Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Deputy Alastiar Moss (Chair), Munsur Ali, Rehana Ameer, Henry Colthurst, Karina Dostalova, Peter Dunphy, Sophie Fernandes, Alderman Prem Goyal, Alderman Robert Hughes-Penney, Natasha Lloyd-Owen, Deputy Brian Mooney, Graham Packham, Judith Pleasance, Deputy Henry Pollard, James de Sausmarez and William Upton QC.

There were no declarations.

To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 9 July 2019.

The Committee considered the public minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2019.

A Member proposed an amendment to the minute, under item 10 (City Fund Highway Declaration – 43 Golden Lane, EC1). He wished to further clarify and amend the paragraph which referenced his contribution as follows: “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”.

The Committee agreed to the amendment and, with this, approved the minutes as a correct record.

MATTERS ARISING

Museum of London Public Realm Project (page 3) – A Member noted that Members had received further information on this work subsequent to the 9 July meeting. He added, however, that he was underwhelmed by the information provided in that it appeared to illustrate that Officers were taking a very reactive stance on this. He went on to acknowledge the complexities of the work but underlined that the Public Realm aspect of this was a vital part of the project. Officers noted the Members views.

Barbican and Golden Lane Conservation Area (page 14) – A Member enquired as to progress around this work. The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that this had been a matter of discussion within the Department since the last meeting of this Committee. She added that authority had now been sought to recruit a new member of staff which would assist

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk detailing outstanding actions from their last meeting.

Daylight/Sunlight – Alternative Guidelines

The Deputy Chairman stated that there was a separate report on the agenda for today’s meeting regarding Daylight/Sunlight Alternative Guidelines and suggested that this item could therefore be removed from the list going forward.

Construction Works

With regard to Construction Works, the Deputy Chairman highlighted that the general point on this had been noted. The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director stated that Officers would be discussing the matter further with colleagues in Environmental Health and would report back to the Committee further in the Autumn.

RECEIVED.

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.

RECEIVED.

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.

The Deputy Chairman highlighted that, whilst no significant planning applications had been brought to the Committee for consideration in recent months, there were some substantial applications currently at application and pre-application stage. He added that such applications would reach the Committee in the Autumn and reassured Members that this was an issue around timing and that there was still great demand in the City.

RECEIVED.

Report of the City Surveyor.

The Committee received a report of the City Surveyor containing details of the three public escalators/lifts that were in service for less than 95% of the time.

The City Surveyor reported that all lifts were now back in service. She went on to state that the previous lift maintenance contract had now come to an end and that a new contractor had been in place since early July 2019 – there had been no reported problems with any of the lifts since this time.

The City Surveyor went on to make specific reference to the Millennium Inclinator and reported that Kone would be the maintenance company responsible for this going forward. The maintenance contract would mirror that already in place for a similar Inclinator in Greenford Station, which is also managed by Kone and it was hoped that this would come into effect by September 2019. 

A Member reported that she had recently walked from the Barbican to Guildhall and had tried to take the escalator down to Wood Street. She reported that she had reached the second level only to discover that the escalator here was not in operation. She recognised that this escalator was not the responsibility of the City Corporation but highlighted that, as it was situated within the City there was an issue around public perception and went on to question what the organisation might be able to do around this.

The City Surveyor responded by assuring Members that the organisation had a good working relationship with those who managed the escalator in question and undertook to take this matter forward.

Another Member referred to the London Wall West lift and questioned progress around this. The City Surveyor reported that the issue of water ingress was currently being discussed with the owners of 1 London Wall.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director relative to the appropriateness of the City Corporation’s current approach to daylight and sunlight and whether there would be a case for having Guidelines more specific to the City setting.

A sheet detailing further Government guidelines issued since the report was prepared was tabled. The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director highlighted that this also included reference to the urban context.

The Committee were reminded that this matter had been brought forward at the request of Members who had questioned whether the City should look to produce its own guidelines around daylight and sunlight. The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director referred to recent training offered to the Committee on the issue of Daylight and Sunlight and the fact that this had highlighted the number of different methods of assessment that may currently be used. She went on to state that the tools available to the organisation and the industry were changing quite rapidly. She concluded that she was therefore of the view that the policy currently in the Local Plan remained fit for purpose. It was, however, suggested that further guidance might be produced on how the City implements the current policy. It was proposed that this guidance be worked up and be brought back to this Committee in the Autumn.

A Member referenced a number of previous planning applications that had been considered by the Committee where BRE guidelines had been applied but where it was suggested that these guidelines and certain breeches of daylight and sunlight could be ignored. He went on to question whether computer generated images could be used for future applications that had any such implications to clearly demonstrate any loss of daylight and sunlight as well as radiance. He also

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment providing the results of a review and proposed prioritisation of transportation and public realm within the Department of the Built Environment.

A Member made reference to the £3million of Section 106 monies that would still remain, some of which was soon to expire, and questioned whether the Committee could receive a future report detailing what was planned for these funds to avoid their expiration.

RESOLVED – That Members:

a.    Note the methodology and ranking of DBE projects set out in paragraphs 7-12 of the report;

b.    Note those DBE projects funded centrally during the period of the fundamental review as set out in Appendix 2;

c.     Agree the allocation of £3,917,518 S106 funding to 4 projects to mitigate the specific developments from which the funds were generated, including the interest accrued;

d.    Authorise Officers to seek an extension to time to S106 with the relevant developer/building owner where applicable as set out in Appendix 4; and

e.    Authorise officers to re-negotiate the use of any S106 deposits, not allocated in this report, that require a variation of scope, to seek their use in mitigating the impacts of the developments generating the deposits, consistent with corporate priorities.

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment proposing a formal Code of Conduct for cycle tour groups using narrow lanes and streets in the City in response to a Wardmote resolution from the Ward of Farringdon Within.

Officers reported that this had proved to be a particular issue on Carter Lane during the lunch time period. Members were informed that Officers had already been working alongside cycle tour groups to gain a better understanding of the issues but that a more formal approach was now proposed in the form of a Code of Conduct.

Members were informed that the cycle tour groups were choosing to use Carter Lane as alternative routes were utilised by buses and had large volumes of traffic. It was, however, proposed that the tour groups dismounted their bicycles to pass through this narrow lane at busy times. Officers were pleased to report that all four of the tour operators concerned had responded positively to the proposed Code. It was suggested that if Members of the public had any continued complaints, they should look to provide Officers with photographic evidence so that the matter could be taken up directly with the relevant tour group.

The Deputy Chairman hailed this as a positive move and thanked Officers for their efforts. Another Member agreed that this was a helpful and constructive move and questioned whether there had been any consultation with local stakeholders on the production of the Code. Officers reported that no such consultation had taken place to date but that this could be explored in terms of how the Code might now be implemented.

A Member questioned whether the fact that the Code had been well received by tour operators meant that they would adhere to it. Officers reported that all four

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

The Committee received a report of the Director of the Built Environment updating Members on the trial of a new approach to managing dockless cycle hire in the City.

Officers reported that a six-month trial was currently underway which had seen the introduction of designated parking areas for dockless cycles in the City in an attempt to reduce the amount of obstructions on the highway. Two operators had been selected to take part in the trial which would run until the end of 2019. Other operators had been requested not to include the City of London during the trial period but responses to this request had been mixed. Officers reported that there were currently limited powers available to them here but that it was envisaged that a London-wide bye law would be introduced in due course.

The Deputy Chairman stated that it was frustrating to learn that the organisation had no greater powers to address this issue at present.

A Member enquired as to whether symbols and white lines to mark out the agreed parking locations within the City had now been completed. Officers reported that the marking of all bays would be completed by the end of this week.

A Member referred to recent occurrences where operators who were not part of the current trail had parked in the City to deliver bicycles to locations nearby. She also questioned whether there were sufficient parking spaces given that she had, only today, seen three bicycles in one space, only one of which was a bicycle from an approved operator. Officers encouraged Members to report any issues with operators and obstructions directly to them.

The Member went on to refer to the London Borough of Islington who had recently removed a number of bicycles from their streets that had failed to

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

The Committee received a report of the Director of the Built Environment updating Members on the potential implications of Brexit for the Department of the Built Environment.

RESOLVED – That Members note the report and that further update reports will be made to subsequent meetings of the Committee as appropriate.

‘The Tulip’

A Member questioned what the next steps were in relation to this following the Mayor of London’s direction to refuse the planning application. The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that, following the Mayor’s direction to refuse, decision notices had been issued on behalf of the City of London Corporation. At present, the applicant was deciding whether or not to take the matter to appeal. If an appeal was pursued, this would lead to a Public Inquiry and the final decision would be taken by the Secretary of State. If an appeal was not pursued, the Mayor’s decision to reject would rest.

Mansell Street Telephone Boxes

A Member questioned whether the telephone boxes situated on the City side of Mansell Street which was also a red route were the responsibility of the City of London Corporation. She went on to state that the equipment in both telephone boxes was not working and they now tended to be frequently used for anti-social behaviour and as toilet facilities instead. Officers were informed that this matter had been frequently raised by elected Members of the Ward of Portsoken in the past.

The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director stated that she would like the opportunity to investigate this matter further but that her initial feeling was that this would be a matter for the City of London Corporation to enforce. She undertook to revert back to the Member on this in due course.

E-Scooters in the City

A Member wished to pick up further on the points raised briefly under Item 10. She highlighted that the Metropolitan Police were currently undertaking work to highlight that these scooters were a danger and were, at present, illegal for use on the highway. She went on to state that, despite this, she had

Fundamental Review

The Deputy Chairman reported that he and the Chair had recently met with representatives of both the Policy and Resources and Finance Committee to make clear the views of this Committee on the Fundamental Review. The meeting had led to an agreement that the review was not about cuts but about transformation and innovation in terms of delivering what the organisation does. They had made it clear that the Planning and Transportation Committee were not to be bypassed in the review and expected to be fully consulted where relevant. Officers were currently looking at a number of measures to respond positively to the review and these would be put to this Committee ahead of submission to Policy and Resources.

The Director of the Built Environment stated that there were two aspects to the Fundamental Review for the Department – Revenue and also Capital Projects – around which much work had already been undertaken in terms of prioritisation.

In response to further comments, the Deputy Chairman reported that it was his understanding that a full Governance Review would also take place following the Fundamental Review to ensure that the current approach continued to be fit for purpose. A Member questioned whether the size of Committees would form a part of such a review. Another Member commented that she did not see how the size of a Committee added in any way to cost. She went on to highlight that planning fees were dictated by the Government. On a separate note, the Member stated that she hoped that the Chair and Deputy Chairman of this Committee would ensure that there were no further staff lost from the Department of Built Environment as a result of the Fundamental Review given the resource issues that had already been reported to this 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.

To agree the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2019.

The Committee considered and approved the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2019.

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.