Agenda item

Richard Cloudesley School-Site

The Chairman had been consulted and agreed in advance of the meeting that the following item be considered as urgent business the reason for urgency being that should delegation to Islington be agreed consultees should be advised in good time before the application is determined.  This was programmed for early March. A decision at the next Committee (26 March) would be too late for consultees to be advised and for Islington to process the delegated application. 

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer (CPO) concerning the delegation of a decision on a planning application relating to the Richard Cloudesley School Site.

The Committee was advised that a small part of the site lay within the administrative boundary of the City of London Corporation, but the majority of the site lay within the administrative boundary of the London Borough of Islington. As such it was a “cross-boundary application” and the applicant was required to submit the identical application to both Local Planning Authorities (“LPA’s”).

The report recommended that the Planning and Transportation Committee request Court of Common Council to delegate the Planning and Transportation Committee’s function of deciding the application to the London Borough of Islington (subject to Islington agreeing).

A member pointed out that this matter had been added at agenda item 21 after 4 pm on Friday 26 January for a meeting which was held at 10 am on Monday 29 January. The member noted that the application had been filed five months earlier, and the possibility of the decision on it being delegated to Islington had existed since then. The member asked why this matter had therefore not been brought to this Committee at any of the Committee meetings which had been held since the application was filed, and was now being treated as urgent. The Comptroller and City Solicitor responded that this matter had not previously been brought to this Committee because the Corporation was unsure as to whether Islington would accept the delegation, and Islington had only clarified on 25 January that it would be prepared to consider doing so. The application was to be reported to its planning committee on 1 March. Another member stated that as it was still uncertain as to whether Islington would accept the delegation, and as the possibility of its doing so had existed for the previous five months, that explanation was unsatisfactory. In view of this, the member expressed concern over the matter being put on the agenda in this way. The Comptroller and City Solicitor replied that there was nothing untoward.

Several members expressed the view that although the majority of the site fell within Islington, the majority of residents affected were those with in the City of London, significantly the Golden Lane Estate, therefore both authorities should make a decision.

Arising from the discussion the application was put to the vote, the result of which was as follows:

9 votes in favour of the proposal

11 votes against

RESOLVED – To refuse

1)            To request Court of Common Council to delegate the Planning and Transportation Committee’s function of deciding planning application ref: 17/00770/FULL (and any amendments) to the London Borough of Islington under section 101(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, subject to LB Islington’s agreement (and authorise any necessary agreement under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 to give effect to the delegation.)

2)            To Authorise the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director to send comments on planning application ref: 17/00770/FULL to the London Borough of Islington, subject to prior consultation on the comments with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee.

21 Moorfields

The Chairman reported that the site visit to 21 Moorfields was due to take place on 13 February and urged as many Members to attend as possible.

Bernard Morgan House

The Comptroller & City Solicitor advised that the challenge to the Committee’s decision had been refused by the High Court.