Agenda item

A Member raised concern about the number of retrospective applications from the City of London School for Girls and stated they had recently installed CCTV, a camera keypad and cabling plus a permanent shelter for security guards. She asked if it was acceptable for this amount of work to be undertaken without planning permission, in particular when it impacted on the listed status of the Barbican Estate. She also raised concern that there seemed to be a lack of active involvement with residents.

An Officer stated that a retrospective planning application was not the preferred approach. To try and prevent it from happening again, there was an agreement in principle for there to be a quarterly meeting with Planning Officers, City Surveyors and the City of London Girls School to discuss the programme of works being undertaken. In relation to the other works outlined, Officers would be visiting the site in the immediate future. The Director of Planning and Development stated he would raise the matter with the City Surveyor after the meeting. The Deputy Chairman stated the situation was unacceptable and there needed to be clarity on where the responsibility lay, to ensure it did not happen again. He added that whilst a solution had been found, it had caused unnecessary expense, delay and work.

A Member stated that this was a constant source of frustration with people undertaking work on the estate without regard for the list of building guidelines for the Barbican Estate. He stated the need for those working on the estate to be made aware of these guidelines. The Director of Planning and Development stated he would outline the points raised by Members, and provide a link to the debate, to the City Surveyor and state the need for discipline and proper procedure to be followed.

The Director added that instances of unauthorised works within the Barbican Estate were not particularly widespread but Officers would keep monitoring this to ensure there was not any slippage.

A Member asked for clarification on the process of reconsulting when there were amendments. The Director of Planning and Development stated in terms of amendments to applications, it depended on the nature of the amendments. If they were very insignificant there would not be a whole new round of consultation. The onus was on both parties and the developer was expected to engage with the community as set out in the advice. If amendments were significant, there would be another statutory consultation period which could be up to 30 days and again the onus was on both parties.

A Member stated it would be helpful to know which applications were likely to be considered at each meeting to help inform the public so those with an interest had plenty of notice and could schedule in time to attend the relevant meeting. Members could also start work and look at documents online.

The Member raised concern about the meeting scheduled for 17 December being the only committee meeting scheduled in that week. She stated diaries would be busy with Christmas events and some people could be away. She suggested that the meeting be moved to earlier in December or early January. The Director of Planning and Development stated that there was a vigorous pipeline of schemes with several towers coming up and therefore 17 December meeting was likely to be required. As a matter of good practice, Planning Applications Sub-Committee meetings were not held straight after the Christmas break as notification letters were sent out prior to the meetings. During the Christmas period, people were less likely to be home to get forewarning that an application was going to the Sub-Committee and this could lead to criticism. The Deputy Chairman stated there would also be a gap in meetings over the election period in the Spring 2025 which meant there was pressure to get applications considered before then. A Member stated that he considered before Christmas as preferable to just after the Christmas break as Members would be able to read all the material before rather than during the break.

A Member raised concern about the reputational risk of holding meetings in holiday times. He stated the 8 October meeting had been rescheduled to 29 October as the Chairman and Deputy Chairman were unavailable. He stated that as 29 October meeting was in half term there would be similar issues with people being unavailable to attend. He suggested that this date be reconsidered and that Committee members be given the reason when meetings were being rescheduled.

The Deputy Chairman stated he would inform the Chairman of the points made by Members in relation to the meeting dates.