Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Dhruv Patel.

There were no declarations.

To agree the minutes from the last meeting, held on 5 June 2018.

The Sub-Committee considered the minutes from the last meeting, held on 5 June 2018.

RESOLVED – That the minutes be approved.

MATTERS ARISING

In reference to Item 8 on the agenda, a Member queried the inclusion of the item on the agenda, particularly noting that it was marked as non-public.  It was commented that this would raise an issue around perception of the intentions of Northern & Shell.  The Chairman noted the point made by the Member, but advised that other participants at the Pool of London Workshop in April 2018 had been given the same opportunity to present their views on the area to the Sub-Committee and had not taken up this offer.  The Director of the Built Environment advised the Sub-Committee that this was simply an opportunity for individuals or groups to present their views on the future of the Pool of London area to help Members be better informed when at later meetings they consider and make decisions on planning policy.   A second Member noted that similar briefings occurred on occasion without being subject to their own agenda item and noted that any policy decision-making on the subject would always be done in a public session.  The Chairman asked if Members were content to note the concerns and, given the assurances that equal opportunity had been given to all interested parties, to proceed.  Members were content, except one Member who reiterated their disapproval at the item’s inclusion on the agenda.

Report of the Director of the Built Environment

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment that proposed draft retailing policies for the new Local Plan.

The Director of the Built Environment provided Members with an update on the local plan.

Members discussed the draft policies outlined within report appendix 1:

Core Strategic Policy CSXX: Retailing

A Member asked how Principal Shopping Centres (PSCs) were being defined and asked if language could be included that explained this. (1)

In reference to paragraph 6, a Member asked what was meant by the phrase “detract from […] vitality of PSCs”.  The Director of the Built Environment explained that it was a judgement on whether a unit would detract from the success of other centres in its proximity.  The Member noted that if this was a judgement, rather than something clearly defined, then this was an issue.  The Director of the Built Environment explained that there were definitions, citing the 2,500m² size threshold for a Retail Impact Assessment.

A Member asked what was meant by “retail links” and the Director of the Built Environment explained that it referred to streets linking the PSCs and linking the PSCs with transport hubs or centres in adjoining boroughs.  The Member emphasised the importance of using meaningful and clear language as far as possible.

A Member noted that there was further potential for coordination with the resident population of Islington to the North.  A Member suggested that there was a danger of over-engineering retail planning strategies in specific areas, and the focus should be on ensuring optimum design with consideration to aspects such as delivery access and allowing a greater degree of natural growth.

A Member raised their concerns about the potential for policy to lead to homogenous clustering of chain coffee shops and fast food outlets.  The Director of

A Member explained that they had recently visited Cory who just appointed a new commercial director and were keen to increase freight on the River Thames.  The Member explained that river freight had many benefits as an alternative to road freight, such as being more economical, less polluting and reducing road traffic. They suggested that it would be beneficial to consider the possibility of using Walbrook Wharf as a consolidation centre, and in general terms a long-term vision for the increased use of river freight.  The Director of the Built Environment confirmed that increased use of the river for freight was already a policy aim.  The Member explained that Cory would also be willing to sponsor a conference with key stakeholders for all boroughs using the River Thames, focused on both cargo and leisure.  The Chairman explained that the ideas were very promising and thanked the Member for their update.

There was no urgent business.

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 Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

Item No.          Paragraph(s) in Schedule 12A

9, 10                3</AI7>

<AI8>

8. 

Verbal Update from Northern & Shell

The Sub-Committee heard a verbal presentation from local landowner Northern and Shell and their architects PLP that provided Members with a potential vision for redevelopment of the Pool of London area.

PLP presented a visualisation of their wider vision for the area and explained that this had previously been presented to Members, officers and others at the Pool of London workshop in April.

The Director of the Built Environment asked for clarification of the current status of the proposal.  PLP explained that they were simply presenting a vision, and that no application had been submitted nor any action taken to proceed further than this.

A Member asked why the documents had been created, and PLP explained that they had been asked by Northern & Shell to provide a vision for the Pool of London alongside the redevelopment of Northern & Shell’s site.

A Member asked if the Port of London Authority had been consulted on the vision, to which PLP confirmed that they had been, along with the Chairman and officers on previous occasions.  The Member asked if any other stakeholders had been consulted, and PLP confirmed that they had not been.

PLP provided an update to Members on the historical development of the area that highlighted how trading on the riverside had reduced over time, and subsequently how the vibrancy of the area had dwindled.  They explained that there was currently little activity in the riverside area. They explained that Lower Thames Street was even recommended in tourist literature as the main pedestrian route to the Tower of London rather than the Riverside Walk.

PLP argued that redevelopment of the Northern and Shell site as part of a more comprehensive redevelopment could help resolve servicing issues for several riverside sites along Lower Thames Street.

PLP suggested that more activities could be

A Member asked if it would be feasible to have a policy that made demands around servicing considerations.  The Director of the built Environment confirmed that this was the intention.

A Member requested an update on policies to be brought to the next Sub-Committee.  The Director of the Built Environment indicated that this meeting would consider office policies, design, views and tall buildings. (5)

A Member raised their concerns over potential accusations of Member lobbying and noted that the proposals brought to this meeting knowingly conflicted with the policy restricting residential development.  The Member illustrated objections to the item being presented on the agenda for this sub-committee and particularly in the non-public session.  The Chairman reiterated that equal opportunity had been provided for all developers and advice had been sought from officers to ensure that the process remained fair and transparent.  The Town Clerk explained that the item was scheduled in the non-public session following advice from officers that it would contain commercially sensitive information that would not be suitable for publication.  The Chairman noted that developers were entitled to give their views, regardless of whether or not they contradicted the Corporation’s policies.