Public Document Pack
Policy and Resources Committee
Date: THURSDAY, 10 DECEMBER 2020 Time: 1.45 pm Venue: MICROSOFT TEAMS (https://youtu.be/9Vv2rzLxHl8) Members: Deputy Catherine McGuinness Alderman Vincent Keaveny (Chair) Alderman Ian Luder Sheriff Christopher Hayward Jeremy Mayhew (Deputy Chairman) Andrew McMurtrie Deputy Keith Bottomley (Vice- Wendy Mead Chairman) Deputy Andrien Meyers Deputy Tom Sleigh (Vice-Chair) Deputy Brian Mooney (Chief Common Randall Anderson (Ex-Officio er) (Ex-Officio Member) Member) Deputy Alastair Moss (Ex-Officio Rehana Ameer Member) Nicholas Bensted-Smith (Ex-Officio Deputy Joyce Nash Member) The Rt Hon. the Lord Mayor, Tijs Broeke Alderman William Russell (Ex-Officio Karina Dostalova Member) Anne Fairweather Alderman Baroness Scotland (Ex- Marianne Fredericks Officio Member) Alderman Timothy Hailes Sir Michael Snyder Deputy Wendy Hyde (Ex-Officio Deputy James Thomson (Ex-Officio Member) Member) Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark Mark Wheatley Shravan Joshi Deputy Philip Woodhouse Deputy Edward Lord Alderman Sir David Wootton
Enquiries: Gregory Moore tel. no.: 020 7332 1399 [email protected]
Accessing the virtual public meeting Members of the public can observe this virtual public meeting at the below link: https://youtu.be/9Vv2rzLxHl8 This meeting will be a virtual meeting and therefore will not take place in a physical location following regulations made under Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020. A recording of the public meeting will be available via the above link following the end of the public meeting for up to one municipal year. Please note: Online meeting recordings do not constitute the formal minutes of the meeting; minutes are written and are available on the City of London Corporation’s website. Recordings may be edited, at the discretion of the proper officer, to remove any inappropriate material. John Barradell Town Clerk and Chief Executive AGENDA
Part 1 - Public Agenda
1. APOLOGIES
2. MEMBERS DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
3. MINUTES To consider minutes as follows:-
a) To agree the public minutes of the meeting held on 19 November 2020. For Decision (Pages 1 - 10)
b) To note the public minutes of the Public Relations and Economic Development Sub-Committee meeting held on 17 November 2020. For Information (Pages 11 - 16)
c) To note the public minutes of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee meeting held on 20 November 2020. For Information (Pages 17 - 22)
d) To note the public summary of the Tackling Racism Taskforce meeting held on 13 November 2020. For Information (Pages 23 - 24)
e) To note the public summary of the Tackling Racism Taskforce meeting held on 27 November 2020. For Information (Pages 25 - 28)
4. ELECTORAL CAMPAIGN MANAGER RECRUITMENT Report of the Town Clerk. For Decision (Pages 29 - 34)
5. GOVERNANCE REVIEW: STANDARDS REGIME Report of the Town Clerk. For Decision (Pages 35 - 76)
2
6. PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A BRIDGE HOUSE ESTATES COMMITTEE Joint report of the Town Clerk and the Chief Grants Officer & Director of the City Bridge Trust. For Decision (Pages 77 - 84)
7. LIVERY COMMITTEE: CONSULTATION ON COMPOSITION Report of the Town Clerk. For Decision (Pages 85 - 94)
8. CITY PLAN 2036: REVISIONS TO PROPOSED SUBMISSION DRAFT PLAN Report of the Director of the Built Environment. For Decision (Pages 95 - 146)
9. NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS COMMISSION Report of the Director of the Built Environment. For Decision (Pages 147 - 152)
10. CAPITAL FUNDING - PRIORITISATION OF 2021/22 ANNUAL CAPITAL BIDS - STAGE 2 PROPOSALS Report of the Chamberlain. For Decision (Pages 153 - 168)
11. CAPITAL FUNDING UPDATE Report of the Chamberlain. For Decision (Pages 169 - 176)
12. PROGRESS UPDATE ON MOBILISATION FOR CLIMATE ACTION Report of the Director of Innovation & Growth. For Decision (Pages 177 - 182)
13. ANNUAL RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS PERFORMANCE UPDATE Joint report of the Chamberlain and the Chief Grants Officer & Director of the City Bridge Trust. For Decision (Pages 183 - 210)
14. POLICY AND RESOURCES CONTINGENCY/DISCRETIONARY FUNDS Report of the Chamberlain. For Information (Pages 211 - 242)
15. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE
3
16. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT
17. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC MOTION - That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act. For Decision
Part 2 - Non-Public Agenda
18. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES To consider non-public minutes of meetings as follows:-
a) To agree the non-public minutes of the Policy and Resources Committee meeting held on 19 November 2020. For Decision (Pages 243 - 244)
b) To note the non-public minutes of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee meeting held on 20 November 2020. For Information (Pages 245 - 248)
19. MARKETS CO-LOCATION PROGRAMME: UPDATE AND BUDGET REQUEST Joint report of the City Surveyor, Town Clerk and Director of Markets & Consumer Protection.
NB – To be read in conjunction with the confidential appendix at Item 24. For Decision (Pages 249 - 296)
20. HOUSING DELIVERY PROGRAMME – PROGRESS REPORT Joint report of the City Surveyor and the Director of Community & Children’s Services. For Decision (Pages 297 - 304)
21. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE
22. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED.
Part 3 - Confidential Agenda
23. CONFIDENTIAL MINUTES To agree the confidential minutes of the Policy and Resources Committee meeting held on 22 October 2020. For Decision
4
24. CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX: MARKETS CO-LOCATION PROGRAMME Confidential appendix to be considered in conjunction with Item 19. For Information
5
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3a
POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE Thursday, 19 November 2020
Minutes of the meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee held over Microsoft Teams (and streamed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ml6YJsRgc) on Thursday, 19 November 2020 at 1.45 pm Present
Members: Deputy Catherine McGuinness (Chair) Sheriff Christopher Hayward (Deputy Chairman) Deputy Keith Bottomley (Vice-Chairman) Deputy Tom Sleigh (Vice-Chair) Randall Anderson (Ex-Officio Member) Rehana Ameer Nicholas Bensted-Smith (Ex-Officio Member) Tijs Broeke Karina Dostalova Anne Fairweather Marianne Fredericks Alderman Timothy Hailes Deputy Wendy Hyde (Ex-Officio Member) Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark Shravan Joshi Deputy Edward Lord Alderman Vincent Keaveny Alderman Ian Luder Jeremy Mayhew Andrew McMurtrie Deputy Andrien Meyers Deputy Brian Mooney (Chief Commoner) (Ex-Officio Member) Deputy Alastair Moss (Ex-Officio Member) Deputy Joyce Nash Sir Michael Snyder Deputy James Thomson (Ex-Officio Member) Mark Wheatley Deputy Philip Woodhouse Alderman Sir David Wootton
In Attendance Mark Bostock Graeme Harrower John Chapman Oliver Sells Helen Fentimen Jeremy Simons Alderman Sir Roger Gifford
Officers: John Barradell - Town Clerk and Chief Executive Peter Kane - Chamberlain Michael Cogher - Comptroller and City Solicitor
Page 1 Paul Double - Remembrancer Paul Wilkinson - City Surveyor Sir Nicholas Kenyon - Director of the Barbican Centre Chrissie Morgan - Director of Human Resources Damian Nussbaum - Director of Innovation & Growth Caroline Al-Beyerty - Deputy Chamberlain Paul Wright - Deputy Remembrancer Peter Lisley - Assistant Town Clerk Angela Roach - Assistant Town Clerk Emma Cunnington - Town Clerk's Department Charlotte Gordon - Town Clerk’s Department Simon Latham - Town Clerk's Department Gregory Moore - Town Clerk's Department Kate Smith - Town Clerk’s Department Kate Atkinson - Chamberlain’s Department Deborah Cluett - Comptroller & City Solicitor’s Department Ian Hughes - Department of the Built Environment Rachel Pye - Markets & Consumer Protection Giles French - Innovation & Growth Amanda Mays - Human Resources Sanjay Odedra - Communications Team Pete Digby - City of London Police David Evans - City of London Police Anne Bamford - Director of Strategic Education and Skills Nick Bodger - Cultural and Visitor Development Director
1. APOLOGIES Apologies were received from Wendy Mead, the Rt Hon Alderman the Baroness Patricia Scotland of Asthal, and the Rt Hon Alderman William Russell, the Lord Mayor.
2. MEMBERS DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA There were no declarations.
3. MINUTES a) The public minutes of the Policy and Resources Committee meeting held on 22 October 2020 were approved.
Matters Arising City Airport Expansion – The Chair advised that a meeting had taken place but that airport expansion plans had been put on hold for the time being.
City Residents Meeting – It was confirmed that the session would be an interactive one with a question and answer session.
Page 2 b) The public minutes of the Projects Sub-Committee meeting held on 21 October 2020 were noted. c) The public minutes of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee meeting held on 22 October 2020 were noted. d) The public summary of the Tackling Racism Taskforce meeting held on 16 October 2020 were noted. e) The public summary of the Tackling Racism Taskforce meeting held on 30 October 2020 were noted. f) The public summary of the Tackling Racism Taskforce meeting held on 6 November 2020 were noted.
4. ELECTORAL REGISTRATION UPDATE The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk concerning electoral registration and associated matters.
The Assistant Town Clerk spoke to introduce the item, updating on feedback received from Members in advance of this meeting and outlining proposals to recruit a dedicated Campaign Manager to help further efforts in this area.
During discussion of the report, the following points arose: • Several Members urged that further approaches be made to the Cabinet Office in respect of electronic voting and other mechanisms to widen the franchise, suggesting that the different electoral situation in the City leant real weight to change and such steps would strengthen the City’s democratic legitimacy. • Other Members, noting the amendments to primary legislation that would be required to achieve this, suggested that it would be unrealistic to expect to achieve change any time soon in this area, given Government was preoccupied with matters such as COVID and Brexit. It was felt, therefore, to be more pragmatic to focus on achieving realistic improvements within the powers of the City Corporation. • Members expressed strong support for proposals to put additional resource into this area, emphasising the importance of utilising the opportunity at hand to ensure that both registration and turnout levels were increased significantly. • A suggestion was made that a more proactive approach in respect of registration should be adopted, approaching new occupiers immediately following a property sale to engage as early as possible. Dedicated officer support for responding to and engaging with queries from prospective voters was also suggested. • With reference to achieving increased turnout, a Member observed that there was also a role for Members in energising and appealing to the electorate, thereby encouraging greater participation from voters.
Page 3 RESOLVED: That Members:- 1. Agree that the previously approved allocation of £127,000 from the Committee’s contingency fund, intended to meet the cost of electoral and registration promotional activities, be transferred from 2020/21 contingency to 2021/22. 2. Note the additional activities referred to in paragraphs 25 to 30 of the report and that a more detailed report on these activities, including cost, would be forthcoming in respect of those being progressed.
5. CENSUS UPDATE The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk which provided an update on the census taking place on 21 March 2021 and the City of London Corporation’s involvement in supporting and promoting the decennial enumeration.
RESOLVED: That approval be granted to the allocation of £18,000 in the financial year 2021/22 for payment to the Greater London Authority in relation to the 2021 Census Information Scheme, to be met from the 2021/22 Policy and Resources Contingency Fund.
6. BARBICAN CENTRE BOARD: COMPOSITION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk concerning proposed amendments to the Barbican Centre Board’s composition and terms of reference.
Members debated the recommendation relating to term limits, querying whether or not this was something that should be applied now or whether consideration should be deferred until a later stage, when the question of term limits in general was explored through the Lisvane Review discussions. Ultimately, it was felt that there was no reason not to clarify the position now and Members supported the proposal, whilst noting that further adjustments could be made through the Lisvane process if required.
It was noted that the proposals would be put to the December Court meeting for approval, with implementation of the term limit cut-off to take effect in the coming municipal year.
RESOLVED: That approval be granted in respect of the following items, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report:- 1. An alteration to the composition of the Barbican Centre Board, to allow for two additional external Members. 2. The consistent application of a nine-year term limit across the Barbican Centre Board’s membership, applying to all Members. 3. A clarification in respect of the Board’s Terms of Reference in relation to the Barbican’s creative learning activities.
Page 4 7. PLANNING PROTOCOL The Committee considered a joint report of the Comptroller & City Solicitor, Director of the Built Environment and Town Clerk recommending amendments to the Planning Protocol to reflect current case law and procedural updates.
It was noted that the report had been considered and endorsed by the Planning and Transportation Committee at its meeting earlier that week.
Noting that the proposed amendments were concerned with a specific issue, a Member observed that the wider protocol had not been reviewed in its entirety for some years. Following discussion, it was felt that such a review should be considered in the context of the wider Governance Review process, rather than a discrete piece of activity at this point in time.
In relation to a Member’s specific query concerning Part 3 Section 7 of the updated Protocol and whether this would include public exhibitions in relation to planning applications, officers undertook to clarify the position outside the meeting.
RESOLVED: That the amendments to the Planning Protocol shown tracked at Annexure 1 to the report be approved.
8. RECOVERY TASK FORCE: PLACEMAKING FOR A WORLD-LEADING SQUARE MILE The Committee considered a report of the Director of Innovation & Growth report which provided an overview of the proposed Recovery Task Force.
Members welcomed the report and observed the importance of the activity being commissioned. During discussion, the following points arose: • It was observed that there would be key areas of activity related to this piece of work across the organisation, with the City Police’s consideration of the future of policing provided as a specific example. It was urged that efforts be made to bring together various Chairs and Chief Officers to feed into this work in a structured way, utilising diversity of thinking to inform recommendations. • A Member made reference to the management of the Climate Action workstream and suggested that it could be a useful blueprint in respect of the principles on how this piece of work might be approached. • The importance of the Taskforce being external, as well as internal-facing, was stressed, given the Corporation’s strong links with London boroughs and the crucial services it provided outside of the City boundaries. The Director thanked Members for their comments, reassuring the Committee that officers understood the need for speed and inclusivity in this area, as well as working cohesively across departments and with other partners, such as Central London Forward and the Greater London Authority.
RESOLVED: That Members:- 1. Approve the project start up and next steps, as outlined in the report.
Page 5 2. Approve funding of £100,000 for the Recovery Task Force, to be met from the 2020/21 Policy Initiative Fund, categorised as ‘Promoting the City’ and charged to City’s Cash.
9. HOLIDAY MEAL SUPPORT TO CITY OF LONDON SPONSORED ACADEMIES The Committee considered a report of the Director of Community & Children’s Services in relation to the provision of food vouchers to the families of pupils attending City of London schools and sponsored academies, as well as City resident children attending other schools, who are eligible for free school meals over school holiday periods.
Through discussion, Members noted that information on both the Covid Winter Grant Scheme and the Holiday Activity and Food Programme was only recently available and that there were nuances in both schemes which would need to be considered. It was also noted that, with respect to Academy students, an assessment would also need to be made of provision in their home boroughs, so as to prevent duplication. Ultimately, Members agreed to support the report’s recommendations and ask for this issue to be kept under close review.
RESOLVED: That Members:- 1. Approve the decision to await further Government announcements on the COVID Winter Grant and Holiday Activities and Food Programme before clarifying the City Corporation’s role in providing food vouchers to pupils in City sponsored academies over holiday periods. 2. Note that the City Corporation will review the allocation and distribution requirements to implement the Government Schemes as a Local Authority which is likely to require additional administrative resource to support the children who will benefit. 3. Note that financial modelling has been conducted on support to families of pupils in City sponsored academies for information.
10. REVIEW OF PILOT AND FUTURE BRIDGE HOUSE ESTATES FUNDING FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY AGAINST ILLEGAL STREET TRADING ON AND BY THE BRIDGES The Committee considered a report of the Director of Markets & Consumer Protection updating on a enforcement against illegal street traders on the five Thames bridges owned by Bridge House Estates and seeking approval to continue the approach.
RESOLVED: That, acting collectively for the City of London Corporation as trustee of Bridge House Estates (charity registration number 1035628), Members:- 1. Note the review of the effectiveness and outcomes of the two-year trial period of increased enforcement activity against illegal street trading on and around the five bridges owned, supported and maintained by Bridge House Estates.
Page 6 2. Agree to allocate £268k over two years from Bridge House Estates (subject to annual review) to meet the costs of enhanced local authority street trading enforcement capability on and around the bridges with a view to their support, safeguarding and preservation, and to the protection of the general public who use the bridges, subject to the approval of the Planning and Transportation Committee insofar as it has delegated responsibility for the City Corporation as trustee for “all functions relating to the control, maintenance and repair of the five City river bridges”.
11. BRIDGE HOUSE ESTATES (BHE): POLICING THE BRIDGES The Committee considered a report of the Chamberlain in relation to a request to the City Corporation as trustee of Bridge House Estates (registered charity no: 1035628) from the Police Authority Board on behalf of the City of London Police (CoLP) for an increase in annual funding for CoLP.
RESOLVED: That, acting for the City of London Corporation as trustee of Bridge House Estates (charity registration no: 1035628), Members approve: 1. An increase in funding by £56,000 to £298,000 per annum from BHE unrestricted income funds from 2020/21, subject to an annual increase in future years in line with pay awards and inflation to be confirmed in November of each year, ahead of the relevant financial year, to fund the cost of policing the City Bridges. 2. That this sum and the services provided be subject to regular review, with a formal review after 5 years. 3. The production of a framework agreement between BHE and CoLP that sets out each of the services to be provided.
12. DELEGATION OF WRITE-OFF LIMITS AND DISCRETIONARY BUSINESS RATE RELIEF The Committee considered a report of the Chamberlain which sought amendments to the Scheme of Delegations in relation to write-off limits and discretionary business rate relief.
It was noted that the Finance Committee had expressed support for these proposals with the proviso that they be subject to review by 31 March 2021. The Policy and Resources Committee was asked to consider the proposals subject to this caveat.
RESOLVED: That approval be granted to the following changes to the Scheme of Delegations to Officers (subject to the concurrence of the Court of Common Council): 1. To increase the limits to write off all debts due to the City of London Corporation which are irrecoverable up to £100,000 (Head of Revenues) and up to £500,000 (Chamberlain) with any amount in excess of £500,000 to be submitted to Finance Committee for approval. Finance Committee to receive a report for information on any write-offs over £25,000.
Page 7 2. To authorise the granting of discretionary rate relief under section 47 and section 49 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 up to £25,000 per annum. 3. To delegate authority to the Head of Revenues to determine and award all business grant payments under the government support schemes.
13. POLICY INITIATIVES FUND AND COMMITTEE CONTINGENCY The Committee received a report of the Chamberlain which provided an update on those projects and activities which have received funding from the Policy Initiatives Fund, the Policy and Resources Committee’s Contingency Fund, Committee’s Project Reserve, COVID19 Contingency Fund, and Brexit Contingency Fund.
It was advised that two future.now events, for which funding of £17,000 had previously been approved in the 2020/21, had now been deferred as a result of COVID associated delays. It was advised that the allocated funds would be returned to the multi-year PIF fund, with it noted that there would be a presumption of approval of funding for equivalent future.now events up to the same sum, should they be forthcoming.
RESOLVED: That the report be received and its content noted.
14. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE
Tomlinson Review A Member sought an update in respect of the Tomlinson review of education and queried how prospective budget reductions for 2021/22 might be considered across the family of schools in the context of this review.
Responding, the Strategic Education and Skills Director updated on the progress made to date and the regular meetings between the Chair of the Education Review Working Party and officers from the Finance and Education Units. The Chair was of the opinion that two further such meetings were required in order to finalise a model that could accommodate the various “funding layers” recommended by the Tomlinson report.
With reference to the impact of budget reductions, it was suggested that the aim was to agree a formula for allocation of grants within the overall education budget envelope; consequently, whatever increase or reduction had to be made to that envelope as a whole could be applied proportionately. It was also accepted that any Tomlinson changes would have to be introduced over a transitional period.
15. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There were no urgent items.
16. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the
Page 8 grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.
17. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES a) The non-public minutes of the Policy and Resources Committee meeting held on 22 October 2020 were approved. b) The non-public minutes of the Projects Sub-Committee meeting held on 21 October 2020 were noted.
18. REPURPOSING OF FUNDING FOR LONDON & PARTNERS: DOMESTIC TOURISM CONSORTIUM The Committee considered and approved a report of the Director of Major Projects concerning the repurposing of previously approved funds in an effort to support increased footfall in the City.
19. SECURE CITY PROGRAMME - CCTV & TELECOMMUNICATIONS WORKSTREAM The Committee considered and approved a joint report of the Director of the Built Environment and the Commissioner of the City Police in relation to a request for delegated authority concerning the Secure City Programme.
20. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE There were no questions.
21. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED. There were no urgent items.
22. CONFIDENTIAL MINUTES The confidential minutes of the Policy and Resources Committee meeting held on 22 October 2020 were approved.
23. TARGET OPERATING MODEL The Town Clerk provided an oral update in respect of the Target Operating Model.
The meeting ended at 3.36 pm
Chairman
Page 9 Contact Officer: Gregory Moore tel. no.: 020 7332 1399 [email protected]
Page 10 Agenda Item 3b
PUBLIC RELATIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUB (POLICY & RESOURCES) COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 17 November 2020
Minutes of the meeting of the Public Relations and Economic Development Sub (Policy & Resources) Committee held virtually at 3.00 pm
Present
Members: Sheriff Christopher Hayward (Deputy Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark Chairman) - in the Chair Alderman Vincent Keaveny Deputy Keith Bottomley Deputy Edward Lord Tijs Broeke Andy Mayer Dominic Christian Deputy Tom Sleigh Karina Dostalova Sir Michael Snyder Anne Fairweather Alderman Sir David Wootton Alderman Prem Goyal Alderman Timothy Hailes
In attendance: James Tumbridge
Officers: Damian Nussbaum - Director of Innovation & Growth Bob Roberts - Director of Communications Sarah Bridgman - Communications Ellen Wentworth - IT Emma Cunnington - Town Clerks Sian Bird - Culture Mile Paul Double - Remembrancers Giles French - Innovation & Growth Sam Hutchings - Communications Tim Jones - Culture Mile Kiki Hausdorff - Culture Mile Nigel Lefton - Remembrancers Emma Lloyd - Communications Peter Lisley - Assistant Town Clerk Richard Messingham - Communications Thomas Regan - Communications Angela Roach - Assistant Town Clerk Paul Wright - Remembrancers Chloe Rew - Town Clerks
Page 11 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Deputy Catherine McGuinness (the Chair). The Deputy Chairman, Sheriff Christopher Hayward, chaired the meeting.
2. MEMBERS' DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA There were no declarations of interest.
3. MINUTES RESOLVED – That the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 16 September 2020 be approved as a correct record.
Matters arising A question was asked about who makes determinations on engaging with activist groups, following on from the discussion at the meeting last time, where the Director of Communications had explained the three tests as a guide for the City Corporation. The Director of Communications confirmed that the tests were used as a guide, and that there would be a number of logistical and tactical issues to consider when deciding whether a media comment from the City Corporation would come from a particular Chairman or from a spokesperson. Various Chairmen on the call confirmed that they and officers had always worked collaboratively on these issues.
4. ELECTION OF CO-OPTED MEMBERS The Sub-Committee proceeded to elect four co-opted Members to the Sub Committee in accordance with its terms of reference.
An indicative vote, ahead of the meeting, had already been taken across eight candidates who had expressed an interest in the vacancies. The results of the indicative vote was read out to the Sub-Committee, as follows:
Dominic Christian 12* Simon Duckworth 1 Alderman Prem Goyal 6* Oliver Lodge 2 Deputy Edward Lord 8* Andy Mayer 6* James Tumbridge 4 Mark Wheatley 3
The Sub-Committee confirmed that Dominic Christian, Deputy Edward Lord, Alderman Prem Goyal and Andy Mayer be duly elected for the ensuing year.
5. CULTURE MILE PRESENTATION The Sub-Committee heard a presentation concerning the Culture Mile work by the Culture Mile Manager and the Head of Partnerships and Strategic Projects. The presentation focused on the evolution of the Culture Mile as well as the steps being taken to contribute to a Cultural Recovery, post-Covid. In particular,
Page 12 Members heard how the team were keen to strengthen its engagement with other London boroughs as it looked to rebuild the cultural and creative industries sector. It was also noted that a paper to Policy & Resources Committee with recommendations for further investment for the Culture Mile would be forthcoming on 21 January.
Members then expressed their broad support for the Culture Mile work, insisting that culture should play a key part in the recovery and what the City can offer. Members also felt there should be further consideration on the funding and governance model around any BID.
RESOLVED, that:- • The presentation on Culture Mile be noted.
6. PARLIAMENTARY TEAM UPDATE The Sub-Committee received a report of the Remembrancer concerning an update on the Parliamentary Team’s activity.
The Remembrancer gave a further oral update on the Internal Market Bill and the Environmental Bill.
The Policy Chair, who joined for this item in between other engagements, updated the Sub-Committee on her engagement earlier that day to appear in front of the Public Bill Committee with TheCityUK. She also mentioned that the MP for the Cities of London & Westminster had been promoting the City of London Corporation’s message on the Government’s Additional Restrictions Grant.
A Member requested further details on the City Corporation’s response to the establishment of a new UK investment office under the Minister of State for Investment, as well as the Chancellor’s recent announcement on equivalence. The Policy Chair and the Director of Innovation and Growth underlined that the City Corporation would be working closely with the new Office for Investment, and confirmed that the Chancellor’s announcement on publishing a set of equivalence decisions alongside a new framework for taking such decisions in future. Members heard how the City Corporation would urge the EU to issues its equivalence determinations without further delay.
RESOLVED, that:- • The report be noted.
7. CORPORATE AFFAIRS UPDATE The Sub-Committee received a report of the Director of Communications concerning recent activity of the Corporate Affairs Team.
A Member asked a further question around the budget for next year’s party conferences, and there was a short discussion on drawing on the success of the Green Horizons Summit for future virtual or hybrid events. Officers were
Page 13 asked to bring a paper to a future meeting of this Sub-Committee on the success of this particular event.
RESOLVED, that: • The report be noted; • A report outlining the success of the Green Horizons Summit to be submitted to a future meeting of the Public Relations and Economic Development Sub Committee.
8. IG MONTHLY PRED UPDATE - NOVEMBER The Sub-Committee received a report of the Director of Innovation & Growth concerning an update on the activity of his department.
Members heard an oral update from the Head of External Affairs concerning the new Taskforce to promote socio-economic diversity in UK Financial and Professional Services. The launch of this work would take place later in the month and would focus particularly on career progression for people from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
RESOLVED, that:- • The report be noted.
9. CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION AND IMMIGRATION/VISAS ACTIVITIES The Sub-Committee received a report of the Director of Innovation and Growth detailing information on a new paper, launched in collaboration with EY, which indicates how the immigration and visa system be strengthened.
RESOLVED, that:- • The report be noted.
10. CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION AND TAX POLICY ACTIVITIES The Sub-Committee received a report of the Director of Innovation & Growth concerning information on a private paper that the City Corporation had submitted to Government on tax policy for the recovery.
A Member asked a question about where the City Corporation were positioned around encouraging enterprise, recovery and growth through tax incentives on investment and equity. The Director of Innovation & Growth explained that the City Corporation had encouraged HM Treasury and HM Revenues & Customs to look at the longer-term economic growth, leveraging on what tax incentives were appropriate to do this.
RESOLVED, that:- • The report be noted.
11. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE SUB- COMMITTEE There were no questions.
12. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT
Page 14 There were no urgent items.
13. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC RESOLVED – That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.
Item Paragraph 14 3
14. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES The non-public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 16 September 2020 were approved.
15. NON-PUBLIC QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE There were no questions.
16. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE SUB COMMITTEE AGREES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED There were no items of urgent business.
The meeting closed at 4.27 pm
Chairman
Contact Officer: Emma Cunnington [email protected]
Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 16 Agenda Item 3c
RESOURCE ALLOCATION SUB (POLICY AND RESOURCES) COMMITTEE
Friday, 20 November 2020
Minutes of the meeting of the Resource Allocation Sub (Policy and Resources) Committee held at Virtual Meeting on Friday, 20 November 2020 at 11.30 am
Present
Members: Deputy Catherine McGuinness (Chairman) Shravan Joshi Jeremy Mayhew (Deputy Chairman) Alderman Vincent Keaveny Deputy Keith Bottomley Deputy Edward Lord Tijs Broeke Alderman Ian Luder Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark Deputy Tom Sleigh Karina Dostalova Sir Michael Snyder Anne Fairweather Deputy James Thomson Sheriff Christopher Hayward Alderman Sir David Wootton
In Attendance Randall Anderson Marianne Fredericks Graeme Harrower Ann Holmes Barbara Newman
Officers: John Barradell - Town Clerk & Chief Executive Angela Roach - Assistant Town Clerk & Director of Members Services Peter Lisley - Assistant Town Clerk & Director of Major Projects Greg Moore - Town Clerks Peter Kane - Chamberlain Caroline Al-Beyerty - Deputy Chamberlain Michael Cogher - Comptroller & City Solicitor Paul Wilkinson - City Surveyor Nick Gill - Surveyors Emma Cunnington - Town Clerks
1. APOLOGIES There were no apologies.
2. MEMBERS DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA There were no declarations.
Page 17 3. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 22 October 2020 were agreed as a correct record.
4. RESOLUTION FROM THE EDUCATION BOARD The Sub-Committee received a resolution from the Education Board concerning the proposed new funding model for schools reflected from Sir Mike Tomlinson’s review into education.
RESOLVED, that:- • The resolution be noted.
5. GOVERNANCE REVIEW: STANDARDS The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk concerning key questions around the implementation of the Governance Review for the Standards Regime.
The Policy Chair began by thanking her Deputy Chairman for his hard work in managing the Member consultation sessions and relayed some of the key areas of feedback from Members of the wider Court.
Members then discussed each question laid out in the report as follows:-
Independent Panel
(i) Do Members agree with the recommendation to establish an Independent Panel, composed only of independent persons? The Sub-Committee were in unanimous agreement with this recommendation.
(ii) Should such a Panel receive allegations of misconduct, determine whether to investigate, present findings to the Court, and hear any appeal? Members were supportive of the three-stage process outlined in the report, and some felt that the first stage (an informal conversation with the Chief Commoner) should be mandatory. One Member suggested that, depending on the issue, the use of external dispute resolution experts also be considered at an early stage.
(iii) What should its composition be? The Sub-Committee debated whether the composition should be entirely comprised of independent (i.e. external) individuals or whether there should be some Members (in the minority) who should be part of the Panel. Many felt that the Panel hearing appeals should be entirely independent (i.e. non-City Corporation Member), and that any independent individuals hearing the initial allegation should not also be part of the Appeals Panel.
Members also felt strongly that the Panel should be comprised of a diverse group of individuals.
Page 18
There was a short discussion of the newly-appointed statutory IPs appointed under the Localism Act and it was agreed that these statutory IPs must be retained.
(iv) How should it be appointed to? A Member suggested that the panel be appointed independently, but broadly the Sub-Committee were content with the suggested method of appointment that Lisvane set out, i.e. that the Panel should be recruited in the same way as the co-opted Members of the Standards Committee have been.
(v) Should the positions on the Panel be remunerated? The Sub-Committee supported the view that positions on the Panel should be remunerated and it was suggested that this should be undertaken at a standard rate of £300 per day.
(vi) Who should be responsible for supporting the Panel, or for producing the Panel’s rules and procedures (including possible sanctions)? The Sub-Committee felt it was important for officers, particularly the Comptroller, to support the Panel.
(vii) How should the Court consider its recommendations (i.e. should a Standing Order, preventing debate on any of the Panel’s recommendations, be progressed)? Members agreed that it was very embarrassing for all concerned when issues were debated in Court of Common Council. A Member suggested that this new process would ensure that allegations were dealt with properly and efficiently from the outset, which should avoid the need to debate in Court.
Abolition of Standards / Standards Appeals Committee
(viii) Do Members agree with the proposal to abolish the Standards Committee and Standards Appeals Committee? The Sub-Committee were in agreement that the Standards Committee and the Standards Appeals Committee should be disbanded, but one Member flagged that there was currently no “home” for dispensation requests. A suggestion was made for the terms of reference of the Members Privileges Sub Committee to be expanded to include dispensation requests.
(ix) If yes, what is the preferred timescale for abolition? Members felt that the process of abolition needed to start now and be completed by March 2021.
(x) If abolition is prior to the establishment of a new overall committee framework, what should happen in the interim to those areas of responsibility under the purview of Standards Committee which do
Page 19 not relate to complaints and so would not necessarily go to the new Panel? See above.
(xi) In particular, where should responsibility for Dispensations and the Code of Conduct sit, and do any changes need to be sought to either procedure at this point in time? See above.
Register of Interests
(xii) Are Members happy to support a change to the way in which the Register of Interests is set out? Members were supportive of officers taking forward this change.
Training
(xiii) Should training on standards and conduct matters be made mandatory? The Sub-Committee heard that there had been a range of views on this matter expressed at the Member consultation sessions. The majority of the Sub-Committee felt that the training should be mandatory, but the training should also be purposeful and up-to-date. Members felt that training should be rolled out for all Members after each election and the Chief Commoner-Elect should receive such training before taking office each year.
(xiv) If so, what sanction should be applied in the event of non- compliance? One Member felt that there should not be a pre-requisite or conditions placed on elected Members for taking training. Others felt that training fitted into the spirit of the Nolan’s principles of public life.
RESOLVED, that:- • The feedback provided by Members through the informal engagement process be noted. • It be recommended that the Policy and Resources Committee agree the way forward for matters relating to the Standards Regime as outlined in the minute above.
6. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE SUB- COMMITTEE There were no questions.
7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There were no items of urgent business.
8. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC RESOLVED, that under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that
Page 20 they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.
Item No. Paragraph No. 9-11 3
9. CITY FUND, CITY'S ESTATE AND BRIDGE HOUSE ESTATES - TURNOVER RENT PROPOSAL TO ASSIST CITY OF LONDON INVESTMENT TENANTS The Sub-Committee considered a report of the City Surveyor concerning a proposal on turnover rents to assist City of London investment tenants.
10. CITY FUND - LEADENHALL MARKET TURNOVER RENTS The Sub-Committee considered a report of the City Surveyor concerning a proposal on turnover rents to assist City of London tenants at Leadenhall Market.
11. CITY FUND - FUNDING STRATEGY 15/17 ELDON STREET EC2 AND 6 BROAD STREET PLACE EC2 REFURBISHMENT PROJECTS The Sub-Committee considered a report of the City Surveyor concerning a funding strategy for the refurbishment projects at 15/17 Eldon Street EC2 and 6 Broad Street Place EC2.
12. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE SUB- COMMITTEE There were no questions.
13. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE SUB-COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED There was no urgent business.
The meeting ended at 12.25 pm
Chairman
Contact Officer: Emma Cunnington [email protected]
Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 22 Agenda Item 3d
Tackling Racism Taskforce
A public summary of the Tackling Racism Taskforce’s meeting held on 13 November 2020.
The Tackling Racism Taskforce held its tenth meeting on 13 November 2020 with a focus on police.
The Tackling Racism Taskforce considered a report of the Commissioner of the City of London Police (CoLP) regarding work of the CoLP in relation to equality and diversity. This included: • An invitation for all BAME employees to express their experiences of racial injustice with the Assistant Commissioner directly. • Diversity considerations had been included in annual appraisals • Development of HR systems to allow for diversity characteristics to be inputted and staff being actively encouraged to provide data • The introduction of an Ally Scheme • Members of the Independent Advisory Scrutiny Group had been invited to sit in on interview boards to address perception of unfairness in interviewing process • A workshop had been facilitated to review the exit process including exit interviews and later contact with former officers • Creation of Champion Leads for areas that were not previously addressed and consultation with colleagues to find appropriate individuals for such positions • Introduction of mandatory unconscious bias training • Consideration of role modelling in senior positions • Offer of further support to staff networks, including meetings with himself and the Assistant Commissioner to identify valuable ways to support • Engagement with wider forces including the British Transport Police and Metropolitan Police and consideration of creating a cross-force advisory committee.
Members of the Taskforce then raised several questions to the Commander. This included reference to the fact that the Metropolitan Police (Met) had recently announced that they were aiming to recruit 40% police officers from BAME backgrounds by 2022 and whether the City of London Police would be taking forward a similar initiative. The Commander committed to look closely at the Met’s announcement and would look to ensure that the City of London Police targets reflected the ethnicity of the population. Members also asked for more detail on the cross partnership working between the CoLP, the Met and the British Transport Police (BTP) in this area.
The Taskforce also discussed how it would be important for the Police Authority Board to have a specific diversity and inclusion objective that could be audited in the long term. The Taskforce were keen to ensure that the Diversity and Inclusion officers at the City Corporation and the CoLP were coordinated in their work.
The Taskforce also encouraged the CoLP to continue its engagement with local communities, the family of schools and businesses in the Square Mile.
Page 23 Members were given a short update on the media interventions recently undertaken around the activities of the Taskforce and were reminded of the looming deadline of the Consultative Exercise on Historic Items, which will close on 24 November 2020.
For any enquiries to the Tackling Racism Taskforce, please contact [email protected]
Page 24 Agenda Item 3e
Tackling Racism Taskforce
A public summary of the Tackling Racism Taskforce’s meeting held on 27 November 2020.
The Tackling Racism Taskforce held its eleventh meeting on 27 November 2020 with a focus on business.
The Taskforce received a presentation from officers in Innovation & Growth, Procurement and Investment concerning recommendations around the business workstreams.
In particular, points were made as follows:- • There was a flooded field of Charters for businesses to sign on racial diversity - it is not recommended the Corporation develops its own Charter, but offers public support for those in existence. • The research undertaken by the City Corporation on socio-economic diversity in UK Financial and Professional Services (FPS) industry in eight firms found that employees from lower socio-economic backgrounds took 25% longer to progress through grades, despite no statistical evidence to link this with job performance. This rises to 32% for those that also identify as Black. • Very few firms publish detailed data on ethnic diversity of employees and if they do, the tendency is to report the percentage of BAME employees as a whole rather than a breakdown of every ethnicity, of which some are severely under- represented. • The City Corporation’s Procurement team can provide guidance and skills training to support SMEs and social enterprises that have a diversity ethos. • The City Corporation’s Investment team can look at how asset managers manage diversity in their own firms and how diversity is captured within their investment processes and how this can be reported.
Following a question on the taskforce for socio-economic diversity in UK FPS, Members heard how businesses were fully aware and acknowledged there was a problem and wanted to do something about this.
The Taskforce then discussed in further details in breakout rooms, where the following points were made:- • Investment is a key area where the City Corporation can make a difference and there would be a huge reputational risk for not taking action. It might be worth asking for some external advice on taking this recommendation forward. • There may be specific industries, which may have a lower level of diversity, to focus on in the procurement recommendation. • There is a general fear amongst firms about reporting negative information (i.e. lack of diversity) but the more that firms do this the data will become more anonymised and this will increase firms’ confidence to report. • The changes that will be brought in by the new Target Operating Model (TOM) in the City Corporation may impact the delivery of this work and we much not lose sight of the changes that this Taskforce is recommending.
Page 25 • The perception of the City Corporation is an issue and is reinforced when we have all white male events – we need to be reaching a wider audience and sowing visible diversity at events and banquets. • Whilst there is a recommendation to set targets on event guest lists on diversity, we need to be cognisant that guest lists are not always entirely in the City Corporation’s control.
The Co-Chair summarised the discussion, particularly on events, by confirming that we need to look at targets with a clear timeline on when this might come into play to help improve the City Corporation’s reputation in this area.
It was agreed that in the final report, the Taskforce will recommend to the Policy & Resources Committee and the Establishment Committee:- • to support and promote the work of the Socio-Economic Diversity Taskforce • to formally support the Change the Race Ratio campaign and the Race Fairness Commitment (but not to become full signatories to these) • to consider offering invitations to interested groups to host 2021 Awards and Events in our venues (such as The Investing in Ethnicity Awards, the Black British Business Awards and the Empower Gala Dinner). These connections could be maintained to invite relevant and senior diverse business leaders to future City Corporation events and dinners. • to actively discourage all-white panels (but not to establish a formal policy on this) • to consider targets for diverse attendees of City Corporation conferences and events • to support the #10000BlackInterns initiative by identifying at least one area of activity that could develop and host an intern programme, committing to offer at least one paid internship • to encourage Black SMEs/ microbusinesses to take part in the pop-up market in the Guildhall Yard. (The current market provider, Street Food Markets, is itself a majority Black-owned, all-BAME Director led SME) • to write to individual firms, promoting the ambitions of the Financial Services Skills Commission in encouraging more data collection, disclosure and reporting. • to write to asset managers asking them how they manage diversity within their organisation • to explore with the asset managers how diversity is captured within their investment process and how this can be reported. • to endorse City Procurement’s approach to targeted advertising of contracts where there is a recognised under-representation of BAME organisations in that industry and to recommend such industries to prioritise for future work. • to endorse the new strand of work being initiated by City Procurement to assess whether targeted action (new policies and procedures) for contracts under £100,000 can be effective in increasing the proportion of under-represented minority owned SMEs, especially micros and small companies in our supply chain. • to note the approach that Chamberlain’s are intending to take to improve the functionality of CBIS and the granularity of data held on our suppliers, in order
Page 26 to establish appropriate baselines and the ability to measure the City Corporation’s performance.
The Taskforce also received a report including anonymised anecdotes that staff had shared on their experience of racism and microaggression at the City Corporation. The Taskforce were shocked by the stories and questioned whether the recommendations under the staffing workstream went far enough to avoid a repeat of any of these kinds of stories.
For any enquiries to the Tackling Racism Taskforce, please contact [email protected]
Page 27 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 28 Agenda Item 4
Committee: Policy & Resources Date: 10 December 2020
Subject: Electoral Registration Campaign Manager Public
Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate Outcomes 3, 4, and 10 of Plan does this proposal aim to impact directly? the Corporate Plan Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or Y capital spending? If so, how much? £150,000
What is the source of Funding? Committee Contingency
Has this Funding Source been agreed with the Y Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: The Town Clerk and Chief Executive For Decision
Report author: Angela Roach, Director of Committee and Members Services
Summary
1. At its last meeting, the Committee agreed to support a programme of promotional activities to increase voter registration in readiness for the 2022 Ward Elections. As part of the City Corporation’s efforts to enhance the diversity of the Court of Common Council, this also included promotional activities to encourage people from a diverse range of backgrounds to consider standing for election.
2. The Committee noted the efforts which had been made in previous years to encourage greater registration and voter turnout but was mindful that this had been met with moderate success at best. Therefore, support was also given, in principle, to the recruitment of a temporary, dedicated, campaign manager to manage this area of work during 2021, subject to the submission of further details. The purpose of the manager would be to raise awareness of the importance of business registration by developing relationships in businesses at all levels from Chief Executive to entry level employee and to develop a year-long campaign strategy and further activities to:-
• increase voter registration amongst businesses and residents • use all available channels to encourage a greater diversity of candidates to stand in 2022 elections • increase voter turnout postal or physical
Recommendation(s)
3. The Committee is recommended to:-
Page 29 • Reconfirm its support for the recruitment of a temporary Election Participation Campaign Manager to maximise numbers on the Electoral Register, encourage diversity of candidates and voter turnout in the elections.
• Approve a funding package of up to £150,000 to cover the cost of the post (approximately £75,000 plus £20,000 on costs the equivalent of Grade H and subject to job evaluation) and up to £55,000 to fund the cost of any additional campaign activities. The latter would be the subject of a further report by the postholder once the scope of the campaign had been developed.
• Note that the role will report to the new Deputy Town Clerk and Chief Executive and that in the interim the recruitment and other arrangements associated with the temporary post would be overseen by the Director of Communications.
Main Report Background
1. The next Ward elections are scheduled to take place in March 2022. As with every all-out pre-election year, the City Corporation has agreed a series of promotional activities and initiatives aimed at eligible residents and workers in order to encourage them to register to take part in the 2022 elections and to use their vote. This is essential to demonstrate the validity of the organisation’s democratic processes and to prove that its elected Members are properly representative of all the City’s stakeholders.
Current Position 2. The Committee has already agreed to fund a programme of activities for 2021. However, Members expressed a desire that more be done to maximise the numbers registering to vote, to encourage greater diversity of candidates standing for election and to ensure voters use their entitlement. This will be critical in 2021 given that the numbers of workers (including contacts within firms) returning to the City certainly in the first half of the year may be drastically reduced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It will require more creative means than usual of educating the business population as to the City Corporation’s role, activities and how their vote could help to shape what services are provided and how.
Proposals 3. It is proposed to recruit a temporary, dedicated, Election Participation Campaign Manager who would have oversight of all work in support of the three goals set out above, including the activities already agreed and those referred to at the last meeting requiring further development (e.g a special edition of CityView, an event in Local or National Democracy week and streaming Wardmotes). The post would be a one-year fixed-term position requiring an experienced, results-driven individual who would have responsibility for all areas of the campaign.
4. A funding package of up to £150,000 would be required to meet the cost of the anticipated salary and on-costs (£75,000 plus £20,000, the equivalent of Grade H
Page 30 and subject to job evaluation) and extra campaign activity funding in addition to that already agreed by this Committee.
5. To further demonstrate the importance of voter registration and how seriously the City Corporation is taking local democracy, it is proposed that the postholder will report to the new Deputy Town Clerk and Chief Executive, with recruitment arrangements being overseen in the interim by the Director of Communications.
Key Data and Tasks 6. This role will require:
• someone who can quickly acquire an understanding and appreciation of the City’s unique voting system; • an ability to develop relationships at all levels to ‘sell’ the benefits of registering to vote – from Chief Executive to entry level employee • the capacity to bring together and motivate a cross-teams function to work on this campaign • creativity to develop ideas that will help achieve the set goals
7. Key tasks will include:
• to bring together a cross-department/skills team to work on the campaign; • to audit communication channels across the organisation that could be used for messaging; • to devise proactive ideas to generate greater registration numbers; • to work with officers across the organisation to create a joined-up marketing effort; • to put together a year-long strategy across all three strands of work; • to run the initial campaign of maximising electoral registration numbers until the deadline of mid-December 2021; • to report regularly to officers and Members on progress made; • to use all available channels to encourage a greater diversity of candidates to stand in the 2022 elections; • to promote use of the vote – whether on the day itself or via postal vote • to promote wardmotes (or meetings of the ward) if wards are uncontested.
Corporate & Strategic Implications
Strategic implications
8. This role will help meet the Corporate Plan target of Contributing to a Flourishing Society by promoting and championing diversity and bringing individuals and communities together in taking part in the electoral process.
Financial implications
9. The funding for this role and additional activities associated with the campaign cannot be met via Local Risk Budgets. It is therefore proposed that the £150,000
Page 31 funding is met from the 2020/21 Policy and Resources Contingency Fund and charged to City’s Cash. The current uncommitted 2020/21 Contingency Fund balance is £407,719.
Other Resource implications
10. Resource will necessarily be drawn into the activities planned from across the organisations. Senior Officers will be asked to supply non-financial resource on an ‘as and when’ basis to help support these activities and look at their own Business Plans for 2021 to see what channels they can offer.
Risk implications
11. Not applying sufficient resources to this initiative offers a risk that the City Corporation does not have a democratic mandate to represent all areas of the City if numbers registered to vote decrease significantly.
Equalities implications
12. The nature of this role is specifically aimed at encouraging a greater diversity of candidates, particularly those from demographic characteristics such as gender and race standing for election. This is necessary to ensure that the City Corporation is better equipped to perform its obligations effectively in today’s competitive business landscape. This role will play a key part in effectively meeting an objective that the City Corporation has been thriving to achieve for many years.
Climate implications
12. The proposals included in this paper do not carry any implications for the Climate Action programme. However, the activities already approved, and any subsequent activities will need to be mindful of the use of low carbon materials and methods used to reach voters in order to assist with decreasing the City Corporation’s footprint.
Conclusion 13. Members have expressed their desire for more to be done in the lead up to 2022 and have agreed in principle to the recruitment of the Campaign Manager to manage the activities already agreed and to develop and deliver a strategy of additional activities to raise awareness of the importance of electoral registration. The recruitment of a Manager will demonstrate the City Corporation’s a commitment to local democracy as well as its commitment to enhancing diversity and inclusion. The approved programme of publicity and events to be held in the period preceding the elections will also assist with this.
Page 32 Appendices: None.
Background Papers: Electoral Registration Report - Policy and Resources Committee, 19 November 2020
Angela Roach Assistant Town Clerk and Director of Committee and Members Services
E: [email protected]/T: 020 7332 1418
Page 33 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 34 Agenda Item 5
Committee: Date: Policy and Resource Committee 10 December 2020 Subject: Governance Review: Standards Regime Public Report of: Town Clerk For Decision
Summary
In September 2019, the Policy and Resources Committee, proposed the undertaking of a comprehensive Governance Review of the City Corporation. The Committee was conscious that some potentially contentious issues needed to be addressed and that some radical changes may need to be considered. It was, therefore, agreed that the review should be undertaken independently and Robert Rodgers, The Lord Lisvane, was appointed to conduct the Review.
Following the Review’s submission, it was determined that the many proposals therein should be considered in a structured and methodical way in the coming period, with Members afforded sufficient time to read and consider the content and implications. It was noted that the recommendations were extensive and it would be for Members to consider how far they were appropriate and which should be taken forward. It was also agreed that it would be of the utmost importance to ensure that the process provided for all Members of the Court to continue to have the opportunity to input and comment on the Review.
To that end, a series of informal Member engagement sessions were arranged to afford all Members opportunities to express their views on the various aspects of the Review as they are considered. These would then be fed back to the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee to help inform its initial consideration of specific items and subsequent recommendations to the Policy and Resources Committee.
A resolution of the Court of Common Council (8 October 2020, see appendix 2) had the effect that consideration of aspects of the Review relating to the Standards Regime would need to be taken first. Accordingly, three engagement sessions were held and the outcomes of those sessions are set out in the appendices to this report.
Members of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee subsequently considered the various proposals relating to Section 8 of the Lisvane Review, in the context of Members’ observations and reflections at the various informal sessions, at their meeting on 20 November 2020. (NB - The minutes of that meeting are set out at Item 3(C) on today’s agenda and the recording of the meeting is available at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY9gusbzqB0). Their determinations are now presented to the Policy and Resources Committee for further consideration, prior to any formal submission to the Court (intended for January 2021). The proposals relate to the establishment of a new Standards regime and associated implications in respect of other existing arrangements.
Recommendations That Members:-
Page 35
1. Consider the proposals in relation to Standards made by Lord Lisvane in Section 8 of his Review (Appendix 1). 2. Note the feedback provided by Members through the informal engagement process (Appendix 4). 3. Consider the items in respect of the various proposals, as set out in this report and Lord Lisvane’s Review, together with the recommendations from the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee (see paragraph 19), as to a way forward.
Main Report
Background 1. In September 2019, the Policy and Resources Committee, proposed the undertaking of a comprehensive Governance Review of the City Corporation. The Committee was conscious that some potentially contentious issues needed to be addressed and that some radical changes may need to be considered. It was, therefore, agreed that the review should be undertaken independently and Robert Rodgers, The Lord Lisvane, was appointed to conduct the Review.
2. The Committee received Lord Lisvane’s Review in September 2020 and determined that the many proposals therein should be considered in a structured and methodical way in the coming period, with Members afforded sufficient time to read and consider the content and implications. It was noted that the recommendations were far-reaching and wide-ranging and it would be for Members to consider how far they were appropriate and which should be taken forward. It was also agreed that it would be of the utmost importance to ensure that the process provided for all Members of the Court to continue to have the opportunity to input and comment on the Review.
3. The Governance Review will affect all aspects of the City Corporation’s governance and all Members as a consequence. It is, therefore, imperative that any implementation reflects the view of the Court, and it is likely that all Members will have views on particular elements. Their continued input remains integral and incorporating all Members’ views within the next steps of the process will be vital in ensuring that the recommendations which are ultimately put to the Court are viable.
4. To that end, a series of informal Member engagement sessions were arranged to afford all Members opportunities to express their views on the various aspects of the Review as they are considered. These would then be fed back to the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee to help inform its initial consideration of specific items.
5. A resolution of the Court of Common Council (8 October 2020) had the effect that consideration of aspects of the Review relating to the Standards Regime would need to be taken first. Accordingly, three engagement sessions were held and the outcomes of those sessions are set out in the appendices to this report.
Page 36
6. The relevant part of the Lisvane Review is Section 8, paragraphs 386 – 450, which covers proposals and reflections in relation to the Standards Regime.
7. The section provides a reflection on recent experiences in relation to the regime by way of context, together with accompanying recommendations for a proposed route forward and new system.
8. As well as the complaints and appeal procedure, the section also touches on related issues including Dispensations, Training, and Member / Officer relations.
9. Paragraphs 386 - 394 set out reflections on the statutory position and requirements in relation to Standards. Paragraphs 395 – 403 reference the recent experiences, including the Bourne Review. Both of these sub-sections are contextual and contain no specific recommendations.
10. Paragraphs 404 – 415 concern the Dispensations regime. Again, the sub-section primarily reflects on the position to date and some relevant history, with Lord Lisvane expressing his concurrence with the findings of Philip Kolvin QC.
Lisvane’s recommendations 11. The next paragraphs, 416 – 437, then set out the proposed way forward, for consideration.
12. Paragraphs 416 – 420 make clear Lord Lisvane’s view that Members should not sit in judgement on each other.
13. Paragraph 421 sets out a role in relation to conciliation, utilising informal mechanisms such as mediation via the Comptroller or Chief Commoner, whilst noting there is a balance to be struck reputationally in relying too far on informal processes.
14. The recommendations in relation to formal process are summarised as follows: • The establishment of Independent Panel composed only of independent persons, to receive allegations of misconduct, determine whether to investigate, present findings to the Court, and hear any appeal. (Paragraph 425). • The creation of a Standing Order provision to facilitate the above in such a way that the various items presented to the Court by the Panel are accepted without debate. (Paragraph 428). • The subsequent abolition of the Standards Committee and Standards Appeal Committee. (Paragraph 435).
15. Depending on what is ultimately decided in respect of the above, there are consequential considerations that need to be borne in mind. These include: • The formation / recruitment process of the new Independent Panel (paragraphs 429 – 435 address).
Page 37
• What should happen to those areas of responsibility under the purview of Standards Committee which do not relate to complaints and so would not necessarily go to the new Panel (appendix 2 sets out the current Standard Committee Terms of Reference with links and commentary for ease of reference).
16. The section also makes recommendation or commentary on a number of related areas:- • Register of Interests (paragraphs 438-439): this relates to the way in which Members’ interests are displayed on the website, which Lord Lisvane views as unhelpful / not sufficiently transparent, with a suggested change to address concerns. • Training (paragraphs 440-442): Lord Lisvane echoes the recommendation of Charles Bourne QC that training on standards and conduct matters should be made mandatory, and without which no Member should be eligible to be appointed to a Committee. • Member / Officer Relations (paragraphs 443-446): there is no specific recommendation but it is worth noting the implication that participation in the Statutory Officer Review Panel (under Standing Order 64) would fall to Independent Members of the new Panel, should such be established. • Freemasonry (paragraphs 447-450): whilst there is some commentary, no particular recommendation is made.
Consideration and Proposals 17. Three Member engagement sessions were held in respect of this section of the report, the summary notes of which are appended to this report. Also included within those notes are comments sent by email following the meetings.
18. Members of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee were asked at their 20 November 2020 meeting to give consideration to the various recommendations in the context of those discussions and the views expressed by Members of the Court. The minute of the Sub-Committee’s discussions is set out at Item 3(C) on the agenda for today’s meeting and summarised below.
19. Having considered the various recommendations, the Resource Allocation Sub- Committee determined its position as follows:
Independent Panel (i) Do Members agree with the recommendation to establish an Independent Panel, composed only of independent persons? This proposal was strongly endorsed.
(ii) Should such a Panel receive allegations of misconduct, determine whether to investigate, present findings to the Court, and hear any appeal? Members were supportive of a three-stage process, with the first stage being of a more informal / conciliatory nature engaging the Chief Commoner. External dispute resolution experts could also be useful at this
Page 38
stage. The second stage would then be the formal hearing process utilising the independent panel, as outlined by Lisvane, with the third stage being an appeal stage. At the appeal stage, whilst the panel should be comprised primarily of the independent members, a minority of Members should also sit on the panel at that stage to help provide any relevant internal context.
(iii) What should its composition be? The majority view was that the Independent Panel should be entirely independent (i.e. non-City Corporation Members) and that the sub-panels at the hearing and appeal stages should be comprised of entirely different people, although drawn from the same overall pool. Consequently, the Independent Panel itself would need to be sufficiently large to ensure that this was always possible. A panel of nine was suggested, with Members also agreeing that staggered terms would be important to provide for both continuity and turnover.
Whilst there was a preference for the Panel to have a strong range of individuals with background in arbitration / judicial / tribunal processes, Members also felt strongly that the Panel should be comprised of a diverse group of individuals and so some flexibility or pragmatism may be required to ensure this.
The role of statutory Independent Persons (as required to be appointed under the Localism Act) was noted, with it observed that there was a distinction between these roles and the co-opted Members of the Standards Committee, as well as the Independent Panellists being talked about in a new arrangement. In particular, the two most recently appointed Independent Persons had played no part in any previous complaint or appeal process and, having been appointed under the provisions of the Localism Act, it was felt that these two individuals should be retained. Otherwise, an entirely new pool of individuals should be appointed, to ensure a fresh start.
(iv) How should it be appointed to? Members noted the requirement to make appointments prior to any consideration as to a Governance & Nominations Committee. Several expressed that an open and transparent recruitment process would be important, perhaps utilising the same composition of appointment panel as for the most recent appointment of Independent Persons, while another suggested that arrangements be made for suitable individuals to be identified and proposed by an independent external body. In any event, recommendations should ultimately be put to the Court for approval and appointment.
(v) Should the positions on the Panel be remunerated? The Sub-Committee supported the view that positions on the Panel should be remunerated to ensure good candidates were available, using the standard rate for public appointments (which was believed to be around £300 per day).
Page 39
(vi) Who should be responsible for supporting the Panel, or for producing the Panel’s rules and procedures (including possible sanctions)? The Sub-Committee felt that some form of officer support would be required, with Members observing that this fell within the remit of the Monitoring Officer’s responsibilities. An element of clerking or support would also be required.
(vii) How should the Court consider its recommendations (i.e. should a Standing Order, preventing debate on any of the Panel’s recommendations, be progressed?) Members agreed that it was inappropriate, ineffective, and embarrassing for all concerned when these issues were debated in full at the Court of Common Council. Ultimately, it was felt that the proposed new three-stage process – with Member involvement at the appeal stage – would ensure that allegations were dealt with properly and efficiently from the outset, which should avoid the need to debate in Court.
Abolition of Standards / Standards Appeals Committee (viii) Do Members agree with the proposal to abolish the Standards Committee and Standards Appeal Committee? The Sub-Committee was in agreement that the Standards Committee and the Standards Appeals Committee should be disbanded, although it was observed that a new “home” would need to be found for those areas which did not form part of the complaints process, such as dispensations. It was agreed that the Members Privileges Sub-Committee, chaired by the Chief Commoner, should be recommended to take on these functions on an interim basis.
(ix) If yes, what is the preferred timescale for abolition? Members felt that the process of abolition needed to start now and be completed by the end of March 2021, with a view to new arrangements being in place for the new municipal year.
(x) If abolition is prior to the establishment of a new overall committee framework, what should happen in the interim to those areas of responsibility under the purview of Standards Committee which do not relate to complaints and so would not necessarily go to the new Panel (appendix 2 sets out the current Standard Committee Terms of Reference with links and commentary for ease of reference). See (viii).
(xi) In particular, where should responsibility for Dispensations and the Code of Conduct sit, and do any changes need to be sought to either procedure at this point in time? See (viii).
Page 40
Register of Interests
(xii) Are Members happy to support a change to the way in which the Register of Interests is set out? Members were supportive of officers taking forward this change.
Training (xiii) Should training on standards and conduct matters be made mandatory? The majority view was that some training should be mandatory but only in specific areas, where there was a statutory or quasi-judicial function. In all cases, training should be purposeful and up-to-date, with refresher sessions available to allow for continuous learning or development. With reference to training around standards and conduct, it was suggested that such training should be rolled out for all Members immediately after each election.
Additionally, it was observed that it would be particularly important for the Chief Commoner-Elect to receive appropriate training before taking office, in view of their proposed role in the first stage of a new complaints process.
(xiv) If so, what sanction should be applied in the event of non-compliance? It was felt that any sanction should be automatic and relate to the specific committee, i.e. consistent with the current approach in respect of the Licensing Committee whereby any Member unwilling to undertake the relevant training was not permitted to serve on the hearing sub-committees.
Conclusion 20. Various proposals have been made by Lord Lisvane in relation to Standards, in Section 8 of his Review.
21. Members of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee have considered his proposals and the attendant implications of any decisions, paying mind to the views of all Members, made through the informal engagement process and set out in the appendices to this report. The Policy and Resources Committee is now asked to consider those proposals.
22. It is intended that any recommendations, subject to points of qualification or clarification, are put to the Court of Common Council at its January 2021 meeting, to facilitate the finalisation and implementation of any new arrangements in time for the new municipal year.
Appendices: • Appendix 1: Extract - Governance Review Section 8, Standards • Appendix 2: Standards Committee ToRs (with comments on responsibilities) • Appendix 3: Resolution from CoCo, 8 October 2020 • Appendix 4: Notes from Member Engagement Sessions
Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 42 APPENDIX 1 81
8 Standards and Conduct
The statutory requirement 386. The Localism Act 2011 replaced the conduct regime of the Local Government Act 2000 with rather less prescriptive requirements, and no effective sanctions (except in the case of non- registration of interests87). The Corporation is subject to the 2011 Act’s requirements in respect of standards and conduct, in its capacity as a local authority and also as a police authority. It has chosen to apply its standards and conduct arrangements to all its functions, even if these are not of a local authority type.
387. The 2011 Act provides that “a relevant authority [which the Corporation is] must promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members and co-opted members of the authority”.88
388. The Act requires the adoption of “a code dealing with the conduct that is expected of members and co-opted members of the authority when they are operating in that capacity”.89Such a code must be consistent with the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
389. Under the 2000 Act, authorities had to have standards committees chaired by an independent person. Under the 2011, all that is necessary is that there should be “arrangements”:
“arrangements under which allegations can be investigated; and
“arrangements under which decisions on allegations can be made.”90
390. The arrangements must also include the appointment of “at least one independent person
87 Section 34 introduced a new criminal offence of failing to declare or register a pecuniary interest. 88 Section 27(1). 89 Section 27(2). 90 Section 28(6).
Page 43 82
“whose views are to be sought, and taken into account, by the authority before it makes its decision on an allegation that it has decided to investigate.”91
391. The Corporation decided to discharge the duty to have “arrangements” by setting up a Standards Committee. This consists of two Aldermen, ten Common Councillors and five (previously four) co-opted (external and independent) members.
392. The Committee has the task of promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct; maintaining the Code of Conduct and the Protocol on Member/Officer Relations, and associated guidance; advising and training Members and co-opted Members on conduct matters; monitoring allegations referred to it, and assessing and hearing such allegations; deciding on whether allegations should be investigated; deciding on whether a breach has occurred; and determining an appropriate sanction.
393. There is nothing out of the way about these functions; they are similar to those in the arrangements made by many authorities, and they are broadly similar to those under the previous statutory regime.
394. I will not rehearse the detailed provisions and processes; they are dealt with thoroughly and very well in the Independent Review by Charles Bourne QC,92 who also makes observations on how they might be improved, and I return to some of these below.
The experience of the Standards Committee and the conduct regime 395. I must first acknowledge the efforts made by all those who have tried to make the standards regime work as intended. They have done so in good faith, and are not to be blamed for the present situation.
396. However, the Corporation has now got to the point where I do not think that it is sensible or practical to try to repair the current arrangements, nor to try and reconstitute the Standards Committee along new lines.
91 Section 28(7). 92 An Independent Review by Leading Counsel of the Arrangements made under the Localism Act 2011by the City of London Corporation for Addressing Matters Connected with the Conduct of Members and Co-opted Members, December 2016.
Page 44 83
397. The problems appear to have started in 2015 with the first complaint against a Member to reach the investigation stage. The Member was found, both at the initial hearing and on appeal, to have breached the Code of Conduct. Information about this complaint in the Standards Committee’s Annual Report of 23 June 2016 included the name of the Member concerned, and on that account provoked widespread criticism of the process.
398. From there things seem to have gone downhill, with the Standards Committee and its members being subjected to frequent criticism, sometimes expressed in unacceptably discourteous terms. The Standards Committee commissioned the independent review from Charles Bourne QC to which I have referred. Following that review, the Court established a Standards Regime Review Working Party, separately from the Standards Committee.
399. That Working Party, and subsequent consideration by the Court, rejected the Bourne Report’s recommendation that undertaking training in standards and conduct matters should be a prerequisite for being appointed to any Corporation Committee. It also ignored Mr Bourne’s warning about splitting decision-making on appeals, providing that the new Appeal Panel, independent of the Standards Committee, should be able to substitute a new decision on appeal (on the papers only) rather than refer the case back to the Standards Committee for reconsideration.
400. However, the Bourne Report led to the establishment of new complaints procedures, and a revised Code of Conduct and guidance from March 2018. A Standards Appeals Committee was also established.
401. Unfortunately the new procedures did not receive practical backing from the Court. A complaint was made against a Member; after hearing and appeal he was found to have breached the Code of Conduct, and the Standards Committee recommended that he be suspended for twelve months from the Standards Appeals Committee, of which he was a member.
402. However, when in March 2020 the matter was reported to the Court of Common Council for endorsement, the Court declined to do so. The debate illustrated the weakness of the Corporation’s approach to matters of Member conduct. In the debate the appropriateness – or otherwise – of the whole process was revisited; arrangements
Page 45 84
previously approved by the Court were criticised; and the case was rehearsed without adequate evidence.93
403. The handling of Standards matters has involved significant cost. At one time or another, four Silks have been involved, together with external investigators. To date the total cost, including the internal costs of running the Ethical Framework, is more than £500,000, which is wholly disproportionate.
Dispensations 404. The standards mix has been made more toxic by a long- running dispute over the granting of dispensations.
405. The Localism Act 2011 replaced the 2000 Act’s provisions relating to personal and prejudicial interests with a scheme for “disclosable pecuniary interests” (DPIs).
406. Interests which may give rise to a DPI are listed in the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 201294. They fall into the following categories: employment, office, trade or profession; sponsorship (of the Member concerned by a third party) a current contract for goods or services; beneficial interest in land in the authority’s area; licence to occupy land in the authority’s area; tenancy with beneficial interest; and beneficial interest in securities of a body based in the authority’s area. A Member’s spouse, civil partner or co-habitor with such an interest is within the registration and declaration requirements.
407. The default setting, under section 31(4) of the Localism Act 2011, is that a Member with a DPI which is engaged (in other words, upon the precise item of business before the Court or a Committee) should neither speak nor vote.
408. However, it is possible for the authority concerned, on written application, to grant a “dispensation”, on the terms specified in section 33 of the 2011 Act, but subject to conditions which are explicit in that section, and which amount to the following (two conditions, relating to political groups and executive arrangements, do not apply to the Corporation’s circumstances):
93 Minutes of the Court of Common Council, 5th March 2020, Minute 24. 94 S.I., 2012. No. 1464.
Page 46 85
without the dispensation the number of Members affected would make up so great a proportion of the whole that the transaction of business would be impeded;
that the dispensation would be in the interests of persons living in the authority’s area; and
(a catch-all) “that it is otherwise appropriate to grant a dispensation”.
Section 33 says that a dispensation may not be given for a period longer than four years. A dispensation may be in respect of speaking or voting, or both.
409. The issue at the centre of contention was whether the Corporation could give “blanket” or “open-ended” dispensations up to, or preferably for the whole of, the maximum of four years allowed by the Act. In December 2019 the City Solicitor took advice from Leading Counsel (Philip Kolvin QC) as to the lawfulness of open- ended dispensations.
410. In his Opinion Mr Kolvin advised that such dispensations would be unlawful, The two principal grounds of his advice were, first, that they would be too wide, taking in everything relevant to a DPI except (in the terms of the applications at issue) something which affected the Member concerned in a unique way; and second, that the authority could grant a dispensation only “having had regard to all relevant circumstances”. It would not be possible to grant a blanket dispensation of up to four years because there was no way of predicting those circumstances.
411. Mr Kolvin identified five other difficulties with the open- ended approach, but also offered a possible compromise policy. I respectfully agree with Mr Kolvin. I do not believe that by any stretch of statutory construction he could have come to any other conclusion.
412. The events which followed were no more edifying than those which preceded Mr Kolvin’s advice. It was alleged that the City Solicitor had given partial Instructions to Counsel, and that this had resulted in partial and incorrect advice. This resulted in a tart rejoinder from Mr Kolvin in his Supplementary Advice. On 24th
Page 47 86
January 2020, after a somewhat confused debate, the Standards Committee voted to accept Mr Kolvin’s substantive Opinion.
413. On 18th June 2020 the Court of Common Council considered the standards regime on the basis of a Motion moved by Marianne Fredericks “to address the longstanding concerns of Members in relation to the current Standards Regime”. Following the approval of an amendment to the Motion, the Court resolved: “That this Honourable Court resolves that the Motion to convene a Working Party chaired by the Chief Commoner to report to the Court as soon as practicable on how proceedings for breaches of the Code of Conduct may be conducted be referred to Lord Lisvane for full and comprehensive incorporation into the Governance Review.”95
414. I trust that this Part of my Report demonstrates that I have taken the view of the Court expressed through this Resolution fully into account.
Where does the Corporation stand now? 415. I think that there would be widespread agreement that on conduct matters the events of the last five years have been regrettable. They have also been potentially damaging to the Corporation’s reputation. An authority of the stature of the City of London Corporation, seeking to present itself as a champion of the highest standards, simply cannot afford to continue in this way.
The way forward: principles 416. Above all, the Corporation must set itself to maintain and support the promotion of those highest standards, and its Members need to be fully engaged in this endeavour.
417. Experience so far shows that Members cannot (and, in my view, should not) pass judgement upon their colleagues.96I note that, in the consideration of the Motion on 18th June, the words “without Members sitting in judgement on each other” were removed, on the basis that “a jury of peers could well offer the best protection to Member complaints being dealt with fairly, notwithstanding the challenges for Members involved”.97
95 Minutes of the Court of Common Council, 18th June 2020, Minute 11. 96 I cannot resist a quotation from Sellers and Yeatman, 1066 And All That, speaking of the provisions of Magna Carta (no doubt Clause 21): “No baron should be tried, except by a special jury of other barons who would understand”. For the avoidance of doubt, I think that it was intended to be satirical. 97 Minutes of the Court of Common Council, 18th June 2020, Minute 11.
Page 48 87
418. It will be clear from this Report that I strongly disagree with that view; and I judge that, increasingly, it does not have public credibility.
419. A fair but exacting process must be available to deal with complaints against Members, whether those come from other Members, Officers, or members of the public.
420. Consistent with the principles of natural justice, decision- making processes should be as open and transparent as possible, not least so that constituents can be properly informed when holding Members to account.
421. As the Bourne Report pointed out 98 , there is a role for conciliation, drawing upon the skills both of the Monitoring Officer and the Chief Commoner, and no doubt others. But I echo Charles Bourne’s caution against relying too much upon informal resolution. If a complaint is prima facie sufficiently serious, then informal resolution may not be appropriate and indeed may be reputationally hazardous.
The way forward: practicalities 422. It is clear that the Standards Committee approach has failed and that it cannot realistically be revived.
423. Although I have been told that the “outsourcing” of the Standards process is not possible, I disagree. The 2011 Act no longer requires that a relevant authority should have a Standards Committee, merely that “arrangements” should be in place. Those arrangements must include the appointment of at least [my italics] one independent person.99
424. It is therefore the case that an authority may decide to have arrangements which are almost entirely in the hands of independent persons.
425. I therefore recommend that the Corporation should set up an Independent Panel composed only of independent persons, and charge that Panel with:
98 Paragraph 98. 99 Section 28(7).
Page 49 88
receiving allegations of misconduct referred to it by the Monitoring Officer;
deciding whether any allegation should be investigated;
on the basis of the allegation, determining whether there has been a breach of the code of Conduct;
reporting that determination, together with a full report of the facts, to the Court for endorsement;100
hearing any appeal (the appeal function will of course need to be separated rigorously from the assessment and determination function)
after determination, and appeal if necessary, recommending an appropriate sanction, giving reasons as necessary.
426. The Localism Act 2011 places on the authority the responsibility deciding whether there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct, and of taking action following a finding of a breach.101These are therefore not functions which may be delegated to a Panel of the sort that I have recommended.
427. But it will be essential to avoid the replaying of a case in the way that occurred in March 2020. This would be especially so if the upheld complaint were to be from an Officer (who would not have the opportunity of defence in a debate) against a Member (who would).
428. I therefore recommend a Standing Order provision which would require the Panel’s
determination that a breach had occurred; and
recommended sanction
100 Under Section 28(11) of the Localism Act 2011. 101 Section 28(11).
Page 50 89
to be decided without debate (and a further provision which would make it difficult or impossible for such a Standing Order to be dispensed with).
429. The Panel should review the current Codes of Conduct and guidance, in consultation with the Governance and Nominations Committee, and develop its own Rules of Procedure, for communication to (but not for approval by) the Court of Common Council.
430. The Independent Members102 of the Panel should be recruited in the same way as the co-opted members of the Standards Committee have been. Judicial or other legal experience should not be a necessary qualification, but independence, authority, judgement, skill in analysing and assessing evidence, and experience at a fairly high level in the public or private sectors, will be required.
431. I think that it may be necessary to have about eight Members of the Panel, to provide Members to constitute Hearing Panels and Appeal Panels, and to provide a degree of collegiate approach and mutual support. Members of the Panel should be paid an appropriate daily rate. It will be for the Corporation to decide whether the present co-opted members of the Standards Committee should, if they are willing, become Independent Members of the Panel, or whether there should be a clean break and a new recruitment from scratch.
432. The terms of appointment will need to be staggered to avoid the need for substantial replacement of the Panel, and loss of embodied experience, at any one time. A base term of appointment might be four years, with reappointment for one further term.
433. I do not offer a draft Standing Order at this stage, but will provide one if the Corporation wishes it.
434. Indemnity and insurance will be required, as agreed by the Court for the current co-opted Members.103
435. Until the Independent Panel has been recruited and is ready to begin its work, the present arrangements should remain in place.
102 The Localism Act uses the term “independent person”. In the context of the Panel I have used the term “Independent Member”. Section 28(8)(c) of the Localism Act makes provision for the method of appointment. 103 See Minutes of the Court of Common Council, 5th December 2019.
Page 51 90
Thereafter, the Standards Committee should be abolished, and with it the Standards Appeals Committee.
436. I realise that these new arrangements may be unwelcome or uncomfortable for some, but I would observe that the Corporation had the opportunity to get this right, and failed to do so.
437. If my recommendation for the abolition of the Barbican Residential Committee is accepted, I suspect that the cause of at least some of the difficulties experienced over the last few years will be removed.104 It may also be that the restrictions imposed by section 618 of the Housing Act 1985105 will for the same reason become less irksome.
Other issues
The Register of Interests 438. At the moment, the registrable interests of an individual Member may be seen by going to that Member’s page on the website. So far as the Corporation as a whole is concerned, I do not think that provides adequate transparency. The whole of the Register of Interests should be available on dedicated pages on the website. This will, for example, allow easy visibility of whether an interest relevant to a particular function of the Corporation is shared by a number of Members.
439. The current practice also appears to be in contravention of section 29 of the Localism Act 2011, which requires that the authority’s register “is published on the authority’s website”. I take this to mean that the register is accessible in its entirety, not that excerpts from it are attached to individual pages.
Training on standards and conduct matters 440. The Bourne Report said that “In my view the City’s Code, or its arrangements in general, would be materially improved by requiring Members to attend such training on conduct and standards matters as the City may provide from time to time…It would be
104 See also SO 44. 105 “…no person shall vote as a member of that [Common] Council, or any such committee [charged with any purpose of the 1985 Act or the Housing Associations Act 1985] on a resolution or question which is proposed or arises in pursuance of this Act or the Housing Associations Act 1985 and relates to land in which he is beneficially interested” (s618(3)).
Page 52 91
appropriate to require attendance as a condition for serving on committees” .106
441. This recommendation was unfortunately not accepted, and I repeat it now. Training on standards and conduct matters should be mandatory, and without which no Member should be appointed to a Committee. Charles Bourne QC observed “standards in public office and attitudes to equality and diversity do not stand still but instead continuously evolve, and those elected to public office should be leaders rather than followers in this process”.107 I agree.
442. Apart from being a sensible precaution to protect the Corporation from criticism, I doubt whether in the absence of such a requirement the Corporation could meet – certainly the spirit, but possibly also in full the formal provision – of section 27(1) of the Localism Act 2011, which requires a relevant authority to promote and maintain high standards of conduct. To reject mandatory training would seem to fall short of the requirement to promote high standards of conduct.
Member/Officer relations 443. The Corporation has a Protocol on Member/Officer Relations, which forms part of the Code of Corporate Governance. This needs to be read in parallel with the Code of Conduct applying to Members.
444. It is essential that Officers at any level are able to raise matters relating to the conduct of other Officers (for which there are separate provisions) or to the conduct of Members towards them. And it should be borne in mind that this is a relationship which is not under the sole control of the Corporation. A serious case may end up in an Employment Tribunal, with all the reputational risks involved.
445. It should not need saying that a mutually respectful relationship between Members and Officers is essential to the Corporation’s success and reputation, and to the retention of the staff who are an asset to the institution.
446. I note that SO 64 (6) (Disciplinary Action) envisages the involvement of Independent Members of the Standards Committee
106 Bourne Report, paragraph 52. 107 ibid.
Page 53 92
on a Statutory Officer Review Panel. This is a statutorily required108 role which will fall to Independent Members of the Panel recommended above.
Freemasonry 447. I mention this issue because it has been raised with me a number of times during my Review, both in the context of diversity “there are more Freemasons on the Court than there are women” and in respect of what individuals have seen as “below the radar” collective influences upon Committee appointments, the allocation of Chairs, and other decisions.
448. Freemasonry is a society which has more than 300,000 members, all men, in England and Wales, including some 40,000 in London. Its three key principles are Neighbourly Concern, Charity and Moral Standards (referred to by Masons as Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth). It is a charitable donor on a very large scale all over the country, including support of projects within the Square Mile.
449. I should put beyond any doubt that I make no comment on Freemasonry or its role but, given the views put to me, I think it helpful to comment upon issues of transparency. The recommendations that I make on recorded votes, and on the availability of a full Register of Interests as a single document on the website, will contribute to that transparency.
450. So far as the use of Guildhall facilities (also raised with me) is concerned, I take it that Masonic gatherings are on the same basis, and charged on the same basis, as any other gathering of Members for a purpose not directly connected with Corporation business.
108 See The Local Authorities (Standing Orders)(England)(Amendment) Regulations 2015 (S.I., 2015, No. 881), Schedule, paragraph 4.
Page 54
Appendix 2
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Below, against the Standards Committee’s Terms of Reference, is some commentary to highlight its various roles and responsibilities, where necessary, so it is clear where thought as to the reallocation of responsibilities may be required:
To be responsible for:-
(a) promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct by Members and Co-opted Members of the City of London Corporation and to assist Members and Co-opted Members to observe the City of London Corporation’s Code of Conduct;
(b) preparing, keeping under review and monitoring the City of London Corporation’s Member Code of Conduct and making recommendations to the Court of Common Council in respect of the adoption or revision, as appropriate, of such Code of Conduct – the current Code was last approved by the Court on 16 July 2020.
That version can be found HERE. There is no cross-reference within the Code itself to the Complaints procedure. Lisvane recommends a role for the Governance & Nominations Committee.
keeping under review, monitoring and revising as appropriate the City of London (c) Corporation’s Guidance to Members on the Code of Conduct and the complaints procedure and relevant paperwork, reporting any changes on these documents to the Court of Common Council in the Committee’s annual report. – last approved by the Court on 8 March 2018. The document can be found HERE. Again, no explicit reference to the Complaints Procedure here, although it does reference the Officer/Member Protocol – para 37 onwards.
(d) keeping under review by way of an annual update by the Director of HR, the City of London Corporation’s Employee Code of Conduct and, in relation to any revisions, making recommendations to the Establishment Committee – essentially this is an annual report from HR to the Standards Committee and any issues they have are ultimately passed to Establishment for consideration and approval if they see fit.
(e) keeping under review and monitoring the Protocol on Member/Officer Relations and, in relation to any revisions, making recommendations to the Establishment Committee- again, this is an annual report from HR to the Standards Committee and any issues they have are ultimately passed to Establishment
for consideration and approval if they see fit.
(f) advising and training Members and Co-opted Members on matters relating to the City of London Corporation’s Code of Conduct – this is provided by the Comptroller & City Solicitor as Monitoring Officer. He undertakes training open to all Members periodically and training is also offered to all as part of the induction programmes we run after all out elections. Members of the
Page 55 Standards Committee receive more in-depth training around the handling of Complaints, etc.
(g) monitoring all allegations referred to it and dealing with assessment of and any hearing into any allegations of breach of the City of London Corporation’s Code of Conduct in respect of Members and Co-opted Members, and in particular – this is governed by the Complaints Procedure which has been in force since 19 July
2018 and can be found HERE .
(i) to determine whether any allegation should be investigated by or on behalf of the Town Clerk or the Monitoring Officer and their findings reported to the Committee – this is currently done via an Assessment Sub-Committee which is drawn from the membership of the Standards Committee as and when required.
(ii) in relation to any allegation that it has decided to investigate, to determine whether there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct, taking into account the views of an Independent Person appointed under the Localism Act 2011 – this is currently done via a Hearing Sub-Committee which is also drawn from the membership of the Standards Committee.
(iii) where there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct, to determine the appropriate sanction, and where this involves removal of a Member or Co-opted Member from any committee or sub-committee, to make an appropriate recommendation to the relevant appointing body – this is also the job of the Hearing Sub-Committee at present.
(h) dealing with/determining applications for Dispensation – this process is currently managed via a Dispensations Sub-Committee; however, the authority to decide applications for certain types of straightforward dispensations has been delegated to the Town Clerk – the Dispensations Policy/Guidance can be found HERE and has been in operation since January 2020. Mention of Section 618 and the limitations this poses can be found at paras 20 and 21.
(i) To prepare an annual report on its activity for submission to the Court of Common Council.
Page 56 Appendix 3
Resolution of the Court of Common Council relating to Standards / Governance Review 8 October 2020
Resolved – That this Honourable Court resolves that the Resource Allocation Sub- Committee begins the consideration of the recommendations made in Part 8 of Lord Lisvane’s Report by presenting a detailed report on a new standards regime to the Policy and Resources Committee which then presents a detailed report on that regime to the Court at its meeting in January 2021, with a view to the regime’s system for handling complaints being implemented by the end of March 2021 at the latest.
Page 57 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 58 Appendix 4a
Governance Review: Member Engagement Sessions Standards: Session 1 28 October 2020
Notes of Discussion
Present
Sheriff Christopher Hayward (in the Chair) Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark Caroline Addy Vivienne Littlechild Randall Anderson Oliver Lodge Doug Barrow Deputy Edward Lord Deputy Roger Chadwick Andy Mayer Henry Colthurst Deputy Catherine McGuinness Graeme Doshi-Smith Wendy Mead Helen Fentimen Deputy Brian Mooney John Fletcher Susan Pearson Marianne Fredericks Jeremy Simons Michael Hudson James Tumbridge Ann Holmes Alderman Sir David Wootton Alderman Alison Gowman Alderman Sir Alan Yarrow
Introduction Sheriff Hayward, in the Chair, thanked Members for joining today’s session. He noted that the Governance Review would affect all aspects of the City Corporation’s governance and all Members as a consequence; it was, therefore, imperative that any implementation reflected the view of the Court, and that all Members had the opportunity to feed in their views on particular elements. These informal engagement sessions were the first part of that process.
He emphasised that the purpose of today’s session was not to make decisions and that there were no preconceptions heading into these sessions, which were all about listening and ensuring that the views of Members on particular issues were known before any formal stage of considerations.
To that end, a short factual summary paper had been circulated, together with the relevant extract of the Review itself, to try and help focus discussion.
Prior to debating the recommendations set out by Lord Lisvane, two Members spoke to raise general observations on the background details referred to in the Review: • In respect of paragraph 402, a Member challenged Lisvane’s assessment of the Court coming to a differing conclusion as a weakness, arguing that the stages of deliberation through the committee system strengthened the level of scrutiny and meant that it was perfectly proper for different conclusions to be reached. In that vein, it was suggested that it should be seen as a
Page 59 strength that the Court reached its own views, as it demonstrated it was not simply a “rubber stamp”. • Another Member took the opportunity to clarify that a jury of peers did not necessarily mean other Members but, rather, a collection of normal people. Consequently, independent persons should be considered to be peers and they suggested that, in considering potential proposals, Members should not fixate on the misassumption that only Members were able to perform that function.
Recommendations: Members’ Comments and Observations Members then proceeded to debate the various recommendations.
Paragraphs 416-437: Creation of an Independent Panel to consider Complaints and the Abolition of the Standards and Standards Appeals Committee • Several Members spoke in support of Lisvane’s recommendations as they stood, suggesting that almost wholesale adoption of the proposals in this area would be wise. However, a number took issue with particular elements or proposals therein.
Panel Composition • A Member suggested the Panel should be comprised of 9 independents with staggered 3-year terms, to allow for different panels to be drawn and a balance between continuity and change. Other Members spoke in support of such a Panel size and utilising staggered terms. • It was, however, observed that the Lisvane proposal would mean the same group of individuals dealt with both hearings and appeals, with it noted that full consideration as to the size of the Panel was, therefore, important to avoid logistical issues and potential conflicts. • One particular point of consideration, which Lisvane did not offer a conclusion on, was whether those current independent or co-opted members of the Standards Committee should serve on any new Panel (ref: paragraph 431). • A Member suggested that no precipitate decisions should be taken in respect of the replacement of incumbent independent Members, with it observed that some were very recent appointments of a high calibre, and that there might be difficulty in finding new candidates of the same quality. It was suggested that keeping them on the basis of an interim arrangement might be prudent, as beginning quickly with a complete tabula rasa might have the unintended effect of undermining any new process before it began. • Several Members disagreed with this position noting that, notwithstanding the calibre or history of specific individuals, there was a clear issue with credibility and confidence in the current regime. As a result, they felt it was vital to begin with an entirely fresh start, with new individuals as well as a
Page 60 new process, in order to repair Members’ confidence in the processes as well as the City Corporation’s reputation in this area. • Reservations were expressed about the relationship of the independent Panel to the proposed Governance & Nominations Committee, with it suggested that the dynamic between the two bodies would need to be explored and assurances provided. Should it not be used, then thought would need to be given to an alternative appointment / recruitment mechanism for independent Members.
Support for Members and the relative merits of an external Panel • A Member expressed significant concern that, should one have the misfortune of being falsely accused of something, the current system was inequitable towards the Member defending themselves. Lord Lisvane’s proposals did not resolve these issues. It was observed that, whilst officers might have access to internal legal support, it was incumbent upon the Member to manage their own defence with no such assistance. Consequently, the value of a jury of peers formed of other Members, who had context and greater familiarity with matters, allowed for the final judgment to be made more in the round and by those who could appreciate the wider perspective. Accordingly, they felt that the proposals at paragraph 425 were insufficient, as they did not take this into account and meant that a Member without the legal background or support to articulate their defence adequately was at a significant disadvantage. • Several Members echoed the importance of providing some sort of assistance or legal support to Members if needed, stressing the importance of equality of representation for both sides in any hearing. A Member added that there should be no misassumption that “equality of arms” could be achieved simply through Member representation on any Panel and, accordingly, legal support would be vital. • Reflecting on the use of a fully external Independent Panel to hear complaints cases, a Member expressed the view that this effectively constituted a form of outsourcing, cautioning that whilst one might be able to outsource the work one could never outsource responsibility. Reference was made to other areas of outsourcing within the City Corporation where problems had arisen due to a failure to manage contracts or relationships properly, with it feared that a similar situation could arise here. • It was also suggested that a fully independent Panel would not recognise the unique nature and context of the City Corporation, nor the different and collaborative way in which it operated, and so come to flawed conclusions. However, another Member suggested that seeking an independent and objective view from outside the Corporation “bubble” was even more important in this context, as Members were untrained and too close to each other to take decisions comfortably or entirely impartially.
Page 61 • A Member also commented that fairness and justice was not achieved by hiving off responsibility. • Other Members articulated their firm belief that the fundamental premise of Members not judging Members should be held paramount, reflecting on the issues that had occurred in recent times. • Particular reference was made to individual Members’ experiences and the extremely distressing circumstances that the current processes, where fellow Members sat in judgment on others, had caused. It was observed that continued working relationships with fellow Members were inevitably strained after this process which was not conducive to collegiate working, quite aside from the emotional and mental trauma caused by the process, which a Member referred to as one of the most unpleasant experiences of their life. • Clarity was sought as to how Member acceptance of decisions made by any Panel would be managed, particularly where Members felt that the outcome reached had been decidedly unfair or lacking context. • A suggestion was made that having an independent Panel to deal with the middle stage of investigation (i.e. the hearing stage), whilst reserving the appeal stage for a Member body, could provide a way to remove the difficulties associated with the process at that point, whilst also addressing concerns around ensuring that questionable outcomes could be revisited with the benefit of context. Several Members expressed support for this as part of a three-stage process (beginning with informal resolution).
Informal Resolution Processes • With reference to the potential for informal resolution of issues, a Member highlighted the importance of providing appropriate training for the Chief Commoner in managing such items, and also for the introduction of a protocol to inform any hearing panel that informal discussions had taken place. • The suggestion of a protocol for the Chief Commoner to operate under when dealing with misconduct matters through the informal resolution process, to provide them with guidance, was also made. • Supporting these points, a Member added that the Panel should also have ability to refer complaints back to the Chief Commoner for informal resolution, noting previous examples of relatively trivial matters that had been before the Standards Committee which would have been dealt with more appropriately on an informal basis. • The value and importance of an apology in some instances should not be underplayed, as there were occasions when a marker indicating and accepting fault in a direct fashion would be beneficial an achieving a satisfactory resolution.
Page 62 • Commenting on the wider issues with the Standards regime, a Member observed that the large number of formal processes, procedures and protocols could be a factor in causing confusion. Including an option for informal resolution before engaging these would be beneficial and consistent with some of the comments made by Charles Bourne QC during his previous review. • A Member cautioned that a “one size fits all” approach would not work, as it would not be appropriate to require all matters to go for informal resolution as a starting point, observing that there would inevitably be some issues so serious as to make this wholly inappropriate. Therefore, they did not support the suggestion that all complaints be required to go to informal resolution first. It was suggested that some sort of threshold could be established in respect of this. • The view was expressed that part of the problem to-date was the type of cases being referred to Standards, with it argued that the quasi-legal procedure felt heavy-handed in cases of a more minor nature which could have been resolved through informal measures. Setting out criteria for escalation to the Panel or resolution through informal measures would be helpful in avoiding this. • Other Members also spoke in support of strengthening the informal aspect of the process, with it observed that it was almost always readily apparent when items should go directly to a Panel and, equally, where there were items that should never proceed to that level. It was noted that the current arrangements did not allow for a complaint to be rejected or sent for informal resolution first, and it was argued that there should be some ability whereby the Panel could insist upon an informal resolution being sought, or to decline to consider trivial matters. • Whilst noting that whether to have an informal process and what form it should take was up to the Court, a Member commented that the right to make a formal complaint was a legal right and that any future system would need to be mindful of legal constraints.
Sanctions and Panel Outcomes • It was suggested that a mechanism should be introduced to allow for the independent panel to remove a person from committee directly, rather than relying on the Court for the imposition of sanction without debate, with the prospect of requiring the Court to act as a rubber-stamp felt by several Members to be both unpalatable and unrealistic. • Should it be the case that the Court must make the final decision and there was no legally valid alternative, then some Members agreed with the recommendation that any Panel recommendations should be unamendable. Others maintained that this was neither appropriate, with view to the Court’s
Page 63 sovereignty and the valuable role of additional scrutiny, nor enforceable, given the practical inability to prevent debate. • Referencing paragraph 426, a Member queried the assertion that certain items could not be delegated to a Panel and so had to come to Court. Absolute clarity would be helpful in this regard. • A Member suggested that asking the Court to ratify or approve sanctions would negate the notion of the Panel’s independence. • It was commented that the Court’s responsibility was to ensure a robust and effective process, not necessarily to directly make the decisions made within the framework set out. • A Member expressed significant concern as to the potential for any sanction that might remove a Member from a committee unless their transgression directly affected the work or responsibilities of that committee; to do otherwise interfered with Members’ ability to represent those who had voted for them.
Abolition of the Standards Committee • There was a broad consensus that the Standards and Standards Appeals Committees should be abolished. • However, a Member expressed concern around timing and any proposal to abolish the Standards Committee at this particular point in time, ahead of wider consideration around committee structures, in view of the many other areas of activity beyond complaints which it was responsible for. Until the balance of recommendations relating to the wider committee structure were considered, it was suggested it would be prudent to leave it in place to continue oversight of those other items in the interim. • Other Members also stressed the importance of thinking carefully about where those other areas of responsibility sat and that they should not be forgotten. The importance of the link between the complaints process and the Members’ Code of Conduct was highlighted as a particularly crucial matter, with it argued that this must remain in the hands of elected Members and not outsourced, with it observed that the values and codes to which Members signed up should be for them to decide. If these were not determined by Members, then it would risk losing buy-in in respect of the standards set out in any Code to which those Members should conform. This had implications for when and how the Standards Committee was abolished. • A Member argued that the Standards Committee no longer retained any credibility and that the changes proposed in the Review provided an opportunity to repair some of the reputational damage to the Corporation. Consequently, the best approach might be to abolish the Committee and make a clean break with entirely new individuals on a new Panel.
Page 64 • A suggestion was made that, prior to its abolition, the last act of the Standards Committee should be to revise the Code of Conduct. This would be with a view to addressing issues where there was broad agreement, such as putting teeth around the prospect of referral of complaints to an informal process first, with a mechanism utilising the reasonable judgement of the Chief Commoner to allow for serious items (clearly beyond the remit of an informal resolution) to be referred to the formal process. • A Member urged pace in implementing change, arguing that there was no need to wait for a decision in respect of any prospective Governance & Nominations Committee as any relevant decisions could be incorporated later in the process.
Paragraphs 404-414: Dispensations • A Member expressed concern that the current system did not include an opportunity to review dispensations during their period of application, so as to ensure that they remained relevant and appropriate. It was suggested that dispensation should be made for a shorter period, say one year, and / or with a designated review period, to ensure appropriate scrutiny.
Paragraphs 440-442: Training • A Member expressed concern at the proposition that training should be made mandatory in order to serve on any committee, other than where required by statute, with it argued that barring any fairly-elected Member from service to committees was undemocratic. Therefore, whilst training was important and should be made freely available, it should not be obligatory. Any decision by individual Members not to undertake training would doubtless prove a factor in assessing cases should any issues arise, in any case. • Another Member spoke to support this view strongly, observing that the electorate returned Members to represent them, not to undertake training, and barring Members from undertaking their representational role effectively was inappropriate.
Close Sheriff Hayward thanked Members for their many contributions, adding that any additional points Members wished to make by email following the meeting would be welcomed.
Additional Comments received after the meeting Following the meeting, the following additional comments / points of clarification were submitted by Members who had been in attendance:
Page 65 • One Member expressed their support for all the recommendations put forward by Lord Lisvane as they stood. • Another Member, noting the proposed role of a possible Governance & Nominations Committee in the new Standards process, highlighted that thought would need to be given to alternatives should the creation of such a committee not be approved. Their inclination was to favour the Establishment Committee in such a circumstance, for reasons of HR expertise and so on. • It was felt that it would be inappropriate and impractical for dispensations to be handled by an external panel. Unlike complaints, these applications often needed to be handled at short notice, and it would be a significant logistical challenge to get a panel together in a timely manner. • Regardless of which committee took on responsibility for dispensations, it was ventured that it would be wise to have a Dispensations Sub-Committee to look after that area. In order to ensure likely availability of Members, a minimum of nine members was suggested, to enable meetings of three. In addition, it was suggested the membership be drawn equally from Planning & Transportation, Licensing, and Community & Children’s Services, as these were the bodies from which the majority of applications arose. • The question of who would select the members of any Independent Panel and on what criteria merited serious attention. • A Member expressed their support of calls for simplified procedures for less serious matters of complaint but added that the detail needed careful thought. • In response to a specific query as to the responsibility for determining complaints, the Comptroller had advised that this was a local authority function and could only be dealt with by the Court, or an appropriately authorised committee/sub-committee, officer, or another local authority. Thus, whilst any final decision could not be left to the Panel to take, it did not necessarily have to be taken by the Court. • In response to a further specific query as to informal resolutions, it was noted that steps could be taken at the beginning of the process to empower the Assessment Committee to encourage/require informal resolution.
Page 66 Appendix 4b
Governance Review: Member Engagement Sessions Standards: Session 2 12 November 2020
Notes of Discussion
Present
Sheriff Christopher Hayward (in the Chair) Shravan Joshi Caroline Addy Alderwoman Susan Langley Peter Bennett Deputy Edward Lord Mark Bostock Alderman Ian Luder Deputy Keith Bottomley Alderman & Sheriff Prof. Michael Mainelli Deputy David Bradshaw Paul Martinelli Deputy Michael Cassidy Jeremy Mayhew John Chapman Deputy Catherine McGuinness Dominic Christian Deputy Brian Mooney Mary Durcan Ben Murphy Sophie Fernandes Graham Packham Marianne Fredericks Alderman Sir Andrew Parmley Tracey Graham James de Sausmarez Alderman David Graves John Scott Alderman Tim Hailes Alderman Sir David Wootton Graeme Harrower Dawn Wright Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark
Introduction Sheriff Hayward, in the Chair, thanked Members for joining today’s session. He noted that the Governance Review would affect all aspects of the City Corporation’s governance and all Members as a consequence; it was, therefore, imperative that any implementation reflected the view of the Court, and that all Members had the opportunity to feed in their views on particular elements. These informal engagement sessions were the first part of that process.
He emphasised that the purpose of today’s session was not to make decisions and that there were no preconceptions heading into these sessions, which were all about listening and ensuring that the views of Members on particular issues were known before any formal stage of considerations.
To that end, a short factual summary paper had been circulated, together with the relevant extract of the Review itself, to try and help focus discussion.
Recommendations: Members’ Comments and Observations Members then proceeded to debate the various recommendations.
Page 67 Paragraphs 416-437: Creation of an Independent Panel to consider Complaints and the Abolition of the Standards and Standards Appeals Committee
Panel Composition • Noting that the Code of Conduct was currently enforced through a system requiring Members sitting in judgment on each other, it was observed that such an arrangement would not comply with accepted principles around trial by jury in legal proceedings, whereby a person was not eligible to sit on a jury if they knew the defendant. Consequently, it was unable to satisfy accepted requirements for a fair hearing and thus Lisvane’s recommendations for an independent panel should be adopted to remove the unfairness inherent in the current system. • There was a broad consensus that a new Panel, with an entirely new and independent membership, would be preferable in order to give confidence in a new system, given the involvement of existing co-optees and independent persons in the current regime. • An argument was advance that all new panellists should be entirely independent of the City and that, further, they should ideally be retired judges. Appointing individuals of such calibre and repute, with a long- established history of acting impartially, would have the effect of giving great confidence in the system. It would also offset any Member temptation to overturn the Panel’s recommendations when put to the Court for ratification, preventing the reintroduction of Member on Member judgement at the latter stage. The payment of a fixed retainer fee was proposed, to ensure a high calibre of panellist. • Other Members suggested that that limiting the Panel to judges would not be prudent, suggesting that a full Panel of judges with no connection to the City would be difficult to recruit to and that sufficient numbers were necessary to ensure a panel could always be formed. The importance of a diverse Panel representative of the City was also noted and that there should be sufficient flexibility to ensure this. In addition, it was also argued that other candidates with appropriate background, such as magistrates or those with experience of other tribunal or arbitration processes, should also be considered. • The recruitment process for a new Panel was queried, particularly given uncertainty around any future Governance & Nominations Committee and the timescales in which it was hoped a new Standards regime could be swiftly established. It was suggested that the recruitment could be conducted via open advert, with an interview panel representative of the Court (for instance, 1 senior and 1 junior Alderman, 1 Commoner with under 5 years’ service, 1 with under 10 years’ service, 1 with over 10 years’ service and 1 other commoner, with a contingent of the membership being either residents or members for residential wards). • Whilst supportive of the general director of travel, a Member cautioned that there was still lots of detail to be worked through and that care should be taken in doing so. Clarification was also sought as to whether the Monitoring
Page 68 Officer would be responsible for producing reports to the Independent Panel in the first instance.
Informal Resolution Processes • The importance of an initial “lighter-touch” informal conversation in the first instance was advocated, where transgressions were of a less serious nature. Given the nature of the Court as a small collegiate body, such discussions could be very productive in eliminating misbehaviour early on and achieving swift resolutions. • A Member observed that this sort of light-tough regulation was out of step with the national position and accepted best practice, adding that new legislation in relation to this matter may also close off this avenue somewhat in the coming period. The inconsistencies around avoiding “Member on Member judgment” whilst also empowering the Chief Commoner to adjudicate in an informal process was also highlighted, although another Member disputed this assessment, arguing that the Chief Commoner was not making judgment in the informal instance as there was no power of sanction. • It was commented that a one-size fits all approach would not be appropriate, particularly where there were complaints from non-Members where it would be important to ensure they had confidence in relation to the route of resolution for their complaint. Flexibility would be important as a result, although seeking to deal with many matters via an informal route first and where appropriate would be optimal.
Sanctions and Panel Outcomes • Following a point of clarification at the previous engagement session, it was advised that the responsibility for determining complaints was a local authority function and could only be dealt with by the Court, or an appropriately authorised committee/sub-committee, officer, or another local authority. Thus, whilst any final decision could not be left to the Panel to take, it did not necessarily have to be taken by the Court. • It was cautioned that Members must recognise the parameters and statutory constraints that would apply to any Standards regime the Court decided to put in place, with it noted that there had previously been situations where Members were disputing matters that it was simply not open to the Corporation to change. • Several Members expressed the firm view that a repeat of previous Court debates on any recommendations would be highly undesirable and should be avoided, either through approval without debate or some other appropriate mechanism. It was also argued that not overturning any recommended sanctions was vital to protecting the integrity of any independent regime. • A Member expressed the view that “outsourcing” sanction decisions around democratically appointed representatives to non-elected individuals felt
Page 69 wrong on principle, contending that the final decision must surely remain with elected Members. • In relation to the possibility of asking another local authority to take on a role in the process, a Member observed that any authority would be unlikely to agree to be the decision-maker, suggesting instead that an agreement on a pan-London basis, to create a joint committee across the 33 authorities to determine standards and ethics complaints, might be worth pursuing. • It was asked whether thought should be given to a sanction of recall, noting that Members were ultimately responsible to their electorate and so it could be put to the voters to determine. A Member argued strongly against such a proposal, suggesting it was draconian and that any matter of sufficiently serious a nature to warrant this would likely be a matter for police investigation and judicial consideration in any event, although it was added that perhaps this could be appropriate if any suspended sentence was passed down.
Abolition of the Standards Committee • There was a consensus that the Standards Committee should be abolished; however, it was observed that there were many other areas of activity beyond complaints which Standards was responsible for, and which consideration would need to be given in respect of future ownership arrangements. • A Member argued that these residual functions could be quickly and easily transferred to another committee, which could in turn either retain them or transfer them to another committee under any new structure. • Several Members spoke to urge the abolition of the Standards Committee by the end of March 2021, suggesting it would be an important symbolic act and help restore faith in the process, particularly amongst residents. • The efforts of those serving on the Standards Committee now and previously were noted, with Members expressing gratitude for their attempts to make the system work and reflecting on the unfortunate tone and personalised criticism which had arisen in the past. It would be important to avoid such an occurrence in future and for all Members to treat the new process and participants with respect.
Paragraphs 404-414: Dispensations • A Member observed that the issue of dispensations was not typically a problematic one for other local authorities, arguing that the excessively rigid approach taken in previous years had been the source of much issue. As much of that previous policy had now been unravelled, they suggested that it be replaced with a new system of granting dispensations as broadly as possible, with applications for dispensations which are still needed to be considered by one of the Independent Panellists (ideally a retired judge).
Page 70 • The ongoing uncertainties relating to s618 of the Housing Act 1985 were referenced, with it noted that progress had been limited in seeking the repeal of this section due to COVID-19 and Brexit.
Paragraph 438: Register of Interests • Several Members spoke to support the recommendations in paragraph 438, advocating the importance of transparency.
Paragraphs 440-442: Training • A Member expressed the strong view that the lack of mandatory training was both unusual and potentially embarrassing for the City Corporation, suggesting that modules on unconscious bias, standards and conduct, should be in place by April 2021 and without undertaking which a Member should be ineligible from service on Committees. • A recent issue concerning failures to correctly record Related Party Transactions was highlighted as an example of where insufficient understanding of issues by some could lead to significant reputational difficulties for the City Corporation, with it argued that appropriate mandatory training must be put in place for such items to prevent a repeat of similar instances. • It was also argued that the diversity of Members’ professional and personal backgrounds meant that training on the Nolan Principles and standards of behaviour was an essential piece in ensuring that all Members began their tenure on the Court with the same understanding of expectations around behaviour and conduct. • A Member echoed these comments, noting there were occasions were some may have fallen foul of the rules simply through a lack of awareness. Adequate training was, therefore, vital to mitigate against this possibility and this would, in turn, give greater confidence in the outcomes of any independent judgment process. • The importance of sanctions for non-compliance was highlighted, with it suggested this needed careful consideration. An automatic sanction, perhaps scalable depending on the level of non-compliance, was mooted. The importance of Members discharging their duties as elected Members properly and understanding their role and responsibilities was stressed.
Close Sheriff Hayward thanked Members for their many contributions, adding that any additional points Members wished to make by email following the meeting would be welcomed.
Additional Comments received after the meeting Following the meeting, the following additional comments / points of clarification were submitted by Members who had been in attendance:
Page 71 • A Member supported the creation of a wholly independent panel, formed of as wide a range of people as possible and ideally including JPs and tribunal members, as well as judges and others. • Support for an entirely new membership for the Panel was expressed. • Support was also expressed for an enhanced informal complaints route, with it suggested that had been situations where the heavy hand of the committee seemed to be inappropriate, when a more restrained and sensible discussion would be more appropriate and productive. • It was emphasised that any formal process must be speedy, with it unfair for matters to be drawn out for months or years which could cause significant stress to the Member complained about. • There was support for the abolition of the Standards Committee as soon as was practicable, alongside an expression of gratitude to those Members of the Standards Committee who had tried to do their best in a difficult situation. • It was noted that the issue of sanctions was a very difficult one which would almost inevitably lead to controversy at some stage. Avoiding public debate at Court was desirable, with an openness and transparency to the procedure as the public had a right to know about transgressions. • In respect of the potential for a sanction of recall for the most serious offences there were mixed views, with a suggestion that this should be limited to where a criminal offence was committed.
Page 72 Appendix 4c
Governance Review: Member Engagement Sessions Standards: Session 3 12 November 2020
Notes of Discussion
Present
Sheriff Christopher Hayward (in the Chair) Deputy Catherine McGuinness Randall Anderson Barbara Newman Deputy Michael Cassidy William Pimlott Marianne Fredericks Mark Wheatley Natasha Lloyd-Owen
Introduction Sheriff Hayward, in the Chair, thanked Members for joining this evening’s session. He noted that the Governance Review would affect all aspects of the City Corporation’s governance and all Members as a consequence; it was, therefore, imperative that any implementation reflected the view of the Court, and that all Members had the opportunity to feed in their views on particular elements. These informal engagement sessions were the first part of that process.
He emphasised that the purpose of today’s session was not to make decisions and that there were no preconceptions heading into these sessions, which were all about listening and ensuring that the views of Members on particular issues were known before any formal stage of considerations.
To that end, a short factual summary paper had been circulated, together with the relevant extract of the Review itself, to try and help focus discussion.
Recommendations: Members’ Comments and Observations Members then proceeded to debate the various recommendations.
Paragraphs 416-437: Creation of an Independent Panel to consider Complaints and the Abolition of the Standards and Standards Appeals Committee • Several Members spoke to commend the Lisvane recommendations, suggesting that Members should not spend significant time agonising over or debating the proposals and should simply seek to adopt and implement them as quickly as possible. • A Member commented that residents would be pleased to note the pace and seriousness with which a new regime was being implemented and urged that this be taken forward as a matter of priority. • The potential to move those matters outside of complaints which were currently within the Standards Committee’s remit to other committees as an interim measure, alongside setting up an Independent Panel to hear
Page 73 complaints, was posited. It was, therefore, unnecessary to delay the abolition of the Standards Committee until any new committee structure had been worked through. • It was suggested that it would be helpful to ensure Members were fully informed as to the detail of the Localism Act, with a Member commenting that it was clear many people did not understand fully what the regulations said and the sanctions that could or could not be applied. • In relation to an enhanced informal aspect of the complaint process, using the Chief Commoner, a Member noted that complainants were sometimes simply hoping for an apology and recognition of a transgression and, consequently, factoring a lower-level resolution process into the formal procedure could be beneficial. • It was also commented that it would be important to not confuse the Chief Commoner’s internal informal role for Members with the separate legally required Standards procedure (in which a new lighter-touch “informal resolution” tier could be incorporated). • With reference to potentially conflicting concerns around Members not judging each other but also not entirely outsourcing the complaints process, a Member suggested that an Independent Panel could consider the substantive complaint but that the Appeals process be reserved for a panel of Members. • With reference to the Panel’s composition, a Member noted that there were two new and highly qualified independent Members who had not been involved in the historic issues around the Committee who it might be prudent to retain. • It was clarified that these two independent Members had been appointed by a panel comprising Chair of Policy & Resources (or their representative), the Chair of the General Purposes Committee of Aldermen, and the Chief Commoner. Such a Panel could be used to recruit an additional cohort of independent Members for a new Panel. • A Member stressed the importance of putting relevant documents, such as the Code of Conduct and Hearing Procedure, into a more user-friendly, plain- English format.
Paragraph 438: Register of Interests • There was strong support for the recommendation to improve the format and visibility of Members’ interests, with it emphasised that an approach of maximum transparency should be pursued and that making this item easily accessible was, therefore, of the utmost importance.
Paragraphs 440-442: Training • A number of Members supported calls for training to be made mandatory, arguing that different methods (e.g. online or recorded sessions) could be utilised to make things to accommodate differing needs. However, there was
Page 74 a range of views as to whether this should be across all areas or limited to service on specific bodies with quasi-judicial or similar functions. • It was observed that training was often mandatory at local authorities, and that it was already mandatory to serve on licensing panels. The suggestion was made that it was in Members’ own interests to ensure they were suitably trained and prepared for undertaking their responsibilities, as training offered protection in many circumstances. • A Member expressed some reservations with regard to enforcement or sanction, noting that in the case of some ward committees in particular it might be difficult to identify candidates willing and able to serve and undertake training (where the ward had only a small number of Members). Other Members countered that this was a matter for the ward and that they might need to explore pairing arrangements in such a circumstance. • The possibility of linking training or sanction to hospitality or the withholding of certain privileges for Members was also mooted. • The point was also made that, should Members be remunerated in due course, it would be unsustainable to refuse mandatory training. • One potential option, for those Members with significant experience on any existing committee, could be to allow them to complete a form expressing their confidence in their existing abilities and make a declaration that training is not required.
Members took the opportunity to raise a number of additional issues relating to the wider Lisvane Review, including the likelihood of various proposals being implemented without amendment, the timing of meetings, and the remuneration of Members. It was noted that these items would be considered at later stages in the process or, in the case of remuneration, through the forthcoming recommendations from the Members’ Financial Assistance Working Party.
Close Sheriff Hayward thanked Members for their participation in the evening’s session and their various contributions.
Page 75 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 76 Agenda Item 6
Committees: Dates: Policy & Resources 10 December 2020 Court of Common Council 14 January 2021 Subject: Public Proposal to establish a Bridge House Estates Committee Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or No capital spending? Report of: For decision The Town Clerk & Chief Executive and The Chief Grants Officer & Director of City Bridge Trust Report Author: Amelia Ehren, Strategic Project Lead (BHE)
Summary
This report seeks Members’ approval (acting collectively for the City Corporation as Trustee for Bridge House Estates [BHE]) to create a dedicated BHE Committee, supported by its own sub-committees, for implementation from April 2021. The report reflects the legal advice received from Bates Wells LLP, a leading charity specialist law firm, highlighting the advantages of a dedicated committee for BHE with cohesive oversight of the charity’s strategic and operational activities. Further, the report notes endorsement for the proposal by Lord Lisvane as part of the Corporate Governance Review. The recommendation to establish a BHE Committee, together with associated corporate governance changes, are considered to be in the best interests of the charity. They support the intended outcome of the BHE Strategic Governance Review, which is to enhance the impact and reach of the charity’s activities for the public benefit and to model good practice, in this case by implementing strong governance arrangements for the charity to underpin legal compliance. In this way the delivery of aims and objectives set out in the charity’s overarching strategy, Bridging London 2020 – 2045, are supported.
Recommendations
Members, acting collectively for the City Corporation as the Trustee for BHE, are recommended to:
i. Create a BHE Committee, which would exercise management and control of the charity, for implementation from April 2021; ii. Constitute the BHE Committee to have the discretion to appoint its own sub- committees; iii. Constitute the BHE Committee in line with charity best practice, which recommends a trustee body of at least five but no more than twelve members; iv. Constitute the BHE Committee to allow for the appointment of external co-opted Members; v. Delegate authority to the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Policy & Resources Committee, to settle the new BHE Committee Terms of Reference to be presented to the Court of Common Council in April in constituting the Court’s Committee’s for the 2021/22 municipal year; and
Page 77 vi. Delegate authority to the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Policy & Resources Committee, to consider and agree other changes to the corporate governance framework (subject to the further concurrence and approval of relevant committees and the Court), and/or to take any other necessary steps, to support the effective implementation of the new BHE Committee from April 2021.
Main Report
Background
1. BHE is currently the 7th largest charity in the UK in terms of asset valuation. The City of London Corporation (City Corporation), acting by the Court of Common Council, is the Trustee – with the administration of BHE being undertaken in accordance with the charity’s various governing documents and the City Corporation’s usual procedures and governance framework.
2. The primary object of BHE is to maintain and support five bridges crossing the River Thames - London Bridge, Blackfriars Bridge, Southwark Bridge, Tower Bridge and Millennium Bridge. A cy-près charity scheme of 1995 permits income surplus to that required for the bridges to be used for broader, and more general, charitable purposes within Greater London (“the ancillary object”). The income surplus is distributed through a policy agreed by the Court of Common Council and notified to the Charity Commission, following considerable consultation with external and internal stakeholders. The current such policy is ‘Bridging Divides’ delivered by City Bridge Trust (CBT), the charity’s “funding arm”.
3. The need to create a BHE Committee has been identified as a key priority of the BHE Strategic Governance Review as being in the best interests of the charity. This Review was established in 2018 to assess how the governance of BHE could be enhanced in order to improve the charity’s impact and reach for the public benefit and to model good practice; as well as to embed effective and efficient governance and decision-making procedures for the charity, to ensure that decisions are taken (or can be clearly demonstrated to have been taken) only in the interests of BHE, and that the City Corporation’s other business (acting in its separate legal capacities) can be properly managed and prevented from affecting (or being perceived to affect) BHE decision-making. With the initiation of the Corporate Governance Review in 2020, led by Lord Lisvane, it was deemed appropriate to progress any potential changes to BHE’s governance in line with the Corporate Governance Review.
4. As part of the BHE Strategic Governance Review, legal advice received from Bates Wells LLP (BW), a leading charity law firm, identified the need to explore changes to the City Corporation’s internal governance arrangements for the better administration of the charity as Trustee, and to ensure the City Corporation meets its specific legal obligations under charity law. The advice clearly stated the advantages of a dedicated committee of the Court of Common Council by consolidating oversight of BHE’s strategic and operational activities (under the auspices of the Court of Common Council). This would ensure that the City Corporation is complying with its particular legal obligations as Trustee in relation
Page 78 to the governance and operation of BHE as a charity, as well as ensuring good governance of BHE in accordance with expected standards in the charity sector.
5. As Trustee of BHE, the City Corporation, acting by the Court of Common Council, has a number of core legal duties in relation to BHE which include duties:
• to (only) promote the charitable purposes of BHE; • to comply with BHE’s governing documents and the law; • to only take decisions which are consistent with BHE’s objects and powers; • to act in good faith and only the best interests of BHE (which includes managing any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in relation to the City Corporation’s other business); • to safeguard and protect the assets of BHE; and • to act with reasonable care and skill when making decisions that affect BHE (also known as the ‘duty of care’).
6. The City Corporation, as Trustee, also has specific legal duties which arise in the context of particular activities, for example, when investing the assets of BHE. In the exercise of its Trustee functions, the City Corporation, acting by the Court of Common Council, must understand and comply with BHE’s governing documents, (which are complex having regard to the ancient nature of the charity and its historic relationship to its Trustee, the City Corporation), and the relevant law. These powers are more limited than the full raft of powers which are available to the City Corporation acting in its own corporate capacity. It is therefore crucial that those who serve on committees (and sub-committees) within the City Corporation’s internal governance structure charged with responsibilities in relation to BHE understand the extent and limits of the City Corporation’s powers in relation to BHE and the particular duties which apply.
Corporate Governance Review
7. In September 2019, the Policy and Resources Committee agreed a comprehensive Governance Review of the City Corporation be undertaken. It was agreed that the review should be undertaken independently and Robert Rogers, The Lord Lisvane, was appointed to conduct the Review. In September 2020, the Policy and Resources Committee received Lord Lisvane’s report titled ‘Corporate Governance of the City of London Corporation, Report of a Review by The Lord Lisvane KCB DL’.
8. Within Lord Lisvane’s report, it is stated that the governance adopted by the City Corporation as Trustee of BHE currently “exhibits all the weakness of charity governance… and represents serious legal and reputational risks”1. As such, Lord Lisvane endorsed the proposal to address these weaknesses in governance by expressing his support for a separate BHE Committee of the Court of Common Council that would exercise principal management and control of BHE. As the City Corporation retains overall Trustee responsibility for the charity, certain key decisions - such as the approval of the Trustee’s Annual Report and Financial
1 Lord Lisvane’s Governance Review Report, 2020. Paragraph 366: Page 76.
Page 79 Statements, the budget or any changes to the charity’s Governing documents or overarching strategies - would continue to be referred to the Court of Common Council. The Court would be responsible for ensuring effective oversight of the BHE Committee as both a legal obligation and as a matter of good charity governance. Lord Lisvane recognised that “this arrangement would remove the complex involvement of multiple committees entirely, and leave the management of the charity in the hands of the BHE Committee.”2 Consistent with good governance, this would allow for clear, properly informed, expedient and independent decision-making in the charity’s best interests, and remove the complexity, delay and risk created by the involvement of multiple committees and the dilution of the charity’s functions.
9. Within Lord Lisvane’s report, it states “the proposal envisages the BHE Committee being supported by five Sub-Committees: Bridge Management; Grants; Finance; Investment; and Audit and Risk”3, with the BHE Committee being a strategic body with the power to constitute and dissolve its own sub-committees. In his report Lord Lisvane has given his unequivocal support to the constitution of a BHE Committee on this basis, although he notes that the number of proposed sub-committees (five) is higher than he would recommend 4 and recommends there be fewer sub- committees. Careful consideration will need to be given to Lord Lisvane’s recommendations in constituting the sub-committees of the BHE Committee so that the structure adopted achieves the desired objectives of proper oversight and supports legal compliance; and further allows the Trustee to have the time and space to explore key issues and reach-well considered decisions on the charity’s administration and management, taken solely in the interests of BHE as it is required to do. Ultimately this will support the charity in better delivering its charitable purposes.
10. Given that Lord Lisvane’s Report contains more than 90 specific recommendations for the City Corporation, many of which will have an impact on the configuration of a BHE Committee, it is recommended that Members agree to the principle of enabling the BHE Committee to be supported by its own sub-committees, rather than agreeing to, at this stage, the precise nature of those sub-committees. The configuration of the sub-committees will then be carefully worked through by the newly constituted BHE Committee, to ensure they are appropriate to its needs and that there is synergy with the agreed corporate governance framework.
Recommendations
11. Members, acting collectively for the City Corporation as charity Trustee and taking decisions solely in the best interests of BHE, are therefore advised to approve the following recommendations regarding the governance of the charity, to be urgently implemented:
a. To create a properly constituted, empowered and accountable BHE Committee which would exercise management and control of BHE by April 2021. This would involve inter alia vesting the current responsibilities of the
2 Lord Lisvane’s Governance Review Report, 2020. Paragraph 368, page 77. 3 Lord Lisvane’s Governance Review Report, 2020. Paragraph 369, page 77. 4 Lord Lisvane’s Governance Review Report, 2020. Paragraph 369, page 77.
Page 80 Planning & Transportation Committee in respect of BHE’s bridges, and the responsibilities of the City Bridge Trust Committee, in the BHE (and its sub- committees). (Recommendations 367 and 370 within Lord Lisvane’s Report)
b. To enable the BHE Committee to have the discretion to appoint its own sub- committees (as recommended by BW), noting that officers recommend at least two sub-committees are appointed to discharge responsibilities in respect of the charity’s primary and ancillary objects5 – a Bridge Management Sub-Committee and a Funding Sub-Committee. The configuration of any other sub-committees will require careful thought by the BHE Committee and will be considered over the course of the first 12- months of the Committee being constituted and as further corporate recommendations are agreed. (Recommendations 369, 370 and 372 within Lord Lisvane’s Report)
c. To constitute the BHE Committee in line with charity best practice (as outlined in the 2017 Charity Governance Code), which recommends a trustee body of at least five but no more than twelve members. (Recommendation 370 within Lord Lisvane’s Report)
d. To constitute the BHE Committee to allow for the appointment of external co-opted Members (with voting rights), recruited by due process, to contribute to the appropriate mix of skills. (Recommendation 371 within Lord Lisvane’s Report)
e. To make other changes to the corporate governance framework arising from the constitution of the new BHE Committee, and to support its effective operation. This will require a review of various corporate governance documents and as such it is recommended, to this end, that authority be delegated to the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Policy and Resources Committee to undertake this review, agree changes and take any other steps required. It should be noted that not all relevant corporate governance documentation is within the remit of the Policy & Resources Committee (for instance, the Finance Committee is the steward of the Financial Regulations) and, in most circumstances, the further approval of the Court will be required in any event. Where appropriate, the views and approvals of the relevant committees will be sought.
12. It is proposed that a newly constituted BHE Committee would have responsibility, defined in its Terms of Reference, for matters such as the following:
• Considering matters of policy and strategic importance to BHE, and making recommendations to the Court of Common Council in settling the charity’s overarching policies;
5 The “primary object” of BHE is to maintain and support five bridges crossing the River Thames. A cy-près charity scheme of 1995 permits income surplus to that required for the bridges to be used for broader, and more general, charitable purposes within Greater London (“the ancillary object”).
Page 81 • The review and co-ordination of the governance of BHE for the City Corporation as Trustee, reporting as necessary to the Court of Common Council; • Appointing such sub-committees as are considered necessary for the most effective discharge of BHE functions; • Ensuring the effective administration of the charity’s financial affairs and management of risk; • The corporate control, management, maintenance and repair of the five Thames bridges; • The management of the visitor and events elements relating to Tower Bridge; • The application of funds for the ancillary object, in accordance with the policy settled by the Court of Common Council.
13. Given the substantial content of work for a newly constituted BHE Committee, it is suggested that the Committee may wish to consider meeting at least eight times in in its first 12-months, with the addition of a strategic away-day.
14. It is recommended that a BHE Committee be constituted from April 2021. It is expected that this timing will fit with the grant of any new Supplemental Royal Charter which would provide new powers and flexibilities to the charity.
Corporate and Strategic Implications
15. Strategic implications: The constitution of a new BHE Committee would support the aims and objectives of BHE’s overarching strategy, Bridging London 2020 – 2045, which was approved by the Court of Common Council in October 2020. It will support the charity in becoming a world-class bridge owner, charitable funder and responsible leader.
16. Security implications: there are no direct security implications.
17. Financial implications: there are no direct financial implications associated with the creation of a BHE Committee.
18. Legal implications: the legal advice received by BW highlights the advantage of constituting a new committee for the oversight and management of BHE, which includes ensuring that the City Corporation is complying its particular legal obligations as Trustee in relation to the governance and operation of BHE.
19. Risk implications: there are reputational and regulatory risks associated with the current governance arrangements for BHE (as outlined in paragraph 4, 5, 6 and 8), which would be mitigated against by the creation of a BHE Committee.
20. Equalities and resources implications: there are no direct equalities and resource implications. However, it is important that a newly constituted BHE Committee follows principles of equality and diversity, and actively considers the diversity of skills, experience and background of its Members.
21. Climate implications: there are no direct climate implications.
Page 82
Conclusion
22. Members, acting collectively for the City Corporation as Trustee, are recommended to approve the constitution of a BHE Committee, with the power to appoint its own sub-committees, as an urgent priority outcome of the Corporate Governance Review for implementation from April 2021. The creation of a BHE Committee is a key outcome of the BHE Strategic Governance Review, as it will enhance the governance and management of the charity, bring it in line with charity best practice, and help ensure the City Corporation’s compliance with its charity law duties and specific responsibilities as Trustee of BHE.
Background papers Corporate Governance of the City of London Corporation, Report of a Review by the Lord Lisvane KCB DL, September 2020.
Bridge House Estates Internal Member Governance Proposal, Submission to the Corporate Governance Review, March 2020.
David Farnsworth Chief Grants Officer & Director of City Bridge Trust E: [email protected]
Simon Latham Head of Town Clerk & Chief Executives Office E: [email protected]
Amelia Ehren Strategic Project Lead (BHE) E: [email protected]
Page 83 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 84 Agenda Item 7
Committee: Date: Policy and Resources Committee 10 December 2020 Subject: Public Livery Committee: Consultation on Composition Report of: For Decision Town Clerk Report author: Greg Moore
Summary
The Livery Committee is a committee established by and answerable to Common Hall, which is intended to improve communications between Livery Companies, as well between the Livery and the City Corporation. It is comprised of a mixture of Livery Clerks and Liverymen, the latter of which includes a number of Common Councillors and Aldermen. The Court of Common Council is entitled to nominate up to six Common Councillors to serve on the Committee.
In recent times it has undertaken a review of its composition, strategy, and activities, alongside the creation of a new website to assist it in its communications activity. As part of this process it has determined that it would be desirable to reduce the current size of the Committee, from 20 to 15 Members. One of the implications of this change is that the number of Common Council places on the Committee would reduce from six to four.
Prior to presenting any proposed changes to Common Hall for consideration, the Livery Committee is seeking the views of the various nominating bodies as to these proposed changes. The views of the Policy and Resources Committee, on behalf of the Court of Common Council, are sought to this end. The General Purposes Committee of Aldermen has also been approached, on behalf of the Court of Aldermen, for its views.
Recommendation
Members are invited to consider the endorsement of the proposed reduction to the number of Common Councillors serving on the Livery Committee.
Page 85 Main Report
Background 1. The Livery Committee is a committee of Common Hall, rather than of the Common Council or the Court of Aldermen. It acts on behalf of the Livery, through Common Hall and the various bodies that nominate to it.
2. The forerunner of the present Livery Committee began in 1864 and was originally established “to consider the best means and take such measures as they deem advisable for securing the Guildhall from the intrusion of strangers at the meetings in Common Hall”. Over time, the Committee was called upon to widen its activities, with its terms of reference amended in 1942 to include authority “to consider any matters affecting the interests of the general body of the Livery and to report recommendations at the ensuing Common Hall.”
3. A further development took place in 1981, with the establishment of the Livery Consultative Committee. This was created as a means of improving communications between the Corporation and the Livery, increasing the involvement of Liverymen in City affairs, and acting as a forum for discussion. It was planned that this new initiative should open the way for Clerks and the modern Liveries to influence future developments in all sorts of practical spheres, by achieving a fuller understanding of the current problems confronting the Corporation and the Companies.
4. The Livery Committee’s current constitution and terms of reference were approved by Common Hall in June 2009 and combine the activities of the Livery Consultative Committee and the old Livery Committee into the new Livery Committee. It now has responsibility for improving communications between the Livery Companies, as well to improve and facilitate greater communication between the Livery and the City Corporation.
5. The Court of Common Council is one of five bodies which currently enjoys nomination rights in respect of the Livery Committee, with the ability to propose the appointment of up to six Common Councillors at Common Hall.
6. In recent times, the Committee has given consideration to its current remit from Common Hall, including the creation of a new strategy and reviewing the suitability of its composition in aiding its delivery of its remit.
Consideration 7. In considering its composition, the Livery Committee has determined that some reduction in its number would be desirable and is minded to put forward proposals to Common Hall to this end.
8. However, as part of the process, it wishes to seek the views of all nominating bodies and their endorsement to the proposed approach.
9. The composition of the Livery Committee is currently :-
Page 86 • two liverymen who are Aldermen, nominated by the Court of Aldermen • six liverymen who are Common Councilmen, nominated by the Court of Common Council • six liverymen who are not Aldermen, Common Councilmen or Clerks, nominated by the livery companies; one through the Clerks of the Great Twelve, one through the Clerks Association and four through the Fellowship of Clerks • six livery company Clerks, nominated by the three Clerks associations; two by each association or as mutually agreed between them • up to four co-optees.
10. The six representatives of the Court of Common Council are nominated as and when terms arise at the annual (April) Court meeting, in the same way as appointments to the Court’s own committees are managed.
11. The current representatives of the Court on the Committee are: • Sheriff Christopher Hayward • Shravan Joshi • Judith Pleasance • Deputy Richard Regan • Ian Seaton • Deputy Philip Woodhouse
12. The Livery Committee is proposing that its composition be altered, to become:- • two liverymen who are Aldermen, nominated by the Court of Aldermen • four liverymen who are Common Councilmen, nominated by the Court of Common Council • four liverymen who are not Aldermen, Common Councilmen or Clerks, nominated by the livery companies; one through the Clerks of the Great Twelve, one through the Clerks’ Association, and two through the Fellowship of Clerks • five livery company Clerks, nominated by the three Clerks’ associations; one through the Clerks of the Great Twelve, one through the Clerks’ Association and three through the Fellowship of Clerks or as mutually agreed between them • together with up to four co-optees, who should be liverymen.
13. This constitutes a reduction of overall size from 20 to 15, with a majority of liverymen but a large contingent of Livery Company Clerks also retained. The
Page 87 Court of Common Council would see its representation reduce from six to four, as a consequence.
14. Appointments to the Committee are currently made for three-year terms, eligible for renewal once (i.e. a maximum of six years’ service), and it is not proposed to change this arrangement.
15. Two Members’ second terms of office are due to expire in June 2021. In the normal course of events, the Court would be asked to appoint successors at its April meeting. However, in view of the Livery Committee’s intention to seek changes at Common Hall in June, it is recommended that these appointments be deferred until the decision of Common Hall is known. Should the changes be rejected, then the Court can make appointments at its July meeting; should the reduction in membership be approved, then the reduction in Common Council membership will have been achieved through natural wastage. Conclusion 16. Members’ views on the proposed amendments to the Livery Committee are now sought.
17. It is intended that any changes to the Committee’s composition, together with its revised objectives, key tasks, and revised constitution, be presented to Common Hall in June of 2021.
Appendices • Letter from the Chair of the Livery Committee (with accompanying documentation).
Page 88 Appendix 1
To Catherine McGuinness
Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee
Members Room
PO Box 270
London EC2P 2EJ
cc John Barradell
Town Clerk and Chief Executive
City of London Corporation
PO Box 270
London EC2P 2EJ
Dear Chairman
Nominations to the Livery Committee
As I expect you have heard, the Livery Committee has been giving some thought to its current remit from Common Hall; its objectives and the key tasks that it undertakes, together with the number of people and the skillsets required to enable it to deliver them.
We have not invented a new role for ourselves. Rather, we have sought better to articulate what that role is and, as a part of our key tasks, make reference to the new website, which is well underway with the support of the City Corporation and the livery companies.
In looking at the Committee itself, we considered that some reduction in our number should be possible and it is that for which we would like the agreement of the Policy and Resources Committee, together with that of the other nominating bodies, to whom I am also writing. I am copying this letter, and the one I am sending to the Chairman of the General Purposes Committee of Aldermen, to the Town Clerk for agenda planning purposes.
The composition of the Livery Committee is currently :-
• two liverymen who are Aldermen, nominated by the Court of Aldermen • six liverymen who are Common Councilmen, nominated by the Court of Common Council • six liverymen who are not Aldermen, Common Councilmen or Clerks, nominated by the livery companies; one through the Clerks of the Great Twelve, one through the Clerks Association and four through the Fellowship of Clerks • six livery company Clerks, nominated by the three Clerks associations; two by each association or as mutually agreed between them
together with up to four co-optees.
We are proposing that it become:-
• two liverymen who are Aldermen, nominated by the Court of Aldermen • four liverymen who are Common Councilmen, nominated by the Court of Common Council
Page 89 • four liverymen who are not Aldermen, Common Councilmen or Clerks, nominated by the livery companies; one through the Clerks of the Great Twelve, one through the Clerks Association and two through the Fellowship of Clerks • five livery company Clerks, nominated by the three Clerks associations; one through the Clerks of the Great Twelve, one through the Clerks Association and three through the Fellowship of Clerks or as mutually agreed between them together with up to four co-optees, who should be liverymen.
It is not, we think, a radical change. It sees a reduction from 20 to 15, at least two thirds of whom will be liverymen but still working with a strong core of Clerks. We are keen to keep the number of Common Councilmen and Liverymen (who are not Common Councilmen) reasonably high as we also want to ensure that there is a good pool of candidates from whom a Chairman and Deputy Chairman can be chosen. It has been, and is likely to remain, customary for one of those posts to be occupied by a Common Councilman and one by a Liveryman who is not also a Common Councilman.
Currently, each of the nominating bodies submits their nominations to Common Hall, which then makes appointments to the Committee for a term of three years; those appointed can serve for a maximum of two terms. We are not proposing a change to those arrangements.
As to the skill sets, we have called them ‘Roles and Responsibilities’ and they are really a one page summary, in plain English, of what used to cover two pages and be headed ‘Job Description and Person Specification’.
It is our intention that our objectives together with the key tasks, the revised constitution and the roles and responsibilities to help us to deliver them be put to Common Hall in June of next year and, if agreed, be included on the new website so that Liverymen and Clerks can become more familiar with how we are trying to assist the livery movement and how they may also be able to help. For completeness, the papers I referred to are appended to this letter.
The Committee would be grateful if you could
(a) seek the approval of the Policy and Resources Committee to the revised constitution subject, of course, to the other nominating bodies agreeing the changes also and, once that agreement has been received, (b) obtain such approval as may be necessary from the Court of Common Council to the reduction such that nominations made by that body to Common Hall in June next year are for the reduced number of four Common Councilmen, not six, and that, when notifying Members, their attention be drawn to the roles and responsibilities that the Committee will need them to fulfil.
If you, or your colleagues, or any potential candidates have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
With very best wishes
Vicky
Vicky Russell
Chairman of the Livery Committee
Page 90
Roles and Responsibilities
To join with the Committee in carrying out the work that Common Hall expects it to undertake, ie as set out in the approved strategy and key tasks and to bring to that work your knowledge, enthusiasm and commitment
To attend the 3-4 meetings of the Livery Committee each year (each meeting being held during the working day and lasting 1-2 hours)
To be prepared to get involved in the work of a Sub Group asked to look into a matter in detail
To take part in the Liaison Scheme, ie keeping in touch with Clerks or Masters so matters of likely interest to them can be passed on, together with any issues or matters they would like to hear from the Committee about; ‘keeping in touch’ in whatever way is most convenient to those involved by phone, by email, through ad hoc or regular meetings and, from time to time, reporting back on activity to the co-ordinator of the scheme or the Committee
To assist in the periodic review of the Committee’s Strategy and Key Tasks
To attend Common Hall twice a year, first to assist as may be needed in the process of admitting liverymen to Guildhall and, secondly, to join the Committee for the meeting itself.
To attend some of the events run by the Committee for liverymen or Clerks, particularly some of the Livery Briefings (early evening events)
Nominations to serve
The Committee currently comprises:-
• 2 Liverymen who are Aldermen, nominated by the Court of Aldermen • 6 Liverymen who are Common Councilmen, nominated by the Court of Common Council • 6 Liverymen, not Aldermen or Common Councilmen or Clerks, nominated by the livery companies, one through the Clerks of the Great Twelve livery companies, one through the Clerks association and four through the Fellowship of Clerks • 6 Livery Company Clerks, nominated by the three Clerks associations, two by each association or as mutually agreed between them (together with up to 4 co-optees)
But is planning to reduce its number to:-
• 2 Liverymen who are Aldermen, nominated by the Court of Aldermen • 4 Liverymen who are Common Councilmen, nominated by the Court of Common Council • 4 Liverymen, not Aldermen or Common Councilmen or Clerks, nominated by the Livery Companies, one through the Clerks of the Great Twelve livery companies, one through the Clerk’s Association and two through the Fellowship of Clerks
Page 91 • 5 Livery Company Clerks, one nominated from the Clerks to the Great Twelve, one from the Clerk’s Association and three from the Fellowship of Clerks or otherwise as mutually agreed between them (together with up to 4 co-optees who should be liverymen)
If you are interested in serving in one of these capacities, please get in touch with the nominating body or with the Chairman or Deputy Chairman (who will also be happy to meet with potential nominees to answer any questions they have and better explain what is involved)
The Nominating Bodies and the contact details for the Chairman and Deputy Chairman can be obtained from the Town Clerk’s Office at Guildhall ([email protected])
Page 92 Livery Committee Strategy and Key Tasks The Objectives of the Livery Committee are :-
(i) To oversee the running of Common Hall including, where appropriate, the voting procedures (ii) To help increase awareness of and support for the work of the Lord Mayor, the City Corporation and the wider livery movement and, where possible and practical, to help create an awareness among opinion formers of the work of livery companies, their charitable activities and benefit to society as a whole (iii) To act as a forum to which livery companies can bring matters of concern for discussion and to help in the sharing of good practice among livery companies The Key Tasks of the Livery Committee to help it to deliver its objectives are :-
(i) (a) Giving guidance to candidates, through literature and/or meetings, on the various processes relating to the elections in Common Hall (b) Assisting in the process of admitting liverymen to Guildhall for Common Hall
(ii) To run such courses as may be helpful, those currently run being:- (a) City of London Briefings (primarily for new and existing Freemen and Liverymen) (b) The Wardens & Court Assistants Course (half-day for them and their spouse/partner) (c) The Livery After Dinner Speaking Course (half-day for Wardens and Court Assistants) (d) The Clerk’s Forum
(iii) (a) To act as a forum to which livery companies can bring matters of concern for discussion or advice and, alongside that, to help share, or initiate the sharing of, good practice where it is thought that could be helpful. (b) To maintain an active Liaison Scheme where members of the Committee keep in touch with particular livery companies so that all companies have a known contact on the Committee they can bring matters to. (c) To work with the City Corporation and the Livery Companies in creating and running a website….NB wording to be settled by Chairman and Deputy Chairman once the website is to go online
(iv) In all of these matters to maintain a close relationship with the City Corporation, with Mansion House and the Chamberlain in particular on matters concerning, respectively, the Mayoralty and Shrievalty and the Freedom
(v) Any other matter which, in the opinion of the Committee, might affect the interests of the general body of the livery
Page 93 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 94 Agenda Item 8
Committee(s) Dated: Policy and Resources Committee 10/12/2020 Court of Common Council 14/01/2021 Subject: Public City Plan 2036: Revisions to Proposed Submission Draft Plan Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate 1,2,4,7,9,11,12 Plan does this proposal aim to impact directly? Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or N capital spending? If so, how much? £0 What is the source of Funding? N/A Has this Funding Source been agreed with the N/A Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: For Decision Carolyn Dwyer, Director of the Built Environment Report author: Adrian Roche, Department of the Built Environment
Summary
The draft Local Plan, titled City Plan 2036, was agreed for Regulation 19 pre- submission consultation by the Court of Common Council at its meeting on 21st May 2020. Local Plan regulations at that time prevented consultation taking place without making physical copies of the Plan available for inspection. Amendments to the Regulations in July 2020 have now enabled a website only consultation.
Further changes to the Plan are now required prior to the consultation taking place to address revisions to permitted development rights and the Use Classes Order, which came into effect on 31st August and 1st September 2020; to acknowledge the short term impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, whilst emphasising that the medium to longer term fundamentals underpinning the City’s economic success remain in place; to update the Plan to reflect the City’s climate ambitions in the newly adopted Climate Action Strategy; and to make minor factual updates.
The further changes were agreed by the Planning & Transportation Committee on 17th November 2020 and these are now recommended to the Policy & Resources Committee and Court of Common Council. The schedule of further changes is attached as Appendix 1.
Recommendation(s)
Members are recommended to:
• Agree the proposed changes to the Proposed Submission draft Local Plan set out in Appendix 1 and that the draft Local Plan be published for consultation;
Page 95 • Authorise the Director of the Built Environment to make further non-material amendments and editorial changes prior to public consultation;
• Agree that, following consultation, the Local Plan, the public representations and other supporting documentation be submitted to the Secretary of State, for Examination;
• Agree that, if any material changes are required to the Local Plan following consultation and prior to submission, consideration of these changes should be delegated to the Planning and Transportation Committee; and
• Authorise the Director of the Built Environment, in liaison with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning & Transportation Committee, to compile a list of any proposed non-material changes to the Local Plan in response to public representations and submit this to the Secretary of State.
Main Report
Background
1. The Proposed Submission City Plan 2036 was considered by the Planning and Transportation Committee at an informal virtual meeting on 31st March 2020. The Plan was then approved for pre-submission consultation by Policy and Resources Committee on 7th May 2020 and Court of Common Council on 21st May 2020. Formal pre-submission consultation was delayed due to Covid-19 restrictions which prevented the Corporation making the Plan and supporting documents available for physical inspection in the City. Amendments to the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations in July 2020 have now temporarily removed the requirement for copies of the Plan to be available for physical inspection.
The need for further Plan refinement
2. In late July 2020, the Government laid a series of new regulations before Parliament, making changes to permitted development rights and to the 1987 Use Classes Order. These changes came into effect on 31st August 2020 and 1st September 2020. To ensure that the Local Plan is sound and reflects these changes to national planning policy, further refinements to the draft Local Plan are proposed. It is also proposed that adjustments are made to address some of the short term economic, social and health and wellbeing impacts of the Covid- 19 pandemic, to update references in the Plan to the City Corporation’s Climate Action Strategy which has now been adopted, and to make other factual updates.
Use Classes Order
3. A revised Use Classes Order came into effect on 1st September 2020. A report detailing the changes to the Use Classes Order and permitted development rights, and the implications for the City of London, was considered by the
Page 96 Planning and Transportation Committee on 8th September 2020. The most significant change is the creation of a new Commercial, Business and Service Uses class, Class E, which replaces the B1 business use class and the A1, A2 and A3 retail use classes. A change of use within the E class is not considered development and is not, therefore, subject to planning control.
4. The Proposed Submission draft Local Plan was prepared on the basis of the previous 1987 Use Classes Order and has a number of policies which specifically reference the Use Classes Order, seeking to manage how sites and buildings change over time. The key policy areas where change is required are:
a. Protection of office accommodation. The proposed amendments reflect the potential for change within the E Use Class, whilst continuing to emphasise the continuing need to promote and retain a critical mass of office accommodation in the City. Emerging Local Plan policy already allows for greater flexibility for other commercial uses at basement and ground floor level in line with the ambitions of the new Use Classes Order and substantive change to the policy approach is not considered necessary.
b. Retail provision. The Proposed Submission draft Local Plan seeks to concentrate A1 retail shops within the Principal Shopping Centres (PSCs), with retail also encouraged within the Retail Links. Isolated A1 retail units are protected. The E Use Class is intended to provide greater flexibility to allow changes of use within town centres to retain their vitality and viability, and removes the ability to manage the change between most retail uses and between retail, office and some other commercial uses. Amendments are suggested to the Local Plan’s retail policies which address these changes while continuing to promote the role of the City’s PSCs as centres for traditional shops, providing comparison and convenience retail. Most City developers, landowners and occupiers are expected to continue to see the benefits of providing active frontages and the additional vibrancy and income that comes from a mix of ground floor uses, so significant change is not expected, particularly within the PSCs.
Covid-19 Impacts
5. The Proposed Submission draft Local Plan was prepared prior to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has had significant health, well-being, environmental and economic impacts locally and globally. Although these impacts are expected to be relatively short term, the pandemic is leading to behavioural changes. Some of these changes are temporary, but some are likely to become established as part of the ‘new normal’. The acceleration of existing trends and the creation of new trends both need to be taken into account in the emerging Local Plan, which is planning not just for the next few years but the medium and longer term over a 15-year period. Therefore, the Plan needs to look beyond the current pandemic to a period when the City is once more a vibrant base for a wide range of existing and new businesses, operating more flexibly to meet the changing business environment, space needs and lifestyle expectations of their workforce.
Page 97 6. The immediate impact of Covid-19 has been to shift much of the City’s business online with many City workers working remotely, and consequent significant reductions in journeys into the City and footfall within it. Although the pace and scale of future growth in the City of London is uncertain in the short term, the longer term geographical, economic and social fundamentals underpinning the success of the City as a vibrant centre of business creativity and innovation remain in place. Strong interest in pre-application planning advice and investment suggest continued confidence in the City as a place in which to do business. The ways that people live, work, travel and use city centres will in the future be different, but the City will continue to be an attractive and sustainable meeting place where people and businesses come together for creative innovation.
7. Contextual changes and a reiteration of the Local Plan’s flexible and adaptable strategy are considered appropriate at this stage. The strategy already seeks to facilitate a healthy and inclusive City, new ways of working, improvements in the public realm, urban greening and a radical transformation of the City’s streets. Given the particular impacts of the pandemic on the retail and hospitality sector, Colliers International have been commissioned to provide a supplementary commentary to the 2017 Retail Needs Assessment to take account of current circumstances and to provide a robust basis for the retail policies in the version of the Plan that will be submitted for examination.
8. As the Local Plan progresses to consultation and examination, the evidence base will be refreshed as part of the regular annual development monitoring programme. Further evidence will also be commissioned, where necessary. If this evidence suggests a need for wider review, this can be considered through a future review of the Plan.
Development Pipeline
9. The Plan’s employment growth projections and the related office space growth target pre-date Covid and its health, behavioural and economic effects. Employment growth may be slower in the short to medium term than previously projected due to economic disruption and behavioural changes such as more remote and occasional working. However, lower levels of employment growth do not translate directly into lower demand, and need, for office floorspace overall. Covid restrictions have significantly reduced current office occupancy capacity and, as we come out of the pandemic, it is likely there will be a renewed emphasis on providing more social and collaborative space in buildings, with lower office occupation densities overall. In the short to medium term, reductions in employees commuting daily into the City may be offset by this trend for lower occupation density and more social space. Some firms may reduce their total space requirements but that may provide opportunities for other firms who previously did not have much presence in the City to take up the newly available space in what is an excellent, accessible business location. The net result of these emerging trends will be monitored carefully to ensure that the Plan policy implementation remains appropriate to the evolving picture.
Page 98 10. The Proposed Submission draft Local Plan provides for an uplift in office floorspace of 2 million square metres over the period 2016 to 2036. As at March 2020, there had already been a net gain in office stock of 0.58 million square metres (29% of the target) with a further 0.76 million square metres (38% of target) under construction, meaning that approximately two thirds of the target is likely to be completed in the near future. The overall office floorspace target is therefore considered to be achievable and is consistent with our wider aspirations for the City as a commercial centre of innovation and creativity
London Recharged Report
11. The London Recharged Report, produced by the City Corporation in partnership with Oliver Wyman and Arup, was published on 20th October 2020: https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/supporting-businesses/economic- research/research-publications/london-recharged. The report makes recommendations for the ways that businesses operate in London, the role of local and central government and the need to deliver a more diverse and representative workforce that makes the best use of London’s talents. Amongst the key recommendations are a number that specifically relate to the work of the Planning and Transportation Committee and the City’s Local Plan, including:
• Create spaces to innovate, akin to start-up incubators. The incubators should provide workspaces with experts from government, academia and business to coalesce and innovate on specific priority themes. • Pilot transformation of London’s office stock to support new uses, including the development of ‘hyper flexible spaces’. • Motivate SMEs and artists to re-enter the city centre by providing ‘hives’ of affordable work space and access to basic infrastructure. • Explore ways to innovate London’s transport network considering new consumer/ commuter behaviours and the network’s financial difficulties. Options could include the creation of ‘flexible working’ season tickets. 12. The Local Plan aligns closely with a number of these recommendations and officers participated in the steering groups informing its production. For instance, the Local Plan does:
• Encourage flexible and adaptable workspaces, including the need for incubator space and space for innovation and start-ups. • Encourage active and vibrant uses at ground floor, to animate City spaces and provide an environment which is attractive to investors and workers. • Highlight the importance of culture and cultural enterprises in the City’s attractiveness, including a new requirement for major developments to provide cultural plans and to consider the provision of creative spaces. • Place greater emphasis on transport within and to the City of London, increasing opportunities for active travel and emphasising the importance of the City as a sustainable business hub.
Page 99 13. It is significant that the London Recharged Report has been prepared during the Covid pandemic and was informed by interviews with many senior figures to gauge their latest views on the short term and long term implications of the pandemic for London. The close alignment between the Local Plan and the recommendations in the London Recharged Report provide some reassurance that the Plan is sufficiently flexible to still be relevant in current circumstances. Nonetheless, the schedule attached to this report includes several proposed changes to reflect key aspects of the London Recharged Report, such as the increased importance of providing spaces which encourage collaboration and creativity.
Climate Action Strategy
14. The Court of Common Council on 8th October 2020 approved a Climate Action Strategy for the City Corporation, which sets out a radical programme of measures to: a. Reduce carbon emissions and a trajectory towards achieving a zero carbon City Corporation and wider City of London by 2040. b. Ensure the City Corporation’s buildings and public realm are resilient to more extreme weather conditions and rising sea levels.
15. The Climate Action Strategy introduces a new way of working where the risks and opportunities arising from climate change are integrated into all City Corporation decision making. Through this strategy, the City Corporation will secure and strengthen its position as a world leading financial and professional services centre, with a public realm and buildings which are attractive places to work, live, study and visit.
16. The Proposed Submission draft Local Plan already addresses the need to reduce carbon emissions, increase resilience and has, at its heart, the delivery of a sustainable and green city. The delay in consulting on the Plan and the adoption of the Climate Action Strategy provide an opportunity to refine this approach, ensuring a consistent and strong message on climate is presented by the City Corporation.
Proposed Changes
17. Appendix 1 sets out a schedule of changes to the Proposed Submission draft Local Plan. The schedule identifies those changes that are required to respond to the Use Classes Order, Covid-19 and the Climate Action Strategy. The proposed changes also take account of advice received from a Planning Inspector who held a virtual advisory visit with officers in July, albeit his advice is not binding on the Inspector who will subsequently carry out the independent examination of the City’s Local Plan. A copy of the Local Plan as approved at Court in May will be sent to Members electronically before the meeting so that the proposed changes can be compared to the previously approved Plan.
18. The schedule of changes set out at Appendix 1 has been considered and by the Planning and Transportation Committee on 17th November 2020. Since the amendments are material changes to the Plan that was previously agreed by the
Page 100 Court, they also require the express approval of this Committee and the Court of Common Council.
19. The schedule also identifies a number of factual updates to the Proposed Submission draft Plan. Most of these changes are non-material and, in line with the authorisation previously given, do not need express approval, but are included here for completeness.
Next Steps
20. Following consideration by the Policy and Resources Committee, the schedule of changes to the Proposed Submission draft Plan will be considered by Court of Common Council on 14th January 2021.
21. Once agreed by Court, the Proposed Submission draft Plan will be issued for Regulation 19 pre-submission consultation in late January 2021 or early February 2021 for a period of 6 weeks. Following consultation, the Plan would then be submitted, prior to the summer recess, to the Planning Inspectorate for Public Examination. The Director of the Built Environment will, if necessary, compile a list of proposed non-material changes to the Local Plan arising out of the public representations, in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning and Transportation Committee, and submit this to the Secretary of State. If material changes are necessary, this report seeks authority to delegate consideration of these changes to the Planning and Transportation Committee rather than referring the draft Plan back a third time to the Policy and Resources Committee and Court of Common Council. Formal Examination hearings are likely to take place later in 2021, with adoption of the new Local Plan now scheduled for 2022.
22. The Government recently consulted on fundamental changes to the planning system through its Planning White Paper. The White Paper suggests transitional provisions for those local planning authorities that have submitted a plan for public examination at the time the revised planning legislation is enacted which would allow a submitted local plan to continue progress to adoption. The timing of legislation is uncertain, but it is expected to be progressed quickly, highlighting the importance of ensuring that the City’s Plan is submitted for examination in late spring/early summer 2021. Enabling delegated authority for the Planning and Transportation Committee to agree any proposed material changes to the Plan after public consultation will facilitate Plan submission in 2021 in advance of national changes to the plan preparation system.
23. The Government’s Chief Planner has recently advised local planning authorities not to let current uncertainty over planning reform stop them from progressing work, particularly in respect to the preparation of plans. She emphasised that authorities should try not to lose momentum, adding that strong plans can help facilitate recovery from the pandemic as well as addressing housing needs and the economic challenges that lie ahead.
Page 101 Corporate & Strategic Implications
24. The review of the Local Plan is informed by the Corporate Plan (2018-23) and the new Plan, when adopted, will help to implement a number of Corporate Plan outcomes. The Proposed Submission draft Plan provides a spatial planning framework to support the Climate Action Strategy and key corporate capital projects, along with proposals to ensure a sufficient supply of business space to meet future needs. It also aligns with the adopted Transport Strategy.
25. There are no financial, resource, legal, risk or security implications arising from this report.
26. Equalities implications – the Local Plan has been informed by an Integrated Impact Assessment which incorporates an Equalities Assessment.
Conclusion
27. The draft Local Plan was agreed for Regulation 19 pre-submission consultation by the Court of Common Council at its meeting on 21st May 2020. Local Plan regulations at that time prevented consultation taking place without making physical copies of the Plan available for inspection. Amendments to the Regulations in July 2020 have now enabled a website only consultation.
28. Changes to permitted development rights and the Use Classes Order, which came into effect on 31st August and 1st September 2020, mean that further changes to the Proposed Submission draft Plan are now required to ensure it is compliant with national planning policy. Additional changes are needed to acknowledge the short term impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, whilst emphasising that the medium to longer term fundamentals underpinning the City’s economic success remain in place. The City Corporation has also adopted its Climate Action Strategy and updates are proposed to reflect the strategy. Other factual updates are also proposed.
Appendices
• Appendix 1: Schedule of proposed amendments to the Proposed Submission version of the City of London Local Plan
Adrian Roche Development Plans Team Leader
T: 020 7332 1846 E: [email protected]
Page 102 Schedule of proposed changes to the version of City Plan 2036 approved by Court of Common Council in May 2020
Policy/paragraph Proposed change Reason for change
Introduction: Since the City’s current Local Plan was adopted, the Government has made a number of Factual update Why is the City changes to the planning system through its planning reform agenda, with notable preparing a new changes being made to permitted development rights and the Use Classes Order during Local Plan? 2020. As a result, a number of and some policies need updating to ensure they remain Paragraph 1.2.3 up-to-date and responsive to national policy. In addition, the Mayor of London is reviewing the London Plan, which provides a strategic planning framework for London for the period up to 2041.
Introduction: Update timetable in Figure 1 to indicate: Factual update Page 103 Page Figure 1 (after • Publication (Early 2021) paragraph 1.3.3) • Submission (Spring/Summer 2021) • Examination (Winter 2021/22) • Adoption (Spring/Summer 2022)
Introduction: Policy context To reflect impacts Policy context arising from the Paragraphs 1.3.5 – 1.3.5. This Plan is being prepared in an era of significant and rapid change and has been publication of the City 1.3.6 deliberately drafted to provide a flexible policy framework. Within this wider Corporation’s Climate framework, the Local Plan can provide an environment which encourages appropriate Action Strategy, the development and is responsive and adaptable to change. Covid-19 pandemic, the London 1.3.6 In particular, the Plan seeks to provide a flexible, resilient policy framework which Recharged Report and responds to three fundamental health and well-being, environmental and economic updated trading influences: Covid-19, climate change, and the UK’s departure from the European Union. relationships
Climate change
1.3.7 The threat from climate change is one of the most serious threats we face today. It extends beyond environmental challenges and has the potential to affect economic prosperity, social justice and global stability. Wide ranging responses are essential, encompassing individual local actions, local, strategic and national government programmes, business and community scale initiatives and global agreements. Scientific evidence indicates that the climate is already changing, and that action is needed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.
1.3.8 The City Corporation has long been a champion of clean air, open space provision, sustainability and, more recently, green finance, recognising that a healthy environment is critical to business and personal well-being. It has in 2020 adopted a Climate Action
Page 104 Page Strategy which sets out a pathway to achieving net zero emissions for both the City Corporation’s activities and the wider activities of businesses and residents in the City of London. The Strategy and, more importantly, the actions outlined will ensure the Square Mile and City Corporation achieve net zero carbon by 2040 and make a positive contribution to tackling climate change, are resilient to the risks of climate change and seize the opportunities presented by the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Covid-19 pandemic
1.3.9 Much of this Plan was drafted prior to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has had significant health, well-being, environmental and economic impacts locally and globally. As medical treatments are discovered and rolled out, including potential vaccines, the severity of these health impacts is expected to reduce and communities will recover in the medium term. However, the pandemic is also leading to behavioural changes; some are temporary, but some are likely to become established as part of the ‘new normal’. The acceleration of existing trends and the creation of new trends both need to be taken into account when planning for the medium and longer term. Therefore, the Plan is looking beyond the current pandemic to a period when a probable vaccine has enabled the City to once more provide a vibrant centre of business creativity and innovation which harnesses the potential of existing and new trends.
1.3.10 Throughout its long history the City of London has been a centre for creative innovation and collaboration, bringing business and people together. The Covid-19 pandemic has in the short term shifted much of the City’s business online with many City workers using modern technology to work from home, and consequently significant reductions in journeys into the City and footfall within it. Whilst the use of digital technology and remote working will remain important to the success of many City businesses in the future, reliance solely on remote working can have longer term drawbacks as it can limit the scope of the creative innovation, collaboration and informal business relationships that the City thrives upon. Therefore, it is expected that
Page 105 Page the City will remain an attractive base for a wide range of existing and new businesses, operating more flexibly with a blended approach of in-office and remote working, to meet the changing business environment, space needs and work and lifestyle expectations of their workforce. There is an opportunity to transform City workplaces to offer a rich and fulfilling experience for City workers, with the office becoming a place for socialising, meeting, sharing and collaboration. The return of City workers will bring vitality to provide a boost to businesses that rely on high footfall, including retail, food and beverage and support services to the City’s offices, that have been particularly affected by Covid-19.
1.3.11 Although the pace and scale of future growth in the City of London is uncertain in the short term, the longer term geographical, economic and social fundamentals underpinning the success of the City as a vibrant centre of business creativity and innovation remain in place. Strong interest in pre-application planning advice and investment suggest continued confidence in the City as a place in which to do business. The ways that people live, work, travel and use city centres will in the future be different, but the City will continue to be an attractive and sustainable meeting place where people and businesses come together for creative innovation.
1.3.xx The City Corporation will work closely with national, regional and local government, landowners and investors, businesses and residents to ensure that the City of London remains successful. It is acknowledged that the pandemic will have short and perhaps medium term financial implications for the City Corporation and for Transport for London, which may impact on, or delay, implementation of some policy aspirations and will need to be closely monitored. Nonetheless, this Plan will provide a framework to give confidence to those who wish to be involved in and to invest in the City and it has been written to be adaptable to new changes and challenges as they present themselves.
Page 106 Page UK trading relationships
1.3.12 As a world leading financial and professional services centre, the future prosperity of the City will depend to a large extent on the international and national economic considerations and other external policies, particularly the United Kingdom’s future trading relationship with the European Union and the rest of the world. context including future trading relationships. The UK’s departure from the European Union is leading to new trading relationships and patterns. The City’s reputation for expertise and innovation will be particularly important as it adapts its existing strengths in financial and professional services, and develops new strengths, to suit changing global circumstances.
1.3.613. The Local Plan is influenced by national and London-wide planning policies and guidance, as well as plans and strategies produced by neighbouring boroughs and a range of statutory bodies.
Introduction: 1.3.xx The Government’s planning reform agenda has resulted in a number of changes to Factual update National planning national legislation and guidance. These changes, including those brought forward policy and guidance during 2020 to permitted development rights and the Use Classes Order, have been New paragraph incorporated into this Plan. The Government has published a Planning White Paper following current outlining further fundamental changes to the planning system in England which would paragraph 1.3.7 impact upon the preparation and content of local plans and the operation of development management. These reforms, if enacted, will be considered through a subsequent review of the City of London’s Local Plan.
Introduction: 1.3.8. The Mayor of London has a duty to prepare a spatial development strategy, the Factual update The London Plan and London Plan, and to keep it under review. The City’s Local Plan, like those produced by the other Mayoral London boroughs, must be in general conformity with the London Plan. The London Plan strategies forms part of the statutory development plan for the City of London, along with the City’s
Page 107 Page Paragraph 1.3.8 Local Plan. The Local Plan has been prepared in alignment with the Mayor’s Intend to Publish London Plan (December 2019).
Introduction: 1.3.15. In particular, the Local Plan is one of the mechanisms through which the City Factual update City Corporation Corporation’s Corporate Plan and Climate Action Strategy will be implemented. The strategies Corporate Plan sets out the City Corporation’s overarching strategic direction and is Paragraph 1.3.15 structured around the three pillars of society, economy and environment. Although the Corporate Plan has a shorter time horizon than the Local Plan (2018-23), it is a visionary and forward-looking document and City Plan 2036 complements and helps deliver many of its objectives. The Climate Action Strategy set out the City Corporation’s pathway to achieve a zero carbon City by 2040.
Vision, Strategic 3.1.2. The City’s population will enjoy good health and wellbeing. The health and To reflect impacts Objectives and wellbeing of the City’s communities will be integral to the design and delivery of new arising from the Spatial Strategy: buildings, open spaces and the wider public realm, helping the City recover from the Covid-19 pandemic 3.1 Contribute to a Covid-19 pandemic, provide inclusive and diverse spaces and address the implications of Flourishing Society climate change. Health inequality across the City will be reduced. Workers and residents Paragraph 3.1.2 will have access to a range of health services within the Square Mile and beyond. Partnership working with businesses and organisations both inside and outside the City will effectively tackle the wider causes of poor health by substantially improving the City’s air quality, promoting the recreational benefits of a healthy lifestyle, and ensuring inclusive access to good quality open spaces and recreational opportunities.
Vision, Strategic 3.2.1. The City will remain the world’s leading international financial and professional To reflect impacts Objectives and services centre and a driver of the national economy, continually innovating and arising from the Spatial Strategy: developing new business areas and flexible ways of working, including particularly in the Covid-19 pandemic 3.2 Support a technology and creative sectors, and delivering inclusive and sustainable growth and Thriving Economy prosperity for its communities, London and the UK. Paragraph 3.2.1 Vision, Strategic 3.2.3. The City will be open to new business, new ideas and innovations and new ways of To reflect impacts
Page 108 Page Objectives and working and collaborating, building upon the experience and lessons learned through arising from the Spatial Strategy: the Covid-19 pandemic. New reflected in office business floorspace that is will be flexible Covid-19 pandemic 3.2 Support a and adaptable to meet creating spaces for collaboration and innovation and meeting the and the London Thriving Economy demands of different types of business occupiers and their workforces, including Recharged Report Paragraph 3.2.3 incubators, start-ups and other small and medium sized companies. There is an opportunity for the City’s cultural offer to be central to its recovery and future resilience. Office space will be complemented by other accessible commercial, cultural and leisure uses adding vibrancy and animation to the City’s streets and benefitting the City’s diverse communities.
Vision, Strategic 3.2.5. The quality and quantity of City’s retail facilities offer will adapt to changing To reflect changes to Objectives and demands, offering a range of meanwhile and complementary services to the City’s wider the Use Classes Order Spatial Strategy: business and cultural offer and contributing to the City’s development as continue to introduced in 3.2 Support a increase to meet rising demand, as the City evolves into an evening and 7-day a week September 2020 Thriving Economy retail, leisure and cultural destination. Retail growth will be focused on the Principal Paragraph 3.2.5 Shopping Centres of Cheapside, Liverpool Street/Moorgate, Leadenhall Market and Fleet Street. Smaller retail, collaboration and cultural uses units will be provided across the City, animating ground floor spaces and meeting local worker and resident needs.
Vision, Strategic 3.3.2. The City’s streets will provide an attractive and safe environment for walking and To reflect impacts Objectives and cycling. Pavement widening and reallocation of road space for pedestrian or cycle use, arising from the Spatial Strategy: allied with increased planting and greenery, will provide more space for moving around, Covid-19 pandemic 3.3 Shape building on the initiatives put in place during the Covid-19 pandemic. Traffic reduction and Outstanding improvements to the City’s streets and junctions will transform the safety, look and feel of the Environments City’s street network. Paragraph 3.3.2 Vision, Strategic 3.3.5. The City will remain a centre of world class architecture with flexible, and adaptable To reflect impacts Objectives and and healthy buildings and a high quality of public realm for people to admire and enjoy. arising from the Spatial Strategy: Further tall buildings will be encouraged where they can make a positive contribution to Covid-19 pandemic
Page 109 Page 3.3 Shape their surroundings and the skyline and provide for the health and wellbeing of workers, Outstanding adding to the tall building cluster in the east of the City. Environments Paragraph 3.3.5 Vision, Strategic 3.3.8. The City’s buildings, public realm and transport will be highly sustainable, designed Factual update Objectives and to make efficient use of natural resources, minimise emissions and be resilient to natural Spatial Strategy: and man-made threats. In partnership with public and private sector organisations the City 3.3 Shape will adopt new technologies to transition to a zero emission City by 2050 2040, in line with Outstanding the ambitions set out in the City Corporation’s Climate Action Strategy. Environments Paragraph 3.3.8 Vision, Strategic 3.3.9. The City will be a much greener place, with additional planting in and around new To reflect impacts Objectives and and existing buildings and the City’s streets and spaces, enhancing the environment, arising from the Spatial Strategy: contributing to health and wellbeing and mitigating the impacts of pollution. New open Covid-19 pandemic 3.3 Shape and amenity spaces will be created including through the creation of new pedestrian Outstanding routes, accessible and permeable buildings, and the provision of amenity space at upper Environments or roof levels. Public access to private open space will be encouraged. Biodiversity will be Paragraph 3.3.9 increased by the inclusion of wildlife-friendly features in new and existing open spaces and buildings.
Vision, Strategic 3.3.12. To shape the future City, ensuring that it is physically and virtually well connected, To reflect impacts Objectives and sustainable and responsive, resilient to natural and man-made threats, and delivers arising from the Spatial Strategy: outstanding buildings, streets, public spaces, and heritage assets. Covid-19 pandemic 3.3 Shape Outstanding Environments Paragraph 3.3.12 Paragraphs 3.4.3, Change Sir John Cass School to The Aldgate School Factual update 7.5.2 & Strategic Policy S20
Page 110 Page Vision, Strategic … Freight and servicing deliveries will be reduced through off-site consolidation, the re- To reflect impacts Objectives and timing of deliveries outside of peak hours and joint working with occupiers. Pedestrian arising from the Spatial Strategy: movement and permeability will be improved and with priority given to pedestrians Covid-19 pandemic 3.4 Key Areas of through the reallocation of road space on key routes during daytime. Opportunities for Change: City Cluster cycling to, from and within the Cluster will be improved alongside measures to improve Paragraph 3.4.4 pedestrian access. Links to public transport nodes and other parts of the City, including to the Elizabeth Line at Liverpool Street Station, will be improved.
Vision, Strategic … Consolidation of the City Corporation’s wholesale markets onto a single site outside of Factual update to Objectives and the City will potentially allow the re-use of Smithfield Market in whole or in part for other reflect progress on Spatial Strategy: uses compatible with its heritage status and the City Corporation’s ambitions for Culture Smithfield Public 3.4 Key Areas of Mile. St Bartholomew’s Hospital will remain a major centre of health excellence. Realm proposals Change: Smithfield Additional greening, new open spaces and pedestrian and cycling priority in appropriate and Barbican locations will reduce Tthe potential for conflict between vehicular access to commercial Paragraph 3.4.6 and residential uses, and allowing for more effective management of the increased numbers of pedestrians will be effectively managed.
Vision, Strategic 3.5.2. The Local Plan will be implemented alongside the policies and strategy of the To reflect advice from Objectives and London Plan and, particularly the London Plan’s principles of Good Growth. The City Plan a Planning Inspector Spatial Strategy: 2036 Spatial Strategy and the detailed policies that follow set out how this the balance during an advisory Spatial Strategy between commercial, residential, cultural and environmental aspirations will be visit, in which he Paragraph 3.5.2 delivered and how the City of London will become a healthy, socially and economically commented that inclusive City for all. reference should be made to the London Plan in the Spatial Strategy Vision, Strategic 3.5.3. Table 1 shows the scale of the projected growth in the main land uses in the City To reflect impacts Objectives and over the period 2016 to 2036. These projections pre-date the Covid-19 pandemic but the arising from the Spatial Strategy: fundamental advantages and principles underpinning growth in the City remain and, Covid-19 pandemic Spatial Strategy over the longer term life of this Plan to 2036, growth is expected in line with the
Page 111 Page Paragraph 3.5.3 projections.
Vision, Strategic The City Corporation will facilitate a vibrant, thriving and inclusive City, supporting a Factual Update (point Objectives and diverse and sustainable London within a globally successful UK. 1) Spatial Strategy: Spatial Strategy 1. Ensuring that the City is sustainable and transitions to a zero carbon and zero To reflect impacts emission City by 2050 2040, delivering further urban greening and improving air quality. arising from the Covid-19 pandemic 2. Delivering sustainable growth following the Covid-19 pandemic including a (point 2) minimum of 2 million m2 net additional office floorspace and protecting existing office floorspace to maintain the City’s role as a world leading financial and professional services To reflect advice from centre and to sustain the City’s strategically important cluster of commercial activities a Planning Inspector within the Central Activities Zone. during an advisory … visit (point 5) 5. Delivering at least 1,460 2,482 additional homes within the City by 2028/29 2035/36 to meet housing need and continuing to deliver new housing on City Corporation estates and other appropriate sites outside of the City. …
Strategic Policy S1 - 4.1.xx. The design of buildings and spaces to maximise health outcomes is particularly To reflect impacts Healthy and important in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. The design of commercial buildings, arising from the Inclusive City: outdoor spaces and residential developments should be flexible so that buildings and Covid-19 pandemic New paragraph outdoor spaces can be reconfigured as necessary in response changing health and before paragraph wellbeing requirements. 4.1.16 4.1.16. Developers are encouraged to use established assessment methodologies to ensure that development contributes towards a healthy city. There are several accreditation systems that attempt to measure the health and well-being elements of building design, construction and operation and how these features impact on health and wellbeing. Page 112 Page Strategic Policy S1 - Strategic Policy S1: Healthy and Inclusive City To reflect changes to Healthy and the Use Classes Order Inclusive City: The City Corporation will work with a range of partners to create a healthy and inclusive introduced in New paragraph at environment, promote social and economic inclusivity and enable all communities to September 2020 end of sub-section access a wide range of health, education, recreation and leisure opportunities, by: ‘How the policy … works’ 7. Encouraging the further provision of both public and private health facilities. Conditions may be attached to permissions for public healthcare facilities to ensure their future retention;
…
4.1.xx. Changes to the Use Classes Order introduced in September 2020 have included certain health and medical services such as clinics, health centres, creches, day nurseries and day centres within the new Use Class E. This means that such uses could be converted to a range of other Class E commercial, business and service uses without planning permission. Given the limited opportunities to replace such facilities in the City, conditions may be attached to permissions for new public health facilities to ensure that the impacts of any proposed later conversion to another use can be considered through the planning application process. Conditions will not be applied to private healthcare facilities.
Policy HL2 - Air Policy HL2: Air Quality To reflect advice from Quality a Planning Inspector 1. Developers will be required to effectively manage the impact of their proposals on air during an advisory quality. Major developments must provide an Air Quality Impact Assessment. visit, in which he commented that the 2. Development that would result in a worsening of the City’s nitrogen dioxide or PM10 current wording may and PM2.5 pollution levels will be strongly resisted refused. not be realistic and
Page 113 Page … that elsewhere in the Plan, the term ‘resisted’ is used Policy HL5 - Location 4.1.37. Social and community facilities contribute to successful communities by providing To reflect changes to and protection of venues for a wide range of activities and services. As such they make a significant the Use Classes Order social and contribution to people’s mental, spiritual and physical well-being, sense of community, introduced in community facilities: learning and education. Library and educational facilities and those that support the City’s September 2020 Paragraph 4.1.37 business and cultural roles are particularly important. A definition of social and community facilities, with reference to the Use Classes Order, is provided in the glossary.
Policy HL7 - Sport 4.1.49. The City Corporation will protect existing public sports and recreation facilities in To reflect changes to and recreation: situ, where there is a need, and encourage the provision of new public and private the Use Classes Order New paragraph after facilities. Where in situ provision is not feasible, services should be delivered from other introduced in paragraph 4.1.49 facilities without reducing the level of provision. However, any proposals involving the September 2020 loss of public sport and recreational facilities must be accompanied by evidence of a lack of need for those facilities. Current public facilities and uses should be retained where a continuing need exists. If this is not feasible, preference will be given to a similar type of sport and recreational use in the first instance.
[moved to new paragraph] 4.1.xx. The loss of private facilities such as gyms through redevelopment or change of use will be permitted where the replacement uses meet other objectives in this Plan. Following changes to the Use Classes Order introduced in September 2020, existing gyms and other indoor recreational uses could be converted to a range of alternative Class E commercial, business and service uses without planning permission, unless there are specific planning conditions attached to a site which prevent this.
Policy HL9 - Health 4.1.54 HIAs provide a systematic framework to identify the potential impacts of a To reflect impacts Impact Assessment development proposal on the health and wellbeing of the population and highlight any arising from the
Page 114 Page (HIA): health inequalities that may arise. The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the important Covid-19 pandemic Paragraph 4.1.54 role that health impact assessments can play in enabling developers to understand and plan for potential risks to health and wellbeing.
Strategic Policy S2 - Strategic Policy S2: Safe and Secure City To reflect advice from Safe and Secure City a Planning Inspector The City Corporation will work with the City of London Police and the London Fire Brigade during an advisory to ensure that the City is secure from crime, disorder and terrorism, and is able to visit, in which he accommodate large numbers of people safely and efficiently by: commented that it was unclear whether 1. Minimising the potential for crime and anti-social behaviour by ensuring that or not some parts of development proposals designing out crime and encouraging a mix of uses and natural Policy S1 are intended surveillance of streets and spaces; to apply to development 2. Implementing measures to enhance the collective security of the City against terrorist proposals. threats, applying security measures to broad areas such as the Traffic and Environmental Zone, major development schemes, or to the City as a whole; 3. Developing area-based approaches to implementing security measures where major developments are planned or are under construction simultaneously, and in locations where occupiers have requested collective security measures;
4. Ensuring that development proposals take Taking account of the need for resilience in developments so that residential and business communities are better prepared for, and better able to recover from, emergencies (including the promotion of business continuity measures);
5. Requiring development proposals to meet the highest standards of fire safety. Major development proposals must prepare and submit a Fire Statement setting out how the development will address fire safety in the design, construction and operation of the building.
Page 115 Page Strategic Policy S3 - Strategic Policy S3: Housing To reflect advice from Housing: a Planning Inspector Paragraphs 4.3.6 – The City Corporation will protect existing housing and amenity and encourage additional during an advisory 4.3.8 housing concentrated in or near the identified residential areas to meet the City’s needs, visit, in which he by: commented that the housing requirement Making provision for a minimum of 1,460 2,482 net additional dwellings between needs to be identified 2019/20 and 2028/29 2035/36: for the whole Plan period up to 2036 • encouraging new housing development on appropriate sites in or near identified (albeit for the period residential areas; after 2028/29 this • protecting existing housing where it is of a suitable quality and in a suitable may need to alter to location; ensure general conformity with any • exceptionally, allowing the loss of isolated residential units where there is a poor subsequent review of level of amenity; and the London Plan) • refusing new housing where it would prejudice the primary business function of the City or be contrary to Policy OF2. …. Housing requirement 4.3.6 The NPPF sets out a standardised approach to assessing housing need and requires strategic planning authorities to follow this approach in setting housing targets in Local Plans. The City of London Local Plan is required to be in general conformity with the London Plan, which sets a housing target for the City and the London boroughs.
[moved to new paragraph] 4.3.xx. The London Plan strategic framework includes Policy SD5, which indicates that residential development is inappropriate in the commercial core of the City of London.
Page 116 Page Within this context, it requires the City of London to deliver 1,460 new homes during the period 2019/20 – 2028/29, with the annual average rate continuing beyond 2028/29 until such time as the London Plan is further reviewed. In Policy S3 the City’s housing requirement is expressed as a total of 2,482 dwellings for the Plan period to 2036, which represents the 10-year London Plan target of 1,460 dwellings plus the combined annual average of 146 dwellings for the seven years post 2028/29 (1,022 dwellings). The housing requirement beyond 2028/29 will be kept under review and may need to alter to ensure general conformity with any subsequent review of the London Plan. The London Plan also includes a target that 740 units should be provided on small sites of less than 0.25 hectares in size over the 2019/20 – 2028/29 period.
4.3.7 Different assessment methods provide different figures for local housing need. The City’s 2016 SHMA assessed the level of housing need, including the needs of those requiring supported and specialised accommodation in the City, over the period 2014-36, using the latest population and household projections. The SHMA identified an objectively assessed need for an annual average of 126 dwellings per year. Using the national standard method for assessing local housing need at the time of preparing this Plan, the City’s minimum annual local housing need figure over the ten-year period from 2020 to 2030 would be 112.
4.3.8 …The City Corporation recognises that the wider housing needs across London support the case for a higher level of housing in the City than indicated by the City’s SHMA. This Local Plan therefore seeks to meet the London Plan housing target of 1,460 dwellings, which has been applied to the whole of the Local Plan period as explained above.
Strategic Policy S3 - Strategic Policy S3: Housing To ensure consistency Housing The City Corporation will protect existing housing and amenity and encourage additional with the London Plan, housing concentrated in or near the identified residential areas to meet the City’s needs, which has changed by:
Page 117 Page …
2. Ensuring sufficient affordable housing is provided to meet the City’s housing need and contributing to London’s wider housing needs by:
• ensuring the delivery of a minimum of 50% affordable housing on public sector land; and
• requiring residential developments with the potential for more than 10 or more units to provide a minimum of 35% affordable housing on-site. Exceptionally, new affordable housing may be provided off-site, or through an equivalent cash-in lieu payment, if evidence is provided to the City Corporation’s satisfaction that on-site provision cannot be satisfactorily delivered and is not viable; and • providing a mix of affordable tenures, addressing identified need in the City of London, including social or London affordable rented housing and intermediate housing (living rent, shared ownership or other genuinely affordable products) for rent or sale. Strategic Policy S3 - 4.3.12 The City Corporation will continue to support the delivery of new market and To reflect advice from Housing: affordable housing on its own housing estates and other appropriate land holdings outside a Planning Inspector New paragraphs the Square Mile in fulfilment of its ambition to deliver a significant number of new homes during an advisory following paragraph and contribute towards the delivery of new housing to meet London’s wider housing visit, in which he 4.3.12 needs. commented that the Plan could provide a [moved from current paragraph 4.3.8] clearer narrative on 4.3.xx. The City Corporation is the strategic housing authority for the City of London and how the City a landlord responsible for over 1,900 social tenanted properties and over 900 Corporation is leaseholder properties across London. The City Corporation provides over 1,500 social meeting housing housing units on 11 estates that it owns and manages outside of the City of London in the needs on land outside six London boroughs of Southwark, Islington, Lewisham, Lambeth, Hackney and Tower the City of London Hamlets. This is in addition to social housing provided within the City.
Page 118 Page 4.3.xx. The City Corporation has committed to play a leading role in tackling the housing shortage in London with a pledge to build hundreds of new social homes and thousands of additional mixed tenure homes. The City Corporation’s Housing Strategy 2019-23 aims to deliver at least 700 new social homes on City-owned land and housing estates with potential for renewal and expansion. Where these homes are outside of the City, the City Corporation normally seeks joint nomination rights with the host borough to ensure that the housing can meet address both City of London and host borough housing need. The City Corporation as a strategic landowner across London is seeking to deliver a further 3,000 mixed tenure homes on other sites in partnership with other providers, in recognition of the need for additional housing across London to meet housing needs.
4.3.xx. The City Corporation’s plans to build new homes have encouraged both public and private sector partners to propose development opportunities and potential joint ventures. Options to increase the supply of new homes beyond the City Corporation’s own sites are being explored. The planned co-location of the City Corporation owned and managed wholesale markets (Smithfield Meat Market, Billingsgate Fish Market and New Spitalfields Fruit and Vegetable Market) onto one site in Dagenham would provide an opportunity for mixed use redevelopment which could include housing. Billingsgate is a 5-hectare site next to Canary Wharf and New Spitalfields is a 13-hectare site in Leyton.
Policy HS4 - Housing Policy HS4: Housing quality standards To reflect impacts Quality Standards arising from the All new housing must be of a high-quality design and of a standard that facilitates the Covid-19 pandemic health and well-being of occupants and neighbouring occupants, and:
• meets London Plan housing space standards;
• meets standards for Secured by Design or similar certification; and
Page 119 Page • maximises opportunities for providing communal open and leisure space for residents.; and
• provides amenity space for individual units, where possible including outdoor space.
Policy HS8 - Older Policy HS8: Older persons housing To reflect advice from Persons Housing: a Planning Inspector Paragraph 4.3.62 The City Corporation will aim to ensure there is a sufficient supply of appropriate housing during an advisory available for older people by: visit, in which he commented that the • making provision for a minimum of 170 net additional dwellings for older persons Local Plan should between 2019/20 and 2035/36; reflect the London Plan’s City benchmark • supporting development that meets the specific needs of older people; for specialist older persons housing of 10 units per year • supporting development that replaces existing provision for older people with better provision that addresses care needs or fosters independent living;
• ensuring new development is inclusive and accessible to all to allow people to continue living in their own homes;
• resisting development that involves the net loss of housing for older people. …
4.3.62 The City Corporation will work with developers to encourage the provision of sufficient accommodation suitable for older people, including provision of specialist older persons accommodation, where feasible, to meet identified needs. Housing suitable for older persons, including sheltered housing, is provided by the City Corporation on its
Page 120 Page land and estates, inside and outside of the City. Provision outside the City may assist in meeting the need for older persons housing for City residents through nomination rights. Specialist older persons housing should deliver affordable housing in line with Strategic Policy S3. Some older or disabled residents may need regular visits from carers and healthcare professionals and the provision of visitor parking would support their ability to live in their own homes. This issue is addressed in Policy VT3.
Offices – context: 5.1.5. The City lies wholly within London’s Central Activity Zone (CAZ) where the London To reflect impacts Paragraphs 5.1.5 - Plan promotes further economic and employment growth. Prior to the Covid-19 arising from the 5.16 pandemic, Tthe GLA projectsed that City of London employment will grow by 116,000 Covid-19 pandemic from 2016 to 2036, of which approximately 103,000 employees are estimated to be office and the London based. London’s rapidly growing population will also create the demand for more Recharged Report employment and for the space required to accommodate it.
5.1.xx. The Covid-19 pandemic is having significant health, wellbeing, social and economic impacts globally. The City of London has not been immune to these impacts and has seen a significant shift in working patterns to flexible and remote working, with major reductions in City footfall and use of the City’s retail, leisure and cultural assets. Flexible working patterns are likely to continue in some form for most businesses and employees post Covid, within a blended approach to office working. The likely reduction in office occupation densities due to Covid presents an opportunity for City offices and businesses to reinvent themselves and the way that they work. Economic modelling by the GLA suggests a gradual return of economic activity and a return to economic and employment growth. At the same time, the fundamentals underpinning the City’s success, its locational advantages and the benefits of collaboration and co-operation remain. Alongside continued investor and developer interest in the City as a place in which to do business, these fundamentals suggest that the City will continue to prosper and, over the life of this Plan, will see further employment growth and a need for additional office, creative and collaboration space.
Page 121 Page 5.1.6. The United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union will also have short and long- term effects on economic and employment growth depending on the detail of future trading arrangements. Whatever those arrangements London’s strong underlying strengths mean that it is necessary to plan for continued growth to ensure that the City remains a global financial and professional services centre.
5.1.xx. The City Corporation will continually review employment and office growth trends and the economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic and the UK’s departure from the European Union and will bring forward a review of this Plan to address changing trends, where necessary.
Strategic Policy S4 - 5.1.7. The City of London is a world leading international financial and professional To reflect impacts Offices: services centre and has a nationally important role in the economy. To maintain this arising from the New paragraph after position, it is vital to ensure that sufficient office floorspace is available to meet projected Covid-19 pandemic paragraph 5.1.7 employment growth and occupier demand and that additional office development is of and the London high quality and suitable for a variety of occupiers. The overall office floorspace target of Recharged Report 2,000,000m2 is derived from the estimated growth in office employment between 2016 and 2036 and represents a 23% increase in floorspace.
5.1.xx. Notwithstanding the short term impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on occupier demand and construction activity, the City has a robust development pipeline. In March 2020, approximately two-thirds of the total office floorspace target had either been completed since the baseline date of 2016 or was under construction. While the long term impacts of the pandemic on the office market are uncertain, flexible working has become a key part of the business environment and it seems likely that many City workers will choose to spend at least part of the week working remotely rather than from the office. However, this trend is expected to be counteracted by a shift towards lower occupation densities and the provision of more breakout space within offices. The overall impact on floorspace demand may therefore be broadly neutral.
Page 122 Page Strategic Policy S4 - Strategic Policy S4: Offices To reflect changes to Offices the Use Classes Order The City Corporation will facilitate significant growth in office development of the highest introduced in quality to meet projected economic and employment growth by: September 2020 and the London ….2. Ensuring that new floorspace is designed to be flexible to allow the transformation Recharged Report and adaptation of space to support new uses and for different types and sizes of occupiers and to meet the needs of SMEs, innovative and start-up companies and those requiring move-on accommodation.
….4. Protecting existing office stock from being lost to other uses where there is an identified need or where the loss would cause harm to the primary business function of the City. Where necessary, conditions may be attached to permissions for new office floorspace to secure its long-term use for such purposes.
Strategic Policy S4 – 5.1.13. The City Corporation has made an Article 4 Direction removing permitted To reflect changes to Offices: development rights for the change of use of offices (B1a) to dwelling houses (C3) across the Use Classes Order New paragraph after the whole of the City. The Direction is consistent with the approach to office development introduced in paragraph 5.1.13 and protection of offices set out in this Plan. September 2020
5.1.xx. Changes to the Use Classes Order introduced in September 2020 mean that offices could be converted to a range of other Class E commercial, business and service uses without planning permission. Given that the largest past losses of office accommodation in the City have been to residential or visitor accommodation uses, this change is not expected to pose a significant risk to the City’s strategic role as a centre for financial and professional services. However, where permission is granted for office schemes that meet a specific identified need, conditions may be attached to ensure the impacts of any proposed later conversion of such space can be considered through the planning application process.
Page 123 Page Policy OF1 - Office 5.1.15. Offices are the predominant land use in the City, but complementary uses are To reflect impacts Development: required to provide supporting activities and services for businesses, workers and arising from the Paragraph 5.1.15 residents in appropriate locations within the City. Complementary uses which contribute Covid-19 pandemic to the City’s economy include retail, leisure, education, health facilities and cultural uses. A mix of commercial land uses, in particular at ground floor and basement levels, may create active frontages enhancing an area’s vitality and provide important complementary services. They also provide opportunities for creativity, collaboration and social interaction, which are key to the success of the City’s business clusters.
Policy OF2 - 5.1.18. The protection of existing offices is important to ensure that there is a range of To reflect changes to Protection of office stock to provide choice in terms of location and cost to potential occupiers. the Use Classes Order Existing Office Proposals involving the loss of office accommodation that require planning permission introduced in Floorspace: will need to be supported by robust evidence of marketing and viability to ensure that September 2020 Paragraph 5.1.18 viable offices can be retained to meet future office need. Following changes to the Use Classes Order introduced in September 2020, existing offices could be converted to a range of other Class E commercial, business and service uses without planning permission, unless there are specific planning conditions attached to a site which prevent this.
Policy OF3 - Policy OF3: Temporary ‘Meanwhile’ Uses of Offices To reflect changes to Temporary the Use Classes Order Meanwhile Use of 1. Temporary use of vacant office commercial, business and service buildings or and sites introduced in Offices: (‘meanwhile’ uses) will be permitted where the proposed use would not result in September 2020 Paragraphs 5.1.27- adverse impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area or the primary business role of 5.1.28 the City. Where temporary permission is granted it will be for a period not exceeding 36 months and the site will revert to office use thereafter.
2. Residential development is not considered an appropriate meanwhile use and will not be permitted.
Page 124 Page Reason for the policy
5.1.27. Where office buildings or sites in Class E commercial, business or service uses are vacant, and development is not expected in the short term, ‘meanwhile’ or temporary uses will be supported to ensure the vitality and vibrancy of the City is maintained, subject to the impact on surrounding uses.
How the policy works
5.1.28 ‘Meanwhile’ uses will be granted subject to conditions for a maximum of 36 months, after which the use will revert to office its prior lawful use. Applications to extend the period of the ‘meanwhile’ use or make it permanent will be considered against the criteria in Policy OF2 relevant policies in the Development Plan and will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that the permanent loss of office floorspace the prior lawful use is acceptable.
Retailing – context: 5.2.3 The ways in which people shop and use retail facilities is are changing and the City’s To reflect impacts Paragraph 5.2.3 retail offer needs to adapt to address changing consumer and leisure habits, whilst also arising from the retaining a focus on centres as places to shop. The Covid-19 pandemic has significantly Covid-19 pandemic reduced footfall in town centres and retail centres nationally and hastened the growth of online retailing, having short-term impacts on the vitality and viability of many retail and leisure facilities. Retail centres that provide a diverse range of town centre uses, including shops, services, creative and leisure activities are likely to be in a better position to respond to changing retail demand and recover from the impacts of Covid-19. In the City, as elsewhere, there has been an expansion of experiential retail, leisure, and entertainment and mixed uses, which can increase footfall at different times of the day and add to the visitor experience. Such uses are an important component of the City’s overall retail mix.
Page 125 Page Strategic Policy S5 – Strategic Policy S5: Retailing To reflect impacts Retailing: arising from the Paragraphs 5.2.4 – The City Corporation will seek to improve the quantity and quality of retailing and the Covid-19 pandemic 5.2.8 retail environment, promoting the development of the City’s four Principal Shopping and changes to the Centres (PSCs) and the linkages between them by: Use Classes Order … introduced in 2. Supporting proposals that contribute towards the delivery of a minimum of 196,000 m2 September 2020 gross of additional retail floorspace across the City to meet future demand up to 2036. … 5. Giving greater priority to Focusing comparison and convenience shops (A1 uses) within the PSCs, with a broader mix of retail and appropriate town centre uses on the peripheries of the centres and the Retail Links. …
5.2.4 Four Principal Shopping Centres (PSCs) have been identified which provide a variety of comparison and convenience shopping, largely falling within the A1 use class, in the City of London: Cheapside, Fleet Street, Leadenhall Market and Moorgate/Liverpool Street. Cheapside PSC is considered to be the City’s ‘high street’ and has seen the most significant retail development in recent years. Moorgate/Liverpool Street PSC has potential to accommodate significant further retail floorspace, capitalising on the opening of the Elizabeth Line and becoming a key retail destination.
5.2.5 The floorspace target is based on a A Retail Needs Assessment undertaken in 2017 which identified a need for approximately 200,000 m2 196,000 m2 of additional retail floorspace up to 2036. This is an aspirational target based principally on projected employment growth in the City. The reduction in footfall and the increase in online retailing as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic has reduced retail activity in the City, at least in the short term. The introduction of a Commercial, Business and Service use class, Class E, which replaces previous A1, A2 and A3 uses, reduces the City Corporation’s ability to manage the mix of retail uses. These changes are likely to impact on the
Page 126 Page projected level of retail growth. Nevertheless, the fundamental economic indicators underpinning the Local Plan remain and the patterns of growth identified in the Retail Needs Assessment remain valid. The Assessment identifies the potential for significant retail growth in and around the PSCs, with a focus on potential growth around Moorgate/Liverpool Street. Some growth is anticipated to come forward outside the PSCs, near them or along the Retail Links.
…
5.2.7 There are further opportunities to develop the City’s retail offer, allowing for a broad mix of retail facilities while maintaining a predominance of A1 comparison and convenience retail uses. The role and status of the four PSCs will be strengthened, encouraging further retail A1 development, enhancing the retail offer in the City, supporting its primary business function and the growing cultural activity within the City. Improvements to pedestrian links and the retail offer within the Retail Links will encourage shoppers to move between the PSCs by making these connecting routes more interesting and convenient to explore enabling increased activity along these connecting routes, and creating a welcoming and vibrant environment.
5.2.8. Major retail development, defined as development over 2,500m2 gross floorspace, should locate within PSCs, but where suitable sites are not available sites on the edge of the PSCs or on identified Retail Links should be considered before other areas of the City. Smaller scale retail development will be encouraged throughout the City, where it provides an active frontage and facilities which meet the needs of the City’s working population or local residents. Particular encouragement will be given to A1 convenience retail uses near to residential areas that serve the needs of residents.
Policy RE1 - Principal Policy RE1: Principal Shopping Centres To reflect changes to Shopping Centres: the Use Classes Order Paragraphs 5.2.11 - 1. Principal Shopping Centres (PSCs) are designated frontages on the Policies Map. Sites or introduced in Page 127 Page 5.2.16 buildings that form part of a designated frontage are considered to be part of the PSC in September 2020 and their entirety. the importance of partnership working 2. The role of the PSCs as concentrations of A1 comparison and convenience shopping will be retained. The loss of ground floor retail frontages and/or floorspace will be resisted and additional retail provision, predominantly A1 shops, of varied unit sizes and frontage lengths will be encouraged, supported by complementary uses that increase footfall and provide active frontages. Where planning permission is required, Pproposals for changes between retail uses within the PSCs will be assessed against: • the contribution the unit makes to the function and character of the PSC; and • the effect of the proposal on the area in terms of the size of the unit, the length of its frontage, the composition and distribution of retail uses within the frontage and the location of the unit within the frontage.
3. Proposals for the change of use from shops (A1) to other Class A and appropriate town centre uses at upper floor and basement levels will normally be permitted, where they do not detract from the functioning of the centre or amenity. …
5.2.11. Retailing comprises shops (A1), financial and professional services such as banks (A2), restaurants and cafes (A3), drinking establishments (A4) and hot food takeaways (A5). Retail uses within the PSCs are predominantly A1 comparison and convenience uses and the City Corporation considers that this predominance should continue, supported by other town centre uses that provide activity at street level and create a welcoming and attractive environment for people to shop, access services and spend leisure time.
5.2.12. Following changes to the Use Classes Order introduced in September 2020, existing shops, premises providing financial and professional services to the public, and restaurants and cafes could be converted to a range of other Class E commercial, business and service uses without planning permission, unless there are specific
Page 128 Page planning conditions attached to a site which prevent this. When considering proposalsWhere planning permission is required for changes between retail uses, the City Corporation will require the provision of active retail frontages onto the street and will also assess the contribution the unit makes to the character of the PSC as a whole and its frontage; for example, A1 retail units that are large or in prominent locations should be retained in A1 retail use. The net loss of ground floor A1 uses within the PSCs will be resisted. The net loss of other retail uses to non-retail uses within the identified PSC frontages could compromise the vitality of the PSCs and will also be resisted. Exceptionally, permission may be granted for non-retail, appropriate town centre uses such as leisure in the PSCs, providing these are complementary to the core retail offer and incorporate active frontages with an element of retail sales space. A1 units at upper floors and basement levels may contribute to the retail provision of PSCs. However, it is recognised that pressure on ground floor shop units may be reduced by locating other retail and town centre uses at non-ground level. Change of use from shops to other retail or town centre uses at upper floors or basements will be assessed in relation to the contribution the unit makes to the character of the PSC and the effect of the proposed entrance and use on the ground floor frontage.
5.2.13. Proposals for additional retail development in the PSCs should incorporate a range of unit sizes and frontage lengths to help provide a more diverse retail offer, whilst retaining a predominance of A1 comparison and convenience shopping uses. Where necessary to retain a critical mass of retail provision within the PSCs, conditions may be attached to permissions for new retail development to ensure that the impacts of any proposed later conversion of such space to non-retail uses can be considered through the planning application process. Retail uses can generate significant numbers of delivery trips and retail development proposals will be required to demonstrate how delivery and servicing requirements have been addressed in the design process. …
5.2.15 Cheapside is currently the largest PSC in the City and serves a wider catchment area
Page 129 Page than the other centres. The PSC includes Bow Lane, the ground floor of One New Change, Cheapside and Poultry. The PSC has undergone significant redevelopment since 2011 and the strategy is to reinforce its role and character as the City’s ‘High Street’, maintaining a clear predominance of A1 retail units with a focus on comparison goods and food and drinks provision. There is scope for greater weekend trading and for some additional retail floorspace, particularly to link the western part of Cheapside with Culture Mile. The City Corporation will work with the Cheapside Business Alliance to promote Cheapside as a shopping, business and visitor destination and to support its evolution into a seven day a week destination. Timed restrictions on vehicular access to Bank Junction and the potential for future public realm improvements provide an opportunity to achieve greater pedestrian movement and retail links between Cheapside and retail activity within the Royal Exchange and further east.
5.2.16 Fleet Street is the smallest PSC and predominantly serves the needs of nearby workers and residents with a limited number of premises open in the evenings or at weekends. The PSC has a linear form and the busy road creates a poor environment and acts as a barrier to pedestrian permeability. Improvements to the public realm would help to improve the environment and the visitor and shopper experience. The current retail stock is largely A1 food retail, and there is an opportunity to capitalise on the comparatively lower rents...
Policy RE2 - Retail Policy RE2: Retail Links To reflect changes to Links: the Use Classes Order Paragraph 5.2.22 Within the Retail Links, the net loss of active retail frontages and floorspace will be introduced in resisted, including the loss of retail facilities, and additional retail development will be September 2020 supported. A mix of shops and other retail and town centre uses will be encouraged in the Retail Links, ensuring that the location and balance of uses does not adversely affect the function of the Link, any nearby PSC or their surrounding areas. …
Page 130 Page 5.2.22. While the mix of uses in the Links should include comparison and convenience A1 shops, a variety of other retail and town centre uses will be permitted, where there is no detrimental or cumulative effect on the amenity of neighbouring residential or business premises, such as through litter, noise, disturbance and odours. All development proposals for change of use in the Retail Links should will be required to incorporate active frontages at street level.
Policy RE3 - Ground Policy RE3: Ground floor retail provision elsewhere in the City To reflect changes to floor retail provision the Use Classes Order elsewhere in the 1. Retail uses will be encouraged at ground floor level across the City provided they: introduced in City: • include active frontages onto the street; September 2020 Paragraphs 5.2.23 – • do not impact adversely on the amenity of residents, workers and visitors; 5.2.24 • do not impact adversely on the operation of office premises; and • would not adversely affect the vitality and viability of the PSCs or Retail Links.
2. The loss of A1 convenience retail units that meet a local residential need will be resisted unless it is demonstrated that they are no longer required. Reason for the policy
5.2.23. Retail units outside of PSCs and Retail Links provide local facilities for the City’s workforce, enhance the City’s vibrancy, and may serve the City’s residential communities. Given that most of the City’s retail provision is tailored towards City workers, it is important to retain A1 units such as convenience stores that are within easy walking distance of the residential areas and meet the day to day needs of surrounding communities. Unless they are subject to specific planning conditions, such units could be converted to any Class E commercial, business and service use without planning permission.
How the policy works
Page 131 Page 5.2.24. The provision of new retail units, particularly A1 comparison and convenience units, at ground floor level in existing and new development will be encouraged where these units do not have an adverse impact on the operation of office premises, provide an active frontage onto the street and do not have an adverse impact on the amenity of residents, workers or visitors by reason of noise, smells or fumes from the operation of the unit or servicing and deliveries. Use of ground floors for retail provides the opportunity to create more permeable buildings which can assist in reducing pressure for space on City streets.
Policy RE4 - 5.2.26. The City Corporation will resist proposals which result in the permanent loss of To reflect changes to Specialist retail uses: work with owners, developers and occupiers to retain specialist retail uses and premises, the Use Classes Order Paragraph 5.2.26 unless where it can be demonstrated that such uses are of are no longer required or can introduced in be re-provided on a suitable, alternative site which retains any historical or cultural September 2020 significance. The City Corporation may attach conditions to planning permissions to ensure the retention or the replacement of specialist facilities on the same site will be required where they are impacted by development proposals.
Policy RE5 – Policy RE5: Markets To reflect impacts Markets: arising from the Paragraph 5.2.27 Proposals for markets and temporary retail pop-ups will be permitted encouraged where Covid-19 pandemic they: • are of an appropriate scale and frequency for their location; • would not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing retail centres within or outside the City; • would not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents or business occupiers; • would not unduly obstruct pedestrian and vehicular movement; and • would not involve the permanent loss of open space or harm the character of that space.
Page 132 Page 5.2.27 There is an increasing demand for temporary retail pop-ups and street food markets, such as the Guildhall Yard Lunch Market, which can support the local economy by generating increased vibrancy, retail diversity and footfall. These uses provide greater retail choice, enliven the public realm and increase the attractiveness of the City as a place to live, work and visit. Pop-up and meanwhile uses can minimise vacancies of retail premises while a long-term occupier is sought, and may be used to animate areas where construction works are taking place. …
5.2.30. Proposals for markets or temporary retail pop-ups located within a building or its curtilage, should be ancillary to and complement the main use of the site. When assessing proposals for new permanent markets and opportunities for pop-ups, the City Corporation will consider the potential for significant adverse impacts on existing retail centres the trade of retailers occupying fixed units within the vicinity together with impacts on the amenity of nearby residents or business occupiers, on pedestrian and vehicular movement or on open spaces.
Strategic Policy S6: • Providing, supporting, encouraging access to and further developing a wide range Clarification Culture, Visitors and of creative and cultural spaces and facilities across the City, and delivering a major the Night-Time destination for culture and creativity in the north west of the City through the Economy: Culture Mile initiative. Bullet point 1, and paragraph 5.3.8 5.3.8 Developers will be required to submit Cultural Plans as part of planning applications for major developments. These should set out how the development will contribute towards enriching and enhancing the City’s creative and cultural offer, for example, by incorporating cultural activities or displays in ground floor spaces; facilitating public access and providing exhibitions/interpretation boards in relation to matters of historic interest; providing permanent or temporary space for creative enterprises; and incorporating public art either within the design of the building or as freestanding structures. Further information on the content of Cultural Plans will be set out in an SPD.
Page 133 Page Policy CV1 - 5.3.10 There are many cultural facilities that are unique to the City and maintain an To reflect changes to Protection of historic or cultural association with the Square Mile. Special consideration needs to be the Use Classes Order existing visitor, arts given to the protection of these facilities to maintain the City’s unique cultural heritage. introduced in and cultural Examples of such facilities include City Livery Halls, public houses which have a heritage, September 2020 facilities: cultural, economic or social value to local communities, theatres, museums, churches and New paragraph after specialist retail premises such as the Silver Vaults in Chancery Lane. paragraph 5.3.10 5.3.xx. Some cultural facilities fall within broad categories of land use under the Use Classes Order, enabling the change of use of any one land use to another within that class without requiring planning permission. For instance, museums, places of worship and exhibition halls all fall within Use Class F.1 (Learning and non-residential institutions). However, other uses such as theatres, concert halls and public houses are classed as sui generis, meaning that planning permission would be required to change them to any alternative use.
Policy CV2 – Policy CV2: Provision of Visitor Facilities London Recharged Provision of Visitor Report Facilities: The provision of facilities that meet the needs of visitors in new cultural developments and Bullet point 6 in nearby open spaces and the public realm will be encouraged, including: …. • temporary pop-up art installations, galleries and spaces in appropriate locations;
Policy CV3 – Hotels: 5.3.15 While the majority of visitors are day-trippers, the City has seen strong demand for To reflect impacts Paragraph 5.3.15 hotel accommodation in the last ten years, and in 2019 had 38 hotels, apart-hotels and arising from the hostels, providing 6,100 bedrooms. The GLA has forecast the need for an additional 58,146 Covid-19 pandemic bedrooms in London between 2015 and 2041. This demand is driven by a projected increase of 42 million international visitor nights and a 15 million increase in domestic visitor nights. The City’s projected share of this increase is 4,341 rooms. Based on past
Page 134 Page trends and hotel sites currently permitted or under construction, there is a strong likelihood that the City will meet the London Plan requirement. It should be noted that these GLA forecasts predate the Covid-19 pandemic but although there have been short term impacts on the tourism industry, the attractions of the City and of London as a visitor destination remain strong.
Policy CV4 - Evening 5.3.11 Night-time entertainment uses in the City include restaurants and cafes (A3), To reflect changes to and night-time drinking establishments (A4), hot food takeaways (A5) and other related uses including, the Use Classes Order economy: for example, a nightclub or a mix of such uses. They form part of the City’s wider night- introduced in Paragraphs 5.3.11 – time economy. September 2020 5.3.12 and 5.3.15 5.3.12 The management of night-time entertainment and licensed premises is undertaken through the operation of both planning and licensing regimes. In general, the planning regime controls the location, design and planning use of premises to protect the amenity of an area or local residents, whilst the licensing regime is used, having regard to licensing objectives, to control specific activities at premises to prevent, for example, noise and other public nuisance. Changes to the Use Classes Order in 2020 allow flexibility for commercial premises including offices and shops to become restaurants and cafes without requiring planning permission. Licensing and environmental health legislation would need to be applied to address any potential nuisance to nearby occupiers in these circumstances, albeit that planning permission would be required for any physical works such as ventilation equipment associated with a restaurant or café use. …
5.3.15 All planning applications for restaurants and cafes, where planning permission is required, and for drinking establishments, hot food takeaways A3, A4, A5 and related, uses should include information stating the proposed hours of operation. The City Corporation may impose conditions requiring the closure of the premises between the hours of 11pm and 7am where appropriate. such as near noise sensitive uses.
Page 135 Page Policy IN1 – 5.4.5. The dense concentration of businesses means that high demand is focused in a To reflect the impacts Infrastructure restricted geographical area. Electricity, telecommunications, water, gas and district arising from the Provision and heating and cooling networks are of particular importance. Congested cable routes Covid-19 pandemic Connection: traverse the City under its streets. Energy demands are increasing, particularly to provide and the London Paragraphs 5.4.5 air conditioning to counter increased warming and the delivery of upgraded ICT networks Recharged Report and 5.4.10 required by financial and business services. The impact of Covid-19 has highlighted the importance of digital connectivity. Recovery from the pandemic offers an opportunity to speed up the transition to a digital economy, accelerating the adoption of remote and home working, e-learning, e-commerce and telemedicine. … 5.4.10. It is essential for the City to be digitally connected and responsive to the changing requirements of business, equipping businesses to benefit from the digital transformation stimulated by the Covid-19 pandemic. and for Buildings to must be equipped to meet the digital needs of current and future occupiers. Developers will be expected to undertake an assessment of the connectivity of major new office buildings or refurbishments, using a wired certification such as WiredScore. Design – context: 6.1.3. To realise the City Corporation’s vision for the Square Mile, the design of the built Factual update Paragraph 6.1.3 environment should contribute towards the delivery of a competitive and creative City with exemplars of sustainable building design. Development should contribute towards the aim of achieving a zero emission and climate resilient City by 2050 2040 in accordance with the London Plan City Corporation’s Climate Action Strategy.
Strategic Policy S8 – 6.1.8. The City has a large workforce whose numbers are expected to grow substantially, To reflect impacts Design: albeit that increased remote working means that actual footfall may not rise in arising from the Paragraph 6.1.8 proportion to total employment. Most journeys within the Square Mile are on foot and Covid-19 pandemic pedestrian movement is particularly high during morning and evening peak times. The City has retained much of its historic street pattern, which provides convenient walking routes and allows for a high degree of pedestrian permeability. The City Corporation uses pedestrian modelling to better understand pedestrian flows and to manage the impact of
Page 136 Page proposed new development. The Transport Strategy sets standards and targets for pedestrian accessibility which will be implemented, in part, through this Plan.
Policy DE1 - 6.1.11. The drivers for sustainable development are increasing, affecting global and local Factual updates to Sustainability businesses, workers, residents and visitors. The businesses that survive will be those that reflect the City Standards: embrace sustainability and responsible consumption. The pace and prestigious nature of Corporation’s Climate Paragraphs 6.1.11 development in the City presents opportunities to incorporate innovative design in both Action Strategy and and 6.1.14 new and existing buildings to provide positive environmental outcomes for the City’s the London priorities: Recharged Report • Energy, carbon emissions and air pollutants – reducing emissions and moving to a zero emission and zero carbon city by 2050 2040, in line with London Plan the requirements of the City Corporation’s Climate Action Strategy; • Water – reducing water use in an area of serious water stress; • Pollution – reducing exposure to poor air quality; • Materials – retaining embodied carbon in existing buildings and materials and improving resource efficiency. … 6.1.14. The City Corporation is developing has adopted a Climate Action Strategy which will sets out a trajectory towards zero carbon in the City of London by 2040, and actions required to ensure that the City is resilient to the impacts of climate change. The application of sustainability standards through this Plan will contribute to the achievement of these objectives. Guidance in the area of sustainable development is rapidly evolving. Applicants should use the most up to date guidance to inform their planning proposals.
Vehicular Transport 6.2.1. The City is served by an extensive public transport network with six mainline railway To reflect impacts and Servicing – stations, 12 underground and DLR stations and an extensive network of bus routes. arising from the context: Transport for London identifies the whole of the City of London as having a Public Covid-19 pandemic New paragraph after Transport Accessibility rating of above 6, the highest possible score. In addition, major rail paragraph 6.2.1 termini near the City are used by large numbers of City commuters. Significant
Page 137 Page improvements are being made to public transport provision, particularly with the opening of the Elizabeth Line with two stations in the City at Farringdon and Liverpool Street/Moorgate. There are also river bus services which stop at Blackfriars Pier and at Tower Pier just outside the City.
6.2.x. The City has access to a very wide regional labour pool with many of its businesses drawing their workforces from destinations across London and the wider South East. The provision of safe, convenient, sustainable and effective public transport services and facilities is critical to the City’s international competitiveness and its ability to continue to attract highly skilled workers. Given the unique nature of the City, with its comparatively low residential population and its dependence on inward commuting, the widely publicised ‘15-minute cities’ concept is not directly relevant to the City’s circumstances. For instance, some services for City residents are provided in adjoining boroughs through partnership working arrangements, since it may not be cost effective to deliver those services within the Square Mile. The policies in this Plan seek to facilitate ease of access to jobs and services by walking and cycling for those who are able to do so, including ensuring good connections to neighbouring boroughs.
Vehicular Transport 6.2.4 The demands on the City’s transport network are increasing due to significant To reflect impacts and Servicing – growth, fast-moving technological development and changing travel habits. In light of arising from the context: these factors, the City Corporation published a long-term Transport Strategy in 2019 which Covid-19 pandemic Paragraph 6.2.4 sets the key priorities for the City’s streets and how the network is used. The Transport Strategy was developed in parallel with the drafting of the Local Plan and the policies set out in both are aligned. Measures to support the City’s Covid-19 recovery may provide an opportunity to accelerate delivery of some elements of the Transport Strategy.
Active Travel and 6.3.2 The City’s workforce is expected to increase significantly over the course of the Plan To reflect impacts Healthy Streets – period to 2036, albeit that increased remote working means that actual footfall is arising from the context: unlikely to rise in proportion to total employment. while vVisitor numbers are also Covid-19 pandemic Paragraph 6.3.2 anticipated to rise. This will result in significant and increasing pressure on the pavements
Page 138 Page and the public realm at peak times in the morning, lunchtime and early evening. Figure 15 illustrates forecast pedestrian flows across the City in 2026 during the am peak. This forecast was produced before the Covid-19 pandemic and it is uncertain to what extent the pandemic may affect medium and longer term pedestrian movement in the City. The pandemic has, however, emphasised the importance of facilitating safe and convenient public transport services into and out of the City together with measures to ensure active travel and pedestrian comfort within the City’s boundaries.
Strategic Policy S14 - 6.6.3. Open and green space is under increasing pressure due to the intensification of To reflect impacts Open Spaces and development, an expanding workforce and growing visitor numbers projected over the arising from the Green Plan period. It is important that access to these spaces is protected and expanded as Covid-19 pandemic Infrastructure: they provide multiple positive impacts on physical health and mental wellbeing, Paragraph 6.6.3 including providing opportunities for exercise, to reduce stress levels, and to facilitate social interaction.
Policy OS2 - City Policy OS2: City Greening To reflect advice from Greening: the District Surveyor Paragraph 6.6.13 1. The provision of urban greening should be integral to the design and layout of buildings and the public realm.
• All development proposals will be required to demonstrate the highest feasible levels of greening consistent with good design and the local context; • The installation of biodiverse extensive or intensive green roofs, terraces and green walls will be sought, where appropriate, and new development should not compromise these elements on existing buildings located nearby; and • The loss of green walls and roofs, in whole or in part, will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. …
6.6.13. The City of London Corporation has long championed green roofs and continues to Page 139 Page actively encourage them, but other forms of greening are less common in and around new buildings. The City Corporation will seek the provision of trees and landscaping in all development where this is possible., and vVertical greening such as green walls will be sought on buildings which do not provide for overnight sleeping accommodation. Green walls bring many of the same benefits to the environment as green roofs and can improve the appearance of locations where there is limited opportunity for horizontal planting. To be successful they require careful design, installation and regular maintenance.
Policy OS3 – 6.6.24. The City has 13 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), including Factual clarification Biodiversity: three new SINCs (Postman’s Park, Portsoken Street Garden, St Dunstan in the East Church Paragraph 6.6.24 Garden) which were designated agreed following a review in 2016. Two existing SINCs were agreed to be upgraded to Sites of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (SBINC) as part of this review: Barbican and St Alphage Garden, which includes the Barbican Wildlife Garden and the Beech Gardens, was upgraded from Grade 2 to Grade 1 Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (SBINC); and Roman Wall, Noble Street, which was extended southwards to include St Anne and St Agnes Churchyard and was upgraded from a Local SINC to a Grade 2 SBINC. These new and upgraded SINCs will formally take effect upon adoption of this Plan.
Strategic Policy S15 - 6.7.2. The UK Climate Projections (CP18) predict that London will experience a rise in Factual updates Climate Resilience mean temperatures of between 2oC and 6oC by 2061. This will increase the risk of and Flood Risk: overheating and the need for energy intensive air conditioning. In addition to this the City Paragraphs 6.7.2 – can experience temperatures up to 10oC higher than the countryside around London, due 6.7.3 and 6.7.6 to heat retention and waste heat expulsion from buildings resulting in an Urban Heat Island Effect. Climate change could potentially affect patterns of wind flow in high-density urban environments like the City and this will be kept under review. The City Corporation is developing has adopted a Climate Action Strategy setting out how the City can transition to a zero carbon economy by 2040 and be resilient to the impacts of climate change.
Page 140 Page 6.7.3. Today’s new buildings will probably be in place for decades or longer and must be resilient to the weather patterns and climate conditions they will encounter during their lifetime. Designing climate resilience into buildings and the public realm will help keep the City safe and comfortable as climate patterns change. Policy DE1 (Sustainability Standards) sets out sustainability standards for new development in the City and the City Corporation’s ambition to move to a zero emission City by 2040. This includes scope 3 emissions and embodied carbon which can be addressed through whole life carbon assessment.
… 6.7.6. The City Corporation will continue to monitor and model climate change impacts on the City to inform policy and decision making through implementation of, and annual monitoring and review of, the City Corporation’s Climate Action Strategy. UK Climate Projections and the detailed actions in the Climate Action Strategy will form the basis of future planning for climate resilience in the City. The City of London Strategic Flood Risk Assessment will be reviewed at least every five years or more frequently if circumstances require.
Policy CR2 - Flood 6.7.15. Within the City Flood Risk Area different uses will be acceptable in different zones. To reflect changes to Risk: Table 4 shows the vulnerability classifications and Table 5 shows which level of the Use Classes Order Paragraph 6.7.15 vulnerability classification is suitable in which part of the City Flood Risk Area. The introduced in Environment Agency’s flood zones are shown on the policies map. The Sequential Test September 2020 must be applied for all development other than minor development or change of use in the City Flood Risk Area, which comprises Environment Agency Flood Zones 2 and 3 and areas at risk of surface water / sewer flooding. Where a change of use results in a more vulnerable use evidence must be presented to demonstrate safety and suitable access and egress routes. Where necessary, conditions may be attached to planning permissions to manage the change of use into more vulnerable categories.
Page 141 Page Strategic Policy S17 - 7.2.5 There are a range of different strategies and plans which affect the Thames Factual updates Thames Policy Area: including: Paragraph 7.2.5 • The London Plan, which sets out strategic policies for the River Thames and requires the designation of a Thames Policy Area.
• The Mayor of London’s Safeguarded Wharves Review 2018-2019, which started in 2018 and aims to ensure that London’s need for waterborne freight-handling uses is met.
• The Thames Estuary 2100 Plan produced by the Environment Agency, which addresses flood risk and water quality issues.
• The Thames Vision produced by the Port of London Authority, which sets a framework for greater use of the River Thames between now and 2035 including targets for increased passenger and freight movements.
• Guidance called A Safer Riverside produced by the Port of London Authority, which aims to reduce the number of people drowning in the Thames by ensuring that safety is an intrinsic part of all development alongside and on the tidal Thames. …
Strategic Policy S20 - Strategic Policy S20: Aldgate, Tower and Portsoken To reflect advice from Aldgate, Tower and Planning Inspector Portsoken The Aldgate, Tower and Portsoken Key Area of Change will be promoted as a mixed-use during an advisory area, which balances the competing needs of residents, workers and visitors, by: visit, in which he commented that this 1. Promoting office-led commercial development to assist in the further renewal of the policy needs to refer area. Diplomatic use and associated commercial activity will be encouraged. to residential
Page 142 Page development to be 2. Supporting and enabling residential development in appropriate locations and consistent with the Iidentifying and meeting residents’ needs, utilising a range of funding sources to: distribution of … development set out in the Spatial Strategy Strategic Policy S21 - 7.6.1. …Recognisable and iconic tall buildings, including the Gherkin and the Leadenhall To reflect impacts City Cluster: Building, have been constructed over the past 15 years and a number of significant tall arising from the Paragraph 7.6.2 buildings are under construction. Further tall buildings have been permitted but not yet Covid-19 pandemic commenced. Employment in the Cluster could increase from approximately 115,000 today, to over 200,000 once all current permissions are built out and occupied.
7.6.2 While increased remote working means that actual footfall may not rise in proportion to Pprojected employment growth, the planned intensification of development in a relatively small geographic area is expected to will lead to a significant increase in footfall on streets that are already crowded at peak times. The City Cluster adjoins the Liverpool Street Key Area of Change and the opening of the Elizabeth Line will bring increased pedestrian movement into the Cluster, with Bishopsgate a key pedestrian route into and through the area. This concentration of activity will require new approaches to freight and servicing, including the use of physical and virtual consolidation. To assist delivery of transformational projects in the Cluster, the City Corporation will support the work of the Eastern City Cluster Partnership in the process to become a Business Improvement District.
Strategic Policy S22 - Strategic Policy S22: Fleet Street and Ludgate To reflect changes to Fleet Street and the Use Classes Order Ludgate: The character and function of the Fleet Street and Ludgate Key Area of Change as a centre introduced in Paragraph 7.7.11 for judicial and related business, a royal and state processional route and a Principal September 2020 Shopping Centre (PSC) will be promoted by:
…
Page 143 Page 6. Retaining retail provision within the Fleet Street PSC Principal Shopping Centre and Retail Link and encouraging extension of retail, leisure and cultural activity into the evening and weekends, whilst retaining a focus on comparison and convenience shopping in the PSC.A1 uses.
…
7.7.11. The PSC is an important aspect of Fleet Street that provides vibrancy along its length. To strengthen the PSC, it should continue to focus on comparison and convenience shoppingA1 uses, but also look to extend its retail offer into the evenings and weekends. The Retail Link on Ludgate Hill provides a key route between the Fleet Street and Cheapside PSCs and further retail development for retail and town centre uses is appropriate along this route.
Strategic Policy S22 - 7.7.9. The Key Area of Change contains a mix of large modern office developments and To reflect the Fleet Street and smaller scale historic buildings on small plots more suitable for SME use. Several major importance of Ludgate: occupiers have vacated office buildings on Fleet Street in recent years, providing partnership working Paragraph 7.7.9 opportunities for beneficial change though the City-wide presumption in favour of protecting office uses will continue to apply and the area’s commercial office focus will remain. Heritage and views constraints may limit opportunities for significant increases in floorspace.
[moved to new paragraph] 7.7.xx There may be potential for partnership working between occupiers in the area to deliver improvements and more flexible use of some buildings whilst retaining a predominance of commercial uses which complement the City’s business focus. To assist with the development of a coherent vision for the area, the City Corporation will support the work of the Fleet Street Quarter Partnership in the process to become a Business Improvement District. The Partnership is keen to explore ways in which Fleet Street can act as a vibrant spine for the area, while improving its links with other parts
Page 144 Page of the City including the area up to High Holborn and access to the riverside.
Strategic Policy S23 - Strategic Policy S23: Smithfield and Barbican To reflect advice from Smithfield and Planning Inspector Barbican The City Corporation will improve the Smithfield and Barbican area by: during an advisory visit, in which he • implementing the Culture Mile initiative, including delivering art and cultural commented that this attractions and public realm improvements through the Culture Mile Look and Feel policy needs to refer Strategy. to residential development to be • ensuring the retention and improvement of pedestrian permeability and consistent with the connectivity through large sites such as Smithfield Market, Golden Lane and distribution of Barbican whilst seeking to preserve privacy, security and noise abatement for development set out residents and businesses; in the Spatial Strategy. • ensuring future alternative uses that are appropriate to the listed status of the market buildings in Smithfield if the existing uses are relocated;
• supporting and enabling residential development in appropriate locations;
• identifying and meeting residents’ needs in the north of the City, including the protection and enhancement of residential amenity, community facilities and open space;
Strategic Policy S23 - 7.8.5 …. The City Corporation has taken a decision in principle, subject to feasibility and Factual updates Smithfield and consultation, to consolidate co-locate its 3 wholesale markets to in a new location which Barbican and could release the existing Smithfield Market buildings for alternative use. … Strategic Policy S25 – Smithfield: 7.8.16 …. The City Corporation has taken a decision in principle to consolidate co-locate its Paragraphs 7.8.5, three wholesale markets onto a single site and it is possible that Smithfield Market will
Page 145 Page 7.8.16 & 7.8.18 relocate to this consolidated new wholesale market site during the Plan period. ...
7.8.18 The City Corporation has carried out a strategic review of its 3 wholesale markets, Smithfield, Billingsgate and New Spitalfields. A decision has been taken in principle, subject to feasibility and consultation, to consolidate co-locate the wholesale markets onto a single site. …. If the decision in principle to consolidate co-locate the wholesale markets on a new site is confirmed, then a planning brief or Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document will be prepared setting out further guidance on potential future uses for the Smithfield Market buildings.
Implementation – 8.2.3. The City Corporation is required to review the Local Plan at least every five years To reflect impacts monitoring: from the date of adoption to determine whether it needs to be updated. Data and trends arising from the New paragraph after identified in the Local Plan monitoring reports may indicate the need for an earlier partial Covid-19 pandemic / paragraph 8.2.3 or full review of the adopted Plan. The emergence of new trends resulting from the Factual update coronavirus Covid-19 pandemic and its aftermath will be regularly monitored for their policy implications.
8.2.4. As mentioned in the introduction to this Plan, the Government is pursuing a planning reform agenda which includes proposals to radically change the format and content of local plans. These reforms, if enacted, will be a key factor in determining the timing and scope of the next review of the City of London’s Local Plan.
Glossary SINCs - Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Factual clarification
The Greater London Authority* designated SINCs to highlight areas of ecological value in the City. London's most valuable places for wildlife that provide local people with access to nature have been identified as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). The sites are graded as being of Metropolitan, Borough or Local importance.
Glossary Social and community facilities To reflect changes to
Page 146 Page the Use Classes Order Social and community facilities are defined by the Town and Country Planning (Use introduced in Classes) Order 1987 and its subsequent amendments., including the Town and Country September 2020 Planning (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020. Order 1987 and its subsequent amendments. The majority of social and community facilities fall within Class E (Commercial, business and services), Class F.1 (Learning and non-residential institutions) and Class F.2 (Local community uses) C2 (Residential Institutions), D1 (Non-residential Institutions) and D2 (Assembly and Leisure) use classes. Community facilities include: 1. Leisure and cultural facilities (including arts, entertainment and sport facilities) 2. Community centres and meeting places (including places of worship) 3. Libraries 4. Facilities for children (from nursery provision to youth clubs) 5. Education (including adult education) 6. Healthcare facilities
Agenda Item 9
Committee: Date: Policy & Resources 10 December 2020
Subject: National Preparedness Commission Public
Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12 Plan does this proposal aim to impact directly? Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or No capital spending? Report of: Director of the Built Environment For Decision
Report author: Rosalina Banfield
Summary
Lord Toby Harris has established a National Preparedness Commission to look at what needs to be done systemically to improve societal preparedness and resilience, drawing on any lessons from the current crisis. Several organisations have signed up to be partners and the City has been invited to consider being a partner. This would not involve any financial commitment from the City.
Recommendation(s)
Members are requested to • Accept the invitation from the National Preparedness Commission to become a partner.
Main Report
Background 1. The current COVID19 crisis has shown how major events precipitate and accelerate major long-term changes.
2. The National Preparedness Commission has been established with a view to ensuring that preparedness and resilience receives greater policy consideration and debate, working towards building a society that is better able to deal with traumatic events. More information about the Commission is set out at Appendix 1.
3. In the City context, preparedness and resilience are about ensuring that the City of London is a place where businesses and employees working and living in the City can feel comfortable and secure.
Current Position 4. Various aspects of the City’s strategic work will be of relevance to the Commission. The Commission is particularly interested in developing the concept of preparedness and place, where the City may have relevant expertise and networks.
Page 147
Corporate & Strategic Implications Financial implications 5. Partnership would not involve any financial commitment from the City.
Resource implications 6. As the Commission’s work progresses, it is possible that staff may, from time-to-time, become involved with work relating to the Commission where relevant to delivering Corporate objectives and where capacity allows.
7. It is also reasonable to assume that the Commission may, from time-to-time, request to use the Guildhall’s facilities for meetings and so on. Any such requests would be subject to the usual consideration and approval processes.
Conclusion 8. The City Corporation has been approached by the National Preparedness Commission to partner in its work. Members are asked to consider whether to accept this invitation to collaborate.
Appendices • Appendix 1 – Background note, National Preparedness Commission
Rosalina Banfield Executive Assistant to Carolyn Dwyer
[email protected] 020 7332 1600
Page 148 NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS COMMISSION
MISSION: To promote better preparedness for a major crisis or incident.
CONTEXT The current COVID-19 crisis shows how major events precipitate and accelerate major long-term changes. As the world enters the second phase of the pandemic, it is clear that our ways of life and much of our societal organisation will be very different. Not only will we be in the midst of a major economic downturn, but longer- term changes in the ways that we work and how our society functions will have been accelerated. Some of our societal norms will have changed permanently. International relations will have been transformed as will the balance between citizens and their governments.
What is more the impact of these changes will fall hardest on the most economically disadvantaged citizens and those from black and minority ethnic communities. There is a real risk that social divisions will intensify and community tensions will increase.
It is the duty of the state to build resilient communities, so that the weakest and most vulnerable members of society are not affected disproportionately by crises and major shocks. This is part of the social contract between the citizen and the state. If that social contract breaks down or if citizens no longer feel they can trust their government, this undermines faith in democracy and democratic structures.
The dramatic impact of COVID-19 demonstrates why nationally and internationally we need to be better prepared to withstand and recover from major shocks. It is clear that societal structures along with our economic and financial systems need to be strengthened so that we can cope with such events in the future.
Pandemic disease has occurred traumatically throughout history and it has been widely recognised as a serious threat in recent years. Indeed, pandemic flu was uniquely in the top tier of the UK’s National Risk Register since it was first published a decade ago. The latest (2017) edition showed it as having the highest impact severity and in the highest category of likelihood in the “Hazards, diseases, accidents, and societal risks” matrix. Yet the UK, like many other nations, struggled to respond rapidly and effectively.
However, there are many other serious risks on that National Risk Register: widespread power failure; flooding; adverse terrestrial and space weather; terrorist attacks on crowded places or transport; cyber attacks on infrastructure or services; chemical, biological and radiological attacks; and so on. Whilst response plans for these various hazards will exist, as the recent experience shows these may prove inadequate when faced with the real event.
The UK, like any other nation, needs to be better prepared to deal with unexpected or unprecedented shocks. The National Preparedness Commission is about ensuring that preparedness and resilience receives greater policy consideration and debate. It is not about criticising what has or has not been done in the past, but what
Page 149 1 should be put in place for the future. Ultimately, it is ensuring that a society is built that is better able to deal with traumatic events. This will mean investing in resilience and preparedness and recognising a shift from a “just in time” philosophy to one of “just in case”.
APPROACH: The National Preparedness Commission will be a high-level body that will oversee a programme of work that is intended to be both strategic, (recognising that what is needed to be better prepared for many shocks is the same whatever the initiating crisis or incident), and practical to encourage immediate action so as to get away from merely “admiring the problem”. It would recognise that the increasing complexity of our society and its systems brings many benefits, but potentially creates its own fragilities. It would not be about criticising what has gone before or denigrating the extensive work that has been done by many entities, but would look at what needs to be done systemically to improve societal preparedness and resilience, drawing on any lessons from the current crisis.
SCOPE: Better preparedness is needed at – • National level. This is particularly in respect of the resilience of critical infrastructure (with especial reference to the economy and financial system on which everything else depends) and societal preparedness for a major crisis (eg a pandemic, natural disaster, or a cyber attack causing widespread life- threatening disruption). It would address such issues as: o The effectiveness of the Civil Contingencies Act and the local resilience forum network; o The availability of Military Aid to the Civil Power (MACP); o Ensuring that the financial system and the economy as a whole are robust enough; o The regulatory frameworks for utilities and their ability to mandate or encourage greater resilience; o The resilience of non-regulated and non-CNI sectors that are nonetheless essential, such as food distribution; o National and international supply chain dependencies; and o Dependence on satellites.
• Community level. This would cover such topics as: o What can be done by local councils (including good practice in local resilience arrangements) and local community networks (and how they can be nurtured); o Identification of vulnerable individuals; o Role and management of volunteers; o The coordination of non-police security personnel; and o The role of BIDs.
• Organisational and company level. This work stream would need to recognise the distinction between larger organisations and SMEs. It would cover both internal issues but also the wider responsibility of organisations and companies to other entities. The aim would be to provide guidance on supply
Page 150 2 chain issues, managing staffing issues and guidance to staff.
• Individual and household level. This would cover advice to individuals and households and review good practice around the world on the effectiveness of messaging and what works in encouraging societal preparedness.
Another strand is the need for long-term investment in the human capital to deliver a resilient society. This is about educating the next generation of engineers, scientists and designers, as well as re-educate the current generation, in the awareness, understanding and application of resilience as a way of preparing communities and societies for major shocks and stresses. It also encompasses the content of the national curriculum to ensure that all future citizens are educated about being both personally more resilient but also being part of a more resilient society.
Finally, the policy work envisaged would have an international dimension. Some of the issues addressed would be readily transferable to other countries and, whilst institutional arrangements would vary, the same principles would apply. Likewise, other nations have relevant experience in preparedness and resilience from which the UK should learn.
GOVERNANCE AND ORGANISATION: The activities of the Commission will be hosted by, but independent of, Resilience First with ring-fenced funding from external sponsors.
Intended outputs would be four to six policy papers a year, looking at different aspects of preparedness, along with major roundtable events and seminars (these would be either on an outward-facing basis to raise awareness and promote debate, or on a “Chatham House” basis to develop policy propositions). The aim would also be to provide guides to good practice, highlighting steps that can be taken which are practicable and of proven value.
The Commission itself would comprise senior business leaders, respected academics, figures from civil society and others with expertise in the field. The intention is that it would meet no more than twice a year to provide counsel and advise on the overall direction of the work. It would be supported by a small secretariat. Commission members would be encouraged between meetings to feed in comments and views on the content of the policy papers and good practice initiatives.
Commission members so far confirmed are: Lord Toby Harris (Chair) Gisela Abbam (Chair, British Science Association) Lord Victor Adebowale CBE (Chair, NHS Confederation) Rt Hon Lord James Arbuthnot (Chair, House of Lords Risk Assessment and Risk Planning; former Chair, House of Commons Defence Committee) Stephen Baker (Chief Executive, East Suffolk Council; SOLACE Lead for Civil Contingencies) Hanif Barma (Founder, Risk Coalition) Dr Ruth Boumphrey (Director of Research, Lloyds Register Foundation)
Page 151 3 Elisabeth Braw (Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; former Director of the Modern Deterrence Project, RUSI) Alan Brown (Group Security Director, Tesco) Professor Brian Collins CB FREng (Professor of Engineering Policy, University College London) Stephen Dunmore (Chair, Royal Voluntary Service; former Chief Executive, Big Lottery Fund) Julian Enoizi (Chief Executive, Pool Reinsurance) Lord Jonathan Evans KCB DL (former Director General, MI5) Professor Peter Guthrie OBE FREng (Professor of Sustainable Development, University of Cambridge) Dr Karin von Hippel (Director-General, Royal United Services Institute) Dr Patricia Lewis (Research Director for International Security, Chatham House) Simon Lewis (Head of Crisis Response, British Red Cross) Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser DBE FRS (Chief Executive, UK Research and Innovation) Rt Hon Sir David Lidington KCB CBE (Chair, Royal United Services Institute; former de facto Deputy Prime Minister) Ian Marchant (Chairman, Thames Water) Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dame Sarah Mullally DBE (Bishop of London; former UK Chief Nursing Officer) Deputy Chief Constable Paul Netherton OBE (Devon and Cornwall Police; NPCC Lead for Civil Contingencies) Sir Kenneth Olisa OBE (Chairman, Restoration Partners; Lord-Lieutenant of Greater London) Professor Lord Martin Rees OM FREng FRS (Astronomer Royal; founder, Centre for the Study of Existential Risk) Rt Hon Lord John Reid (Chair, Institute for Strategy, Resilience and Security at UCL; former Home Secretary) Professor Brooke Rogers OBE (Professor of Behavioural Science, Kings College London) Sir Mark Rowley QPM (former head of UK Counter-Terrorism Policing) Dr David Rubens (Executive Director, Institute for Strategic Risk Management) Basil Scarsella (Chief Executive, UK Power Networks) Dr Fiona Twycross (Deputy Mayor of London for Fire and Resilience) Professor Liz Varga (Professor of Complex Systems, University College London) Professor Alison Wakefield (Chair of the Security Institute; Professor of Criminology and Security Studies, University of West London) Admiral Rt Hon Lord Alan West GCB DSC (former National Security and Cyber Security Minister; former First Sea Lord and Chief of Defence Intelligence) Paul Williams (Head of Operational Risk and Resilience, Prudential Regulation Authority, Bank of England) David Wright FREng (Director, Electricity Transmission, National Grid)
All Commissioners are appointed in their personal capacity and are not representing any particular organisation.
Page 152 4 Agenda Item 10
Committee: Date: Resource Allocation Sub Committee 10 December 2020 Policy and Resources Committee 10 December 2020 Subject: Public Capital Funding – Prioritisation of 2021/22 Annual Capital Bids – Stage 2 Proposals Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate These capital bids span all Plan does this proposal aim to impact directly? 12 outcomes of the Corporate Plan to some degree Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or Yes capital spending? If so, how much? £99.1m What is the source of Funding? Specific funding sources have been identified as detailed in the report Has this Funding Source been agreed with the Yes Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: The Chamberlain For Decision Report author: Dianne Merrifield, Group Accountant (Capital)
Summary
Members will recall that the annual capital bid process was introduced as a means of prioritising the allocation of central funding for capital schemes. In this second year, the process has been refined to allow additional consultation with senior Members and Chief Officers and also with Service Committee Chairs via the bilateral process. The ranking and prioritisation presented in this report is therefore an agreed position, demonstrating the increasing maturity of the annual bid process.
In October, Members were advised of £104.8m of bids relating to projects of a capital nature. Based on the narrative supporting the bids, an assessment of how essential these schemes appear from a corporate perspective was undertaken using a RAG rating approach - resulting in £82.4m green, £14.1m amber and £8.3m red. Of the £82.4m green, £45.5m related to business as usual (BAU) and £36.9m to Climate Action.
Members agreed that this level of bids was unsustainable and therefore Chief Officers, in consultation with Service Committee Chairs, were requested to further consider priority ranking of schemes to identify the most critical bids. Members also agreed in principle that only the most urgent bids (rated green) should be progressed with those with a final rating of amber or red to be deferred.
Since then, through consultation it has been possible to reach an agreed position on the most urgent schemes and the Climate Action bids have been updated to accord with the latest position.
In addition, the City of London School for Girls (CLSG) has now re-ignited the previous RASC approval to a loan facility of up to £15.6m for their revised expansion plans - to
Page 153 provide start-up funding for a new preparatory school (possibly as a joint venture with the City of London School (CLS)) and associated works to optimise the existing CLSG school site. At the time of preparing this report the amount is indicative subject to formal Board approval(s).
The updated bid position is set out in the table below:
Following the in principle decisions of RASC in October, this means that green bids totalling £83.5m (BAU £40.7m, Climate Action £42.8m) would be recommended for progression, together with the re-ignited loan facility of £15.6m, and red/amber bids of £19.1m would not be progressed at this time. The latest position represents a small net overall increase of £1m in green-rated bids since October which is somewhat contrary to expectations, however this is largely due to inclusion of £15.6m for the loan facility, representing cash flow support repayable within 7 years. The underpinning business as usual green rated bids have reduced by £8m.
Members will need to consider whether £83.5m of new capital spend is affordable, sustainable and prudent over the short to medium term – that it is deliverable and value for money, balancing the essential nature of the green bids (largely driven by health and safety/statutory/critical replacement needs) against the requirement to ensure that there is sufficient headroom to support future priorities.
In this regard the following is noted:
Within the £83.5m of green bids there are two exceptional items which mask the underlying level of the BAU request: i. £42.8m for Climate Action makes up almost half of the total value of the green bids which Members have agreed should be afforded the highest priority (although not at the expense of essential services). ii. £20m for the replacement of Fire Doors on the Barbican Estate which is a high profile, high priority health and safety scheme in the wake of the Grenfell fire. The remaining green BAU bids amount to £20.7m across 23 schemes which demonstrates a more reasonable underlying level of essential schemes.
Furthermore, although these schemes are to commence during 2021/22, costs are anticipated to be incurred over the medium term as the typical lead-in time for projects mean that they routinely span across more than one financial year. Whilst this does not reduce the overall funding burden it potentially makes it more manageable, providing opportunity to accumulate any underspends towards costs in the later years, by which time some of the Climate Action savings should be realised.
Page 154 Looking at affordability within each fund: • £65.1m for City Fund is a challenge presenting some risk in the context of other financial pressures but it has been possible to accommodate a significant element of the funding requirement across a range of ring-fenced sources to spread this risk. This leaves a forecast draw down of £25m from the capital reserves which is considered prudent, based on the current anticipated capital reserve balances by the end of the planning period (c£70m). However, mitigating actions will be needed to supplement capital reserves through renewed efforts to identify surplus operational properties for disposal and to ensure that energy savings are realised through the Climate Action interventions. • The latest version of the City’s Cash MTFP indicates a prudent level of capital investment to be £10m, so a sum of £33.3m for City’s Cash appears excessive. However, after allowing for the £15.6m loan repayable within 7 years and energy savings from climate action initiatives, the residual sum is considered to be manageable over the medium term providing future year’s bids BAU bids are maintained at the current level. • £620k for Bridge House Estates is a modest sum which is considered to be affordable.
Based on the above, Members should therefore note that the plans would be affordable, sustainable and prudent in the context of wider medium-term financial plans.
Approval of bids is ‘in principle’ at this stage, with drawdown from 1st April 2021 onwards being subject to progression via the normal gateway process including further approval by the Resource Allocation Sub and Policy and Resources Committees at Gateway 4(a).
Financial disciplines currently in place are proposed to be continued, including that funding will be withdrawn for centrally funded schemes that slip by more than one year and the ongoing operation of the ‘one-in, one-out’ approach to funding bids outside of the annual process.
Approval to the continuation of the loan facilities for the Police and HRA is also sought. £37m was approved across the medium term as part of last year’s annual bid process of which £5m has so far been allocated for police in the current year. Current forecasts suggest a loan requirement of £5m for police and £25-£30m for HRA, which means that the £32m provision still seems reasonable, subject to confirmation when the service committee estimates are approved.
Recommendation(s)
Members are asked to: 1. Note and agree that the plans would be affordable, sustainable and prudent (refer to paragraphs 8-15). 2. Consider the green rated bids amounting to £83.5m detailed in the attached appendix , which represents the position agreed with Chief Officers and Service
Page 155 Committee Chairs, together with the re-ignited bid for loan funding of £15.6m for the City of London School for Girls. 3. Agree that provisions of £83.5m plus a loan facility of up to £15.6m (indicative at this stage) be made in the draft medium term financial plans of the three funds and that appropriate contingencies be set aside for approval by the Finance Committee and Court of Common Council as part of the annual budget setting process. 4. Request that the Corporate Asset Sub and Projects Sub Committees closely scrutinise the scope of the St Lawrence Jewry repairs project to ensure that all value engineering opportunities are fully explored, with a keen eye on value for money. 5. Agree that the bids rated as amber detailed in the appendix be placed on a reserve list to be funded from savings in provisions for green rated schemes should their urgency escalate. 6. Agree that the financial disciplines currently in place be continued, whereby o central funding will be withdrawn for schemes that slip by more than one year; and o the operation of the ‘one-in, one-out’ approach to funding of bids outside of the annual process. 7. Agree to the carry- over of the unallocated provision of £32m of loan facilities previously agreed for the Police and HRA.
Main Report Background
1. Departments submitted 51 bids for central capital funding from 2021/22 amounting to £146m of which £76m (13 bids) related to the Climate Action Strategy. The initial sift identified £104.8m relating to projects of a capital/SRP nature, with the remainder of £41m falling outside the scope of the capital funding bid process.
2. Most of the £104.8m of capital bid submissions were classified as essential and identified against one of the agreed prioritisation criteria. Based on the narrative supporting the bids, an assessment of how essential these schemes appear from a corporate perspective was undertaken using a RAG rating approach where: Green = demonstrates the essential criteria £ 82.4m Amber = essential criteria less clear £ 14.1m Red = does not demonstrate essential criteria £ 8.3m £104.8m
3. In October, Members of Resource Allocation Sub Committee: • Agreed that the remaining £104.8m of capital bids was currently unsustainable and therefore Chief Officers, in consultation with Service Committee Chairs, be requested to further consider ranking of schemes to
Page 156 identify the most critical bids, with innovation and reputational impact uppermost. • Subject to the outcome of Chief Officer rankings, agreed in principle that bids with a final RAG rating of amber and red be deferred. • Noted that the Climate Action Strategy bids would be subject to further review to confirm the priority of proposals.
Current Position 4. Since October, the following has taken place: • Further consultation with Chief Officers and Service Committee Chairs on the priority rankings to agree the green ranked BAU bids. • The Climate Action Team has critically reviewed the bid submissions in the context of the approved Climate Action Strategy and the figures now included accord with the latest position. It should be noted that funding for the ring-fenced services are excluded from this bid for central funding, including the HRA allocation of £2.12m. • The City of London School for Girls (CLSG) has re-ignited a bid previously agreed by RASC for a loan facility of up to £15.6m to provide start-up funding for a new preparatory school (possibly as a joint venture with the City of London School (CLS)) and associated works to optimise the existing CLSG school site. At the time of preparing this report the above was an indicative position subject to formal Board approval(s).
This has resulted in a net reduction of £2.2m in capital bids, from £104.8m in October to £102.6m (BAU decrease of £8.1m partially offset by an increase of £5.9m in Climate Action bids) together with £15.6m for the re-ignited loan facility. The revised assessment is as follows:
With a slightly refined definition where: Green = demonstrates the essential criteria for the highest priority bids Amber = essential criteria less clear/lower priority, less urgent bids Red = does not demonstrate essential criteria.
5. Following the decisions of RASC in October, this means that green bids totalling £83.5m (BAU £40.7m, Climate Action £42.8m) would be recommended for progression, together with the loan facility of £15.6m and red/amber bids of £19.1m would not be progressed at this time.
Page 157 6. A schedule of the green bids is appended to the report for review. However, there is one particular bid to draw to Members’ attention re top-up funding of £2.6m for the St Lawrence Jewry Church repairs (in addition to the £2m of ‘in principle’ funding previously agreed). This was moved from red to green following the City Surveyor’s top priority ranking and brings the total cost of the works to £4.6m. Whilst the works are clearly essential on health and safety grounds, there is nevertheless a challenge regarding the significant cost – to be funded in-full from City’s Cash resources. To address this concern it is therefore proposed that the Corporate Asset Sub and Projects Sub Committees be requested to closely scrutinise the scope of the works to ensure that all value engineering opportunities are fully explored, with a keen eye on value for money.
7. A further proposal was also discussed with Chief Officers, to recognise that the amber bids (£13.3m) are essential and will need to be funded at some time. It is proposed that they be placed on a standby list so that in the event of a green bid being later withdrawn or costing less, the funding headroom could be diverted to allow an amber scheme to be taken forward should it become more urgent (i.e. following the principle of ‘one-in, one-out’).
Consideration of Green Bids 8. Whilst the net cost of green BAU bids has decreased by £4.9m, Climate Action bids have increased by £5.9m, a small net increase of £1m since October, which is somewhat contrary to expectations, plus cash flow funding of £15.6m for a loan facility repayable within 7 years. Members will therefore need to consider whether £83.5m of new capital spend is affordable, sustainable and prudent over the short to medium term – that it is deliverable and value for money, balancing the essential nature of the green bids (largely driven by health and safety/statutory/critical replacement needs) against the requirement to ensure that there is sufficient headroom to support future priorities. In addition, provision for the loan facility of £15.6m will also need to be factored in. The following considerations should be taken into account: • To set these bids in to some context, £89m (excluding internal loan facilities) was approved in principle for the 2020/21 capital bids. However, at that time it was anticipated that such a high level was exceptional and not sustainable on an ongoing basis alongside other financial priorities and pressures, such as the major projects and balancing the revenue budgets. • Analysis of centrally funded schemes over recent years gives a broad average of £30m per annum which may suggest that the current level of bids is high. • However, within the £83.5m of green bids there are two exceptional items which mask the underlying level of the BAU request: i. £42.8m for Climate Action makes up almost half of the total value of the green bids. These arise from the high profile, high priority and ambitious strategy which aims to lead by example to deliver longer term benefits and future revenue savings which have yet to be quantified. Members have agreed that Climate Action
Page 158 should be afforded the highest priority (although not at the expense of essential services). ii. £20m for the replacement of Fire Doors on the Barbican Estate which is a high profile, high priority health and safety scheme in the wake of the Grenfell fire. • In addition provision for the loan facility of £15.6m also needs to be factored in. i. Members may recall that a loan facility of £15.3m was previously agreed for the CLSG expansion proposal which was subsequently dropped. Pending development of a revised CLSG expansion plan, £10.6m from this loan facility was reallocated for the Boys’ School Master Plan. CLSG has now developed a revised expansion plan involving a property previously used for education purposes that can be fairly easily and speedily adapted for a new preparatory school (possibly in collaboration with CLS) in time for a September 2022 intake, together with associated works to optimise the existing site. This requires a loan facility of the order of £15.6m repayable over 7 years and therefore in principle approval to effectively re-ignite the previous loan facility is sought at this stage. All of the above is indicative at this stage and subject to various Board approvals. A further report will be submitted in due course to confirm the amount and repayment period once the detailed financial modelling is complete and the business case developed.
Loan BAU Facility £20.7m £15.6m
Barbican Estate Fire Doors Climate £20m Action £ 42.8 m
As can be seen from the chart, the remaining green BAU bids amount to £20.7m across 23 schemes which demonstrates a more reasonable underlying level of essential schemes.
• It should be noted that although these schemes are to commence during 2021/22, costs are anticipated to be incurred over the medium term as the typical lead-in time for projects mean that they routinely span across more than one financial year. In particular, the costs of the Climate Action bids are spread fairly evenly across the planning period, whereas the BAU schemes are more front-ended.
Page 159 Profile of New Bids Spend 50.0
40.0
30.0
£m 20.0
10.0
- 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Year of Spend
BAU Climate Action Loan Facility Total
Whilst this does not reduce the overall funding burden it potentially makes it more manageable, providing opportunity to accumulate any underspends towards costs in the later years, by which time some of the Climate Action savings should be realised.
Affordability 9. In order to further assess affordability, the £83.5m of green bids (BAU £40.7m, Climate Action £42.8m) together with the loan facility of £15.6m have been identified against the relevant fund as summarised below:
City Fund
10. The level of City Fund green capital bids has increased overall by £4.6m to £65.1m since October, comprising an increase of £9.2m in Climate Action, partially offset by a reduction of £4.6m in BAU. The following funding sources have been identified:
Page 160
Of the 65.1m total: • £10.4m can be funded from CIL balances and £12.9m from the On-Street Parking Reserve. It is considered that this level of draw-down from these ring- fenced sources can be accommodated from within the forecast balances available. • £3m from revenue reserves to meet certain project costs that cannot be capitalised (e.g. feasibility and option appraisal costs). This amount will be modelled in to the MTFP. • Based on the current anticipated capital reserve balances by the end of the planning period (c£70m), a maximum draw down of around £25m is considered prudent at this stage (subject to confirmation of the final position on the City Fund MTFP). This will leave a limited balance of capital reserves to cover future capital requirements (subsequent annual capital bid rounds, unforeseen costs arising from the operational estate etc) over the remainder of the planning period and beyond. Efforts will need to be renewed, drawing on our strengthened asset management practices, to identify surplus operational property for disposal to bolster the capital reserves with minimal impact on income. • Whilst there is no Designated Sales Pool in City Fund, it is proposed that proceeds from the disposal of operational properties be targeted to provide funding for the investment property Climate Action initiatives which amount to £4.3m. • The Climate Action initiatives are expected to generate significant energy savings over time; it is therefore proposed that cash flow funding of £9.2m to bridge the funding gap be identified from revenue balances over the medium term pending the receipt of these savings.
11. In conclusion, funding for new capital bids of £65.1m is a challenge presenting some risk to City Fund. It has been possible to accommodate the funding requirement across a range of ring-fenced funding sources to spread the risk, leaving a drawdown of £25m from an anticipated capital reserves balance of £70m at the end of the planning period. This is considered prudent, albeit that mitigating actions will be needed: • to bolster up capital reserve balances through renewed efforts to identify surplus operational properties; and • to ensure that energy savings are maximised to backfill the temporary cashflow funding.
Page 161 • Residual cash flow funding of £9.2m pending the realisation of energy savings is in accordance with the Climate Action Funding Strategy.
City’s Cash
12. City’s Cash bids have reduced by £3.7m to £17.7m since October (BAU -£0.3m and Climate Action -£3.4m) before allowing for the loan facility of £15.6m which gives capital funding of £33.3m required in total. The whole of the £33.3m would fall to be funded from general balances although, as City’s Cash does not hold large cash reserves, some asset disposals of either financial investments or property will be required.
13. The latest version of the City’s Cash MTFP indicates a prudent level of capital investment to be £10m so a sum of £33.3m appears excessive. However, £15.6m will be recovered via loan repayments from CLSG over an anticipated 7-year period, and there will also be energy savings arising from the climate action initiatives.
14. In conclusion, whilst the £33.3m of green bids is much higher than the £10m target level, after allowing for £15.6m that will be recoverable over 7 years, the residual sum is considered to be manageable over the medium term providing future year’s bids BAU bids are maintained at the current level.
Bridge House Estates
15. Bridge House Estates green bids amount to £620k, comprising Climate Action £544k and BAU £96k. These relatively modest sums are considered to be affordable. Note that costs of Climate Action relating to BHE investment property will be funded from the designated sales pool which is part of the permanent endowment.
Reinforcing Financial Discipline
16. In summary, based on the above assessments, Members should note that the plans would be affordable, sustainable and prudent in the context of wider medium-term financial plans and the additional financial disciplines outlined below.
17. As previously reported, it is evident from annual capital outcome reports that the capital programme regularly experiences significant slippage. Although service committees have the ambition to embark on capital schemes there have been project management capacity and capability issues which have caused delays and over time priorities sometimes change. Various initiatives to improve project and programme management have commenced and whilst the Project Management Academy is now in place the recruitment freeze has constrained capacity. To sit alongside initiatives to improve skills, the following financial disciplines have also been introduced: a. Where projects slip by more than one year, central funding for schemes will be withdrawn unless an exceptional case is agreed by the Resource Allocation Sub Committee. It is intended to undertake a review in
Page 162 February/March 2021 to identify any schemes which have not been progressed from the funding agreed as part of the fundamental review and 2020/21 annual capital bid round. This will ensure that funding is available to direct to the highest priority areas. b. The ‘one-in, one-out’ approach will be adopted when considering additional central funding requests arising outside of the annual bid process.
18. In December 2019 Members agreed in principle to provide loan funding to the Police and HRA up to the limit of how much each can afford to pay in accordance with the City Fund Minimum Revenue Provision Policy, providing that the schemes financed through the loans meet the prioritisation criteria. Approval to a loan funding provision of up to £37m across the medium term was agreed as part of the 2020/21 bids. Some £5m of this provision has been released for the Police, and the indicative sums required for 2021/22 are a further £5m for Police and £25m – £30m for HRA (which may incorporate a loan for the HRA climate action initiatives £2.12m). Approval to carry over the remainder of last year’s provision is therefore sought at this stage, with the final sums required to be built into the final version of the City Fund MTFP to confirm affordability.
Report author Dianne Merrifield Group Accountant, Capital E: [email protected] T: contact via Teams whilst working from home
Appendices: 2021/22 Annual Capital Bids – Green/Amber/Red
Page 163 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 164 Bids that meet the Funding Criteria PROPOSED GREEN BIDS FOR APPROVAL Total Funding Departmental City Fund City's Cash BHE Allocation Project Name Ranking £'m £'m £'m £'m Critical End of Life Replacement OSD - Tower Hill Play Area Replacement Project 1 0.120 0.120 SVY - BEMS Upgrade Project-CPG Estate – Phase 1 1 0.507 0.375 0.022 0.904 SVY - Smithfield Condenser Pipework Replacement 1 0.564 0.564 CHB - IT SD WAN /MPLS replacement 1 0.320 0.145 0.035 0.500
CHB - IT LAN Support to Replace Freedom Contract 2 0.096 0.043 0.011 0.150 CHB - Libraries IT Refresh 1 0.220 0.220 BBC - Barbican Centre - Catering Block Extraction 2 0.400 0.400 High Profile Policy Initiative DBE - Secure City Programme Year 2 1 4.739 4.739 SVY - Guildhall Complex Masterplan - initial feasibility and design work 1 0.350 0.350 Statutory Compliance/Health and Safety DCCS - Fire Doors Barbican Estate 1 20.000 20.000 SVY - St Lawrence Jewry Church - Essential works (Top-Up Funding) 1 2.565 2.565 SVY - Denton Pier and Pontoon Overhaul Works 2 1.000 1.000 OSD - Hampstead Heath Swimming Facilities - Safety, Access and Security Improvements 2 0.755 0.755 DBE - Public Realm Security Programme 2 1.238 1.238 DBE - Beech Street Transportation and Public Realm project (Top-Up Bid) 2 0.900 0.900
MAN - Central Criminal Courts, Fire Safety and associated public address system (Top-up bid) 1 0.683 0.683 MAN - Central Criminal Court Cell Area Ducting and Extract System Balancing 2 1.000 1.000 SVY - Riverbank House, Swan Lane - repairs to foreshore river defence 1 0.500 0.500 CHB - Public Services Network replacement 2 0.064 0.029 0.007 0.100 GSMD - Guildhall School - Silk Street Ventilation Heating and Cooling 1 2.000 2.000 GSMD - Guildhall School - Milton Court Correction of Mechanical Systems 1 0.600 0.600 GSMD - Guildhall School - John Hosier Ventilation and Temperature Control 1 0.700 0.700 CHB - IT Security 1 0.192 0.087 0.021 0.300 Spend to save with a payback < 5 years
SVY - Energy Reduction Programme – Phase 2 1 0.194 0.181 0.375 Sub-Total - Bids Fulfilling the Funding Criteria excluding Climate Action 32.173 8.394 0.096 40.663
Climate Action : DBE - Public Realm - City Fund 6.050 6.050 OSD - Climate Action Strategy 2.120 2.120 DBE - Embed climate resilience measures into Public Realm 6.800 6.800 SVY -Energy Efficiency / Net Zero Carbon - Investment Estate - City Fund 4.340 4.340 SVY - Energy Efficiency / Net Zero Carbon - Investment Estate - Strategic Estate City Fund 0.000 -
SVY - Climate Resilience Measures 4.000 0.000 4.000 SVY - Climate Action Strategy Projects CPG Operational Properties 11.735 7.231 0.544 19.510 SVY - Climate Action Strategy Projects IPG City Fund Investment Properties 0.000 -
Sub-Total - Climate Action 32.925 9.351 0.544 42.820
Total Bids Fulfilling the Funding Criteria (excluding Loans) 65.098 17.745 0.640 83.483
Loan Funding
City of London School for Girls Loan for Expansion Plans 15.600 15.600
Total Green Funding Bids (including Loans) 65.098 33.345 0.640 99.083
Page 165 Essential criteria less clear/meet the funding criteria but not essential now PROPOSED AMBER BIDS (RESERVE LIST) Total Funding Departmental City Fund City's Cash BHE Allocation Project Name Ranking £'m £'m £'m £'m Critical End of Life Replacement OSD - Parliament Hill Athletics Track Resurfacing 3 2.000 2.000 OSD - Hampstead Heath Pergola superstructure repair and replacement 4 1.200 1.200 Statutory Compliance/Health and Safety
DCCS - Golden Lane Leisure Centre Site Restoration Project 2 0.250 0.250 SVY - Guildhall - Old Library - Stonework Overhaul/Repainting 4 0.720 0.720 MAN - Central Criminal Court Lighting System Replacement South Wing Courts 3 2.000 2.000
CHB - Efficiency Transformation / Recovery - Robotics 3 0.304 0.138 0.033 0.475
CHB - GDPR Compliance Project Unstructured data 3 0.112 0.125 0.013 0.250
DBE - Safe, accessible Square Mile for walking 3 5.950 5.950 Spend to save with a payback < 5 years SVY - Guildhall North and West Wing - Modular Lighting System Controls Replacement (Advisable) 3 0.235 0.250 0.015 0.500 Total Funding Bids not considered essential now 8.851 4.433 0.061 13.345
Page 166 Bids proposed for Deferral Total Funding Departmental City Fund City's Cash BHE Allocation Project Name Ranking £'m £'m £'m £'m Statutory Compliance/Health and Safety CHB - IT Data Readiness for Data Observatory and Open Data 4 0.160 0.072 0.018 0.250 CHB - IT Data Mastering, Distribution and Compilation 4 0.096 0.044 0.010 0.150 Spend to save with a payback < 5 years CHL - The Monument Visitor and Education Centre 6 2.500 2.500 BBC - Barbican Centre - Redevelopment of Levels 1 & 2 Restaurant, Creative Learning and Commercial (Event) Spaces 1 2.850 2.850 Total Bids Proposed for Deferral 3.106 2.616 0.028 5.750
Page 167 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 168 Agenda Item 11
Committee(s): Date(s): Resource Allocation Sub Committee 10 December 2020 Policy and Resources Committee 10 December 2020 Subject: Public Capital Funding Update Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s The schemes for which Corporate Plan does this proposal aim to impact funding is now directly? requested span across a range of corporate outcomes Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or Yes capital spending? If so, how much? £3.145m What is the source of Funding? £30k OSPR, £225k CIL, £1.351m City Fund Capital Reserves, £1.4m City’s Cash and £139k BHE reserves. Has this Funding Source been agreed with the Yes Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: For Decision The Chamberlain Report author: Dianne Merrifield, Group Accountant
Summary This report follows on from previous papers on capital prioritisation and the 2020/21 round of annual capital bids. The first round of annual capital bids for 2020/21 gave ‘in principle’ funding approval to 46 bids with a total value of £89m, together with ‘in principle’ internal loan funding of £47.7m. A subsequent re-prioritisation exercise identified several schemes for deferral which, after allowing for three new essential bids, has reduced the value of bids down to £85m. A schedule of the current bids is included in the Appendix for information. To date, drawdown of funding of £14.245m to progress twenty-two schemes has been agreed.
This report now proposes the release of £3.145m to allow six schemes to progress, as summarised in Table 1: of which £2.825m is a drawdown against the new bids provisions, with a further £320k from the sums set aside for schemes agreed for progression outside of the fundamental review.
Page 169
Of this sum, £2.825m relates to schemes with ‘in principle’ approval via the 2020/21 annual capital bids and £320k relates to schemes agreed for progression outside of the fundamental review.
Funding for these schemes can be met from the provisions set aside from the reserves of the three main funds: £30k from the On-Street Parking Reserve, £225k from CIL, £1.351m from City Fund capital reserves; £1.4m from City’s Cash and £139k from Bridge House Estates reserves.
However, in view of the current financial position, Members will first wish to consider whether these schemes remain a priority for which funding should be released at this time.
Recommendations
Members are requested -
1. To review the six schemes listed in Table 1 (detailed in paragraph 7) and, in the context of the current financial climate, to confirm their continued essential priority for release of funding at this time. 2. To agree the release of up to £3.145m from the reserves of City Fund, City’s Cash and Bridge House Estates as appropriate, subject to the approval of the relevant gateway reports.
Main Report
Background
1. As part of the fundamental review, Members agreed the necessity for effective prioritisation of capital and SRP projects, with central funding allocated in a measured way. This has been achieved via the annual capital bid process
Page 170 which applies prioritisation criteria to ensure that corporate objectives are met and schemes are affordable.
2. The following criteria against which capital and supplementary revenue projects are assessed have been agreed as: i. Must be an essential scheme (Health and Safety or Statutory Compliance, Fully/substantially reimbursable, Major Renewal of Income Generating Asset, Spend to Save with a payback period < 5 years.) ii. Must address a risk on the Corporate Risk register; or the following items that would otherwise be escalated to the corporate risk register: a. Replacement of critical end of life components for core services; b. Schemes required to deliver high priority policies; and c. Schemes with a high reputational impact. iii. Must have a sound business case, clearly demonstrating the negative impact of the scheme not going ahead, i.e. penalty costs or loss of income, where these are material. The above criteria were used as the basis for prioritising the 2020/21 annual capital bid submissions.
3. The scope of schemes subject to this prioritisation relates only to those funded from central sources, which include the On-Street Parking Reserve, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), flexible external contributions and allocations from the general reserves of City Fund, City’s Cash or Bridge House Estates*. This means that projects funded from most ring-fenced funds, such as the Housing Revenue Account, Designated Sales Pools and Cyclical Works Programmes are excluded, together with schemes wholly funded from external grants, and tenant/ developer contributions e.g. under S278 agreements and most S106 deposits. *Contributions from Bridge House Estates are limited to its share of corporate schemes such as works to the Guildhall Complex or corporate IT systems.
Current Position
4. The first year of the new annual capital bid process gave ‘in principle’ funding approval to 46 bids with a total value of £89m across the three main funds, together with ‘in principle’ internal loan funding of £47.7m. A subsequent re- prioritisation exercise identified several schemes for deferral which, after allowing for three new essential schemes, has reduced the value of bids down to £85m as summarised in Table 1 below. A detailed schedule of the latest successful bids is included in Appendix 1 for information.
Page 171
5. To date, £14.245m has been drawn down to allow 22 of the 2020/21 capital bid-funded schemes to be progressed.
6. In addition to sums set aside for the new bids, there are also some remaining provisions for schemes previously agreed for progression outside of the fundamental review.
Proposals
7. Since October, three further schemes arising from the 2020/21 round of new bids and three schemes previously approved to continue outside of the Fundamental Review have progressed through the gateways, for which release of £3.145m is now requested. In the first instance, in the context of the current financial climate, Members will wish to confirm that these schemes remain a priority for funding to be released at this time. Details of the schemes are provided below:
(i)Wanstead Park Ponds – further drawdown of £40k to undertake additional survey to reach the next gateway • This project was initiated to fulfil the City’s statutory duties as reservoir owner of the ponds at Wanstead Park. • It was originally expected that the works required would be similar in scope to the ponds at Hampstead Heath. The recent Panel Engineer’s report indicates works of a lesser extent will be required, but has identified the need for a further study on the operation of the lower dams. • This study will cost £70k, but after allowing for £30k of savings in the £150k initial budget, a further drawdown of £40k is now requested. • The ‘in principal’ funding from City’s Cash resources was agreed for this scheme to progress outside of the fundamental review in recognition of the essential statutory obligation. • The total cost of the scheme is now much reduced from the £12m originally anticipated – the revised estimate currently stands at £750k - £1m.
(ii)Public Realm Security Programme – release of £225k to prepare for the next stage of security works • Following the recommendations of the City Police Counter Terrorism Security Advisors, a programme of public realm security works was established in 2017 and since then works to numerous locations have been undertaken.
Page 172 • In order to plan for the next stage of the programme, there is a request to draw down £225k to cover the costs of evaluation by the in-house DBE team, including ground investigations and specialist security advice. • The essential costs of the security proposals were agreed for progression outside of the fundamental review, to be funded from CIL.
(iii) St Lawrence Jewry Church - £55k top-up to reach the next gateway • This project is to undertake urgent backlog repair works to the Church. • The request is for a top-up of £55k as a supplement to the existing approved budget of £417k to cover additional consultant fees and surveys required to reach gateway 5, to be met from City’s Cash resources. • A provision of £1.915m was agreed for this scheme as part of the fundamental review, from which this latest request can be drawn. The total estimated cost of the scheme currently stands at £4.6m, with the shortfall being subject to a bid for top-up funding via the 2021/22 annual capital bid process.
(iv) Lindsey Street Bridge Strengthening - £30k to reach the next gateway • This project is to undertake strengthening works to meet current load bearing standards and other works to maintain the structural integrity and longevity of the bridge. • The estimated cost of consultant fees, surveys and staff costs to reach the next gateway is estimated at £100k, of which £70k of external funding via the London Bridges Engineering Group (LoBEG) has been secured. This leaves a balance of £30k to be drawn down from central funding. • ‘In principle’ funding was agreed for this essential scheme as part of the 2020/21 annual capital bids, to be met from the On Street Parking Reserve.
(v) Oracle Property Manager (OPN) System Replacement – £545k requested to implement the scheme • This project is to secure a new, fit for purpose, property management system to take over from the current Oracle system which is nearing end of life. • The ‘in principal’ funding was approved as part of the 2020/21 capital bids for the replacement of this business-critical system, to be met from the three funds on an apportioned basis. • The request is for the immediate release of £93k for consultancy and legal support plus a costed risk allowance of £71k to reach the next gateway. Draw down of the remaining £381k to deliver the scheme is subject to authority to start work being granted at gateway 5.
(vi) Personal Device Replacement - £2.25m requested to implement the scheme • This is a scheme to replace personal IT devices such as laptops, desktops and tablets across the organisation (excluding police). • The ‘in principal’ funding was approved as an essential scheme as part of the 2020/21 capital bids on the grounds that the majority of existing devices reach the end of their useful lives during 2021. Funding will be drawn from the reserves of the three funds on an apportioned basis.
Page 173 • The request is for the immediate release of £51k to reach the next gateway, with the remainder of the £2.25m being subject to authority to start work being granted at gateway 5.
The funding for each of these schemes can be met from the provisions set aside from the reserves of the three main funds which were either agreed as part of the fundamental review or the 2020/21 annual bids, subject to Members confirming the priority of these schemes for the release of funds at this time.
Conclusion 8. A total of £136.7m of central funding was agreed ‘in principle’ for the delivery of essential schemes and loan facilities as part of the 2020/21 annual capital bid process. This has subsequently been reduced by a net £4m to £132.7m following a reprioritisation exercise. Of this sum, £14.245m has previously been agreed for release. In addition, there are also some remaining provisions for schemes agreed for progression outside of the fundamental review.
9. Requests for the release of £3.145m to allow six schemes to progress are set out in Table 1 (details in paragraph 6). In the first instance, in the context of the current crisis, Members will wish to confirm that these schemes remain an essential priority for funding to be released at this time.
10. Of the six schemes, three have previously received ‘in principle’ approval via the 2020/21 annual capital bids (£2.825m) and three were agreed for progression outside of the fundamental review (£320k).
11. Funding for these schemes can be met from the provisions set aside from the reserves of the three main funds: £30k from the On-Street Parking Reserve, £225k from CIL, £1.351m from City Fund capital reserves; £1.4m from City’s Cash and £139k from Bridge House Estates general reserves.
Appendices Appendix 1– 2020/21 Approved Bids
Background Papers • Annual Capital Prioritisation Report, 12 December 2019 (Non-Public). • Prioritisation of Remaining 2020/21 Annual Capital Bids (Deferred from December 2019 Meeting), 23 January 2020 (Non-Public) • Re-prioritisation of 2020/21 Approved Capital Bids, 18 September 2020 (Non- Public)
Dianne Merrifield Group Accountant, Capital Email: dianne.merrifield @ cityoflondon.gov.uk
Page 174 Appendix Approved Bids 2020/21 THIS REPORT
Fundng Release of Total Funding Allocation Funding Release of City Fund City's Cash BHE Allocation After Re- Previously Funding now Project Name £'m £'m £'m £'m prioritisation agreed requested Critical End of Life Replacement Barbican Replacement of Art Gallery Chiller 0.300 - - 0.300 0.300 0.018 Car Park - London Wall Joints and Waterproofing 2.000 - - 2.000 2.000 - Car Park - Hampstead Heath, East Heath Car Park Resurface - 0.415 - 0.415 0.415 0.387 Central Criminal Court - Replacement for Heating, Cooling and Electrics for the East Wing Mezzanine including the sheriff’s apartments. 1.000 - - 1.000 1.000 - Finsbury Circus Garden Re-instatement 2.558 - - 2.558 2.558 0.081 Guildhall - North and East Wing Steam Generator replacement – including Art Gallery 0.744 0.396 0.060 1.200 1.200 0.107 Guildhall - West Wing - Space Cooling - Chiller Plant & Cooling Tower Replacement 1.860 0.990 0.150 3.000 3.000 0.174 Guildhall event spaces - Audio & Visual replacement / upgrade - 0.330 - 0.330 0.330 0.045 Guildhall Yard - Refurbishment/ Replacement of Paviours - 3.000 - 3.000 3.000 - I.T - Computer Equipment rooms (CER) Uninterupted Power Supplies (UPS)Upgrades and Replacements 0.090 0.100 0.010 0.200 0.200 - I.T - Essential Computer (Servers) operating system refresh programme 0.068 0.075 0.008 0.151 0.151 -
I.T - Personal device replacement (Laptops, Desktops and tablet/mobile device) 1.013 1.125 0.112 2.250 2.250 - 2.250 I.T - Rationalisation of Financials, HR & Payroll Systems 2.654 2.949 0.295 5.898 5.898 - - I.T - Telephony replacement 0.873 0.343 0.034 1.250 1.250 - -
LMA : Replacement of Fire Alarm, Chillers and Landlords Lighting and Power 1.397 - - 1.397 1.397 - - Oracle Property Management System Replacement 0.713 0.380 0.058 1.151 1.151 0.075 0.545 Structural - Lindsey Street Bridge Strengthening 5.000 - - 5.000 5.000 - 0.030 Structural - Dominant House Footbridge 1.025 - - 1.025 1.025 - - Structural - West Ham Park Playground Refurbishment - 1.279 - 1.279 1.279 0.863 - Fully or substantially reimbursable Barbican Turret John Wesley High Walk 0.043 - - 0.043 0.043 0.043 - Chingford Golf Course Development Project - 0.075 - 0.075 0.075 - - High Profile Policy Initiative Bank Junction Transformation (All Change at Bank) 4.000 - - 4.000 4.000 4.000 Culture Mile Implementation Phase 1 incl CM experiments and Culture Mile Spine 0.580 - - 0.580 0.580 0.580 - I.T - Smarter working for Members and Officers 0.113 0.125 0.013 0.251 0.251 0.185 Rough Sleeping - assessment hub 1.000 - - 1.000 1.000 - - Rough Sleeping High Support Hostel - Option 3 0.500 - - 0.500 0.500 - - Secure City Programme 15.852 - - 15.852 15.852 2.728 Statutory Compliance/Health and Safety Barbican Exhibition Halls 5.000 - - 5.000 1.549 1.548 Barbican Podium Waterproofing, Drainage and Landscaping Works (Ben Jonson, Breton & Cromwell Highwalk) Phase 2 – 1st Priority 13.827 - - 13.827 13.827 1.517 - Covid19 Phase 3 Transportation Response* - - - - 0.568 0.568 City of London Primary Academy Islington (COLPAI) temporary site - 0.300 - 0.300 0.583 0.583 Golden Lane Lighting and Accessibility 0.500 - - 0.500 0.500 - - Guildhall - Great Hall - Internal Stonework Overhaul - 2.000 - 2.000 2.000 0.025 Guildhall - Installation of Public Address & Voice Alarm (PAVA) and lockdown system at the Guildhall (Security Recommendation) 0.930 0.495 0.075 1.500 1.500 0.118 - I.T - Critical Security Works agreed by the DSSC 0.112 0.125 0.013 0.250 0.250 - - I.T - GDPR and Data Protection Compliance in addition saving money in being able to share and find information quickly 0.090 0.100 0.010 0.200 0.200 - Confined and Dangerous Spaces - Barbican Centre 2.000 - - 2.000 2.000 - - Confined and Dangerous Spaces - GSMD - 0.400 - 0.400 0.400 - - Fire Safety - Car Park London Wall - Ventilation, electrics, lighting and fire alarm works 1.370 - - 1.370 1.370 - 0.250 Fire Safety - Works in car parks 1.032 - - 1.032 1.032 - Fire Safety - Frobisher Crescent, Barbican Estate (compartmentation) 0.550 - - 0.550 0.550 0.800
Fire Safety - Smithfield sprinkler head replacement and fire door replacement. - 0.150 - 0.150 0.150 - - Queen's Park Public Toilet Rebuild - 0.380 - 0.380 - - - Spitalfields Flats Fire Door Safety 0.146 - - 0.146 0.146 - - Spend to save with a payback < 5 years Energy programme of lighting and M&E upgrade works (Phase 1) 0.440 0.489 0.049 0.978 0.978 0.050 - I.T - GDPR Compliance Project Unstructured data 0.112 0.125 0.013 0.250 - - - Wanstead Flats Artificial Grass Pitches (spend to save > 5 years) - - - - 1.700 - - The Monument Visitor Centre - 2.500 - 2.500 - - - Total Approved Funding Bids 69.492 18.646 0.900 89.038 85.008 14.245 2.825 Loan Facilities City of London Police and Housing Revenue Account 37.100 - - 37.100 37.100 - City of London School - 10.600 - 10.600 10.600 0.611 - Total Loan Facilities 37.100 10.600 - 47.700 47.700 0.611 - Total Central Funding 106.592 29.246 0.900 136.738 132.708 14.856 2.825 * excludes loss of OSPR income £336k
Page 175 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 176 Agenda Item 12
Committee(s): Date: Policy & Resources 10 December 2020 Subject: Public Progress Update on Mobilisation for Climate Action Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate Plan 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12 does this proposal aim to impact directly? Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or Yes capital spending? If so, how much? £200,000 What is the source of Funding? Policy Contingency Fund Has this Funding Source been agreed with the Yes subject to P&R Chamberlain’s Department? Approval Report of: For Decision Damian Nussbaum, Director of Innovation & Growth Report author: Stuart Wright, Programme Manager, Climate Action Strategy, Innovation & Growth
Summary
This paper sets out the interim progress to date on mobilisation for the actions approved under the Climate Action Strategy (CAS) in October 2020. A fuller update will follow in March, as we prepare to launch full implementation of the Strategy.
Recommendations The Policy & Resources Committee is recommended to :
i. Note that Officers are mobilising for implementation on the actions named under the Climate Action Strategy. ii. Note that a full mobilisation report will be submitted to Policy & Resources in March 2021. iii. Approve the drawdown of £200,000 from the Policy Contingency Fund (current balance of PCF is £407k) to support the financing of critical enabling actions in 20/21.
Main Report
Background and context
1. Upon adoption of the Climate Action Strategy (CAS) by the Court of Common Council in October 2020, it was agreed that quarterly updates would be submitted to Policy & Resources Committee from December 2020 and to all relevant committees from March 2021. This paper is an interim review of progress to date.
Page 177 Progress Update 2. Implementation
a. Since adoption of the CAS, we have initiated the preparation of detailed project and capability plans. Detailed plans for each action area are being set out. These convert the targets and metrics described in the strategy into annualised targets for achievement between 2021 and 2027. Progress against the annualised targets will be monitored by the Policy & Resources Committee in aggregate and by the relevant Committees for individual delivery areas. Reporting and achievement of performance targets will be a precondition for the release of funding. A performance management system is being designed to facilitate this process.
b. Delivery of the climate action programme is being integrated into 2021-22 business planning process. Actions and targets will be included in the departmental 2021-22 Business Plans. These are being presented to relevant committees between November 2020 and March 2021. Relevant Chief Officers’ performance objectives will include delivery of their responsibilities within the Climate Action programme. These Chief Officers will also have accountability for cascading actions and targets into their team’s objectives. Arrangements for accountability and performance will align with the changes under the new operating model.
c. Discussions are in progress to develop and implement the appropriate funding mechanisms, controls and accountability to ensure that agreed source funds for investments into the programme are well secured, understood and enabling. Coordination of routes and channels for external funding is also being advanced.
d. The capital bids associated with actions under the strategy are being advanced in the capital allocation process under a protected category and will be presented to the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee in December 2020. Bids outside of the programme have also been reviewed for their contribution to environmental outcomes.
e. As interventions on buildings form two thirds of the overall CAS investment (£45m), dedicated officer governance will be formed to support the four related delivery areas and oversee them as one significant project to manage risk and capitalise on economies of scale. Oversight of the four delivery areas by the relevant service committees is unchanged.
f. The small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) component of the Climate Action Strategy is important. It will support Square Mile SMEs to capture financial and emissions savings on energy/transport. It will also help SMEs gain competitive edge by being ready for companies who require firms in their supply chains to have a net zero plan. The City Corporation’s charitable
Page 178 partner, Heart of the City (HOTC), is well placed to deliver this work given their networks and expertise. Using the existing CAS budget, HOTC will support SMEs in the Square Mile to design and deliver their net zero action plans. This would also draw on pro bono support from big firms and therefore maximise value for money. Support for SMEs will ensure London’s green credentials are being reinforced and driven throughout the business ecosystem. The arrangements outlined here are welcomed by the HOTC Board and would provide clear targets and resourcing from the City Corporation for 3-4 years. We will ensure there is strong Board representation to provide scrutiny of how the SME work on CAS drives environmental social and commercial outcomes.
3. Governance
a. Mobilisation sessions with a dedicated Chief Officers Group (December 2020), Clerks (December 2020) and relevant Committee Chairs (January 2021) will take place to prepare for quarterly oversight of actions under the CAS.
b. Detailed delivery plans for each set of actions will then be presented to the relevant committees by March 2021.
c. Mechanisms for embedding climate considerations in decision-making processes across the organisation, beyond the scope of the funded programmes, is also being explored. All reports to all committees now include a section on climate implications and report guidance has been updated and communicated internally.
d. The Climate Action programme team is also working with the capital projects team to institute a review of pre-existing projects being led by departments across the City Corporation to identify any missed opportunities to integrate climate considerations. Take up of these opportunities will be subject to committee approval should there be additional resource and/or timing implications.
e. Training on climate oversight will be offered as part of the regular training offer open to all Members.
4. Engagement
a. Engagement on the adoption of the strategy and the role for business, residents, staff, young people and community groups as well as our partners and suppliers has begun. It will continue throughout the mobilisation period. The strategy has been integrated into the plans for global and political engagement. A dedicated media campaign targeting social and mainstream channels follows on from the initial press release. London Climate Action Week and the Green Horizon Summit provided opportunities to highlight the strategy and its intended outcomes.
Page 179
b. The planned approach for the next phase of engagement in 2021-22, including plans for reporting progress publicly, will be submitted to the Policy & Resources Committee in March. This will start with a ‘Second Launch’ in April 2021 for both internal and external audiences as full implementation begins. Bi-annual all Member Briefings are being included in the 2021-22 programme.
5. The budget envelope for the Climate Action Programme for both capital and revenue begins in 21/22 financial year. However, two high impact opportunities have arisen to accelerate impact of the Climate Action Programme which would require modest resource in the 20/21 financial year. It is proposed that this is covered with a draw down from the Policy Contingency Fund (currently with a balance of £407k would allow these critical enabling actions to proceed in 20/21 (recommendation 3 above).
a. The first is an unforeseen opportunity to attract external funding for energy refurbishment into the Corporation’s social housing. This will require immediate and specialist grant writing expertise. Should £30k of specialist grant writing expertise be accessed in 20/21, we could prepare a bid that would allow for additional investment in the estate beyond the original internal CAS commitment. This is new investment not originally proposed in the CAS funding envelope, due to the timescales of the funding scheme.
b. The second is an opportunity to accelerate mobilisation in the 20/21 financial year for the agreed Climate Action programme for buildings both owned and operated and investment. Investing in project support for procurement mobilisation and design specifications in this financial year will allow for greater momentum into the 21/22 year and bring forward the realisation of energy savings from the CPG properties. This was planned investment in the original CAS funding envelope but would need to be drawn from the Policy Contingency Fund as the CAS monies are not available before April 2021.
Corporate and strategic implications
6. Strategic implications: The CAS supports delivery again the following outcomes in the Corporate Plan, 2018-23: • Outcome 1: People are safe and feel safe • Outcome 5: Businesses are trusted and socially and environmentally responsible • Outcome 7: We are a global hub for innovation in financial and professional services, commerce and culture • Outcome 10: We inspire enterprise, excellence, creativity and collaboration
Page 180 • Outcome 11: We have clean air, land and water and a thriving and sustainable natural environment • Outcome 12: Our spaces are secure, resilient and well-maintained.
7. The strategy and mobilisation progress also builds upon existing strategies and policies, including: The Responsible Business Strategy 2018-23, the Responsible Investment Policy, the City Procurement Strategy 2020-24, the Local Plan 2015, the draft City Plan 2036, the Transport Strategy 2018-43, the Air Quality Strategy 2015-20, the Climate Mitigation Strategy, the Carbon Descent Plan, the Transition to a Zero Emission Fleet Policy, the Renewable Electricity Policy & Sourcing Strategy and related campaigns, such as Plastic Free City. It is aligned to ongoing reviews of our financial and property investment portfolio
8. Resource Implications – Implementing the strategy requires changes in capability, capacity and culture. This will include expertise and skills sets in some areas that the City Corporation does not currently have. It will be critical to the deliverability of the strategy that there is not only the funding for the capital works, but the capability to manage these projects successfully. Resource and capability requirements are being built into the new operating model. Arrangements for those resources to be in place will align with the changes under the new operating model. Any additional resources are included in the original funding calculations or will be absorbed into existing budgets except for the small request for use of funds from the Policy Contingency Fund in 20/21. Member training will be made available, as requested, to help them fulfil their duties in overseeing delivery of the strategy.
9. Risk Implications – There are no new risks arising from the progress update. Corporate, programme and departmental level risks are currently being finalised following a deep dive into ‘CR30 - Climate Action’ at Audit & Risk Management Committee in October. The revised corporate risk will be formally registered at the January 2021 meeting of the Audit & Risk Management Committee. Key departmental risks will be flagged in Business Plans. Programme level risks are being monitored and will be reported to committee(s) on an ongoing basis.
10. Equalities Implications – A Test of Relevance was undertaken on the Climate Action Strategy and several positive impacts were identified for people in at least one of the following five protected groups - age, disability, race, pregnancy/maternity and gender. No negative impacts were identified. Potential equalities impacts will be investigated and assessed on an ongoing basis.
11. No new legal, security, climate implications arise from the recommendations in this report.
Page 181 Conclusion
12. Progress with mobilisation against the Climate Action Strategy continues at pace. The Policy & Resources Committee will received the next progress report in March 2021, just before the beginning of the first implementation year.
Page 182 Agenda Item 13
Committee(s): Date(s): Policy and Resources 10 December 2020 Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate Plan does this proposal aim to impact 5 (primary) directly? 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 11 and 12. Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or N capital spending? If so, how much? £ What is the source of Funding? N/A Has this Funding Source been agreed with the N Chamberlain’s Department? Subject: Public Annual Responsible Business Performance Update Report of: For Decision Chamberlain and Chief Grant’s Officer Report author: Divindy Grant
Summary
This report provides the second annual update to Members on the City of London Corporation’s Responsible Business Strategy to ensure Members have oversight of the Strategy’s progress and impact. It recognises our achievements for the year October 2019 through September 2020, our COVID-19 response and reaffirms our commitment to the ongoing delivery of our Responsible Business Strategy. The report identifies the eight priority areas for action for Year 3.
At the end of the year 78% of the Strategy’s 218 actions are completed or on track and 86% of our performance indicators showed positive progress this year, with Covid- 19 the primary reason for delays. It is a testament to the Officers involved in delivering the Responsible Business Strategy that Covid has only had a minor impact on the Strategy with significant achievements across all eight themes.
Recommendation(s)
Members are asked to: • Approve the attached Responsible Business Annual Report – Year 2 in Appendix 1. • Endorse the identified Responsible Business Year 3 priority activities.
Page 183 Main Report
Background
1. In September 2018, the City Corporation adopted its Responsible Business Strategy, 2018-23: Towards a Sustainable Future. In this Strategy, the City Corporation committed ‘to creating positive impact and reducing negative impact across all our activities and decisions, because it is the right thing to do and will help ensure a sustainable future’.
2. The strategy focuses on two outcomes; individuals and communities flourish, and the planet is healthier. Each outcome has a set of priority areas for 2018-23, along with eight responsible business practices to guide our work.
Key highlights from Year 2
3. The year 2 report in appendix 1 demonstrates the breadth of progress made from October 2019 to September 2020. Key highlights for members to note are: • Our response to Covid-19 which includes leading the pan-London response for London Councils; providing over £12.7M in assistance to 200+ organisations; providing resources and support to businesses; and supporting our residents, workers, students and staff. • Our ambitious, evidence-based Climate Action Strategy was approved in Autumn 2020. The strategy commits the City Corporation to net zero direct (scope 1 & 2) carbon emissions by 2027 and indirect (scope 3) emissions by 2040 in our own operations, and to help the Square Mile meet net zero by 2040, as well as to build the climate resilience of our assets and the Square Mile. • Our commitment to prioritise action on race equality through signing the Race at Work Charter and launching a Tackling Racism Taskforce made up of elected officials and City Corporation officers that is taking a deep dive approach into issues such as staffing, culture, internal governance, education, police, health and wellbeing and business.
4. Other highlights include: • Implementing London’s first 24-hour zero-emissions street; • Adopting a comprehensive new responsible procurement policy; • Obtaining our Employer with Heart status through adopting a new Premature Baby Paid Leave policy; • Supporting the launch of the Impact Investing Institute (III), • Working with city businesses on areas such as recycling, air quality, and health; • Undertaking species monitoring and natural pest-control measures to protect biodiversity at the open spaces we manage; • Agreeing a City Corporation approach to the UN SDGs.
Page 184
Overview of progress against action plan in 2019-20
5. Each of the priority areas has an accompanying action plan which directs our work. The combined Responsible Business action plan contains 218 actions across the eight priority areas. The redirection of resources to Covid-19 response and predominance of homeworking had a significant impact on the achievement on 46 of these, especially in relation to waste and single use plastic ambitions. 13 of those impacted actions are now back on track.
6. At the end of Year 2, 69 actions were completed and a further 100 actions are on track to complete by the end of Year 5, which together represent 78% of planned actions. 22% of our actions are behind schedule, predominantly due to Covid-19 impact, but only 4 actions (2%) are classified as a red risk. Mitigation plans are in place to manage these risks and course correct in the action plan.
Tracking Impact
7. 69 key performance indicators (KPIs) that cover the eight primary themes have been selected to help track progress. This is an expansion on the 53 identified in the Year 1 report, primarily due to additional data becoming available and additional impact areas identified as needing measurement.
8. Half of these indicators are embedded in our corporate performance framework, which enables us to clearly demonstrate our impact against our Corporate Plan for 2018-23. The remainder are strategy-specific indicators linked to our action plans to aid in demonstrating the outcomes and impact of this strategy.
9. Of the 69 identified performance indicators, data was able to be collected this year on 51. Seven of the new indicators will not have available data until next year, two were not measured this year due to Covid. For nine indicators, the approach and data capture mechanisms are still being developed. A summary of the indicators is presented in the Report in Appendix 1. For the performance indicators where there was historical data to track progress against for, 86% showed improvement this year, with the negative performance of 11% linked to Covid-19 impacts.
Proposed Year 3 priority actions
10. While acting responsibly towards our staff, residents, businesses and wider society during the on-going Covid-19 pandemic remains the top priority, the proposed priorities for Responsible Business Year 3 are as follows: • Building back better as an organisation and the Square Mile, working towards a green and fair recovery. • Embedding the UN SDGs into strategy development, implementation and reporting processes and use our influence to encourage other businesses to similarly engage. • Implementing the recommendations of our Tackling Racism Taskforce.
Page 185 • Increasing responsible investment by co-hosting the UK’s Green Horizons summit and developing a new responsible investment policy that reflects our climate ambitions. • Engaging the City Corporation’s supply chain and working closely with the top 25 suppliers on improve carbon reduction, circular economy, modern slavery performance. • Addressing health inequalities by convening high-profile visibility on this subject to encourage firms to consider the health and wellbeing needs of routine and manual (“hidden”) workers within their recovery plans. • Working across all operational sites to meet the City Corporation’s plastic free commitment in 2021. • Continuing on-going work to implement the associated corporate strategies including Climate Action, Social Mobility and Air Quality; and developing updated strategies for Circular Economy and Biodiversity.
Corporate & Strategic Implications
14. The Responsible Business Strategy is one of the City Corporation’s corporate strategies and directly referenced in the Corporate Plan. Thus, continued delivery of the Strategy is important to meeting corporate objectives. Implications
Equalities, Inclusion and Diversity Implications:
15. Positive implications – the Strategy aims to make both the City Corporation and the wider Square Mile and Financial and Professional Services sector more inclusive and diverse with equal opportunities for all.
Security Implications:
16. There are no security implications from this Strategy. Resource and Financial Implications:
17. The lead for the Strategy delivery and monitoring is undertaken by the Responsible Business Strategy Officer (RBSO) that currently sits within the Chamberlain’s Department. Members should note that the RSBO post is currently only funded through March 2021 and is not explicitly mentioned in the Tier 1 Target Operating Model. Ongoing funding and the future location of the role will depend on the implementation of the Tier 2 Target Operating Model. This is a key risk for the ongoing delivery of this successful and priority strategy.
18. The resources for delivering the Strategy have been embedded in departmental business plans for the first two years. For Strategy delivery to continue successfully, it is important that this provision of resources remain in the rollout of the new Target Operating Model and 2021-22 budgets allocation.
Page 186 £10k per annum from the Policy Initiative Fund has been committed to cover the memberships cost of the UN Global Compact for years 3, 4 and 5 of the Strategy.
Conclusion
19. The Responsible Business Strategy continued to be delivered successfully during its second year with performance primarily on track and the performance indicators showing good progress has been made due to the collaborative effort of Officers from across the City Corporation. The priority areas for action have been identified for Year 3, which will help the City Corporation continue to expand its positive impact.
Appendices
• Appendix 1 – Responsible Business Annual Report – Year 2
Divindy Grant Responsible Business Strategy Officer T: 0207 332 1284 E: [email protected]
Page 187 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 188 Responsible Business Strategy Towards a sustainable future Annual report 2019-20 Page 189 Page Table of Contents Foreword
To be added 2. Foreword 3. Introduction 4. Our approach to responsible business 5. Overview of progress 6. Strategy Impact 7. Our response to Covid-19 8. Strategy Impact: Outcome 1 9. People’s Wellbeing 10. Equal Opportunities 11. Diverse Organisations 12. Strategy Impact: Outcome 2
Page 190 Page 13. Air Quality 14. Biodiversity 15. Climate Change 16. Reducing Waste and Improving Circularity 17. Working in Partnership 18. Responsible Investment 18. Looking ahead
Appendices A One page summary of Responsible Business Strategy B KPI Reporting
Catherine McGuinness Chair of the Policy & Resources Committee, The City of London Corporation 2 Annual Report 2019-20 Introduction
We are pleased to provide the second annual update on the actions and We have been committed to increasing the diversity and social mobility of our activities outlined in the City of London Corporation’s (City Corporation) workforce and in the wider financial and professional services sector. The Black Lives Responsible Business Strategy 2018-2023. The events of this year Matter movement has shone a spotlight on the racism still present in society. This required us to demonstrate our responsibilities to our employees, year we signed the Race at Work Charter to show our commitment to prioritise action residents, businesses, suppliers and wider society like never before. The on race equality and launched a Tackling Racism Taskforce made up of elected officials second year of the strategy has been challenging, but also opened and City Corporation officers that is taking a deep dive approach into issues such as staffing, culture, internal governance, education, police, health and wellbeing and opportunities for us to change the way we work, build on our existing business. strengths and learn from others to further reinforce our commitment to: As the heart of the UK’s financial services sector, we have worked to ensure that Create positive impact and reduce negative London and the Square Mile remains a leader for green and socially responsible
Page 191 Page impact across all our activities and decisions investment. This year we collaborated to launch of the Impact Investing Institute, as because it is the right thing to do and will well as continued our active support for the Green Finance Institute. We have also help ensure a sustainable future. worked to increase the diversity of the financial and professional services sector through our work with the Women in Finance and Race at Work charters and the We have played our part in the response to Covid-19 by leading the pan- Social Mobility Commission. London response for London Councils; providing over £12.7M in assistance to 200+ organisations, ensuring they could continue their Our responsible business work is wide-ranging, spanning eight main themes. Work this year includes implementing London’s first 24-hour zero-emissions street; essential work; providing resources and support to businesses; and adopting a comprehensive new responsible procurement policy; obtaining our supporting our residents, workers, students and staff. Employer with Heart status through adopting a new Premature Baby Paid Leave Despite Covid-19, the urgency for taking significant climate action policy; working with city businesses on areas such as recycling, air quality, and health; continues to accelerate. Our ambitious, evidence-based Climate Action and species monitoring and natural pest-control measures to protect biodiversity at Strategy was approved in Autumn 2020. The strategy commits the City the open spaces we manage. Corporation to net zero direct (scope 1 & 2) carbon emissions by 2027 and indirect (scope 3) emissions by 2040 in our own operations, and to This report shares the key highlights, progress and partnerships that are involved in delivering the Responsible Business Strategy. It recognises our achievements for the help the Square Mile meet net zero by 2040, as well as to build the year October 2019 through September 2020, our COVID-19 response and reaffirms climate resilience of our assets and the Square Mile. our commitment to the ongoing delivery of our Responsible Business Strategy.
3 Our approach to Responsible Business
Areas of focus Governance Our strategy focuses on two outcomes; individuals and communities The Responsible Business Environmental Working Group – This group is flourish, and the planet is healthier. Each outcome has a set of priority comprised of the Responsible Business Strategy Officer and areas for 2018-23 outlined in the table to the right, along with eight environmental theme leads and has responsibility for implementing the responsible business practices to guide our work. actions to deliver Outcome 2 of the Responsible Business Strategy. The Social Cross-Corporation Working Group – This is a joint group comprised of the Strategy officers and social theme leads of the Individuals and Responsible business Responsible Business Strategy, as well as the City Corporation’s Social communities flourish practices Mobility and Digital Skills Strategies, with joint responsibility for implementing the strategies. Priority areas ✓ Page 192 Page Engaging our ✓ People’s wellbeing employees The Senior Responsible Officers – the Chamberlain and Director of City ✓ Equal opportunities ✓ Using our convening Bridge Trust are the joint SROs, accountable for the delivery of the power strategy. ✓ Diverse organisations ✓ Connecting our Summit Group – The senior leadership group responsible for decision communities making across the organisation, ultimately responsible for all responsible ✓ Ensuring transparency business-related activity. The planet is healthier ✓ Preventing bribery, corruption and fraud Policy and Resources Committee – The senior committee comprised of Priority areas ✓ Promoting human elected members that have oversight for all responsible business-related ✓ Air quality rights activity. ✓ Waste ✓ Championing ✓ Plastics and packaging responsible investment Reporting and transparency ✓ Climate change ✓ Leading responsible procurement This report to highlights our key achievements and areas to progress ✓ Biodiversity which is available on our website to download. Key responsible business performance indicators are reported against periodically as part of the organisation’s Corporate Performance Framework, demonstrating the integration of responsible business priorities in the organisation.
4 Overview of progress
Each of the priority areas has an accompanying action plan which directs At the end of Year 2, we have completed 69 actions and are on track to our work. Below we provide a RAG rating update on each of the priority complete by the end of Year 5 a further 100 actions, which together areas in achieving the actions set out in the action plans: represent 78% of our committed actions. 22% of our actions are behind schedule, predominantly due to the mentioned Covid impact, but only 4 of Overall progress our actions (2%) are classified as a red risk. We have mitigation actions in place to manage these risks and course correct in the action plan. The Responsible Business action plan contains 218 actions across the eight priority areas. The redirection of resources to Covid-19 response and predominance of homeworking had a significant impact on the Progress by Theme achievement on 46 of these, especially in relation to our waste and single use plastic ambitions. 13 of those impacted actions are now back on track. Air Quality As a result, the plan had to be dynamic to include creative alternatives and new priorities. Biodiversity Page 193 Page Responsible Business Action Status Plastics and Packaging 2% 2% Reducing Waste
18% 32% Climate Change Equal Opportunities
Diverse Organisation
Wellbeing
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Complete Green Amber Red Low Priority
46%
Complete Green Amber Red Low Priority
5 Strategy Impact
Tracking our Impact Supporting the United Nations The drive for delivering the Responsible Business Strategy is to achieve a Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) positive impact. While much of that impact is hard to quantify, 69 key performance indicators (KPIs) that cover the eight primary themes have The UN Sustainable Development Goals provide a comprehensive been selected to help track our progress. This is an expansion on the 53 framework for organisations to assess, understand and make a positive identified in the previous report, primarily due to additional data impact on the major issues impacting society, the environment and the becoming available and additional impact areas identified as needing economy. In September 2020, we formalised our ongoing commitment to working towards achieving the SDGs by embedding relevant SDGs measurement. into strategy development, implementation and reporting, engaging Half of these indicators are embedded in our corporate performance with businesses and reporting on our progress. framework, which enables us to clearly demonstrate our impact against Page 194 Page our Corporate Plan for 2018-23. In addition, we have a variety of strategy- We have identified nine of the SDGs that we have the most potential to specific indicators linked to our action plans to aid us in demonstrating the help through the focuses on this Responsible Business Strategy. outcomes and impact of this strategy. Of our 69 performance indicators, data was able to be collected this year on 51. Seven of the new indicators will not have available until next year, two were not measured this year due to Covid and for nine we are still working to establish the corporate systems to measure them. A summary of the indicators is presented below, with the full framework in Appendix A. For the performance indicators where there was historical data to track progress against for, 86% showed improvement this year, with the negative performance of 11% linked to Covid-19 impacts. Two indicators linked to supply chain engagement were not progressed this year but are a crucial area of action for next year.
6 Our Response to Covid-19
As an organisation with local government, charitable and wider functions we have endeavoured to play our part in the response to Covid- 19 in each area of our work, using our capacity and resources for the collective effort.
As an Organisation As a Local Government body Looking after the physical and emotional wellbeing of our staff has been a top priority. We have compiled several resources to help staff stay mentally The mental and physical wellbeing and financial security of our residents and healthy. These have ranged from transitioning our mental health first aider businesses is a key priority. In our role as a public health authority, we programme online, to guides on how to support our frontline workers, worked tirelessly to develop and implement a Covid-19 response including providing flexible hours and resources for parents and carers, and starting the Local Outbreak Control Plan and Standard Operating Procedures. Power Hours focused on ensuring staff have the technical and emotional skills Ensuring the safety of our vulnerable population, in particular elderly and that they need to work from home effectively. To help weather the insecurity, homeless people, was a crucial task. We made arrangements to one of the first priorities of the HR team in lockdown was to automatically accommodate elderly people discharged from hospitals and who could not extend the contracts of all our apprentices due to before June to provide job immediately return to a home setting due to an ongoing requirement for Page 195 Page security in an uncertain time. care. We leased a hostel complete with security, cleaning and housekeeping and catering services until March 2021 for about 45 homeless City Recognising that the COVID-19 lockdown could impact many business sectors residents . in which the Corporation is active, our procurement and finance teams quickly established a response group to develop and administer a Supplier We have been supporting City businesses to navigate the pandemic – Relief Programme. A communications campaign led by our Commercial providing guidance for resources to businesses and upskilling resources to Director was issued to all the Corporation’s contracted suppliers, informing employees. Our Business Healthy programme has provided a hub to City them of the Supplier Relief Programme and how it could be accessed. employers and their workers of all sizes and sectors for mental health support Additionally, we have provided Rental relief for City of London businesses. We and promotion of healthy working and lifestyle practices. In addition, agreed to defer one quarter’s rent for a range of tenants in our properties Business Healthy has been bringing together key external stakeholders to struggling as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. address health inequalities faced by City workers in routine, service and manual roles, such as cleaning and security – who have delivered a critical service to the City’s businesses throughout the pandemic, despite being As a Charity disproportionately harmed by COVID-19 and its effects. In response to Covid-19, we recognised that the challenge many charities In the pan-London response, we seconded our Chief Executive & Town Clerk would face during Covid was meeting core cost funding (e.g. supporting and other senior and junior officers to coordinate the London Councils’ Covid- wages, rent and bills). All current Bridging Divides grantees were offered 19 Strategic Coordination Group . In the Financial and Professional Services conversion funding from specific projects to core funding for up to a year. We sector, we supported the Social Mobility Commission to run a series of have now converted 154 grants worth £2.8M. In additional to our normal webinars to identify what firms are doing to support low income communities funding streams, we provided over £1.7M in Covid response grants to over and employees. 200 organisations. We also donated £11M to and administer the London Community Response Fund on behalf of the London Funders, which has 7 provided over £25M to 1,192 different organisations. Strategy Impact In our organisation:
Outcome 1: 14% year on year Ranked in the top improvement to our 50 in the Social Gender Pay Gap Mobility Employers’ Individuals and Index Communities 97 work experience placements and 143 915 staff Flourish apprentices offered all participating in our paid the London Living diversity networks Wage* Page 196 Page
In the Square Mile and beyond:
603 recorded hours £31.4M of of staff volunteering charitable funding benefiting 367 organisations Create and champion equality, diversity and 864 organisational inclusion across our Increasing the space members in our organisation and networks for and prioritising and safeguard people and Business Healthy pedestrians and Network communities cyclists on 33 streets. from social issues impacting London * All work experience with placements at least two weeks in length 8 Highlights
Mental Health Strategy: This year we launched ‘Pass the Cup and Move’ the joint City and Hackney Mental Health – was a creative campaign Strategy 2019-23 with the vision ‘Everyone will to help combat the enjoy good mental health in the City and increased risk of Hackney with access to the right care at the musculoskeletal problem earliest opportunity when they need it, delivered of homeworking and People’s as close to their local community as possible’. involved staff It has five strategic priorities – Prevention, demonstrating at your Access, Neighbourhood, Personalisation and co- desk stretches and Wellbeing production, and Recovery. It aims to address exercises while sharing a undiagnosed mental health needs of people who virtual coffee break. 'slip through the net' if they do not access services early enough. The plan also addresses support for people with alcohol and drug addictions, LGBTQ+ people, older adults and BAME groups such as young black men and boys. Page 197 Page Promoting human rights: This year our public Wellbeing Ambassadors: A busy programme of engagement on modern slavery and human wellbeing campaigns and events has been run rights has included: this year, despite staff working from home. Events have been delivered digitally since March • 2020 by our active network of Wellbeing delivering training to the London Heads of Ambassadors and Mental Health First Aiders - Procurement on Modern Slavery; covering themes such as ‘Love your back’, healthy • collaborating with the Local Government eating, suicide prevention and kindness. Association (LGA) on their Modern Slavery Caring policies: We obtained our Employer with and sustainable procurement guidance; Heart status after adopting a new Premature • participating in a focus group discussion with Teams working on this Baby Paid Leave policy. the UK Home Office and LGA on how priority area Domestic abuse: During the Coronavirus implementation and effectiveness of the pandemic there has been a rise in domestic Modern Slavery Act could be improved; abuse cases nationally. We updated our Spotting • collaborating with the Business, Human • Human Resources the Signs toolkit to include information for Rights and Environment (BHRE) Group on • Community Safety employers on how to support an employee international uptake of the United Nations affected by domestic abuse when working from • Public Heath Guiding Principles on Business and Human home. We have worked to raise awareness of • City of London Police Rights; domestic abuse support resources with staff and the city population more widely. • supporting the UK Bill that would see the Modern Slavery Act expanded to include requirements for public authorities. 9 Highlights
The City of London Corporation values the rich Procuring with impact: City Procurement continues diversity and creative potential people with different to assess bidders for all relevant tenders on the backgrounds, skills and abilities bring to the work-related opportunities they will provide as part community and workplace. Equality of opportunities of their social value offering. Suppliers should offer is engrained in our core values and we actively seek to placements for work experience, trainees, treat our communities and employees fairly and with apprentices, paid interns or other job ready dignity and respect. We will not tolerate unfair schemes, as best suits their size and business treatment on the grounds of a persons protected model, so as not to create barriers to SMEs. We ask characteristics. bidders to target their recruitment towards people residing in areas of higher deprivation or towards Equal those recognised as being part of socially excluded Social Mobility Strategy: Implementing our Social groups, to help improve social mobility. Mobility Strategy 2018-28 has driven significant work Opportunities to ensure equal opportunities in our own operations, in the Square Mile and more widely in the sectors we Financial Skills Services Commission: January 2020 operate in and for the first time this year we have saw delivery of the final report of the Financial made it into the top 50 of the Social Mobility Services Skills Taskforce that we had been a working partner on since 2018 and it led to the launch of Page 198 Page Employers Index. the new Financial Skills Services Commission, which we are actively supporting. This is focusing on the Bridge Group Research: The City Corporation has following priorities: supported research undertaken by the Bridge Group to explore whether and how socio-economic background (SEB) affects performance and 1.reskilling, upskilling and retraining staff while progression in financial services and how there are protecting and expanding employment in key intersections between this aspect of diversity and regional and national financial centres other aspects, in particular ethnicity and gender. As 2.creating a sector-wide future-skills framework part of this work, social mobility within the City linked to an accreditation programme Corporation was also analysed. 3.attracting, motivating and retaining the widest City Bridge Trust: Our charitable arm, City Bridge and deepest pool of talent Teams working on this priority area Trust, gave £31.5M over 2019/20 to charities such as 4.promoting diversity, inclusion and progression by Money4You which helps improve young people’s identifying structural issues financial literacy and help charities navigate the often- • Human resources complex funding maze and Entitled Ghyama Arts, • Innovation and Growth which is being delivered with the Bangladeshi Parents and Carers Association and will cater for adults with • Procurement disabilities including Down’s Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy • Corporate Strategy & and learning disabilities. Performance
10 Highlights
Tackling Racism Taskforce: Attracting diverse talent into Financial Services
At the end of last year we became signatories of the In partnership with the Chartered Institute for Business in the Community’s (BITC) Race at Work Securities and Investments, we have provided over Charter to show our commitment to prioritise action 80 places on the Level 2 Fundamentals for Financial on race. In April this year we became members of BITC Services course(external link). The programme Race Campaign and in June following the murder of increases the pipeline of diverse candidates into the George Floyd and the BlackLiveMatter Movement that financial services sector, and is targeted at year 12 opened up conversations about Race and the students from local schools. Following the structural problems that racism incites, a Tackling qualification, students are offered a place on Racism Taskforce was launched. The aim of which is Investment 2020’s(external link) Think Investment’s Diverse to identify what action the organisation can take to employability programme. tackle racism in all its forms. So far this had led to several work streams being developed associated with Supporting LGBTQ+ In 2019, we joined the Organisations staffing, culture, internal governance, education, Stonewall Diversity Champions Programme, and police, health and wellbeing and business. made our first submission to the Workplace Page 199 Page Equality Index. Following feedback, a task and Diversity Networks: finish group was established to identify areas for action and drive our improvement. Virtual Pride Our six staff diversity networks have grown and week proved a success with our widest reach and continue to provide our employees with different engagement to date between intranet campaigns protected characteristics an active and collective and infographics on gendered language a quiz, a voice. The networks have significantly expanded this Pride network video and daily activities year to 915 members. There have been many obstacles facing the networks this year, but hey have risen to challenge with one of the stand out initiatives being the Women’s Inclusivity Network’s monthly Pipeline to Success webinars covering topics including role models, intersectionality which enabled Teams working on this priority area collaborative working with the BAME and City Pride network and the real impacts of career breaks that have engaged nearly 100 staff. • Human resources • Innovation and Growth • Procurement • Corporate Strategy & Performance
11 Strategy Impact
In our organisation:
4.1% year on year 128 MWh of Outcome 2: reduction to our renewable electricity energy consumption generated on site The Planet is and 100% renewable energy 6% reduction in flood Healthier procured claims for City Corporation Assets 10 staff trained to be Circular Economy and 34 SuDS schemes champions assessed Page 200 Page
In the Square Mile and beyond:
123% increase in the 1200 sqm of green area of the City roofs added to the (excluding the Square Mile buildings) achieving the legal limit of NO2. Reduce our environmental impact 36 Million items of across all our operations while increasing 1,500kg of e-waste Single Use Plastic our positive impact through cleaning, avoided through tech were cut by firms greening, advocacy and influencing takebacks taking part in our Plastic Free City scheme
12 Highlights
Improving Air Quality in the Square Mile and across Legislative impact: London has been an on-going priority for the City We sponsored the Emission Reduction (Local Corporation. The annual compliance data for 2019 Authorities in London) Bill, backed by London Councils showed a year-on-year 123% increase in the area of and introduced to the House of Lords by Lord Tope in the City (excluding the buildings) achieving legal limit January 2020. We are contributing to the
of NO2 with substantial additional reductions in Government’s Environment Bill. concentrations seen during and post lockdown and recovery. Air Quality Strategy: Air Quality We formally adopted our new ambitious Air Quality Anti-idling: We commenced the London-wide idling Strategy (2019 -2024) that commits us to reaching action project, that we are jointly leading with the London Borough of Camden, on behalf of the 90% NO2 compliance by 2025 and rapidly achieving remaining 30 boroughs. The output of the WHO particulate compliance. campaign so far has been:
Beech Street: • 1531 Idling action event participants Page 201 Page We launched Beech Street in March as London’s first • 7952 Interactions with pedestrians and drivers 24/7 zero emission street. We have introduced experimental traffic changes on Beech Street to make • 2399 Idling drivers switched off it the UK’s first 24/7 zero emission street. Throughout • 22312 Children attending anti-idling assemblies the experiment, only zero emission vehicles, and workshops pedestrians and cyclists are allowed through Beech Street. Sharing: We organised a range of knowledge sharing events, including on: • using procurement in the public sector to Teams working on this priority area reduce emissions of air pollutants. • best practice webinar for City businesses. • Air quality • National webinar on dealing with emissions • Responsible Procurement from generators. • Transportation • Idling enforcement workshop for London boroughs. • Air Quality best practice sharing for London boroughs. 13 Highlights
Biodiversity Monitoring: Incorporating Biodiversity into our operations: The City of London Housing Design Guide which This year we have continued our long-term work to includes the requirements to promote biodiversity monitor biodiversity and protect and restore habitat. has been completed and endorsed by the COL Two of our sites are part of National England’s long- Housing Sub Committee. The Housing Design Guide term monitoring network (Burnham Beeches and is now being implemented on all major social Epping Forest), which is a programme to help with housing developments commissioned by the City national monitoring of climate change impacts. This Corporation. This includes requirements such as includes activities such as butterfly transect surveys ‘Bio-diverse roofs must be provided to at least 80% undertaken by volunteers and facilitating National of the available roof area’ and ‘Include visible Biodiversity England to undertake winter soil monitoring. Other interventions to promote habitat inclusion to monitoring we have done this year includes grazing residents’. Impact assessments and spider, dragonfly and damselfly surveys. Nature education: Pest protection: During lockdown we launched an online initiative to Page 202 Page get children and families learning about nature – We have been involved in the management of the Oak even without access to a garden. The project Processionary Moth and development of biological involved fun, nature-focused activities that promote non target control methods. This is progressing well learning through informative videos, craft activities and featured on a recent episode of BBC’s Countryfile and hands-on exploring which schools and families filmed at Hampstead Heath. can then do themselves – for example how to do a Connecting with our Communities: bug hunt or to make a bird feeder. Activity worksheets and videos were sent to over 800 Our ecologist at Hampstead Heath worked with a London schools, with teachers sharing the activities group of volunteers from Heath and Hampstead with the children at school and those at home. Society to undertake a major bird nesting survey. The Teams working on this priority area survey was innovatively done by individuals taking one hour of exercise daily outdoors during the Covid- • Open Spaces 19 lockdown. Over 3,000 records were taken of over • Planning 40 breeding bird species and the data mapped to allow for further analysis. • Procurement • City Surveyors • Public Realm
14 Highlights Highlights
Flooding: We worked with the Environment Agency to Climate Action Strategy: develop our draft Local Flood Risk Management In Autumn 2020, we formally adopted the City of Strategy. We also secured funding from the Thames London Corporation’s Climate Action Strategy, Regional Flood and Coastal Committee to prepare a which has committed us to: Riverside Strategy demonstrating how the flood • Achieve net zero carbon emissions from our defences along the river Thames can be raised to own operations by 2027 (scope 1 &2) protect the City from rising water levels as a result of • Achieve next zero carbon emissions across our Climate climate change. investments and supply chain by 2040 (scope 3) • Support the achievement of net zero for the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS): All Major Square Mile by 2040 development (over 1000sqm) in the City is required to • Invest £68m over the next six years to support Change produce a and Drainage Plan showing how the these goals of which £15m dedicated building the development has been designed to reduce rainwater climate resilience of the Square Mile and our runoff. This year we assessed a record 34 schemes. assets Since April 2015, the City Corporation has approved Page 203 Page the equivalent area of about 3 football pitches within Significant effort was involved in developing a the Square Mile for SUDs. This equates to a flood robust evidence base, including the footprinting water holding capacity of 510 l/s or the equivalent of of our value chain and financial investment every flat in the Barbican running a tap. (scope 3). This evidence guided our strategy for Energy Efficiency: Our ongoing work to the improve reaching net zero while following the SBTi the energy efficiency of our estate has had positive (Science based targets initiative) methodology results this year with a 4.1% reduction in energy and puts a plan in place to address our scope 1, 2 consumption. Overall, we have reduced energy and 3 emissions. Scope 3 emissions, while hard Teams working on this priority area consumption by17.7% since our 2008/09 baseline. to treat, are crucial to address in order to achieve Improvements in Building Energy Management the impact we are all working towards. Systems strategies and daily monitoring led to an • Open Spaces annual reduction of 22% at Smithfield Market. At the Our approach for building resilience followed an • Planning policy Central Criminal Court, an annual reduction of ~12% adaptation pathways approach, which enables • Procurement in energy usage was achieved by working with the site the necessary flexibility in action to a range of • City Surveyors FM to modify existing heating and implement new potential climate futures. The Strategy is • control system strategies. A new LED Streetlighting accompanied by a fully funded action plan. Finance scheme throughout the City lead to an overall annual • Strategy and Performance 13% reduction in energy consumption. • Innovation and Growth 15 Highlights
Reducing Waste: This is the first full year that our new Improving Circularity: This year the City waste and recycling contractor, Veolia, has been Corporation has continued to expand our waste reduction and recycling work to focus on promoting operational. This change of contract led to a 46% the circular economy. We are doing this by: Reducing reduction in fleet operational emissions, saving an estimated 306 tonnes of CO2e. Our Recycling Team •Upskilling Staff - 10 staff were certified by Circular Economy Club in Principles & Business Models in a are working on projects to improve household reuse Circular Economy giving us the highest level of Waste and and recycling including improving facilities on both certified staff of any UK local authority. Golden Lane and Mansell Street estates, installing reverse vending machines, food waste minimisation •Establishing a regular cross-departmental group made up of operational, planning and procurement Improving advice and updating leaflets and signage. staff focused on embedding the circular agenda. Tech Takeback: The City Corporation Recycling Team, •Introducing a category in our Clean City Award Scheme (and business network) on ‘Resources and in partnership with SONECS, hosted a series of pop-up the Circular Economy’. Circularity tech takeback events which engaged with 156 people and received over 900 tech items, helping to avoid •Targeting a minimum of 90% waste diverted from landfill and averaging between 93% and 98% on our Page 204 Page over 1.5 tonnes of e-waste. The intention is to donate construction sites. the tech to charities and the local community, with 10 laptops earmarked for people in need during Get Online Week. Circular Façade: Drink cans put in the recycling bins by residents and businesses will soon become part Journey towards becoming Single-Use Plastic Free: of the City landscape in an innovative project to refurbish a building next to the Thames. Planning Covid-19 has proved challenging in our aim to make permission was granted for a five-storey living wall the City Corporation single-use plastic (SUP) free by using approximately two metric tonnes of recycled 2021 with the rise of single-use PPE and many venues aluminium and 1.5 tonnes of compost, made from no longer accepting reusable items. Until winter recycled garden waste.. The project is the 2019/20, the focus was on making our Guildhall (head Teams working on this priority area culmination of work office) and Mansion House sites SUP free. In early between the City of • Waste and recycling Spring our focus expanded to our other 50 operational London, Veolia UK and sites with the first SUP audits commencing in • Procurement Red Squirrel Architects to February, before they were put on hold due to Covid- design a building • Internal communications 19. Once sites re-opened and established Covid- representing circular • Facilities management secure operations, online self-audits were developed economy principles and that will help guide each site to remove single use the important role plastics and to procure ‘greener’ items. recycling plays in protecting the environment 16 Working in Partnership
The City of London Corporation has a reach that extends far beyond the We have found ways to continue to support, connect and celebrate Square Square Mile – spanning the private, public, and charitable and community Mile businesses on their journey this year. Some examples of this are sectors. At this time of great uncertainty and change, the growing threat of highlighted below climate change, persistent inequality and the impact of Covid-19, it is more important than ever for different sectors to collaborate seize the opportunities that these challenges present. Page 205 Page
17 Impact Investing Institute We have worked to help ensure that London and the Square Mile remains a leader for green and socially responsible investment. This year we While acting responsibly towards our staff, residents, businesses and wider supported the launch of the Impact Investing Institute (III) dedicated to society during the on-going Covid-19 pandemic remains our top priority, raising awareness of, addressing barriers to, and increasing confidence in Year 3 will also focus on: investing for impact. In the first year, the III launched a paper on fiduciary • Building back better as an organisation and the Square Mile, working duty and good governance principles aimed at helping pension trustees towards a green and fair recovery. become more comfortable with impact investing and has also developed a proposal for a Green+ Gilt, which would demonstrate UK leadership in the • Continuing on-going work to implement the associated corporate sovereign bond space. strategies including Climate Action, Social Mobility and Air Quality; and developing updated strategies for Circular Economy and Biodiversity. Managing our investments responsibly • Implementing the recommendations of our Tackling Racism Taskforce. We continued our commit to being a responsible investor. This year we • Increasing responsible investment by co-hosting the UK’s Green submitted our second disclosure to the UN’s Principles of Responsible Horizons summit and developing a new responsible investment policy Page 206 Page Investment that showed year-on-year improvement. As a small asset that reflects our climate ambitions. owner, our assets are managed by a selection of specialist advisors, whom • Engaging the City Corporation’s supply chain and working closely with our Board frequently engages with to manage ESG performance. the top 25 suppliers on improve carbon reduction, circular economy, This year our annual Stewardship Review focused on the preparedness of modern slavery performance. our managers to become signatories to the new UK Stewardship Code • Addressing health inequalities by convening high-profile visibility on 2020. This formed the basis for adopting our new Stewardship Plan in this subject to encourage firms to consider the health and wellbeing September 2020. needs of routine and manual (“hidden”) workers within their recovery Footprinting our investments plans. When developing the Scope 3 emissions baseline for our Climate Action • Working across all operational sites to meet the City Corporation’s Strategy, we took a deep dive into the carbon footprint of our financial plastic free commitment in 2021. investments looking at the associated Scope 1, 2 and 3 footprints of these. This led us to make a commitment to have the majority of our investments • Embedding the UN SDGs into strategy development, implementation Paris-aligned by 2040 by pursuing an active, climate-risk based approach. and reporting processes and use our influence to encourage other businesses to similarly engage.
Report author: Divindy Grant, Responsible Business Strategy Officer 18 Appendix A: Summary of Responsible Business Strategy
Our commitment We are committed to creating positive impact and reducing negative impact across all our activities and Executive Summary decisions, because it is the right thing to do and will help ensure a sustainable future. We are in an era when organisations are asked to look We will achieve Focusing our efforts on: beyond their economic impact and consider the way in this by… ➢ Impact achieved in pursuit of our core purpose, how we deliver our operations and how we procure which they create positive social and environmental value. our resources. As an organisation with private, public and charitable and ➢ Impact achieved through our advocacy and role-modelling to others. community sector responsibilities, and significant capabilities and commitments, we are well placed to role- Conducting ourselves in the most ethical and responsible ways possible, by using responsible business model responsible business practices across all of our practices through our every day work and decision making. activities and spheres of influence. ➢ Engaging our employees ➢ Championing responsible investment ➢ Using our convening power ➢ Leading responsible procurement This strategy sets our commitment to responsible business ➢ Connecting our communities ➢ Preventing bribery, fraud and corruption and how we will fulfil it, and is set within the framework of ➢ Ensuring transparency ➢ Promoting human rights our Corporate Plan for 2018-23. We commit to embedding Page 207 Page To create a future Individuals and communities flourish The planet is healthier responsible practices throughout our work to take us towards a sustainable future. where… Create and champion equality, diversity and Reduce our environmental impact across all our inclusion across our organisation and networks; operations while increasing our positive impact To become a more responsible business, we will need to and safeguard people and communities from through cleaning, greening, advocacy and influencing, build on our strengths and learn from others along the social issues impacting London, by focusing on: by focusing on: way. We will champion what we are currently doing well, ➢ People’s wellbeing ➢ Air quality celebrating for example our role in conservation, ➢ Equal opportunities ➢ Waste philanthropy and responsible procurement. Implementing ➢ Diverse organisations ➢ Plastics and packaging this strategy will provide us with more examples of change ➢ Climate change and impact to share internally and externally. By sharing ➢ Biodiversity our progress, impact and learning, we aspire to be a Resulting in… An organisation that makes the right decisions responsible business role model to other similar An organisation that works collaboratively and innovatively to achieve positive impact organisations. An organisation that is trustworthy An organisation that leads the way in responsible business Corporate Plan This strategy is one of the main mechanisms for delivering Outcome 5: Businesses are trusted and socially and environmentally responsible. It also directly supports the achievement of Outcomes 1, 2, 3, 2018-23 links 4, 8, 11 and 12.
19 Appendix B: KPI Reporting: Outcome 1
Change from Theme Measure 2019/20 Value previous year % of women in Grade G and above roles 36% ˄ Gender Pay Gap (%) 5.50% ˄ BAME Pay Gap (%) 19.70% ˄
Disability Pay Gap (%) 7.90% ˄ Diversity # of (active) employees in staff diversity networks 915 ˄ Numbers of Finance Firms signed up to Women in Finance Charter 382 ˄ # organisations benefitting from CBT funding 367 ˄ Value of philanthropic activity delivered by the City Corporation. £ 31,451,468 ˄ # apprenticeships offered within the City of London Corporation 143 ˄ # of work experience placements within the City of London Corporation 97 * Page 208 Page Number of staff members using Levy funds to enhance training 51 * Number of staff volunteering or involved in community activities in the last 12 months 82 ˄ Number of volunteering hours across City Corporation in the last 12 months Equal Opportunities Equal 603 ˄ Social Mobility Employer Index Ranking (City Corp) 50 ˄ # of businesses in the Square Mile LWF Accredited 260 * % of staff reporting good work life balance 69% ˄ FTE lost due to mental health related sickness absence 24.13 ˄ FTE lost due to physical health related sickness absence 76.71 ˄ % of managers who have completed mental health training 30% ˄- Increase membership and participation in ‘Business Healthy’ - # of registered organisations 894 ˄
Wellbeing Increase membership and participation in ‘Business Healthy’ - # of individuals subscribed 1764 ˄ # of suppliers engaged with to establish Modern Slavery due diligence procedures and continuous improvement targets 0 ˅ % spend on high risk contracts covered by Modern Slavery due diligence requirements 73.80% ˅
˄ Improved year on year performance - No change y.o.y, but target met * First year data has been recorded ˅ Decreased year on year performance - No change y.o.y, and target not met 20 Appendix B: KPI Reporting: Outcome 2
Change from Theme Measure 2019/20 Value previous year % area of the City achieving legal limit of NO2 67% ˄ % reduction in NO2 from the previous year -17% ˄ % electric/zero emission capable vehicles in corporate fleet 14% ˄ # of environmental-related parliamentary bills directly influenced by the City Corporation 2 *
Air Air Quality # and types of environmental partnerships joined and influenced 46 * # of businesses applying for air quality and climate action category in CCAS 21 * % of sites with SSSI that are ‘favourable’ or ‘unfavourable recovering’ 80% - Sqm of green roofs in the City (aggregate) Page 209 Page
54,500 ˄ Biodiversity City Corporation's Scope 1 & 2 Emissions (tCO2e) 35,857 ˄ London’s position in the Global Green Finance Index 3 (Quality) ˅ Amount of renewable energy generated (kWh) 128,251 ˄ % reduction in energy used –internal (2018 Baseline) -9.6% ˄ Annual energy savings realised (kWh) 16,372,324 ˄ # of reported flooding incidents in the Square Mile 0 ˄
# of flood claims for City Corporation assets 34 ˄ Climate Change Climate # SuDS schemes assessed 34 ˄ % renewable electricity procured 100% ˄ # single use plastics reduced by businesses 36,000,000 * % of CoL sites that are SUP free 0 - # of CCAS Members with that are SUP free 0 * # of businesses as part of the Plastic Free City
Plastic Plastic & 109 ˄ Packaging # of businesses applying for plastic category in CCAS 30 ˄ Residential annual household waste per household 411 ˄ % Recycling rate at CoL managed operational sites 41% ˄
# of Clean City Award Scheme Members 107 ˅ Waste Number of transactions on Warpit 15 ˅ 21 ˄ Improved year on year performance - No change y.o.y, but target met * First year data has been recorded ˅ Decreased year on year performance - No change y.o.y, and target not met This page is intentionally left blank
Page 210 Agenda Item 14
Committee: Policy and Resources Date: 10 December 2020
Subject: Policy and Resources Public Contingency/Discretionary Funds Report of: Chamberlain For Information
Report author: Laura Tuckey
Summary
This report provides the schedule of projects and activities which have received funding from the Policy Initiatives Fund (PIF), the Policy and Resources Committee’s Contingency Fund, Committee’s Project Reserve, COVID19 Contingency Fund and Brexit Contingency Fund for 2020/21 and future years with details of expenditure in 2020/21. The balances remaining for these Funds for 2020/21 and beyond are shown in the Table below.
2021/22 Balance 2020/21 Balance 2022/23 Balance Remaining Fund Remaining after Remaining after after Approved Bids Approved Bids Approved Bids £ £ £ Policy Initiative Fund 514,082 1,026,365 1,240,000 Policy and Resources Contingency 407,719 282,000 300,000 Policy and Resources Project Reserve 405,000 0 0 COVID19 Contingency 437,000 0 0 Brexit Contingency Fund 639,860 0 0
Recommendations
Members are asked to:
• Note the report and contents of the schedules.
Main Report Background
1. The purpose of the Policy Initiatives Fund (PIF) is to allow the Committee to respond swiftly and effectively with funding for projects and initiatives identified during the year which support the City Corporation’s overall aims and objectives.
2. The current process for identifying which items should sit within the PIF are if they fall under the below criteria:
Page 211 • Items that relate to a specific initiative i.e. research. • Sponsorship/funding for bodies which have initiatives that support the City’s overall objectives; and • Membership of high-profile national think tanks.
3. To restrict the depletion of funds in future years, a two-year time limit is in place on multiyear PIF bids, with three years being an option by exception. To ensure prioritisation within the multiyear bids, the PIF from the financial year 2019/20 and onwards has £600k of its total budget put aside for multiyear bids with the rest set aside (£650k) for one off allocations, with the option to ‘top up’ the multiyear allocation from the balance if members agree to do so. This will ensure that there should always be enough in the PIF to fund emerging one-off opportunities as they come up.
4. PIF bids need to include a measurable success/benefits criterion in the report so that the successful bids can then be reviewed to see what the outcomes are and if the works/activities meet the objectives of the PIF. These measures will be used to review PIF bids on a six-monthly basis. This review will aide members in evaluating the effectiveness/benefits of PIF bids supported works/activities which can be taken into consideration when approving similar works/activities in the future.
5. When a PIF bid has been approved there should be a reasonable amount of progress/spend on the works/activities within 18 months of approval which allows for slippage and delays. If there has not been enough spend/activity within this timeframe, members will be asked to approve that the remaining allocation be returned to the Fund where it can be utilised for other works/activities. If the Department requires funding for the same works/activities again at a later date, it is suggested that they re-bid for the funding. If there is a legitimate reason, out of the Department’s control, which has caused delays, it is recommended that these are reviewed by Committee as needed.
6. The Committee Contingency Fund is used to fund unforeseen items of expenditure when no specific provision exists within the Policy Committee’s budget such as hosting one-off events.
7. The Committee’s Project Reserve is a limited reserve which has been established from funds moved from the Projects Sub Committee Contingency Fund as approved in May 2019’s Policy and Resources Committee. This reserve of £450,000 from the Project Sub Committee is not an annual Contingency but a one- off sum. It is suggested that this reserve is used for project type spend.
8. The COVID19 Contingency Fund is a time limited fund established to meet any unforeseen items of expenditure due to the COVID19 virus such as; to enact contingency planning arrangements, support unforeseen expenditure required to support service community which cannot be met from local budgets and to support/implement guidance issued by the government where there is no other compensating source of funding. The Town Clerk and Chamberlain have delegated authority to approve bids to this fund that are under £250,000.
Page 212 9. The Brexit Contingency Fund is a time limited fund established to meet any unforeseen items of expenditure due to the UK leaving the EU such as; communicating the interests of the City, helping mitigate the risks identified in the Corporate Risk Register or managing any urgent unforeseen issues arising from Brexit. The Town Clerk and Chamberlain have delegated authority to approve bids to this fund that are under £100,000.
Current Position
10. Appendices 1 to 3 list committed projects and activities approved by this Committee for the current and future financial years with the remaining balances available for the PIF (Appendix 1), your Committee’s Contingency (Appendix 2), and the Policy & Resources Project Reserve (Appendix 3). Bids against the COVID19 Contingency Fund (Appendix 4) and the Brexit Contingency (Appendix 5) have either been approved by the Town Clerk and Chamberlain under delegated authority or by this Committee.
11. The balances that are currently available in the Policy Initiatives Fund, Committee Contingency Fund, Brexit Contingency Fund and Committee’s Project Reserve for 2020/21 are shown in the Table below.
2020/21 Balance 2020/21 Balance 2020/21 2020/21 2020/21 Remaining after Remaining after Fund Opening Pending Approved Bids 2020/21 2020/21 Pending Balance Bids Approved Bids Bids
£ £ £ £ £ Policy Initiative 1,969,348 (1,455,266) 514,082 0 514,082 Fund Policy and Resources 664,569 (256,850) 407,719 0 407,719 Contingency Policy and Resources 420,000 (15,000) 405,000 0 405,000 Project Reserve COVID19 1,500,000 (1,063,000) 437,000 (45,000) 392,000 Contingency Brexit Contingency 639,860 0 639,860 0 639,860 Fund
12. The remaining multiyear allocation is shown in the Table below with details, as shown in Appendix 1, prior to any allowances being made for any other proposals on today’s agenda.
Page 213 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23
Balance remaining of £58,365 £393,365 £590,000 Multiyear PIF allocation
13. Committee members are asked to note Appendices 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 which provide an update of progress/outcomes from spend resulting from the PIF (Appendix 6), Committee Contingency Fund (Appendix 7), Policy & Resources Project Reserve (Appendix 8), COVID19 Contingency (Appendix 9), and Brexit Contingency Fund (Appendix 10).
Corporate & Strategic Implications
14. Although each PIF application has to be judged on its merits, it can be assumed that they may be helping towards contributing to a flourishing society, supporting a thriving economy and shaping outstanding environments as per the corporate plan.
15. Each PIF application should be approved on a case by case basis and Departments should look to local budgets first before seeking PIF approval, with PIF requests only being submitted if there is no funding within local budgets available.
Appendices
• Appendix 1 – PIF 2020/21 and Future Years • Appendix 2 – P&R Contingency 2020/21 and Future Years • Appendix 3 – P&R Project Reserve 2020/21 • Appendix 4 – COVID19 Contingency 2020/21 • Appendix 5 – Brexit Contingency 2020/21 • Appendix 6 – PIF Progress/Outcomes • Appendix 7 – P&R Contingency Progress/Outcomes • Appendix 8 – P&R Project Reserve Progress/Outcomes • Appendix 9 – COVID19 Contingency Progress/Outcomes • Appendix 10 – Brexit Contingency Progress/Outcomes
Laura Tuckey Senior Accountant, Chamberlains
T: 020 7332 1761 E: [email protected]
Page 214 Appendix 1
Policy and Resources Committee - Policy Initiative Fund
Budget 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Initial budget £ 1,250,000 £ 1,250,000 £ 1,250,000 Uncommited balance brought forward from 2019/20 £ 437,248 £ - £ - unspent balances deferred from 2019/20 £ 239,631 £ - £ - unspent balances in 2019/20 returned to Fund £ 42,469 £ - £ - Revised Budget £ 1,969,348 £ 1,250,000 £ 1,250,000
Date Name 2020/21 Bid 2020/21 Actual 2021/22 Bid 2022/23 Bid 07/07/16 London Councils Summit £ 16,000 £ - 16/11/17 Proposed Grant to retain the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation £ 6,635 £ - £ 6,635 22/02/18 Continued Sponsorship to support Innovate Finance £ 250,000 £ 125,000 15/03/18 Match Funding from The Honourable Irish Society to the National Citizenship Scheme £ 11,000 £ 11,000 03/05/18 Saudi Arabia Vision 2030, Public Investment Fund and Financial Services £ 27,487 £ - 07/06/18 City of London Corporation - Engagement with Strategy World Economic Forum (WEF) £ 77,899 £ 1,560 07/06/18 Social Mobility: Sponsorship of the Social Mobility Employer Index £ 15,573 £ - 05/07/18 Events Partnership with The Strand Group, King's College London £ 35,787 £ - 17/01/19 Sponsorship of the CPS Margaret Thatcher Conference on Britain & America £ 4,475 £ - 17/01/19 Sponsorship of Children's Book with Guy Fox History Project Ltd £ 2,885 £ - 21/02/19 London and Partners: domestic promotion of London £ 100,000 £ - £ 100,000 14/03/19 Think Tank Review and Memberships 2019-20 £ 8,025 £ 8,025 04/07/19 Recognition of Women: a City Response £ 23,000 £ - 23/10/19 Renewal of CWEIC Strategic Partnership £ 30,000 £ 10,000 23/01/20 Sponsorship of New Local Govt Network ‘Community Mobilisation’ Project £ 12,500 £ 12,500 20/02/20 Future.Now - Application for Funding £ - £ - £ 17,000 20/02/20 Secretariat of Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts £ 60,000 £ 60,000 20/02/20 Tokyo 2020 Games £ 40,000 £ - 19/03/20 London Messaging Research £ 40,000 £ - 16/04 2020 Sponsorship of London 2050 Project £ 21,500 £ 20,000 16/04/20 Sheltered Employment Programme - Corporate Catering at the Guildhall Offices £ 90,000 £ - £ 90,000 11/06/20 British Foreign Policy Group £ 35,000 £ - Urgency Supplementary City Premium Grant to Academies £ 330,000 £ 330,000 Urgency Additional Innovate Finance £ 100,000 £ - 24/09/20 Commitment to UN Sustainable Development Goals £ 10,000 £ - £ 10,000 £ 10,000 Urgency Report on UK Legal Services £ 7,500 £ - £ - £ - 19/11/20 Recovery Task Force: Placemaking for a world-leading Square Mile £ 100,000
Total Allocations £ 1,455,266 £ 578,085 £ 223,635 £ 10,000 Balance Remaining £ 514,082 £ 1,026,365 £ 1,240,000
Bids for Committee's Approval: 10 December 2020 ------Total Balance if pending bids are approved £ 514,082 £ 1,026,365 £ 1,240,000
Multi Year PIF Bids 2020/21 Bid 2021/22 Bid 2022/23 Bid Multi Year PIF Allocation £ 600,000 £ 600,000 £ 600,000 07/07/16 London Councils Summit £ 16,000 16/11/17 Proposed Grant to retain the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation £ 6,635 £ 6,635 22/02/18 Continued Sponsorship to support Innovate Finance £ 250,000 15/03/18 Match Funding from The Honourable Irish Society to the National Citizenship Scheme £ 11,000 07/06/18 City of London Corporation - Engagement with Strategy World Economic Forum (WEF) £ 38,000 21/02/19 London and Partners: domestic promotion of London £ 100,000 £ 100,000 23/10/19 Renewal of CWEIC Strategic Partnership £ 20,000 16/04/20 Sheltered Employment Programme - Corporate Catering at Guildhall Offices £ 90,000 £ 90,000 24/09/20 Commitment to UN Sustainable Development Goals £ 10,000 £ 10,000 £ 10,000
Multi Year PIF Allocation Balance £ 58,365 £ 393,365 £ 590,000
Bids for Committee's Approval: 10 December 2020 ------Total Balance if pending bids are approved £ 58,365 £ 393,365 £ 590,000
Page 215 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 216 Appendix 2
Policy and Resources Committee - Contingency
Budget 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Initial Budget £ 300,000 £ 300,000 £ 300,000 Uncommited balance brought forward from 2019/20 £ 233,753 £ - £ - Unspent balances deferred from 2019/20 £ 129,850 £ - £ - Unspent balances in 2019/20 returned to Fund £ 966 £ - £ - Revised Budget £ 664,569 £ 300,000 £ 300,000
Date Name 2020/21 Bid 2020/21 Actual 2021/22 Bid 2022/23 Bid 08/05/14 City of London Scholarship - Anglo-Irish Literature £ 19,850 £ - 17/11/16 Police Arboretum Memorial Fundraising Dinner £ 30,000 £ - £ - 04/10/18 Beech Street Transformation Project £ 55,000 £ - £ - Administrative, consultancy and support fees associated with 12/12/19 £ 25,000 £ 25,000.00 £ - governance review activities Common Council Elections in March 2021 - funding a high-profile 20/02/20 £ 127,000 £ 355.00 £ - advertising campaign 19/11/20 Census 2021 £ - £ - £ 18,000 £ - £ -
Total Allocations £ 256,850 £ 25,355.00 £ 18,000 £ - Balance Remaining £ 407,719 £ 282,000 £ 300,000
Bids for Committee's Approval: 10 December 2020 ------Total Balance if pending bids are approved £ 407,719 £ 282,000 £ 300,000
Page 217 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 218 Appendix 3
Policy and Resources Committee Project Reserve: 2020/21
Budget 2020/21 Initial Budget £ 450,000 Less: Allocation spent in 2019/20 -£ 30,000 Revised Budget £ 420,000
Date Name 2020/21 Bid 2020/21 Actual
06/06/19 Housing Delivery Strategy - Request for funding to Appoint Advisors £ 15,000 £ -
Total Allocations £ 15,000 £ - Balance Remaining £ 405,000
Bids for Committee's Approval: 10 December 2020 - - - - Total Balance if pending bids are approved £ 405,000
Page 219 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 220 Appendix 4
Policy & Resources Committee - COVID Contingency 2020/21
Budget 2020/21 Initial Budget £ 1,500,000 £ - Revised Budget £ 1,500,000
Date Name 2020/21 Bid 03/04/20 SMTA Rates Bill £ 67,000 21/04/20 COLPAI - CCTV £ 41,000 17/04/20 Support the Mortality Management Group £ 27,000 24/04/20 Direct Access Server Replacement + Additional Server £ 37,000 06/05/20 PPE Purchasing £ 4,000 11/05/20 CoLP IT Resilience £ 263,000 28/05/20 Open Spaces PPE and HSE £ 65,000 09/06/20 Using Public Transport and Social Distancing - Face Coverings £ 25,000 24/06/20 CoL IT - Remote Working upgrades and expenses £ 81,000 09/07/20 City of London Academies Trust Funding Request for Summer Provision 2020/21 £ 70,000 08/07/20 Everyone In - Rough sleeping response £ 261,000 27/07/20 Brakespear Mortuary £ 44,000 05/10/20 Public Health Communications Officer £ 50,000 19/11/20 Communications with Residents £ 28,000
Total Allocations £ 1,063,000 Balance Remaining £ 437,000
Bids for Committee's Approval: 10 December 2020 - Dedicated City Corporation News Hub on City AM 45,000 - - Total Balance if pending bids are approved £ 392,000
Page 221 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 222 Appendix 5
Policy and Resources Committee - Brexit Contingency 2020/21
Budget 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Initial Budget £ 2,000,000.00 £ - £ - MHCLG Funding £ 105,000.00 £ 210,000.00 £ 229,760.00 Unspent balance brought forward as agreed by Committee £ - £ 2,017,420.00 £ 410,100.00 Funding moved to create COVID Contingency £ - -£ 1,500,000.00 £ -
Revised Budget £ 2,105,000.00 £ 727,420.00 £ 639,860.00
Date Name 2018/19 Bid 2019/20 Bid 2020/21 Bid Actuals to date 11/01/19 Brexit Engagement Action Plan £ 20,000.00 £ 40,000.00 £ - £ 57,200.00 05/02/19 No Deal Preparation - Adverts £ 13,680.00 £ - £ 13,680.00 07/02/19 Post Funding for Mitigation of Reputational Risk £ - £ 13,000.00 £ - £ 12,560.00 08/03/19 Supply Chain category card analysis £ 9,900.00 £ - £ - £ 9,900.00 27/03/19 Police costs as a result of protest activites £ 44,000.00 £ - £ - £ 44,000.00 03/04/19 Guildhall School of Music & Drama Expanded Recruitment £ - £ 20,000.00 £ - £ 19,624.00 23/09/19 Preparation comms £ - £ 14,560.00 £ - £ 5,490.00
Total Allocations £ 87,580.00 £ 87,560.00 £ - £ 162,454.00 Balance Remaining £ 2,017,420.00 £ 639,860.00 £ 639,860.00
Bids for Committee's Approval: 10 December 2020 - - - - Total Balance if pending bids are approved £ 639,860
Page 223 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 224 Policy initiative Fund Progress Report: 2020/21 Appendix 6
Report Name Responsible Allocation Spend Balance Progress/Outcomes from Bid Officer London Councils' DIG £16,000 £0 £16,000 November 2019 Summit cancelled due to General Election. November London Summit 2020 Summit cancelled due to COVID – likely to take place in November 2021 – request will be made for carry forward for 2021/2. Likely to be a key opportunity to engage with newly elected councillors and provide a platform for a newly re/elected Mayor of London
Sponsorship of the CPS DOC £4,475 £0 £4,475 The event was due to be held in the Autumn of 2020 at the Guildhall. Margaret Thatcher However due to the ongoing restrictions on in-person events due to Conference on British the Pandemic, after discussions with the CPS the event has been and America tentatively moved to March 2021
Sponsorship of New DOC £12,500 £12,500 £0 The report was received from the NLGN (now called New Local) and a
Page 225 Page Local Government soft launch was held in July/August 2020. The Corporation provided a Network 'Community foreword to the report in the name of the Policy Chair Catherine Mobilisation' Project McGuinness.
As part of the launch NLGN produced blogs and externally placed articles to promote the report and presented emerging findings from it at subsequent NLGN events in order to build up interest in the subject. When in person events are allowed once again, the report may be promoted at the NLGN’s annual conference which is usually hosted by the Corporation at the Guildhall.
Sponsorship of London TC £21,500 £20,000 £1,500 The Corporation continues to support the work of a report which aims 2050 Project to outline how Greater London should evolve over the next 30 years.
The work is being broken down into several Phases, and the launch of Phase 1 took place as a launch event on 24 September 2020, where the Policy Chair Catherine McGuinness spoke on an online panel event. Other panellists included the Leader of Lambeth Cllr Jack Policy initiative Fund Progress Report: 2020/21 Appendix 6
Report Name Responsible Allocation Spend Balance Progress/Outcomes from Bid Officer Hopkins and the MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, Nickie Aiken.
The Corporation sits on the advisory council in an observer capacity, and work is ongoing with further phases to follow in due course, with the next phase likely in the new year.
British Foreign Policy REM £35,000 £0 £35,000 The funding will be deployed to help fund the work to construct an Group (BFPG) operating model for the engagement of institutions involved in soft power through the group to inform and strengthen its position as a sounding board for FCDO and other levers of Central Government.
Page 226 Page London Messaging DOC £40,000 £0 £40,000 Unable to proceed at this stage as partner, London Councils, has Research focussed resources on dealing with COVID-19.
Supplementary City DCCS £330,000 £330,000 £0 The funding was for 2020/21 academic year (current academic year) Premium Grant 2020-21 which will end in August 2021 and so the evaluations are to be Allocations to submitted to the Education Board in the subsequent October (October Academies 2021). This allows schools to use end of year assessments and end of year surveys etc. to measure the impact of projects, and also because some projects will be delivered in the Summer Term and over the summer holidays.
In the case of the supplementary City Premium Grant, this was to address learning loss and progress gaps for disadvantaged pupils subject to detailed assessments of progress and engagement in the Autumn Term. Standards Scrutiny Meetings took place in October 2020 where the City of London Academies Trust CEO and the City’s Strategic Director of Education (CC’d in) met with the Principals and Chairs of Governors of each academy to discuss progress and areas for focus and improvement, including for disadvantaged pupils where the Policy initiative Fund Progress Report: 2020/21 Appendix 6
Report Name Responsible Allocation Spend Balance Progress/Outcomes from Bid Officer funding is intended to have impact. Schools are therefore due to be implementing their action plans over the remainder of this term and in Spring and Summer Terms, and the supplementary Grant as well as the core City Premium Grant will be used as resource to support exceptionality in teaching and learning. Schools will submit their evaluations in October 2021 to be submitted to the subsequent Education Board and P&R committee meetings.
Recognition of Women: TC £23,000 £0 £23,000 This money was returned to the P&R Committee on 9 July as detailed a City Response in the report submitted on that date “Recognition of Women: progress report”. The money was to support the installation of Fearless Girl at a City location which has been postponed indefinitely.
Page 227 Page Think Tank review & DOC £8,025 £8,025 £0 Following the reassessment of the Corporation’s think tank Memberships 2020-21 membership in March/April 2020, the Corporate Affairs team has met with each of the think tanks we have retained membership with. This included ensuring that we were receiving invites to key events, and exploring events and projects for future collaboration
Events Partnership with DOC £35,787 £0 £35,787 Due to the pandemic the funding of an event with the Strand Group the Strand Group, Kings has been postponed, and discussions are continuing determining College London when an in-person event(s) may be held.
Sponsorship of DOC £2,885 £0 £2,885 A draft of the book was received from Guy Fox in July 2020, and Children's Book with following feedback from the Policy Chair the Corporate Affairs team is Guy Fox History Project currently working with the author and published to make some minor Ltd changes with a view to launching the book in early 2021
London & Partners: DOC £100,000 £0 £100,000 The London & Partners Domestic Tourism Consortium was disbanded Domestic Promotion of in September 2020 (largely as a consequence of the pandemic and London the difficulty for partners to continue contributing to the campaign). Policy initiative Fund Progress Report: 2020/21 Appendix 6
Report Name Responsible Allocation Spend Balance Progress/Outcomes from Bid Officer
A bid has been submitted to the November meeting of P&R to seek a repurposing of £87k of the remaining £200k pot for the consortium (£100k this year and £100k next) to support projects that will help drive domestic visitors to the City and central London more widely. Should this be approved, it is likely that the majority of the £87k will be spent in this financial year.
Secretariat of the DIG £60,000 £60,000 £0 This was funding to support the locating of the secretariat of the Standing International Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts being in London. Forum of Commercial This has reinforced the strong international position of the City as a Courts hub for all professional services, building on the significant number of
Page 228 Page international bodies already based in London.
Tokyo 2020 Games DOC £40,000 £0 £40,000 The Tokyo Olympics has been postponed until summer 2021. The Sport Engagement Manager is working with Mansion House to ensure that attendance and associated programme for the Tokyo Olympics remains parts of the Lord Mayor William Russell’s extended international programme for 2021.
Continued Sponsorship DIG £250,000 £125,000 £125,000 We continue to support and work closely with Innovate Finance. As a to support Innovate membership body advancing the interests of UK Fintech they take on Finance an important role liaising between government, industry and regulators.
In particular our work with them as co-secretariats of the Fintech Strategic Review will help inform the future strategy for UK Fintech to ensure its continued growth and success.
Match Funding from TC £11,000 £0 £11,000 Last instalment of three-year commitment to NCS NI – The Honourable Irish programme has been delivered Policy initiative Fund Progress Report: 2020/21 Appendix 6
Report Name Responsible Allocation Spend Balance Progress/Outcomes from Bid Officer Society to the National Citizenship Scheme Support of NI NCS, supporting personal and skills development for young people of different backgrounds in NI. Last year of funding supported mix of residential and non-residential activities.
Additional Innovate DIG £100,000 £0 £100,000 The first £50k of this will go out shortly and the second £50k is Finance dependent on a further request and certain conditions being met around January
Sheltered Employment CS/CHB £90,000 £0 £90,000 The catering contract associated with the fund application was not Programme – awarded in August 2020 and we are unable to utilise funds at this time. Page 229 Page Corporate Catering at the Guildhall Offices The intended Sheltered Employment Programme is dependent on the re-opening of the Gild staff canteen.
The Facilities Service Category Board approved a decision not to re- open the Gild staff canteen in August 2020, due to low office occupancy, and the staff catering contract was allowed to expire.
We cannot say at this time whether / when staff catering services will re-open in the Gild. The Board agreed to review the viability of the service after 6 months (February 2021).
Commitment to UN CHB £10,000 £0 £10,000 Report approved at the September 2020 Committee - Application for Sustainable the Global Compact is currently in progress. Development Goals
Policy initiative Fund Progress Report: 2020/21 Appendix 6
Report Name Responsible Allocation Spend Balance Progress/Outcomes from Bid Officer Saudi Arabia: Vision DIG £27,487 £0 £27,487 Progress delayed because of Covid-19 – postponement of key events, 2030 inability to travel. Retain funds to enable CoLC participation in Future Investment Summit in Riyadh (postponed, rescheduled for Jan 2021)
City of London DIG £77,899 £1,560 £76,339 Virtual engagement has stepped up. The Lord Mayor is actively Corporation - participating in the WEF Regional Action Group for Europe and Eurasia Engagement with covering topics for recovery for the region. Strategy World Economic Forum IG working closely with WEF to align on Green Finance/ ESG workstream with WEF supporting the Green Horizon Summit, 9-11 November 2020 co-hosted by CoLC and Green Finance Institute.
Page 230 Page The next engagement is on their Reset Dialogues in January 2021. Main engagement is focused on their Annual General Meeting in Davos – postponed until May 2021. (Request any remaining funds to be carried forward to 2021-22 for costs associated with Davos such as accommodation, travel and hosting related events.)
Centre for Study of DOC £6,635 £0 £6,635 This is the grant allocated to CSFI as part of an agreement to cover the Financial Innovation increase in rent in Leadenhall Market, where the organisation is based. Corporate Affairs are in contact with CSFI to discuss the payment for rent as per the 2017 P&R report.
Social Mobility DIG £15,573 £0 £15,573 The funds have been spent on a piece of research, delivered by the Bridge Group, and launched on 24th November 2020. The research provides the evidence base on which to launch a Government commissioned taskforce.
Led by Catherine McGuinness, Alderman Vincent Keaveny, Sandra Wallace, and Andy Haldane, the taskforce aims to boost socio- Policy initiative Fund Progress Report: 2020/21 Appendix 6
Report Name Responsible Allocation Spend Balance Progress/Outcomes from Bid Officer economic diversity at senior levels in UK Financial and Professional Services. The taskforce will run until November 2022.
Renewal of CWEIC’s REM/DIG £30,000 £10,000 £20,000 The funding has allowed the City Corporation to maintain its status as Strategic Partnership a Strategic Partner of CWEIC. Through this partnership, the City Corporation has joined with CWEIC in events such as the High Commissioners’ Banquet and webinars (held virtually during Covid restrictions. Discussions have also taken place over the Lord Mayor’s involvement in the Commonwealth Business Forum which will proceed CHOGM 2021 in Rwanda
Key Responsible Officer: Page 231 Page DIG Director of Innovation & Growth DOC Director of Communications CHB Chamberlain TC Town Clerk CS City Surveyor REM Remembrancers DCCS Director of Community & Children’s Services
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 232 Policy and Resources Contingency Fund Progress: 2020-21 Appendix 7
Report Name Responsible Allocation Spend Balance Progress/Outcomes from Bid Officer Common Council TC £127,000 £355 £126,645 As a result of the pandemic it has not been possible to progress this Elections in March 2021 work. The 2021 ward elections were also impacted by COVID and are now scheduled to take place in 2022. The programme of promotional activities will therefore be pursued next year in the lead up to the elections in March 2022.
A report updating Members on the current position and seeking agreement to this year’s allocation being transferred from the Committee’s 2020/21 contingency to 2021/22 is due to be considered by P&R on 19 November 2020.
City of London TC £19,850 £0 £19,850 The Remembrancer has been in discussions with the Policy Chair over Scholarship - Anglo-Irish using the remainder of this funding to sponsor an award for Anglo- Page 233 Page Literature Irish Literature. We intend to put a report to Committee to this effect.
Police Arboretum DIG £30,000 £0 £30,000 This PIF will need to be requested as a carry forward for 21/22. Memorial Fundraising Members to be updated Spring 2021 Dinner Administrative, TC £25,000 £25,000 £0 Lord Lisvane has completed his review of the City Corporation's consultancy and governance arrangements, which was published in September support fees associated 2020. Members are now giving consideration as to its with governance review implementation activities Beech Street BC £55,000 £0 £55,000 Awaiting response from Department Transformation Project
Key Responsible Officer: DIG Director of Innovation and Growth BC Barbican TC Town Clerk
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 234 Policy & Resources Committee Project Reserve Progress Report: 2019/20 to 2020/21 Appendix 8
Report Name Responsible Allocation Spend Balance Progress/Outcomes from Bid Officer Housing Delivery DCCS £45,000 £30,000 £15,000 Gerald Eve consultants were appointed in June 2019. Workshop held Strategy – funding to in July was attended by four members of the Housing Programme appoint Advisors Working Committee and eight senior officers. Output of this workshop was to establish a matrix by which opportunities would be assessed in order to support Members identify the type of new housing deliver opportunity with the best fit.
Gerald Eve then undertook a mix of desk-based research complimented with exploratory discussions with a range of potential partners including Homes England, Transport For London and the Greater London Authority. The key issues emerging from those discussions were CoL’s appetite for risk and availability of funds.
Page 235 Page Following an interim report in November 2019 it was concluded by the Working Group that continuing discussions could be counterproductive as it would raise expectations that the CoL may be unable to meet particularly around access to finance. In any case, were funding not an issue, any partnership was unlikely to unlock additional housing by 2025, and certainly not in the numbers that should be achieved through the market sites disposals.
A report is currently coming to P&R in December, following the Housing Programme Working group on 24th November in which there is a recommendation for Members to consider withdrawing / amending the additional policy to enable the delivery of housing units additional to the strategic market sites disposals and CoL’s social housing estates, due to the current lack of available funding and other financial pressures. Key Responsible Officer: DCCS Director of Community & Children’s Services
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 236 Policy & Resources Committee – COVID19 Contingency Progress Report: 2020/21 Appendix 9
Report Name Responsible Allocation Spend Balance Progress/Outcomes from Bid Officer PPE Purchasing CHB £4,000 £3,764 £236 The PPE was received from Ealing at a final cost of £3,764.16. This enables us to address urgent reactive requests during the early stages of COVID response.
CoLP IT Resilience CoLP £263,000 £103,599 £159,401 IT resilience work is still ongoing. Spend to date to end of September 2020
Open Spaces PPE and OS £65,000 £63,000 £2,000 £63k has been spent and enabled facilities to open to the public after HSE the relaxing of the first Lockdown.
£2k of the award was to assist the Monument make H&S changes to enable it’s opening. However, the venue has been unable to comply
Page 237 Page with current Government guidance and remains closed. It may be if Guidance changes the building can reopen and the £2k will then be required to make adjustments.
Using Public Transport HR £25,000 £15,464 £9,536 11,000 Face covering have been purchased by City Surveyors who also and Social Distancing - have control of the stock – the cost has reduced to £15,464 from the Face Coverings original £25K estimate
CoL IT - Remote CHB £81,000 £81,000 £0 Additional resources were engaged to prepare equipment and the IT Working upgrades and environments to ensure staff could work from home effectively expenses
City of London CoL £70,000 £70,000 £0 345 pupils and 6 sixth formers attended the provision for at least 90% Academies Trust Academies of the sessions. This equates to approximately 41% of the eligible Funding Request for cohort who were invited. The pupil premium attendance was slightly Summer Provision higher, with on average 42% attendance. It should be noted that the 2020/21 Head Start programme was delivered during a pandemic and Summer heat wave. Nevertheless, the programme helped the re-engagement of significant number of students. It also signalled to all families that Policy & Resources Committee – COVID19 Contingency Progress Report: 2020/21 Appendix 9
Report Name Responsible Allocation Spend Balance Progress/Outcomes from Bid Officer the CoL was prepared to provide extra resources to support them and CoLAT schools were ready to re-open as and when required.
A more thorough evaluation of the academic impact of the programme will be presented in the near future using assessment data from the first ½ term assessments currently being collected by all schools. Everyone In - Rough DCCS £261,000 £261,000 £0 This has been spent in full. Was used towards the Covid recovery plan sleeping response cost until July 2020. The NSAP funding then covered the costs going forward. Brakespear Mortuary TC £44,000 £44,000 £0 All London local authorities agreed to fund temporary costs associated with enhanced capacity and contribute to new pan-London
Page 238 Page arrangements put in place this summer managed by Westminster CC. This covers both issues.
Public Health DOC £55,000 £0 £55,000 Role offered and accepted by candidate. Due to commence work on Communications Officer Monday 2 November 2020
SMTA Rates Bill MKT £67,000 £67,000 £0 This bid was approved and has been used to partially compensate for the loss of rates income at Smithfield Market in 2020-21. Under usual circumstances Smithfield Market would pay the yearly rates bill and then recharge each tenant on a quarterly basis.
At the start of the Covid-19 pandemic it was agreed that tenants would not be recharged for rates in 2020-21. The loss of income (£303k) was partially covered from the Covid-19 Contingency Fund (£67k) and the remaining balance was covered by the 2019-20 agreed carry forwards (£236k).
Policy & Resources Committee – COVID19 Contingency Progress Report: 2020/21 Appendix 9
Report Name Responsible Allocation Spend Balance Progress/Outcomes from Bid Officer COLPAI – CCTV DCCS £41,000 £36,000 £5,000 CCTV was successfully installed earlier this year. £36K Spent to date with a further £5k to be spent on the replacement of fuel cells before the end of the year.
Support the Mortality TC £27,000 £27,000 £0 Working with partners in the police, local authorities, health care Management Group professionals and HM Coroners Service, the person providing support played a pivotal role in establishing the Pandemic Multi Agency Response Team (PMART) and its associated central operations centre (PMART OPS).
Direct Access Server CHB £37,000 £36,712 £288 Additional servers and bandwidth were installed and configured to Replacement + ensure the systems were capable to enable all staff to work from home
Page 239 Page Additional Server
Key Responsible Officer: CoLP City of London Police HR Human Resources CHB Chamberlain TC Town Clerk OS Open Spaces DOC Director of Communications DCCS Director of Community & Children’s MKT Markets Services
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 240 Brexit Contingency Fund Progress: 2018/19 to 2020/21 Appendix 10
Report Name Responsible Allocation Spend Balance Progress/Outcomes from Bid Officer Preparation Comms for DOC £14,560 £5,490 £9,070 First tranche of leaflets designed, printed and distributed to City EU Settlement premises on two dates; second tranche on hold given General Election Procedure and awaiting instruction if still needed and, if so, whether message needs amending. Nothing further has taken place.
Key Responsible Officer: DOC Director of Communications Page 241 Page
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 242 Agenda Item 18a By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 243 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 18b By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 245 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 19 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 249 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 20 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 297 This page is intentionally left blank