Mr Mooney enquired as to whether a number of Members who were resident in the City may, arguably, have a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) in relation to agenda item 17 (Consultation on Noisy Saturday Construction Work Activities in the City of London) given that any decision here could be perceived as improving the local environment and thereby enhancing property values.
The Town Clerk responded by stating that this appeared to be a tenuous link and that the matter would not necessarily engage a DPI.
The Chairman requested that legal advice be sought from the Comptroller and City Solicitor ahead of this Item being considered. The advice would need to provide clarity as to whether those Members who owned property within the City were able to speak and/or vote on the matter or whether this was a matter for personal judgement.
The Assistant City Solicitor (attending the meeting as the Comptroller and City Solicitor’s representative) stated that she did not believe that this would constitute a DPI although would seek final clarification on this.
An Alderman commented that the definition of a DPI involved an appreciable financial loss or gain which was not the case in the matter for determination at Item 17.