Agenda and minutes

Introductions

The Town Clerk opened the meeting by introducing herself and stating that the Committee was quorate.

A roll call of Members present was undertaken.

The Town Clerk highlighted that the meeting was being recorded as well as live streamed and would be made available on the City Corporation’s YouTube page for a period of time after the meeting had concluded. With this in mind, it was confirmed that participants in the meeting had all individually agreed and given their consent to being recorded and that all personal data would be processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018. The Town Clerk highlighted that, for further information on this, viewers could contact the City Corporation using the details provided on the public webpages.

The Chair then introduced himself, welcomed all those in attendance and viewing the meeting via YouTube and wished all a Happy New Year.

The Chair went on to mention that one of the Members of the Committee – Shravan Joshi – had been honoured in the New Year’s Honours list with an MBE for services to diversity and the British Hindu Community and took this opportunity to publicly congratulate him on this well deserved award.

Apologies for absence were received from Oliver Sells QC (Deputy Chairman), Henry Colthurst, Sylvia Moys and William Upton QC.

A Member asked the Town Clerk to confirm whether there were any items on today’s agenda in which the City Corporation had an interest so that Members could take due care and attention to these applications or items as stipulated under the Planning Protocol. The Town Clerk stated that she was not aware of any instances of this on today’s agenda and confirmed that, if this were to be the case, this would be made clear to the Committee by the reporting Officer once the relevant application or item was considered.

The Chair – Deputy Alastair Moss - declared a professional conflict of interest in relation to agenda Item 4 – 186-190 Bishopsgate Lon, EC2M 4NR - and advised that, as such, he would withdraw from the meeting for the duration of this item and allow the immediate past Chairman, Sheriff Christopher Hayward to manage this in the absence of his Deputy Chairman.

To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 15 December 2020.

The Committee considered the public minutes and summary of the meeting held virtually on 15 December 2020 and approved them as a correct record.

MATTERS ARISING

Anonymisation of Member Comments/Contributions in Minutes (page 3) – A Member commented that the minutes recorded that, at the last meeting, for reasons of transparency, he had proposed that Members contributions and votes should cease to be anonymised in the minutes of all meetings of this Committee. He noted that under the Committee’s list of Outstanding Actions at Item 8 of today’s agenda, a report on this proposal was due to be brought to this Committee in February 2021 before then being referred to the Policy and Resources Committee for consideration. He stated that he felt that making this the subject of an Officer’s report was inappropriate given that this was not a momentus decision and would be reversible if necessary. It would also make this the kind of sclerotic that was heavily criticised in the recent Governance Review. He therefore proposed that this Committee take a decision on the matter now given that the arguments around making minutes more transparent were well aired at the last meeting and that the only real argument against doing so that had been aired so far concerned the risk of Members grandstanding. He suggested that if there were now any new arguments for or against this proposal, Members state them now. He concluded by stating that his proposal was that, for the sake of transparency, the practice of anonymising Members’ contributions and votes in the minutes be ended for this and subsequent meetings of this Committee.

A Member responded to the proposal by thanking the original speaker for providing the Committee with prior notice of his proposal via email. He stated however, that he felt that this

Report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee considered a report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director regarding 186 – 190 Bishopsgate, London, EC2M 4NR, specifically, change of use of basement, ground and first floor levels to a Class A3 restaurant plus external alterations comprising the installation of louvres and a full height external extract duct to the roof on the south elevation.

The Town Clerk introduced the item and also drew Members’ attention to the fact that they had also been sent to virtual site tour clips as well as an addendum that contained an additional proposed condition as well as a late representation.

The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director presented the application and began by stating that the City Corporation had no interests in this property. He explained that the application was for a change of use to the basement, ground and first floor levels to a restaurant use by ‘Five Guys’ and associated external plans. Members were informed that the site in question was 186-190 Bishopsgate, on the east side of Bishopsgate with Victoria Avenue (a privately owned, narrow cul-de-sac which accessed onto commercial properties) running along its southern side. Members’ were shown a site location plan to provide them with an overview of the context of the site and which depicted that it sat within the Bishopsgate Conservation Area as well as within a principle shopping centre which was protected by policy.

The Committee were shown an image of the existing building which the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director explained was a rather unexceptional, 1960’s clad building. He went on to explain that there was a very long and convoluted planning history on this site, which was tied to the previous occupier – ‘Wasabi’ - as detailed within the report. He summarised by stating that

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding temporary traffic management measures implemented on City streets in response to Covid-19.

Officers stated that, as Members were aware, the country continued to be in very uncertain times at present with a new national lockdown starting today. They added that the Covid-19 measures first introduced in Summer 2020 had always been delivered in anticipation of a return of City workers which had fluctuated depending upon the Tier of restrictions imposed on the City. Given the continuing uncertainty, it was now recommended that the restrictions on-street remain in place and be further reviewed in Spring 2021 in order to reassure those that were returning to the City could do so safely and comfortably.

A Member referred to the fact that the report stated that 85% of responses received had suggested that they would not support any of the measures introduced being retained long term. He added that he had concerns around using the consultation portal to gauge public opinion as he felt that it tended to be those who had complaints that would seek this out. He added that he was in favour of the scheme but had himself used the portal only to flag up issues. Officers flagged that it was important to gain feedback from the public and other stakeholders in terms of what they thought was and was not working so that measures could be adapted accordingly – as had already happened in a number of locations. Officers were also interested in gaining an insight into whether people would support the changes longer-term. It was acknowledged that the work being undertaken to gain this information was not quite the same as that that would take place around a permanent project but it was a way

Report of the Director of Innovation & Growth.

 The Committee received a report of the Director of Innovation and Growth providing Members with an update of the Recovery Task Force’s work since November 2020.

A Member noted that the City Vibrancy section referenced culture, retail, tourism and hospitality but not sport. He felt that this was unfortunate given that the City Corporation did have in place an, as yet, unfulfilled Sports Strategy and that sport and exercise was perhaps more important now than ever. He added that this also linked in with improvements to the public realm. Officers reported that a City Workers Survey on leisure needs was currently being undertaken and that the responses to this would be taken into account alongside the forthcoming public engagement programme on these works.

Another Member commented that he was interested to see this paper presented as a blue print and inferred that funds had been set aside for this work but didn’t specify what these were. Officers reported that budget was a key point and also fed into queries around why this work had not been a lot bolder and gone beyond the Corporate Plan. Members were informed that the work had effectively stuck within the framework of the Corporate Plan and looked at what ought to now be speeded up and tackle the unprecedented hit on the economy of the City that the convergence of both the pandemic and Brexit would bring – hence the primary focus being on business. In terms of budget, Officers were therefore looking at what had already been funded or approved and could now be speeded up within existing Departmental budgets. Any new, emerging ideas would be put to Members in due course with budgetary information attached.

Another Member questioned the strategic direction of travel on this and the overall objective which he found

To receive the draft public minutes and summary of the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee held virtually on 1 December 2020.

The Committee received the draft public minutes of the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee held virtually on 1 December 2020.

A Member commented that the City signage on the highwalk was not in fact two-level as the highwalk map was overlaid onto the street map. He added that the issue was not the street level signage or the signage on the podium itself but the fact that there was a lack of signage at the foot of the stairs joining the two together.

Another Member commented on West Smithfield public realm and stated that he was surprised to see this progressing in this way, without a clear indication of what the real uses were going to be for East and West Smithfield. He added that he was very much of the view that a holistic approach needed to be taken to this and that this sight would play a prominent role. Another Member questioned why this public realm presentation had not also come to the grand Committee and asked that all Members be given sight of this. The Chair suggested that those Members who were interested in seeing further details on this should request a copy of the slides and, if necessary, seek to discuss any points they may have with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Sub-Committee. The Chair also assured the Committee that all eventualities were being planned for on this site and that there was no lack of vision on this.

RECEIVED.

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk detailing the Committee’s outstanding actions.

RECEIVED.

Report of the City Surveyor.

The Committee received a public lift report of the City Surveyor for the period 26/11/2020 – 11/12/2020.

RESOLVED – That Members note the report.

Report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee received a report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director providing Members detailing development and advertisement applications determined by the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director or those so authorised under their delegated powers since the report to the last meeting.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

Report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee received a report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director providing Members with a list detailing development applications received by the Department of the Built Environment since the report to the last meeting.

RESOLVED – That Members note the report.

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk advising Members of action taken by the Town Clerk since their last meeting in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman and in accordance with Standing Order Nos 41(a) and 41(b).

RESOLVED – That Members note the report.

Future Meetings

A Member noted that further meetings had now been scheduled as a result of the large number of planning applications due to be considered by the Committee in the first half of 2021. She questioned whether Members and the public could be given prior notice of what applications were due to come before the next meeting so that diaries could be managed accordingly. The Chair highlighted that there were clear and strict deadlines around agenda preparation and publication as well as around deadlines for those wishing to register to address the Committee. The Town Clerk highlighted that, as Members were aware, applications were often registered quite some time before they reached Committee and were subject to various pre-application discussions before this point. Having said that, Officers were planning ahead and did have a draft schedule of applications now scheduled for Committee over the course of the next six months and additional meetings had now been scheduled to accommodate these. It was highlighted that dates often changed or slipped with little notice and that Officers would therefore be weary of sharing this longer-term schedule too widely. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reiterated this point and stated that he would not want to set any expectations as to when certain applications would come before the Committee. The Chair added that all applications should be given the same weight by the Committee.

Another Member agreed with the general point made around providing prior notice of applications but stated that he too was aware that they could often slip considerably for many different reasons.

The Chair concluded by stating that he was not sure that setting concrete target dates around applications was necessarily helpful, particularly when negotiations with Officers might be ongoing.

The Member stated that she was actually

There were no additional, urgent items of business for consideration.

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 the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

                        Item No(s)                                                      Paragraph No(s)

                          16 & 17                                                                       3

                              18                                                                        3 & 7

                          19-20                                                                          -

To agree the non-public minutes of the meeting held virtually on 15 December 2021.

The Committee considered the non-public minutes of the meeting held virtually on 15 December 2020 and approved them as a correct record.

To receive the draft non-public minutes and summary of the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee held virtually on 1 December 2020.

The Committee received the draft non-public minutes of the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee meeting held virtually on 1 December 2020.

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Committee received a non-public report of the Town Clerk advising Members of action taken by the Town Clerk since their last meeting in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman and in accordance with Standing Order Nos 41(a) and 41(b).

There were no questions raised in the non-public session.

There were no additional, urgent items of business for consideration in the non-public session.