Agenda and minutes

To approve as an accurate record, and the Chairman to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 January 2014.

RESOLVED THAT

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 January 2014 be agreed as a true and correct record.

Apologies were received from Councillors De Lisle and Adam.

This report sets out the results of the Hammersmith Flyunder Feasibility Study.

The Committee received a report and presentation on the Hammersmith Flyunder Feasibility Study. The Committee heard about the engagement undertaken by the group carrying out the Feasibility Study, which had met with neighbouring boroughs and Transport for London, held a Flyunder summit, with those in attendance completing a questionnaire, met with local stakeholders and meetings with both administration and opposition Councillors.

The Committee heard that the Feasibility Study showed that a tunnel was possible, and that 3 possible routes for that tunnel had been identified. The Study had identified benefits and disbenefits associated with each of those 3 options, and had examined the 4 areas identified as key concerns at the summit (traffic diversions, cost, A4 closure, construction lorries).

The options identified were for a short tunnel to run from Furnivall Gardens to west London College, and for a longer tunnel to run from Sutton Court Road to either North End Road or to Earls Court Road. The Study identified that, due to the volume of the traffic exiting the A4 between Chiswick and Earls Court (50%), the latter options would require either additional tunnel exits (at additional cost) or would not enable the removal of the existing structures in Hammersmith Town Centre. It was noted that the Study would not be able to make a full strategic assessment of the impact of any of the options, and that this would require TfL input.

The Study identified that all three options would have a similar impact in terms of traffic disruption during construction, though the disruption would occur in different places based on the option chosen. The construction time and associated disruption was of similar duration for all three options. In relation to construction traffic, the Study had identified the likely quantity of spoil to be removed, and the quantity of lorries required, with and without use of the river. Finally, the Study had estimated the cost for each option, with Option 1 estimated as £218 million, and options 2 and 3 at £1210 and 1297 million respectively.

The Study had also undertaken a master Planning exercise, to identify the value of the land freed for redevelopment which could support the cost of construction. Based on the assumptions set out in the report, a figure of £1 billion had been identified. The completed Feasibility Study would be sent to Transport For London, who would be asked to continue the work undertaken.

The Committee asked the following questions and received the following responses

What was the life of the existing structure and what was TfL’s position on replacement?

• TfL believed that the Flyover had decades of life, but had been supportive of the Study and of the idea of tunnelling in general.

How did local businesses feel about the potential disruption?

• Hammersmith BID was commissioning its own study of the economic impact, which would be included with the final Study submitted to TfL, but were excited by the idea in principle.

How would the proposed plans increase public open space and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

The Committee offered its congratulations to Councillor Law on the birth of her daughter Charlotte.

This report, following a request from the Committee, sets out the position with regards to traditional pubs in the borough, and the Council policies that apply to them.

The Committee received a report on pubs in the borough. The report contained contributions from Planning Policy, Licensing, the Campaign for Real Ale, and the British Beer and Pub Association, and the committee meeting was attended by Pat Cox, Head of Planning Policy, Nick Austin, Director of Environmental Health, David Wilson and Jim Cathcart of the BBPA and Katie Smith, general manager of the Sands End, SW6.

With regards to planning issues, the Committee heard that pubs identified as having community value were subject to a viability assessment before a change of use to residential was agreed. However, the Council had no control over changes of use within retail (i.e. from A4 to A1 or A2, from a pub into a supermarket). With regards to licensing issues, the Committee heard that the Council was responsible for licensing of pubs, but was bound by the Licensing Act to do this on a case-by-case basis. The Council did have in place cumulative impact policies in Fulham and Shepherds Bush town centres, but these did not necessarily mean that an application from a new pub in those areas would be refused.

With regards to the view of the industry, David Wilson of the British Beer and Pub Association said that pubs supported a large number of jobs, including an estimated 2,000 in Hammersmith & Fulham. He said that, in contrast to CAMRA, the Association disagreed with blanket planning restrictions being imposed on pubs, as a number of outside factors, including changing public taste, were affecting the wet-led trade in particular. He noted that many pubs threatened with closure were in or adjacent to high streets, and increasing the success and viability of the latter would assist the former.  He said that the BBPA’s analysis showed that the number of closures was levelling out.

From the perspective of a local operator, Ms Smith said that it was possible to run a pub in the borough, and the company she worked for had two contrasting models at the Brown Cow and the Sands End, with the latter retaining a community feel. She said that it was increasingly less viable to open and maintain wet-led pubs.

Councillor Homan asked about the suggestions made by CAMRA to tighten planning controls. Councillor Nick Botterill said that, having examined the list of pubs still open in the borough, he was convinced that the borough retained a strong pub sector, and that those pubs which had closed were usually trading poorly.

Councillor Homan suggested that there was an issue were change of use led to a concentration of one type of retail. Ms Cox said that the Council had not sought to prevent change of one retail use for another, though it had sought to protect retail as a whole. She said that the level of protection in RBKC was not substantially higher than that in the borough, and that to be protected, a pub was required to have community value and for a willing operator to be found.

Councillor Botterill  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

The latest key performance indicators for services within the terms of reference of this Committee are set out at (Appendix 1). Members may wish to take account of issues arising from the indicators when considering the Committee’s work programme for subsequent meetings.

RESOLVED THAT

The report be noted.

The Committee agreed to add an update on flooding to the agenda for its next meeting.

RESOLVED THAT

The report be noted.

The Committee is asked to note the date of its next meeting, which is scheduled to be held on 24 March 2013.

The Committee noted that the next meeting was scheduled to be held  on 24 March 2014.