Agenda item

To receive a petition submitted by Mark Bostock pursuant to Standing Order No.20,

relative to the City Corporation’s planning processes.

The Court received a petition submitted by Mark Bostock pursuant to Standing Order No.20, relative to the City Corporation’s planning processes.

A number of Members took the opportunity to ask questions of the presenter of the petition, in the interest of obtaining clarity. The following points arose through this process:-

·      In response to a query, the Petitioner suggested that, should the City Corporation ignore the petition and residents’ strongly held views, it would see further concerted action from them such as was witnessed through the recent standards issues and proposed City of London School for Girls expansion project. Given its local authority role and responsibilities, the City Corporation would be wise to heed the views of its residents.

·      A Member sought clarity as to whether the petition represented an objection to panels in principle, irrespective of format, or whether the objection was to their currently-mooted potential constitution and seeking to highlight that more attention needed to be paid to ensuring the resident voice was heard. The Petitioner advised that the petition articulated opposition to the introduction of panels in any form so as to avoid any corrosion of democratic accountability, which they suggested was already weak due to the anomaly of the business vote in the City.

·      A Member asked if the Petitioner would accept that the Corporation should be representing the full and diverse range of the City’s communities, including business, schools, and employees, all of which deserved equal representation. The Petitioner replied that this petition dealt with the interests of a significant proportion of the residential community and, as a Member of a residential Ward, they were very much guided by their electorate and felt their views need to be taken very seriously.

·      In response to a request for specificity in respect of the proportion of the petition’s signatories who were City residents, the Petitioner advised that of the 1270 signatures to date, around 50% were believed to be from City residents, so far as could be identified.

·      A Member commented on the second paragraph of the petition, which called for Members of committees responsible for the Corporation’s property interests to be prohibited from service on the Planning & Transportation Committee. They observed that nearly all service committees would have an involvement in property interests and sought clarity as to which committees would not be so affected.

Resolved – That the petition be referred to the Policy & Resources and Planning & Transportation Committees for consideration.