Agenda item

Thames Footbridge

Deputy Brian Mooney asked a question of the Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee seeking an update in respect of the future the primary pedestrian bridge at Queenhithe, which connected the Ward to the north side of Upper Thames Street.

In reply, the Chairman confirmed that a deed to acquire the bridge had been forwarded by the City Corporation to the lawyers representing the structure’s current owners, with it hoped that legal completion would be achieved by mid-January. Meanwhile, officers were working with consultant engineers to review costings and time allocation for the next stage of investigations into making the bridge safe for long-term usage and it was expected that this work would also be commissioned before the end of this month.

It was anticipated that a report would be presented to Members during Quarter 2 of 2018/19 setting out the works required to enable the opening of the bridge.  Provided the bridge was structurally sound, it was expected that it could be brought back into public use before the end of the calendar year, subject to the requisite funding approvals.

In response to a supplementary question from Deputy Mooney concerning funding commitments, the Chairman observed that this would be a matter for the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee and not something he was personally able to guarantee. He added however that the Planning and Transportation Committee was strongly in support of this proposal and was confident that the Resource Allocation Sub Committee would take this into account when coming to a decision.

Mansion House External Cleansing

Andrew McMurtrie asked a question of the Chairman of the Finance Committee concerning the cleansing of the exterior of Mansion House.

Responding, the Chairman outlined the current schedule for stonework cleaning and maintenance works, noting that in the context of the Bank Junction Scheme and further potential improvements to the environment in the area, the relatively poor current appearance of the Mansion House was increasingly evident. Consequently, he was minded that appearance now needed to influence the timing of the care and maintenance programme for the Mansion House and the existing timescale for cleaning now needed to be re-examined, taking into account the competing demands on repairs and maintenance budgets.

He added that he had asked for a report on this subject to be produced for the next meeting of the Corporate Asset Sub-Committee and thanked Mr McMurtrie for bringing this matter to his attention.

In response to a supplementary question from Deputy James Thomson concerning lighting arrangements for the exterior of Mansion House, the Chairman observed that it would be prudent to wait until after such time as cleaning works were undertaken before installing any additional lighting. However, he would ask officers to include consideration of lighting arrangements as part of their report to Corporate Asset Sub-Committee.

Recycling and Plastics

Henry Colthurst asked a question of the Chairman of the Port Health and Environmental Services Committee concerning the City Corporation’s progress in respect of recycling and its approach to plastics.

The Chairman, responding, noted that the City Corporation was one of the best performing Local Authorities in London in respect of recycling; however, in line with national and London trends, overall recycling rates had unfortunately declined in the past three years. He outlined the various national factors which were believed by the industry to be behind this trend, adding that on a local level the relatively small number of residential properties within the City, compared to the high daily footfall resulted in waste collected on street and in litter bins, had a disproportionate impact on household recycling percentage figures, particularly as waste collected on the street had a high level of contamination and thus was often rejected by recycling plants.

The Chairman also outlined the wide range of initiatives employed to increase recycling levels and confirmed that, since October 2011, absolutely no City domestic waste had been sent to landfill and only plastic materials which were not recyclable due to contamination or type were incinerated to produce energy from waste.

Regarding future plans to address the issue of plastic waste, it was intended to launch a “Plastic Free City” campaign during 2018 to work in partnership with businesses and stakeholders across the City to reduce single use plastics by encouraging and facilitating the use of re-usable products, as well as discouraging the provision of single use plastics such as bottles, straws, cutlery and plastic bags. The City Corporation would also continue to seek opportunities to install more drinking fountains which could be used to refill reusable drinking containers and to encourage all local businesses to register as “refill sites” providing free water, as part of a move to discourage people from using single-use plastic bottles.

Single-use Coffee Cups

Deputy Robert Merrett asked a question of the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee concerning the City Corporation’s policy in respect of single-use coffee cups.

Making reference to the Chairman of Port Health and Environmental Services’ earlier response, the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee agreed that the use of plastics, particularly single-use plastics, was an area of very real importance and one which the City Corporation was taking extremely seriously. On the issue of coffee cups in particular, the Chairman made reference to the Square Mile Challenge which the City Corporation had launched in 2017, installing more than 100 recycling points across the City to facilitate dedicated collection and delivery to specialist recycling plants which could process the plastic lining inside the cup properly. She noted that there were six areas within the Guildhall Complex itself with these dedicated bins and added that she had asked officers to look into placing more around the complex to encourage an increase in coffee cup recycling on-site.

The Chairman observed that a wide range of issues that would need to be borne in mind before considering any wide-scale ban of single-use cups and that the Port Health & Environmental Services Committee would be receiving a report entitled “Plastic Free City” at its next meeting which would begin to look at the wider issue of plastic usage in more detail. Whilst it would be precipitate to commit to any course of action before that Committee took its own views on this matter, she was  keen to see the City Corporation take action and so would be referring this matter to that Committee to take a view as part of their wider considerations.

Freedom Applications

Anne Fairweather asked a question of the Chairman of the Freedom Applications Committee about the inclusion of a second parent’s name in the Freedom application process. 

In the Chairman’s absence, the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee responded on his behalf. In doing so, she provided the historical rationale for questions concerning a father’s details being asked as part of the process, advising that this practice had been maintained to ascertain whether patrimony was applicable for each application and, more importantly, for the purposes of genealogy and historical research. She confirmed that there was no reason that the mother’s details could not be included and advised that they were already often used if the applicant was from a single parent family or if the father had divorced and remarried.

The Chairman was pleased to confirm that the system used for maintaining Freedom records and applications had the facility for entering either a mother or same-sex second parent’s details. Consequently, she was able to report that the nomination form would be amended to facilitate this.

In response to a supplementary question from Anne Fairweather concerning the use of the term “Free Sisters” or equivalent, the Chairman advised that she would pass the suggestion on to the Chairman of the Freedom Applications Committee. The Chairman also agreed with James Tumbridge that it would be important to continue to encourage applicants to share parental details, so as to maintain the utility of Freedom records for genealogical purposes.