Issue - meetings

Grounds of appeal and supporting documentation.

The Chairman then invited Mr Harrower, on behalf of Ms Pearson, to set out the grounds for the appeal.

Mr Harrower firstly made reference to the failure of the Corporation (as represented by the Comptroller and City Solicitor) to make written representations in response to the appeal, or to attend the appeal, and put forward the view that as no written representations had been made in response to the written appeal, and in the absence of the Corporation attending the appeal hearing, there was no opposition to the appeal on breach and sanction and that the appeal should therefore be allowed for this reason alone.

Mr Harrower then went on to outline the 6 grounds for the appeal set out in the circulated documentation, in summary:-

(1) Ms Pearson had no DPI in the item considered at the Planning and Transportation Committee on 29 January as the item (whether or not to delegate determination of a planning application to London Borough of Islington) was an inter-authority jurisdictional matter rather than determination of the planning application itself.

(2) There was no breach of paragraph 13 of the Code because the decision on 29 January could not and/or did not have an impact on the value of the DPI, i.e. the lease of the flat in Hatfield House.

(3) There was no breach of paragraph 13 because Ms Pearson was unaware that she had a DPI in the matter being considered on 29 January.

(4) There was no breach of paragraph 13 because there was a reasonable excuse for Ms Pearson’s participation in the meeting on 29 January in that the item was added at a very late stage to the agenda for that meeting and with the resulting impact on the opportunity to obtain a dispensation.

(5) In deciding that there