"There are two items in the public section of this agenda that affect Golden Lane Estate, where I live. Item 11 concerns the progress of the COLPAI project next to the Estate. I shall ask questions under this item about the amount of dust that is being generated on the project site and a major gas leak. When I last applied for a dispensation from the Standards Committee, they seemed to think I could have a "pecuniary interest” in four trees owned by a public authority. They lay great emphasis on “consistency” in their new dispensation policy, so I suppose they would also think I could have a "pecuniary interest” in dust and leaking gas. Since item 11 is for information only, however, not decision, no dispensation for me to speak is necessary. On a reasonable interpretation, I don't have a "pecuniary interest” in the subject of my questions anyway. In item 12 I shall ask a question, of which I have given notice, concerning another aspect of the COLPAI project. Because it is a question, I again don’t need a dispensation from the Standards Committee to speak.”
Ms Susan Pearson indicated that she would ask questions under items 11 and 12. Since these were questions, and not matters for decision, she did not need a dispensation to ask them, and she considered that on a reasonable interpretation she did not have a “pecuniary interest” in the subject matter of the questions anyway.
Ms Pearson added:
"Item 17 concerns a contract for assessing and negotiating compensation for the Right of Light under the COLPAI development. I am one of the residents whose light will be affected by the development. I shall therefore not speak or vote on this matter.”
Ms Susan Pearson indicated that as she was a resident who would be affected by the subject of this report, she would not speak or vote on this matter.