Agenda item

Changes to the Congestion Charge

A Member commented on forthcoming changes to the congestion charge in response to current circumstances and proposals to extend the costs and hours of the charge (to £15 from 7am-10pm) and to make these applicable for seven days per week as of 22 June 2020. He questioned what influence the City Corporation were able to have on the final form of these proposals and whether the organisation had made any representations on these. He went on to highlight how the changes would penalise night-time deliveries and the night-time economy in the City – something which Spitalfields had already commented on. Furthermore, churches had raised deep concerns around the effect that charges on a Sunday were likely to have on those wishing to travel from outside of the City to attend and currently being discouraged to use public transport. He concluded by stating that the changes did not appear to have been properly consulted upon or justified and that he felt that, if the organisation did have the ability to influence outcomes, then they should seek to do so and feed in some constructive comments around the proposals.

Officers reported that they believed that the City Corporation had made some representations around the need for exemptions for careworkers but that no representation had been made from City Transportation on the proposed changes. It was highlighted that these changes were proposed and that they were part of the settlement that central Government agreed with TfL and the Mayor of London as part of the recent ‘bailout’ of TfL. They went on to clarify that the deadline for any comments around the changes was 4 June 2020 and highlighted that individuals were able to submit comments on these via the TfL public website. As with the measures being proposed by the City Corporation in response to COVID-19, these were temporary changes and this was part of the reason why there had not been a full public consultation on them in the way that there would be if any of the proposed changes were to be made permanent in due course. Members were also informed that the proposals were part of a wider effort to support our ambitions around reallocating space in the City, supporting bus routes around London and discouraging an increase in car use in Central London in particular. Officers added that it was also worth noting that current exemptions/discounts to the congestion charge would remain in place including for blue badge holders. Officers concluded by stating that they would be happy to take a steer from Members as to what representations they felt should be made on behalf of this Committee.

The Chair spoke to say that, on the one hand, this was broadly aligned with the City Corporation’s Transport Strategy around road charging and pricing and the fact that the organisation did not want to see a return of private vehicles particularly en masse but, on the other, he had sympathy with the concerns of the faith community around church access and in relation to points made about night time deliveries and resident exemptions. Whilst the proposals were entirely aligned with some of the City Corporation’s own ambitions, they were equally potentially damaging to the City’s communities and its economy. He reiterated that the context of these proposals were that they had been imposed as part of the settlement between TfL and central Government. The Chair commented that he felt that this was something where we would have limited locust but that, equally, he could see the need to make representations where it was felt that the City’s communities would be adversely affected. He sought a steer from the Committee as to whether they felt it was appropriate to formally respond and, if so, how.

Another Member spoke to highlight that the Community and Children’s Services Committee had held lengthy debates around the impact of these additional costs on low-paid workers. Aside from increasing charges and hours, proposals would also close residents discount applications to any new residents meaning that residents who had no choice but to travel by car would have to do so after 10pm in order to avoid these charges on a daily basis, a time when, at present, all shops were closed.

The Director of the Built Environment proposed that a letter be submitted on behalf of this Committee highlighting the concerns raised today around the adverse effects that these changes were likely to have on businesses, the faith community and residents and wishing to ensure fairness as far as possible. She added that whilst she completely understood the concerns raised by Members, she was anxious that any representations were not exceptionally specific around supporting certain parts of the community at the exception of others.

The Chair commented that a letter could be submitted highlighting where proposals did support our aims but also where it was felt that they could disadvantage certain groups.

Members agreed to delegate the final contents of the letter to the Chair and Deputy Chairman based on this debate in consultation with relevant Officers.

At this point, the Chair sought approval from the Committee to continue the meeting beyond two hours from the appointed time for the start of the meeting, in accordance with Standing Order 40, and this was agreed.

Planning Enforcement Policy

A Member questioned the City Corporation’s Planning Enforcement Policy. She went on to clarify that the background to her question was that 14 replacement extractor fans were installed on the roof of a block of flats in her Ward without planning permission or listed building consent, although the building is Grade II* listed and within a Conservation Area.

She reported that planning permission and listed building consent for this unlawful installation were retrospectively sought. There were a number of objections, and late last week, the applicant had withdrawn the retrospective application, making a vague statement about reviewing options as part of a wider strategy for improvements across the whole estate. 

The Member went on to seek clarity as to what the Corporation’s policy on enforcement was when a retrospective application for an unlawful installation was withdrawn, with no clarity about the time for future action. She added that, in this case, it was the Corporation itself who were responsible for this unlawful installation.

Another Member noted that Section 9 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act of 1990 makes it a criminal offence "to cause to be executed ... any works for the … alteration [of a listed building] … in any manner which would affect its character as a building of special architectural… interest, unless the works are authorised”, i.e. unless listed building consent has been granted.

He added that, as the previous speaker had just mentioned, the City Corporation had seemingly carried out certain works without permission. Those works were for the alteration of Crescent House, a Grade II* listed building on Golden Lane Estate, in a manner which affects its character as a building of special architectural interest and was therefore potentially liable to prosecution. The Member asked whether, in this situation, the Committee agreed that it is desirable for the part of the Corporation which is responsible for granting listed building consent to draw this fact to the attention of the part of the Corporation which was responsible for carrying out these works, so that they might take immediate action to regularise the position.

The Director of the Built Environment stated that this was a very specific question and suggested that a full and considered written response should be provided on what appeared to be a significant and important issue. In regard to the supplementary question around whether is it appropriate for this Committee to draw this matter to the attention of the appropriate part of the Corporation who had carried out the works, she stated that it was absolutely appropriate for this to happen now that the Committee had been made formally aware of the matter. The Director undertook to now take this matter forward.

The Chair supported the proposed way forward.

Virtual Meetings/Committee Agendas

A Member questioned why, now that the City Corporation had successfully bedded in the technology and processes required to hold live, virtual meetings, for information items were not being put back on Committee agendas. At present, these were circulated to Members in electronic packs outside of meetings with Members encouraged to submit any questions on the items to relevant report authors/the Committee Clerk. This meant that there was no opportunity to discuss these items at Committee and that the for information reports were not currently visible to the public. He questioned whether other Members shared his concerns and proposed that this practice be stopped with immediate affect with for information items put to future meetings.

The Town Clerk reported that this had been a blanket approach for all Committees from the outset, initially in an attempt to streamline agendas whilst virtual meetings were established. It was felt that the cleanest way to do this was to remove for information items from agendas so that meetings were primarily focused around time critical business requiring decisions.  It was also reported that there was currently only one Corporate YouTube channel through which Committee and Sub Committee meetings could be broadcast live to the public. Meetings therefore had to conclude in a timely manner in order to clear the live feed in sufficient time for subsequent meetings to take place. If there was general support for reintroducing for information items to all agendas, this could be actioned, but it was highlighted that this may have implications on the scheduling of public meetings going forward.

The Member requested that investigations into getting more than one live feed also be made to remove this constraint.

The Chair reported that he felt that the system in place around for information items was working well and that he was aware of many questions being routinely posed around these and subsequently being responded to in writing by relevant Officers. He added that he was also conscious of not asking multiple Officers to unnecessarily attend virtual Committee meetings, particularly where they had been occupied with work around the current pandemic/the recovery. Equally, from a public perspective, he agreed that there should be the opportunity for debate on some of these items. He asked the Town Clerk to take this forward and investigate the potential for reimplementing full agendas as far as possible.

Another Member suggested, that Officers could look to make the for information packs publicly available going forward and, if that if there was no notice provided by Members of any questions in relation to certain items, it was made clear that there would not be relevant Officers at the virtual meeting to deal with them to ensure that their time was used as productively as possible.