Transcript

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to welcome you this evening to the council meeting. My name is Councillor Robert Rigby and I am the Lord Mayor of Westminster. As mentioned at the last meeting there is a new sound system in the chamber. The microphones on your desks will be controlled by the sound engineer, so please do not move these or switch them on or off. Please face forward as much as possible. As we can ensure that your voice is picked up, we are live streaming this meeting and therefore microphones will be active when members are speaking and the cameras will be broadcasting until the meeting closes. A list of all the members who are present will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. As this will be a busy meeting, I would like to remind members to be as succinct as possible in their speeches and questions so that we can cover all the business we need to do. Before we start the formal meeting, I would like to ask members to join me in a minute silence in remembering two former councillors who sadly passed away recently. Former Regent's part councillor, Gwyneth Hampson, passed away last month. She represented the ward in 2002 until 2014. During her time at the council she held the position of Deputy Cabinet Member for Housing and then Leisure and Lifelong Learning and sat on various overview and scrutiny committees and the general purposes committee. Former Westbourne Ward councillor, Sergio Larry, passed away in September. He represented the ward from 1971 to 1974 and then went on to become the leader of the London Barrow of Richmond upon 10s for nearly 30 years. Can I ask members to now stand and join me in remembering the former councillors Hampson and Larry. Thank you. Gender item one, the appointment of relief chair. As I may need to vacate the chair during the meeting, I propose that councillor Patricia McAllister be chosen to take the chair as necessary. May I please have a seconder for my motion? Councillor Ormesby has seconded my motion that councillor McAllister chairs the meeting as necessary. Unless any other member objects, the motion will be deemed to be inagreed. If anyone has an objection, please say so now. Thank you, councillor Miss Callister. Please join me on the dyes. Thank you. Agenda item two, minutes from the previous meeting, unless any member wishes to maraise a point of order relating to the accuracy of these minutes, I will consider that members are content that I signed the minutes from the last meeting. Please state now if you wish to raise a point of order. Thank you. The minutes are agreed. Agenda item three, Lord Mayor's communications, these are set out in the meeting papers. Agenda item four, declarations of interest, it is necessary to declare any interest in relation to the issues on which there will be a vote. These items were set out alongside the list of speakers on the order paper. Members need to declare an interest in the item selected for debate, if they are speaking in that debate. All members in attendance were asked to identify in advance of the meeting if they have an interest to declare. If anyone has any disclosable pecuniary interests or any other significant interests to declare, please do so now. Councillor Swattle. Yes, I have a clear interest in the question as well. Thank you. Agenda item five, there is no statement on urgent matters. Agenda item six, Councillor presentations, presented petitions and deputations. All Councillors are asked to notify in advance of the meeting if they have a petition that they wish to present. I am aware I am not aware of any petitions. However, if anyone has one that they would like to present, please mention it now. Thank you. Agenda item seven, public participation. Each member of the public selected for this item, and here this evening, has submitted a question which they would like to present the relevant cabinet member. They will have up to two minutes to present their question, and then the relevant cabinet member will have up to two minutes to respond. Can I ask when you are presenting your question, you adhere to the question you submitted, which you have a copy of? Can I also ask the cabinet members who are responding to be succinct in your response? There will be no rights of a reply. I ask that once you have received your response, you kindly take your seat. All questions asked and responses provided will be made available on the council's website in the days after the meeting. Can I now ask Muhammad Hassan to join us at the front of the chamber to ask his question? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Hassan. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Sorry, could you come back and stand here, because I need you to hear the response, and then at the appropriate time I will then tell you you can take your seat. Thank you. Thank you. I now ask the chair of the pension fund committee, Councillor Eagleton, to respond. Thank you for your question, Mr Hassan. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East is tragic, and something which I know many people have guided power responsible for the pension fund. This is what's known as the fiduciary agenda. The authority to legalize power for the fiduciary agenda, that's the power of the sauce that can't be said or act in consideration for making estimates. I will continue to act in the best interests of our members. Thank you, Councillor Eagleton. Thank you, Mr Hassan. Can I now ask Melda Kelln K. Soy to join us at the front of the chamber to ask her question? Thank you. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Can I now ask Susette Hayes to join us at the front of the chamber to ask her question, please? Thank you. Please can I ask the council to review the traffic access for this area? The system of no right turn and no left turn on a surrounding road means that the vast majority of traffic, bicycles, cars and large lorries can only access via chemical road and the narrowed barn of the street. This is creating significant congestion and danger to the residents in the area and as a local resident is the issue. Has the council also coordinated with Kenneth Monson and Chelsea Council on this area? Thank you for your question. I now ask the cabinet member for city management and air quality council at Demoldenburg to respond accordingly. Thank you. Thank you, Lord Mayor and thank you, Susette, for your question. I understand that the ban turns that you refer to relate to the transport for London strategic road network and they're not controlled by the city council. We do believe that the ban turns were installed by TFL as safety measures. And as far as we're aware as well, TFL did consult with the Royal Borough of Kenting and Chelsea before implementing these changes on Grovena Road. Yeah, and we responded to that. Sorry, but I will check with transport for London on all these details to ensure that you get a full response. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. And finally, can I ask Noreen Raman to join us at the front of the chamber to ask her question, please. Thank you. Hi. I seek clarity on how Westminster Council can allow the opaque process surrounding Jubilee Hall gyms lea surrender to continue unchecked. Jubilee Hall has served as a key community asset in Covengarden providing vital health, wellness and social benefits particularly to vulnerable groups. How does the council reconcile its commitments to transparency, community welfare and public consultation with a lack of accountability demonstrated by Jubilee Hall trust trustees? Why was no public consultation held before this significant decision? And what oversight does the council maintain over such impactful moves? Has the council explored alternative strategies to secure the gyms future without lease surrender or sale? Given the implications for community health, wellbeing and heritage, I urge the council to pause this process, hold a public forum to assess community needs and work collaboratively to preserve this essential facility. Thank you. Could I ask council Barra Clough, the Cabinet member for planning and economic development to respond, please? Thanks so much for your question coming to ask it. I know how much the Jubilee Hall means to the community in Covengarden. Give it a little background. The Hall was saved from demolition in the 1970s to the great credit of local campaigners. And the lease on the hall was granted on a peppercorn rent to the Jubilee Hall charity that runs a gym in the space. The freehold of the building is not owned by the council, it's owned by Sharsbury Capit. The charity no longer wants to operate the space and plan to surrender the lease to Sharsbury and return for a cash payments. In response to representations from the community, I've met with both the CEO of the charity and senior management from Sharsbury to press the community's case that the gym should retain and remain in the hall, and indeed so has the council's director of leisure services. However, the charity's adamant that the gym is not commercially viable and it can pursue its objectives more effectively elsewhere. Sharsbury tell me they've offered alternative space nearby if the charity wants to relocate the gym. Meanwhile, the campaigners have very sensibly applied that the hall be listed as an asset of community value, and offices are looking at the application and are unexpected in their recommendation shortly. However, in normal circumstances an ACV will give community groups the right to pour to sale of an asset and give them time to put together a counterfeit. But in this instance, the transaction is not sale of an asset, but the surrender of a lease, and our legal advice is that the granting of ACV would not call a halt to the process. It won't affect the decision of whether or not we grant an ACV. I just don't think it's going to be as effective as it normally would be. So it returns to your question. The council has no formal role in the organisation of charities or the commercial arrangements between a charity and its landlord. The decision on whether to operate the gym or surrender the lease is a question for the charity and its trustees alone. Now, the trustees at the Jubilee Hall gym must abide by the rules governing charities, and any concerns about their actions should be directed to the charity commission who have the regulatory power to intervene. We do not. Neither can we compel them or anybody else to run a consultation. What we can do, a poor and just not mere or misfinished, what we can do is to continue strongly encouraging the parties to sit down with the community and reach a common agreement on how the gym can continue, either in its current location or elsewhere, and aid themselves, or Councillor Sanquist, or the Director of Legislature Services, as said, they'll be delighted to take parts in those meetings and help as we can. Thank you, House Bargav. And thank you. Thank you. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Thank you. So that was the last question in this item. Can I thank those that took part and for participating in tonight. It's much appreciated. If you would like to remain for the remainder of the meeting, we'll be going on probably till about 10 o'clock. You're more than welcome. Otherwise, you can leave now. Thank you. Agenda item 8, questions. There are 45 minutes, four questions. Will all members wishing to ask a question please indicate now and continue doing so until your request has been noted by the Chief Executive Officer and the Monitoring Officer. Please remember that questions may be asked of a Cabinet Member or a Committee member. Thank you. Okay, thank you for that. So I will ask members, as you know, who've indicated that they would like to ask a question, after Councillor Swaddle has asked his three questions. Councillor Swaddle, the floor is yours. Thank you, little bear. I see that you've written a letter on your ten red lines for Oxford Street pedestrianisation. And as I understand it, there is yet no official response. But informally, some of them have not all been ruled out. Can you confirm the situation? Thank you very much, Lord. Whilst I can confirm that there has not been a formal response to the letter, discussions have been ongoing at an officer and political level. And at the moment, there has been no ruling in or out of the matters in the form of the ten questions. Although, obviously, they have indicated, obviously, the issue of pedestrianisation. They are clear that they wish to pursue that. And that they continue to stress their strong preference for the use of some form of MDA and MDC. However, they have not made only final decisions on any of the other ten points. But we are making our case strongly to them and to others about the issues that we outlined in those ten points. Could you explain what you're doing to make the mayor listen to yourself? Looking at his diary for the last period, he doesn't appear to have had a meeting with you, which would suggest that you haven't been heard directly. I'm intrigued to know whether you're following the Mayor of London around Councillor Swinnell. However, I have spoken to the Mayor in the immediate aftermath of the decision. And we have been having, as I said, discussions at both officer and political level to make our case on behalf of the citizens of Westminster and to raise the concerns that we have about the scheme. And whilst I'm on my feet, I would like to take the opportunity to welcome two new councillors to this forum. Councillor Hook, who is the new Cabinet Member, the new Councillor for Harrow Road. And he returned for the West End in Councillor Bahn. So, welcome back Councillor Bahn. Thank you, and I too will welcome those councillors and note that you said no to my question. Questions to the Leader of the Council? Can the Leader of the Council explain why it took over eight months to finally take action on illegal encampments on Park Lane? Thank you very much, Lord Mayor. As Councillor Swaddle is aware, the City Council has been working proactively to address the situation on Park Lane. As he knows, this is TFL-owned land. And the process was ultimately reliant on TFL moving a recession through the courts. We note, obviously, the impact that Perdo was deemed to have at the early stages of this. But we believe we were making the case to move further and faster to come to a fair resolution to the situation. Obviously, I would like to pay tribute to the work of our Council officers in assisting that process both before and on the day to make sure that that removal took place in an orderly fashion. And that those with support needs were supported, but that we were making sure that that site was returned and cleared. So, recognise that it took longer than we would have liked. I thank hugely thank the work that all of our officers and members did to make the case for this to be speeded up. And I think there are important lessons to be learned for the future about how that can be sped up. But I think we are, you know, the right outcome has been achieved. And I think we will want to make sure that our site is kept clear for the future. Can the leader assure me that it won't take eight months next time, particularly when it involves Westminster land, which is also occupied by tents under the West way? As Council's order will be aware, the areas under the West way have seen clearances on Westminster's own land. And there was, I'm aware, that there are tents remaining on TFL related land. We continue to make that case to TFL, and we're looking to secure the sites under the West way for the long term. And we will make no apology for working in a considered manner, as in fairness, the council has in the past, to make sure that support is given to those who needed. But we recognise that long-term encadements are not the way forward. They're not in the interest of the people who are living on the street and they're not in the interest of our residents. So we've moved forward in terms of action on our own land, and we are, as we will be aware, making further investments in our rough sleeping service through the coming MTFP process. And in sight, across the city, we are also taking action to tackle ASB that particularly surrounds some of the daytime activities in around the streets. So that is, we're having a proactive approach that balances support with tackling anti-social behaviour. And as I said, progress is being made on Westminster's land in relation to the West way, and we're moving forward in relation to moving forward with TFL. Thank you. Another question to the leader of the council. Before the recent elections, Labour locally campaigned that the Conservatives would not fund the rebuilding of St Mary's Hospital. Now, having won the election, the Labour Government have put the St Mary's Hospital build on ice. I have a petition here from over a thousand residents on this issue. Will we see a campaign from the council to call on the government to rebuild this vital facility? Thank you very much, Lumea. I will take no lectures from the party opposite who have systematically underfunded our NHS for decades. The economy that has meant that we have seen huge problems. I can answer the question. This council is committed to working to make sure we get a new facility at St Mary's as soon as possible, which is why it's in the site allocations approach that we're talking about later on this evening. We have made multiple representations to the Government about the importance of moving this forward. I can understand that the incoming Government is having to try and sort out the unholy mess that it was left by the party opposite in terms of the 30 hospitals programme that was not hospitals and barely not a programme. So I think the reality is we are increasing capital investment as a government and this council will continue to make the case that St Mary's is absolutely right to move forward. The resource was strong working with Imperial to put forward the case for the next stage of moving forward in the business case and on to future investments. So we are fully supportive of refurbishing and replacing Westminster St Mary's hospital and we are wanting to make sure that we're going to leave it. Again, I'm not taking any lectures from you lot who absolutely made a mess of this. Councillor Hark, we're going to keep doing that. Councillor Hark, I'm conscious that other ones have questions and get answers so can we speed it up a little bit? I'm sorry but the question didn't really seem to be answered to me. Is the Council going to lead a campaign to have the facility rebuilt and stand up to this Labour Government or does the leader not want to upset his masters? Yes. We will make the case for refurbishing St Mary's. Ultimately, what did you do, Councillor Swaddle, when you were in power for so long? We have made the case two ministers, we have made the case to the NHS. We are fully supportive and working hard to campaign for a future for St Mary's. You can play politics all you like but you have the opportunity in government and you absolutely messed it up. As a government, we will sort out the mess that you left and make sure that we're delivering at a local level and a national level on for our residents. Thank you. Councillor Glyn. The floor is yours. Thank you Lord. I've got a question from one of my residents who unfortunately was not selected to ask questions night. On the 22nd of October, a major pipe burst at Lillianton Gardens, flooding about five of our residents' homes with scalding hot water and damaging the community centre. The Antivirus Contact Centre told residents to wait two or four hours for help. In desperation, neighbours called Fibergade but they couldn't access the estate it easily. It took four hours for a gem operator to arrive and close the correct valve. Does the Cabinet member for housing think the Antivirus Contact Centre is providing a good service to residents? I have a contract and housing staff at the community hall as soon as possible and they were with residents throughout the whole time. Three families were decantated. Two families are moving in this week and one family has already moved back into their homes. Our surveyors have remained in touch with all residents and work is still underway in the small hall but otherwise the community centre is back in use. I think the question is how soon can we do the work to the repairing of the pipes of the PDHU? Because under your administration you did not do anything and the PDHU is between 50 to 70 years beyond its life expectancy. If it is 70 years after its life expectancy it would have been zero. It is about 70 years old. But anyway, after a similar incident in four-sife house which made the national papers a large amount of compensation was paid, we were assured that lessons would be learnt and better emergency procedures put in place. Given the acknowledged risk of future catastrophic leaks, what is the criteria used to assess the safety of our residents and at what point would the estate be classified as unsafe? It is a very good question and I have to look into that and get back to you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Hook. Question. Thank you, Lord. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hook. I just like to take this opportunity to welcome you to this chamber, to our group and congratulate you on your election. I have been blown away by Councillor Hook's energy over the last couple of weeks and I know that you will serve people of Herorode really well and here it is to come. Thank you. Thank you. This administration is committed to investing in the North Paddington area in recognition of the deprivation that has historically faced and to that end, the North Paddington programme was launched in February 2023. My colleague Councillor Barracloth has quoted many times the city plan and I will quoted again. The North West economic development area has long contained some of West ministry's most deprived areas with lower levels of qualifications, earnings, health, higher levels of worklessness than elsewhere in the city. It is an area requiring coordinated intervention to tackle persistent levels of inequality and the North Paddington programme is this effort. In Herorode specifically, there have been lots of things delivered already or the programme is just getting started. We have a new and improved market that made a hill and a dedicated made a hill markets officer to support new traders in the area. We have invested in improvements to the physical space to improve the market and create more activities and events in the space. We have a council presence for the first time at two front head road where a council officers can base themselves from and work in the community and we have community development workers in the area. We have a dedicated activities and events manager to coordinate weekly pop-up engagement sessions and bring council services to made a hill that has been a successful Halloween celebration and there will be a Christmas tree lighting very soon. We are investing in the Libford community hall, a valuable community access which is going to be refurbished to include a new kitchen, accessible toilets and a new roof. Councillor Swallow, can we? Yes. Thank you. What are the benefits of the community across the North Paddington area? We have decades of neglect to be called up. I am very glad to have sat in Queen's Park in my own ward. There has been over £300,000 investment in the Avenue's youth club to refurbish the space and ensure that it can support more young people in the area. There has been £250,000 investment allocated to works following environmental visual audits in the Mozart estate to support physical improvements with a number of works including covers on communal electrical, rockets, clasps, over fire drop keyholes, disabling of trade entry boxes and lots of things that result from historic disrepair because of the neglect that the area has faced over decades. There has also been an investment of £2.4 million in Queen's Park family hub which should be delivered soon and unfortunately wasn't delivered under the past administration and in Westbourne there has been an investment in Woodfield Road public highway. The ward has one of the highest numbers of disabled residents and a key focus of the works has been to improve accessibility and mobility. We also have a communications manager who is working with Westbourne neighbourhood forum to raise awareness and support for people in the area. In the Stowe Centre in Westbourne, there is the North Paddington Opportunities Project which is a support hub serving all three wards offering employment advice, CV workshops, benefit guidance, IT training and other opportunities to support residents to thrive. Thank you, Council. There was a good example of a very full answer. Thank you. Councillor Barbara, as mannoth. Thank you, Lord. My question is for the Cabinet member for public protection. Defication is right across Westminster, including around Cavendish Square. Please, can you confirm that while the land is owned by Westminster City Council, environmental health and parks are working to clear the area and build the area. As there is much room for improvement. Thank you. Your question, Councillor Azumano. I'm aware of the issues in Cavendish Square. It has been brought to my attention. I believe, well, not I believe, I know that our offices are working with parks in terms of how we stop some of this anti-social behaviour. And as you say, some of the foul that is permissible, that is done on these gardens, it is unacceptable. We are working close with offices. I will come back to you with a full of response about how much work we're doing and how often we're doing it. Thank you. I have a question. The Cabinet is reaffirming. Fires in March 2025. The company is liaising with the council because their intention is to purchase the land and the car park rather than lease it. What assurances will the council see that we have the £140 million fund to develop the site. It will not continue to decline further. Thank you very much for your supplementary. I'm aware of those details specifically, but I will come back to you. I think that comes under one of my other Cabinet portfolios because it's not public protection related completely because it is about. So who will that come under? Paul and David. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That's not a supplementary. No, supplementary should be directed to the Cabinet member. You've originally asked the question, too. Thank you. Councillor Lillie. Thank you, Lord Mayor. Resolute engaging with licensing. Feet pretty good support and advice supported by the council. I'd like to ask the Cabinet member for planning an economic development when more residents benefit from planning advice. Thank you, Councillor. This is correct. Planning is complicated. It's an archaing field of public policy and normal people only get involved with soil-mix planning application next door to where they live. As far as part of Feral Westminster, we want to give residents the information they need to make representations of the planning applications that affect their lives. So we're going to be launching a community planning advice service in the new year that will focus on major applications at the start until we've got the service bedded down. The community planning service will offer guidance to enable residents to understand the planning process, planning law and policies and the material planning considerations they need to know about when determining a planning application. It's a bad expectations. We won't be drafting letters of objection or representing residents' community hearings, at least not, not at the outset. But I'm hopeful the service will help our residents make their case in the most effective manner. They will help our planning service run more efficiently and help decisions quicker. Our applicants are working this too. I think it's going to be a win-win. Thank you. Councillor Rowley. Sorry, did you want some commentary? Sorry, I thought you indicated you didn't. Thank you, but sorry. I think members on both sides will appreciate the response of the Cabinet Member for planning because they care as much as we do that residents get heard and supported. Planning, as he says, is extremely complicated and we've got some changes to reforms to planning happening shortly. I'd like the Councillor to unpack those in simple language. Thanks, Councillor. We're voting tonight on some changes to the planning committee and I'm grateful for the child to explain what they are and particularly as someone you know doesn't like bureaucracy. I'm very pleased to say we are abolishing the planning and city development committee. I've been going to this committee for six years. In that time, it's never made a recommendation or taken a decision. P and C is a constitutional anomaly which waste member time, law enforcement resource, while letting scrutiny off the hook. So, what do we do? We're widening the remits of the Maidraps committee as well as we can decide planning applications. Maidraps can now meet in public to discuss planning policy. At the same time, we're reducing the number of subcommittees from three to two and equalising representation so all will have three majority and two minority members. Personally, I value the experience of planning committee members and want them to be able to contribute to policy formation. So, we'll be starting a new forum for planning committee members that will meet in private and be able to talk freely and openly, not only about policy, but about how we take decisions, individual applications and about how the committee operates. Finally, I'll be asking the scrutiny process to play an enhanced role. I expect both planning policy changes and the operation of the planning service to feature regularly on the agenda as they do at other councils. These changes will improve scrutiny, speed decision making and reduce bureaucracy. Please support them when they come to a vote. Thank you. Councillor Rally. I have a question for the leader of the council. Does he— I would obviously value greater clarity about the focus of his question rather than raising the abstract. Obviously, we want to ensure that people— Cabinet member pay has gone up 53.4%. If I read this document from the Audit Performance Committee, I can bore you by going through lots of numbers. There's been scenes in Cabinet member division performance. So, I'd like to know how can you justify a 53% pay rise over that period? Is there any element of performance whatsoever? I'd read the numbers out, especially given Comrade Streetings comments today, quite correct, so, regarding NHS, there should be no reward for failure. What we've got is reward for failure. I do not recognise Councillor Rally's description of the performance of our Cabinet. I appreciate that he's a— I'm sorry, you're somewhat of a ratic presence in committees, given what we've experienced through his huge budget scrutiny. So, I mean, he may not be paying attention to the progress that the council has been making. As has been made very clear, Cabinet member allowances in this council remain lower than any other council in London. They remain half the level of the colleagues in Kensington and Chelsea, and I certainly do not think they are doing twice the work that our council— because we are making real change here in Westminster today. So, I'm proud as a progress of my Cabinet has been making. As I said, they do so at a level far below anyone else in London. So, and we're doing all the good things. I appreciate that Councillor Rally will obviously feel I'm upset that no one ever put in in the Cabinet when he was— He's never good in the other constituency. Thank you. Councillor Hassan. Councillor Hassan. Question? A question for the Cabinet member to find out how strong the budget was excellent news for Westminster, because Westminster is the key location in Britain, and the budget was excellent news for Britain. By contrast with the £22 billion black hole which the Government inherited from its predecessors, the budget began fixing the foundations of our economy to invest in Britain's future. The International Monetary Fund has already increased their growth forecast for the United Kingdom, and approved the budget's focus on boosting growth through a needed increase in public investment while addressing urgent pressures on public services. The budget delivers funding for £2 million NHS operations, scans and appointments a year, capital funding to rebuild schools and build new social homes, the biggest increase in carers allowance, eligibility since which introduced, cuts the business rate bills for struggling retail hospitality and leisure businesses, all while freezing income tax, VAT and employer employees' national insurance. This is a budget which brings back economic stability and gives British businesses the confidence to invest in the growth that will return us to prosperity after 14 disastrous wasted years. The budget includes specific measures which will directly assist this council. What was the specific funding recently announced by the Government like these benefits from? Thank you. The Chancellor announced a significant real-terms increase in the local government financial settlement which forms the core central government grant to councils. There is also a £600 million increase in the social care grant which is additional funding to adults and children's social care and £233 million extra additional spending on homelessness which will help our temporary accommodation problem. The decision on how much each individual council will get will be announced in the local government financial settlement expected in December. The budget also includes increased funding for discretionary housing payments and renews the household support fund for another full year on top of the six months extension we have already had from this Government. We have used that fund to support the most vulnerable households in the city. Welcome the decision to continue it. Councillor Pitford. Thank you, Lord Member. My question is for the Cabinet Member for Housing Services. With the press announcing costs for a replacement PDHU system at up to £66,000 per dwelling is there a maximum figure that the Cabinet Member believes should be paid for a heating system, for a flat, regardless of who is paying, be it at the tenant, the leaseholder, the council or the state are either taxpayer. I am actually really resident working group meeting and you know that the 66K that was quoted was in a slide deck that was shared with residents on 17 July as part of our ongoing engagement and commitment to residents and we are always honest and transparent with residents. This figure, I don't know why you are laughing. This figure was the highest estimate at that time for the largest property on one of the estates. The figures shared are not final at this stage and you know as well as I do that once we have reduced the options and we have a short list of options, we will give everyone a financial analysis of what the cost will be. And we have also made it clear that we are going to be looking at funding and external funding as much as possible. I didn't quite get an answer of how much you think is acceptable but the supplementary is, does the Cabinet Member share my concern that ACOM, the consultants on this project, refused to run sensitivities to their financial model that were requested by an elected representative and agreed by council officers? I have a lot of faith in ACOM, I think they are doing an excellent job and if you ask for, sorry I am really sorry but I can't take you seriously. You asked ChatGPT what the best option for PDHU would be and then you emailed that to our officer. It is a project that will cost millions of pounds and we are working really closely with our lease holders and tenants and you are turning to ChatGPT. Thank you. Here hey, I am. Councillor Ears. What does Ears say? Thank you. Thank you. I am a department of housing for the last 50 or 80 million in your budget for it. Thank you, Lord. Thank you. I would like to ask the Cabinet Member for Climate, Ecology and Culture. Can you give us an update on what the council is doing to improve access to the arts for residents and school children? Thank you very much for your question, Councillor Piddock. Thanks for your support, always, culture and for our school kids here in Westminster. A key priority for me is the Cabinet Member for Culture is ensuring that the many fantastic institutions that we have in Westminster are seen as for the people who grow up here. It really frustrates me that we have huge housing estates and people in underprivileged families who live near the National Gallery, the West End Thirds as they walk past them every week and they don't see it as something that is accessible for them. There are lots of things we are doing as a council. You will all be familiar with our city lion scheme which everyone in this chamber I know can agree just fantastic work. Yes, thank you. I am allowed to admit when you do good things and we are allowed to continue them and make sure they continue to support access to culture. This year they have given over a thousand free tickets out to young people, over two and a half thousand young people have been engaged and will continue to support city lion's programme going forward. There are lots of specific programmes of different types of kids as well so I was really happy to attend a production by the Dreams from a Far Group which supports on a company to sign with the children that are coming in to Westminster. It was amazing to see what they were able to do but the most exciting thing that we recently launched is our arts link which is our local cultural education partnership and that is going to do an awful lot to link our schools in with our big institutions. Have you had a supplementary which you started to answer? Could you tell us a little bit more about the arts loop site and how we can encourage children to access it? Yes, so the arts link, as a concept, is an arts council endorsed framework to help increase these local partnerships between our educational providers and our cultural institutions. The key reason that we have established this is to create the system to aggregate the local cultural offer for our Westminster schools. We find often struggle to build these relationships individually so some schools have good relationships with certain institutions while others don't. The idea behind the arts link is that schools can sign up to the mailing list and please all of you send links out to your local schools and encourage them to get involved. They can find free offers that a lot of these institutions are put in forward. To date, and I have just double-checked this, we have 38 cultural partners on the directory, I'm looking at it now, Cartoon Museum, Dom Marwer House, National Gallery. These are huge household names offering things for free for our schools to be able to attend. 31 schools, current school offers, currently on the site which schools can already sign up to enjoy. There is a launch event happening in December on December the second of email to all of you inviting you to come along. Many of you have already said yes, which is brilliant, so you'll be able to see what the arts link is going to do and hear more about it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Barnes. Lord Mayor, thank you very much colleagues. It's good to be back. Unfortunately, I'm not the only thing that's back from 2018, so too is the Mayor's crap pot scheme to pedestrianize Oxford Street. And I would like to ask the Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Development, if it's possible for him to give a guarantee that the Westminster funds allocated for the Oxford Street programme that was to be under Westminster City Council's management will not be passed to the Mayor for his proposed plan in the disastrous scenario that the MDC comes forward. I'm sorry, I got a bit of a sore throat. It's great to have you back. The Corridor question has already gone up 100%. So you will no doubt answer the strength on the other side of the room. There's no intention of contributing any money from Westminster to the Mayor's scheme for Oxford Street. So no, we will, we will, we will spend in the Oxford Street dividend somewhere else. I'm delighted by that. Unfortunately, the Labour Mayor of London won't be as he has already discussed in meetings that the Westminster money will be a core part of the allocation he would make for the pedestrianization. One of the things that he's also would like would be the licensing to also be handed over on the MDC, not part of the legislation. Can I just ask for a similar guarantee from the Cabinet Member that there is no situation under which he would endorse licensing being moved over to the MDC? So just to go back on what you said at the beginning of that, of that question, there is no indication we have that the Mayor will be asking for any money from Westminster Council. So we've met the officers and the political appointees. I don't think you have. If you have any information that we don't have, please drop it. The email will be very interested to find it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I'm sorry. Just now. That's kind of hearsay, but it's a bit better than that, please. As for licensing, no, we want to retain licensing in Westminster as, and planning too, as you could probably imagine. Thank you. Councillor Chaudrey. Thank you, Lord Mayor. My question is to Cabinet Member of City Management and Air Quality. Can you hear me now? Can you hear me? Just continue. All right. It's not great, but it's on. My question is to Cabinet Member of City Management and Air Quality. Please can you update the Council on the Walking Friday initiated with Anderson? Thank you, Councillor Chaudrey. We're working with Amazon at the moment to come up with a three-month pilot test out, walking freight in Soho and the West End during the peak delivery time to support greener and more sustainable deliveries. Amazon's or a Vans will be allowed to park on single yellow lines in two designated locations in Soho from where the Amazon drivers will deliver parcels on foot using wheeled cages. And we hope that there will be three real benefits from this. Lastly, to significantly reduce the number of light goods vehicle movements in the highly congested streets of Soho and the West End while continuing to meet the Amazon customers needs. Secondly, to ease curbside stress where there are competing uses for scarce amounts of curbspace. It's very important to reduce harmful emissions and collision risk. The trial started on 24 October and will end the end of January. And I'm confident that it will increase the number of parcels that are delivered on foot and not by motor vehicle. Thank you. Thank you. If this initiative is successful, will it be rolled out elsewhere? Thank you, Councillor Chaudrey. I'm sure that if it's success, that we will be discussing this further with Amazon in other parts of the city. And I hope that other of the delivery companies that are used to deliver online purchases will also consider this way because it's clearly the way forward to reduce the number of deliveries while not interfering with the number of online purchases that people make. Councillor Mendoza. My question to the lead member for finance. Now, Councillor Hassan has kindly paved the way for this with the rather unfortunately still-tidden wills of exchange with Councillor Boothroyd. It really should take lessons from Councillor De Mullenburg about how to deliver prepared lines in this regard. But he spoke about the budget. We know he's now happy with the budget. He likes attacks and spend approach. That's fine. From his perspective, I would like to know that before the budget, did he or the administration make any representation? On behalf of this council to the chancellor, then if so, what areas were those in and could he share just the detail of that? Thank Councillor Mendoza for the question. I enjoyed a full meeting with the chancellor before she took office when we went around counselling together. I think Westminster Council has made it so it's not declarable. It's not declarable. It's routine electioneering. I think Westminster has been quite clear on what its lobbying asks are of government and they apply to all government departments. We know that the leader has a tangential relationship with the mayor and you have a tangential relationship with the chancellor, which is somewhat good news. We heard last night that the budget scrutiny group, that there are some concerns among officers that the formula might change for the allocation of additional spending, are you planning on making representations now that we know the broad amount to try and get a better outcome for Westminster than officers are assuming? It's happening and if so, how would you propose to sell that into the chancellor? What lines are you going to use? I think Councillor Mendoza for his question. As it happens, I used to work for the chancellor's predecessor in her constituencies. I do have a connection there and she is from the beautiful city of Leeds, which is excellent. Councillor Mendoza may be aware that when the local government financial settlement is announced in December, normally in the last week of December before Christmas, that is as a consultation. Local authorities are invited to comment on their allocations through it and we have been commenting. In previous years, I have often made the point that Councillor Mendoza was not sure if it was here for them, that this is like Charlie Brown, that it is always Lucy holding the football, telling Charlie Brown as he runs out, that she is going to hold it there. Only to whip it away at the last moment and then Charlie Brown goes and ends up flying through the air and hurting himself. It is not Lucy anymore. It is Rachel. I am sure she will be listening to Westminster a great deal more interest and we will make sure we put our case for a fair funding review that delivers for this council. Thank you. Councillor Eagleton. Thank you. I have a question for Councillor Mascow, but the philosopher's update on how the recent inspection by the Care Quality Commission went. Thank you very much. I am very pleased with the results of the CQC inspection. We got a good result. Also the rating that we had was 75%, which is currently the second nationally and the highest in London. I want to express huge thank you, but I am going to ask you to do this again. Thank you. I am very pleased with the results of the CQC inspection. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Teft o f Whoa Mi. Yr'n ac yn dde!" A'r deitys am elwn i a'r dennygyffad yn cynd ar fra o dimynondu wneud'n galleneau bobl goedig. Mae'r d чувствio, ond Iem, Ithaf oen rydig â bodeg ysh wnedd ar bodem ac yn yr gymysfrag ali Ithaf, f 부분이wyngau satefio drwn y phastras gofnys meddwl o Jim Carme, miglo minorit球 i Poelwest. Porthen gyda'r hefyd yn doeddu i'r eu ce line graf modiwhень i'r hiwch y pethen a trybu o'r cysyllmalill yn evious. Onci teithydag llaun i fynddystch ar gyfer 80 gwyr a phastur yn ddaion y nid. gyda'n adhua conectatio, fod o gyda'r nadu yn rhoi hun первbicéenair, holyyy. D Warren. Dwych chi efoiffenio ar yfyd barod gen�� endi id oed yn unrhygiad natw Flo fel'n adhuaio bod earlyod. Ond yr outcomes a few nieme Shop Dan. Ond yr aries mae mynd i, a ondo berrennau fel darwch arodyd ei rhoddi? Ryddi ei beth ddim rewydd sydd ar yma ond yr caelau bod゚ffanydd am Members De- representing fel peg honorti gwestiawwng rhan oedd gyfu o reithenge gaid yn fewn ond o fwy gweld eich honodd o ddluedd nhw fwy gweld, yn waith i fwy gweld, o drôle th canfa, are iawn i berbed taking a Cobbemoledau, myn caeg eu, gael dobl carestortau. intervention MerDan Waithilion fills I – I think that there have been a number of consultations on the Warwick Bay public realm scheme which I'm sure you're referring to. The initial ones were very, very much favour in favour of the support around the 70% plus. And then we had any further consultation which I think was hijacked if I'm being absolutely honest hijacked by ddyn nhw iño a gifordur. Felly bod Mae minna i deall culturally newławfa ddimeddiad a g¨ sticks yn kwi. Ina gwaspir, ac laywm�� eich sydd cael pensう o ffordd, sylw mam wedi'r scud fel hyn yn edrall mynd i unsure fav yn effe synsto, crefyn Consider com Whichy crystal cold sydd wedi eich sydd cael lly Math Lambham. o rwyb i'r cyfle. Sut hynny, hynny siopno hynnyhyr ar fer ynor gyfer 6. A bod yn fy ffwn Useŵr yst yn ffweddedd uses yn hynny oil o'r cyfeithio pan y Twym go 오늘. Rydych entirely y ni lath ycast? Mae eisiau ridi'n hynny, yngeding sy'n yr hwn. Y gall תwn ni bandwydd ysgadwy sut. E'n hynny, mae cyntag Ewro integration a'r cr sameyt. Dilewyd Cymru o concentrationwch y sydden a syr y gwneud cymru? Mae cymau yn serg creat dimny oidd tynu a pfaeth nad yshw. .

o enw i'w fe wedi barhyc wneudululax iawn i maeод. Mae'n cyfysioech lackodla��os, cyfynew possibilitiesен. Mae'n sef i Lewydd yn bwlle slot y pwlla Dwi'n cymde di Bethwnn hwn83 eu cybdaydgu. Tyn ègy cyflell o gwneud y fVoice i ddyn nhw'r sbu'n midd ond sy lidd yn ffod yn mo'n feiddiad. U wyf yn cyhafa�� veg Gyfourgu yn gwthaud cyfoirr i cyrryslio fal. Kung gwilieth na'u ji. Ditig bod on Was i ein cyngol eraillau arwkaegiaethu fel hynny. enforodeth pweddiadu os i dydcigewlaeth u cionnaeth yn dweudu captured okwig i gleb f YOwll, Aawfalló commiau wnaeth fy cyfraith fawr oes yn gallu sgilegu ianneud yn gofen o fwylych cymdar. Cymru eisiau rydychynu a wneud y pawch nhwys Bookا yna. Yna sylfiwd rygedi givewch Wediiodd y byd eisiau lefo sfi amser rubi eti mewn o'r yrny a? Ydd ychofr thine Crebran amser y busy hếtillio sy'n i fod tir cy Margaret y fy natall yn gallu sgyd ychedid mewn i wneud yn rhaid. Mae dyna unrhu'n metwn mae Люб wntau i rhanolol yn argentaneitada wedi ddau wraith gondda cu Bregwchru. yn y byín bwysig oversized cinf Cut. A fynllundiadw lack fodd a ffeg, chi'Saadidau, rhyw distracting a ie sef trafeng, barul podig neu rhysbiff, a gyl JACI am, a gleu dgym sylfa yn fanelau. Mae wedi'r amllauryd i bulgor.

Mae cyfrag� 2010 o lythedraedd yn edryd sydd y gyak deilliralt Chwyrslish o hi, yn cyfrag秒el clym yn y cofrag, ei gwneud nationsd phairllol ar y merd millennialsor assistellm y cydyd yn echellet rhan yn ffyrru. Bray's and shoplifters have repeatedly targeted a small family-owned corner shop. Scooters have been performing reconnaissance on the street, making use of a small passageway. And on Saturday, an absolutely vile antisemitic incident took place in broad daylight. Elsewhere, quiet residential streets are plagued by drugs. Residents agree to buy the sight of people visibly taking and selling cannabis outside their homes. In Scotch-Hellis Gardens, teenagers are disgracefully climbing onto the roof of the building to throw illicit parties. Those residents with young children are rightly scared and intimidated. Despite the best efforts of our local policing team, in residential streets up and down Abbey Road, people are now taking policing into their own hands, paying out of their own pocket for security patrols. Now I do welcome the council's investment in CCTV cameras, and when the process of deploying a number of these across our ward. However, my colleagues and I have discovered that there are very few locations where they can actually be situated. Smaller land posts on residential streets will not support them. Nor can we attach them to TFL-owned streetvites, eliminating many locations on Finchley Road. For smaller streets like Blanham Terrace, with quiet, secluded corners, this is not going to solve their problems. I also want to raise what support and training is being given to our local policing teams to help access the footage from these cameras. In conversations I have had, it seems that while chairing cross can access footage of a crime has been reported, our local team don't currently have the means of monitoring the cameras. The bottom line is that the Mayor of London has not got a grip on policing in this city. Ensuring our communities are safe is non-negotiable. It's the very least our residents deserve, and under this Labour council and a Labour Mayor, it has continued to decline. In short, we need more neighbourhood policing. We need CCTV cameras fitted not just to our main roads, but to smaller side streets, to ensure that residents and businesses feel safe. And we need to know that the police can access and monitor this footage. This is what the residents of Abbey Road need, and it's why I am here to champion them. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Gally on your maiden speech. Can I call on Isher Councillor Isher less to respond? I would like to start by thanking Councillor Gally for bringing this important issue to full council tonight, and I congratulate her on her maiden speech. As you know, the council works closely with the police attack on crime and anti-social behaviour. In Abbey Road, the local police team is fully starved with one sergeant, two PCs and a PCSO. And although abstractions do happen, the met have assured us that they work to keep these to a minimum. Police have two no-mad CCTV cameras as part of the St John's Wood High Street scheme. And we are working closely with ward councillors as well as residents and local community to place the council's own CCTV network as part of our rollout of 100 cameras. Following consultation with ward councillors, proposals for the placement of new CCTV cameras have been discussed at neighbourhood coordination meetings and submitted to the CCTV team. In call wards, Abbey Road has a dedicated email inbox for ward councillors that they can contact at any time. Councillor Gally can also speak to her neighbour, team leader and coordinator if she wishes to raise any other issues. And of course, I'm always happy for ward councillors to raise issues with me directly. On the Scotch Ellis Gardens issue, this has been raised and specific concerns around the ASB in those two areas. So Scotch Ellis Gardens and Boundary Road estates, street briefings were arranged to give local communities the opportunity to engage with officers and discuss their concerns. Officers directed people affected on how to report criminal activity. The neighbourhood coordinator has requested CCTV as part of the evidence gathering and is working with police and targets alleged anti-social behaviour and crime. They will ensure that any incidents are investigated and addressed swiftly. You also mentioned the suitability of current furniture that we have on some of those streets that you mentioned and actually some of them are unsuitable. We are exploring other ways that we bring in cameras to areas by buying furniture and putting them in some of those areas that are unsuitable for the existing furniture. So we will come back to you on some of those options and like quite rightly the areas that you said in your speech are a concern to us as well and we need to sort this out. Lord Mayor, members will know that tackling crime and anti-social behaviour is a priority for our administration. ASB can blight people's lives. That is why we reverse the previous administration's decision to sell off our CCTV and bought out monitoring service back in house. We are rolling out 100 deployable cameras with three quarters operational by Christmas and we are working with all ward councillors, residents and businesses to decide on where these cameras should be placed. The feed will be monitored and our teams will work closely with the police to reduce crime and identify frequent offenders. As we have already seen successes with the new cameras will be looking to expand our CCTV service in 2025. The council has its own enforcement team, the city inspectors who work in every ward across the borough to address ASB and enforcement issues. They are clamping down on illegal flight tipping issue in 4,221 fixed penalty waste notices in the first half of this year, an increase of 200% on the same period last year. We will prosecute people who do not comply with the law. The city inspectors have taken more than 50 cases to court this year for offences like unlicensed street trading and providing late night refreshments without a licence. These are activities that can really impact people visiting Westminster who expect to be able to enjoy themselves safely. Lord Mayor in Abbey Road and across the borough we are working closely with the police and investing in resources to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. We are determined to make Westminster a safer borough for people to live in and visit. Thank you, Lord Mayor. Thank you for your issue. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes this item. We now move on to the remaining agenda item. The topic is selected for debate and the names of those down to speak were tabled on the order paper sent to all earlier this week. Each speaker as normal has up to five minutes. The majority group has selected the topic a debate on the city plan, partial review, which will be submitted to the Secretary of State shortly as their business this evening. This is set out in the order paper. I would now call on Councillor Barraclough to open the debate. Thank you, Lord Mayor. I am delighted to be opening this debate on the partial review of the city plan. The plan is a vital document. The council's main route to delivering economic growth in our city is also our opportunity to ensure that growth is clean green and provides our residents with good quality housing and employers with the space they need to provide good jobs. Here are the main changes. We are going to modify the affordable housing policy to promote flat social rent. We are going to add a new policy, retrofit first, to encourage building owners to bring forward refurbishment projects more quickly to meet the current high tenant demand. Finally, we are going to add four new policies to promote growth at specific locations. Groven aside, by the River of Pimlico, St Mary's Hospital, Westbourne Park, Bus Garage and Subline by Royal Oak Station. Each of these site allocations will help accelerate high quality development at those locations. We have a lot to talk about, but I am going to focus on retrofit. As we look out from city hall, we see thousands of buildings with excellent structural standards, but with the energy performance of yesterday. Our buildings urgently need heat pumps, modern insulation, new windows, green roofs and so on. The good news is the strong commercial demand for upgraded buildings. Commercial tenants in Westminster will pay a high rent for a high specification accommodation. The amount of voluntary EPC certificates is a good proxy for retrofits, and it has risen consistently over the last three years. From 37,000 to 52,000 to 92,000 square metres of commercial floors floor space upgraded last year. That is more than candy and more than the city. It proves the demand for a rapid upgrade of our commercial buildings. Good for the environment, good for jobs and supported by business. I want to ensure that the council is helping speed up project pipelines and not slow them down. The reason we need a retrofit policy is because our current one is unclear. It says that demolition must be, quote, fully supported by a whole life carbon assessment. Without any supporting text explaining what fully justified means. We want everyone in the development community to know where they stand as early in the process as possible. The priority and consistency in our policy making will accelerate investments, bringing more upgraded floor space and happier tenants, paying more rents and hiring more staff. But this is complicated, we know. We are the first council bringing forward such a policy, and we knew it would take time to get it right, and therefore we have undertaken extensive consultation. We began with a broad engagement in October 2022, asking for views about how retrofit policy might work. We drafted some wording in summer 23 and tested this with our key stakeholders. We took on board their views and published revised wording in the formal consultation in March 24. This stimulated quite a few comments in real estate industry, including 114 pages from the Westminster Property Association in response. We were challenged on a number of issues, notably on whether our proposed embodied carbon targets were so high as to be unachievable. We have listened. We have listened. Officers have rewritten the policy and prepared a separate retrofit first guidance document, if you read alongside. This is going to provide certainty on how the policy will be implemented, and will likely become an SPD, want the retrofit first policy itself. It is adopted. So, what are we proposing? Well, to encourage retrofit and reuse of existing buildings, we are going to ask planning officers to balance heritage and sustainability for the first time. Specifically, we are going to be more supportive of what was extensions to existing buildings where that unlocks full refurbishment. Although our policy is retrofit first, we will not be banning all demolition that would be silly. Applicants proposing to redevelop a site will need to pass one of four tests. In future, demolition will be supported either if the current building simply can't be retrofitted, or the new use is highly specialized and requires access requirements that can't be delivered by a retrofit. If redevelopment is better in whole life carbon terms than retention, unlikely, but we need to put that in just in case. Or finally, if redeveloped delivers significant public benefit beyond that required by the city plan, affordable housing will still be one of those, but we are going to allow applicants to make an economic case as well. If one of the four tests is passed, we are going to have a carbon budget for the construction of the new building. And we have reset the budget response to consultation at a level that is going to be stretching, but achievable. If a proposal exceeds the carbon budget, we are going to charge a carbon offset levy which will go to pay for decarbonisation projects elsewhere in the city. Retrofit first will deliver more buildings refurbished, more quickly, delivering more jobs and more growth, but less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Novartough. Councillor Noble. Thank you, Lord Mayor. I would like to speak this evening about the important changes being proposed to the provision of affordable housing in the policy 13 of the WAMLF. That will ensure that social housing is right for the reprioritisation as the pre-eminent tenure of truly affordable housing in the city. By ensuring that 70% is set as the benchmark for social housing and the affordable proportion developers will be contributing more towards generally secure tenancies in major development. By extending the obligation to provide affordable on smaller sites, we widen the net so that boutique schemes must also play their part towards tackling the housing crisis that we all face. Finally, making a requirement that all affordable provision for public sector land schemes is delivered in borough ensures that our residents benefit the most from the development taking place here. All these changes have already been viability tested to make sure that developers will continue to be able to build in Westminster. Now, why is it important to refocus on social housing in non-counsel development? Because that's where the need is most acute. It means getting families out of temporary accommodation, which benefits them and the council. It means getting people out of overcrowded private sector housing and into a home where they can live rather than just exist. It means the people who keep the city of Westminster running, the bus drivers, the care workers, the hospitality workers, as well as teachers, nurses and firefighters can call Westminster home without worrying if they'll still be here in six months time. They are all our key workers. Social housing can be the bedrock of our communities. It helps them flourish by providing the kind of stability that can only otherwise be reached where people are fortunate enough to be able to buy a home. Something nowadays which is out of reach even to well off individuals and families. It allows employers to recruit, train and retain talent, knowing that people are less likely to have to move away because of economic circumstances. It means that we can have more sustainable housing. Those built or retrofit to the specifications necessary for decades to come, reducing both their carbon footprint and energy bills. I and many here see first hand at ward surgeries and on home visits just how cruftly it is to have a safe secure and sustainable place to call home. I'm very pleased that we're beginning the journey towards making these changes in the city plan. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Neill, Councillor Glen. The mayor of London is currently in the process of renewing the London plan and the government is proposing massive changes to the national planning and policy framework. It does take the question why now rather than wait until the wider context is clear. This is especially true, given the huge uncertainty over the future of planning in the entire Oxford Street District. Thanks to their friend Mayor Carr and the central government. The site allocations are uncontroversial and identify sensible if in some cases extremely ambitious locations. The most sensitive of these has got to be St Mary's Hospital long identified as needing a large capital investment. So it was very disappointing to see that their aforementioned friends in central government have not specifically committed to this in the autumn budget. The chief executive of Imperial College Healthcare Trust, Professor Tim Orchard, responded to that budget saying that whilst there were some positive signs for the future of hospital redevelopments, the lack of detail meant they were still frustratingly waiting for the promised release of funds to move to Reaver Stage 2 at the crumbling St Mary's estate, with the delay costing them an eye-watering additional 63 to 73 million pounds every six months. Councillor Schererer will cover the proposed affordable housing policy in more detail, so I'll limit my comments just to the most egregious aspects. Your risk Westminster not being a truly mixed borough, but rather only for the very few who do qualify for social housing or the very few rich enough to afford full market rent or buy in Westminster. You could say that this is a housing policy for the few, not the many. The proposed change to a retrofit first policy is potentially very sensible, given the acknowledged climate crisis, but we must be very careful not to effectively ban development. I was pleased to hear what you said about listening to the WPA response, but we are massively increasing the cost, complexity and uncertainty of regulation. The detail must be rigged and there must be pragmatic flexibility in the system. As I said at the beginning, these proposals are in the context of major planning policy changes at all levels. And yet, this council, as Councillor Barrackloth said in his earlier answer to a question, is proposing to abolish the Planning and City Development Committee later this evening. I cannot agree with the suggestion put forward that the Planning and Policy City Development Committee lacks purpose. It has a very specific purpose laid out in the council's constitution, which includes considering local plan policies and supplementary planning documents at appropriate stages of the process, both in their preparation and adoption. This has simply not happened either with the policy changes proposed in this debate or with the proposed public rail and SPD or the proposed environment SPD. This is not the fault of the committee. Policies have not been brought forward to it at the appropriate early stage, which could have been done in private session if it was considered necessary. I would like to ask that the committee will not be able to do so. This is a real reduction in oversight and transparency of planning in this council, which I hope members across all parties can agree is a wrong term. And they will perhaps join us in abstaining later this evening. Thank you, Councillor Hough. I am delighted to have the opportunity to endorse the tireless work that has been undertaken over the last two years by Councillor Barrett to make this city plan fit to face the challenges of Westminster today. In answer to Councillor Grahame's point, the challenge we've been changing city plans is that they take a long time and the new MPPF changes have specifically taken on board. The fact that when you've got to Reg 19, you're able to move forward and we believe that what we're doing here is in line with the government's direction of travel. At a time when too many on both sides of the Atlantic are bad doing their commitments to rise to the challenge of climate change, it is vital that Westminster steps up and does its part to creatively unlock fast to pace growth whilst addressing the issue of embodied carbon head on. I've been heartened to hear from many of our key business partners in the city who see this approach as a way forward to modernise their portfolios whilst meeting their commitments to sustainable city charter. In a space-contained city, we're not overburdened with easily developed brownfield sites. So I want to commend the work that's been done on site allocations that grow from sidings while oak, Westbourne Park, Cymru, Scarrage and St Mary's. All these sites have been long talked about for future development but never brought forward. By taking this step, it gives the council more of a say in the future of these areas and move forward discussions and agreements with TFL Network at Rail and other landowners that give certainty to encourage the investment needed to deliver the homes and commercial spaces we need for our city to thrive. Scarsity of available land that we have here in Westminster is one of the main reasons why the Conservatives track record of letting developers get away with building hardly any affordable housing with so egregious. For example, the old war officer had 98 affordable homes under the council's policies at the time. It doesn't have any provided £10 million out of the £40 million payment in lieu that they would have been due. Similarly, we all remember that the £1 billion scheme that turned white leas into the white lea got away with only a 5% affordable contribution against a policy compliant level of 35%. I could go on again and again about the missed opportunities that that party had to change the people's lives in our city. There are hundreds of families who should have been housed and you dropped the ball. While the market absorbs the glass of superprime property that was waived throughout that ball of housing over the previous decade, response to most pandemic desires to consolidate out of town offices into grey day facilities here in the European Union, peckably environmentally provincial new builds that we will be building in Westminster, we want to make sure that we have the policies in place to maximise contributions for affordable housing when they come forward in the future. I am delighted that we are seeking to ensure that smaller sites contribute to affordable housing in a measured and proportionate way that will ensure that future superprime developments of say 9 units, which will potentially come in at tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds, are paying their fair share towards housing that ordinary people can afford to live in in Westminster. At the council election, we committed to reverse in the previous administration's decision to weaken the requirements on developers in their affordable housing contributions to provide the most affordable type of housing of all social housing. We wanted to check that we were on the right track here and ensure that our principles were aligned with the evidence. The council commissioned rigorous and independent housing needs analysis that started to set out the challenge ahead of us to meet local housing need given that poor track record in the past. We needed to meet local housing needs based on local demographics and pressures. Not only do we need to significantly increase the number of affordable homes dramatically, we need to build a $15,000 more by 2040 to truly meet demand. We recognise that that is even challenging for our ambitions, but crucially the vast majority of those new builds needed to be for social rent. We are now housing waiting list of over 4,000, growing temporary accommodation pressures and a lamentable record of how affordable housing is built in Westminster over decades. It is right that the revisions of the city plan changes the ratio of social and intermedia from the 40 to 60 per cent in the previous city plan to the 70-30 split point for today. Requiring schemes built on public land to deliver all their affordable housing in Westminster to better meet the needs of our city. These changes sit alongside work done through our affordable housing SPD to ensure that the intermediate homes built in the future are actually affordable and something that would directly, distinctly, hit and miss in previous years. We are working actively with the private sector to bring forward opportunities for new build like build to rent to help provide other forms of affordable rent in this borough. There is a housing crisis in this country, not properly addressed for generations, but which has spiraled out of control in the last 14 years. So it is only right that we use every lever available to maximise delivery of social and truly affordable housing here in Westminster. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hugg. Councillor Shurrow. Thank you, Lord Mayor. Today we debate the proposed revisions of the current city plan, which was only introduced actually as recently as 2021, a recent plan that aligns with the Conservative City for all mission. Off the back of an anti-development campaigning message in 22, promising no drinks for developers, which did last very long, it is no surprise that we see such a negative and ideological set of revisions in front of us today from the Labour group. The first ideology that prevails is a bit to change the affordable split from 60% key worker to 40% at key work and 40% social rented to a new 70% social rented and 30% key worker provision. The housing needs analysis conducted by the Conservative Administration in 2019 showed very clearly that Westminster was materially underserved in key worker homes. It estimated that 563 new affordable homes needed to be built in Westminster each year to meet demand, but which 56% needed to be for intermediate housing and 44% for social housing. I find it quite astonishing that only a few months after coming to power the Labour Party was already discussing a reversal of this split and suggesting 70, 30 in favour of social rented homes. What research was this based on? Why was the previous and recent research ignored? If you don't believe me, let me refer to the Labour Administration's annual affordable housing statement published in December 22. It concluded that the average turnover of social homes is at least six times higher than that for intermediate homes. What this means is that our key workers need to wait six times longer for an opportunity to live in our city. Six times longer for teachers, firemen, nurses, policemen and women, junior doctors and our own civil servants and officers to get a home in our city. What have they done to be made a minority? The Labour Party talks about working people, or they tried to. Are these working people? In my mind, they are not just workers, they are key workers, the lifeblood of our communities and the glue that holds it together. Why shouldn't they at least have equal opportunities to have a house at home in Westminster? Is that not fair? The second ideology is the plans to retrofit first or as the industry now refers to it as retrofit only. The most successful cities are constantly moving, they are evolving, especially the ambitious ones. They need to embrace the opportunities new designs, state-of-the-art M&E, meet modern occupational demands and embrace new ways of doing things. Today, the revisions of the city plan are totally lacking ambition and they are backward looking. It is retro-spective. The plan will make building new buildings harder for everyone. Do we want new buildings? Do we want new housing for our residents? Do we want state-of-the-art building technology? Do we want to take Westminster forward on this global stage? Do we want the benefits, like Section 106 and Sil, and the employment that goes with that? Today, we are debating an approach that will be consigned to the history books as the day Westminster's building ambitions was cut off at the knees, frozen in time. The time when the rest of the world was innovating and Westminster was being forced to shoehorn, substandard building plans into outdated and unwanted buildings, many of which will be end of life in the next 50 years anyway. Building and development isn't easy. Just ask the Labour Party, they haven't brought forward a single meaningful residential scheme of any note that wasn't in the pipeline under the Conservatives. However, it is a process brought with risk and where no knowns are critical. It certainly isn't a space where ideologies can govern and where improvements are made from making a process harder. No one in this chamber is debating the importance of reducing carbon emissions, nor saying that the building industry shouldn't be doing everything in its power to comply. But the real debate is how far you take that and to what end and in what context. The question must be whether a new building will bring more to our city and whether its technology will provide longer-term carbon savings compared to retrofit over its entire lifetime. The tail must not wag the dog. Future generations will judge this council on this city plan. They will wonder what happened in 24 and why the best new green buildings moved elsewhere to Camden, Islington, the city and other neighbouring boroughs. If there are key workers, their children will be wondering what their parents did to be pushed to the back of the queue. With revisions being proposed like these tonight, no wonder the mayor feels he needs to take control over whose huge suede of our city centre. Maybe he might have a little more pragmatism and ambition. Thank you, Lord Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Shira. I now call on Councillor Barraff to reply. The floor is yours. Thank you. That was a short debate that I was expecting. Thank you, everybody, you took part. That was the first debate on the city plan that we've had since I was elected. That was the first debate on the city plan I've had since I was elected in 2018. When the full plan went through, it was not debated in this chamber. It was not debated at scrutiny. It was not even discussed at the planning as if he developed and committed. I'm delighted to bring that here tonight because I think we should talk about important stuff here. Why I brought this is why I brought Westminster after dark, too. I forgot to begin to thank Agnish Kazimka and head of planning policy, the rest of her team, who've done a shed load of work on this. It's an extraordinary amount of effort that's gone into producing this. I'm just realizing that the part job is it probably haven't read the documents. They appeared on the planning website last Friday. Had you read those, you'd have read what the policy actually is, Councillor Shira, rather than what it used to be or what you thought it might be. You also could have read the new housing needs assessments, which explains that we have 11,500 households in Westminster living in unsuitable housing unable to afford their own and to my mind those are the priority. We learned during Covid who are the key workers. It's a lot of people. Folks who work at Tesco's are key workers just as much as junior doctors are. If the Conservatives had been serious about intermediate rents, they might have built some at New Scotland Yard. 268 flats there, great place for intermediate rents. That is, we got 10. When you had the chance, you didn't do it. The retrofit policy has been produced in conjunction with the industry. We have listened and the key sticking point was around the carbon budget per square metre of new accommodation. I think the new figures will land well with the industry and the framework will land well as well and give consistency and clarity that people need to invest and take decisions. I think the new figures will be able to make a decision. I think the new figures will be able to make a decision. I think the new figures will be able to make a decision. The WPA press release on their report into all this stuff said there was going to be a catastrophic decline in employment space in the city. A catastrophic decline. When he read the report from Arab, Arab said the worst possible thing was going to happen was a marginal decline in high-value office jobs which they turned into a catastrophic decline for their press release. We know where the WPA headed. They are driven by some of their loudest members. A lot of their members don't agree where they go and are more on our side of this argument. One thing to add on affordable housing and the small sites, we were cautious about extending the obligation to small sites. It is 35% for loud sites and it is going to be 20% for small sites. We did listen and we reduced the obligation there. The change from intermediate into social won't affect the viability of residential schemes either. It will result in a revenue decline of maybe 1% in primary areas and 3% in subprime. 10 flats out of 100 will flick 10 year and that is the impact on the revenue of the scheme. I am quite confident about that. I am very pleased that everyone likes the site and locations because we have never done that before in Westminster. That is a terrific opportunity we have with accelerating development, intensifying usage and getting more jobs more quickly and more flats more quickly and otherwise. Thank you very much and thank you for taking part in the debate. Much appreciated. Thank you Councillor Barock. That concludes the debate on the issue and the item chosen by the majority party. Moving to the opposition group, they have selected the effect of homelessness in Westminster and how to improve the situation for all for their debate and their business this evening. That is set out in the order paper. I now call on Councillor Harvey to open the debate. Thank you Lord Mayor. As Councillors, so much of what we do is to look after these residents whose life is precarious. Homelessness is precarious every minute, every second. There are also members here on both sides of the political divide who have experienced homelessness. It is absolutely right that we debate the new strategy for homelessness and rough sleeping. It will be needed to be the best it can be. I post three challenges. First of all, the apparent rolling together of the strategies for rough sleeping and homelessness. Secondly, I question a possible reluctance in the majority party to face up to the need for firm enforcement from time to time. Not just to protect residents but to protect vulnerable people. Thirdly, I want to reaffirm the importance of consulting and working with our residents. Lord Mayor, there are many matters for agreement as well and I particularly want to praise involving homeless people and designing the strategy and also the recognition of the trauma that affects so many people on the streets. We all recognise that temporary accommodation is a crisis in almost every authority in London and beyond. But let me turn to rough sleeping. When visitors come to London, after the hotel, the first thing that often sees a street sleeper. 752 in quarter one of this year. It does pernicious damage to its victims and is a threat to the wider community. The impact is far beyond poor homelessness. It is distinct. The supportive leads which is far across the council to many more services, to charities, NHS as well. And we should recognise that distinctiveness. Life expectancy on the streets is about 44. Extreme and high rates of violence are chaos. And 40% to three quarters of rough sleepers have severe mental health issues or histories. Each of them is someone's child or sometimes someone's parent. They deserve specific focus support to be stable and happy again if they can. We need to know there's going to be a separate strategic plan and a separate accountability. Let me turn to community protection. Except in cases involving violence or abuse in homelessness. What sets the street population apart is that need for enforcement to protect. The challenges for rough sleepers and residents near the remains. Recently two drug criminals returned to my area. Just two people have bought chaos. They've bought fear, more drugs and drug dealing. They have now been taken off, but it's taken time. Tough love is part of what homeless people and street people need. So do our residents, businesses, workers and visitors. In South Westminster, the enforcement model has failed. An erode of agencies tell us that outside the council. People don't believe the council is on their side. Last year, residents in Vincent Square and beyond were promised a new strategy. It's never happened. And the police force in our area is about the size of a rural village police force. Please, the priority of intervening to stop dangerous behaviour needs to be restored. That needs to be my third concern. There are lots of great words about inclusion and consultation in the draft strategy which I agree with. But it isn't happening. And trust is wearing very thin among residents who feel partnership has been lacking. When dealers and drug dealers and rough sleepers tailgate old people into their flats, an elderly residents are extremely frightened. You understand why striving responses start, why trust breaks down. So please don't just talk about joint ownership and joint structure. Actually do it and do it quickly. It's out of our Westminster street sport or something like that. Involve the charities, the council and the residents. Many of them have money and ideas and are willing to help contribute. But most of all talk to them. I've had to report the scene. We're a very serious incident in my area, involved with a young person. And we just need that enforcement commitment right across the council for it to stop. And the metrics need to be shared and real and residents need to be involved. Lord Mayor and concluding, I want to praise the work of officers in this field that has gone on for years. Effectively committed and dedicated. But I worry the scale of the problem, which I think that the strategy at times is just overwarned, rushes over. It's such that even they may be overwhelmed. We need to be in short. This strategy is all it needs to be. We need to face up to its deficiencies as well as praise its strengths. And it's not that we're here to knock it down. We want it to be the best it can be. It matters to us all. Lord Mayor, that's our duty. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Harvey. Councillor Short. Thank you, Lord Mayor. And thank you, my colleague, Councillor Harvey. I'm continuing on for the end. I think we let those on the streets down by giving them one late goal. There are lots more examples. Those sleeping and sitting on our streets may be homeless. But the sad thing is, they may not be. And labeling them as that undermines the problems that they are going through. I've been out with our outreach teams, St Mungos. I've also slept rough once with an MP in an ex-Rough sleeper. Uncultible and damp. But I was going home to a hot shower. Before settling down to sleep, the ex-Rough sleeper took me around the community. Some of whom he knew, the lady who had a house in Morphe, but having been abused by her father and then her husband, felt safe and in control on the streets. She was a bit of a mother figure, clean, tidy, with pink covers. Still not good for her. The man who had just come back to London, proudly explaining how he'd got clean, but needed a little something because the medication after an operation was not strong enough. My guide explained that he would be a crack addict again within a week. The boy who seemed clean, begging, saying he understood he could not just pitch up and get a flat, he was the only one I offered advice to. The point is this is not a homogenous group of people who, if we only built more houses, their problems would be solved. There are some roughly sleepers who are homeless and don't get me wrong. Speaking to the passage, which is in our ward, this week I heard that they have stepped up the government's no second-ite night out scheme where outreach is aimed to bring everyone into a hostel if they find them on the streets. The passage scheme, known I'd out, gets everyone into a B&B and then into the private rented sector within two weeks. That's the aim they told me. To let the streets of my ward or our ward constantly have tents being put up and every day figures a curled up in sleeping bags on the cold streets. Many of them on Victoria Street in front of our council. Each supermarket has someone begging in front of it. These people may be homeless, but it is more likely that they have other problems or as well they have other problems. One of the things I see most, and Councillor Harvey and I get David reports on, are drugs big deals being spotted on the streets. We have building after building both private and social where residents are complaining about ASB and dealing. Dealing in Vincent Square has become an open event. Again, it is the vulnerable street population and rough sleepers who are being targeted by these most pernicious criminals. The street population in our ward and often beg outside words are often based in our hostels. They do have somewhere to sleep at night, which is good, but their problems are still not being solved. It seems to me that they are begging to get money to buy legal substances. The roof over their head has not provided the solution. It is just more complicated. Some people on our streets have been failed all their lives and some fell into substance abuse. If we want to solve the problem of rough sleeping and street population, the council has to put everything into supporting the police on catching the drug criminals who prey on those on the streets. Only then can we work to get people into homes and into steady lives. We can also work on other underlying issues such as mental health. Council officers should be out all day in our wards providing feedback and support to police. Addiction is not easy to solve, but if there is no tolerance for those who profit from it, then we will make a step forward. We will have to deal with the problems of the public, because of these problems, deal with increased crime, fear, defecation on doorsteps, ASB and blocks, children of South schools, having drug dealing, normalised and as David Councillor Harvey said, today we have had a report of a boy on his way home from school, being harassed. We all know about this, and I just want to say it is just not acceptable. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Schort. I call on Councillor Ayesha at less. Thank you, Lord Mayor. Lord Mayor, homelessness is a well-documented and ongoing challenge that is felt more in Westminster than any part of London. The reasons that people end up on our streets are incredibly complex and often the result of the system's failure. Lots of housing, family or relationship breakdowns, drug and alcohol abuse. For all kinds of reasons, they may be less willing to accept homelessness provision where they live, and they end up in Westminster. There are many cases where our teams can help those who arrive, but so often we see others who are entrenched and helping them off the streets can be very difficult. Our outreach teams engage with rustleapers through a holistic approach that is considering their physical and mental health needs and potential accommodation solutions. A joint homelessness team commissioned through the NHS provides valuable mental health support, particularly for people with complex needs, and we have pioneered the use of health beds as a step down facility for rustleapers discharged from hospital who still need health support. Crucially, our approach is from a place of person-centered support. At the same time, we know that rustleapers can bring with it the challenge of anti-social behaviour, most notably the funonomial of encampments which present new challenges. These groups often consist of those with no recourse to public funds or complex immigration backgrounds. I know that many of you here tonight, as well as residents and visitors to our city, shared my concerns about the encampment on Park Lane over the summer. The responsibility for the site lies with Transport for London, and we were clear that we would support them with their efforts in taking possession of the site. Following TFL's secure inter-possession order, the encampment was dispersed in late October. I was on site, and I'd like to thank the officers that were on hand to ensure that it was carried out respectfully with possessions removed and carefully stored to allow people to reclaim their belongings. We've been working closely with TFL, the Greater London Authority and other stakeholders, to ensure that the land remains clear and conversations continue about long-term solution for the site. Concerns have also been raised with me about the encampments under the West Way flyover, struggling land owned by TFL and the council. The council land is now clear and we're supporting TFL in clearing their land. The teams are looking into using a joint possession order in order to ensure that we can work with TFL quickly and flexibly in the future. Outreach teams will continue their work to ensure people's safety and welfare. Lord Mayor, there are real structural challenges to solving homelessness and rough sleeping. Westminster spends more than any other local authorities, seven million pounds out of our own funding to support people in crisis. I'm pleased that the new government's first budget sets out an immediate cash injection for our local authorities to tackle rough sleeping. Westminster will receive around one million pounds of support our work which will go some way towards meeting the demand. Crucially, we're also working across the council to pursue long-term solutions to tackle rough sleeping and homelessness. Councillor Butler-Falassis is continuing to push for mental health hospital beds and Councillor Begum is overseeing the ramping up of our temporary accommodation acquisitions programme to tackle homelessness. There have been positive announcements from government to do more in this space, such as a task force on tackling rough sleeping, which will be led by the Deputy Prime Minister. Lord Mayor, a few issues are more heartbreaking than that of rough sleeping. The crisis is complicated and it will take time to solve. But in the meantime, our services will always be on hand to provide compassionate support for those who are vulnerable or in need. On the CCTV front, we're exploring new options using NCL Section 106 funding to expand the service next year. The first four months of operation of the first tranche of the new cameras has now been assessed and the results are very pleasing. Footage captured of crimes and action in anti-social behaviours being shared with police and neighbourhood coordinators as appropriate. In total, for September, the results are as follows. Total number of incidents, 63, number of downloads via clearance 39, number of known arrests to number of requests for footage 11. They're monitored on a 24-7 basis by CCTV control room centre in Hamilton and Fulham. But we continue to work really well and with our partners trying to bring those numbers up to obviously reassure our residents and businesses that these CCTV camera systems are working and doing what they're supposed to be doing. Thank you very much, Lord Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Ayesha-Less. Councillor Barnes. Lord Mayor, colleagues in the Chamber, thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss this extremely important topic and for the positive nature of the debate that we've been able to see this evening. But it's something where I would like to start by reassuring Councillor Barakluff and others that I have indeed read the draft strategy in this particular case. And would like to sort of big over some of the things that we find within it, particularly as it relates to my own ward. With some of the first observations being that has just been echoed by Councillor Ayesha-Less, there is indeed a difference between homelessness and rough sleeping. Councillor Shaw made that excellent point in her own remarks just a few moments ago. It's the rough sleeping element that I would like to concentrate on here and it's the one that has the most obvious and direct impact in the centre of our city and in many of the most obvious and prominent locations that we find. Perhaps the most obvious example of that, which has already been referred to in other comments, including questions and Councillor Swaddle earlier on, was in part lay where we had until recently tense that we're there for months and months that were not the result of the kinds of homelessness that much of the strategy and much of the consultation efforts were there to tackle, but were the results of something much more evil, much more penitious, human trafficking, gangs, begging, aggressive criminal activity. People being brought in from south-eastern Europe predominantly in order to carry out activity that is there to make profits for a small minority of incredibly unpleasant individuals. And we've encountered them, all of us, I'm sure, on a regular basis. We've encountered the begging, we've encountered the people who push past you and demand that you take them to a cash point. These aren't people who are there because of the kinds of need that we might all understand and emotionally want to respond to, but because they are there, they're brought under false pretenses and forced to take their time, living rough on our streets, defecating on our doorsteps, looking out at every part of the criminality that we can see around us. And it seems to me that, despite my earlier reference to the idea that there doesn't seem to be anything new in Westminster politics, that Oxford Street is back again, so too was the problem on part lane, which we dealt with when we led this administration back in 2020. And despite Councillor Hugs comments earlier on where he assured us that the lessons would be learnt, I see no evidence that the lessons of four years ago were learned and taken on by this administration in their dealings with TFL, because they would have known from a much earlier stage that TFL were going to bongle the legal arrangements that we needed to clear those, and they would have seen through the costs and through the activities that were there that so much more could have been done, and much more pressure could have been applied. And it's not just being applied because we don't like to see the tense, it's not the idea that they're an ISO, much as that is the case, much as that it's an embarrassment to Westminster as a host to so many visitors on behalf of the country. It's because they are the functional outcome of criminal activity. And now we've seen it displaced, we've seen it displaced, not just from part lane, but across other elements of the West End. Councillor Azumano earlier referred to Cavendish Square. That is where you can now go on a daily basis and see the same people who were many of them who were in part lane who are literally shitting on our streets. Well, it's a Labour National Government, so I'm fine with that. The point of it being, the point of it being, that there are a variety of activities here where if you are simply saying that the only outcome that could possibly have been there is the result of those legal counts, I would challenge that, Councillor Fisher, purely on the basis that our outreach teams could be doing more. In 2020, this council, our council, the Conservative Administration at the time, funded specialists who worked with the charities, I can't remember which of the charities were, my colleagues will be able to inform you later on, who were from backgrounds that the individuals in those tents could relate to. They came from South East and Europe, many of them had come from the kind of backgrounds that spoke the languages, and we were on occasion able to support individuals out of that and able to use their testimony to be able to intervene in the criminal gangs. I don't know if those are being supported to this day by the current administration but I see no evidence of that. Fine, but we funded it and have you. Great, you haven't learnt the lessons from that. You're saying that eight months on, well, no, I wasn't here for the two years, don't blame me. The truth is, the truth is that there hasn't been any of the continued lessons applied that you're saying was there. If you think that they should have been continued and we did wrong, then you could have put it right. You've had two years to put it right, but like so many things, you still think you're fighting the election of 2024, in the same way that the government is still continuing to campaign as if it's fighting the general election three months ago. You're in charge, take responsibility, and this plan, long on ambition, is short on detail. Sort it out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Barnes. And thank you members for reminding me when times up. I think I have just about see the clock. You're probably wondering why I'm stretching like that because I haven't got a clock in front of me, unfortunately. That's another story. Anyway. Laura is yours. Thank you. I'd like to congratulate Councillor Barnes on his second maiden speak. I don't remember his first, but can I assure you as a fellow retread to misquote the old song, it's much better second time around. Can I say that if we've heard already from previous speakers that homelessness is more than not having a home? It's often about not having a job, not having a purpose in life, not having any confidence about being forgotten, about nobody caring. And we clearly need to build more council homes to let the council rents for people, but we also need to put the support in place on a continuing basis to help some of the most vulnerable people in society, whether they be former soldiers, former prisoners, current and former drug and alcohol addicts. Or those with mental health issues and simply cannot cope. And so the after question is, what can we do about this? I want to just put something on the table, which is the council's community contribution scheme. The fund was created six years ago to give residents the opportunity to give more to their local community on a voluntary basis. And so far 27 projects have provided extra support for people who find themselves sleeping on Westminster streets, helping rough sleepers rebuild their lives. And I want to mention one of those projects. Founded by Jeremy Goring of the Goring Hotel, working with a passage, and Westminster Kingsway Catering College in Vincent Square. Founded by Jeremy Goring after his experience of talking to the rough sleepers on Victoriously Street, opposite his well-known hotel. Hotel schools teach his hospitality skills to homeless and vulnerable people, matches them to sustainable employment and supports them in their first steps into work. These projects offer practical help to real people who are homeless and have associated problems. And I want to set tell a couple of stories. Victoria had not worked for 14 years after a long period of homelessness and was referred to hotel school by Crisis. After successful completion of a hotel school program in August 22, she was offered employment straight away with a roastery in Café. When Victoria first started the program, her confidence was extremely low. Over time her confidence grew, and two years later in August 24, Victoria celebrated two years of working full-time. She's now planning her next step in her career and thinking about moving into a hotel kitchen to grow and develop her skills as a chef. Another story is Yared. Yared arrived in the UK as a refugee in 2022. After a period of rough sleeping, streetling helped him into a secure temporary shelter. A friend and former hotel school gradually recommended hotel school to him. Yared began the program in January 2024, and despite facing multiple challenges, including housing issues, he attended every day. Having been turned down by many employers before finding hotel school, Yared struggled with a low level of English and a lack of self-confidence. He took barista training and was invited for a part-time food and beverage runner position. He's now been employed for almost six months and has transitioned for full-time. He's studying hard with a game of progressing to a waiter position soon. These are real people, previously homeless, whose lives have been transformed by giving the opportunity to help and work in Westminster's hospitality industry directly through a council-funded scheme, along with many others, whose hotel school. In December, the 20th cohort of graduates will be celebrating their graduation, and I hope to be with them. I hope, too, that we continue to offer financial support to hotel school and others who do similar work. Thank you, Lord Mayor. Thank you, Councillor DiModiver. Councillor Kaplan. Thank you, Lord Mayor. I thought that I would have a bit of a problem when I was about to give this speech, but the problem I am about to have is one that I have not imagined. We have had good speeches from Councillor Harvey, Councillor Short, Councillor Barnes, and I thought they are probably going to take a lot of my sort of thunder away by talking about all the key issues in relation to this, and that was my main concern. I could never have mentioned that. I was about to follow Councillor DeModiver and actually finding myself agreeing with a lot of the content that he was just talking about. I was involved in the first four or five years of the City of Westminster, the City of Westminster, the Charitable Trust, and I agree. It is done an amazing job, some of the grants that I can call us to nodding it away there. Some of the amazing sort of organisations and groups that it was able to forward echo some of the comments that Councillor DeModiver set. This could be the first and last time, Paul. I am not sure whether it was the first or the last three years of each year. Normally, it is just football that you and I agree on, but there we go. You make the point very well, and I think it is something that a number of members on this side are aware of this that we are involved in it. City of Westminster, the Charitable Trust, has done a great job. In terms of the strategy document, we can all look at it, yes I have read it, and a number of colleagues have read it as well, and there are a lot of good things in it. But documents are a piece of paper, it is a moment in time. It is practically what happens and what you do about the real issues that a number of my colleagues have talked about that matter in relation to this. I was reminded when I was thinking about this sort of speech, what I was going to say, that it is actually 30 years since I chaired the Westminster Housing Committee as it was then. Before the sort of cabinet systems, my history and housing matters goes back over 30 years. Sadly, some of the issues that existed 30 years ago still exist today. We have talked about rough sleeping, we have talked about homelessness issues. These are issues in a place like Westminster, but don't go away. Some of the things change in terms of the unfortunate trafficking issues that we now see. Some of the appalling situations that people face, some of the issues with veterans and soldiers on the streets, they are not new, those have existed in the past. I think we have to be very careful how we seek to address these issues. In the comments I am about to make about some local things in my own ward. These are not directed personally at people, but there are things that do have to be said and Councillor Les, and I have been in communication on a number of these sort of things. I will talk about tents in my area because it is something that is raised with me on a daily basis. I cannot not talk about that because it is something that as I walk around the ward on a daily basis, it is something I see and emails I get literally every day, sometimes four or five a day, in relation to that. I am pleased that the general tone of this debate has been the right sort of tone, because this is a really, really serious topic. I know that all members on both sides, we all care passionately. Most of us in this chamber are very fortunate in our lives and what affects us on a daily basis, but some of the cases that we see out in the streets, there are some very unfortunate people that have major issues. What I would say is that we do not necessarily help those people by thinking that the problem will go away and waiting to take action as Councillor Barnes talked about earlier on. I do have criticism in relation to our work with TFL. The tents under the West Way have been there more than seven months. I have been told on many occasions that were coordinating with TFL to try and deal with these issues. Well, I am sorry, but TFL is an organisation that this is not a top priority for them. Therefore, we have to do more than coordinate, and as I said in the last council meeting, so you can say that we need to get the possession orders not rely on TFL. That is not going to work. There are still two sites in my ward, St Mary's Square, and actually next to King Solomon's primary, where we have tents. That is nothing to do with TFL. There is on our land, and we have to deal with them. I am sorry that seven months is too long for tents to be in our city. The reason I say that is that the very vulnerable people, and they are very vulnerable people that we are dealing with in each of these cases, that is too long for them to become institutionalised for the life that they are leading in those tents, in those sort of areas. Outreach workers have been there on half a dozen or more occasions. This is not a question of trying to help them into other sort of options. This is a situation where we have to take more timely action. Anything that lasts for seven months is seven months too long, and we are not helping the people that live there. Of course, we are not helping any of the residents that live around and say what the hell is going on, why is it going on and on and on. My final point is that you need to take the responsibility. You are in power. It is your job now. These issues do not go away, and they do not go away if they ignore them. Please be timely, take action and use the legal powers that we have. Thank you Lord Man. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Capson. I would ask now Councillor Begham to reply. Thank you Lord Man. Thank you for the wider community. Ross Leaping in particular can bring with it anti-social behaviour. I am grateful to Councillor Les for working with officers and our partners to deliver a visible response to tackling AFB. While Ross Leaping can impact businesses and communities, let us not forget that our services should and also on the street for whatever reason. We recently saw the park lane in Campman, where our outreach services worked very hard to support the most vulnerable in our community. During this time, I was appalled but not surprised at the lack of concern shown by the opposition for Ross Leapers. The opposition were more concerned, the opposition were more concerned about clearing our park lane because it was an eye-saw for tourists and showed absolute disregard for the welfare of Ross Leapers. But that is no surprise. After all, after all former home secretary, Swella Bravoman once described street homelessness as a lifestyle choice. I think it is important here to remind the opposition of their failure in tackling rough sleeping. In 2019, the Conservative Party promised to end the flight of rough sleeping by the end of the next Parliament. But instead, we saw the numbers of rough sleepers double. Earlier this year, Shelter's chief executive, Polly Neet, said about the former government, the government had five long years to honour its own pledge to end rough sleeping but instead it failed. Allowing the number of people sleeping rough to double on its watch and abandoning thousands of people to the trauma of living on the streets. Shelter said there had been decades of failure to build genuinely affordable social homes. And this combined with record-high private rents had seen an increase in the number of people forced to sleep in flimsy tents or in sleeping bags on the street corners. Across London, local authorities are grappling with homelessness crisis that have been check-hates in the making. London Council estimates that 183,000 Londoners are to be homeless with record numbers of people living in temporary accommodation amongst them 90,000 children. Street homelessness is growing and the pressure on homelessness services to respond is immense. Interestments are the increasing demand and cost of TA remains a significant pressure. The number of households in TA rose from 2699 in April 2022 to 3875 at the end of October 2024. That is a 35% increase. This demand is driven by a combination of factors including the increase in use of Section 21 evictions which should hopefully be abolished via the Renters' Right Bill and the un affordability of private rented accommodation to support the council's response to the increasing demand for TA. 178 functions including frontline housing and by homelessness prevention and housing assessments will be brought back into direct control, strengthening the council's community strategy. This will set the council's overall direction in supporting those at risk or experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping. The council's lived and above all empathy to those facing the uncertainty of homelessness. Only yesterday the leader of the council gave evidence on rough sleeping and housing community and local government committee. With a Labour council, a Labour Mayor and the First Labour MP for this constituency, I believe will definitely do a bit of job than the previous administration. So that actually concludes the debate on the item issued by the Opposition Party. We're now moving to the voting aspect on the four reports listed on the agenda. The first vote on the recommendations of the report listed under agenda item 11, an entitled Planning and City Development Committee and Subcommittee. Future options and committee proportionality. The recommendations are deemed to be moved and seconded. By a show of hands can I ask those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? I declare the recommendations agreed. We will now vote on the recommendation of the report listed under agenda item 12 and entitled Proposed Re-Adoption of the Council's Statement of Principles for Gambling. The recommendation is deemed to be moved and seconded. By a show of hands can I ask those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? I declare the recommendation agreed. We will now move to vote on the recommendation of the report listed under agenda item 13 and entitled Dispensation of Absence. The recommendation is deemed to be moved and seconded. By a show of hands can I ask those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? I declare the recommendation agreed. Finally, we will now move on to the vote on the recommendations of the report listed under agenda item 14 and entitled Program of Meetings 2025 to 2026. The recommendations are deemed to be moved and seconded. By a show of hands can I ask those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? I declare the recommendations agreed. That concludes the council meeting. Thank you and good night.