Agenda item

In relation to a question about the definition of ‘broad interest’ and the factors considered in weighing up whether there was broad interest, the Planning and Development Director stated that broad interest was a term that the Court of Common Council had adopted as one of the criterion on the scheme of delegation. The concept could encompass a very wide range of consideration from the scale, strategic and wider impact of proposals, impact on community infrastructure and also in reviewing representations from strategic stakeholders. It was common procedure across all UK local planning authorities to grant delegated authority to the planning director to carry out this sifting exercise to ensure applications which had a broader and strategic interest were brought to committee, even if they were policy compliance and had not triggered the number of objections required by the scheme of delegation. The Planning and Development Director stated that he had regular meetings with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee to discuss the planning pipeline of cases and to highlight any applications which were potentially eligible to be determined by delegated authority but which ought to be brought to the committee's attention because of their broader interest. He stated that such consultation was common practice in every local planning authority.

The Planning and Development Director stated that a recent example, which had

broad interest but did not trigger the number of objections required by the scheme of delegation and was policy compliant, was the Hill House application which was considered by the committee. It was considered to be of broad interest due to the scale of the development, the impact on citywide and London views and the fact that a public library replacement was proposed. The decision was therefore taken by committee.

Members were informed that other examples were instances where strategic stakeholders, such as the TfL and Historic England, objected to an application. This was indicative of wider, broader interest. Forthcoming Planning Application Sub-Committee meetings would include applications which, although not triggered by the number of objections and were policy compliant, were nevertheless considered to have broad interests.

A Member raised concerns about 81 Newgate Street and public benefits having been removed and the process. The Chairman referred the Member to the answer given by Officers at a previous committee meeting. The Director of Planning and Development stated that there was a statutory consultation undertaken for every application and there had been no breach of statutory duties. He stated that 81 Newgate Street was advertised as per process and this took place in a transparent and open manner.

In response to a Member’s question about the policy around the use of a design review panel and the composition of a panel, the Chairman stated that as the Member had only given notice of her question at the start of the meeting, Officers would be unable to provide a response but were welcome to provide a written response on the City of London’s processes.

The Chairman advised a Member, who had not given prior notice of her question, to submit the question in writing and then she would receive a written response from Officers.

In response to a Member’s question about the requirement for advanced notice of Members’ questions, the Chairman asked the legal officer to comment. The legal officer stated that although relevant questions relating to the work of the committee could be taken, it was helpful to have advanced notice so that appropriate Officers were present to answer the questions.