Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Christopher Hill, Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark, Sylvia Moys and Susan Pearson.

Oliver Sells declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 a) – Inner Temples Treasury Building which was also stated on his Register of Interests and advised that he would remain in the meeting but take no part in the discussion or voting.

Alderman Gregory Jones declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 a) – Inner Temples Treasury Building which was also stated on his Register of Interests and advised that he would remain in the meeting and take part in consideration of the application as his interest was not pecuniary.

William Upton declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 a) – Inner Temples Treasury Building which was also stated on his Register of Interests and advised that he would remain in the meeting and take part in consideration of the application as his interest was not pecuniary.

Emma Edhem declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 a) – Inner Temples Treasury Building and advised that she would remain in the meeting and take part in consideration of the application as her interest was not pecuniary.

Deputy Alastair Moss declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 a) – Inner Temples Treasury Building and advised that he would remain in the meeting and take part in consideration of the application as his interest was not pecuniary.

To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 13 June 2017.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 June be approved as a correct record subject to the addition of the following:

‘Wind Modelling’ – Eastern Cluster

The Committee requested that the issue be looked into and a report be brought to a future meeting.

Matters Arising

Thames Court Footbridge

A Member expressed concern that nothing had happened yet and reported that there was a degree of impatience building in the Ward as the footbridge had  been closed since October 2016.

Officers advised that a report would be coming to the next meeting on 25 July 2017.

Sensitive Material

A Member asked if any work had been undertaken on what was being done to resolve the issue about access by members to sensitive information in relation to viability submitted by applicants.

Officers advised that a report would be coming to the next meeting on 25 July 2017.

Report of the City Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director in respect of development and advertisement applications dealt with under delegated authority.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

Report of the City Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director which provided details of valid planning applications received by the department since the last meeting.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted

The Committee received a report of the CPO in relation to an application for the extension and refurbishment of the Inner Temple Treasury Building to provide a new barristers' Education and Training Centre, primarily at third floor level within adapted library space and a new roof level extension above the Library and the Hall. The CPO informed the committee of late representations including one from Richard Humphries QC, which had been previously circulated. The CPO also advised of corrections to the report at paragraphs 80, 85 and 101 to state that the roof ridge height would be 400mm higher than the current ridge height (not the same, as stated in the report in error).   

The CPO presented the report including by reference to photographs, drawings and plans shown on screen and advised that the development comprised a new mansard roof extension featuring dormer windows and chimney stacks. Two extensions were proposed on the north elevation to accommodate a new lift shaft and stairs and internal alterations included the insertion of a new ceiling above second floor level within the library.

The Committee noted that a total of 77 (plus 8 supplementary) representations had been received across two rounds of consultations. The issues raised included the harm to the library space, the impact of the proposed extension on heritage assets and the Temples Conservation Area, the need for education facilities and the impact on the Inner Temple Garden of potential temporary structures during construction.

The CPO advised that the proposals would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the Temples Conservation Area and the setting and significance of Temple Church. The proposals would result in some harm to the Treasury Building as a non designated heritage asset, however the harm was outweighed by the public benefits of

Members considered a report of the CPO in relation to the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for Leadenhall Market which was issued for public consultation during April and May 2017.

Members were advised that in response to comments received one minor amendment was proposed. 

RESOLVED - That

1)           The amendment to the Leadenhall Market SPD listed in Appendix B of the report be agreed, and

2)            Members resolve to adopt the amended Leadenhall Market SPD.

The Committee considered a report concerning the Historic Environment Strategy which brought together City of London Corporation guidance on the historic environment. The Strategy was an interlinked series of documents that could be read independently. Between October and December 2016 three of these documents were issued for public consultation, arising from which some minor amendments were proposed.

RESOLVED - That

a)            The amendments to the Introduction, Archaeology and Development Guidance SPD and Churchyard Statements listed in appendix 2 be agreed.

b)            Members resolve to adopt the amended Archaeology and Development Guidance as an SPD.

c)            Members agree the publication of the Introduction and City of London Churchyards evidence base.

The Committee considered a report proposing the combining of two projects to progress to Gateway 4a, and in order to select the best option in terms of whole-life costings, sought to appoint a Quantity Surveyor and a Contractor for just early contractor involvement.

RESOLVED - That

a)            Approval be given to the Director of the Built Environment to proceed to the next gateway by combining the above listed two projects and close them as two separate projects.

b)            Approval for an increase of the budget by £280,000 to allow a consultant to be appointed, undertake any further exploratory works and for staff costs funded from the On-Street Parking Reserve, bringing the project overall budget to £313,000 (i.e. £280k + £33k already approved).

The Committee considered a report previously considered by the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee concerning the transportation network performance work programme.

At the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee Members had discussed workload pressures and requested that they be made aware of current workload issues and, given the pressure on staffing resources, be given the opportunity to agree work programme priorities.

The report set out those significant work items that either directly or indirectly impacted upon the workload of the City Transportation’s ‘Network Performance’ team, and provided a proposed work plan.

Members were advised that the ‘Network Performance’ team within the City Transportation section was experiencing significant service demands and a workload that even if staffed to current full establishment it would not be possible to meet. It had therefore been necessary to recommend a review of service priorities.

RESOLVED - to

a)            Agree the proposed highest priority programme (Appendix 1: table 1) which based on current staffing resource can be progressed within 2017/18. 

b)            Agree the proposed additional programme (Appendix 1: table 2) which could be progressed in 2017/18 if the network performance team is fully resourced.

c)            Agree the proposed reserve programme (Appendix 1: table 3) which could commence in 2018/19 or sooner if resources permit.

d)            Agree those projects proposed as ‘low priorities’ (Appendix 1: table 4) which it is proposed are indefinitely deferred but that this decision be reviewed in quarter four 2017/18.

After consideration of this item, and in respect of Standing Order No. 40, the Chairman sought the Committee’s consent to extend the meeting to allow the item to be considered and this was agreed.

Joint Report of the City Surveyor and the Director of the Built Environment.

The Committee received a report detailing the CoL Corporation’s activities at the MIPIM property exhibition in March 2017, and seeking approval for City attendance at MIPIM 2018.  This report also identified potential areas to develop to maximise the benefit of the City Corporation’s attendance at MIPIM 2018. 

Members welcomed the report and commented that MIPIM provided an opportunity to engage with local and international representatives of the property industry together with high level representatives of other London Boroughs and UK cities.  It provided a unique opportunity to engage in the debate relating to key issues and demonstrate how the City Corporation would provide leadership in taking forward matters of local and international importance.  The programme of activities was extremely well received by those who attended.

A member commented that appointing a PR consultancy to support the visit had really helped and urged that this be allowed to continue.

RESOLVED - That

a)            The report on MIPIM 2017 be noted.

b)            Approval be given in principle  for the City of London Corporation to attend MIPIM 2018, and

c)            A further report outlining a detailed programme of activities and costings for MIPIM 2018 be submitted for consideration in October 2017

Report of the City Surveyor.

The Committee received a report of the City Surveyor seeking to declare a volume of airspace situated above 365 ft² of City Fund highway land at Leadenhall Street, EC3 to be surplus to highway requirements to allow its disposal in conjunction with the development known as 'The Scalpel'.

The development scheme was approved by the Committee on the 15 May 2014 and was designed with projecting glazed canopies along its two principal elevations part of which was intended to project into City Corporation property above the highway.

Before third party interests could be granted in City Fund highway land the affected areas first needed to be declared surplus to highway requirements.

RESOLVED to declare a volume of City Fund highway land above an area of highway measuring 365 ft² (33.91m²) situated in Leadenhall Street EC3 to be surplus to highway requirements to enable its disposal upon terms to be approved by the Corporate Asset Sub Committee and subject to the City Corporation retaining ownership of the highway and the continuing highway functions.

Question from Sir Mark Boleat

Following lengthy discussion on three recent planning applications and in anticipation of another lengthy discussion on one item today can I ask the Chairman if he agrees that the time is right for the Committee to have a fundamental review of how it considers major planning applications.  Today, members are being asked to consider 567 pages on a single application.  For most members this is the first they know about this application.  We were invited for a site visit but at notice that was so short as to be impossible for most members.

I have been looking at practice in other London authorities as part of the research I am doing for a paper I am writing on the housing problem.  We are an outlier in respect of how we consider planning applications.  Best practice seems to be that decisions are taken by a panel, typically of around ten members, and that those members are involved in pre-application discussions with the developer.  As I understand it until recently in the City such discussions involved only officers; it is welcome that the Chairman is now involved but in my view that is not enough.

Could I ask the Chairman what is currently the process for advising developers informally of what is or is not likely to be acceptable to the Committee, and who is involved in this process.  And would the Chairman establish a small working group of members to consider whether there is a better way of considering major planning applications, for example  by involving a smaller group of members (I should add not the same members in every case) in major applications from a very early stage.

RESPONSE

The Chairman replied that he was very open to improving processes although he would be nervous

Cultural Hub Public Realm Temporary Artistic Projects: Look and Feel ‘Quick Wins’

This Committee was asked to consider an urgent report updating Members on the Artistic installations for the public realm: the programme of events, temporary art installations, new street furniture, and greening for the Cultural Hub area of the City that had been termed the Look and Feel ‘Quick Wins’.

The Committee was advised that the Cultural Hub Working Party and its Chairman had expressed a strong desire to see a  series of ‘Quick Wins’ across the Cultural Hub ahead of the proposed  major capital interventions, and an indicative programme was endorsed by the Working Party on 1 February 2017.

A Gateway 1/2/3/4 report was thereafter approved by Members in March 2017 to initiate the programme and since that date a creative producer had been appointed to put the programme together; artists had been appointed to do some pre-evaluation work; designs had been drawn up and costs clarified ready for  approval at Gateway 5.

RESOLVED  that the outlined ‘Phase 1’ of the Quick Wins project, comprising events, installations and greening in the public realm in support of the Cultural Hub, be approved in principle.

MOTION – That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

RESOLVED - That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.