Agenda item

Thames Court Footbridge

The Director of the Built Environment reported that further to the decision made by the Committee that Transport for London be approached to have the Thames Court footbridge vested in it as a highway structure, there had been no response yet from TfL although it was previously hoped that a report would be brought back to the Committee before recess with their response and our initial estimate of costs. 

During discussion of the next matter arising Alastair Moss and Susan Pearson both left the meeting as they had previously declared an interest in the item.

Bernard Morgan House

The CPO reported that following the Committee’s decision to grant planning permission for the development of Bernard Morgan House, there had been an application to the Secretary of State for a call-in of the decision.

The Secretary of State had issued a Section 31 notice meaning that the decision arrived at subject to entering a Section 106 agreement in respect of Bernard Morgan House could not be issued without the prior authorization of the Secretary of State. The notice was issued to enable him to consider whether he should direct under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that the application should be referred to him for determination.

The CPO advised that no decision could be issued until the further advice of the Secretary of State was received.

The grounds for the call-in were as follows:

·         The proposal conflicted with national and local policies and failed to provide adequate affordable housing.

·         The proposal would have a harmful impact on the amenities of an adjacent Borough which had not been considered.

·         The views of the objectors had not been considered.

·         There were vested interests within the CoL Corporation which prejudiced its Planning and Transportation Committee’s ability to make a balanced judgement.

The CPO confirmed that all issues were considered and that those Members unable to participate due to interests had left the meeting. The CPO also drew attention to the legal advice in the report confirming that under the statutory framework the Committee was able to consider the application.  

In relation to this item a Member stated that the CoL Corporation needed to review the list of external advisors in relation to viability to ensure that it received truly independent advice from expert advisors.

Item 8 – Questions

A Member asked what was being done to resolve the issue about access by members to sensitive information in relation to viability submitted by applicants. The minutes recorded the statement that work was being done on this as part of the local plan review process but gave no detail as to what or when this might be. The Member stressed that this needed to be clarified, and that providing some training on viability was only part of the solution.