Agenda item

Report of the City Surveyor.

The Committee considered a report of the City Surveyor seeking approval to declare a volume of land and airspace totalling 81 square foot (7.5 square metres) of City Fund Highway land at Golden Lane, EC1 to be surplus to highway requirements to allow its disposal to provide 99 residential dwellings at 43 Golden Lane, EC1.

The Chair withdrew from the meeting whilst this item was considered. It was moved and unanimously seconded that past Chairman Barbara Newman take the chair for this item.

The City Surveyor opened by clarifying that the works received full planning permission from this Committee in 2017 as opposed to under delegated powers as suggested within the report.

A Member tabled an email which she had also sent to the Committee electronically outlining her concerns around these proposals. She drew Members’ attention to Appendix 2 and 3 of the report which did not show a large lime tree situated on the site in question. She added that the space overlapped by the tree fell within the area that the Committee were now being asked to declare surplus. The Member highlighted that the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director had assured her that the tree would be protected during the construction phase of the development but no such assurances were made thereafter.

The Member continued by stating that the tree in question was a large, mature tree and, apart from providing visual amenity, it also served the important role of reducing air pollution and cleaning the air in a residential area with schools situated directly opposite. It was therefore plainly not ‘surplus’.

Another Member agreed with the case made by the previous speaker and noted that, whilst airspace was, ordinarily, uncontroversial, in this case the space in question was occupied by a large, mature tree. He went on to state that the development in question had no public benefit and had been sold to a developer to develop a number of luxury flats, and that if the Committee declared the land/airspace to be surplus to requirements, it would be declaring the tree to be surplus to requirements.

A Member stated that the Committee needed to be clear in terms of the decision they were being asked to make – not a decision stating that the tree was surplus, but simply that it would require cutting back at high level. A second Member questioned whether this would also involve an ongoing requirement to keep the trees branches out of the airspace in question.

The City Surveyor confirmed that there were no plans to remove the tree in question. This was a question of clarifying ownership of the airspace and was brought to Officers attention by the developer towards the end of 2018. There was no change to the approved plans. He added that something could be added to the airspace lease stipulating that access for the purpose of maintaining the tree was to continue.

A Member questioned the pocket park which featured in the original application. The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director confirmed that this would not be impacted by these proposals.

Another Member questioned whether a condition could be added stating that the health of the tree was not to be compromised. The City Surveyor reiterated that he would seek to insert a suitable clause within the lease around the tree’s health/ongoing access.

A Member questioned whether, in light of the concerns expressed, it would be possible to place a tree protection order (TPO) on the tree. The Chief Planning Officer stated that she believed that this would have to be advertised and notice served on the owner (in this case the City Corporation). Typically, the organisation did not serve TPO’s on itself but that she would look to initiate this as a separate process if that was the wish of Members.

Members questioned the current height of the tree. The City Surveyor reported that, at present, the second floor balconies of the development protruded out in to the trees branches. This was as per the original plans. A Member noted that, at present, the tree reached up to the fifth floor of the development and questioned whether it would therefore be cut out in the outline of the second floor balconies or cut down to below the second floor and how this might affect the tree’s stability.

A Member agreed that whilst the health of the tree was important this was something that could be discussed with the developer and adequately conditioned. It should not, therefore, affect the decision to be taken today regarding surplus land/airspace. Another Member supported this point and noted that the tree had already been trimmed back. He suggested that Members therefore agree to this very small area being declared surplus whilst noting that the tree itself would remain on the highway which would ultimately remain under the ownership of the City Corporation. He also noted that the balconies on the development were stepped and not situated one above the other.

The Committee proceeded to vote on the proposal before them. Votes were cast as follows:

·         IN FAVOUR –             16 Votes

·         OPPOSED –               7 Votes

·         ABSTENTIONS –       3

RESOLVED – That Members declare a volume of City Fund highway land measuring a total of 81 square foot (17.5 square meters) situated in Golden Lane, EC1 to be surplus to highway requirements to enable its disposal upon terms to be approved by the Corporate Asset Sub Committee and subject to the City Corporation retaining ownership of the highway and the continuing highway functions.