Agenda and minutes

Introductions

The Town Clerk opened the meeting, confirming that a quorum of Members were present. The Town Clerk then 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. It was confirmed 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 Chairman then welcome all those in attendance to the meeting, as well members of the public and external stakeholders observing the meeting via YouTube.

The Chairman then moved a vote of thanks to Gemma Stokley for her work supporting the Committee as Committee Clerk since September 2018, a period which had spanned the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as numerous major applications and complicated governance considerations. The Committee thanked and paid tribute to Gemma Stokley for her support and wished her well as she moved on to future challenges.

Apologies for absence were received from Alexander Barr, Emily Benn, Natasha Lloyd-Owen and Alderman Sir David Wootton.

There were no declarations.

To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 26 April 2022.

RESOLVED – That the public minutes and non-public summary of the meeting held on 26 April 2022 be agreed as a correct record.

Matters Arising

In response to a question from a Member on the Bury House application, the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director advised that officers were still awaiting Stage 2 consideration from the GLA, and most recently followed up on this the day before the meeting.

A Member advised that they had a point of accuracy to raise on the non-public minutes, additionally proposing that the reference to consideration of greening proposals relevant to 21 Moorfields be moved into the public minutes for the benefit of the record, which was agreed.

Report of the Town Clerk

The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk recommending the establishment of a special sub-committee to determine an application in respect of London Wall Car Park. The Comptroller and City Solicitor introduced the report, providing some background and outlining the reasons for the proposal. The Comptroller and City Solicitor added that as the application was unlikely to be ready for the Committee meeting on 7 June, it was proposed that the recommendation be amended to approve the establishment of a sub committee to consider the application at a date to be determined.

A Member suggested that agenda planning be undertaken so that the Special Sub Committee meeting take place after a lighter Grand Committee meeting, as this would facilitate better consideration of the application. The Member then asked the Comptroller and City Solicitor for advice as to whether dispensations were required for those living in the proximity of London Wall. The Comptroller and City Solicitor advised that they would advise the Member outside the meeting, as there was no universal rule on this matter.

The Chairman added his agreement that the Sub Committee meeting should follow a lighter Grand Committee meeting, or could be scheduled as a separate meeting, before drawing the Committee’s attention to the recommendations.

RESOLVED – That the Planning & Transportation Committee agree to:

1. Establish a Special Sub Committee with the following Terms of Reference: to determine planning application reference: 21/00419/FULL;

2. That the Special Sub-committee sits at the rising of the Planning and Transportation on a date to be determined; and

3. That the Special Sub-committee be constituted of all Members of Planning and Transportation Committee.

Report of the Executive Director of Environment

The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Environment covering the provision of Transport for London (TfL) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) funding to the City of London Corporation for the year 2022/23. The Executive Director of Environment introduced the report, advising of the background to the LIP scheme and outlined the key points for this year for Members.

In response to questions from a Member, the Executive Director of Environment confirmed that approval was not sought for any shortfall arising from funds not being made available from TfL. The amount for approval was the total amount that could be made available with allocations for spending that funding set out, but if funds were not made available by TfL these would not be replaced and the allocations to initiatives would be reconsidered under delegation to officers. The Executive Director of Environment also advised that officers were happy to consider how bids for funding via other means and opportunities to align with other initiatives in order to maximise delivery.

A Member asked whether any provision had been made for the creation of a permanent solution to the Hostile Vehicle Mitigation (HVM) barriers at London Bridge, noting that it was likely some City of London Corporation funding would be required. The Executive Director of Environment responded that the barriers in question were still the subject of discussions involving the City of London Corporation via Bridge House Estates and led by TfL, being currently the responsibility of TfL to maintain, but owned by the Metropolitan Police. The Executive Director of Environment added that this was a complicated situation which sat outside of the LIP.

RESOLVED – That the Planning & Transportation Committee:

i)     Approve the allocations up to the maximum set out in table 1 (£1,917k), for the year 2022/23;

ii)    Delegate authority

Report of the Executive Director of Environment

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director of Environment providing details of the two main workstreams for the Traffic Order review instructed by the Court of Common Council.

A Member raised a point in respect of Destination City, commenting that the Court of Common Council had approved a wider plan for City Recovery which contained multiple facets applicable to the Committee, including Destination City. The Member commented that it could be problematic to focus on a subset of measures already agreed rather than the whole, as other issues also needed focus in order to fulfil what was agreed, including exercise facilities, which were requested by a significant number of survey respondents. The Member noted that the matter would come back to Committee and suggested that the Committee consider the plan as a whole.

The Executive Director of Environment responded that Destination City was specifically referred to in the original Motion to Court of Common Council, but confirmed that references to Future City could be added and that there was no intention to suggest that outcomes from the City Recovery taskforce would not be incorporated.

With regards to consultation, a Member queried why the City Streets survey referenced in paragraph 12 had been included as part of the engagement, adding their concerns that this could result in overengineering or consultation fatigue. Another Member stressed that experience of previous consultations be taken into account, and that officers should ensure that all relevant user groups were sufficiently consulted, and their responses considered. The Member proposed that a senior party be engaged in the consultation to provide assurance that the line and selection of questioning was appropriate and inclusive of user groups. The Chairman commented that he felt recent projects such as Beech Street had demonstrated that great efforts and diligence were

Report of the Planning and Development Director

The Committee received a report of the Planning and Development Director setting out the membership, constitution and remit of the City of London Access Group (CoLAG) and confirming that a review into the remit, structure and terms of reference of CoLAG was in progress.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

Report of the City Surveyor

The Committee received a public lift report of the City Surveyor for the period 12/04/22 – 01/05/22. A Member asked for an update on the completion of the redevelopment of Millennium Bridge House, which included a new lift with public access, to be provided outside of the meeting.

In response to a question from a Member regarding the escalators on Wood Street, the City Surveyor confirmed that the escalators in question were not owned or managed by the City Corporation, although there was a public lift managed by the City Corporation at the junction of Wood Street and London Wall. A Member acknowledged that the escalators were managed by the building, but added that they understood that the escalators were supplied as part of a planning condition, and therefore if they were not operational then this became an enforcement matter as the condition was not being met. The City Surveyor advised that they would look into this and respond in writing for circulation to the Committee.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director

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

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director detailing development and advertisement applications determined by the 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 Town Clerk

The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk setting out its list of Outstanding Actions. The Committee noted that new guidance on Radiance was set to be provided by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) this month, and that officers would analyse changes before reporting to Committee on a way forward.

RESOLVED – That the list of outstanding actions be noted.

Salisbury Square

A Member asked if there were any pertinent points arising from the process or outcome of the Judicial Review of the Salisbury Square development of which the Committee should be made aware.

The Chairman commented that the City Corporation had successfully defended their planning decision on the Salisbury Square development from a Judicial Review, and the Court of Appeal had subsequently rejected an application for an appeal. The Chairman added that this was an excellent outcome and gave thanks to the Planning and Legal teams for their work on this, the officer’s report having been singled out for particular praise which was testament to the amount of work that had gone in.

Riverside Walk

A Member commented that the new hotel development on the Riverside in Queenhithe Ward had transformed the area and had been a very positive development, but areas around the development were still blocked, despite a lack of ongoing activity. The Member therefore asked for an update on this. The Executive Director of Environment responded that a site visit was scheduled for Thursday that week to review progress. Whilst officers appreciated the frustrations at the delays, they were confident that the matter was close to resolution and would pick up any outstanding actions as a matter of urgency and confirm a timeframe for completion following the site visit.

Road Signage in Princes Street

A Member raised the road signage at Princes Street, advising that the signage for a vehicle entering Princes Street from the north, turning around and travelling back northwards appeared to be contradictory, which would inhibit access to Grocer’s Hall. The Executive Director of Environment responded that this matter had been raised elsewhere and a full response was being prepared. Officers believed the signage to be accurate but were reviewing it to ensure

The Executive Director of Environment advised that a full briefing note on the Government’s Levelling Up Bill would be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee.

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                             Paragraph

15                                   3

16-17                             -

To agree the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 26 April 2022.

The Committee considered the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 26 April 2022.

There was one question.

There was one item of other business.