Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Aarien Areti and Abdullahi Nur.

Any member of the Council who has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting is reminded to disclose the interest to the meeting and to leave the Chamber while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place.

Members are also reminded that if they have any other significant interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting, which they feel should be declared in the public interest, such interests should be declared to the meeting. In such circumstances Members should consider whether their continued participation, in the matter relating to the interest, would be reasonable in the circumstances, particularly if the interest may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interests, or whether they should leave the Chamber while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place.

No declarations of interest were made.

The minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 4 December 2023 are submitted for confirmation. The action tracker is also enclosed.

The minutes of the meeting on 4 December 2023 were confirmed as a correct record.

This report provides background information on the operations of Opera Holland Park since it was transferred from Council ownership in 2015. A review of OHP’s facilities and services was due in Autumn 2023, to consider their journey to become financially independent.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Deputy Leader and Lead Member for Employment, Culture & Economy, supported by Terry Oliver, Director for Cleaner, Greener and Cultural Services, introduced the report and raised the following points:

1.  Expressed disappointment that the business plan was yet to be provided by Opera Holland Park and that the Chief Executive was unable to attend the meeting, due to personal reasons.

2.  Informed the Committee that Opera Holland Park confirmed that they would provide the business plan by 1 February 2024.

3.  Opera Holland Park’s licence covered the use of the Holland Park site, but not other spaces owned by the Council which they occupied. This was an area that the Lead Member was keen to tidy up.

The Chair then invited the Committee to discuss the report and the Committee:

1.      Asked about the obstacles that Opera Holland Park had been facing. The officer explained that there were a number of personal reasons, including the passing of their finance director just before Christmas 2023. However, they were aware of the importance of working with the Council. The Lead Member added that the Covid-19 pandemic had resulted in significant financial impact. They also relied on third party support and the operating costs were high. For example, the process of putting up and taking down the awnings, cost around £400,000.

2.     Queried how realistic it was that this sort of organisation would achieve full financial independence. The officer clarified that support from the Council was only through the free use of assets, they did not provide any funding or a grant. Property colleagues were working on a valuation of the cost of the assets that they used without charge and the business plan should incorporate such costs. The Lead Member explained that they had been quite successful in operating independently since the decision was taken in 2015 to transfer it from Council ownership. The Council also provided the Tabernacle free of charge to Notting Hill Carnival Limited and Carnival cost the Council £1 million a year.

3.     Questioned whether there was any risk that the current opera season would not go ahead. The Lead Member clarified that there would be no financial impact to the Council, the only impact would be that the awning would not be put up and it would be a disappointment for the community. Opera Holland Park had already started advertising the programme for the current season, so the Lead Member was confident it was going ahead. The officer added that they would let the Committee know if they had concerns around this, following their meetings with Opera Holland Park in the next few weeks.

4.     Enquired how the value of the community work was measured against the ability of Opera Holland Park becoming financially independent. The Lead Member explained that the Council took a social value approach to leases, and they would look at the community output of the organisation. The desire was to receive some financial return from the spaces they occupied.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To provide an update on the Markets Allocation Policy and Standard Conditions for Street Trading in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

Following the Chair’s invitation, the Deputy Leader and Lead Member for Employment, Culture & Economy, supported by Terry Oliver, Director of Cleaner, Greener and Cultural Services and Beau Stanford-Francis, Executive Director of Environment and Communities, introduced the report and raised that:

1.   An online survey was completed in 2021 and the Council was looking to consult on a revised draft in spring 2024.

2.   Portobello Road Market was named the best large outdoor market in 2023. It consisted of 350 stalls, and the allocation and enforcement of the market by a small markets team, the size of which was being reviewed.

3.   The review was taking place to add transparency and clarity to the process. The Council was looking into creating a panel which would allocate and revoke, where necessary, street trading licences.

4.   It was important to ensure that there were policies in place to retain the positives of the markets and to continue to support their contribution to the community.

The Chair invited the Committee to ask questions on the report and the Committee:

1.  Asked how often, and by whom, were the enforcement checks completed. Officers explained that the street trading office comprised of three enforcement officers, two of which were part-time. There was also a markets manager. Their work involved negotiation between traders, the enforcement team, as well as residents and businesses. If traders did not comply with standard conditions, warning letters would be issued first, followed by fixed penalty notices, and then a pitch could be revoked if there were serious issues. It could take up to six months for a full enforcement process to be followed, as it had to be followed exactly in line with the legislation. The Lead Member added that when a street trading licence was granted, it was granted for life and could be passed on to family members. This may also be reviewed.

2.  Queried how big the waitlist was. The officer explained that there was not an official waiting list, as pitches were advertised when they became available. In general, hot food pitches were oversubscribed, there was less interest in fruit and vegetables, and antiques. The Lead Member noted the difficultly with the current system, as traders could give notice up until 8:30am of the day of trading if they were unable to attend. There was a lot of capacity during ‘off-peak’ hours.

3.  Sought further information on the programmes to encourage young entrepreneurs. The officer explained that Morley College and New Youthquake were the main routes for young people. They were asked to develop a business plan and then to support a market, and this was very popular. The officers would look to ensure they were prioritising young entrepreneurs. There was a good school outreach programme, where they were invited to visit the market. More could be done to promote outreach with secondary schools.

Action by: Director of Cleaner, Greener and Cultural Services

4.  Noted that there was a desire from Golborne Market traders to create a Traders’  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

From January 2024 Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is becoming mandatory for new major developments across the country. This report sets out a briefing on BNG to explain:

·       what it is,

·       how it will be dealt within the planning regime,

·       how it is measured,

·       monitoring and enforcement; and,

·       next steps.

The Lead Member for Planning and Public Realm, Cllr. Cem Kemahli, introduced the report and raised the following points:

1.  This was a mandatory requirement, but it was a good condition to introduce, as it supported the Borough’s environment becoming as diverse as possible.

2.  There were several large sites in the borough that were lacking in terms of biodiversity, and this legislation would make it easier for planning officers to deliver improvements and hold developers to account.

The Chair invited the Committee to ask questions of the Lead Member and the officers, Jonathan Wade, Head of Spatial Planning, and Alice Laughton, Ecology Service Manager. The Committee:

1.    Asked whether training of officers on biodiversity net gain (BNG) had started. The officers responded that there had been internal training for all planning officers and a couple of workshops had taken place. They were aware of the introduction of the legislation. There were a few things that needed to be put in place but there was still time. For example, they needed a monitoring system which was compatible with the current planning system and would be going out for procurement for this shortly. The plan was to hire someone, potentially in a job share arrangement with Westminster City Council, who would sit in the ecology team to work on this. The Government was still to provide the date for when the legislation would apply from. Officers had flagged which major developments they were expecting in the next few months, which the legislation would apply to. Planning officers were working on a new standard condition to use. The presumption was that BNG would be delivered on site, but it could be offset elsewhere, as biodiversity units could be purchased.

2.   Queried whether garden squares could be an option to deliver BNG. Officers explained that they could be, as long as they delivered valuable BNG. There was a calculator which could be used to calculate BNG. The borough-wide habitat survey which was conducted last year, included where there were opportunities to add BNG in the borough and there were very limited opportunities. If a developer was to offset BNG, there was a distance multiplier which meant that units were worth less the further away from the site that the BNG was provided. It would be possible for developers to approach landowners within the borough or deliver it on their own land that was not part of the development. There would be a private market of brokers for these BNG units. A legal agreement would be formed between the developer and landowner, whereby the developer would pay the landowner an agreed sum to do the work and maintain it for 30 years. There would be a national register for offset delivery and the monitoring work would be costed for by the developer and completed by an independent body.

3.   Questioned whether the Council had to set their own BNG goals for the borough. In response, officers shared that there was a biodiversity action plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

This report describes oversight of construction work by the Construction Management Team across the borough, the current operation of the construction bond scheme and related documentation.

Following the Chair’s invitation, the Lead Member for Planning and Public Realm, Cllr. Cem Kemahli, introduced the report and raised the following points:

1.  The regulations were focused on delivering construction in a resident focused way.

2.  There were a huge number of developments that involved significant construction in very small areas across the borough.

3.  This started a number of years ago with a pilot system in Chelsea and changes to the regulations around basement digs and has since been embedded for several years.

4.  The Council was one of the first councils to implement a construction bond scheme. They hoped to be able to demand gold standard vehicles in due course, rather than silver standard currently requested.

5.  A good site that complied with the regulations should not have to pay the Council much.

The Committee were invited by the Chair to ask questions of the Lead Member, Adrew Burton, Director of Transport and Regulatory Services, and Julian Trill, Construction Team Manager, and the Committee:

1.  Queried how the Council ensured that residents’ amenity were protected in areas of concurrent construction and how were the regulations enforced. Officers explained that dust was mitigated as far as possible. Regarding noise, construction work was banned at all times at weekends, and this was the only council in the UK to have this ban in place. The Council served Section 60 notices almost immediately if working hours were breached. Traffic issues were best controlled through schemes and visits, for example, 120 visits were made to sites in January (2024) so far. If the site was not acting within the regulations, they would carry out a further visit and downgrade the score, this would result in more frequent visits. The average frequency of visits was every 3 months. Poorly compliant sites could receive fixed penalty notices (FPNs), temporary stop notices, and breach of condition notices. It was important to achieve a balance between allowing developers to work and reducing disruption to residents.

2.  Noted that that Adair Tower in North Kensington had been under development for over four years and residents had been impacted by dust and noise, and there was poor communication from the Council regarding the construction which was resulting in increasing tension. The officers agreed that the most overlooked area of the process was communication but there should be a communications team in place for a Council development, with an on-site communications officer to respond to residents’ queries and concerns. The officer would provide a more detailed written response on this development.

Action by: Construction Team Manager

3.  Suggested that some developers may include a budget line for FPNs rather than comply with the regulations and asked whether officers and the Lead Member were confident that the Council was using the existing legislation as best as possible and if there was any way of blacklisting construction companies from the borough. The Lead Member responded that resourcing was required for better enforcement of the legislation. They were looking into ‘super  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

This report is an update on the work programme and scrutiny activities, setting out reports for upcoming meetings.

The Scrutiny and Policy Officer informed the Committee that there was capacity for an additional item at the meeting on 19 March 2024.

The Chair suggested including an update item on leisure centres in the borough and invited the Committee to suggest any other ideas in the next couple of weeks.