Agenda item

PUBLIC INQUIRY COSTS, THE TULIP, 20 BURY STREET, EC3A 5AX

The Committee considered a late, tabled, joint report of the Director of the Built Environment and the Chamberlain seeking authorisation to spend approximately £190,000 on the public inquiry for The Tulip, 20 Bury Street, EC3A 5AX, following the steer from the Planning and Transportation Committee at their last meeting that the City Corporation should fund its own participation at the inquiry. 

Oliver Lodge indicated that he believed that the proposed barrister was personally known to him and that he would therefore not be participating in this debate or any subsequent vote.

A Member spoke against the proposal, highlighting that the majority of these costs would be expended on QCs who were unlikely to provide significantly different advice to that of the applicants own QC. He went on to remark that an estimated £20-30k to cover witness costs also seemed excessive, particularly when the Committee had been informed within a report earlier on on today’s agenda of the funding constraints already existent within the Department of the Built Environment. He proposed that relevant Officers attend the inquiry as witnesses but at no cost.

Another Member agreed with the points made and underlined that the Committee had already given a steer that the City Corporation’s involvement in the enquiry should be minimal. He commented that if minimal involvement equated to a spend of £190,000 this was extremely problematic. He concluded by stating that it was hard to imagine that this was a top priority at present.

The Deputy Chairman commented that, whilst he had not been in attendance at the last meeting, he had read the minutes, spoken with colleagues about the debate and understood the concerns raised. He added that he, however, fundamentally disagreed with the two previous speakers. He underlined that this was not about whether individual Members approved of or had voted in favour of the application but was about robustly defending this Committee’s decision. He expressed concern at the message that would be sent to developers if this were not done, suggesting that the City Corporation would appear as if it was not confident to stand by the decisions of its Planning Committee. He concluded by underlining that this recommendation had been discussed with the Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee and the Chairman of the Finance Committee.

Another Member spoke to agree with the views of the Deputy Chair, underlining that it was essential for the City Corporation to put forward witnesses to the inquiry.

Another Member added that she had also been absent from the last meeting but was pleased to note the reluctance of the Committee to accept funding for the City Corporation’s participation in the inquiry from the applicant. She agreed with the approach that the City’s participation in this should be separately funded but noted that she felt that it was essential that the Corporation were present at the inquiry with adequate representation. She did, however, query the number of witnesses required to appear. She concluded by asking that a watching brief be kept on costs as it was hoped that these would be lower than anticipated here.

A Member spoke to express concern that the Policy and Resources Committee and Finance Committee did not hold contingencies for such matters.

The Member who had originally spoken against the proposal underlined that those Officers appearing as witnesses were not on trial and therefore disagreed with the notion that they would require legal representation. He added that material relating to the City Corporation’s position was already available to the developer, who could refer to it in the inquiry.

The Chair spoke to underline that this Committee had voted in favour of granting the application. His own view was that the Mayor of London should not have intervened. He added that very professional legal teams would be employed on all sides for the inquiry and that it was therefore necessary for the City Corporation to do the same. He added that the City Corporation’s reputation was at risk here and that it was therefore important to defend this Committee’s original decision. He noted that it was regrettable that not insignificant sums would now need to be spent on this but recognised that this was the necessary cost of business.

The Chair asked that the Committee move to a vote on the proposal.

Votes were cast as follows:   IN FAVOUR – 9 votes

                                               OPPOSED – 1 Vote

There was one abstention.

A Member questioned whether the City Corporation could look to claim back its costs if the inquiry were to rule in their favour. The Comptroller and City Solicitor reported that this would not normally be the case unless there had been unreasonable behaviour on the part of the other parties. The Chair added that if this were a possibility, the City Corporation’s QC would advise on this as necessary.

Another Member questioned the timeline around making representations to the enquiry and consulting residents on this. The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that those who had been consulted on and who had objected to the original application had already been consulted as part of the process.

(* - note from Item 3 – Minutes - The Member who had proposed that a comment made by another Member be reflected in the minute on ‘The Tulip - Appeal’ at item 3 now withdrew this amendment on the basis that he had now made the relevant point here. With this in mind, the Committee were content to approve the public minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2020 as a correct record subject to the Town Clerk making the amendments approved at Item 3).