Agenda item

Planning Regime Reform

Graeme Harrower asked a question of the Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee, asking whether she would commit to bringing recommendations to the Court proposing that the City of London Corporation‘s planning regime be reformed so as to comply with the recommendations made in the recently published Transparency International UK report relating to planning governance.

Responding, the Chair advised that she would be happy to discuss the recommendations with the Chairman of Planning and Transportation and whether the City of London Corporation should make any changes to current practice based on them; however, she did not feel it was appropriate to commit to bringing recommendations at this point in time. She also suggested that any changes should be incorporated as part of the wider governance review process following the Lisvane Review.

Graeme Harrower asked a supplementary question, querying whether two specific proposals could be committed to, namely implementing the measure concerning transparency of meetings with developers, and the measure relating Members who had connections with the property industry being made ineligible to sit on the Planning and Transportation Committee. He suggested that a failure to make such a commitment would justify views outside the Guildhall that the City Corporation was not a fit body to exercise the functions of a public authority.

In reply, the Chair reiterated her undertaking to discuss the matter with the Chair of Planning and Transportation in the first instance. She challenged the assertion that the City Corporation was not a fit body to carry out its planning functions, suggesting that the assertion was unfounded and inappropriate.  She noted the legal duty to promote high standards of conduct and to manage conflicts of interest to that high level, observing that the City complied fully with all relevant legal requirements. Should the Honourable Member have any evidence of wrongdoing, this should be submitted to the City Corporation’s Standards Committee.

Paul Martinelli asked a supplementary question relating to wider governance concerns, specifically around the format of meetings, asking whether the Chair would commit today to holding a fully hybrid meeting for the informal meeting of the Court scheduled for 12 November 2020.

The Chair expressed the view that it would be inappropriate to do so at this stage in the pandemic, noting the challenges of holding such large-scale hybrid meetings with social distancing measures currently in place and particularly the stricter rules that were likely to be implemented in the coming period. She confirmed that plans to hold hybrid committee meetings were being progressed, with technology already installed in the North Wing which had allowed a small number of hybrid meetings to take place during September. Similar technology was also being installed in the Committee Rooms. Officers were exploring what could be done in the Great Hall and Livery Hall; however, there would be a high cost associated with these. Given the current stage of the pandemic, the Chair urged colleagues to consider keeping their committee meetings virtual as far as possible for now, with the situation kept under review.

In response to a supplementary question from Deputy Philip Woodhouse, in which he emphasised the importance of showing leadership in returning to the City through hybrid meetings, the Chair reiterated her previous comments in relation to the significant efforts being taken to support the Square Mile through this difficult period. She reminded Members that many of the Corporation’s own officers were now back in the office and that some had also been on-site throughout the entire period. However, this had to be managed in such a way as to observe the rules around social distancing and with a view as to how best to conduct business. The opportunity of hybrid meetings would, of course, be kept under regular review but she questioned whether proceeding at this point in time would really be demonstrating the sort of leadership that the City Corporation should be showing. She suggested that efforts at this time would be best-placed into working with to ensure the Square Mile was in the fittest state possible when recovery properly began,  raising in every single quarter the need to look very carefully at the safety guidance so that the economy could continue to operate safely.

Replying to an additional supplementary question from Andrew McMurtrie, in which he echoed the comments made by Deputy Woodhouse in respect of setting an example and urged the use of pragmatism and common-sense, whilst also querying the costs of hybrid meetings, the Chair confirmed that the costs of holding and live-streaming a hybrid Court of Common Council meeting from the Great Hall would be around £8,000. The Chair also cautioned that further restrictions were likely to be applied in London shortly and it would be vital to comply with these, regardless of whether they were liked or not. Work was underway to try and influence these measures, with the Chair arguing for the economy in every possible setting; however, concerted and co-ordinated efforts across London would be important.

Lord Mayor’s Show

Graeme Harrower asked a question of the Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee regarding the Lord Mayor’s Show, querying whether Taiwan would be invited to participate in next year’s event.

Responding, the Chair expressed her sadness that this year’s Lord Mayor’s Show had had to be cancelled, albeit this was fully understandable in the circumstances. She advised that The Lord Mayor’s Show was organised and run by a company formed for that purpose and not by the City Corporation; however, from initial conversations, she understood that it was too early to say what the arrangements would be for 2021 or who might participate.

Graeme Harrower asked a supplementary question, through which he sought the Chair’s view as to whether Taiwan should be invited to participate, noting that the People’s Republic of China had been allowed to participate previously. Replying, the Chair commented that the Show was not a political event but a family-orientated day out, aimed at welcoming the new Lord Mayor into office. She suggested that it should be kept non-political and that, should people wish to apply to run their floats in it, she was sure that the company would consider those applications where these was space.

Mark Wheatley asked a further supplementary question, seeking clarity as to why Taiwan had been welcome to participate in previous years but was not allowed to attend last year’s Show, when the People’s Republic of China had floats involved, which suggested partial treatment. Responding, the Chair advised that she was not in a position to answer that question, as any considerations would have been made and determined by the company. She added that the City should be very proud of the fact that the Lord Mayor’s Show was a non-political event in which many participants from all over the world wished to come and participate. 

Common Hall

John Scott asked a question of the Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee regarding Common Hall and the perception of giving precedence to ceremonial activities over committee meetings.

Responding, the Chair noted that the City Corporation had sought to reflect the position taken in the Coronavirus Regulations in relation to elections, making reference to the cancelled Common Hall for the Election of Sheriffs in June. However, the differing constitutional requirements for the Election of Lord Mayor had not permitted the same approach and the nature of relevant legislation also meant that procedures such as postal or electronic voting and participation were not available: in short, there had been no choice legally but to conduct the process physically and on the scheduled date but in compliance with social distancing requirements. The Chair provided a brief summary of the steps taken to ensure compliance and to streamline proceedings and thanked those who had contributed to the efforts ensuring the City’s legal obligations were met in a safe and compliant manner,  allowing the Lord Mayor to be re-elected for a second term of office.

Covid Recovery and Support for the City

Dhruv Patel asked a question of the Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee in relation to the future of the City and a rebalancing of focus away from internal matters, commenting on the dramatic impact of the current crisis on  the retail, arts and leisure sectors and the long-term consequence for London as a global centre.

Responding, the Chair sympathised with the concerns expressed and highlighted the importance of addressing some of the comments raised by Lord Lisvane through his Governance Review, which would ensure that the City Corporation remained relevant and effective, and that it was in the best shape to be able support the long-term future of the City. The Chair assured Members that the Corporation had been doing all that it could to support City businesses through this difficult time, with serious and concerted efforts taken. This included work to secure the future of the cultural and creative sectors, as well as continued activity on international competitiveness, alongside calls for a safe, secure and flexible return to offices to allow the economy to operate. The Chair agreed with the importance of pace and was pleased to confirm the imminent publication of a report looking at what London needed to do to maintain its position for the future. Work was also underway to establish a Covid Recovery Commission to focus on the City’s recovery: it was clear that there would be much work to do and difficult times ahead, and it would be vital for the City Corporation to support the Square Mile through them.

Deputy Tom Sleigh, through a supplementary question, highlighted some of the concerted activity that he was aware of through collaboration with London Councils, whilst also commenting on the significant support the City had been able to offer as a landlord, having continually taken action to support its retail tenants. Whilst there would always be a question of balance about the appropriate level of support, it would be unfair to suggest that significant assistance had not been offered to date and he expressed his hope that the City would continue to support its tenants who were struggling, particularly those at-risk retail and leisure tenants. He also questioned whether information-sharing on the range of support offered could be improved, both to Members beyond, to raise awareness.

In reply, the Chair agreed that the range of activity across the City’s property portfolio, through the City Bridge Trust in supporting civil society, with London Boroughs, and through work on bodies such as the London Recovery Board and the London Transition Board, could be better communicated. She also cautioned that there would be further challenges and it would not be feasible to help all out tenants in the longer-term because of the economic scale of the crisis; however, the City would continue to do all that it reasonably could and efforts would be taken to improve communications to Members and beyond.