Agenda and draft minutes

Welcomes, Introductions and Meeting Management

The Chairman opened the meeting by welcoming all present, including both elected Members and members of the public in the public gallery. He also took the opportunity to formally introduce the Panel members and those Officers present.

The Chairman went on to refer to the front sheet of the agenda pack which served as a reminder to all that meetings of the City of London Corporation could be the subject of audio or video recording. He reported that he had, indeed, received prior notice of the fact that this afternoon’s meeting would be video recorded, both by a public attendee and also by the City Corporation’s own Media Team.

The Chairman took the opportunity to highlight that the organisation did have a Filming Protocol in place which was available on the public website and asked that this Protocol was respected by all in terms of not disturbing the conduct of the meeting and focusing cameras only on Members and Officers directly involved in today’s proceedings.

The Chairman concluded by referring to the fact that there was a relatively busy public gallery this afternoon and clarified, for meeting management purposes, that comments from the public gallery were not permitted and that, in accordance with Standing Order 35 (1), no elected Member in attendance who was not a member of this Sub-Committee was permitted to speak on any matter under consideration without his permission.

There were no apologies.

There were no declarations.

Report of the Town Clerk

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk setting out details of three Members (Mark Bostock, Brian Mooney and Susan Pearson) who have requested dispensations to speak and vote on any matter which affects their constituents and in which they may have a “pecuniary interest”, except for matters which:

(a)  Affect them uniquely or more so than any of their constituents; and

(b)  Insofar as regards a dispensation to vote only, falls within the restriction imposed by section 618 of the Housing Act 1885 for as long as that provision remains on the statute book.

The report also provides details of a request from Adrian Bastow to speak and vote on matters relating to the proposed extension of the City of London School for Girls onto the Grade II listed areas of the Barbican Estate.

Adrian Bastow

The Chairman suggested that the Sub Committee look to determine the application from Mr Bastow first which requested a dispensation to speak and vote on a specific matter (the proposed extension of the City of London School for Girls) for a defined period of time (until final decisions on the matter were made by the Planning and Transportation Committee).

At the request of the Chairman, the Comptroller and City Solicitor summarised Mr Bastow’s position by reporting that he was currently a tenant at Defoe House. His property was also of sufficient distance from the proposed development to have less of a potential impact. The Comptroller went on to state that this was clearly a potentially controversial development but highlighted that a dispensation to speak and vote on the matter had already been granted to a Member in similar circumstances recently, where it was not considered that the Member in question had a disclosable pecuniary interest but was nevertheless seeking a dispensation by

There were no questions.

There were no additional, urgent itemsof business for consideration.