Reporter. The Head of City Planning (Policy) confirmed that
articles would appear in the next two editions of the Reporter and that a link
had been placed in a prominent position on the homepage of the Council
1. That the report be noted.
2. That the City Council’s initial response on the Mayor’s ‘Planning for a
better London’ consultation document, as set out in the report, be supported;
that clarification over the extent to which the Mayor would strictly use policies
contained within the recently revised London Plan, and to what extent greater
flexibility would be applied be prominently outlined in the City Council’s
response to the consultation.
7. REVISED PLANNING BRIEFS FOR CONSIDERATION AS
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS FOR SITES INCLUDING:
- Amberley Road Adult Education Centre, Amberley Road, W9
- Ebury Bridge Adult Education Centre, Sutherland Street, SW1
- Moxon Street Car Park, W1
7.1 Rachael Ferry-Jones, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report and
responded to questions from Members of the Sub-Committee.
7.2 Additional representations were received from Paddington Development Trust
6/10/08, Iona Cairns (undated) and the Director of Schools and Learning
7.3 Late representations were received from Howard De Walden Management Ltd
(10/10/08 and 14/10/08), Finance and Resource Department (14/10/08),
Knight Frank (14/10/08) and Children’s Services Department (14/10/08).
7.4 Councillors Mark Page, Ian Rowley and Harvey Marshall addressed the Sub-
Committee in their capacity as ward members for Marylebone High Street in
respect of Moxon Street Car Park, W1. Councillor Page expressed concern
that the draft Brief had been tailored to the needs of the Westminster Adult
Education Service as opposed to complying with the normal requirements of a
planning brief which would be to consider what uses would best implement
policy. He advised that he would like to see: i) a comprehensive rather than
piecemeal development of the site; ii) a high quality development which
complemented the existing area; iii) satisfactory provision for the existing
farmers market to assist its continue success and iv) any educational
provision to be located on the southern end of the site. In addition to those
comments already made by Councillor Page, Councillor Rowley commented
that he was not convinced that the site was the right place to site an adult
education centre. He also supported the view expressed by many
respondents that public open space, of which he believed there was a
shortage in Marylebone, should be provided on the site. Councillor Marshall
congratulated Rachael Ferry Jones on her thorough presentation of a very
complex subject. In addition to those representations already made by his
ward colleagues he expressed support for the Howard De Walden Estate’s
comments that requiring the reinstatement of historic building lines on all four
surrounding streets and retaining existing public routes around the site without
developing over them would limit the opportunity to create an exciting and
imaginative new development on site. He requested that the wording in
paragraph 7.4 of the draft brief be ‘relaxed’ so as not to restrict any ideas
coming forward. He also expressed support for the Estate’s comments that
the draft brief should allow for creating possible linkages to the back of some
of the Marylebone High Street buildings. He raised as a matter of concern the
lack of consultation that had been undertaken by the City Council’s Adult
Services Department and Corporate Property Division with the Marylebone
High Street members to date in developing proposals and he requested that
this be addressed as the project moved forward.
1. That the principal issues raised through the public consultation exercise on
the draft planning briefs be noted; and in addition:
Moxon Street – it was recognised that many of the key aspirations expressed
by consultees were not ones that could be required by the planning brief,
although they could be encouraged, as they would be acceptable in planning
terms. Officers were therefore asked to ensure that the text emphasises the
strongest possible encouragement for schemes on the site to address these
key issues –
a comprehensive approach to development of the site,
the WAES centre being at the south end,
the farmers market to be located where it will continue to maximise its
contribution to the economic regeneration of the area, and
inclusion of some open space.
Officers were also asked to ensure that the text emphasises the requirement
for the highest quality of design and architecture.
In addition, the following specific amendments be made to the revised brief:
Para 5.8 – add text on the end to confirm that if the replacement Farmers
Market is not to be located within the site, this should be supported by
evidence to show that the positive benefits of the market on the area will not
be diminished by its relocation, and to show that its positive impact on the
High Street will continue.
Para 7.4 – add text to clarify that any scheme that does not follow the advice
(to reinstate historic building lines) would need to demonstrate that the
benefits of so doing outweighed the disadvantages.
Amberley Road and Ebury Bridge – that the paragraphs on affordable housing
(5.23 and 5.11 respectively) be expanded to clarify the meaning of the words
“…the proportion sought is stepped from 10% to 50%” – i.e. to explain that the
proportion steps up progressively as the number of units on site increases.
2. a. That subject to the inclusion of the above changes, the amendments to
the draft briefs as set out in the report be agreed, and
b. That the amended briefs be recommended to the Deputy Leader and
Cabinet Member for the Built Environment for adoption as Supplementary
3. That the Director of Planning and City Development be authorised to
approve any minor amendments to the wording of the briefs, and the
amendments that the Sub-Committee wishes to be made, prior to reporting
them to the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for the Built Environment.
The Sub-Committee noted the officers’ advice that there is currently no policy
in the UDP to protect a market which is on private land (only street markets).
Officers were asked to explore closing this policy gap in the LDF.
The Sub-Committee asked that relevant Council departments be advised of its
view that: on strategic development issues involving the Council as
landowner, such as at Moxon Street, it would expect the developing
departments to involve local stakeholders in commenting on potential options
at an early stage.
Finally, the Sub-Committee asked officers to ensure that the various
departments keep all those who have responded informed of progress.
Rachael Ferry-Jones advised the Sub-Committee that her section would
contact all those who had responded, updating them on progress on the
Briefs. The Sub-Committee asked that the letters/emails include text
confirming that there was still an opportunity to submit comments to Corporate
Property and WAES on the Strategy and emerging proposals.
8. NORTH WESTMINSTER COMMUNITY SCHOOL SITE, W2 – DRAFT
PLANNING BRIEF FOR CONSULTATION
8.1 Tim Butcher, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded
to questions from Members of the Sub-Committee.
8.2 Officers tabled the following amendment to recommendation 1. to the report:
‘Agree to recommend to the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment the
amended draft planning brief, as attached at appendix A, for further public
consultation purposes.’ This was to reflect the fact that the document is
intended to be a Supplementary Planning Document under the LDF which is
an executive rather than regulatory function.
1. That the following amendments be made to the draft brief:
Para 73 – following the text stating that at least 80% of the gross floorspace
should be residential, further text should be added in to the last sentence to
state that “All redevelopment proposals, including any alternatives or
variations to the land use mix sought above, should accord with the relevant
criteria set out in the UDP.”
Para 91 – in relation to entertainment uses, officers to clarify the text to ensure
it sets out appropriate advice on the limitations on potentially acceptable uses
in accordance with relevant UDP policies.
Para 94 – in relation to the stated ‘potential’ for the first zero carbon or Code
for Sustainable Homes 6-star development in Westminster, text should be
added to state “… and a development in accordance with this potential is
2. a. That subject to the inclusion of the above changes, the draft brief as set
out in the report be agreed, and
b. That the amended brief be recommended to the Deputy Leader and
Cabinet Member for the Built Environment for publication for consultation
3. That the Director of Planning and City Development be authorised to
approve any further editorial changes or factual updates required, and to
approve the wording of the amendments that the Sub-Committee wishes to
be made, prior to reporting them to the Deputy Leader and Cabinet
Member for the Built Environment.
9. TERMINATION OF MEETING
9.1 The meeting ended at 21.17
CHAIRMAN: _________________________ DATE: ________________