Agenda item

St Lawrence Jewry

John Scott asked a question of the Chairman of the Finance Committee concerning a project to repair St Lawrence Jewry.

Responding, the Chairman provided the background to the project and a summary of progress to date, as well as the associated legal complexities. He updated Members on the likely funding requirements and work being undertaken with the Church’s Grants Application Advisor to identify fundraising capabilities and a possible Heritage Lottery Fund bid. He added that a report seeking a decision on the way forward would be presented to the Finance and Policy and Resources Committees in May.

Until such time as the issue had been considered by these Committees, it was not within his power to make any further announcement on the restoration of St Lawrence Jewry; however, he undertook to expedite the matter as far as possible.

Remuneration of Members

The Revd. William Campbell-Taylor asked a question of the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee concerning the remuneration of Members and its possible impact on the diversity of the Court of Common Council.

In reply, the Chairman identified a number of factors which might have an impact on the diversity of the Court, including remuneration. He reminded Members of the work that had been undertaken over the past few years to look at the potential barriers which might deter people from standing for election, including outreach and engagement activity with City workers and a review of the City Corporation’s own working practices, including the timing of meetings. Given the closeness of Members to issues such as this, the Chief Executive of East Sussex County Council had been asked to undertake a review which would provide an external objective perspective on this issue. Her findings were due to be reported to the Policy and Resources Committee in May.

Speaking specifically on the issue of pay, the Chairman noted that this had been explored in depth on several occasions by Members who had, on balance, felt that no action should be taken in respect of remuneration; notwithstanding this, the Financial Loss Scheme for Members had been enhanced to try and address this issue. He observed that the larger number of Members in the City compared to London Boroughs meant that any expenditure through a remuneration scheme would be comparatively high. In addition, he noted the City Corporation’s extensive range of non-local authority activities and drew parallels with charities and other such organisations where Members were not remunerated, observing that this was a difficult issue with arguments on both sides. He suggested that it might be appropriate for the new Court, following the City-wide elections, to review the matter again at some point, taking into account the findings of the Chief Executive of East Sussex County Council’s report.

Responding to supplementary questions concerning the particular issues associated with the current system as they related to the self-employed, the Chairman agreed that it was difficult for such individuals under the current scheme to prove loss of earnings adequately, meaning that it was difficult to ensure adequate recompense. However, there were also some advantages for the self-employed with the current system, particularly in terms of diary control and flexibility with meetings.

In answer to a question concerning the possibility of payment for Committee Chairmen, the Chairman agreed that one or two chairmanships were effectively full-time jobs which might be difficult to manage alongside other employment. However, he noted that different individuals had different approaches and that committees varied, observing that it would be difficult to draw the line as to which chairmanships were worthy of remuneration and which were not; this point could also be made for some roles which were not necessarily committee chairmanships. He reiterated his belief that the issue of remuneration was a complex question and that it merited appropriate consideration by the Court following the forthcoming elections.

At this point in the proceedings, a Member sought the leave of the Court to ask a question relating to the previous item.

Motion – that the leave of the Court be granted to permit a question on the previous item.

Upon the Motion being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be lost.

Upper Thames Street: Pedestrian Crossing

Deputy Brian Mooney asked a question of the Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee concerning the future of a pedestrian crossing on Upper Thames Street.

Replying, the Chairman provided the background of the particular crossing, which was a privately-owned temporary footbridge erected in 1997. With the bridge now being life-expired after some 20 years of use, the owners had determined not to explore whether it could be made safe and brought into permanent use, nor applied for planning permission to retain the bridge. Consequently they were now progressing plans to ensure the efficient and prompt removal of the bridge. However, the Chairman informed the Court that he had asked officers to review the facilities for crossing Upper Thames Street and also to discuss with the bridge owners whether they would be prepared to transfer the bridge to the City Corporation’s ownership. Responding to a supplementary question on this matter, the Chairman added that he would be asking officers to hold these talks as swiftly as possible, to ensure discussions took place prior to the bridge’s removal.

Responding to a further supplementary question on the wider issue of development, the Chairman provided an update on a previous query concerning the possibility of introducing a levy on developers to fund onsite specialist staff to prevent and stop instances of unacceptable behaviour, in liaison with the City of London Corporation’s pollution control team. He informed Members that a report on this issue was due to come to the next meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee, with the proposal that a suitable clause be included within the new Code of Practice for Construction and Deconstruction to require provision for contributions to fund more pro-active monitoring of construction impacts from development sites. If approved, this scheme was expected to be introduced within three months.