Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Tana Adkin KC, Deputy Marianne Fredericks, Deputy Madush Gupta, Alderman Simon Pryke, Deputy Nighat Qureishi and Matthew Waters.  Tana Adkin observed the meeting online.

There were no declarations.

To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 30 September 2025.

The public minutes of the Planning Applications Sub-Committee on 30 September 2025 were approved as an accurate record, subject to the addition of Deputy Nighat Qureishi as an online observer in the list of attendees.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Sub-Committee considered a report presenting a planning application which sought permission in principle for the erection of a single storey detached dwelling with a single storey detached garage and gardens.

Referring to the ‘in principle’ nature of the application, which was a relatively unusual one, the Chair stated that an explanation would be given as part of the Officer presentation.

The Chair confirmed that no objectors or supporters had registered to speak at the meeting.  The applicant, Mr Meek, had submitted a request to speak but this had unfortunately been received after the deadline.  Mr Meek had however provided written submissions which had been circulated to Members the day before the meeting.

The Chair invited the officer to make a presentation to the Sub-Committee.

The officer confirmed that the presentation would cover the permission and in principle application for the erection of a self-built single storey dwelling with detached single storey garage and gardens at Baltic St West.  It was noted that seeking permission via in principle consent was an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development, separating matters of principle from the technical detail of a proposed development permission.  In principle consent had two stages, the first of which established whether a site was suitable for the proposed development in principle.  The second stage was concerned with the technical details of the application, when the detailed development proposals was assessed.

The application currently before the Sub-Committee related to the first stage of the permission in principle process, the scope of which was limited to location, land use and amount of development.  The application submission consisted solely of the site location plan, which was all that was required to validate a permission in principal application.

The site comprised a triangular strip of land bounded by Baltic St

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Sub-Committee received details of development applications received by the Department of the Built Environment since the report to the previous meeting on 30 September 2025.

RESOLVED - That Members:

·         Note the report and its contents.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Sub-Committee received details of development and advertisement applications determined by the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director so authorised under their delegated powers since the report to the last meeting on 30 September 2025.

RESOLVED – That Members:

·         Note the report and its contents.

Two members raised questions as follows:

Resident Engagement - Information was sought as to whether local residents or House Group representatives, including those from certain blocks located within Aldersgate Ward, were being sufficiently informed and engaged regarding the impact of ongoing building works at the City of London School for Girls.

Clarifying that that the applicant in respect of the works concerned had been the City of London Corporation, Officers advised that the planning permission included a condition requiring the applicant to submit details to mitigate any impact on residential amenity.  This had not yet been actioned, a matter raised with environmental health officers prior to the meeting.

Delegated Authority – It was questioned why, given the straightforward nature of the application which the Sub-Committee had just considered, it had been referred to Members rather than being determined by officers under delegated authority.

Officers advised that the application had met the criteria for consideration by Members, as set out in the current Scheme of Delegation agreed by Comon Council.  This was firstly, because it was contrary to policy, and secondly, because more than ten objections had been received. 

The view was expressed that, although the criteria regarding objections was appropriate in circumstances where officers were recommending the granting of planning permission, it seemed less so where the recommendation was for refusal.  Acknowledging this, the Chairman commented that the point should be fed into the ongoing review of the Scheme of Delegation being led by the Town Clerk’s Department.

There were no urgent items of business.