Agenda item

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk concerning changes to the land transaction arrangements previously authorised by the Committee in order to ensure the land is held appropriately and to remove the risk of the scheme being impeded by injunction due to Right of Light infringements resulting from the scheme. The Committee noted a printing error in the report, that recommendation 2 should read that the Committee authorise the appropriation of the City’s Land from housing purposes to the planning purposes of facilitating the development of a new school and social housing.

A Member queried the recommendation of the report and argued that it was outside the Committee’s terms of reference, because the authority delegated to the Committee to appropriate by Court of Common Council was subject to the criteria for such appropriation as laid down by the Court of Common Council all being met. One of the criteria was whether the rights could be reasonably released by agreement. As there had not been an adequate attempt to remove the risk of the scheme being impeded through negotiation, and as the powers were to be used exceptionally as a last resort, it was felt that the criteria were not met. Therefore, recommendation was beyond the authority of the Committee to approve. The Planning Protocol states that applications regarding the City’s land must not be subject to preferential treatment but subject to the same rigorous evaluation as other applications. There was a report relating to a request by a third-party applicant at item 11, and the same considerations needed to be applied equally in both cases. If the Committee approved the recommendation it would be acting against procedure, and at risk of not complying with Protocol, and therefore the Committee should vote it down.

The Comptroller and City Solicitor responded to the points raised, advising the Committee that they had been carefully considered in the preparation of the report. Officers had also obtained the advice of leading counsel on the report. The key difference between this case and the case at item 11 was that in this case most of the land was not yet owned by the developer and the majority of the recommendations in the reports related to arrangements for acquisition.  It had been considered premature to initiate negotiations until the acquisition arrangements were further advanced. Court of Common Council had delegated to the Committee authority to consider appropriations, and the decision was within the Committee’s responsibilities. Rights holders had been written to and made aware of the proposal, and no responses had been received from those rights holders.

In response to a request from the Chairman, the Comptroller and City Solicitor confirmed that leading counsel was satisfied that the Committee had authority to make the decision.

A Member replied that the authority to disapply the criteria had not been delegated, only to apply it.

A Member argued that the problem was that the report was unhelpful. Whilst there had been alternative arrangements considered earlier in the process, the land was being transferred between local authority purposes, to be occupied for education and housing uses. The case was entirely different to the case to be considered at item 11.

A Member stated that action under Section 203 had to be in the public interest, and that the interests of Golden Lane and Islington residents had not been taken into account.

The Comptroller and City Solicitor drew the Committee’s attention to the Court of Common Council resolution delegating authority to determine appropriations set out in the agenda at page 485, part b of which stated that the Planning & Transportation Committee was authorised to determine whether such acquisition or appropriation may be authorised. The Committee had considered all the criteria, including grounds for not requiring compliance with one of the criteria. and the Committee was therefore within its authority to make the decision. The rights of affected residents had been taken into account and the actionable injuries caused were set out in appendix 1A to the report for the Committee'. These were to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The area of land had been held for housing purposes, but had now been declared surplus to that housing purpose and the proposed planning purpose involved part education use and part social housing use.

A Member responded that on this basis, the Committee’s attention could be drawn to all the relevant criteria and could decide to waive all the relevant criteria.

Arising from the discussion, the application was then put to the vote amongst eligible Committee Members with 16 voting for and 3 voting against the application, with 5 abstentions.

RESOLVED – That the Planning & Transportation Committee authorise the appropriation of the City’s Land from housing purposes to the planning purposes of facilitating the development of a new school and social housing.