Agenda and minutes

This being the first meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee since the death of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, the Chairman asked that all stand for a moment’s silence. He concluded this by recording his thanks to Officers who had worked diligently around the clock to ensure that all had been in place for arrangements in the City and beyond over the past fortnight.

Apologies for absence were received from Alderman Alexander Barr, Ian Bishop-Laggett, Antony FitzPatrick, Martha Grekos, Alderman Alastair King, Deputy Brian Mooney, Judith Pleasance and Deputy Henry Pollard.

There were no declarations.

To agree the draft public minutes and non-public summary of the meeting held on 19^th July 2022.

The Committee considered the public minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2022 and approved them as a correct record.

MATTERS ARISING

347 Crescent House, Golden Lane Estate, EC1Y 0SN (page 11) – A Member questioned whether if, for future reference, where various amendments were proposed, the Chairman or Clerk might summarise what had actually been voted on and agreed at the end of an item. The Chairman undertook to action this going forward.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director to confirm a group Tree Preservation Order (TPOs) on the London Plane Trees (Platanus x acerifolia) situated on the public highway on St Andrew Street, to the front of Thavies Inn House.

The Chief Planning Officer reminded the Committee that, on 20 April 2022, they had agreed to issue a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for two London Plane trees on this site because of their contribution to the amenity of the area and reported that the TPOs needed to be confirmed within six months. He added that, in Summer of this year, the Committee had also agreed to grant permission for the redevelopment of the Thavies Inn site. By virtue of the public benefit and the tree planting proposed, it was agreed that the loss of these trees would be acceptable. The confirmation of the TPO was to address the fact that there was no guarantee that this scheme would come forward (although there was equally no suggestion that it would not) and to protect the City Corporation’s position on this.

A Member commented that the report suggested that this needed to be confirmed every 6 months. She went on to question whether these were the only TPOs to bring to the Committee’s attention. The Chief Planning Officer reiterated that this would be confirming the TPO in perpetuity. He added that it was extremely rare for these matters to be brought to Committee as there were very few of these.

RESOLVED - That the Thavies Inn Tree Preservation Order (2022) be confirmed without modification.

Report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director Environment relative to the Traffic Order Review.

Officers reminded the Committee that they had agreed a three-stage approach to this review in May 2022.  This report provided an update on the outcome of the first stage which had involved the compilation of a comprehensive index of all of the traffic orders currently in place on the City’s streets. The report also sought approval for the methodology of the second stage of the review and contained some suggestions as to some orders to be excluded from further review.

A Member questioned the different documents that were to be used to define the scoring system such as the Transport Strategy, the Climate Action Strategy and the Road Danger Plan. He stated that the Committee and indeed the wider Court were very familiar with these documents, however, amongst the documents was one which was not so well defined to date – Destination City. He therefore expressed his concerns as to using this to help define the scoring system for the traffic order reviews when it was still largely unknown as a Policy document. Officers responded by stating that the ranking system was something which had not yet been finalised with the consultants working on the review. Further discussions on this would take place should Members agree the methodology set out within this report and would include how best to represent Destination City within this work.

Another Member spoke on site visits stating that she was very conscious that there were currently a number of pedestrian areas with markings on the road showing a white man and that these were confusing for cyclists and other road users as they were situated in what would ordinarily be the cycle lane. She added that she had personally

Report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director Environment providing an update on the Transport Strategy Delivery Plan for Quarter 1 2022/23.

A Member noted that the report referenced public realm improvements at Creed Court and a six week delay to these. However, the Member clarified that this was not strictly true as the project had taken six week’s longer during the construction phase which had caused many of the shops located here to lose out in terms of passing trade. The Member reported that he had requested signage here to indicate that pedestrians could still pass through and was pleased to note that this had been quickly provided but he still expressed his frustration as to how the delay had been presented here. He questioned whether the business rates for these premises might be adjusted downwards to account for this period of time.

RESOLVED: That Members note the report.

Report of the City Surveyor.

The Committee received a report of the City Surveyor concerning public lifts.

A Member referred to the London Wall up and down escalators and London Wall West. She commented that even the 27.42% of service did not tally with her own experience of these escalators not working all of the time. She questioned how, moving forwards, the reporting of this was intended to work. The City Surveyor reported that the Wood Street escalators were not within the City’s remit and that, as such, Officers did not see any service data related to them. It was reported that the City were in ongoing discussions with the managing agent for 125 London Wall about this. It was understood that these escalators had been brought back into service but had since failed again.

The Member responded to propose that there were clearly a number of escalators here that members of the public would assume the City had some remit for. She therefore requested a short paper as to which other escalators aside from Wood Street had similar issues and were not the City’s responsibility but were being used by those in the City and what the proposed solution to this might be.

RESOLVED – That Officers note the report.

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 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 Town Clerk.

The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk setting out its list of Outstanding Actions.

A Member requested an update as to progress on the Sustainability SPD that she had requested. She also questioned whether this item, although for information only, could continue to feature within the main agenda pack given its importance.

The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director stated that Officers were conscious that the list required an update and undertook to action this ahead of the next meeting of this Committee. In terms of the Sustainability SPD it was reported that consultants had now been appointed to assist with the compilation of this document and that initial meetings had now been held with them on this. A comprehensive programme for developing this had now been drawn up. This piece of work would feed into both the City Plan and the work undertaken on the Whole-Life Carbon Planning Advice Note. It was expected that a final version of the document would be available for presentation to Committee in early 2023.  

RECEIVED.

Capital Projects

A Member noted that, as a result of the financial pressures on the City’s ability to fund capital projects, two responses had been initiated – the first being the formation of the Operational Property and Projects Sub-Committee (OPPSC) and the second being the Capital Review process. He stated that he did not believe that the terms of reference of each of these had been circulated to Members which had led to a lot of confusion and unnecessary questions/debate. This had certainly been the case in the most recent meeting of the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee. The Member therefore questioned whether Officers might provide an overview of both areas and how these were coordinated. He also sought assurances that when Planning and Transportation projects were being reviewed, that Members of this Committee would be able to provide informed input. Finally, he sought assurances that there had been no avoidable increase in Planning and Transportation related project costs because of delays incurred by these processes. He added that he was particularly referring to the latest Bank project where it was hoped that a decision could be secured under urgency in order to place orders for materials.

Officers responded to highlight that there had been a resolution passed by the Resource Allocation Sub Committee (RASC) about the need to review all projects that the City Corporation was delivering across its entire portfolio in relation to the medium-term financial pressures that the organisation is facing. They highlighted a particular need to focus on strengthening financial discipline and to consider whether there was sufficient financial allocation to meet the needs of the projects that were being proposed and to ensure that the projects that are moving forward are aligned with the Corporation’s strategic priorities. Officers went on to report that there was particular

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).

                   14                                                                                     3

                15-16                                                                                   -

To agree the draft non-public minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2022.

The Committee considered the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2022 and approved them as a correct record.

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.