Agenda item

Support for SMEs

Alexander Barr asked a question of the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee regarding the City Corporation’s support for SMEs. Responding, the Chairman noted that over 99% of businesses based in the City were SMEs, employing nearly half of the City’s workforce and being vital to the City’s vibrancy and prosperity. She outlined the wide range of activity undertaken to support and retain SMEs in the City, much of which extended beyond direct service provision and was more indirect in nature, involving influencing the policy environment on issues relating to tax, regulation, skills, transport, planning or housing. The unique services on offer to City businesses, such as the assistance provided by the City Property Advisory Team, Cyber Griffin support against cyber-crime, and the support of Heart of the City, were also outlined.

The Chairman also observed that one of the key factors in supporting SMEs related to the range of office space available advising that, through the Local Plan review, the City was looking specifically at the opportunity to promote the delivery of more flexible workspace. The implementation of an ‘Article 4 Direction’, giving the City an exemption from Permitted Development Rights (which allowed a change of use from commercial to residential without planning permission) would also allow the City to retain its office stock while many London boroughs were losing workspace to residential use.

In response to a supplementary question from Alexander Barr, the Chairman outlined the various ways in which success might be measured, including monitoring the number of SMEs in the City, working with Openreach in relation to the level of high-speed broadband connectivity amongst SMEs, and working with developers to monitor the delivery of flexible workspace.

Housing Waiting List

Rehana Ameer asked a question of the Chairman of the Community and Children’s Services Committee concerning the housing waiting list. Replying, the Chairman explained that the allocation of social housing was based on factors that prioritised those with the greatest need, with the factors determining priority being primarily defined by legislation and set out in the City’s allocations policy, which was regularly reviewed by the Community and Children’s Services Committee.

The Chairman advised that applicants with high priority needs were almost always offered a property within a year and some within a matter of months. However, with a total stock of just 2000 homes, only a limited number of homes became vacant each year and thus housing people was not always possible quickly. This was one of the contributing factors behind the City Corporation’s recent commitment to building more housing. He added that applicants with low need (i.e. those already in accommodation which was not overcrowded) were typically already housed within the private sector or were living with parents, or were housing association tenants with a connection to the City who would prefer to have the City as their landlord. He also confirmed that he had asked officers to prepare a detailed paper for the Community & Children’s Services Committee on the matter housing allocations.

In response to a supplementary question from Rehana Ameer concerning comparisons with neighbouring boroughs, the Chairman noted that the length of time taken to house low-need applicants was a problem shared by all local authority landlords, adding that the City Corporation’s housing waiting list was London’s smallest. In terms of comparative waiting times, authorities were not obliged to publish this information and thus it was difficult to establish the position; however, he had been able to ascertain that the City’s times compared favourably to those of Westminster City Council. The Chairman also noted that many local authorities did not allow low need applicants to bid for properties, or in some cases removed them from waiting lists. The City had not taken these steps, but did warn applicants in low need that, unless their circumstances changed, they could face a lengthy wait to be housed.

Bank Junction

Alderman & Sheriff Tim Hailes asked a question of the Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee concerning the timetable for a decision on the future of Bank Junction. The Chairman, replying, confirmed that the matter would be considered by various committees, beginning with Streets & Walkways Sub-Committee on 3 July 2018 and ending with Policy & Resources Committee on 6 September 2018, after which he would be pleased to bring the report to the Court of Common Council for a final decision and to enable all Members to participate in the decision-making around this important item.

Responding to a supplementary question from Alderman & Sheriff Tim Hailes, the Chairman advised that Counsel’s opinion was that the final decision to be made by Members could only be whether to retain the existing restrictions or not. Members might, in addition, ask officers to investigate other scenarios following that decision; however, should Members wish for the scheme to be amended, it would constitute a new experimental scheme, which would require the necessary traffic orders and a further period of consultation. The Chairman also outlined the results of consultation undertaken to date, which demonstrated a high level of public support for the Scheme.

Replying to a further question from James Tumbridge, the Chairman agreed that this item should feature early on the agenda at the meeting of the Court at which it was to be considered.

Review of Housing Governance

Ann Holmes asked a question of the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee regarding a review of housing governance. Responding, the Chairman advised that the matter was being actively considered and that a report would be coming to the Policy and Resources Committee in due course; however, she was not prepared to commit to a firm date at this stage.

Responding to supplementary questions, the Chairman agreed that it would be important to consider the issue carefully and reiterated her unwillingness to commit to a specific timetable at this stage. She also noted the concerns of the Standards Committee and others in respect of the structure of the Barbican Residential Committee, as well as the issue of dispensations and the difficulties experienced by some residential Members in being able to fully represent their constituents’ interests.

Planned Northern Line Closures

Emma Edhem asked a question of the Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee concerning a planned part-closure of the Northern Line in 2020, which was likely to have a significant effect on the City.

Responding, the Chairman noted that the planned closures were part of the Bank Station Capacity Upgrade programme, which would increase passenger capacity at the station by 40%, reduce interchange times, and provide more space within the station. The City Corporation would be working closely with TfL in an effort to mitigate against disruption this would cause and to communicate effectively with commuters to raise awareness.

Emma Edhem asked a supplementary question, urging the Chairman to explore a range of possible measures such as the introduction of specific additional bus services to compensate for the underground closures, undertaking risk audits, and making planning permission conditional on pedestrian through-flow being maintained. The Chairman thanked the Honourable Member for her suggestions and advised that he would ask officers to explore the various options raised.

Motion – That Standing Order No. 13(9) be suspended for a period of ten minutes.

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

Rail Network Issues

Alderman Peter Hewitt asked a question of the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee relative to recent issues on the rail networks which service the City.

The Chairman thanked the Honourable Member for raising this issue, recognising the difficulties that had been caused for many City workers and businesses in the recent period. She suggested that, should the difficulties continue, the City Corporation might explore with other London councils whether there was any influence it could bring to bear to help improve the situation.