Agenda item

Future of the City of London School for Girls

Mark Bostock asked a question of the Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee concerning the future of the City of London School for Girls within the Barbican Estate and the potential for its relocation.

Responding, the Chair made reference to the current proposed expansion of the City of London School for Girls, in which there was significant interest. She observed that the Barbican Estate was a hugely significant architectural prize for the City, of which it was extremely proud, and expressed her certainty that the Planning & Transportation Committee would discharge its responsibilities diligently when it came to consider current proposals or any future planning applications which might affect the Estate.

The Chair reminded the Court of the organisation’s longstanding approach in respect of the management of individual service areas being entrusted to the responsible committees and Boards. Given this, it would be a matter for the Board of Governors of the Girls’ School to determine how it might best deliver its services in the first instance. She reminded Members that the Barbican had been built as a multi-use estate, including a school, arts centre, and other facilities.

Responding to a supplementary question from Mark Bostock, in which he sought a commitment for the City Corporation to champion the Barbican as an iconic estate and actively consider the relocation of all or part of the Girls’ School, the Chair suggested that the City Corporation would certainly wish to champion the Barbican Estate but that the future of the School was, ultimately, a matter for the Board of Governors of the City of London School for Girls to consider in the first instance.

Right of Light Payments

Alderman Ian Luder asked a question of the Chairman of the Standards Committee concerning right of light payments and the possible engagement of a pecuniary interest.

Replying, the Chairman of the Standards Committee confirmed her understanding that a number of properties were so affected by the City of London Primary Academy Islington development that they had been offered financial compensation for loss of rights to light, and that one of these properties appeared in the Register of Interests of an elected member. The compensation figures had not yet been agreed and legal agreements had not yet been entered into in respect of those properties.

The Chairman recognised that the rules on disclosable pecuniary interests could be difficult to apply, as acknowledged by the latest report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, who had called for legislative change. However, on the basis of the current law, it was her view that a Member whose property was so affected by a planning application that it entitled them to rights of light compensation should the development proceed had an engaged disclosable pecuniary interest in that application.

Susan Pearson spoke to ask a supplementary question concerning the reform of the standards regime, during which she identified herself as the Member so affected. She clarified that she had not been the recipient of any compensation and that, should there be any, it would be in a private capacity and entirely separate from her role as a Common Councillor. She added that the relevant Right of Light issue had arisen in only one meeting she had attended, at which she declared an interest and did not participate in discussion. Responding, the Chairman clarified that the power to make changes to the regime rested with Members of the Court and that full consideration would be given to material issues during the review of the current policies.

Noxious Odours

Oliver Lodge asked a question of the Chairman of the Port Health & Environmental Services Committee concerning enforcement powers in relation to unpleasant odours being extracted from restaurant and café premises and pumped out on to street level.

Replying, the Chairman detailed the statutory context for controlling such emissions and explained the City’s approach from both a Planning and Environmental Health perspective in dealing with this matter. He clarified that, from an Environmental Health perspective, statutory nuisance powers were only applicable to odours experienced within premises and could not be used for odours experienced by passers-by and that the threshold for statutory nuisance was relatively high. Consequently, the control of noise and odour from commercial kitchens was achieved most effectively through the planning process, through attempting to prevent problems before they occurred, rather than responding reactively through the statutory nuisance process. The Chairman also outlined a number of recent incidents where positive outcomes had been achieved through working in co-operation with businesses.

In response to a supplementary question from Oliver Lodge, the Chairman confirmed that Environmental Health officers would continue to work with Planning colleagues closely in an effort to “design out” potential issues during the planning application process. He also undertook to speak with officers to see whether there might be scope to seek additional powers to be awarded in respect of enforcement.

Cart Marking

Deputy Tom Sleigh asked a question of the Chairman of the Culture, Heritage & Libraries Committee concerning the cost and impact of the annual Cart Marking ceremony.

In reply, the Chairman advised that the charges associated with the Highway related costs were set by the Department of the Built Environment, through their agreed schedule of  charges for activities on the public highway. These amounted to an anticipated £8,900 for cart marking for the coming year.

Responding to a supplementary question from Deputy Sleigh, the Chairman advised that exploratory discussions had begun in respect of potentially moving the event to a weekend. He added that he was not aware of the position in respect of police costs but would be happy to speak with the Chair of the Police Authority Board.

In reply to a further supplementary question from Alderman Ian Luder, the Chairman agreed that the principles employed in respect of charging and minimising the impact of such events should be applied consistently.

Dockless Bike Hire

Deputy Tom Sleigh asked a question of the Chairman of the Planning & Transportation Committee concerning the dockless bike hire scheme.

Responding, the Chairman advised that a six-month trial of a new approach to managing dockless cycle hire had been implemented. This sought to assess the effectiveness of designating parking locations for dockless cycles, as a means of addressing the problem of inappropriately parked bikes obstructing pavements. The Chairman also outlined the details of the selection exercise that had been undertaken to choose operators to participate and the scoring process used to determine the successful applicants.

In response to a supplementary question from Deputy Sleigh in relation to the selection process and the criteria used, the Chairman suggested that officers should be commended for their work to date on the trial and declined to commit to re-opening the process. He advised that the next steps and final approach would depend on the powers that became available to the City Corporation under a pan-London operating and regulatory framework for dockless cycle hire, supported by a new byelaw. This was currently being prepared by London Councils and Transport for London. If it were possible under the byelaw for the City to apply minimum operating or quality criteria to operators and to limit the number of total operators, then an open process would be run to choose suitable operators. There was a wide range of criteria which could be used and the results of the ongoing trial would help inform that process.

In response to a further supplementary question from Vivienne Littlechild, the Chairman clarified that there was a zero-tolerance policy in respect of abandoned bicycles and that a robust line was being taken with operators.