Agenda and minutes

Introductions

The Town Clerk opened the meeting by introducing herself and stating that the Committee was quorate.

A roll call of Members present was undertaken.

The Town Clerk highlighted that the meeting was being recorded as well as live streamed and would be made available on the City Corporation’s YouTube page for a period of time after the meeting had concluded. With this in mind, it was confirmed that participants in the meeting had all individually agreed and given their consent to being recorded and that all personal data would be processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018. The Town Clerk highlighted that, for further information on this, viewers could contact the City Corporation using the details provided on the public webpages.

The Chair then introduced himself and welcomed all those in attendance and viewing the meeting via YouTube. He also took the opportunity to welcome Doug Barrow, representing the Ward of Aldgate, to his first meeting of the Committee.

Apologies for absence were received from Deputy Peter Dunphy, Tracey Graham, Alderwoman Susan Langley, Oliver Lodge and Andrew Mayer.

There were no declarations.

To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held virtually on 5 January 2021.

The Committee considered the public minutes and summary of the meeting held virtually on 5 January 2021 and, subject to the addition of the points below, approved them as a correct record.

MATTERS ARISING

Anonymisation of Member Comments/Contributions in Minutes (page 6) – A Member commented that she had also requested that her name be listed amongst those Members who had voted in favour of the Motion at the last meeting. The Town Clerk undertook to amend the minutes accordingly.

Questions to the Chair at the last meeting (page 6) – A Member commented that, as the minutes recalled, he had asked two questions of the Chair – firstly why he had not ruled the motion on 150 Aldersgate Street as premature and secondly, on the use of urgent procedures. He thanked the Chair for the written response he had received on these points and highlighted that he had responded to this via email yesterday and had copied in all members of the Committee. He commented that, in respect of his first question, there was no agreement. He added however that he hoped that the Chair would never again entertain a motion to stop a debate before Officers have had an opportunity to respond to Members questions. The Member went on to state that in regard to his second question, he hoped that the Chair and Deputy Chairman would not use delegation or urgency to reduce the amount of decisions needed to be taken by the whole committee.

186-190 Bishopsgate London EC2M 4NR (page 21) – A Member who had voted against the Officer recommendation to approve the application asked that her name be recorded as having done so and also that her vote be recorded by name against today’s application. Two other Members stated that they would also like

Report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee considered a report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director regarding 55 Gracechurch Street, London, EC3V 0EE, specifically, demolition of all existing buildings and the erection of a new building comprising basement levels and ground floor plus 29 upper storeys, including office use (Class E), flexible retail use (Class E, drinking establishment (sui generis), hot food takeaway (sui generis)) a public viewing gallery and garden terrace (sui generis), new pedestrian routes, cycle parking, servicing, refuse and plant areas, public realm improvements, and other works associated with the development.

The Town Clerk introduced the item and drew Members’ attention to the fact that they had also been sent a virtual site tour, a scheme brochure from the applicant and an addendum that contained two additional representations.

The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director presented the application and began by highlighting that this redevelopment application also had two associated listed building consent applications for St Benet’s Place and 2-3 Philpot Lane (at agenda items 5 and 6 respectively). Members were informed that the redevelopment site was situated to the west of the 20 Fechurch Street Tower in a major key startegic site for the City and an area that the City Plan 2036 had identified as an area of intensification and consolidation of the cluster.

The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that the site in question was bounded to the east by the Eastcheap Conservation Area. Members were shown an image of the existing building from Gracechurch Street and from where the emerging cluster of towers could be seen as a backdrop – with Members reminded that this would be added to fairly rapidly with the addition of the new consented schemes in that area. Members were next shown images of Talbot Court to

Report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee considered a report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director regarding St Benet’s Place, London, EC3V 0EE, specifically, temporary removal, alteration and reinstatement of the Grade II Listed Iron Gateway in St Benet’s Place.

RESOLVED – That listed building consent be granted for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule.

Report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee considered a report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director regarding Philpot House, 2-3 Philpot Lane, London, EC3M 8AN, specifically, the demolition of a chimney attached to Grade II Listed 2 and 3 Philpot Lane.

RESOLVED – That listed building consent be granted for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule.

Joint report of the Chamberlain, the Director of the Built Environment and the Director of Open Spaces.

The Committee considered a joint report of the Chamberlain, the Director of the Built Environment and the Director of Open Spaces presenting, for approval, the revenue and capital budgets for the Planning and Transportation Committee for 2021/22.

Members were informed that this report had been produced by the Chamberlain in consultation with relevant departments.

A Member questioned what ‘planning obligations’ referred to within the Staffing Summary table and also asked where enforcement sat within the budget. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that there was a Section 106 office included within his division and that this comprised of two posts that monitored and administered S106 and the legal obligations. He added that planning Enforcement Officers sat within the Development Management Team in his division.

RESOLVED – That Members:

i)     Approve the proposed revenue budget for 2021/22 for submission to Finance Committee;

ii)    Approve the proposed capital budgets for 2021/22 for submission to Finance Committee;

iii)   Approve the proposed 50 Year Bridges’ Repairs, Maintenance and Major Works budgets;

iv)   Authorise the Chamberlain, in consultation with the Directors of the Built Environment and Open Spaces, to revise these budgets to allow for any further implications arising from subsequently approved savings proposals, amended 2021/22 pay award and changes to the Cyclical Works Programme;

v)    Agree that amendments to budgets arising from changes to recharges during budget setting be delegated to the Chamberlain;

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment presenting a proposed approach to identifying savings and additional income opportunities in service provision to meet the department’s initial savings requirement.

Officers explained that this report examined the departmental budget in more detail.

A Member commented that everyone appreciated that a series of difficult decisions would need to be made over the next  few months and that these were amongst them. He went on to specifically question toilets and the APCs and asked whether, if these were closed, the City would be prohibited from ever reopening these should patterns in the City change again and potential use therefore increase. The Chair stated that this sat within the terms of reference of the Port Health and Environmental Services Committee (PHES) and asked that the relevant Officers therefore respond to this query offline. The Member added that he had raised the matter here as he believed that the APCs had been provided under Section 106. Officers reported that the PHES Committee had agreed to mothball public conveniences for the time being and that further investigation would be carried out on the implications of this in terms of the question raised. Officers undertook to respond to the Member with further details on this in due course.

Another Member commented that they appreciated that making savings of the order required was difficult and it was clear from this and the previous report at Item 7 that significant efforts had been made to balance the budget. However, she expressed concern that, often, when there was a degree of pressure and urgency around the need to identify savings, it was easier to make opportunistic savings and to not look at the fundamental ways that business was being conducted or a service provided. She added

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built presenting the 2021/22 high-level Business Plan for the Department of the Built Environment.

Officers reported that the Plan had been produced based on the current organisational structure and that this would be reviewed further towards the end of 2021-22 in line with the Target Operating Model. Members were informed that there was a new corporate template that clearly linked to and defined how the department supported the Corporate Plan and the adopted strategies.

In response to a question, Officers highlighted that the draft City Plan 2036 placed significant emphasis on the delivery of healthy and inclusive streets.

A Member questioned why the Sports Strategy had been included within the equivalent document for PHES but not here. Officers stated that the report submitted to PHES had been a combined report with three separate business plans for the Department of Built Environment (DBE), Open Spaces and Markets and Consumer Protection appended. It was reported that the Sports Strategy was very high on the agenda for Open Spaces but that, due to limited time and workstreams, those aspects captured within this business plan were only the very high-level strategies with DBE’s principal strategic commitments set out on page 621 of the agenda pack. Members were assured that this did not, however, mean that the Department would not seek to implement the Sports Strategy and others in so far as possible.

Another Member commented that it would be good to include reference to the monitoring and enforcement of planning conditions within the Plan. She went on to note that, under the Transport Strategy, the Plan referred to the need to prioritise and provide more space for people walking but did not make reference to cycling. Under the Climate Action Strategy, one of the

Joint report of the Director of the Built Environment and the City Surveyor.

The Committee considered a joint Gateway 5 report of the Director of the Built Environment and the City Surveyor relative to Barnyard House Car Park - Ventilation and Smoke Clearance system.

RESOLVED - That, the Committee:

•               Approve the total project sum of £640,777 including fees, surveys, staff costs, and preconstruction activities already expended

•               Note that funding for this scheme from the On-Street Parking Reserve was approved in principle as part of the 2020/21 annual capital bid round and that draw-down is subject to the further approval of the Resource Allocation Sub and Policy and Resources Committees

•               Agree that the tender received from the SW Bruce Ltd in the sum of £598,777 is approved and they are appointed to undertake the work

•               Authorise the Comptroller and City Solicitor enter into a contract with SW Bruce Ltd.

•               Approve the risk budget of £65,000 to cover design developments and asbestos, (to be drawn down via delegation to Chief Officer).

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding a stopping up application for areas of Fenchurch Street, Mark Lane, Mincing Lane and Star Alley, relating to the development of the site bound by these streets for which this Committee resolved to grant planning permission on 14 May 2020.

Officers presented the application relating to planning permission granted for 50 Fenchurch Street where, as part of the permission granted, the Committee agreed in principle to the stopping up of the public highway that would be built upon if the development were to be implemented. Officers reported that the associated Section 106 agreement was still under negotiation and that, as such, the planning permission was yet to be issued.

Members were shown plans depicting the extent of highway that would be stopped up as part of the application. It was reported that, when assessing applications for the stopping up of public highway,  Officers must be satisfied that it is both necessary to do so and that the advantages in doing so outweigh any disadvantages.

Members were shown plans of the proposed development at ground floor and Officers commented that they considered that the physical interference in the highway including the extensive works to change levels in the basement and layout of the public realm satisfy the test of necessity for the stopping up of all of the proposed areas. It was also considered that the merits test is satisfied due to the exceptionally significant public realm provided by the development over which the public would have 24/7 rights of access, the public benefit of which is considered to outweigh the disbenefits of stopping up the remainder of Star Alley. To reinforce this point, Members were shown images of the existing and proposed views of the development from

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk detailing the Committee’s outstanding actions.

A Member questioned whether an item on idling vehicles could be added to the list reporting that she had recently seen a Freedom of Information application that had been submitted in early January 2021 and that the response to this had highlighted that, since September 2011 when the regulations came into force the City of London had not issued any fines to motorists for idling vehicles. She recognised that there was still much work for central government to do on this in terms of giving local authorities adequate powers but questioned whether it should be added to this list so that it was not lost sight of in the meantime. The Chair suggested that this matter be discussed further offline.

RECEIVED.

Report of the City Surveyor.

The Committee received a public lift report of the City Surveyor for the period 12/12/2020 – 08/01/2021.

RESOLVED – That Members note the report.

Report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee received a report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director providing Members detailing development and advertisement applications determined by the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director or those so authorised under their delegated powers since the report to the last meeting.

RESOLVED –That the report be noted.

Report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee received a report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director providing Members with a list detailing development applications received by the Department of the Built Environment since the report to the last meeting.

RESOLVED – That Members note the report.

Signage to Elevated Public Spaces

A Member stated that he felt that signage to elevated public spaces in the City should be improved. He suggested that some buildings with public roof terraces often had inadequate signage directing people to these and added that the City’s own website directed users wanting to access Beech Gardens to Barbican Station when the gardens were not signposted from here. He questioned whether this could be incorporated into the City Plan 2036 in terms of encouraging developers to adequately signpost such offerings.

Officers commented that this could be regarded as a non-material change to the draft City Plan and would seek to incorporate this. He thanked the Member for his thoughts. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director stated that Officers were now more proactively encouraging developers to do just this and had held recent discussions around it with both 50 and 20 Fenchurch Street where the need to highlight the public realm offerings had also been conditioned.

Lifecycle Assessment

A Member questioned whether, as a matter of course, developers/applicants could be asked to provide comparable lifecycle assessments across the two options and details as to which was worse in terms of whole life carbon. She added that having this data set out clearly would help the Committee to reach a view as to whether what was being offered was a genuine public benefit or something that was an inevitable harm but was nevertheless outweighed by public benefit. She added that she understood that there was a programme that enabled this data to be collated relatively easily.

Officers undertook to respond to this matter outside of the meeting.

Emissions Training

A Member stated that she had asked whether a condition could be put in place for 1-12 Long Lane requiring zero emission machinery and

There were no additional, urgent items of business for consideration.

MOTION – That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

RESOLVED - That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

                        Item No(s)                                                     Paragraph No(s)

                             19                                                                           3

      20                                                                       3 & 5

  21 – 22                                                                      -

To agree the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 5 January 2021.

The Committee considered the non-public minutes of the meeting held virtually on 5 January 2021 and approved them as a correct record.

Report of the Chief Grants Officer & Director of City Bridge Trust

The Committee received a report of the Chief Grants Officer & Director of City Bridge Trust which provided an update of the work undertaken as part of the Bridge House Estates (BHE) Strategic Governance Review since the last report to Members in June and July 2020.

There were no questions raised in the non-public session.

There were no additional, urgent items of business for consideration in the non-public session.