Agenda item

1. Digital Planning

The Chairman updated the Committee as follows:

·       The City of London Corporation had been successful with both of their applications to the Digital Planning Programme Funding rounds and were one of only 11 local planning authorities to put in successful bids for both funds – the Digital Planning Improvement Fund and the PropTech Innovation Fund.  

·       The former was a fund designed to support the City Corporation planning team with their advancements in digital maturity and would see the team undertake a Digital Maturity Assessment and form an action plan to further their technological improvements.  

·       In a joint bid with Southampton City Council, the Innovation Fund would focus around developing a pioneering public facing 3D webmap, which would help explain complex policies to the public, enhancing their understanding and engagement in the planning process. As part of the funding bid the City Corporation would be measuring the impact of these exciting interventions, to continue to improve how planning information was shared with external stakeholders.  

·       The work that would be undertaken as part of these two successful funding bids was part of a wider programme of Digital Planning work spanning the next 12 months.  

2. M&S Decision

The Chairman stated that at the Planning Applications Sub-Committee meeting on 21 July 2023, a Member asked a question about the M&S, Oxford Street being refused permission to demolish the building and rebuild it as a retail and office development. The application had been approved by Westminster City Council; had not been overturned by the Mayor of London; and had been recommended for approval by the Planning Inspector following a public enquiry.

The Chairman stated that on 1 March 2024, the Planning Court (part of the High Court) quashed the Secretary of States’s decision. An Officer stated that the presiding judge had decided that the Secretary of State had misinterpreted the National Planning Policy Framework and failed to explain why he disagreed with the inspector’s conclusions or adequately explain his own reasoning. The Officer stated that as with the original decision by the Secretary of State, it was important not to give this decision undue importance. It was just one legal decision, albeit a high-profile one, and did not change national policy or the policies in the Development Plan. The decision did not in any way undermine the current approach – seeking to ensure retention was considered as the starting point for development options, through the process set out in the City Corporation’s Carbon Options Guidance, or the emerging City Plan, which sought to put the ‘retrofit first’ approach into local plan policy. The Officer added that the M&S decision would need to be re-considered by the Secretary of State (unless he choose to appeal the judgement).