Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Ian-Bishop Laggett, Deputy Michael Cassidy, Deputy Simon Duckworth, Deputy John Fletcher, Antony Fitzpatrick, Alderman Hughes-Penney, Jaspreet Hodgson, Amy Horscroft, Deputy Edward Lord, Deputy Alastair Moss, Eamonn Mullally, Alderwoman Jennette Newman, Judith Pleasance, Alderman Simon Pryke and William Upton.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive the Order of the Court of Common Council from Thursday, 25^th April 2023.

The Committee received the Order of the Court of Common Council of 28 April 2024 appointing the Committee and setting out its terms of reference for the ensuing year.

RECEIVED.

To elect a Chairman in accordance with Standing Order 29.

The Committee proceeded to elect a Chairman in accordance with Standing Order No. 29. 

Being the only Member expressing a willingness to serve, Deputy Shravan Joshi was re-elected as Chair of the Committee.

RESOLVED – That Deputy Shravan Joshi be elected Chairman in accordance with Standing Order 29 for the year ensuing.

On being elected, the Chairman thanked the Committee for its support.

The Chairman went on to pay tribute to those Members who had now left the Committee – Brendan Barns, Dawn Frampton, Steve Goodman, Anne Corbett and Dawn Wright.

The Chair also welcomed new Members of the Committee – Deputy Randall Anderson, Deputy Michael Cassidy, Deputy Natasha Lloyd-Owen, Deputy Eamonn Mullally and Jacqueline Webster.

To elect a Deputy Chairman in accordance with Standing Order 30.

The Committee proceeded to elect a Deputy Chairman in accordance with Standing Order No. 30.

Being the only Member expressing a willingness to serve, Deputy Graham Packham was duly elected as Deputy Chair of the Committee.

RESOLVED – That Deputy Graham Packham be elected Deputy Chairman in accordance with Standing Order 30 for the year ensuing.

To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 5 March 2024.

The Committee considered the public minutes of the Planning and Transportation Committee held on 5 March 2024 and approved them as a correct record.

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk concerning the appointment of its Sub-Committees, their composition and terms of reference.

Streets and Walkways Sub Committee

The Town Clerk announced that with nine Members expressing an interest in standing for the seven available spaces from the Planning and Transportation Committee, a ballot would be required.

The results of the first ballot were as follows:

Deputy Randall Anderson                   -           12

Mary Durcan                                       -           9

Deputy John Edwards                        -           9

Deputy Marianne Fredericks              -           8

Deputy Edward Lord                           -           7

Deputy Alastair Moss                         -           7

Eamonn Mullally                                  -           5

Hugh Selka                                         -           8

Ian Seaton                                           -           8

As there was a tie for the seventh place on the Sub-Committee, there was a second ballot held between those two members receiving an equality of votes for this place.

The results of the second ballot for seventh place were as follows:

Deputy Edward Lord                          -            3

Deputy Alastair Moss                         -            9

Successful Candidates after two rounds of voting:

Deputy Randall Anderson

Mary Durcan

Deputy John Edwards

Deputy Marianne Fredericks

Deputy Alastair Moss

Hugh Selka

Ian Seaton

Local Plans Sub-Committee

The Town Clerk announced that with five Members expressing an interest in standing for the five available spaces from the Planning and Transportation Committee, a ballot would not be required.

The Town Clerk stated that Officers proposed that responsibility for the consideration of changes to the Transport Strategy and Local Implementation Plan be moved to the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee with the following line added into its terms of reference - To provide guidance and make recommendations on changes to the Transport Strategy and Local Implementation Plan (LIP) to the Grand Committee.

In line with Standing Order 27(2), the Chairman put forward nominees for the position of Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the sub-committees of

In relation to a question about the definition of ‘broad interest’ and the factors considered in weighing up whether there was broad interest, the Planning and Development Director stated that broad interest was a term that the Court of Common Council had adopted as one of the criterion on the scheme of delegation. The concept could encompass a very wide range of consideration from the scale, strategic and wider impact of proposals, impact on community infrastructure and also in reviewing representations from strategic stakeholders. It was common procedure across all UK local planning authorities to grant delegated authority to the planning director to carry out this sifting exercise to ensure applications which had a broader and strategic interest were brought to committee, even if they were policy compliance and had not triggered the number of objections required by the scheme of delegation. The Planning and Development Director stated that he had regular meetings with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee to discuss the planning pipeline of cases and to highlight any applications which were potentially eligible to be determined by delegated authority but which ought to be brought to the committee's attention because of their broader interest. He stated that such consultation was common practice in every local planning authority.

The Planning and Development Director stated that a recent example, which had

broad interest but did not trigger the number of objections required by the scheme of delegation and was policy compliant, was the Hill House application which was considered by the committee. It was considered to be of broad interest due to the scale of the development, the impact on citywide and London views and the fact that a public library replacement was proposed. The decision was therefore taken by committee.

Members were informed

There was no urgent business.