Agenda item

To consider a referral concerning a planning application in relation to 115-123 Houndsditch, London EC3A 7BU.

This report was approved by the Planning and Transportation Committee at its 16 November 2021 meeting; however, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4), it has now been referred by 20 Members to the Court of Common Council.

Referral to the Court of Common Council pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a): 115-123 Houndsditch, London EC3A 7BU

On 16 November 2021, the Planning and Transportation Committee had agreed, by eleven votes to six, to grant planning permission for proposals for 115-123 Houndsditch – specifically, the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a new building comprising four basement levels (plus one basement mezzanine), ground floor plus 23 upper storeys, including office use (Class E), flexible retail/café use (Class E); community space (Sui Generis), ancillary basement cycle parking, servicing and plant; new public realm and highway works; and other works associated with the development.

Subsequently, the provisions of Standing Order No.9(4) were invoked. This involved 28 Members of the Court of Common Council requesting that the report of the Planning and Transportation Committee be referred to the Court. The terms of the referral were as follows: "In accordance with Standing Order 9(4)(a), we the undersigned members give notice of the referral to the Court of Common Council, for decision at its meeting on 9 December 2021, of the report under agenda item 4 (115-123 Houndsditch, London EC3A 7BU) of the meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee on 16 November 2021.”

Deputy Edward Lord rose on a point of order, expressing their significant surprise that this matter had been referred to the Court and reflecting on the highly unusual nature of such a matter being called-in. They suggested that the drafting of this particular mechanism within Standing Orders had been designed to allow for consideration of matters of policy, rather than those of implementation, adding that the Court was an entirely inappropriate forum for the detailed discussion of planning applications. They made reference to the established governance framework and best practice in delegating such matters to planning committees which were trained in policy and protocol, adding that the City’s Planning Committee had considered the item in detail and come to a determination. Given the Court lacked the benefit of the usual processes and protocols in place for the Planning and Transportation Committee, the Member expressed material concerns over the inappropriateness of such a matter being considered, as well as the significant reputational and legal risk, arguing that the referral constituted an abuse of process. They urged that the Court end the matter now and agree to move next business, pursuant to Standing Order No.11(9).

Graeme Harrower rose on a further point of order, suggesting that the Motion should be considered as being premature or an abuse of the rules of the Court, as detailed in the relevant Standing Order. The Lord Mayor disagreed with the suggestion, declaring that the Motion was valid and the view of the Court should now be sought.

Motion – That, pursuant to Standing Order No.11(9), the Court proceed to the next item of business.

Upon the Motion being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be carried.

A Division subsequently being demanded and granted, there appeared:-

For the Affirmative – 56

Tellers for the affirmative – Jason Pritchard (negative) and Deputy Keith Bottomley (affirmative).

For the Negative – 18

Tellers for the negative – Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark (affirmative) and Munsur Ali (negative).

Upon the results of the Division being announced, the Lord Mayor declared the Motion to be carried.

Resolved – That the Court proceed to the next item of business.