Public Document Pack
Policy and Resources Committee
Date: THURSDAY, 8 MAY 2014 Time: 1.45pm Venue: COMMITTEE ROOMS, 2ND FLOOR, WEST WING, GU ILDHALL
Members: Deputy Ken Ayers Alderman Sir David Howard Deputy John Barker (Ex-Officio Edward Lord Member) Jeremy Mayhew (Ex-Officio) Deputy Douglas Barrow Deputy Catherine McGuinness Mark Boleat Deputy Joyce Nash Deputy John Bennett Deputy Henry Pollard (Ex-Officio (Chief Commoner) Member) Deputy Michael Cassidy (Ex- Stephen Quilter Officio Member) John Scott (Ex-Officio Member) Roger Chadwick (Ex-Officio Deputy Dr Giles Shilson Member) Sir Michael Snyder Deputy Alex Deane Deputy John Tomlinson Simon Duckworth Deputy Michael Welbank (Ex-Officio Revd Dr Martin Dudley (Ex-Officio Member) Member) The Rt Hon the Lord Mayor Alderman Alderman Jeffrey Evans Fiona Woolf Stuart Fraser Alderman Sir David Wootton Marianne Fredericks Alderman Alan Yarrow George Gillon (5 vacancies to be filled by the Court on 1st May)
Enquiries: Angela Roach tel. no.: 020 7332 3685 [email protected]
Lunch will be served in Guildhall Club at 1PM
John Barradell Town Clerk and Chief Executive AGENDA
Part 1 - Public Agenda
1. APOLOGIES
2. MEMBERS DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CO NDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
3. ORDER OF THE COURT O F COMMON COUNCIL To note the Order of the Court of Common Council of 1 May 2014 appointing the Committee and approving its terms of reference (To Follow). For Decision
4. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN To elect a Chairman in accordance with Standing order No. 29. For Decisio n
5. ELECTION OF DEPUTY C HAIRMEN To elect three Deputy Chairmen in accordance with Standing Order No. 30.
For Decision
6. MINUTES To consider minutes as follows:- a) To agree the public minutes of the meeting held on 20 March 2014
For Decision (Pages 1 - 14)
b) To note the public minutes of the Projects Sub-Committee meeting held on 2 April 2014 For Information (Pages 15 - 22)
7. APPOINTMENT OF SUB -COMMITTEES, WORKING PARTIES AND REPRESENTATIVES ON OTHER COMMITTEES Report of the Town Clerk. For Decision (Pages 23 - 34)
8. SPORTS EVENTS - 2012 LEGACY Report of the Town Clerk. For Decision (Pages 35 - 40)
9. NOMINATIONS TO LONDO N COUNCILS COMMITTEES Report of the Town Clerk. For Decision (Pages 41 - 44)
2
10. CHEAPSIDE BUSINESS I MPROVEMENT DISTRICT Report of the City Surveyor. For Decision (Pages 45 - 58)
11. MARCHÉ INTERNATIONAL DES PROFESSIONNELS D 'IMMO BILIER Report of the City Surveyor. For Decision (Pages 59 - 68)
12. ADDITIONAL EVENTS AN D TOPICAL ISSUES PRO GRAMME - FUNDING REQUEST Joint report of the Director of Public Relations and the Director of Economic Development. For Deci sion (Pages 69 - 72)
13. FENCHURCH STREET - COMPULSORY PURCHASE Joint report of the Chief Planning Officer and Comptroller and City Solicitor.
NB: This report should be read in conjunction with Item No. 28 on this Agenda.
For Inform ation (Pages 73 - 96)
14. CAREERS FAIRS AND WO RK RELATED -LEARNING SUPPORT FOR LONDON'S YOUNG PEOPLE Report of the Director of Economic Development. For Information (Pages 97 - 104)
15. G8 GLOBAL DEMENTIA S UMMIT Report of the Director of Economic Development. For Decision (Pages 105 - 108)
16. SINGAPORE ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY Report of the Director of Economic Development. For Decision (Pages 109 - 120)
17. IPPR PROJECT ON EMER GING MARKETS Report of the Director of Public Relations. For Decision (Pages 121 - 124)
18. CENTRE FOR LONDON: T HAMES CROSSINGS PROJ ECT Report of the Director of Public Relations. For Decision (Pages 125 - 128)
3
19. PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICE ACTIVITIES Report of the Director of Public Relations. For Information (Pages 129 - 138)
20. VISIT TO MUMBAI AND NEW DELHI Report of the Director of Economic Development. For Information (Pages 139 - 144)
21. POLICY INITIATIVES F UND AND COMMITTEE CO NTINGENCY Report of the Chamberlain. For Information (Pages 145 - 156)
22. DECISIONS TAKEN UNDE R DELEGATED AUTHORIT Y OR URGENCY POWERS Report of the Town Clerk. For Information (Pages 157 - 160)
23. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE
24. ANY OTHER BUSINESS T HAT THE CHAIRMAN CON SIDERS URGENT
25. EXCLUSION OF THE PUB LIC 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. In addition, for one item which fell under paragraph 100A (2) of the Act relating to confidential information that would be disclosed in breach of an obligation of confidence.
Part 2 - Non -Public Agenda
26. NON -PUBLIC MINUTES To consider non-public minutes of meetings as follows:- a) To agree the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 20 March 2014
For Decision (Pages 161 - 162)
b) To note the non-public minutes of the Projects Sub-Committee meeting held on 2 April 2014 For Information (Pages 163 - 170)
4
c) To note the non-public minutes of the Members' Facilities and Accommodation Working Party meeting held on 20 March 2014 For Information (Pages 171 - 174)
d) To note the non-public minutes of the Hospitality Working Party meeting held on 18 March 2014 and consider the recommendation set out in item no.9
For Decision (Pages 175 - 180)
27. EDUCATION STRATEGY - EMPLOYER -FACING EMPLOYABILITY PROGRAMMES Joint report of the Director of Economic Development and Director of Community & Children’s Services. For Decision (Pages 181 - 188)
28. FENCHURCH STREET - COMPULSORY PURCHASE Report of the City Planning Officer and Comptroller and City Solicitor.
NB: This report should be read in conjunction with Item No. 13 on this Agenda.
For Information (Pages 189 - 190)
29. FINTECH UK UPDATE Report of the Director of Economic Development. For Information (Pages 191 - 194)
30. DEC ISIONS TAKEN UNDER D ELEGATED AUTHORITY O R URGENCY POWERS Report of the Town Clerk. For Information (Pages 195 - 196)
31. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE
32. ANY OTHER BUSINESS T HAT THE CHAIRMAN C ONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED.
5
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6a
POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE Thursday, 20 March 2014
Minutes of the meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee held at Committee Rooms, 2nd Floor, West Wing, Guildhall on Thursday, 20 March 2014 at 1.45 pm
Present
Members: Mark Boleat (Chairman) Deputy Douglas Barrow (Deputy Chairman) Jeremy Mayhew (Deputy Chairman) Deputy Catherine McGuinness (Deputy Chairman) Deputy Ken Ayers Deputy John Bennett Deputy Michael Cassidy (Ex-Officio Member) Roger Chadwick (Ex-Officio Member) Deputy Alex Deane Simon Duckworth Revd Dr Martin Dudley (Ex-Officio Member) Alderman Jeffrey Evans Stuart Fraser Marianne Fredericks George Gillon (Chief Commoner) Edward Lord Wendy Mead Hugh Morris Deputy Joyce Nash Stephen Quilter John Scott (Ex-Officio Member) Deputy Dr Giles Shilson Deputy John Tomlinson James Tumbridge Deputy Michael Welbank (Ex-Officio Member) Alderman Sir David Wootton
In Attendance:
Deputy Bill Fraser
Officers: John Barradell - Town Clerk and Chief Executive Chris Bilsland - Chamberlain Michael Cogher - Comptroller and City Solicitor Peter Bennett - City Surveyor Philip Everett - Director of the Built Environment William Chapman - Private Secretary and Chief of Staff to the Lord Mayor Caroline Al-Beyerty - Financial Services Director
Page 1 Paul Sizeland - Director of Economic Development Tony Halmos - Director of Public Relations Paul Beckett - Department of the Built Environment Nigel Lefton - Remembrancer's Department Liz Skelcher - Assistant Director, Economic Development Office Eddie Stevens - Housing Services Director, CCS Paul Jackson - Community and Children’s Service Department Peter Lisley - Assistant Town Clerk Simon Murrells - Assistant Town Clerk Dan Hooper - Policy Officer Angela Roach - Committee and Members Service Manager
1. APOLOGIES Apologies were received from John Barker, Sir David Howard, Henry Pollard and Alan Yarrow.
2. MEMBERS DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA The following Members declared an interest in Item no. 6, creation of an Education Board:-
• Alderman Jeffrey Evans as Deputy Chairman of the City of London Academy Southwark
• Catherine McGuinness as Deputy Chairman of the City Academy Hackney and as an Almoner of Christ’s Hospital School
• Marianne Fredericks as a donation Governor of Christ’s Hospital School
• John Bennett as Deputy Chairman of the City of London Freemen’s School.
3. MINUTES
3a. The public minutes of the meeting held on 20 February 2014 were approved.
3b, The draft public minutes of the Public relations and Economic Development Sub-Committee meeting held on 20 February 2014 were noted.
4. APPOINTMENT OF CO-OPTED MEMBERS OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE The Committee considered a resolution of the Standards Committee from its meeting on 31 January 2014 requesting that the composition of the selection
Page 2 panel for appointing co-opted Members to the Committee be amended to include the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Standards Committee.
The Chairman questioned the need for the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee to be a member of the selection panel. Members agreed that this was not necessary.
RESOLVED – That, subject to the approval of the Court of Common Council, the composition of the selection panel for appointment Co-opted Members of the Standards Committee be amended by removing the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee and adding the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Standards Committee.
5. COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk concerning suggested amendments to the terms of reference of committees following consideration by committees.
RESOLVED – That:-
1. the proposed amendments to committee terms of reference be approved and included in the annual report to the Court of Common Council as follows:-
Audit and Risk Management (A&RM) Committee
(d) To meet with the external auditors of the City Fund and City’s Cash funds at least once in each calendar year prior to the presentation of the Accounts to the Court.
Finance Committee - the following be included:-
The effective and sustainable management of the City of London’s operational assets, to help deliver strategic priorities and service needs.
Standards Committee The Standards Committee have expressed concern about any possible confusion over its responsibilities regarding the Employee Code of Conduct and in order to clarify its remit an amendment to that paragraph is suggested. The Committee was also keen to ensure that there is ongoing oversight of Member and Officer relations and has therefore suggested that this be formalised within its terms of reference as set out below.
(c) keeping under review , by way of an annual update by the Director HR, the City of London Corporation’s Employee Code of Conduct;
(d) keeping under review and monitoring the Protocol on Member/Officer Relations.
Page 3 2. the approval of any material change to the terms of reference of the Barbican Centre Board be delegated to the Town Clerk in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman.
6. THE CREATION OF AN EDUCATION BOARD The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk concerning the creation of an Education Board to oversee and strengthen the City Corporation’s wider education offer, including the City academies. The Board would also to assist in the implementation and monitoring of the organisation’s education strategy.
The Committee noted that the matter had also been considered by the Community and Children’s Services Committee and that that Committee had suggested a number of changes.
During discussion a number of comments were made which included the following:-
• The Chairman stated that whilst he was broadly content with the suggestions from the Community and Children’s Service Committee he questioned whether it was necessary for a representative or co-sponsor from each of the governing bodies of the academies to serve on the Board. He stated that he would prefer to see the number of Common Councilmen increased from 8 to 10 Members. A Deputy Chairman added that notwithstanding this it was important to acknowledge the significance of maintaining links with co-sponsors and suggested that the third point of the Board’s terms of reference be amended to include a reference along the lines of “to be responsible for the oversight and monitoring of the City of London’s sponsorship of its Academies, including the appointment of governors and maintaining close links with Co-sponsors ”. Members supported these suggestions.
• A Deputy Chairman referred to the Board’s responsibility for the distribution of funds for educational purposes and pointed out that this related to new City’s Cash funding only and not grant funding distributed by the City Bridge Trust.
• A Member, who was also the Chairman of the City of London Academy Southwark but not a Member of the Committee was in attendance, was given leave by the Chairman to address the Committee. He referred to the importance of including representatives from the academies and advised that in his experience Governors of academies tended to get forgotten on a number of fronts. The Chairman advised that this could be addressed through better communication rather than representation and highlighted, amongst other things, that they would now have access to additional funds.
• In response to suggestions that when considering the allocation of funding pupil numbers should be taken into account and that any funding for Redriff Academy should be channelled through City of London Academy
Page 4 Southwark, the Chairman said that the allocation of funding would be a matter for the Education Board.
RESOLVED – that, subject to the approval of the Court of Common Council:-
1. an Education Board be created as set out in the report;
2. the terms of reference of the new Education Board be as follows:-
• To monitor and review the City of London Education Strategy, and to oversee its implementation in consultation with the appropriate City of London Committees; referring any proposed changes to the Court of Common Council for approval. • To oversee generally the City of London Corporation’s education activities; consulting with those Committees where education responsibilities are expressly provided for within the terms of reference of these Committees; and liaising with the City’s affiliated schools. • To be responsible for the oversight and monitoring of the City of London’s sponsorship of its Academies, including the appointment of governors and maintaining close links with Co-sponsors . • To appoint the City of London Corporation’s representative on school governing bodies where nomination rights are granted and which do not fall within the remit of any other committee. • To monitor the frameworks for effective accountability, challenge and support in the City schools*. • To be responsible for the distribution of funds specifically allocated to it for education purposes, in accordance with the City of London Corporation’s strategic policies. • Oversight of the City of London Corporation’s education-business link activities.
* “ the City schools” means, as stated in the education strategy, those schools for which the City has direct responsibility, as proprietor, sponsor or LA, namely : The Sir John Cass Foundation Primary School, The City Academy Hackney, the City of London Academy Southwark, the City of London Academy Islington, the City of London School, the City of London School for Girls, and the City of London Freemen’s School and Redriff Primary School.
3. The composition, quorum and representation of the Board to be as follows:-
Composition • 10 Members elected by the Court of Common Council, at least two of whom shall have fewer than five years’ service on the Court at the time of their appointment; • up to four external representatives, appointed by the Education Board, with appropriate expertise in the field of education (i.e. non-
Page 5 Members of the Court of Common Council, who shall have voting rights); • one member appointed by the Policy & Resources Committee • one member appointed by the Community & Children’s Services Committee
Quorum The quorum to consist of any five Common Council Members and one of the four external representatives.
Meetings The Education Board would generally meet six times a year.
4. two places on the Education Board be reserved for existing Common Council Members of the Education Strategy Working Party for the first year only;
5. the Chairman of the Board to be appointed by Board Members and should also be a Member of the Court of Common Council.
6. City-school governor appointments to follow the academic year rather than the civic year;
7. The Education Board be required to report on its activities and outcomes after one year of its operation;
8. subject to the approval of the Finance Committee the following be agreed to:-
• the allocation of £550,000 to the Education Board in its first year to support the City Academy schools, including Redriff Primary Academy, for the 2014/15 academic year, noting that financial support would be for activities approved by the Education Board;
• £150,000 be allocated for central education resources to implement the education reforms as set out in the Education Strategy; and
• the total of £700,000 be met from any underspent City’s Cash budgets in 2013/14 which would otherwise be retained centrally or, should there be insufficient underspends, from City’s Cash reserves.
9. the Town Clerk be authorised to agree any necessary minor changes to the proposals in advance of them being presented to the Court of Common Council, in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Education Strategy Working Party, Community & Children’s Services Committee, Finance Committee (if of a financial nature) and the Policy & Resources Committee.
Page 6 7. CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY 2014 - 2017 The Committee considered a report of the Director of Public Relations setting out the draft Communications Strategy for 2014-17.
Members noted that the Strategy included minor changes suggested by the Public Relations and Economic Development Sub-Committee.
RESOLVED – That the Communications Strategy for 2014-17 be approved and Chief Officers be instructed to implement it accordingly.
8. TOWN CLERK'S BUSINESS PLAN (POLICY AND DEMOCRATIC SERVICES) BUSINESS PLAN 2014-17 The Committee considered the Town Clerk’s Office Business Plan for 2014-17.
RESOLVED – That the Town Clerk’s Office Business Plan for 2014-17 be approved.
9. PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICE BUSINESS PLAN, 2014 - 2017 The Committee considered the Public Relations Office Business Plan for 2014- 17.
In response to a suggestion about increasing the current target for voter registration, the Director explained why aiming higher would prove difficult. He added that it would also be exacerbated by forthcoming changes to the mechanism which would prevents voters remaining on the register for more than one year. A Member queried the rules with regard to voter registration and its application to the City Corporation. The Chairman suggested that a report on the matter be prepared for consideration at a future meeting of the Committee.
RESOLVED – That:-
1. the Public Relations Office Business Plan for 2014-17 be approved and that the Director be instructed to implement it accordingly; and
2. the Comptroller and City Solicitor be requested to report back to a future meeting of the Committee on the rules of voter registration and how they now apply to the City Corporation.
10. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS PLAN AND ACTIVITIES Reports of the Director of Economic Development were considered as follows:-
10a. The Economic Development Office Business Plan for 2014-17.
RESOLVED – That the Economic Development Office Business Plan for 2014- 17 be approved and that the Director be instructed to implement it accordingly.
Page 7
10b. The Committee considered a report of the Director of Economic Development updating it on various economic development activities between December 2013 and February 2014.
RESOLVED – That the report be received and its content noted.
11. HOUSING STRATEGY 2014-2019 The Committee considered a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services concerning the production of the City of London Housing Strategy.
RESOLVED – that the report be received and that the content of the draft Housing Strategy noted.
12. REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS ACT 2000 - QUARTERLY UPDATE The Committee considered a quarterly report of the Town Clerk concerning the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIPA) Act 2000. The Act regulated surveillance activities conducted by public authorities.
RESOLVED – that the content of the report be noted and that:-
1. Neil Davies, Head of Corporate Performance & Development, Town Clerk's Department, be appointed to discharge the functions of the RIPA Monitoring Officer (RMO); and
2. the City of London Corporation’s RIPA Policy and Procedure be amended as of 3 rd June 2014 to reflect the appointment of Neil Davies to discharge the functions of the RMO.
13. ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment concerning the adoption and implementation of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
It was noted that the proposals had been supported by the Planning and Transportation Committee.
RESOLVED – that the inspector’s report supported the proposed City CIL and recommended its approval and that:-
1. the proposed ‘correctable errors’ to the City of London Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule be approved and the Charging Schedule be adopted and implemented from 1 st July 2014;
Page 8 2. the Regulation 123 List, concerning infrastructure to be funded by the City CIL, which sits alongside the City CIL Charging Schedule, be approved;
3. authority to approve scaled back s106 Agreements in place of the full form of s106 Agreements in cases where the planning application had been approved subject to a full s106 Agreement, and where it had not been possible to complete the s106 Agreement prior to implementation of the City CIL, and where the delegated officer considers it appropriate to do so be delegate to the City Planning Officer and/or Development Director and/or Director of the Built Environment; and
4. any proposed expenditure in s106 Agreements be honoured as a transitional measure, where it has not been possible to complete the Agreements, and where the specific s106 expenditure was relied upon in determining that applications were acceptable.
14. STEM AND POLICY EDUCATION PROGRAMME The Committee considered a report of the Director of Open Spaces concerning the launch of an education project alongside the engineering and landscaping project for the Hampstead Heath ponds.
RESOLVED – That the Ponds Education Project be supported and that the Programme be funded for three years at a total cost of £144,000 (£51,000 in 2014/15, £50,000 in 2015/16 and £43,000 in 2016/17) to be met from the Policy Initiatives Fund, categorised as “Communities” and charged to City’s Cash
15. SPONSORSHIP OF DEMOS RESEARCH PROJECT - YOUNG MUSLIM EMPLOYMENT The Committee considered a report of the Director Public Relations proposing support for a major research project to be undertaken by Demos, a multi- purpose cross-party think tank, examining employment among young Muslims.
RESOLVED – That the Demos research project examining employment among young Muslims be supported at a cost of £15,000 to be met from Policy Initiatives Fund for 2014/15, categorised under the Research section of the Fund and charged to City’s Cash.
16. 800TH ANNIVERSARY OF MAGNA CARTA The Committee considered a report of the Director Public Relations requesting additional support for activities associated with marking the 800 th anniversary of the Magna Carta in 2015.
RESOLVED – that approval be given to the following:-
1. an additional grant of £25,000 as a contribution towards the increased costs in the final year incurred by the Anniversary Committee;
Page 9 2. the cost of the use of Great Hall in Guildhall for a fund-raising dinner in June 2014 to be hosted by the Anniversary Committee (an internal recharge not exceeding £12,000);
3. the costs of hosting a lecture in November 2014 by Professor Linda Colley on a Magna Carta theme, followed by a reception at a cost not exceeding £15,000;
4. the costs of a programme of educational, heritage and visitor-related activities totalling £36,000; and
5. it be noted that the above expenditure, which would not exceed £88,000 in total, would be met from the Committee’s contingency (£72,000 in 2014/15 and £16,000 in 2015/16) and charged to City’s Cash.
17. LORD MAYOR'S SHOW, 2014 - FIREWORKS DISPLAY The Committee considered a report of the Director of Public Relations requesting an increase in expenditure for the Lord Mayor’s Show fireworks display in 2014.
RESOLVED – That the following be approved:-
1. an increase of £22,000 to a total budget of £115,000 for the provision of all aspects of the planned fireworks display following the Lord Mayor’s Show 2014, including additional traffic management, public safety, and crowd and related events management issues, to be met from the Committee’s City’s Cash contingency for 2014/15; and
2. the re-appointment of AD Health & Safety as the specialist provider in 2014 to deliver the operational requirements of the event on behalf of the City of London Corporation.
18. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION'S ENGAGEMENT WITH EU INSTITUTIONS, POLICY ON EU REGULATORY ISSUES, AND THE ROLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY STRATEGY GROUP (IRSG) The Committee considered a report of the Director of Economic Development concerning the City Corporation’s engagement with EU institutions, development of a policy on EU regulatory issues and the role of the International Regulatory Strategy Group (IRSG).
It was noted that the proposals were supported by the Public Relations and Economic Development Sub-Committee. RESOLVED – that:-
1. the current arrangements for consideration of regulatory policy matters primarily through the IRSG be supported; and
Page 10 2. these matters should in future be a standing item on the Public Relations and Economic Development Sub-Committee agenda.
19. POLICY INITIATIVES FUND The Committee considered a statement of the Chamberlain on the use of the Policy Initiatives Fund and the Committee’s contingency for 2013/14.
RESOLVED – That the content of the statement be noted.
20. DECISIONS TAKEN UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY OR URGENCY POWERS The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk reporting action taken by the Town Clerk in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman since the last meeting of the Committee in accordance with Standing Orders 41(a) and 41(b).
RESOLVED – that it be noted that approval was given to the Chief Commoner representing the City Corporation at an official visit to Flanders, Belgium to mark the centenary of the start of the First World War and that it was estimated that the total cost of the visit would not exceed £360.
21. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE
Annual Wardmotes
A number of Members expressed concern that insufficient notice and, in some cases incorrect information, had been given to ward Members and members of the public regarding the date and arrangements for annual wardmotes. The Assistant Town Clerk acknowledged that the matter had not been handled as well as it could; explained how the errors had occurred and advised that Elections Manager was now looking at ways to improve arrangements in future. It was suggested that it would be useful to include the date of the annual wardmotes in December’s edition of the ward newsletters.
22. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT
Chairmanship of the Community and Children’s Services Committee
The Committee considered a resolution of the Community and Children’s Services Committee of 14 March 2014 proposing that standing orders be waived to enable the Chairman of that Committee to stand for a fourth year on a one-off basis.
A Member, who was also the Chairman of the Community and Children’s Services Committee, explained that since that Committee had agreed to leave
Page 11 being sought for him to stand for a further year one or two Members had expressed an interest in standing for the position. As a consequence he was of the view that the need for him to seek a further year was no longer necessary.
The Chairman suggested that given that there was now interest in the Chairmanship no further action be taken. Members supported this.
RESOLVED – that the content of the resolution be noted and that, given the circumstances, no further action be taken.
MIPIM Property Conference 2014
A note of the headlines and the City Corporation’s key activities at the MIPIM Property conference recently was laid round the table. Members noted that a full report on the event would be submitted to the Committee in due course.
23. 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 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act:-
Item Nos. Paragraph(s) in Schedule 12A
24a 3 and 100A (2) of the 1972 24b 1 25 3 26 3
Part 2 – Non-Public Agenda
24. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES
24a. The non-public minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 20 February 2014 were approved.
Matters Arising
4-14 Tabernacle Street
Reference was made to the social enterprise option considered in relation to the refurbishment of 4-14 Tabernacle Street and to the proposed procedure for identifying economic and social benefits when considering future sites.
24b. The non-public minutes of the Public Relations and Economic Development Sub-Committee meeting held on 20 February 2014 were considered and the recommendation contained therein approved
Page 12 .
25. GUILDHALL CHARGING REVIEW – 2014/15 The Committee considered and agreed a joint report of the Chamberlain and the Remembrancer concerning the charges for the use of Guildhall accommodation.
26. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE
With the exception of the Town Clerk and the Assistant Town Clerk Officers withdrew from the meeting whilst a question relating to a member of staff was discussed.
27. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED. Members Overnight Accommodation
The Committee considered and agreed arrangements for the use of overnight accommodation.
The meeting ended at 3.20pm
Chairman
Contact Officer: Angela Roach tel. no.: 020 7332 3685 [email protected]
Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 14 Agenda Item 6b
PROJECTS SUB (POLICY AND RESOURCES) COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 2 April 2014
Minutes of the meeting of the Projects Sub (Policy and Resources) Committee held at the Guildhall EC2 at 10.00am
Present
Members: Sir Michael Snyder (Chairman) Hugh Morris Roger Chadwick Deputy John Tomlinson Deputy Catherine McGuinness Deputy Michael Welbank
Officers: Peter Lisley - Town Clerk's Department Jacqui Daniels - Town Clerk's Department Rebecca Kearney - Town Clerk's Department Caroline Al-Beyerty - Chamberlain's Department Peter Bennett - City Surveyor Huw Rhys Lewis - City Surveyor's Department Victor Callister - Department of the Built Environment Karen Tarbox - Community and Children's Services Department Michael Dick - Barbican Centre Eddie Stevens - Community and Children's Services Department Graham Bell - Chief Information Officer Gary Burks - Open Spaces Department Melanie Charalambous - Built Environment Department Patrick Hegarty - Technical Manager, Open Spaces Department Mike Kettle - Community and Children's Services Leonora Thomson - Barbican Centre Nick Hazlock - City of London Procurement Service Eric Nisbitt - City of London Police Oliver Little - City of London Police
1. APOLOGIES Apologies were received from Mark Boleat and Angela Starling.
2. DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA There were no declarations.
3. MINUTES RESOLVED - The public minutes and non-public summary of the meeting held on 25 February 2013 be approved.
Page 15 4. EXTENDING BURIAL SPACE AT THE CITY OF LONDON CEMETERY (THE SHOOT) - OPTIONS APPRAISAL - GATEWAY 3/4 The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of Open Spaces, in respect of extending burial space at the City of London Cemetery in an area known as ‘The Shoot’.
It was noted that in view of the more relaxed timescales involved in this project, in order to reduce costs, consideration should be given to imaginative procurement methods, possibly involving small contractors, working around other projects and that the funding requirement be reduced significantly to reflect this anticipated reduction in costs.
RESOLVED – That, subject to no tolerances being allowed for and imaginative procurement methodology being considered; the funding requirement be reduced significantly to reflect this anticipated reduction in costs, 1) Option1, as set out in the report, be approved at a maximum total funding requirement of £504,500, to develop to Gateway 5, subject to planning approval by the London Borough of Newham; and 2) in the event of the Environmental Agency insisting on additional works to the culvert running under the site, Option 2, as set out in the report, be approved as a reserve option to develop to Gateway 5 at a total maximum funding requirement of £604,500.
5. HIGHAMS PARK LAKE - PROGRESS REPORT Members considered a report of the City Surveyor setting out progress made on the project following the last Section 10 Inspection at Highams Park Lake.
RESOLVED - That approval be given to: 1) the adoption of the new option of reinforcing the dam whilst retaining the Michael Mallinson Watersports Centre; and 2) subject to planning permission and the project remaining within the approved budget, the appointment of the contractor for the main project works and Gateway 5 (Authority to Start Work) remain under the delegated authority of the City Surveyor in order that works can proceed on site within the statutory deadline.
6. QUEEN STREET PILOT PROJECT - OUTCOME REPORT - GATEWAY 7 The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment concerning the outcome of the Queen Street Pilot Project.
During the course of discussion Members discussed:- • The longer than originally envisaged length of the project; • Steps taken to ensure that lessons learnt from projects such as this were recorded and available for colleagues to access; • Recent and future Members’ training sessions on Projects; and • Proposals for the overview and prioritisation of Section 106 monies should they need to be re-allocated and the likely implications of the new Community Infrastructure Levy.
RESOLVED - That: 1) the outcome report be received and the actions taken be noted; 2) the Queen Street Pilot Project, inclusive of all project elements, be formally closed down; and
Page 16 3) £29,000 of the remaining funds from the Queen Street Pilot Project (On-Street Parking Reserve) be utilised to complete some minor outstanding actions (which include signage and paving alterations) that have yet to be implemented as part of the original St Pancras Church Garden project scope.
7. CHEAPSIDE PROJECT OUTCOME REPORT - GATEWAY 7 The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment, which sought to close stages 1-4 of the Cheapside Area Strategy Improvements Project; noting that although the project had been expanded to include the Gresham Street/St Martin’s Le Grand/Aldersgate Street Junction (as stage 4a) this area had not been included in this outcome report as it was being subjected to an on-going trial of its effectiveness.
During the course of discussion the following points were raised:- • the terms of the legal agreement dealing with the balance of the Section 106 monies were questioned; • there was a new system for assessing ground conditions below street level which allowed estimating to be more accurate; • a solution for noisy drain covers was to move them towards the kerb-line where this was technically possible; • it was emphasised that issues for businesses or residents e.g. blocking pedestrian routes to the shops in Bow Lane, should be foreseen and any lessons learnt should be specifically recorded for reference in relation to future projects and it was noted that officers now approached stakeholders to discuss the implications of proposed projects in advance of the commencement of works; and • Appendix 5 page 82 should include reference to the release of underspends via the Resource Allocation process.
RESOLVED - That:- 1) the report be noted; 2) Stages 1-4 of the project be closed; and 3) the Town Clerk be given delegated authority, in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, to consider the release of the balance of £0.47m from the Section 106 funds and that, should that be what is allowed for in the legal agreements, the monies be released back to the pooled funding for transport improvements at or in the vicinity of Bank Station.
8. WINDOWS AT LAMMAS GREEN FLATS - OUTCOME REPORT - GATEWAY 7 The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services, which sought to close the project to replace the windows, repair the roof, chimney stacks, guttering and paint the stairwells within the flats at Lammas Green on the Sydenham Hill Estate.
RESOLVED – That the successful completion of the project be noted.
9. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE There were no questions.
10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT The Sub Committee considered two items of urgent business, as follows:
Page 17
A) Eastern City Cluster – Public Art (Year 3 and 4) – Gateway 6 update report The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment which updated Members on Year 3 of the ‘Sculpture in the City’ Project which was delivered in 2013 and sought approval for the funding for Years 4 and 5 which would be implemented in 2014 and 2015 respectively.
RESOLVED - That:- 1) the contents of report be noted and approval be given to the shortlist of artworks considered for Year 4 which was attached in Appendix C to the report;. 2) the additional contribution of £40k be approved (total City contribution £90k) for the implementation of the current year’s project, funded from the interest accrued on the S106 obligation connected to the Pinnacle development; 3) approval be given to an increase of £4,000 on the budget of Year 3 to cover additional staff costs incurred in the delivery of last year’s project; 4) the appointment of Lacuna PR Ltd be approved as a consultant for Year 4 at a cost of £50,000 to be funded from the overall project budget; 5) a contribution of £90k be approved from the interest accrued on the S106 obligation connected to the Pinnacle development for the implementation of the project in Year 5 (2014-2015); and 6) authority be delegated to the Director of Transportation and Public Realm and the Head of Finance to adjust the project budget between staff costs, fees and works, provided the overall budget is not exceeded.
B) Beech Gardens – Insurance Backed Guarantee The Director of Community and Children’s Services reminded Members that part of the agreement for the delivery of this project was for the tender to include an insurance backed guarantee but this has so far proved difficult to achieve. Members noted that an extended guarantee was in place and that works were progressing well.
RESOLVED - That the Director of Community and Children’s Services’ verbal report be noted and that it be particularly noted that works were progressing without an insurance backed guarantee.
11. 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 no Paragraph Nos 13 – 32 3
12. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES RESOLVED – That the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 25 February 2014 be approved.
13. FRAMEWORK PRESENTATION
Page 18 The Sub Committee received a presentation by the City Surveyor on the use of frameworks for the procurement of consultants & contractors.
14. PROJECT PROPOSAL - HOSTEL DEVELOPMENT AND LODGE II ENABLING PROJECT - GATEWAY 2 The Sub Committee considered and approved a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services which sought to develop a new 20 bed hostel (Lodge II).
15. PROJECT PROPOSAL - CCTV INSTALLATION AT SELECTED ESTATES AND BLOCKS OF THE CITY'S HOUSING ESTATES - GATEWAY 2 The Sub Committee considered and approved a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services which proposed the installation of CCTV at selected estates and blocks on the City Corporation’s Housing Estates.
16. ISLINGTON ARTS FACTORY - OUTLINE OPTIONS APPRAISAL - GATEWAY 3 The Sub Committee approved a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services in respect of the Islington Arts Factory.
17. AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT The Sub Committee received a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services which provided an update on the City’s affordable housing developments.
18. CITY OF LONDON POLICE IT MODERNISATION - SUMMARY AND UPDATE The Sub Committee received a report of the Commissioner of the City of London Police which provided an update on the City of London Police’s IT modernisation programme and an indication of the reports likely to be submitted over coming months.
19. CITY OF LONDON POLICE MOBILE WORKING SERVICES: OPERATIONAL PLATFORM - COMBINED OPTIONS APPRAISAL GATEWAYS 3/4 The Sub Committee considered a report of the Commissioner of the City of London Police in respect of mobile working.
20. ACTION AND KNOW FRAUD PROJECT - COMBINED OPTIONS APPRAISAL GATEWAY 3 The Sub Committee considered and approved a report of the Commissioner of the City of London Police in respect of the Know and Action Fraud project.
21. BARBICAN CENTRE WEBSITE AND CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - AUTHORITY TO START WORK - GATEWAY 5
Page 19 The Sub Committee considered and approved a report of the Director of Audiences and Development at the Barbican Centre concerning the development of a new website for the Barbican Centre.
22. 35-37 ALFRED PLACE - ISSUE REPORT - GATEWAY 6 The Sub Committee considered and approved a report of the City Surveyor in respect of a major refurbishment of 35-37 Alfred Place, WC1.
23. BARBICAN CINEMAS - ISSUE REPORT NO. 2 The Sub Committee considered a report of the City Surveyor in respect of the Barbican Cinemas and approved revised recommendations, previously circulated, following the consideration of the report by the Barbican Centre Board.
24. BARBICAN CINEMAS CAFE-BAR PROJECT - OUTCOME REPORT - GATEWAY 7 The Sub Committee considered and approved a report of the Director of Operations and Buildings of the Barbican Centre concerning the completion of the Barbican Cinemas Café Bar Project.
25. BARBICAN VOLTAGE OPTIMISATION - OUTCOME REPORTS - GATEWAY 7 Members considered and approved a report of the Director of Operations and Buildings of the Barbican Centre which sought to close down the project to design, supply and install six voltage optimisation units at the Centre and the construction of a switch room to house the new units.
26. CITY SURVEYORS' CONSOLIDATED OUTCOMES REPORT - GATEWAY 7 The Sub Committee considered and approved a report of the City Surveyor which sought to close five projects which were completed between 2012 and 2013.
27. ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS - CONSOLIDATED OUTCOME REPORT - GATEWAY 7 The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment which sought to close 30 environmental enhancement projects which were completed between 2006 and 2013.
28. BUILDINGS PROGRAMME (INCLUDING HOUSING) - RED, AMBER & GREEN PROJECTS The Sub Committee received a report of the City Surveyor setting out the projects concerning buildings managed by the City Surveyor and the Director of Community and Children’s Services.
Page 20
29. POLICE PROGRAMMES The Sub Committee received a report setting out the status of the projects managed by the Commissioner of the City of London Police.
30. DECISIONS TAKEN UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY AND URGENCY PROCEDURES The Sub Committee received a report of the Town Clerk which set out the decisions taken under delegated authority and using urgency procedures since the last meeting.
31. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE SUB COMMITTEE There were no questions.
32. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE SUB COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED The Chairman considered that one item concerning enhancements to the ventilation/air conditioning system for the Gild Restaurant in the Lower Ground Floor of the North Wing may be considered by the Committee as an urgent item whilst the public were excluded.
The meeting closed at 11.45am
Chairman
Contact Officer: Jacqui Daniels tel.no.: 020 7332 1480 [email protected]
Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 22 Agenda Item 7
Committee: Policy and Resources Date: 8 May 2014
Subject: Appointment of Sub Committees, Working Public Parties and Representatives On Other Committees
Report of: Town Clerk For Decision
Summary
1. The purpose of this report is to consider the appointment of the Committee’s sub-committees and working parties, to approve the compositions, terms of reference and to appoint representatives on a number of other City Corporation Committees. The Committee is also required to review the frequency of its meetings.
2. The Policy Committee appoints four sub-committees:-
• Members’ Privileges Sub-Committee; • Projects Sub-Committee; • Public Relations and Economic Development Sub-Committee; and • Resource Allocation Sub-Committee;
3. The Committee has three working parties covering the areas of hospitality, Members’ facilities and accommodation and education. The Education Strategy Work Party’s work has largely been completed with the creation of the Education Board whose responsibility it will be to implement and monitor the education strategy and strengthen the City Corporation’s education offer. Therefore it is not proposed that the Working Party should be re-appointed. However, subject to the approval of the creation of the Board by the Court, the Committee will need to appoint a representative to serve on the new Education Board.
4. In addition, the Committee also appoints representatives to serve elsewhere.
5. For ease, details of the composition and terms of reference of the Committees sub-committees and working parties are set out in Appendix A together with the details of the representatives appointed to serve elsewhere.
Recommendations
6. It is recommended that:-
a) consideration be given to the appointment, composition and terms of reference of the following sub-committees and working parties for the ensuing year:-
• Members’ Privileges Sub-Committee
Page 23 • Projects Sub-Committee (3 vacancies) • Public Relations and Economic Development Sub-Committee (5 vacancies) • Resource Allocation Sub-Committee (6 vacancies) • Cultural Hub Working Party • Hospitality Working Party • Members Facilities and Accommodation Working Party
b) a Chairman of the Projects Sub-Committee be appointed;
c) 8 Members be appointed to serve on the Investment Committee (see Section J of Appendix A for 2013 nominations);
d) one Member be appointed to represent the Committee on each of the following:-
• Audit and Risk Management Committee • Barbican Centre Board • Education Board • Local Development Framework Reference Sub (Planning) Committee • Mayoralty and Shrievalty Allowances
(see Section I of Appendix A for 2013 appointments)
e) representatives be appointed for informal consultation with the Court of Aldermen and the Finance Committee on Mayoralty and Shrievalty Allowances (see Section H of Appendix A for 2013 appointments); and
f) Members consider whether any change is required to the frequency of the Committee’s meetings.
Main Report
Background
7. This report considers the appointment, terms of reference and composition of the Policy and Resources Committee’s sub-committees and working parties. It also sets out details of the representatives the Committee is requested to appoint to serve on other City Corporation bodies.
8. The Committee is also required to review the frequency of its meetings. It usually meets on a monthly basis (with the exception of the Summer and Easter recess periods). Given that no meetings of the Committee have been cancelled due to the lack of business in the last 8 years, holding a meeting on a monthly basis seems sensible for the coming year. If it appears that there is insufficient business to justify a meeting then the Chairman may cancel it in good time.
Page 24 Current Position
9. There are a number of specific areas of the Committee’s work which require greater focus and for which it has created a sub-committee, namely:-
• Members’ Privileges • Project Management • Public Relations and Economic Development • Resource Allocation
10. It was previously agreed that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Grand Committee should serve in an ex-officio capacity on all the Committee’s Sub- Committees. The Policy Committee now appoints three Deputy Chairmen and all three serve on the Resource Allocation and the Public Relations and Economic Development Sub-Committees.
11. Last year the Committee appointed three working parties covering the areas of hospitality, Members’ facilities and accommodation and education. The Education Strategy Work Party’s work has largely been completed with the creation of the Education Board whose responsibility it now is to implement and monitor the education strategy and strengthen the City Corporation’s education offer. Therefore it is not proposed that the Education Working Party should be re-appointed.
12. Each of the Committee’s proposed sub-committees, working parties and the appointments to other committees are considered in turn below. Details of their terms of reference and proposed composition are set out in Appendix A of this report.
Members’ Privileges Sub-Committee
13. The Members’ Privileges Sub-Committee focuses on Members’ privileges (but not those relating to City Hospitality which are dealt with by the Hospitality Working Party); Members’ facilities (excluding Guildhall Club as this is dealt with by its own dedicated committee) and Member development and training. This Sub-Committee is chaired by the Chief Commoner and can report directly to the Court of Common Council. Vacancies on this Sub-Committee are appointed by the Court. See Appendix A for the full composition.
Projects Sub-Committee
14. This Sub-Committee provides additional scrutiny, oversight and challenge for the management of major projects and programmes on behalf of the Policy and Resources Committee. The Chairman of this Sub-Committee is appointed by the Grand Committee. There are three vacancies on this Sub-Committee to which the Grand Committee is asked to appoint.
Page 25 Public Relations and Economic Development Sub-Committee (PR/ED Sub)
15. This Sub-Committee focuses on all matters relating to the City Corporation’s Economic Development, Public Relations, Public Affairs and Communication activities, including any related plans, policies and strategies. There are five vacancies on this Sub-Committee to which the Grand Committee is asked to appoint.
Resource Allocation Sub-Committee (RA Sub)
16. Determining resource allocation in accordance with the City Corporation’s strategies is undertaken on behalf of the Committee by the RA Sub. The Sub- Committee also performs the role of a Reference Sub-Committee, in that it considers and makes recommendations on matters referred to it by the Grand Committee. The constitution of RA Sub is agreed by the Court. There are six vacancies on this Sub-Committee to which the Grand Committee is asked to appoint.
Hospitality Working Party (HWP)
17. The HWP is chaired by the Chief Commoner and reports directly to the Court of Common Council. It is responsible for considering and making recommendations on City Corporation hospitality and on the applications for the use of Great Hall. Applications for the use other venues within Guildhall are determined by the Remembrancer in consultation with Chief Commoner. Vacancies on this Working Party are appointed by the Court. See Appendix A for the full composition.
Members’ Facilities and Accommodation Working Party
18. Whilst much of the Working Party’s activities have been completed there are a few items relating to the Members refurbishment project still to be addressed via the contractor’s snagging list. In addition, Members have commented on the clinical appearance of the accommodation particularly with regard to the 3 rd floor and the Working Party have suggested some measures to address this. It is therefore proposed that Working Party should be reappointed for the coming year to deal with these matters prior to handing over to the Members’ Privileges Sub-Committee. There are no vacancies to be filled on the Working Party.
Cultural Hub Working Party
19. The Cultural Hub Working Party was established at the end of last year to oversee the development of a cultural hub in the Barbican area to coordinate improvements to the street scene, links to future transport infrastructure developments, and increased collaboration between the cultural institutions in and around that area. The Working Party was constituted for an initial period
Page 26 and it still in the early stages of developing its work. There are no vacancies to be filled on the Working Party.
The Investment Committee
20. In addition to the 14 Members directly elected by the Court on to the Investment Committee, this Committee is required to appoint eight Members to serve on it from amongst all Members of the Court. Members wishing to serve on the Investment Committee are required to submit a CV in support of their candidature.
21. The Policy and Resources Committee is required to appoint one representative to serve on the following Committees, Sub-Committees and Boards:-
• Audit and Risk Management Committee • Barbican Centre Board • Education Board • Local Development Framework Reference Sub (Planning) Committee • Mayoralty and Shrievalty Allowances (for the purposes of consultation with the Court of Aldermen and representatives of the Finance Committee)
22. When filling the vacancies on the various committees and sub-committees referred to above it should be noted that a ballot will be required where expressions of interest in serving on them exceed the number of vacancies.
Appendices
Appendix A – composition and terms of reference of the Policy Committee’s sub- committees and working parties together with details of the representatives the Committee appoints to serve elsewhere.
Background Papers: Appointment of Members on Committees Court Report 2013
Contact: Angela Roach Telephone: 020 7332 3685 Email: [email protected]
Page 27 Appendix A (A) Members’ Privileges Sub-Committee
Composition Chief Commoner (Chairman) Immediate past Chief Commoner * Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the House Committee of Guildhall Club (Ex- officio) Chairman and a Deputy Chairman of the Grand Committee Up to 6 Members appointed by the Court of Common Council as follows:-
Deputy Ken Ayers term expires 2017 Deputy John Barker term expires 2015 Oliver Lodge term expires 2016 3 vacancies to be filled at the 1 st May 2014 Court meeting
*For part of the year and then the Chief Commoner Designate for the remainder of the year (elected in October each year)
Terms of Reference • To consider and make recommendations to the Policy and Resources Committee on:-
Members’ privileges, other than those relating to City Hospitality which is dealt with by the Hospitality Working Party; and
Members’ facilities, excluding Guildhall Club as it falls within the locus of the House Committee of Guildhall Club.
• To agree a programme of Member training and development, to ensure that all Members have access to opportunities to broaden their specialist knowledge and skills in relation to their duties.
(B) Projects Sub-Committee
Composition 3 Members appointed by the Policy and Resources Committee 2 Members appointed by the Finance Committee Up to 2 Members be co-opted from the Court of Common Council with relevant experience.
In 2013/14 membership was as follows:-
Sir Michael Snyder (Chairman) * Alderman Sir Michael Bear (co-optee) Roger Chadwick (Finance Committee representative) Hugh Morris Angela Starling (co-optee) John Tomlinson (Finance Committee representative) Deputy Michael Welbank
Page 28 Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Grand Committee
*The Chairman of the Sub-Committee to be appointed by the Policy and Resources Committee
Terms of Reference To be responsible for:-
• Authorising individual projects on behalf of the Policy and Resources Committee at each stage of the City’s agreed Project Approval Process; • Making proposals to the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee/the Policy and Resources Committee for projects to be included in the capital/supplementary revenue programme; • Overseeing the City Corporation’s programme of projects, excluding those within the remit of the Corporate Asset Sub-Committee, to ensure their delivery within the parameters set by the Resource Allocation Sub- Committee; • Monitoring the procurement arrangements for capital and supplementary revenue projects and advising the Finance Committee of any issues; and • Periodically reviewing the City Corporation’s project management processes and procedures.
(C) Public Relations and Economic Development Sub-Committee
Composition Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of the Policy and Resources Committee Past Chairmen of the Policy and Resources Committee, still on the Committee Chairman of the Finance Committee 5 Members of the Policy and Resources Committee, elected by the Committee 4 Members of the Court of Common Council, co-opted by the Sub Committee
In 2013/14 membership was as follows:-
Chairman of the Grand Committee Deputy Chairmen of the Grand Committee Deputy Michael Cassidy (past Chairman) Roger Chadwick (Chairman of Finance) Alex Deane Simon Duckworth Sophie Fernandes (co-opted by the Sub-Committee) Wendy Hyde (co-opted by the Sub-Committee) Oliver Lodge (co-opted by the Sub-Committee) Edward Lord Ian Seaton (co-opted by the Sub-Committee) James Tumbridge Alderman Alan Yarrow
Page 29 Terms of Reference
To consider and report to the Grand Committee on all matters relating to the City Corporation’s Economic Development, Public Relations, Public Affairs and Communication activities, including any related plans, policies and strategies.
(D) Resource Allocation Sub-Committee
Composition (the Constitution has been agreed by the Court of Common Council) Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee (Chairman) Chairman of the Finance Committee (Deputy Chairman) The Deputy Chairmen of the Policy and Resources Committee The Deputy Chairman of the Finance Committee Chairman of the General Purposes Committee of the Court of Aldermen The Senior Alderman below the Chair The Chairman of the Establishment Committee Past Chairmen of Policy and Resources Committee providing that they are Members of the Committee at the time. Together with 6 Members of the Policy and Resources Committee - in 2013/14 these Members were as follows:-
Deputy John Bennett Simon Duckworth George Gillon Deputy Joyce Nash Deputy Giles Shilson John Tomlinson
Terms of Reference • to recommend to the Grand Committee an appropriate allocation of financial resources in respect of the City Corporation’s capital and revenue expenditure; • to meet with Chairmen of Service Committees to advise on the status of the City Corporation’s budgets and the recommended allocation of financial resources overall and discuss any emerging issues; • following advice from the Corporate Asset Sub-Committee, to have power to determine the City Corporation’s programme for repairs, maintenance and cyclical replacement of plant & equipment in respect of all operational and non-investment properties, including the prioritisation of the various schemes and projects; • to determine the appropriate investment proportions between property and non-property assets; • to recommend to the Grand Committee the extent of properties held by the City of London Corporation for strategic purposes, including within the City of London itself; and • to consider and make recommendations in respect of matters referred to it by the Grand Committee including matters of policy and strategy.
Page 30 (E) Cultural Hub Working Party
Composition
• The Chairman of the Policy & Resources Committee who also chairs the working party • Two representatives from the Policy & Resources Committee (Deputy John Bennett and Catherine McGuinness) • One representative from:-
the Board of the Museum of London the Barbican Centre Board the Board of Governors of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama the Culture, Heritage and Libraries Committee the Planning and Transportation Committee
• the Director of the Barbican Centre • the Director of the Built Environment • the Director of Culture, Heritage and Libraries • the Principal of the Guildhall School • the Director of the Museum of London
Terms of Reference To oversee the development of a cultural hub in the Barbican area to coordinate improvements to the street scene, links to future transport infrastructure developments, and increased collaboration between the cultural institutions in and around that area.
(F) Hospitality Working Party
Composition Chief Commoner (Chairman) Immediate past Chief Commoner Chairman and a Deputy Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Finance Committee Chairman of the General Purposes Committee of the Court of Aldermen Senior Alderman Below the Chair Together with 4 Members to be appointed by the Court of Common Council
*For part of the year and then the Chief Commoner Designate for the remainder of the year (elected in October each year)
The Court has appointed the following Members:-
Deputy Doug Barrow term expires 2015 Simon Duckworth term expires 2013 Deputy Bill Fraser term expires 2016 3 vacancies to be filled at the 1 st May 2014 Court meeting
Page 31 Terms of Reference • To consider applications for hospitality which are referred to it by the Remembrancer and to make recommendations thereon to the Grand Committee; • To keep the arrangements for hospitality (including Committee allowances, annual functions, invitations and seating) under review and to make recommendations thereon to the Grand Committee; • To consider applications for the use of Great Hall and make recommendations thereon to the Grand Committee; • To consider the list of approved caterers and make recommendations thereon to the Grand Committee; and • To consider the level of charges for the event spaces within Guildhall and make recommendations to the Grand Committee.
(G) Members’ Facilities and Accommodation Working Party
Composition • Chairman and a Deputy Chairman of the Grand Committee • Chairman of the Members Privileges Sub-Committee • Chairman of the House Committee of Guildhall Club • Deputy Chairman of the House Committee of Guildhall Club • 5 Members of the Court, one of whom shall have 5 years’ service or less:-
Simon Duckworth Hugh Morris (under 5 years) Sylvia Moys Deputy Joyce Nash Elizabeth Rogula (under 5 Years)
Terms of Reference of the Working Party To review, and make recommendations on improvements to Members’ accommodation and facilities at Guildhall and to report thereon to the Policy and Resources Committee.
(H) Representatives for Consultation with the Court of Aldermen and Representatives of the Finance Committee on Mayoralty and Shrievalty Allowances
This is a joint deputation of representatives comprising Aldermen, the Policy and Resources Committee and the Finance Committee. The deputation is responsible for giving detailed consideration to the allowances for expenses for the offices of the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs for the coming year.
Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee The Chief Commoner Together with one further representative from this Committee - in 2013/14 Edward Lord was appointed to serve.
Page 32 (I) Representations on Other City Corporation Committees
The appointment of one Member on the following:-
i) Audit and Risk Management – the terms of reference of this Committee can be found in the Appointment of Members on Committee report to the Court or is available on request. Hugh Morris represented the Policy and Resources Committee in 2013/14.
ii) Barbican Centre Board – the terms of reference of this Committee can be found in the Appointment of Members on Committee report to the Court or is available on request. Deputy Wendy Mead represented the Committee on the Board in 2013/14.
iii) Education Board – the creation of this new Board is subject to the approval of the Court on 1 st May. The terms of reference of the Board is set out in the report to the Court and it is also available on request.
iv) Local Development Framework Reference Sub (Planning) Committee - This Sub-Committee is responsible for giving detailed consideration to two of the City Corporation’s strategic documents, the Local Development Framework and Local Implementation Plan. Stuart Fraser represented the Committee on the Sub-Committee in 2013/14.
(J) Investment Committee
Composition 14 Members elected by the Court 8 Members to be appointed by this Committee from all the Court Together with the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the Policy and Resources and Finance Committees (ex-officio)
NB: Members are required to submit a CV in support of their candidature for serving on the Investment Committee
In 2013/14 Policy representatives were appointed as follows:-
Deputy John Barker Alderman Sir Robert Finch (no longer on the Court) Michael Hudson Deputy Keith Knowles Alistair Moss Dhruv Patel John Scott Tom Sleigh Philip Woodhouse
Page 33 NB: A ballot will be required where expressions of interest in serving on a Committee, Sub-Committee, Working Party or representing the Committee on another service committee exceed the number of vacancies.
Page 34 Agenda Item 8
Committee: Policy & Resources Date: 8 May 2014
Subject: Support for Major Sports Events Public
Report of: Town Clerk For Decision
Summary
Last year, this Committee agreed a number of legacy objectives following the success of the London 2012 Games. One of these objectives is to support efforts to bring major world sporting events to London and the UK, through the provision of hospitality. Members subsequently agreed to set aside £50,000 from its contingency towards hospitality for a number of major sporting events that took place last year. Three of the four events planned took place and were a success and the Guildhall proved an excellent backdrop to welcome those involved in the relevant sport competitions taking place in London.
In addition to these events, it has since been agreed under delegated authority to cover the costs of £1,500 for providing venue space in Guildhall for a dinner for the FINA/NVC Diving World Series taking place in London’s Olympic Park this year.
Following discussions with the Mayor of London’s office early this year, it has been suggested that the City Corporation host a further three events at a cost of up to £23,000 to celebrate the Tour de France coming to London, the Commonwealth Games Baton travelling through London, and a dinner for Global Sports Leaders organised by London & Partners. All of these events would fit in well with the City Corporation’s legacy objectives. The cost of the events could be met from the underspend of £24,500 in last year’s allocation.
Recommendations It is recommended that Members agree that (i) up to £23,000 be allocated from the 2013/14 underspend, which has previously been agreed to be carried forward into 2014/15, to cover the costs of three separate hospitality events to be held for key international sport competitions in London; and (ii) any substantial changes to the events proposed should be approved by the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of this Committee, under delegated authority procedures.
Page 35 Main Report
Background
1. Following the success of the London 2012 Games, this Committee agreed to a number of legacy objectives at its meeting in January last year. One of the key legacy aims agreed was that the City Corporation should seek to support major world sporting events taking place in the UK. This supports the Government’s ‘Gold Series’ campaign, recognising that hosting more major sporting events in the UK will support its long term sporting strategy and help deliver a range of health and economic benefits for the UK. Furthermore, sport and business have become increasingly interlinked and enticing global competitions to London has a demonstrable financial benefit to London and, more specifically, the local areas hosting the competitions.
2. At your meeting in January last year, it was acknowledged that, as with the 2012 Games, the City Corporation could play an important role in bringing major sport competitions to the UK, by providing hospitality to support campaigns and also during any championships that take place in London. Members subsequently agreed, in May last year, to allocate up to £50,000 towards the costs of providing hospitality around four major sporting events taking place in London – the ICC Champions Trophy, the Sainsbury’s Anniversary Games, the ITU Triathlon World Series Grand Final, and the Rugby League World Cup. These events were organised in collaboration with the Mayor of London’s office.
Last year’s Sporting Events
3. Owing to last minute operational issues, the offer of hospitality for the ICC Champions Trophy was not taken up by the organisers. However, the City Corporation was able to host three high profile events for the Sainsbury’s Anniversary Games, the ITU Triathlon World Series Grand Final, and the Rugby League World Cup. All three events were a success and attended by a number of competitors, officials, governing body representatives, as well as domestic and overseas dignitaries.
4. A reception was held prior to the start of the Sainsbury’s Anniversary Games in July last year. The Lord Mayor and Mayor of London welcomed guests to Guildhall ahead of the first major athletics championships held in London since the 2012 Games. Networking receptions and small VIP dinners were also held to welcome the ITU Triathlon World Series Grand Final and Rugby League World Cup Semi Finals to London.
Page 36 5. Your support for these events has served to reinforce the role and importance of the City Corporation to London and the UK, as well as its contribution towards the wider economy. Needless to say, the Mayor’s office has been very grateful for this support and is keen to work with the City Corporation and take the proposals forward as quickly as possible.
6. The Mayor of London recently wrote, personally, to your Chairman to thank ‘the City of London for its ongoing support around the fantastic array of major sporting events that London continues to host’. In the letter, he referred to the hospitality provided for the Sainsbury’s Anniversary Games, the Triathlon World Series Grand Final, and the Rugby League World Cup, and mentioned that ‘the respective sports’ governing bodies were hugely appreciative and felt the functions contributed greatly to the success of their events’.
7. Assuming our support for these events continues to be productive for both the City Corporation and London as a whole, it is envisaged that there will be further opportunities to work in partnership with the Mayor of London on similar projects in the future.
8. Members should note that, following a recent request for hospitality provision made by the Chairman of the Group Board of the Amateur Swimming Association, Edward Lord, on behalf of British Swimming, it has been agreed under delegated authority to cover the venue costs of providing the Basinghall Suite for a dinner to celebrate the FINA/NVC Diving World Series taking place in London this year. The cost of venue hire, at ‘City Rate’ (to cover the running costs incurred for this dinner), is £1,500 and this will be met from last year’s underspend. All other costs, including catering, will be met by the organisers, British Swimming. A number of City Corporation Members will be invited to the dinner.
Proposed New Events for 2014
8. Following further discussions with the Mayor’s office, a number of opportunities have been identified for the City Corporation to demonstrate its support for bringing major global sports competitions to London and the UK. Details of the proposed events that the City Corporation could support are as follows:
Early Evening Barbecue to Welcome the Commonwealth Games Queen’s Baton th Relay: Saturday 7 June – Guildhall Yard
9. This would be an early evening barbecue held in Guildhall Yard for about 200 people, similar to those organised for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Marathons. The Commonwealth Games Queen’s Baton relay, which takes the baton through 70 Nations and Territories of the Page 37 th Commonwealth over 288 days, will arrive in the Square Mile on 7 June. rd This year’s Commonwealth Games will take place in Glasgow from 23 rd July to 3 August.
10. The organisers of the baton relay have asked if the City Corporation would be willing to host an event to mark this occasion, and it was suggested that an informal barbecue would be the most suitable arrangement. The baton would be on display and guests would be provided with suitable refreshments and freshly cooked barbecue food. Guests would include those invited by the Mayor of London, the organisers of the relay, as well as Members of the Court of Common and relevant officers. It is anticipated that the total cost of this event incurred by the City Corporation would be no more than £8,000 as some of the costs are likely to be met by the relay organisers.
th Lunch to Welcome the Tour de France: Monday 7 July – Mansion House
11. The Mayor’s Office have approached the City Corporation to see if we would be willing to host a lunch prior to the finale of the Grand Depart, the prelude to the Tour de France, which will travel through England this year and finish on the Mall in London. The informal buffet lunch would be jointly hosted by the Lord Mayor and the Mayor of London and take place at Mansion House. Following the lunch, guests will be invited to the Mall to watch the end of the race. Members of this Committee would be invited, along with relevant officers, key City stakeholders, as well as representatives from the Mayor’s office and British Cycling. The expected cost of the lunch is estimated to be no more than £12,000.
rd Global Sports Leaders Dinner: Thursday 23 October – Guildhall (Venue costs only)
12. London & Partners, the Mayor’s promotional body, approached your Chairman to see if the City Corporation would assist in hosting a dinner for Global Sports Leaders at the end of October. The dinner is held annually in London and is a high-profile, invitation-only event organised by the Major Events team at London & Partners for global sports and business leaders. The costs of catering will be met by London & Partners, but they have asked if the City Corporation would support the provision of a venue. In return, we are able to have an allocation of places at the dinner. The anticipated cost of providing the Livery Hall for this event would be around £3,000.
Financial Implications
13. Owing to changing requirements and the cancellation of the ICC Champions Trophy event, the total cost of hosting the various sport events Page 38 last year came to £25,500. This represents an underspend of £24,500, which has since been carried forward by your Committee. It has since been agreed under Delegated Authority to cover the cost of £1,500 for providing venue space in Guildhall for a dinner for the FINA/NVC Diving World Series. It is therefore proposed that the costs of providing the new events for 2014 totalling £23,000 be met from that underspend. The figures given in this report are the maximum likely costs of holding each event. Any further underspend will of course be retained within your Committee’s contingency.
Conclusion
14. The proposal to provide hospitality for the events detailed in this report are in line with the City Corporation’s London 2012 legacy objectives agreed last year and will build on the success of the events held in Guildhall last year. They will also provide an excellent opportunity to reinforce the City Corporation’s support for the Government backed ‘Gold Series’ campaign and also ensure we are well positioned to host similar events, in collaboration with the Mayor of London, in the future.
15. Owing to the varying factors involved in putting on these events, it is possible that some minor changes may occur to the hospitality arrangements before being finalised. Officers will ensure these are carried out in the best interests of the City Corporation. However, owing to the timeframe, it is proposed that any substantial changes to the arrangements should be referred to the Town Clerk, in consultation with your Chairman and Deputy Chairman, under delegated authority procedures, before being finalised.
Contact: Sam Hutchings 020 7332 1407 [email protected]
Page 39 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 40 Agenda Item 9
Committee: Policy and Resources Date: 8 May 2014
Subject: Nominations to London Councils Public
Report of: Town Clerk For Decision
Summary
1. The City Corporation currently nominates a number of representatives to serve on various London Councils committees and to act as this organisation’s lead Member for particular service areas. Nominations are filled by the Chairmen for the time being of the most relevant City Corporation Committee for the area of activity or interest. For example, the Chairman of the Police Committee is nominated as the City Corporation’s lead for Crime and Public Protection.
2. The principle used to make nominations to London Councils was approved by the Court of Common Council in 2000 and works well. Notwithstanding this, it is considered good practice for principles such as this to be reviewed periodically to ensure that they are still fit for purpose.
3. Recommendation That the overriding principle of nominating the Chairman for the time being of the most relevant Committee to serve on London Councils Committees or as lead Member for a particular area of work be endorsed and that the following be applied:-
Leaders’ Committee - Chairman of the Policy & Resources Committee with a Deputy Chairman as named deputy;
Associated Joint Committee (London Councils Transport and Environment Committee) – Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee, with the Chairman of Port Health and Environment Committee and the Deputy Chairmen of both these committees serving as the named deputies.
Associated Joint Committee (London Councils Grants Committee) - Chairman of the City Bridge Trust Committee, with the Deputy Chairman as named deputy.
Lead Member for Children and Young People - Chairman of the Community & Children’s Services Committee.
Lead Member for Crime and Public Protection - Chairman of the Police Committee.
Lead Member for Culture and Tourism – Chairman of the Culture, Heritage and Libraries Committee.
Page 41
Lead Member for Economic Development and Regeneration - Chairman of the Policy & Resources Committee.
Lead Member for Housing - Chairman of the Community & Children’s Services Committee.
Lead Member for Health and Adult Services - Chairman of the Community & Children’s Services Committee.
Lead Member for Planning – Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee.
Main Report
Background
1. The City Corporation currently nominates a number of representatives to serve on London Councils committees and to act as this organisation’s lead Member for a particular service area on an annual basis. In 2000 the Court of Common Council agreed that these nominations should be filled by the Chairman for the time being of the most relevant Committee. For example, the Chairman of the Police Committee would be nominated as the City Corporation’s Lead Member for Crime and Public Protection and the Chairman of the Community and Children’s Services Committee as the Lead Member for Housing and for Health and Adult Services.
2. Whilst the overriding principle of nominations being filled by the Chairmen for the time being of the most relevant Committee works well it is good practice for principles such as this to be reviewed periodically to ensure that they are still fit for purpose. The principle was last reviewed by this Committee in 2011.
3. The City Corporation currently nominates representatives to serve on London Councils principal committees namely the Leaders’, Associated Joint Committee (London Councils Transport and Environment), and the Associated Joint Committee (London Councils Grants) Committees. For consultation purposes the City Corporation also provides London Council with details of the Lead Member for the service areas referred to below:-
• Children and Young People • Economic Development/Regeneration • Crime and Public Protection • Culture and Tourism • Health and Adult Services • Housing; and • Planning
Page 42 Nominations for London Councils Committee Appointments
4. Based on the principle agreed by the Court in 2000 of the nominations being filled by the Chairman for the time being of the most relevant City Corporation Committee, Members are asked to consider and endorse nominations to serve on London Councils committees as follows:-
i) Leaders’ Committee - Chairman of the Policy & Resources Committee with a Deputy Chairman as named deputy. This follows past practice and seems sensible given the City Corporation does not operate a cabinet or executive system; and
ii) Associated Joint Committee (London Councils Grants Committee) - Chairman of the City Bridge Trust Committee, with the Deputy Chairman as named deputy. Again this follows past practice and seems sensible. Consideration has previously been given to whether this should be the Chairman of the Finance Grants Sub-Committee but the scale of grant giving of the Sub-Committee is significantly lower than that of the City Bridge Trust.
iii) Associated Joint Committee (London Councils Transport and Environment Committee) (TEC) – Chairman of Planning and Transportation. This area of work falls predominantly within the Planning and Transportation Committee’s remit. The City Corporation is entitled to nominate one voting Member and up to four named deputies to serve on the TEC.
5. You might recall the City Corporation recently agreed in principle to work with London Councils and a number of other London Boroughs on the creation of a London Local Government Pensions Scheme (LGPS) Collective Investment Vehicle (CIV). Whilst detailed work is still taking place on the initiative, it should be noted that if the initiative does come to fruition London Councils will need to establish a further associated joint committee for the Scheme. The City Corporation might therefore be approached at a future date regarding the nomination of a representative to serve on the CIV.
Nominations for Lead Member
6. As part of its decision making process London Councils is keen to have the ability to consult and liaise with lead Members in certain policy areas on matters of major importance. The same principle for nominating representatives to serve on London Council Committees is applied to Lead Member nominations. Members are asked to consider and endorsed these nominations as follows:-
Children and Young People - Chairman of the Community & Children’s Services Committee.
Crime and Public Protection - Chairman of the Police Committee.
Culture and Tourism - Chairman of the Culture, Heritage and Libraries Committee
Page 43 Economic Development and Regeneration - Chairman of the Policy & Resources Committee.
Housing - Chairman of the Community & Children’s Services Committee.
Health and Adult Services - Chairman of the Community & Children’s Services Committee.
Lead Member for Planning – Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee.
Conclusion
7. The overriding principle agreed by the Court in 2000 of nominating the Chairman for the time being of the most relevant City Corporation Committee to serve on London Councils committees or be the named lead Member remains a sensible basis on which to proceed. Views are nevertheless welcome on whether any changes need to be made.
Contact: Angela Roach 020 7332 3685 [email protected]
Page 44 Agenda Item 10
Committee(s): Date(s): Policy and Resources Committee 08/05/2014 Court of Common Council 12/06/2014
Subject: Cheapside Business Improvement District Public
Report of: The City Surveyor For Decision
Summary
1. The Cheapside Initiative (CI) has requested that the City Corporation consider the promotion of a Business Improvement District (BID) for the Cheapside area to derive a sustainable income stream for a 5 year period to take forward the key aims of the partnership with a priority focus on promoting Cheapside as a seven day retail and leisure destination. 2. The CI is a voluntary partnership that has been in existence since 2007, with the aim of promoting this part of the City as a 7-day retail destination. The Initiative has worked with partners to drive forward the cultural and leisure offer, which has complimented the improvements to the environment that has been delivered by the City Corporation through the Cheapside Area Strategy. Together, the City Corporation and the CI has sought to maximise the impact of the positive change that the area has undergone in recent years. 3. The City Corporation has from the outset of the development of BIDs been instrumental in promoting legislation to support the development of BIDs in the UK. Historically BIDs (especially in the United States) have been perceived as being a mechanism to help address municipal failure in an area. As they have developed in the UK (175 in total) they are now also seen as a positive force in promoting business engagement and enhancement of the general economic wellbeing of the area that compliments municipal activities. 4. The Remembrancer has confirmed that following amendment to the BID Regulations the City Corporation could act as promoter of the BID with the CI acting as its appointed agent to manage the BID process and delivery of the key priorities of the BID that will align with City Corporation strategies. Should the City Corporation decide not to support the promotion of the BID, the CI could seek to promote it without City Corporation’s approval. This would reduce the City Corporation’s ability to influence the activities being promoted by the BID. 5. The CI has undertaken a perception analysis with businesses identified within the proposed boundary of the BID area and there is strong support for the concept. The BID would not focus on the delivery of improved services such as policing or maintaining the environment, as these are already well provided for by the City Corporation. It would
Page 45 instead provide a mechanism for the CI to develop activities around areas that would not normally be expected to be the focus for local authority activities and would concentrate on promoting Cheapside as a seven day retail and leisure destination. 6. This report seeks agreement from the City Corporation to progress to the next stage of the BID process which includes undertaking further consultation with businesses in drawing up the BID proposals and developing a formal Business Plan. If it is decided to seek approval of the BID proposals these would be subject to a ballot in March 2015. The final Business Plan will align with City Corporation policies and strategies and will require approval from the City Corporation in September 2014, prior to commencing the ballot process. As part of the Business Plan a BID levy will be identified and will be subject to consultation. The suggested levy is at 0.25% with a cap on the maximum contribution of £3,750 for any one business. There will also be a rates threshold applied which would mean only the largest 220 hereditaments in the area (of the total 1828) being affected. The Levy would generate a pot of £350,000pa from which to fund the activities of the BID. 7. For the BID Ballot to be successful proposals must pass the ‘dual-key test’. Potential members are balloted and, if the majority vote in favour, and if the combined rateable value of those that vote yes is greater than those that vote no, it will be approved. 8. The City Corporation has a duty to assist in the process of delivering the ballot and collection of the BID Levy for the period of the BID. The cost of administering the BID Levy is fully reimbursable from the BID, but as promoter of the BID it would be expected that the City Corporation pick up the cost of holding the ballot which is estimated at £2,200. The CI has identified a budget of £125,000 required to promote a BID. Member contributions and a grant from the GLA would provide for £110,000 of the cost and the CI has requested that the City Corporation provide gap funding of £15,000 for the remainder of the budget. This budget would take them through the Ballot process until March 2015, after which date, if the Ballot was successful, all income would be derived from the rate levy and voluntary contributions from property owners with no further financial support being required from the City Corporation beyond this point for the running of the BID. 9. The BID concept is in tune with the localism agenda and the strategic policies of the City Corporation in supporting the needs of businesses and promoting the retail and leisure offer in the Cheapside area to the benefit of workers and visitors. Recommendation(s)
Members are asked to:
• Agree to promote the delivery of a BID for the Cheapside area (area as identified in Appendix1).
Page 46 • Authorise the Cheapside Initiative to act as delivery agents to promote the BID by developing the BID proposals and the Business Plan for further approval by the City Corporation in September 2014. • Agree to fund the cost of holding the ballot (£2,200) from the Town Clerk’s budget should a decision be made to seek approval of the BID proposals in a BID ballot. • Agree to part fund the cost of promoting the BID during the financial year 2014/15 at a cost of £15,000 to be met from your Committee’s City’s Cash contingency.
Main Report
Background 1. The Cheapside Initiative (CI) was established in 2007 as a voluntary partnership with the aim of promoting this part of the City as a 7-day retail destination. The Initiative has worked with partners to drive forward the cultural and leisure offer, which has complimented the improvements to the environment that have been delivered by the City Corporation through the Cheapside Area Strategy. Together, the City Corporation and the CI have sought to maximise the impact of the positive change that the area has undergone in recent years. The City Corporation has provided on-going financial support to CI throughout this period. Day to day interaction has been led through the City Property Advisory Team. 2. In December 2012 the Policy and Resources Committee resolved to support the CI for the calendar year 2013 at a cost of £20,000. This followed a previous decision by the Committee in December 2010 to provide support to finance the staffing of the CI for two years at a cost of £65,000 for each of the calendar years 2011 and 2012. At the time of agreeing the 2011/12 contribution it was considered that it was important to support the on-going development of the CI as a voluntary partnership rather than through an alternative mechanism such as a Business Improvement District (BID). 3. Whilst the 2013 contribution was welcomed by the CI Board, they remained concerned about the long term sustainability of the partnership, whilst relying on voluntary contributions. In particular, the nature of the partnership meant that it would not be possible to plan from one year to another with any degree of certainty and that the level of contributions received would never deliver a meaningful budget to provide sufficient funds to take forward the key aims of the partnership with a priority focus on promoting Cheapside as a seven day retail and leisure destination. 4. The CI has once again requested clarification from the City Corporation on whether it would be possible to promote a BID for the Cheapside area. The Remembrancer has confirmed that following amendments to the BID Regulations, that the City Corporation could act as promoter of the BID with the CI acting as its appointed agent to manage the BID process and delivery of key priorities of the BID, that will align with City Corporation strategies. The
Page 47 Chamberlain has also confirmed that a proposed BID would not impact on the City offset and premium. 5. The CI were advised of this revised position and it was agreed that on the understanding that it was a City Corporation promoted BID, that did not relate to the delivery of services that would normally be provided as part of a local authority function, then it would be acceptable for them to explore options available and undertake consultation with those businesses in the area about the appetite for a formal BID. This was on the understanding that the CI would be the delivery agent on behalf of the City Corporation. 6. A perception analysis has been undertaken with businesses asking for their views on a number of theme areas relating to the Cheapside area, covering matters such as: proposed boundary, appetite to be involved in a formal BID, employment and training, retail and cultural offer, business community engagement and marketing and promotion. Over 40 % of the businesses balloted have responded (which is considered to be a high response rate compared to what has been experienced with other BID areas) with 90% stating that they support or maybe support the concept of a BID and only 10% saying they did not. From experience with other BIDs, it is normal that the number of businesses not supporting the BID would be reduced as they become more familiar with the concept and the benefits that a BID can derive. A more detailed analysis of the responses is set out in appendix 2.
What is a BID 7. A BID is an initiative supported by local businesses and the local authority which aim to improve a specified geographical area. Historically BIDs (especially in the United States) have been perceived as being a mechanism to help address municipal failure in an area. As they have developed in the UK they are now seen as a positive force in promoting business engagement and enhancement of the general economic wellbeing of an area that compliments municipal activities. BIDS are principally funded via a mandatory levy on business occupiers which is in addition to the non-domestic business rate, as well as voluntary contributions from local land owners. BIDs vary in terms of their objectives from, for example, increasing visitor and customer numbers to raising the profile of local businesses.
8. In order to set up a BID in England, BID proposals must pass the ‘dual-key test’. Potential members are balloted and, if the majority vote in favour, and if the combined rateable value of those that vote yes is greater than those that vote no, it will be approved. Once approved all business rate payers in the area must contribute the defined levy. There are normally minimum rateable values thresholds set by BIDs individually, below which businesses do not pay the levy (or have voting rights).
9. Currently there are 175 BIDs in the UK of which 37 operate across Greater and Central London with 8 BIDs operating across Westminster. In his 2012 electoral manifesto the Mayor made a commitment to actively support the establishment of new BIDs across the capital with a target for increasing the number of BIDs in London during his term in office to 50.
Page 48
Proposed Cheapside BID 10. The proposed BID boundary (appendix 2) is focussed around Cheapside and falls predominantly within the Wards of Cheap, Cordwainer, Bread Street and Walbrook. On review by Officers, it was felt that, for completion, it would be appropriate to include St Paul’s Cathedral and the Royal Exchange within the boundary which means that a small part of Cornhill and Castle Baynard Wards are also contained within the footprint. The area is defined by the institutional anchors of St Paul’s Cathedral and the Bank of England that contribute to the areas unique character. St Paul’s Cathedral would not be subject to the BID levy and it would also be possible to exclude the Bank of England from paying the levy if this was considered to be appropriate. 11. The CI provided details of the perception analysis for comments to Members and Alderman of the affected Wards where businesses would be subject to a BID levy, in advance of it being circulated to businesses. The results of the perception analysis should inform the view of the City Corporation in terms of whether to progress the development of a business plan that would be subject to a formal ballot. If the decision is taken to progress to developing a draft business plan, this will be subject to further consultation with businesses prior to reporting back to Committee (in September) seeking formal approval of the plan and agreement to progress to a ballot. 12. The CI has estimated that a budget of £350,000 would provide a meaningful pot from the levy from which to sustain the activities of a Cheapside BID. This would be supplemented by voluntary contributions from building owners who are not subject to the BID levy. The BID mechanism would provide a guaranteed level of income for 5 years, from which to operate. 13. The focus of the BID would not revolve around delivery of improved services such as policing or maintaining the environment, as these are already well provided for by the City Corporation. The BID mechanism would allow CI to develop activities around areas that would not normally be expected to be the focus for local authority activities, so would not be detrimental to the reputation of the City Corporation. The key areas for activities that have been provisionally identified are as follows: • Developing a marketing and promotion strategy to support the development of Cheapside as an office and retail destination. • Reinforce area identity and connections between businesses and retailers through initiatives such as the privilege card which requires on-going resource to develop and manage. • Working with businesses to support their corporate social responsibility agenda, particularly around the areas of local procurement, employment and green infrastructure. • Holding events and activities to develop footfall and paying for one off projects such as Christmas lighting
Page 49 • Working collaboratively with City police and Contingency Planning team, within their established budgets, to deliver a safe and secure environment for businesses and retailers.
BID Levy 14. The approach for arriving at an appropriate levy income for an area, although not prescribed in the BID Regulations, tends to be fairly standard for most areas. In essence a BID proposer establishes a set of ‘BID Levy Rules’ (BLR) that define what level of levy will be collected and from whom. To achieve the £350,000 contribution required to deliver on the aspirations of the BID an analysis of the 1828 hereditaments in the proposed BID area has been undertaken. In determination of the BLR consideration needs to be given to: • Bid levy multiplier – the rate at which to charge. Most BIDs charge a levy of 1% • Threshold setting out the minimum rateable value of the premises before contributions are sought. • A capped contribution so that larger businesses will not be liable for a disproportionately large BID levy. In determining the above, it is important to bear in mind that any levy will be the subject of approval through a majority vote at ballot, so any proposal needs to demonstrate best value and be set at a rate that does not discourage businesses from supporting a BID for their area. With this in mind, it is considered that a business rate multiplier of 0.25%, together with a threshold of excluding properties falling below premises with a rateable value of £180,000 and a capped contribution so that no business would pay any more than £3,750, would achieve the necessary income required to support the activities of the BID. This would ensure the contribution is deminimus for businesses in the area. Using the suggested rateable threshold would result in only the largest 220 business hereditaments being affected. Businesses would be formally consulted on this as part of the approved Business Plan and the BLR will be subject to your approval at the time of approving this for ballot. The views of businesses will be sought as part of the informal consultation process prior to finalising the Business Plan.
Administrative implications 15. Part 4 of the Local Government Act 2003 contains the provisions for introducing the BID initiative. The purpose for BID arrangements is to enable the identified projects to be carried out for the benefit of the BID or those who live, work or carry on any activity in the district, financed by a BID levy imposed on non-domestic rate payers, or a class of rate payer in the district. The Remembrancer has clarified that the provisions of the Act would allow for the City Corporation to be the proposer of the BID. If agreeable to proposing the BID, it would be possible to appoint the CI to act as managing agent to oversee project delivery. The CI would be made up of representatives from the levy paying community and would operate as a voluntary partnership. All
Page 50 funding generated by the BID would be collected and administered by the City Corporation. A Memorandum of Understanding would need to be entered into between the City Corporation and the CI which would set out the working partnership, roles and responsibilities and legal obligations of the City Corporation acting as BID proposer. 16. Under the Regulations the City Corporation will have a number of obligations throughout the BID development and ballot phase including those set out in. Appendix 3. These have been discussed with representatives of the Chamberlains rating team and the Electoral Services Team in the Town Clerks Department and would be manageable. 17. In terms of resource implications it will be necessary for the Chamberlains rating team to administer the billing, collection and recovery of the BID levy. The levy collection costs are calculated on the number of bills that are prepared and distributed, plus chasing for non-payment of levy; re-issuing of lost bills; administration of levy accounts; e.g. changes in liability, rateable value etc. and preparation of report updates. These costs are fully reimbursed by the BID as part of an annual collection fee. Costs relating to any upgrade in software and associated training can also be reimbursed via the charge applied to the BID for levy collection costs. Should the ballot result in a “no” vote then the costs of setting up the IT infrastructure necessary to manage the BID element of the revenue collection service could be passed across as a cost to the CI, although elsewhere in London other authorities have agreed not to do so. The rating team are in the process of migrating across to new software and it is not clear what the additional associated costs would be. More information relating to this will be available at the time of reporting to your Committee in September. 18. The vote ballot is to be carried out as part of the Returning Officer function of the Town Clerk. The resource implications of this have been costed based on the experience of other BIDs at about £10 per vote (220 votes anticipated). The charge applied to BID ballots varies between local authorities – Westminster do not charge BIDs with successful ballot outcomes. As the City Corporation would be the proposer of the BID it would not be appropriate to charge for running the ballot. 19. If the City Corporation were minded to promote the BID then the suggested BID timetable would be as follows: • Perception analysis - completed • BID proposal and Draft Business Plan – May / June 2014 • Consultation on proposals and Draft Plan – June/July 2014 • Final amendment - July/ August 2014 • Formal approval by City Corporation – September / October 2014 • Collation of voter contacts Jan 2015 • Campaign start – Jan 2015 • Ballot notice sent out – 9th Feb 2015 • Voting papers sent out – 16 th Feb 2015 • Ballot date – 12 th March 2015 • BID go live date – 5th April 2015
Page 51 Pre BID Funding
20. The Cheapside Initiative has costed the activities required to promote the BID that include resourcing 2.5 staff to liaise with both the City Corporation and businesses together with running a number of demonstration projects (appendix 4). The total costs anticipated are £125,000. Of this £80,000 will come from Cheapside Initiative Member contributions and the GLA have confirmed that they will provide a grant of £30,000 from the New BIDs Grant Program. This will leave a £15,000 shortfall on the desired budget required to run a successful BID campaign. If Members were minded to support progressing to a Ballot through the development of a Business Plan then a £15,000 contribution for the financial year 2014/15 would support the effective delivery of the program to the ballot stage. If successful, there will be no further need to provide financial support to the BID as it would have achieved sustainable funding for a 5 year period.
The Way Forward
21. The City Corporation could decide not to promote the further development of a Business Plan to be taken to a formal Ballot in April 2015. This would mean that the Cheapside Initiative would have a straight choice of either seeking to promote the delivery of a BID without City Corporation approval or to wind down the activities of the partnership due to their being a lack of sustainable funding from which to deliver activities. Under the terms of the BID Regulations it is not a requirement for a BID proposer to have the agreement of the local authority, although it is considered to be highly desirable. The perception analysis that has been undertaken suggests there is broad based business support for development of a Business Plan, with only 10% returning their questionnaire saying they would not support a BID concept (although from experience elsewhere this figure can be reduced further by working with those businesses to better understand the positive opportunities that a BID can promote) Should the City Corporation decide not to support the promotion of the BID, it could be perceived as being out of touch with the aspirations of business stakeholders in the area. 22. It is therefore considered that the City Corporation should agree to promote the development of a Business Plan to progress to a formal Ballot in April 2015 and to contribute £15,000 to support the resourcing and development of associated activities. Promoting a BID accords with the strategic aspirations of the Mayor of London to deliver an increased number of BIDs in London and contributing £15,000 towards activities would be set aside the £30,000 grant funding that has been approved by the GLA. The Business Plan would need to be agreed by the City Corporation and it is anticipated that a further report would come back to Committee in September seeking formal approval. The Business Plan would be in broad alignment with the strategic policies of the City Corporation and would not relate to delivery of services that would be expected to be provided by a local authority. 23. A BID would provide a body that is supportive of the City Corporation in helping to deliver its strategies and a focus for delivering key messages. The BID concept is in tune with the localism agenda and acceptance by the City
Page 52 Corporation would demonstrate that the City is a relevant area from which to do business. This in turn can help promote a greater diversification of the business base through developing a change in the perception of the City as a place to do business.
Proposals 24. It is proposed that the City Corporation agree to promote the delivery of a BID in the Cheapside area identified in map in appendix 2 and that the Cheapside Initiative be appointed as delivery agents with a view to drawing up the BID proposals and developing a Business Plan in consultation with businesses for approval by the City Corporation in advance of progressing to Ballot in April 2015. It is further proposed that the City Corporation agrees to contribute £15,000 to go towards delivering the BID and the associated administrative and promotional activities.
Corporate & Strategic Implications 25. The promotion of a BID would accord with the four of the five Key Themes contained in the City Together Strategy. In addition to this polices contained in the Core Strategy as amended in the Draft Local Plan, together with the City Visitor Strategy are relevant.
Financial Implications 26. The costs associated with Levy collection would be fully reimbursed. There would be a cost of about £2,200 associated with running the ballot that will picked up by the Electoral Services Team as part of their budget. Should the ballot result in a “no” vote then the costs of setting up the IT infrastructure necessary to manage the BID element of the revenue collection service could be passed across as a cost to the CI, although elsewhere in London other authorities have agreed not to do so. The rating team are in the process of migrating across to new software and it is not clear what the additional associated costs would be. More information relating to this will be available at the time of reporting to your Committee in September. It is proposed that the City Corporation provides £15,000 to contribute towards the cost of promoting the BID for the financial year 2014/15. The proposed funding would be drawn from your Committee’s City’s Cash contingency. 27. The current uncommitted balance available within your Committee’s City’s Cash contingency 2014/15 amounts to £194,000 prior to any allowances being made for any other proposals on today’s agenda.
Conclusion 28. The CI has requested that the City Corporation agree to the promotion of a BID in the Cheapside area. The Remembrancer has confirmed that under the BID regulations that the City Corporation could act as promoter of the BID with the CI acting as its appointed agent to manage the BID process. The CI has undertaken a survey of businesses in the area regarding attitudes to a BID and 90% are either in favour or maybe in favour of a BID in the identified
Page 53 area. The CI would be the appointed agent to deliver the BID on behalf of the City Corporation. With agreement it is intended that the CI consult with businesses regarding the development of the BID proposals and a Business Plan that will be submitted for formal approval by the City Corporation in advance of a ballot being undertaken in April 2015. 29. Should the City Corporation decide not to support the desire to promote a BID for the area, it could lead to them promoting the BID themselves, removing an element of control from the City Corporation. 30. The costs of administering the BID levy can be recharged by the City Corporation to the BID, although the cost of running the ballot would be picked up by the City Corporation. The CI have estimated that a budget of £125,000 is required for delivering the BID in terms of resourcing and running demonstration projects and the City Corporation is being asked to make a contribution of £15,000 towards these costs to go alongside member contributions and the £30,000 grant from the GLA.
Appendices
• Appendix 1 – Proposed Cheapside BID Boundary • Appendix 2 – Overview of BID Perception Analysis • Appendix 3 – Obligations for City Corporation • Appendix 4 – Budget to deliver the BID
Simon McGinn City Property Advisory Team Manager, City Surveyors Department
T: 020 7332 1226 E: [email protected]
Page 54 Appendix 1 – Proposed Cheapside BID Boundary
Page 55 Appendix 2 – Overview of BID Perception Analysis
• A 40% return rate for the perception analysis was achieved which is considered a very high outcome when compared across similar BID areas;
• Of those responding to whether they would in principle support a BID 46% answered Yes; 44% Maybe; No 10%. A total of 90% of respondents were on board for the BID concept;
• Strategic Themes to be delivered;
42% Employment Enterprise and Training 42% focusing on signage and way-finding 40%Tourism and Culture 41% Marketing and Promotion
• 81% felt the proposed boundary was appropriate;
• 52% felt more could be done in terms of improving the local environment, of which 76% thought this should take the form of improved signage and way- finding. The remaining responses were quite mixed with issues such as street works, skateboarder issues and further enhancements to greening and open spaces being raised;
• Street Ambassadors - 42% wanted to see on street concierge style ambassadors with 39% responding maybe. Therefore 81% would like to discuss and explore a pilot programme;
• 34% feel well informed about new developments or upgrade works. With 96% saying they would wish to be kept updated on an ongoing basis;
• 60% wish to have more contact with their neighbours and would like more networking events;
• 69% would like to see a magazine produced, with 76% wanting a shopping/business guide produced.
• 77% requested more marketing and promotion with a focus on:
Encouraging a more mixed retail offer
TV advertising and more weekday events and promotional activity such as late night shopping. There was a general consensus about not enough affordable retailers being attracted to the area.
Increased walking tours and general cultural information
Page 56 Appendix 3 – Obligations for City Corporation
Under the Regulations, the City Corporation will have a number of obligations throughout the BID development and ballot phase, which include:
• Where it draws up the BID proposals to prepare the BID business plan which
must be consistent with the formally adopted and published policies of the
City Corporation and where it decides to seek approval of the proposals in a
BID ballot, send copies of the proposals and plan to any person who is to be
liable for the levy who requests a copy:
• To Instruct the ballot holder to hold a BID ballot in accordance with the BID
ballot timetable set out in Schedule 2 of the Regulations; this requires notice
to be given at least 42 days in advance of the ballot;
• To prepare a register of the 220 or so NDR (Business ratepayer) electors
based on the agreed footprint and thresholds. This will need to be updated on
a regular basis with weekly updates made in the preceding weeks prior to
ballot to counter balance new businesses moving in or businesses moving
out;
• All eligible ‘electors’ must be sent details of the ballot arrangements;
• Postal ballot papers need to be sent to the electors/proxies and arrangements
made for receiving them, until the end of the polling day;
• Arrange the count of ballot papers and declare the result.
Page 57 Appendix 4 – Budget to deliver the BID up to March 2015
Income
Subscriptions/Partner contributions £80,000
GLA BID Grant £30,000
Subtotal £110,000
Expenditure
Staffing costs
Primera Consultancy x 2.5 staff £60,000
Project Costs
Business Plan development £5,000 Events £20,000 Christmas Campaign £10,000 Walks Programme £1,000 Ambassador Pilot Programme £20,000 BID Proposal launch £5,000 Privilege Card £4,000
Total Project costs £65,000
Expenditure Total £125,000
Page 58 Agenda Item 11
Committee(s): Date(s): Policy & Resources Committee – For Decision 8/5/14 Planning & Transportation Committee – For Decision 20/5/14 Property Investment Board – For Decision 21/5/14 Subject: Marché International des Professionnels Public d'Immobilier (MIPIM property conference) 2014
Report of: The City Surveyor For Decision
Summary 1. This report informs your Committees of the City of London Corporation’s activities at the MIPIM property exhibition in March 2014, and seeks approval for City of London Corporation attendance at MIPIM 2015. 2. The City Corporation’s attendees at MIPIM 2014 included the Chairman of Policy & Resources Committee, the Chairman of Planning & Transportation Committee and the Deputy Chairman of the Property Investment Board. 3. The cost of representation at MIPIM 2014 was slightly above the approved budget due to it being decided that it would be beneficial to include the Investment Property Director as part of the team given the large number of current schemes in the market where the City Corporation has a property interest. This cost was covered from local risk budgets. 4. Key activities from MIPIM include (summary): 17 meetings with high level representatives of property companies active in the Square Mile. The public launch of an important piece of property research commissioned jointly with the City Property Association to support the City’s program at MIPIM . A successful City-hosted dinner with 7 high-level guests. A key-note speech by the Chairman of Policy & Resources Promotion of the City’s existing and future building stock. Promotion of the City as a place to invest and base a business. Recommendation(s) That this report on MIPIM 2014 is received. That the Policy & Resources and Planning & Transportation Committees, and the Property Investment Board, decide that the City of London Corporation should attend MIPIM 2015 with a total budget not exceeding £87,500.
Page 59 Main Report
Background
1. In May 2013, approval was given for the City of London Corporation’s attendance at MIPIM (Marché International des Professionnels d'Immobilier) 2014 in Cannes, 11th -14th March, at a cost not exceeding £85,000 to be met from existing budgets. Provision of £17,500 came from the City Surveyor’s Department (Property Investment Board), £7,500 from the Department of the Built Environment (Planning and Transportation Committee), £5,000 from Public Relations (Policy & Resources Committee), and the remainder from the City Property Advisory Team’s (CPAT) local risk budget. 2. MIPIM is widely recognised as the world's leading and most influential event for the Property Industry. It is a global marketplace that offers the opportunity to connect with key players in the industry, from investors to end-users and local government to international corporations. 3. This was the City of London Corporation’s twent y-first attendance at MIPIM and was organised by the City Property Advisory Team (CPAT). 4. City of London Corporation attendance was based on the following objectives: Marketing the City and its fringes as the world’s leading international financial and business services centre. Providing support for City constituents at MIPIM. Demonstrating to our existing occupiers the commitment of the City Corporation to the commercial development of the City and its fringes. Promoting the City Corporation’s role as facilitator and enabler for inward investment, inner City regeneration and economic development research. Developing the City Corporation’s contacts and alliances both within the City and overseas. Promoting the City’s property stock as being relevant and available for the needs of City type occupiers. 5. Attendance at MIPIM 2014 was higher than 2013, with approximately 21,000 delegates from 93 countries (up from 79 in 2013 – an 18% increase which shows the renewed dynamism of the industry). The City Corporation delegation found that senior executives from the property industry were very much in attendance and keen to capitalise on the opportunity to do business. 6. The focus of The City of London Corporation’s attendance centred on four main areas of activity: a) Exhibition attendance – this includes supporting the City Corporation’s part of the larger London exhibition, focused on Central London. b) City Corporation seminar where themes of significance for the City of London are developed and debated. c) Hosting high-level events for specially invited key individuals (a City dinner and Seminar for senior guests and delegates), and 19 private meetings with over 2 days with developers, investors and occupiers.
Page 60 d) Keynote Speech on the London Stand (Policy & Resources Chairman).
7. City of London Corporation representatives attending MIPIM included three Members (the Chairman of the Policy & Resources Committee, the Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee and the Deputy Chairman of the Property Investment Board), in addition to the City Surveyor, the Director of the Built Environment, the Chief Planner & Development Director, and the Investment Property Director. The senior team was supported by three representatives from the City Property Advisory Team and one PR officer.
Key activities & achievements
Meetings: 8. Programmed meetings were held with 17 developers and investors together with two major occupiers over a 48 hour period, offering the chance to focus on significant issues, foster new relationships, and cement existing relationships and alliances. Companies met included (with development schemes in brackets): Helical Bar (Mitre Square, St Bartholomew Square) British Land (The Leadenhall Building, 5 Broadgate, Blossom Street, 100 Liverpool St, 1 Finsbury Avenue) Exemplar (London Fruit and Wool Exchange) Beltane Asset Management (24 King William St, 31-33 Lime St, 77 Queen Victoria Street, 108 Cannon Street) CarVal Investors/Quadrant (Carmelite Riverside, Moorgate Exchange, 100 Cheapside) Greycoat/CORE/Generali (120 Fenchurch Street) MEC UK Ltd (Riverplate House, 6-8 Bishopsgate/150 Leadenhall Street) Orion Capital Managers (100 Cheapside, Carmelite Riverside) AXA (6 Bevis Marks) Blackstone (1 America Square, 20 Old Bailey, Devonshire Square) Henderson Global Investors (Smithfield General Market & Annexes, 40 Leadenhall St, 27-33 Artillery Lane, Charterhouse Place) Pembroke Real Estate (2-6 Cannon St, 10 Finsbury Square) Redevco (120 Moorgate) Teachers TIAA CREF (60-70 St Mary’s Axe ) Stanhope (Bloomberg HQ, 8-10 Moorgate, 64-74 Mark Lane, Angel Court Tower)
The meetings provided an opportunity to receive updates and explore issues that are pertinent to delivery of the schemes. It also provided an opportunity to introduce the new structure in the Department of the Built Environment Development Division that is headed up by Annie Hampson, who attended MIPIM for the first time. In addition to this there were a number of unprogrammed meetings relating to commercially sensitive inquiries that MIPIM provides an opportunity to discuss. One
Page 61 of the meetings included an introduction to a major Canadian pension fund that is seeking to develop a significant portfolio in Central London.
City Corporation events and speeches: 9. The City Property Advisory Team organised a seminar entitled “ City Offices – getting the balance right ”, based on a piece of research by DTZ and JLL, commissioned by CPAT and the City Property Association. The report brought together findings from two recent studies by the City Corporation: Taking Stock, about the Square Mile’s property offer, and Firm Migration , which looks at the movement of firms in and out of the City over the last decade. The seminar was an opportunity to discuss some key aspects of the City property market, including supply and demand for offices, the changing nature of occupiers, and the challenges and opportunities presented by the growth of London. The seminar was chaired by the Chairman of Policy & Resources, with a panel of experts contributing: Robert Samuel of British Land, Mark Ridley of Stanhope, and Ian Mulcahey of Gensler. Over 150 delegates attended the seminar. The session began with a presentation by report authors, Jon Neale of JLL and Richard Yorke of DTZ, on the findings of the research. Each panel member was then asked to comment on the findings, based on their experience. This was followed by a Q&A session, which brought out a number of interesting issues to follow-up, including the importance of place-making and public realm, the cost of housing in London, and the changing nature of occupiers in the City. 10. The Chairman of Policy & Resources Committee gave a key-note address to the London Stand in front of the City model and afterwards took part in a panel session organised by Estates Gazette and GVA. Other panellists were Stephen Brown (GVA), Juliette Morgan (Tech City Investment Organisation), and Colin Stanbridge (London Chamber of Commerce). The Chairman emphasised the City’s position as the leading business centre in the world, open to all businesses whatever their size. The debate focussed around Small & Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), and how their property and other needs are being met by the industry. The importance of flexible, short-term space and excellent Wi-Fi was emphasised, as well as an attractive environment and facilities such as bicycle spaces. The Corporation was openly praised by other panellists for the support it provides and its achievements in making the Square Mile attractive to occupiers. 11. Corporation Members hosted a dinner for seven high level guests, comprising senior representatives from British Land, Pembroke Real Estate, Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, Generali, Teachers (TIAA CREF) and the Greater London Authority.
The London Stand - promotion of the City’s existing and future building stock and of the City as a place to invest and base a business: 12. The London Stand is located in a prominent area of the Palais des Festivals complex, alongside that of Paris. Over 4,000 delegates attended from the UK, and more than 900 delegates were registered with the London Stand (many more businesses and delegates with a London connection were not specifically registered to the Stand) and the City Corporation was one of the principal
Page 62 exhibitors. 13. The 1:500 City of London Model from the City Marketing Suite was again the central focus of the London Stand. The Model helped the City Corporation to achieve a very high profile and attracted much attention from delegates throughout the exhibition. A broad range of literature and research material produced by the Corporation complemented the City Model and was much in demand. 14. The City stand - with two meeting rooms, reception and a screen showing the City of London ’s investment property projects/interests - was in a central position within the main London Stand, directly opposite the City model. The City stand was again a major draw for City stakeholders who developed their own contact programmes around the City Model. City officers manning the reception talked to many MIPIM delegates who came to ask questions and pick up City of London research reports and other literature. Useful contacts were made in this way over the four days. Stand events during the exhibition allowed delegates to pre- plan peak networking opportunities 15. A number of other London boroughs/areas and the GLA were represented within the London pavilion, including Westminster, Ealing, Hounslow, White City and East London (as a collective). Some UK cities and regions also had large stands or exhibition areas of their own, independent of the London Stand, such as Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Leeds. Given the range of other London boroughs and cities in attendance, for the City Corporation not to be represented would mean that a key part of the London property offer would not be promoted.
Media coverage: 16. The City Corporation’s attendance at MIPIM secured coverage in blogs by the Policy Chairman for Estates Gazette. He was also interviewed by The Financial Times. Research on the City office market also secured coverage in The Times, Property Week, City AM, CoStar and London Loves Business. The City of London Corporation and Policy Chairman Twitter accounts were used to promote the visit and seminar (including the research).
Networking opportunities: 17. The opportunities to network at MIPIM were extensive, both within the exhibition itself and at other events organised as part of the programme. Events provided an opportunity to discuss key issues and allowed Corporation delegates to further promote the C ity itself, and continue the Corporation’s work in attracting and supporting investors, developers and occupiers. Networking opportunities attended included events by RICS, Gerald Eve, London First, JLL, Berwin Leighton Paisner, Linklaters, Stanhope, BNP Paribas and Strutt & Parker.
Page 63
Outcomes from MIPIM 2014
18. At meetings with developers Members and Senior Officers were able to progress key issues relating to current planning applications and properties held in the City Corporation’s investment portfolio.
19. A range of other relevant issues for CoL to consider also came up, including the continuing changing profile of occupiers in the City, with publishing firms, educational institutions, and technology companies taking significant amounts of space in the last year. The competition from other centres such as Kings Cross was discussed, and the need for the City to continue its strategy of place-making and investment in high quality public realm. Research completed in March this year highlights the importance of firm migration, with the City benefitting from firms moving in. Rights of Light and the issue of residential development continue to be topics for debate, and the cost of living in London generally was raised as part of the debate on the growth of the capital.
20. The high demand for invitations to attend the City seminar was a clear demonstration of the value of the City Corporation attending MIPIM.
21. CoL’s promotion of the City as a place to invest and base a bus iness generated enquiries from both developers and occupiers, which were followed up on the team’s return to the UK.
22. The dinner, speech and seminar were designed to develop key high level relationships whilst further promoting the City and encouraging an informed dialogue on key issues affecting the future development of the City.
23. The City model forms the centrepiece of the London Stand and is a valuable tool for promoting the City in a focussed way, showcasing the developments of the future in the context of the City’s existing stock. Members of the team use the model as a focal point for meeting with high level dignitaries and property professionals from the UK and a number of other EU countries. In addition it was a focus for discussion with inward investors and occupiers to discuss opportunities and provide some background about the Square Mile as a business location.
Page 64 MIPIM 2014 Expenditure
24. Authorised funding for MIPIM 2014 was £85,000. Expenditure for the event was as follows: (£) a. Exhibition
City model, stand with meeting rooms and reception, (11 delegate passes included), transportation of model, literature to and from MIPIM 58,275
b. Travel & Transfers, accommodation, and 22,255 subsistence
c. Seminar – room hire; technical support & equipment hire, printing 4,300
d. Hospitality 2,625
Total Expenditure 87,455
25. Expenditure came in £2,455 over the budget of £85,000. This was due to it being decided that it would be beneficial to include the Investment Property Director as part of the team given the large number of current schemes in the market where the City Corporation has a property interest. The additional cost of £2,455 was met from local risk budgets. Unlike last year where a £4,500 saving was achieved on budget, there were no special early bird offers on flights.
Current Position
26. This report has set out for your Committees the wide range of activities and considerable achievements of MIPIM 2014, and has given details of the amount spent by the City Corporation in attending. Members are asked to agree to take a delegation to MIPIM 2015. 27. The benefits of attending MIPIM are set out above and it is considered appropriate that the City of London should have a similar presence at MIPIM 2015. The team to attend MIPIM should include a similar delegation of Members as 2014, including representatives of the Policy & Resources Committee, Planning and Transportation Committee and Property Investment Board. It is
Page 65 proposed that Members be accompanied by the same Officer team that attended MIPIM in 2014. The aim for the attendance will remain those objectives set out in Para 4 above. 28. The Committees are asked to decide if the City of London Corporation should attend MIPIM 2015 with a budget not exceeding £87,500 (assuming the same number of delegates as this year). Should costs or circumstances change for any reason, a report will be brought to your committee in November with further recommendations.
Financial & Risk Implications
29. It is expected that the cost of attending MIPIM in 2015 will be similar to that in 2014, and will not exceed £87,500. Contributions will be sought from departments/Committees on the same basis as for 2014: £20,000 from the City Surveyor’s Department (Property Investment Board), £7,500 from the Department of the Built Environment (Planning and Transportation Committee) and £5,000 from Public Relations (Policy & Resources Committee), and the shortfall from the City Property Advisory Team’s (CPAT) local risk budget. Should costs or circumstances change for any reason, a report will be brought to your committees in November with further recommendations.
Strategic Implications
30 . The City of London Corporation’s attendance and activities at MIPIM fall under three Community Strategy Themes:
Theme 1 - ‘is competitive and promotes opportunity’ Theme 3 – ‘protects, promotes and enhances our environment’ Theme 4 – ‘is vibrant and culturally rich’
It is also relevant to the following in the Corporate Plan: Strategic Aims: - To support and promote the City as the world leader in international finance and business services - To provide modern, efficient and high quality local services and policing within the Square Mile for workers, residents and visitors with a view to delivering sustainable outcomes
Page 66 Key Policy Priorities: KPPI – Supporting and promoting the international and domestic financial and business sector KPP3 – engaging with London and national government on key issues of concern to our communities..
Conclusion
32. MIPIM 2014 provided the City of London Corporation with an excellent opportunity to showcase London's attributes as a place to live, work and invest. MIPIM is still the premier event of its kind, and it is felt that there is no real alternative to MIPIM at which the City Corporation’s City of London message would be as effectively disseminated, given the predominance of senior and influential property professionals attending MIPIM, and the amount of press attention that it receives. It is also felt that the City Corporation’s attendance is a key factor in promoting the Square Mile in the face of increasing competition from other centres and countries, and underpinning confidence in London as the leading global financial centre. 33. MIPIM 2015 takes place from 10th -13th March and will, it is reasonable to assume, provide similar opportunities as experienced at MIPIM 2014. The Policy & Resources Committee, Planning and Transportation Committee, and the Property Investment Board are now asked to decide if the City of London Corporation should attend MIPIM 2015 with the delegation outlined in para 27 above.
Contact: Nancy Pound | [email protected] | 020 7332 3493
Page 67
Images from the London Stand:
Page 68 Agenda Item 12
Committee : Policy and Resources Date :8 May 2014
Subject: Additional Events and Topical Issues Public Programme - Funding Request
Report of: For Decision Director of Economic Development Director of Public Relations
Summary
This Committee agreed in July 2012 and March 2013 to extend the Chairman’s contact programme through additional events and the publication of a series of Topical Issues Papers (now referred to as the Topic Issues Programme, or TIP) at a cost of £55,000 per annum for 2012-13 and 2013-14. Continuing this additional activity remains a priority in advance of the 2015 General Election. Additional resources are required to ensure that the City of London Corporation remains fully engaged with key audiences and strategic issues, both in the UK and abroad. It is, therefore, proposed to continue this additional activity at the same cost in the current financial year, 2014-15. Recommendations The Committee is recommended to: • approve the proposal to continue the extended contact programme for the Policy Chairman through appropriate events at a cost of £25,000 funded from your Committee’s Policy Initiatives Fund 2014/15 , categorised under the “Promoting the City” section of the Fund and charged to City’s Cash and that expenditure on each individual event is approved by the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chairman and a Deputy Chairman ; and • approve the proposal to continue the Topical Issues Programme (TIP), comprising both papers and events, at a cost of £30,000 funded from your Committee’s Policy Initiatives Fund 2014/15, categorised under the “Promoting the City” section of the Fund and charged to City’s Cash and that expenditure on each individual activity is approved by the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chairman and a Deputy Chairman.
Main Report
Background
1. This Committee agreed in July 2012 and March 2013 to extend the Chairman’s contact programme through additional events and the publication of a series of Topical Issues Papers (now referred to as the Topic Issues Programme, TIP) at a cost of £55,000 per annum for 2012- 13 and 2013-14. The objective of the additional events is to assist with the delivery of the City Corporation’s messages for supporting and Page 69 promoting the City among key audiences, both in the UK and abroad. A series of short, externally-commissioned papers was designed to complement these events. All expenditure on individual events and papers are approved by the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman.
2. As part of the Policy Chairman’s extended contact programme, the following events were organised during 2013-14:
• the Sir Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture was hosted, featuring a major speech by the Education Secretary Rt Hon Michael Gove MP to an invited audience of senior politicians, business figures, academics and journalists, followed by a reception at a total cost of £8,000 (16 May, 2013);
• a discussion dinner between the then Culture Secretary Rt Hon Maria Miller MP and senior stakeholders focussing on Arts Funding, which took place in the Garden Room at the Barbican Centre at a cost of £4,550 (22 January, 2014);
• the annual reception of the Whitehall and Industry Group (WIG) was hosted at Guildhall and was attended by over 200 senior representatives from the Civil Service, the private and tertiary sectors and featured a speech by the Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, at a cost a total of £10,000 (5 February, 2014); and,
• a discussion dinner between the Arts Minister Ed Vaizey MP and senior stakeholders, which considered public policy towards the Arts, at the Museum of London at a cost of £2,450 (17 February, 2014).
3. The following topical issues papers were produced during 2013-14:
• Open Spaces Research – a research paper considering the economic, social and other benefits derived by London and Londoners from green spaces across the capital at a cost of £9,500;
• Policy Network EU project – the continuation of a research project examining the attitudes in key EU member states towards the UK- EU relationship and, in particular, the financial services sector at a cost of £12,000;
• Fabian Society pamphlet on the future of London – a publication, and associated launch event, which examined the policy challenges facing London, and included chapters by Sadiq Khan MP, Prof Tony Travers, Lord Adonis and the Policy Chairman, at a cost of £8,500.
Page 70 Proposal 4. Continuing this additional activity remains a priority in advance of the 2015 General Election.Additional resources are required to ensure that the City of London Corporation remains fully engaged with key audiences and strategic issues, both in the UK and abroad. The extension of the Chairman’s contact programme, through the organisation of additional events, has assisted with the wider delivery of the City Corporation’s messages for supporting and promoting the City to key audiences. The TIP has allowed the City Corporation to engage with key issues through papers and pamphlets. This funding arrangement also allows additional events and publications to be arranged flexibly and at short notice. It is proposed that the cost of continuing both areas of work will remain at the same level as last year of £25,000 for the extended contact programme and £30,000 for the TIP.
Financial implications 5. It is proposed that the required funding of £55,000 be drawn from your Policy Initiatives Fund 2014/15, categorised under the “Promoting the City” section of the Fund and charged to City’s Cash . 6. The current uncommitted balance available within your Committee’s Policy Initiatives Fund for 2014/15 amounts to £467,000, prior to any allowance being made for any other proposals on today’s agenda.
Conclusion 7. By continuing to commit additional resources to events and to engaging with topical issues through the TIP, the ability of the City Corporation to interact flexibly and at short notice with key audiences during periods of heightened activity on the political landscape is increased. It also allows the City Corporation to continue to play an appropriate role among key policymakers.
Contact:
Paul Sizeland Tony Halmos Director of Economic Development Director of Public Relations [email protected] [email protected] 020 7332 3600 020 7332 1450
Page 71 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 72 Agenda Item 13
Committee(s): Date(s): Planning and Transportation – For Decision 29 April 2014 Policy & Resources – For Information 8 May 2014 Court of Common Council – For Decision 12 June 2014 Subject: Fenchurch Street – Compulsory Purchase Public
Report of: Chief Planning Officer and Comptroller and City For Information Solicitor
Summary
This report seeks your approval to the making of a compulsory purchase order (“CPO") pursuant to section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the "1990 Act"), in order to facilitate the carrying out of development/redevelopment or improvement of land at 10 Fenchurch Avenue, 14 Fenchurch Avenue, 116 Fenchurch Street and 14 Billiter Street, 117 Fenchurch Street, 118/119 Fenchurch Street and 6 Hogarth Court, 120 Fenchurch Street, 4-5 Hogarth Court, London, EC3M shown edged and hatched in black on the site location plan in Appendix 1 (the "Site"). On 30 th March 2012, the City Corporation granted conditional planning permission to develop the Site under reference 11/00854/FULEIA (the "Development"). The Development was approved because it is in substantial compliance with the development plan policies that relate to it and will provide a significant increase in flexible office and retail space on this site, which would support the financial and business services of the City. Saxon Land BV (the "Developer") has advised that the provision of the Development in order to meet the requirements of a major international asset manager is now at risk due to its inability to agree terms for disposal with Linville Limited. They are the owner of the leasehold property at 118 to 119 Fenchurch Street (the "Linville Land"). The Linville Land is shown on Appendix 1. The Developer has advised that it has agreed in principle terms or is in the final stages of agreeing commercial terms with the owners of the freehold interests and various long leasehold, and that the majority of the other interests (occupational, rights of light and utilities interests) in the Site, are capable of rapid resolution once site assembly of the whole is assured. The Developer aims to enter into a pre-let agreement with the major international asset manager on or before 28 th April 2014 to secure the commitment of a major occupier to the scheme. The Linville Land is therefore the key outstanding property interest in respect of which the Developer has been unable to negotiate terms for its acquisition. Certainty is also required that any and all outstanding interests in the Site will have been acquired to enable commencement of the Development to be carried in time to meet the requirements of future
Page 73
occupiers. The Developer has asked if the City Corporation would be prepared to facilitate the Development by exercising its powers under S226(1)(a) of the 1990 Act to acquire the Site compulsorily, including the Linville Land. The Development is not capable of being brought forward without acquisition of all of the land within the Site. The acquisition would be on terms that the Developer will indemnify the City Corporation in full for the costs of and associated with the compulsory acquisition of the Site and will carry out the Development within a reasonable timescale, with step-in rights in the City Corporation’s favour should the Developer be unable to achieve this. It is considered that compulsory acquisition of the Site will facilitate its development/redevelopment or improvement providing much needed high quality office space to satisfy known demand, additional retail space and contribute to the improvement of the environment by providing a world class mixed use building on the Site, an improved public realm, significant open space and other benefits. Such redevelopment will contribute to the achievement of the promotion or improvement of the economic, social and environmental well-being of the City. Before exercising its powers under section 226(1)(a) of the 1990 Act, the City Corporation must be satisfied that the inevitable interference with property and other rights, including rights that are protected under the European Convention on Human Rights, is outweighed by the public benefits which will be derived from the Development. It is considered that the benefits significantly outweigh the interference with rights and that there is therefore a compelling case in the public interest for making the Order.
Recommendations
1. It is recommended that Members of Planning and Transportation Committee agree that (subject to prior completion of the indemnity agreement referred to at (d) below):
(a) The Site shown attached in Appendix 1 be acquired compulsorily for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out of development/redevelopment or improvement through the construction of the Development (or a substantially similar scheme of development); (b) It is necessary that the whole Site be acquired compulsorily in order to provide certainty that all and any outstanding interests in the Site will have been acquired at the commencement of the Development (or similar development); (c) Acquisition of the Site by the City Corporation under section 226(1)(a) of the 1990 Act and its subsequent disposal to the Developer (or an associated company) under section 233 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is justified in the public interest; (d) the Town Clerk be delegated authority in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee to
Page 74
approve the terms on which the acquisition and disposal referred to above are to be made including settling the appropriate terms of the indemnity agreement with the City; (e) The making of a Compulsory Purchase Order be recommended to Court of Common Council.
2. It is recommended that Members of Court of Common Council concur with the resolution and recommendation of Planning and Transportation Committee and authorise the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order in respect of all interests in the Site.
Main Report
Background
1. This report seeks your approval to the making of a compulsory purchase order pursuant to section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the "1990 Act"), in order to facilitate the carrying out of development/redevelopment or improvement of land at 10 Fenchurch Avenue, 14 Fenchurch Avenue, 116 Fenchurch Street and 14 Billiter Street, 117 Fenchurch Street, 118/119 Fenchurch Street and 6 Hogarth Court, 120 Fenchurch Street, 4-5 Hogarth Court, London, EC3M shown edged and hatched in black on the plan in Appendix 1 (the "Site").
2. On 20th March 2012, the Planning and Transportation Committee resolved to grant conditional planning permission to develop the Site under reference 11/00854/FULEIA. The Permission was issued on 30 th March 2012 and an agreement under section 106 of the Act was entered into on the same day. The Development is for demolition of existing structures on the Site and redevelopment to provide a mixed use building of 15 storeys, plus mezzanine, lower ground, two basements and a publicly accessible roof garden, to provide Class B1 office use and Class A retail uses including a restaurant at 14th floor level, together with associated public space and landscaping, motorcycle, car and bicycle parking, servicing and plant accommodation (62,643sq.m). The Development was approved because it is in substantial compliance with the development plan policies that relate to it (namely the London Plan, the Unitary Development Plan and the Core Strategy) and in particular it supports the strategic objective of promoting the city as the leading international financial and business centre. The Development will provide a significant increase in flexible office and retail space on this Site, which would support the financial and business services of the city.
3. The Site comprises 0.42 ha (1.05 acre) of land in the heart of the financial district and the EC3 insurance district, currently occupied by a number of dated low rise buildings comprising some 14,825 sq.m. NIA of offices and retail accommodation. The Site is bounded by Fenchurch Street to the south, Fenchurch Avenue to the north, Billiter Street to the east and Fen Court to the west. The present buildings on the Site are unsuited to the current office
Page 75
market for the kinds of occupiers the City Corporation seeks to attract because the buildings have reached the end of their physical and economic life, with outmoded specification and have small irregular floorplates which do not meet current day requirements.
4. The Site is in the following freehold ownership: 54% is owned by the Developer, 42% by the Clothworkers and 4% by the City Corporation.
5. There are very few development sites capable of accommodating buildings of the scale and quality proposed by the Development in the city’s core, and which can be completed during 2017. Indeed the only other development within EC3 of this scale, which is planned for delivery within a similar timescale, is 52-54 Lime Street (for which the City Corporation has also granted planning permission); but this will have smaller floors than the Development and will be partly occupied by the owner of the site (WR Berkley).
6. The Developer has demonstrated the unique opportunity presented by this Site by agreeing a pre-let with a major international asset manager to lease a significant proportion of the Development on completion. The major international asset manager fits the profile of the kind of businesses the City Corporation wishes to attract to it as a world financial hub. The combination of building design, size and location which could be provided by the Development would make it attractive to potential tenants and it would make a significant contribution to the stock of prime commercial property in the City of London. The Developer is in substantial agreement with a major international asset manager and expects to have entered into an agreement for lease by 28th April 2014. The major international asset manager requires agreement to be reached in order to be able to secure space in the Development by 2017 and demolition on the Site will need to take place within a reasonable timescale in order to achieve this.
7. The Developer has been in negotiations with the owners of the freehold interests and various long leasehold interests in the Site. It has made reasonable progress with these owners, including negotiating terms to relocate one occupier (NatWest Bank) within the Development during construction. The City Corporation is advised that the Developer fully expects to reach final settlement with the owners of these freehold and leasehold interests in accordance with its site assembly requirements. It has presently entered into option agreements or agreed commercial terms with Clothworkers, Young & Co Brewery plc, Davy’s, NatWest and the City.
8. Rights of Light issues are raised by the Development, and the Developer has agreed terms (but not yet executed final documents) with six neighbouring landowners (one of whom is the City Corporation) to the Site to settle various potential Rights of Light claims. Discussions with these landowners are advanced and it is expected that final documents will be executed in accordance with the Developer’s site assembly requirements. A further nearby landowner has been identified as having a potential Rights of Light
Page 76
claim and the Developer has indicated that it has approached the landowner to open discussions.
9. There are a large number of occupational interests in the Site and the City Corporation has been informed that those interests are all held on the basis that they can be terminated by the Developer on three months’ notice, and that once site assembly in relation to the freehold and long leasehold interests has been realised, the Developer will terminate those occupational interests so as to enable the Development to proceed.
10. There are various utilities with interests in the Site, and further details on these are contained in the Non-public report on your Agenda.
11. The Developer has advised that the timing for commencement of the Development is now at risk due to its inability to agree terms for disposal with Linville Limited. Linville Limited is the owner of the leasehold property at 118 to 119 Fenchurch Street under an Underlease dated 28th October 1957 for a term of 99 years from 29th September 1953 as Registered under title number LN158383 (the "Linville Land").
12. The City Corporation has been informed that the Linville Land is the key outstanding property interest in respect of which the Developer has been unable to negotiate any form of terms for its acquisition. Linville Limited occupies its building under an underlease for an unexpired term of 38 years and 6 months from the Clothworkers. The Linville Land comprises a purpose built office and a public house built on basement, ground and five upper floors, totalling approximately 684m2. It occupies a small (but crucial) part of the Site by area (5%) and is situated on the southern side of the Site fronting Fenchurch Street.
13. The Linville Land is located in a key part of the southwest quadrant of the consented scheme. The Development requires all of the buildings on the Site to be demolished. Without the Linville Land, any development of the Site would be smaller, providing less new floorspace overall, and could not provide the large regular floorplates of the type presently demanded by the market and in particular by the kind of large scale businesses of the type the City Corporation wishes to attract, such as the major international asset manager. There is a real risk that without an early resolution to this site assembly issue the opportunity to secure the major international asset manager’s occupation of the Site will be in jeopardy. The Development as envisaged cannot therefore proceed within the current site assembly timetable without the Linville Land.
14. Linville Limited is not opposed to the Development nor to its land being acquired, but disputes the sums so far offered to acquire that interest. The City Corporation has obtained its own independent valuation advice on the appropriate range of prices that a developer of the Site might be expected to pay to acquire Linville Limited’s leasehold interest in the Property following open market negotiations between willing participants (so as to enable the Development, or equivalent development, to be carried out and in order to
Page 77
assist the City Corporation’s consideration whether it is appropriate to make a compulsory purchase order in respect of the Site.) The independent valuation indicates that an offer made to Linville is within the appropriate range and that the sum sought is about twice the appropriate range. Further information is contained in the Non-public report on your Agenda.
15. The Linville Land is needed in order for the Development to be carried out and the Development cannot proceed unless it is acquired. Certainty is however also required that all and any outstanding interest in the site will have been acquired to enable commencement of development.
16. As set out in the City Corporation Planning Officer’s report to the Planning and Transportation Committee dated 20 th March 2012, the proposed Development was considered to be in compliance with the policies that related to it and in particular supported the strategic objective of the City Corporation to promote the City as the leading international financial and business centre. The Development would provide a significant increase in flexible office space (155% – 35,104 sq.m including plant and ancillary) and retail space (4,857 sq.m) on the only development site in this area of the City capable of accommodating buildings with such large floor plates and capable of being completed in 2017. This substantial increase in high quality floorspace would provide significant employment opportunities both during construction and post completion. It offers the redevelopment of outdated buildings on an underutilised brownfield site and would provide a world class mixed use building (as evidenced by the Development winning the Future Projects - Office category at the World Architecture Festival in 2012) adding to the City’s stock of prime commercial property. It would provide public realm improvements, public amenity space additional retail provision and other benefits.
17. The City Corporation considers that the whole of the Site is required to deliver this Development (or similar development) and that the Development is not capable of being brought forward without all of the land within the Site. Although the negotiations undertaken by the Developer are far advanced, there is no certainty that all the outstanding interests can be acquired by negotiation in order to secure the major international asset manager’s commitment to pre-let space in the Development, and therefore the CPO is necessary to ensure the delivery of the proposed Development (or similar development) within the timescale required to achieve the major international asset manager pre-let.
18. The Developer has asked if the City Corporation would be prepared to facilitate the Development by exercising its powers under S226(1)(a) of the 1990 Act to acquire the Site compulsorily, including the Linville Land. The City Corporation considers that the whole Site is required to deliver the Development (or similar development) and the Development is not capable of being brought forward without all of the land within the Site. Acquiring the whole Site by means of compulsory purchase would provide the Developer with certainty that, provided the Order is confirmed, all the interests necessary for the Development to proceed (not just the Linville Land) will
Page 78
have been acquired by the commencement of the Development and that it will therefore have vacant possession of the whole Site at the commencement date.
19. It is considered that the Development is in accord with, and would further key objectives of, both the Mayor’s and the City Corporation’s planning policies. The compulsory acquisition of the Site will facilitate its development/redevelopment or improvement through the carrying out of the Development (or similar development), which will provide much needed high quality office space to satisfy known demand, and specifically, for the purposes of securing space for the major international asset manager within the required timescales; provide additional retail space and contribute to the improvement of the environment by providing a world class mixed use building on the Site; an improved public realm; significant open space, and other benefits.
20. Before exercising its powers under section 226(1)(a) of the 1990 Act, the City Corporation must be satisfied that the inevitable interference with property and other rights, including rights that are protected under the European Convention on Human Rights, which will result from the proposed exercise of powers of compulsory acquisition, is outweighed by the public benefits which will be derived from the Development. It is considered that the benefits significantly outweigh the interference with others’ rights in this case, and that there is therefore a compelling case in the public interest for making the Order.
21. The City Corporation has been assured that, save in respect of Linville Limited’s interest, there are unlikely to be substantial objections to the scheme.
22. It should be noted that Linville Limited would be entitled to object to the confirmation of the Order and in the event of objection a public inquiry would need to be held to consider the objection and in advance of any confirmation of the order by the Secretary of State. This would have an impact on the timescales.
Considerations:
ACQUISITION FOR PLANNING PURPOSES
23. Pursuant to section 226 of the 1990 Act the City Corporation may acquire compulsorily any land in its area:
• s226(1)(a): if it thinks that the acquisition will facilitate the carrying out of development/re-development or improvement on or in relation to the land; or
• s226(1)(b): where it is required for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of an area in which the land is situated.
Page 79
24. It is considered that the more appropriate power to use in the present case is s226(1)(a).
25. Before exercising this power, the City Corporation must think that the development, re-development or improvement proposed is likely to contribute to the achievement of certain objects, namely the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of their area: s226(1A).
26. Circular 06/2004: Compulsory Purchase and the Crichel Down Rules (the "Circular") gives advice on the approach that should be taken, and the matters that should be considered, when a local authority and the Secretary of State are deciding whether to make or confirm a compulsory purchase order ("CPO"). The main points are:
i) Before embarking on compulsory purchase and throughout the CPO preparation and procedural stages, the City Corporation should seek to acquire land by negotiation wherever practical. Compulsory acquisition is intended as a last resort where attempts to acquire land by agreement have failed, although it may often be sensible for formal CPO procedures to be initiated in parallel with continuing negotiations; There should be clear evidence that the public benefit from making the CPO will outweigh the private loss. A CPO must only be made where there is a compelling case in the public interest;
ii) The City Corporation should be sure that the purposes for which it is making the CPO sufficiently justify interfering with the affected human rights of those with an interest in the land;
iii) It will be difficult to show that the making of the CPO is justified in the public interest if the City Corporation does not have a clear idea of how the land acquired will be used and cannot show that the necessary resources are likely to be available to achieve that end use within a reasonable timeframe;
iv) The City Corporation should be satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of the Development going ahead, and that its implementation is unlikely to be blocked by financial, physical, legal, planning or other impediments;
v) When considering whether to confirm the order the Secretary of State will consider the following (amongst other) factors:
• whether the purpose for which the land is being acquired fits in with the adopted planning framework for the area;
• the extent to which that purpose will contribute to the s226(1A) objects;
• the financial viability of the scheme for which the land is being acquired – “A general indication of funding intentions,
Page 80
and of any commitments from third parties, will usually suffice to reassure the Secretary of State that there is a reasonable prospect that the scheme will proceed”;
• whether the purpose for which the City Corporation is proposing to acquire the land could be achieved by any other means.
27. It should be noted that it is immaterial by whom any activity or purpose mentioned in s226(1) is to be undertaken or achieved. There is no need therefore for the City Corporation to undertake that activity or to achieve that purpose itself (s226(4)).
Indemnity
The Developer has agreed to indemnify the City Corporation in full for the costs of and associated with the compulsory acquisition of the Site and the indemnity would need to be on terms that the Developer undertakes to:
• enter into the pre-let with the major international asset manager;
• carry out the Development within a reasonable timescale, and
• in default of the Development being carried out by the Developer, the City Corporation could itself acquire the Site pursuant to the Compulsory Purchase Order in order to secure its implementation, or implementation of a similar scheme.
The acquisition would be on terms that, following acquisition, the City Corporation will dispose of the Site to the Developer (or other agreed party) for the planning purposes of securing the Development (or for similar development) (other than where the City Corporation itself secures the Development in default).
Public Interest/Planning framework
28. The Developer and Linville Limited have been in negotiations for the Developer to acquire the Linville Land for some time. The City has also urged Linville Limited to settle the consideration for its interest through ADR. This has not been taken up as Linville Limited relies on its own valuation. Further information regarding negotiations is contained in the Non-public report on your Agenda.
29. It is therefore considered that without the City Corporation’s intervention, the Development, will not be achieved within a reasonable timescale. In particular, City Corporation has been informed that if the Development is not commenced in time to provide office accommodation in 2017, the opportunity to secure the major international asset manager as an occupier will be lost.
Page 81
30. While agreement has been reached (or substantially reached) in relation to the owners of other affected interests, it is considered appropriate in all the circumstances of the case to make a CPO in relation to the whole Site to ensure single ownership and achieving delivery of the Development by 2017.
31. Both the City Corporation and the Developer still wish to achieve acquisition of the Site by private treaty, and the Developer will continue negotiations with Linville Limited and the owners of other affected interests throughout the CPO process.
32. The consented scheme would provide a significant amount of new, high quality floorspace with an increase of 155% over the current provision. The existing buildings have reached the end of their physical and economic life, with outmoded specification and small irregular floorplates which do not meet current day requirements. It would also provide a significant number of jobs, both pre and post completion. During the construction phase it is anticipated that 429 construction jobs will be created. Post-construction, the Development is expected to generate 3,183 jobs once operational – a net increase of 2,319 1 jobs. It would provide new retail space of some 4,857 sq.m GEA and substantial public realm improvements including publically accessible roof space/garden. The roof garden is a significant new amenity provided for the public in this part of the city, where employment numbers are increasing significantly and where opportunities to create open and green space are limited. Its provision for the public was an important consideration in balancing the benefits of the Development to the city. New public highways will also be provided through the Development fronted by retail units. Financial contributions of £1,290,470 will be made towards local community facilities and the environment and £129,047 will be paid towards training jobs brokerage and skills. The Development is therefore considered to be in substantial compliance with the Plan policies that relate to it, and in particular, supports the strategic objective of the City Corporation to promote the city as the world’s leading international financial and business centre.
33. The most relevant planning policies are:
i) The London Plan :
Policy 2.10: (Central Activities Zone) – Strategic Priorities sets out the following strategic priorities for the CAZ: (a) Enhance and promote the unique international, national and London- wide roles of the CAZ, supporting the distinct offer of the Zone based on a rich mix of local as well as strategic uses and forming the globally iconic core of one of the world’s most attractive and competitive business locations. (b) In appropriate quarters bring forward development capacity and supporting infrastructure and services to sustain and enhance the CAZ’s
1 From the planning application - the Environmental Statement stated that the Development would generate 3,183 jobs and the Transport Assessment stated that the current site is home to 864 jobs. Hence a net increase of 2,319 jobs.
Page 82
varied strategic functions without compromising the attractions of residential neighbourhoods where local uses predominate. (c) Sustain and enhance the City of London (and, although formally outside the CAZ (see para. 2.55), the Isle of Dogs) as a strategically important, globally-oriented financial and business services centre. Policy 4.1: (Developing London’s Economy) states that the Mayor will work with partners to: (a) Promote and enable the continued development of a strong, sustainable and increasingly diverse economy across all parts of London, ensuring the availability of sufficient and suitable workspaces in terms of type, size and cost, supporting infrastructure and suitable environments for larger employers and small and medium sized enterprises; and (d) Support and promote the distinctive and crucial contribution to London’s economic success made by central London and its specialist clusters of economic activity; and (g) Promote London as a suitable location for European and other international agencies and businesses. Policy 4.2 (Offices) states that stakeholders should: support the redevelopment of office provision to improve London’s competitiveness, and recognise and address strategic as well as local differences in meeting this policy to meet the distinct needs of the central London office market including by sustaining and developing the dynamic clusters of “world city” and other specialist functions and business environments, should encourage the renewal and modernisation of the existing office stock in viable locations to improve its quality and flexibility, and seek increases in the current stock where there is local evidence of sustained demand for office based activities in the context of offices. ii) The City of London Core Strategy : Strategic Objective 1 – To maintain the City’s position as the world’s leading international financial and business centre Policy CS1 - To ensure the City of London provides additional office development of the highest quality to meet demand from long term employment growth and strengthen the beneficial cluster of activities found in and near the City that contribute to London’s role as the world’s leading international financial and business centre, by : (i). Increasing the City’s office floorspace stock by 1,500,000 m2 gross during the period 2006 – 2026 to meet the needs of projected long term economic and employment growth, phased as follows: 2006 – 2011: 750,000 m2 2011 – 2016: 250,000 m2 2016 – 2021: 250,000 m2 2021 – 2026: 250,000 m2
Page 83
A pipeline of at least 750,000 m2 gross office floorspace with planning permission but not yet commenced will be maintained to provide office occupier choice. (ii). Encouraging the assembly and development of large sites, where appropriate, to meet the accommodation needs of the City’s biggest occupiers, protecting potential large office sites from piecemeal development and resisting development that would jeopardise the future assembly and delivery of large sites. (iii) Encouraging the supply of a range of high quality office accommodation to meet the varied needs of City office occupiers. (iv) Promoting inward investment and encouraging developers and businesses to invest and locate in the City. (v) Managing short-term over supply in the office market through a flexible approach to alternative temporary uses for vacant offices and sites, where such uses would not prejudice the eventual return of the site to office use. Under Policy CS1: “Who will Deliver – how will we make it happen” it is stated that “the City may use development management, compulsory purchase powers , land ownership and joint working with developers to assist in site assembly, where appropriate .” 34. In the light of the above policies, the key public benefits of the Development which need to be weighed against the private loss, including interference with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected, which will be caused by the compulsory acquisition of the Site are that:
i) it replaces outdated offices with world class high quality modern attractive office space offering state of the art accommodation of the highest institutional standard;
ii) it provides a net floor area of internal accommodation of some 39,704 sq.m. (nearly 3 times more than the existing) and comprised of regular flexible floorspace on large floorplates of the type strongly favoured by business and financial service users. It includes floor areas of up to 2,800 sq. m per floor. Floor plates of this size are in demand and are hard to find in the City;
iii) it has secured a pre-let by a significant occupier of the space (a major international asset manager) which is exactly the type of entrant the City’s policies seek to attract;
iv) better and more efficient use will be made of a significantly under-utilised site;
v) it will generate 3,183 jobs - a net increase of 2,319 employees than are currently accommodated in the existing buildings, or could be – making it suitable for a major occupier and/or other users;
vi) the Permission is accompanied by an appropriate package of planning obligations, which includes significant contributions to Crossrail
Page 84
£2,307,446, local community facilities and the environment of £1,290,470, local job training skills and job brokerage payments of £129,047, and enhancements to the street environment, as set out in the Planning Committee Report dated 20 th March 2012 and Section 106 Agreement dated 30th March 2012.
If the Development does not proceed, the benefits identified above will not be delivered.
Justified Interference with rights
35. The Development would involve interference with property and other rights, including those protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. A CPO should not be made unless the interference is proportionate to, and is outweighed by, the public benefits to be achieved. The criteria are therefore examined below.
36. In this context, the following matters need to be taken into account:-
i) Whether compulsory purchase will facilitate the carrying out of the Development, and whether there are any other means to achieve this;
ii) Whether interference with property rights is necessary in order to allow the Development to be carried out and, in particular, whether agreement can be reached for the release of those rights and on what terms;
iii) Whether the benefits of the Development could be achieved without giving rise to all or some of the interference;
iv) Whether the Development will contribute to one or more of the objects of promoting or improving the economic, social or environmental well- being of the area;
v) Whether the public benefits arising from the CPO are proportionate to the interference with private rights, and in particular to any interference with rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights ("Convention Rights");
37. These five matters are addressed below.
(i)
38. The Site has planning permission for redevelopment. The Developer has access to sufficient resources to carry this out, and intends to commence demolition this year and commence build in early to mid-2015, provided that the Site can be assembled in time to allow this to happen. At the present time, the only means of achieving certainty in terms of the timing and delivery of the Development is if the City Corporation makes a CPO. If the CPO is confirmed, the City Corporation will dispose of the Site to the Developer it to
Page 85
carry out the Development, however the City proposes that the making of the CPO be on terms that the Developer carry out the Development within a reasonable timescale, and grant the City step-in rights should it be unable to achieve this.
39. Full funding for both the Development and the CPO will be provided by the Developer, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Generali Group. The Generali Group is one of the largest global insurance providers with a 2013 total premium income of €66 billion. With 77,000 employees worldwide serving 65 million clients in more than 60 countries, the Group occupies a leadership position on West European markets and an increasingly important place on markets in Central Eastern Europe and Asia.
40. The Developer intends to conclude terms with a major international asset manager for a pre-let by 28 th April 2014 for the Development, but requires certainty that all of the relevant interests in the Site can be acquired so that the Development can take place. The protracted negotiations to acquire Linville Limited’s rights have not resulted in the parties reaching terms, and this now jeopardises the whole Development and its timescales. Compulsory acquisition of the Site will therefore clearly facilitate the carrying out of the Development.
41. The anticipated programme for the Development is for demolition to commence immediately the outstanding acquisition issues have been resolved with a target date for completion to shell and core at the end of September 2017.
42. Unless the City Corporation exercises its powers of compulsory acquisition, therefore, the Development will not be able to proceed within the timescale required in order to provide office accommodation in 2017 and thereby provide premises for the pre-let. Negotiations with a view to completing acquisition of all the necessary interests by agreement, including with Linville Ltd, will continue, but (as the Circular advises may be appropriate) officers consider that the formal CPO procedures should be initiated in parallel with negotiations, not only in order to secure the carrying out of the Development within a more certain timescale but also to encourage those affected “to enter more readily into meaningful negotiations”. (ii) and (iii)
43. It is clear that it would not be possible to carry out the Development without the acquisition of the Linville Land, which is located in the southwest quadrant of the site. The Development in fact requires demolition of all of the existing buildings on the Site, and therefore the acquisition of all of the interests included in the draft CPO.
44. Furthermore, were the Development to be reduced in scale by excluding the Linville (or other) land, a significant amount of floorspace would be lost and it would not be possible to achieve the large floorplates which are a key feature of the Development.
Page 86
45. Interference with property rights is therefore necessary in order to facilitate the carrying out of the Development. It is not possible to redesign the Development so as to reduce or avoid the interference to any appreciable extent.
46. Aside from Linville, in principle agreements have been reached as detailed above and are close to being finalised, with all those with an interest in the affected properties for the acquisition of their interests. Interference with their property rights has therefore been sanctioned through the agreement of the relevant owners.
47. The City Corporation is advised that the occupational interests are all on terms that the interests can be determined on 3 months’ notice, and accordingly it is not considered that the making of a CPO is likely to lead to any, or any significant, interference with the property rights of the owners of these interests.
48. Given the advice of the City’s independent valuer, it is considered that reasonable attempts to reach agreement with Linville have been made. Officers have reviewed the course of negotiations and are of the view that the offers made by the Developer (including the offers to settle appropriate consideration for acquisition by ADR) are reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances, being based on a significant uplift in existing use value. The powers of compulsory acquisition under section 226(1)(a) are therefore being exercised as a last resort as it has not been possible for the Developer to reach agreement with Linville Limited and is therefore not able to carry out the Development for which planning permission has been granted. The Developer will continue to negotiate for the acquisition of Linville’s interest by private treaty after any CPO has been made.
(iv)
49. The use of section 226(1)(a) powers will facilitate the carrying out of the Development, and this will contribute to:
i) the promotion and improvement of the economic well-being of the city as a whole, through the provision of new offices, significant employment generation and retail provision, likely occupation by a major financial institution, and by providing jobs during the construction phase;
ii) the promotion and improvement of the environmental and social well- being of this part of the city, through the proposed improvements to the public realm and provision of open space, the productive use of an underutilised brownfield site, and the securing of other benefits including the enhancement of the streetscape of this part of the city.
Page 87
(v)
50. The Circular advises that compulsory acquisition under section 226 of the 1990 Act, which has the effect of infringing convention rights:
“... should only be made where there is a compelling case in the public interest. An acquiring authority should be sure that the purposes sufficiently justify interfering with the human rights of those with interests in the land affected...."
51. The Human Rights Act 1998 obliges the City Corporation to act in a way that is compatible with rights conferred by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR provides that every natural or legal person is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Acquisition of interests in land through the exercise of powers of compulsory acquisition necessarily involves interference with a person's rights under this Article. Corporate bodies as well as individuals are entitled to the protection conferred by Article 1 of the First Protocol.
52. The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under this Article is a qualified rather than an absolute right. The wording of Article 1 of the First Protocol permits the deprivation of an individual’s possessions where it is in the public interest and subject to conditions provided for by law.
53. There is therefore a balancing exercise to be undertaken between the public interest and a person's rights, so that any interference in a person’s rights must be necessary and proportionate. "Proportionate" in this context means that the interference must be no more than is necessary to achieve the identified legitimate aim. A "fair balance" must be struck between the rights of the individual and the rights of the public. It is for Members to consider the issues raised in this report and to strike that "fair balance" in coming to a decision.
54. In the present case, it is considered that the public interest in facilitating the Development within a reasonable timescale, and in facilitating occupation by a significant occupier which falls within the category of businesses which the relevant planning and other policies seek to support, outweighs the interference with the rights of those affected by the CPO to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, and that the proposed exercise of section 226(1)(a) powers amounts to a proportionate interference in all the circumstances. The availability of statutory compensation to those who are deprived of their possessions is also of relevance to the issue of proportionality. Were the outstanding interests not to be acquired by private treaty so that the City Corporation has to proceed to acquire the interests concerned, compensation would be payable to the owners of those interests in accordance with the compensation code.
Page 88
Financial Implications
55. The Developer has agreed to be responsible for any costs, expenses and compensation liabilities incurred in connection with the compulsory purchase and the subsequent Development. Further the Developer will enter into an indemnity agreement with the City Corporation in respect of costs arising in connection with the CPO.
Legal Implications
56. All legal implications are included in the body of the report .
Consultation
57. The City Corporation has been in correspondence with Linville Limited regarding the CPO proposal and in summary it has made representations that it considers the use of CPO powers to be disproportionate and premature in the light of the negotiations which have taken place. Further information about this is contained in the Non-public report on your Agenda.
58. Your officers do not believe the use of CPO powers to be disproportionate or premature - the public interest in facilitating the Development within a reasonable timescale, and in facilitating occupation by a significant occupier, which the relevant planning and other policies seek to support, justifies the proposed exercise of section 226(1)(a) powers and is proportionate in all the circumstances; the figure sought by Linville Limited is not within a reasonable range as advised by the City Corporation’s valuer; the City Corporation is satisfied that a CPO is justified in this case; Linville Limited will be able to object and be heard on the issue of confirmation and negotiations between Linville Limited, the Developer and the City Corporation will continue throughout the process in order to seek to achieve acquisition of the interest by private treaty.
59. The other parties with interests likely to be significantly affected by any CPO have been made aware of the proposal.
60. Those parties who hold occupational leases or enjoy Rights of Light over the Development Site have not been given specific notification of the proposals by the City Corporation, however this report is available for them to consider. In the case of occupational tenants it is understood that their interests can be terminated on short notice and it is therefore unlikely that they would be significantly affected by any CPO. As regards Rights of Light, these would only be over-ridden in the event of acquisition of the whole site by the City pursuant to the proposed CPO.
All parties with qualifying interests would have to be served with Notice of Making of the CPO and would have an opportunity to object at that stage.
Page 89
Conclusions
61. It is considered that the making of a CPO in order to facilitate the development/redevelopment or improvement of the Site should be approved on the following basis:-
• The existing Site buildings are outdated and the Development will replace these with modern attractive offices and retail space in a core city location;
• The new office floorspace will be nearly three times larger than the existing and will enable the employment of 2,319 more people than the current offices could accommodate.
• The size and configuration of the new office space would be of the kind now required by those who wish to occupy space in the City of London, and will assist in the promotion of the city as the world’s leading international financial and business centre, thereby contributing significantly to the achievement of the City Corporation’s strategic policies.
• The Development will secure benefits to the area in terms of the appearance of the new world class building, the additional retail floorspace, public realm improvements and other environmental enhancements.
• All the considerations the City Corporation is required to take into account have been addressed and it has been concluded that there is a compelling case in the public interest in favour of making the CPO.
• Terms have been negotiated with the majority of those whose interests would be affected by the proposed acquisition, and the making of the CPO will ensure that the Site will be developed within a more certain timescale and not prevented by the Developer’s inability to acquire all the interests required by agreement.
• The acquisition of those interests by compulsion is proportionate and justified in the circumstances of the case.
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Site Location Plan
Appendix 2 - Illustrations
Page 90
Background documents
Planning Application Report to Planning and Transportation Committee 20 th March 2012 Planning Permission ref:11/00854/FULEIA Request to use CPO powers 17 January 2014
Contacts: Karen McHugh Principal Solicitor T:0207 332 1677 E:[email protected]
Page 91 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 92 Page 93 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 94 Page 95 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 96 Agenda Item 14
Committee: Date: Policy and Resources 08/05/2014 Subject: Careers Fairs and Work Related-Learning support Public for London’s young people
Report of: Director of Economic Development For Information
Summary 1. In January 2014 your committee agreed an annual budget of up to £35k for 3 years (2013/14-2015/16) to fund appropriate activities, such as careers fairs, which help to bridge the gap between education and employment, for students from neighbouring boroughs.
2. This report aims to update your committee on funded activities. Two careers fairs have been held, and videos are available on the City Corporation’s YouTube channel, one of which will be played at your committee meeting. Two further events are planned for 2014.
3. This activity complements the City Corporation employee volunteering programme’s increased focus on work-related learning within the sponsored academies, and a variety of other employability focused activities, detailed at Appendix 1 of the report titled ‘ Update on Education Strategy action to enhance co-ordination and focus of employer-facing employability programmes’ , which also features on the May 2014 committee meeting agenda.
Recommendation(s)
Members are asked to note the report.
Main Report
Background
1. In January 2014 your committee agreed an annual budget of up to £35k for 3 years (2013/14-2015/16) to fund appropriate activities, such as careers fairs, which help to bridge the gap between education and employment, for students from neighbouring boroughs.
2. The funding allocation was in response to the City Corporation’s Education Strategy, which was approved by the Court of Common Council in October 2013. Alongside academic achievement, the strategy focuses on enrichment activities e.g. access the City Corporation’s culture and heritage provision and its open spaces, and bridging the gap between education and employment e.g. access to employability support via City employers.
3. By supporting events such as careers fairs, as well as other work-related learning activities e.g. supporting students with interview practice; the City
Page 97 Corporation aims to increase the employment chances of London’s young people, and in particular those attending our sponsored academies. Research has found that young adults who recall four or more contacts with employers e.g. work experience, career talks, while at school were five times less likely to be NEET (Not in Education, Employment and Training). In addition, such activity also has a demonstrable impact on educational attainment.
4. Ofsted requirements now place a greater focus on schools preparing their students to enter the world of work; and schools are asked to collate a range of metrics showing the post-school destination of students.
Current Position
5. This report aims to update your committee on activities since the funding was approved in January 2014. Two careers fairs have been held and videos of both events are available on the City of London YouTube channel. The video of the Bridging the Gap event will be played at your committee meeting.
Bridging the Gap – 10 th March 2014
6. 150 young people (from 30 London schools), all at risk of becoming disengaged, met with 80 business volunteers at the Guildhall. The event aimed to break down the barriers between vulnerable young people and the world of work, by examining the qualities and life skills necessary to achieve qualifications and success.
7. Working with business volunteers, the young people articulated an idea for a social enterprise that could benefit their schools and local communities, and learned how to transform these ideas into business plans. They also had the opportunity to pitch their ideas as part of a competition, with three runners up and the winner each receiving £200 to help them make their plans into reality. All three of the City Corporation sponsored academies brought students along and evaluation has been positive:
“The girls and I felt uplifted and inspired. Opportunities like that may or can have a huge impact on how a person can change. The most moving moment the girls and I discussed, was the moment a student talked about his dream to be a chef and by the end of the day a member of staff from the guildhall catering team had offered to make his dream come true. The girls were stunned as to how quick and easy it is to pursue your dreams and how willing people are to support”. Teacher, Elizabeth Garret Anderson School
Southwark Employability Skills Fair – 3rd April 2014
8. This event brought together 600 students (aged 14 and 16) from 9 Southwark secondary schools and 30 employee volunteers from a diverse range of organisations e.g. ITV, RBS, Sir Robert McAlpine, King’s College Hospital. The students each accessed six 20-minute interactive workshops across a range of sectors. The City of London Academy Southwark invited over 150 students and feedback has been positive.
Page 98
“It was set perfectly for Yr9 students and it has really excited our students into thinking about the future” Teacher, Bacons College.
Employee Volunteering
9. In addition to careers fairs, and in accordance with the new Education Strategy, the Economic Development Office is working to increase the City Corporation’s engagement with its sponsored academies.
10. Each City Corporation employee has two days off to volunteer each year, subject to line manager approval. In order to align this with the Education Strategy, there has been a focused effort to increase the number of staff engaging with the City Corporation’s sponsored academies. Participation increased from 31 volunteers in 2012/13 to 66 in 2013/14. This is in addition to volunteering which takes place within other schools and charities in the City’s neighbouring boroughs.
11. Activities included supervising work experience students, mentoring and giving career talks. For example, in March 2014 an ‘Events Management Workplace Visit’ was arranged at the Mansion House for students at the City Academy Hackney. Volunteers with event management experience worked with the students, providing them with an insight into their roles and offering advice for running the academy’s own student-run conferencing business. 100% of students agreed or strongly agreed that the visit had given them a better understanding of what is involved in event management jobs.
Employer-facing employability programmes
12. The activities referred to above sit alongside a vast range of aspiration raising and employability programmes offered throughout the City Corporation. Employers are provided with a range of opportunities to connect with individuals who are in education, those who are unemployed or young people who are ‘NEET’.
13. The range of programmes underway is detailed at Appendix 1 of the report titled ‘ Update on Education Strategy action to enhance co-ordination and focus of employer-facing employability programmes’ , which also features on the May 2014 committee meeting agenda.
14. There are a further two careers fairs planned for 2014:
Science Engineering, Technology and Maths (STEM) Careers Fair – 27 th June
15. In February 2014 your Committee agreed a budget for an event to address the serious skills shortage in STEM areas, to be organised by the Science Council. The event will encourage 500 students (aged 14) from schools in the City’s fringe boroughs (including City Corporation academies) to study these subjects post 16 and to consider STEM-related careers.
Page 99 16. The proposed focus will be on careers options arising from various science- based qualifications, rather than on the subjects themselves. In order to promote STEM-subject careers to girls and all diversity audiences, the activities and inspirational (and in some cases celebrity) speakers will be carefully selected to appeal to this audience. There will be an opportunity for relevant livery companies to be involved.
Careers in the City 15 th July
17. The Hackney Learning Trust has asked the City Corporation to host a careers event organised by Inspire, the Education Business Partnership for Hackney. This event is intended to allow students (aged 16) who are considering careers in Business, Finance and Law to learn about alternative progression routes into their chosen fields in City type businesses e.g. apprenticeships. A recent CBI study highlighted that 51% of businesses are not confident of finding enough recruits for high-skilled roles, so this event could prove to be highly valuable.
18. 60 Hackney based students will have the opportunity to meet 12 employers on three separate occasions, the first will be activity based, the second will focus on networking, the third will be an opportunity to distribute CVs. As the City Academy Hackney does not yet have a 6 th form, their students will not be involved, however the new Head of 6 th form will be invited to observe the event.
Employee volunteering
19. Utilizing our unique (and spacious) venues has and continues to be highly valuable to London’s young people. The City Corporation must however manage requests wisely, given the management time can vary between 10 working days and 20, depending on the scale of the event. Feedback from our academies also suggests the importance of complementing large one-off events with on-going activities such as work experience and mentoring, hence the need to engage one of our most valuable assets, our employees.
20. In addition to these two events, the Economic Development Office will continue to engage City Corporation employee volunteers in the ‘in-school work-related learning’ agenda. Further information is included in Appendix 1. As the sole sponsor of the City of London Academy (Southwark), efforts will be prioritised on developing a programme of volunteering opportunities at this academy. The existing relationship with City Academy (Hackney) will continue and the Employee Volunteering Programme will endeavour to develop a relationship with City of London Academy (Islington) over the course of this year.
Page 100 Corporate & Strategic Implications
21. The above activity supports: a. the EDO Business Plan, specifically Objective 4 ‘Working with businesses and City Corporation departments (including City Bridge Trust), to realise the economic and social potential of London, but especially the City and the neighbouring boroughs’; b. the Corporate Plan , through Key Policy Priority 4 ‘Maximise the opportunities and benefits afforded by our role in supporting London’s communities and specifically to work with our partners and neighbours to promote employability and provide jobs and growth’; and c. the Community Strategy , through the themes ‘ supports its communities’ and ‘ is competitive and promotes opportunity’.
Conclusion
22. In January 2014 your committee agreed an annual budget of up to £35k for 3 years (2013/14-2015/16) to fund appropriate activities, such as careers fairs, which help to bridge the gap between education and employment, for students from neighbouring boroughs. This focus comes in response to the City Corporation’s new Education Strategy, and aims to support schools with new Ofsted requirements; which place a greater focus on schools preparing their students to enter the world of work. This report aims to update your committee on activities since the funding was approved. Two careers fairs have been held and two more are planned for 2014, alongside a variety of other employability focused activities.
Appendices
23. Appendix 1 - Strengthening the employability of students through Employee Volunteering
Background Papers:
24. Previous reports to your Committee on this subject:
Funding request for a series of careers fairs to enhance employability of young people in neighbouring communities (23 rd January 2014)
Proposal to stage a science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) careers event in partnership with the Science Council (20 th February 2014)
Sophie Hulm Corporate Responsibility, Economic Development Ex - 1563 [email protected]
Page 101 Appendix 1
Strengthening the employability of students through Employee Volunteering
The City of London’s academies will become the key focus for the City of London’s employee volunteering programme for 2014/15 (financial year), with a particular focus on enhancing the employability of students. Alongside this focus, opportunities to support Sir John Cass, Prior Weston and schools in the City’s neighbouring boroughs will continue to be promoted.
The above focus complements existing and long standing education-related activity. This includes support of schools in the City e.g. Sir John Cass and schools in our neighbouring boroughs. Activities include reading and number partners, student mentoring, careers talks and departmental visits.
In 2013/14, 59% (157) of City of London Corporation employee volunteers (267) were involved in education-related activity.
Of the 157 employees engaging in education related volunteering, 66 (42%) were involved with our academies, this increased from 31 in 2012/13.
Details of previous activity at the City of London’s academies can be found below.
Prior to 2014/15, City of London employee volunteers supported the City of London Academy (Southwark) as follows: -Hosted 3 stands at the 2013 careers fair -Hosted 5 stands at the 2014 careers fair -Hosted annual work experience placements (approx. 30 students since 2011) -Interview skills workshop attended by 69 students (2013) -A careers insight tour of finance department attended by 8 students (2013) -Hosted an aspiration raising event (March 2014) x8 pupils attended from academy 2012/13 - 105 volunteers involved in education, 17 supporting the academy 2013/14 - 157 volunteers involved in education, 41 supporting the academy
Prior to 2014/15, City of London employee volunteers supported the City Academy (Hackney) as follows: -7 personal advisors (student mentors) since 2011 - 20 students -x3 careers tours to Mansion House and Smithfield Market (2012/3) – 40 students -European Economics talk with 30 Business Studies students (Spring 2014) -Hosted work experience placements (approx. 4 students in total since 2013) -Hosted Careers Fair for Hackney schools (Nov 2012) - c90 academy students - Hosted an aspiration raising event (March 2014) x4 pupils attended from academy 2012/13 - 105 volunteers involved in education, 14 supporting the academy 2013/14 - 157 volunteers involved in education, 24 supporting the academy
Prior to 2014/15, City of London employee volunteers supported the City of London Academy (Islington) as follows: - Hosted an aspiration raising event (March 2014) x6 pupils attended from academy 2012/13 - 105 volunteers involved in education, 0 supporting the academy 2013/14 - 157 volunteers involved in education, 1 supporting the academy
Page 102 Working with the City of London Academies
In 2014/15, the employee volunteering programme will work to increase the number of volunteers supporting our academies to 80 volunteers (from 66 in 2013/14), in addition to continuing our existing work with other local schools (including Sir John Cass and Prior Weston). Measurement of outputs and outcomes will also be undertaken e.g. numbers of students receiving work experience and increasing employability skills.
As the sole sponsor of the City of London Academy (Southwark), efforts will be prioritised on developing a programme of volunteering opportunities at this academy. The existing relationship with City Academy (Hackney) will continue and the Employee Volunteering Programme will endeavour to develop a relationship with City of London Academy (Islington) over the course of this year. Details of planned activity at the City of London’s academies can be found below.
The programme of volunteering opportunities at the City of London’s academies will be launched via the intranet, staff event (8 th May 12-2pm, City Marketing Suite), posters and newsletters under the name ‘Aspiration Academy’.
City of London Academy (Southwark) - Future activities for 2014/15 include: -Partner Southwark Council to host a careers fair in April 2014 (now taken place) -Increase number of work experience placements to 15 per year -Organise a work experience preparation day with a carousel of activities for students including CV advice and mock interviews -Participate in Careers week and an afterschool speaker programme throughout the academic year (April 2014) – recruit volunteers for career talks -Organise student visits (insight tours) to at least 1 department - ‘Sculpture in the City’ – architecture challenge
City Academy (Hackney) - Future activities include: -The Academy is conducting an audit of existing work-related learning activities, the resultant work-related learning strategy is due for completion Spring/Summer 2014. -A potential gap has been identified for the middle ability group of students, particularly in learning about creative, media sectors. -Development of a volunteering offer to meet the identified needs, rolled out for 2015 -1 Careers Carousel available for students each year, as part of a 3 year funding agreement between CoL and ‘Inspire’ (Hackney’s Education Business Partnership) to run careers fairs for schools in Hackney – the Academy declined offer for 2014. - Funding for ‘Inspire’ to run ‘work week’ careers awareness programme for primary schools, targeting Academy feeder schools. -Host at least 5 work experience placements in July - Host a Careers Fair for 6 th form students from 10 Hackney schools in July 2014 (Academy does not yet have a 6 th form, although new Head of 6 th Form to be invited)
City Academy (Islington) - Future activities include: - ‘Engage and Unleash Your Talents’ programme – Enterprise challenge - ‘Sculpture in the City’ – architecture challenge
Page 103 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 104 Agenda Item 15
Committee: Policy & Resources Committee Date: 8 May 2014
Subject: G8 Global Dementia Summit Public
Report of: Director of Economic Development For Decision
Summary
As part of its Presidency of the G8 in 2013, the UK made fighting dementia one of its key policy objectives. The ambition is to coordinate international action to tackle dementia, similar to the way that tackling HIV / AIDS became a focus for international efforts. As part of this effort, the UK will be hosting the G8 Dementia Summit on 19 June 2014, which will focus on finance and social investment in dementia research and care. The Summit will attract around 350 senior political leaders from the G8, senior financial services practitioners, representatives from international institutions, philanthropic trusts, social investors and entrepreneurs, experts in ‘big data’, and representatives of the third sector. The City Corporation has been asked to support the Summit by hosting it at Guildhall (Great Hall and Crypts). This will cost no more than £7,000. Recommendations This report recommends hosting the G8 Dementia Summit at Guildhall, at a cost of £7,000 to be met from your Committee’s Policy Initiatives Fund 2014/15, categorised under Events and charged to City’s Cash .
Main Report
Background
1. As part of its Presidency of the G8 in 2013, the UK made fighting dementia one of its key policy objectives. The ambition is to coordinate international action to tackle dementia, similar to the way that tackling HIV / AIDS became a focus for international efforts.
2. Activity began with a summit in London on 11 December 2013, bringing together health and science ministers from all the G8 countries, world- leading experts and researchers, leaders of the global pharmaceutical Page 105
industries and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to accelerate progress towards effective treatments and cures.
3. Outputs of summit: The 2013 G8 Dementia Summit resulted in two significant documents that set out an agreed vision for international collaboration on dementia and a series of high level actions. These documents, the declaration and communique and the full list of commitments are available here .
4. Commitments include:
• the ambition to identify a cure or a disease-modifying therapy for dementia by 2025 and to increase collectively and significantly the amount of funding for dementia research to reach that goal.
• to appoint a World Dementia Envoy to draw together international expertise to stimulate innovation and to co-ordinate international efforts to attract new sources of finance, including exploring the possibility of developing a private and philanthropic fund to support global dementia innovation .
• to hold a series of high-level events throughout 2014 and 2015 , in partnership with the OECD, WHO, the European Commission, the EU Joint Programme on Neurodegenerative Disease (JPND), and civil society, to develop cross sector partnerships and innovation. The role of the Envoy will be to:
• First, work with the World Dementia Council and international experts to stimulate innovation and to co-ordinate international efforts to attract new sources of finance, including exploring the possibility of developing a private and philanthropic fund to support global dementia innovation.
• Second, to work with participating Governments and stakeholders and assume a global leadership role in addressing the economic, regulatory and social care issues associated with dementia innovation.
5. Dr Dennis Gillings CBE has been appointed as the World Dementia Envoy. He has over 30 years of experience in drug development applications and theory. Born and educated in the UK, he has worked in the US, founding Quintiles in 1982, which is now the world’s largest provider of biopharmaceutical development and commercial outsourcing services.
Page 106
6. Dr Gillings work will be supported by the World Dementia Council, which will be made up of senior representatives with expertise in pharmaceuticals, research, financial investment and civic society.
7. The G8 has committed to a number of legacy events to be held in the UK, Canada, Japan and the US in 2014/15. The UK event will take place on 19 June 2014 and will focus on finance and social impact.
Proposal 8. The UK legacy event, the G8 Dementia Summit, will be hosted by the City of London Corporation and take place in Guildhall on 19 June 2014. The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP, Secretary of State for Health will be hosting the event on behalf of HM Government and it is anticipated there will be around 300 – 350 world leading figures from across the fields of finance, science, health, development and civil society. The Summit will examine how finance can support efforts to prevent, delay and support people to live well with dementia. It will also address how to attract new sources of finance and develop a private and philanthropic fund.
9. The summit will develop an understanding of which new financial models and social impact investment opportunities can be used to invest in different aspects of dementia prevention, research and care. It will also provide an opportunity to encourage better data sharing to spread innovation. All of these policy areas are of interest to the City Corporation.
10. Attendees and speakers at the conference will be: political leaders; people with dementia; World Bank; OECD; World Health Organisation; World Economic Forum; investors; philanthropic funds; social investors and entrepreneurs; healthcare sector leaders; big data experts; and others. Andrea Ponti, Vice Chairman of European Investment Banking at JP Morgan is already a confirmed speaker.
Role of the City of London Corporation 11. The City of London Corporation hosting the G8 Global Dementia Summit on 19 June 2014 in Guildhall is supported by the Hospitality Working Party.
12. In return for covering the cost of hosting the Summit, the City Corporation will have appropriate branding at the event and on all electronic material produced in advance and on the day. Your Chairman will speak at the Summit and places at the Summit will be made available for Members and Officers. The City Bridge Trust, the City Corporation’s Social Investment Advisor, and the Economic Development Office are being consulted on possible attendees.
Page 107
Financial Implications 13. The cost of hosting the Summit at Guildhall is approximately £7,000. It is proposed that the required funding of no more than £7,000 is drawn from your Policy Initiatives Fund 2014/15, categorised under the Events section of the Fund and charged to City’s Cash . 14. The current uncommitted balance available within your Committee’s Policy Initiatives Fund 2014/15 amounts to £467,000 prior to any allowance being made for any other proposals on today’s agenda.
Conclusion
15. By hosting the G8 Global Dementia Summit the City Corporation will be supporting a major UK-led initiative that has been prioritised by HM Government. The audience of investors, financial institutions, entrepreneurs, social investors, philanthropic foundations and representatives of the third sector, are all involved in policy areas supported by the City Corporation. This will provide an excellent opportunity for the City Corporation to engage with policy makers and practitioners involved in social investment and ‘Big data’ development.
Contact: Giles French, Assistant Director of Economic Development [email protected] | 0207 332 3644
Page 108 Agenda Item 16
Committee: Policy and Resources Date: 8 May 2014
Subject: City of London – Singapore Engagement Public Strategy Report of: Director of Economic Development For Decision
Summary
City firms are increasingly interested in maximising the opportunities that exist in Singapore and have expressed a desire (through the International Regulatory Strategy Group) for the City of London to develop a more formalised relationship with Singaporean interlocutors. This would be based around regular dialogue with the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Singaporean Government, the British and European chambers and a series of other important stakeholders. The engagement would primarily focus on issues relating to global regulatory structures and market opportunities; the approach complements the work already undertaken by the City of London in India and China. The Economic Development Office seeks to develop a more strategic relationship with Singapore, to support the City as the world leader in international finance and business services. The initiative will focus on collaborative areas of business interest and further explore the implications of global regulatory frameworks; it will be aligned with the UK Singapore financial dialogue, recently announced by the Chancellor. Recommendations It is recommended that the Committee support the development and delivery of the Singapore Engagement Strategy as set out in the report and its appendix.
Main Report
Background
1. In the June 2013 the Policy and Resources Committee agreed to fund an initiative to increase engagement between the City of London and Singapore. Following this decision the Economic Development Office managed the production of a Singapore white paper looking at potential areas for
Page 109 collaboration and subsequently facilitated a visit to Singapore in October 2013 by your Chairman.
2. There is an appetite from City firms (following discussions with the International regulatory Strategy Group) to increase engagement between the City of London and Singapore. The outcome of your Chairman’s October 2013 visit further demonstrated a keen interest from Singaporean interlocutors to formalise their relationship with the City of London.
3. There has recently been enhanced engagement between the UK and Singapore, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer visiting Singapore in February 2014, announcing a UK Singapore Financial dialogue. The City of London will seek to input and inform these discussions, linked to our greater engagement with Singapore. It further supports a series of UK Government, Financial Services Trade and Investment Board (FSTIB) priorities.
4. Greater engagement both builds upon recent interaction with Singapore, including the Lord Mayor hosting the Singapore Prime Minister, and future activity including the forthcoming State Visit by the President of Singapore.
Current Position
5. The City of London has developed relationships with strategically important global financial centres in both developed and emerging markets. The City enjoys a strong relationship with partners in the USA, India and China, but has a less fully developed engagement with Singapore. Singapore has featured on a number of Lord Mayoral overseas visit programmes and your Chairman visited last year.
6. Singapore as a market is of both great importance and interest to the UK based financial and professional services industry, which has been discussed and endorsed by the International Regulatory Strategy Group (IRSG) Council and Executive Board. Singapore is viewed as an important market in its own right alongside being an entry point to the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) region, as well as being a hub for India business. The UK and Singapore further share a common view on global regulatory policy.
Options
7. Continue with the current levels of engagement– this could restrict the business benefit that the growth of Singapore and ASEAN affords
8. Formalise a more structured engagement with Singapore – this option will provide the City with the opportunity to maximise the business benefit of the growth of Singapore and ASEAN, share intelligence on issues of common interest and build up international positions on regulatory policy affecting the Page 110 UK and Singapore. This option will be funded from already approved local risk budgets.
Proposals
9. In response the City of London seeks to enhance and formalise its linkages with Singapore, initially focusing on the following areas:
a. The internationalisation of the RMB b. Asset and Investment management c. Dispute resolution d. Regulatory policy e. The development of ASEAN markets
10. The City of London will engage with a broad range of stakeholders to deliver enhanced dialogue, this will include the Monetary Authority of Singapore and other Singapore Government and business bodies, market practitioners, UK Trade and Investment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the International Regulatory Strategy Group and other interested parties.
11. To support this engagement, we would plan and deliver one officer visit to Singapore and one visit by your Chairman before the end of the current financial year. To minimise costs, the officer visit will be conducted by the City of London India Representative based in Mumbai (in addition to cost saving there are strong links to the City’s India work programmes) and we will seek to link your Chairman’s visit to one of his annual India or China visits.
12. The annual cost of Singapore related activity is estimated to be around £15,000 per year, which will be funded from the EDO local risk budget.
Corporate & Strategic Implications
13. The development of a Singapore strategy and associated visit by your Chairman supports the vision of the City of London’s 2013 – 17 Corporate Plan and the strategic aim: “To support and promote The City as the world leader in international finance and business services”.
14. It further meets the strategic aim of the Economic Development Office to “support and promote the City as the world leader in international finance and business services, by championing a positive, responsible and competitive business and policy environment, supporting the City’s interests in global markets and helping to realise the economic and social potential of London, especially the City and our neighbouring boroughs”. Page 111
15. Singapore will continue to be considered by the Mayoral Visits Advisory Committee as a potential destination for Lord Mayoral visits, building on the relationship established by recent visits to Singapore, and these too will be a means of delivering the strategy’s aims.
Implications
16. Singapore related activities (other than mayoral visits) will be funded from the EDO local risk budget.
17. Equal opportunities considerations have been taken into account in the preparation of this report and we are content that there is no negative impact.
Conclusion
18. The development of a more structured dialogue with Singapore is of strategic importance to the City and City firms and directly links to the City of London’s Corporate plan and strategic aims.
Background Papers: June 2013 – Singapore Strategy paper
Appendices: Draft Singapore Engagement Strategy
Peter Sissons Head of International Affairs [email protected] +44 (0)207 332 1020
Page 112
City of London Singapore engagement strategy
1. Background ...... 2 2. Engagement strategy – key themes ...... 3 2.1. The internationalisation of the RMB ...... 3 2.2. Asset and Investment Management ...... 4 2.3. Dispute resolution ...... 4 2.4. Regulatory dialogue ...... 5 2.5. Association of Southeast Asian Nations ...... 6 3. Key stakeholders: ...... 6 3.1. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) ...... 6 3.2. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) ...... 6 3.3. The financial Services Trade and Investment Board (FSTIB) ...... 7 3.4. International Regulatory Strategy Group ...... 7 3.5. Market practitioners ...... 7 3.6. Think tanks ...... 7 3.7. Academic institutions ...... 7 4. Activity plan ...... 7 4.1. Development of a Singapore working group ...... 7 4.2. Overseas engagement strategy ...... 7 5. Deliverables ...... 8
1 Page 113
1. Background
The development of global financial services centres is of great interest and importance to both policy makers and businesses around the globe. A strong and vibrant financial and professional services industry stimulates economic growth and development. It is widely accepted that there are four global financial centres , London, New York, Singapore and Hong Kong; each sharing a set of similar characteristics. These centres do not operate in isolation, they complement each other, their interconnectedness is key to their continued success and growth in one centre often has a positive effect on other global financial centres.
The City of London has developed relationships with a number of developed and emerging financial centres, including:
• New York • Hong Kong (through the RMB initiative) • Shanghai • Mumbai
Following consultation with market practitioners it was clear that there was a desire to increase the City’s engagement with Singapore, to develop deeper linkages with key stakeholders in Singapore and to increase dialogue relating to both the regulatory agenda and business opportunities. Singapore is an important market for market practitioners as both an international financial centre and a gateway to the wider Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) market.
The City of London has undertaken regular engagement with Singapore and the City of London Singapore engagement strategy builds upon the foundations laid during Lord Mayoral overseas visits to Singapore over a number of years and resulting follow-up activity. The most recent of these visits was undertaken by Alderman Sir David Wootton in 2012. A further visit has been proposed for the mayoral year 2014/15. The City has not observed a large number of inward visits from the Singapore, though the Prime Minister of Singapore, at his request, was hosted by the Lord Mayor and Corporation at the Mansion House only last month. During this visit it was announced that the President of Singapore would pay a State Visit to the UK later this year. Singapore is a priority market for HMG and the engagement strategy will be linked to the recent announcement (25 February 2014) that the UK and Singapore have agreed to set up a UK-Singapore Financial Dialogue, which will focus on deepening financial and economic cooperation between the two countries. The City of London will seek to support this dialogue.
Mark Boleat, Policy Chairman of the City of London Corporation (and Deputy-Chair of the International Regulatory Strategy Group Council), visited Singapore from 27 to 29 October 2013. The purpose of the visit was to develop a more structured dialogue with the Singaporean authorities and to examine areas for collaboration, particularly in the development of the offshore Renminbi market, global regulatory developments, legal arbitration and asset management. During the visit bi- lateral meetings were held with the Head of the Singaporean Civil Service and Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Finance, Peter Ong; the Senior Minister of Law, Indranee Rajah; and the President
2 Page 114
of GIC Asset Management, Dr Jeffrey Jaensubhakij. A number of roundtable meetings and discussions were also held with financial and professional services firms operating in Singapore. On returning to London, the Policy Chairman met with Leong Sing Chiong, Assistant Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, who was visiting the UK.
The visit highlighted the importance of Singapore as an international financial centre and the extent of the ambition for its development, both within the business community and in government. It further highlighted the role that Singapore seeks to play in the development of the ASEAN region. The regulatory authorities have clear, well researched, long-term plans and work with the industry to achieve them, e.g. RMB internationalisation, international commercial court and strategy for asset management. Singapore is seen as an international hub along with London and New York. The regulatory authorities have some concerns with issues of extra-territoriality, but see London and the UK as natural partners to respond to these issues. There is a clear desire to develop the partnership between London and Singapore.
2. Engagement strategy – key themes
The City of London will seek formalise its relationship with Singapore initially in the following areas:
2.1. The internationalisation of the RMB – The City of London is heavily engaged in the development of London as a Western Hub for RMB business, through the ‘City of London initiative on London as a centre for renminbi (RMB) business’ which was launched by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18 April 2012. The role of the initiative is to consider practical measures to support the development of London as a centre for RMB business. It aims to:
• Provide leadership to the wider financial markets on the technical, infrastructure and regulatory issues relevant to the development of the RMB product market in London.
• Advise HM Treasury on maximising London's capacity to trade, clear and settle RMB and articulate practical next steps and long term aims for the development of the RMB market in London. Additionally, the group advises HM Treasury and other UK authorities on any financial stability concerns the members may perceive.
• Develop and maintain, as appropriate, a private sector dialogue on the international RMB market with regulators in Hong Kong and mainland China to complement that which is already maintained by the UK public sector.
As both London and Singapore seek to develop their international RMB capabilities and business volumes, there is scope to share both market data and intelligence about the development of international RMB business. It is clear that the UK and Singapore have had differing approaches to the development of international RMB business, and there is value in sharing both experience and practice.
3 Page 115
2.2. Asset and Investment Management – An area for greater engagement is asset and Investment Management. Capital markets need to develop to ensure that the greater corporate and personal savings capacity can be channelled into productive investment. An upgrading of capital market infrastructure in South East Asia is already taking place and the key challenge will be for financial and professional services firms to capitalise on these opportunities. In the latest global financial centres index (14), London and Singapore were ranked 2nd and 3rd respectively as centres of investment management.
In terms of wealth management, Singapore is growing fast as a centre of choice. Early in 2013 the Swiss National Bank opened an overseas branch in Singapore to help it manage the reserves it holds in Asian currencies. The Boston Consulting Group has issued a report that suggests that the growth of private wealth in emerging markets is now double that of the “new world”. The overall pool of corporate and private wealth is getting bigger, and this will benefit London-based financial services firms that have the expertise and tradition to help serve this growing new client base.
Singapore’s two sovereign wealth funds (GIC and Temasek) play a major role in the commercial and investment partnership between the UK and Singapore, and this is expected to grow in significance. Both sovereign wealth funds have offices in London; Temasek – the smaller of the two opened a new office in London in March 2014 which will be used as a platform to explore investments in Africa, reinforcing London’s role as an international gateway. London is an attractive centre for raising finance, including for many African corporates. Earlier this year the sovereign wealth fund established Temasek International (Europe) and it has existing significant investments in UK corporates, including Standard Chartered, of which it has an 18% stake. GIC has a more established presence in London, and likewise uses London as a platform for investing in and exploring opportunities not just in the UK, but also in the wider region. European investments now account for a quarter of GIC’s global investments and London is the location of its only office in Europe. In late 2013 it was announced that GIC was to purchase half of the Broadgate estate from Blackstone for £1.7bn.
There is an opportunity to attract further investment into the UK from these major investors, in addition to opportunities that may present themselves for UK based fund managers as the need for long term savings products increases throughout Asia. Asset and investment management is a key priority for Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Financial Services Trade and Investment Board (FSTIB), and all activity should be linked to FSTIB priorities and the TheCityUK administered FSTIB workstream.
2.3. Dispute resolution –There are around 30 British law firms with a presence in Singapore, and foreign lawyers and firms have a significant presence among the legal fraternity. Previously a tightly regulated and protected sector, Singapore has taken gradual steps to open up its legal services sector. Singapore has proactively developed its dispute resolution capabilities and actively promotes itself as a centre for international arbitration.
4 Page 116
The jewel in Singapore’s legal services crown is the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. Established in 1991 as a not-for-profit non-governmental organisation, SIAC, which administers arbitration under its own rules, is now recognised as a one of the pre-eminent arbitration seats in the world.
Arbitration activity has been growing fast: in 2012, SIAC received 235 new cases – a 25% increase on 2011 – and the total sum of disputes arbitrated was $3.61bn. SIAC is increasingly popular among mainland Chinese parties (claimants and respondents) which generated the highest number of filings in 2012, with India following close behind, while filings from Indonesia and the US took third-place and fourth-place respectively. Hong Kong, and Malaysia also contributed a significant number of new cases last year.
There is a potential opportunity for the City to further engage with Singapore in the field of dispute resolution and arbitration, which may read across to the work that we undertake in India.
2.4. Regulatory dialogue – There are a number of key global themes affecting the way financial centres operate and the dynamics that drive their growth and development. The most important issues currently are the global regulatory agenda and the rebalancing of the world economy, particularly through growth in Asia.
The world’s leading economies have responded to the global financial crisis with a set of comprehensive reforms designed to strengthen the international financial system. These reforms, often initiated at the G20 level, have in some cases been interpreted or applied differently, or gold-plated to suit local market conditions and priorities. As a result there are issues surrounding international regulatory coherence. Whilst attempts to strengthen the international financial system are important and welcome, extraterritorial legislation in particular is a challenging issue that many financial institutions and regulators have to address.
The UK is a full G20 member, and Singapore – being a key global financial centre – has an observer role. The G20 has delegated much of the detail of policy formulation to existing international institutions, including the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). Both the UK and Singapore are members of the BCBS, Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems (CPSS), Committee on the Global Financial System (CGFS) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB), which is currently chaired by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney. Through these and related international institutions the global regulatory response to the financial crisis is being developed for implementation by national regulators, including those in Singapore and the UK.
There is scope to increase regulatory dialogue with Singapore, not only in the field of global regulatory debate but further exploring the extraterritorial impact of national regulatory policy in major global markets.
5 Page 117
2.5. ASEAN – Singapore will play a key role in the development and integration of financial markets throughout the ASEAN region. ASEAN is home to a diverse range of economies, each at varying points of their development cycle.
The creation of an ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) and the longer term goals of an integrated market in the region could be a major opportunity for financial services firms. Combined with the growth of the middle class in South East Asia, market integration will make it easier for financial services firms to do business in the region, and to serve a growing affluent market base. There is still much work to be done to realise a fully integrated market in the region, but specific steps are being taken and these will lead to genuine business opportunities for many London-based financial and professional services firms.
Other measures – often with ASEAN at their core – are being undertaken to further deepen the region’s capital markets. One such example is the Asian Bond Markets Initiative (ABMI). Developed through the ASEAN+3 process, and with support from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), this important initiative – once fully realised – will deepen the region’s local debt markets. More opportunities for corporate and infrastructure financing will create new opportunities for UK firms – both as technical partners and as financial facilitators.
Finally, many emerging economies are taking steps – often with the support of the ADB – to create more sophisticated financial systems, including deeper national capital markets. As this process of development continues, alongside a rising middle class, there will be further opportunities over time for financial and professional services firms to expand into new frontier markets.
The opportunities for UK firms in ASEAN are growing – not just in Singapore, the traditional regional hub, but also in the other ASEAN member states. ASEAN-4 (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam) in particular are likely to play a larger role in the raw input supply chain going forward as businesses look for more competitive manufacturing and production centres in the region.
3. Key stakeholders:
3.1. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) – MAS is the central bank of Singapore. Its mission is to promote sustained non-inflationary economic growth, and a sound and progressive financial centre. The MAS has a dedicated International Department, which aims to formulate linkages between Singapore and overseas financial centres.
3.2. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) – Operating in Singapore the FCO and UKTI maintain ongoing relationships with key financial services contacts in Singapore, alongside promoting the interests of UK based firms and attracting inward investment to the UK.
6 Page 118
3.3. The Financial Services Trade and Investment Board (FSTIB) - The Financial Services Trade and Investment Board was established by the Chancellor in the Budget 2013, to promote the UK’s world class financial services industry. TheCityUK provide the secretariat function for FSTIB and close engagement will be maintained to link complementary work streams. This will further link to the recent announcement (25 February 2014) that the UK and Singapore have agreed to set up a UK-Singapore Financial Dialogue, which will focus on deepening financial and economic cooperation between the two countries. This will include TheCityUK’s ASEAN working group.
3.4. International Regulatory Strategy Group – Members of the International Regulatory Strategy Group can provide expert practitioner to the regulatory debate and further provide input on challenges and opportunities prevalent in Singapore, to support the development of a global regulatory level playing field.
3.5. Market practitioners – Regular engagement with Singapore based firms can highlight major areas of business interest, alongside any challenges that firms may face. It can also serve to facilitate the attraction of inward investment.
3.6. Think tanks – Engagement with policy commentators in Singapore could be key in terms of delivering messages on behalf of the UK based financial and professional services community.
3.7. Academic institutions in Singapore – Knowledge sharing opportunities.
4. Activity plan
4.1. Establishment of a Singapore working group – Small group of practitioners with major interests in Singapore across the key sectors of interest, to meet on a quarterly basis to help shape the work that the City of London undertakes in Singapore, including the identification of key policy formers in Singapore. This group could sit as an annex to the International Regulatory Strategy Group. The group will agree priority areas of focus and collaborative work between the City and Singapore.
4.2. Overseas engagement strategy:
4.2.1. Annual visit by the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee
4.2.2. International visit programme of the Lord Mayor
4.2.3. Bi-Annual City of London Officer visits, from the City of London Office in Mumbai.
4.2.4. Regular interaction with key Singapore stakeholders, providing quarterly updates from the City and encouraging inward visits.
7 Page 119
4.2.5. Identification of relevant financial -services events in Singapore and seek to secure UK speaking presence (including the Singapore Summit)
4.2.6. Attraction of key Singapore policy makers and formers to the City.
5. Deliverables
The engagement strategy seeks to:
• Increase dialogue between the UK and Singapore, framed around market practitioners needs
• Identify and develop/ maintain relationships with key decision makers in Singapore and key stakeholders in the UK/ EU.
• Identify areas of focus
• Identify opportunities for collaborative working
Activity Deliverable Deadline 4.1 - Development of a Singapore working Strategy passed to IRSG, pr actitioner input May 14 group sought. Draft membership list drawn up Jun 14 Terms of reference agreed July 14 First meeting Sep 14 Agree areas of focus and activity, which Sep 14 may include joint research pieces 4.2.1 – CPR visit – accompanied by an Input received from Singapore working Oct 14 officer (to be linked to another CPR Asia group visit) Roundtable briefing event Feb 15 Visit – Dates tbc Mar 15 4.2.2 - International visit programme of Feed in to the Mayoral Visits Advisory the Lord mayor of the City of London Committee and support Lord Mayoral interaction with Singapore, further input into TheCityUK’s International Trade and Investment Group. 4.2.3 – Officer visit Presentation of CoL engagement strategy Oct 14 to interested parties 4.2.4. - Regular interaction with Key City of London update issued to key Quarterly Singapore stakeholders. Singapore stakeholders 4.2.5 - Identification of relevant Financial Desk research to identify opportunities Jun 14 Services events in Singapore Engagement with Stakeholders to identify Jun 14 opportunities 4.2.6 - Attraction of key Singapore policy Identification of key Financial Services Jun 14 makers and formers to the City, to support decision makers both inward investment and enhanced Invite key decision makers to the City Sep 14 policy dialogue.
8 Page 120 Agenda Item 17
Committee : Policy and Resources Date: 8 May 2014
Subject : Sponsorship of IPPR Project on Emerging Public Markets Report of: Director of Public Relations For Decision
Summary
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) is a leading UK progressive think- tank. IPPR is organising a series of high-level seminars on emerging markets, of which it is proposed the City of London Corporation should be an exclusive sponsor.
The seminars will cover three of the most populous emerging markets, China, India and Mexico and will focus on how the UK can best renew its strategic relationships with them. The series will bring together a range of senior individuals, including senior politicians from the Labour Party, senior diplomats, business leaders with expertise in these markets, academics, and other opinion formers.
A report summarising the findings will be produced by the IPPR at the conclusion of the series of seminars.
Recommendation
This report recommends sponsorship of IPPR’s seminar series on emerging markets at a cost of £22,500 to be met from your Committee’s Policy Initiatives Fund 2014/15 categorised under the Research section of the Fund and charged to City’s Cash .
Background
1. Since its inception in 1986, the IPPR has developed into the largest centre left think tank in the United Kingdom with a reputation for high quality research and events. It has consistently played a pivotal role in helping to form policy within the Labour Party and the current Director, Nick Pearce, was previously head of the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit in 2008- 10. 2. The City Corporation has worked with the IPPR on a number of high quality projects including a study of London Governance; a project on
Page 121 London Transport; numerous successful fringe meetings at various Labour Party conferences; an event on Arts Philanthropy and a major speech by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg MP. More recently, the City Corporation has sponsored a major IPPR project on globalisation,; hosted a major conference on industrial policy, featuring a keynote speech by the Business Secretary Vince Cable MP; and various dinner discussions on youth employment in London, which involved the Shadow Employment Minister Stephen Timms MP and Shadow Skills Minister Rushanara Ali MP.
Proposal
3. Emerging markets play a prominent role in public debates about globalisation as the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – have over the last decade enjoyed rapid growth and burgeoning middle classes. HM Government made increasing exports to BRIC countries and other emerging markets a priority after the 2010 General Election. The Prime Minister, David Cameron MP, has led trade missions to key emerging markets, including the BRIC countries, and in 2012 the Chancellor George Osborne MP challenged British companies to double exports to £1 trillion per annum by 2020. However, recent research found that exports were growing at just 5 per cent per annum, which means that exports are only set to reach £500 billion by 2020. In addition, the strategic relationship with a number of emerging markets has suffered in the wake of geopolitical tensions.
4. In advance of the UK General Election in 2015, the IPPR proposes to reflect in three seminars on changes taking place within respective key emerging markets, specifically in China, India and Mexico –three of the most populous countries in this category. In light of changes to the governments of each of these countries, it is proposed that the seminars will discuss what opportunities now exist for the UK to renew is strategic relationships with these countries and identify new approaches to achieving the ambitious export target set for 2020. The series will bring together a range of senior individuals with expertise in this area, including senior politicians from the Labour Party, senior diplomats, business leaders, academics, and other opinion formers. Each seminar will be conducted under ‘Chatham House’ rules and chaired by senior IPPR stakeholders. Following the conclusion of the series, the IPPR will produce a report summarising the main findings of the seminars.
5. The total cost of the project is £22,500 (i.e. £7,500 per seminar). This will cover the organisation of the three seminars (including venues and
Page 122 refreshments),; the report summarising the main findings of the seminars and its publication on the IPPR’s website; distribution of the report to IPPR’s key foreign policy and economic contacts and the dissemination of the findings in the national media, and through the IPPR’s social media channels. It is proposed that the City Corporation be the exclusive sponsor of this project. If the City Corporation were to sponsor this series of seminars, the Policy Chairman would receive a suitable speaking slot at each event and the City Corporation would be acknowledged on all publicity including the report summarising the findings. In addition, the City Corporation would have input into the invitation list, and the topics considered at each of the seminars.
Financial implications
6. It is proposed that the required funding of £22,500 is drawn from your Policy Initiatives Fund 2014/15, categorised under the Research section of the Fund and charged to City’s Cash .
7. The current uncommitted balances available within your Committee’s Policy Initiatives Fund 2014/15 amounts to £467,000, prior to any allowances being made for any other proposals on today’s agenda.
Conclusion
8. The work of IPPR and this proposed series of seminars on emerging markets accords well with the role of the City Corporation in promoting debate on key policy issues that affect the City and London. The relationship with this think tank allows for high level interaction with a number of the City Corporation’s key audiences and stakeholders, as outlined in the Communications Strategy 2014-2017 . In addition, the IPPR’s work aligns with the City Corporation’s wider economic development priorities.
Contact: Adam Maddock Assistant Director of Public Relations: Corporate Affairs 020 7332 1771 [email protected]
Page 123 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 124 Agenda Item 18
Committee : Policy and Resources Date : 8 May 2014
Subject: Centre for London: Sponsorship of Thames Crossings Project
Report of: Director of Public Relations For Decision
Summary
The Centre for London is a politically independent, not-for-profit think tank; it was established in 2011 with the assistance of £25,000 of start-up funding from the City Corporation. The Centre for London focuses on the big policy challenges facing London; its objective is to help London become a fairer, more prosperous and sustainable city – in so doing, the Centre has established a high media profile and is recognised as having made significant contributions to London policy debates.
Recent research conducted by the Centre for London highlighted how the entire Thames Estuary area is being held back by the lack of river crossings.The Centre for London is now planning a project to develop this research further. The project would take the form of a commission of senior figures from government, academia, civil society, architectural firms, planning consultancies and business representatives; the commission will be chaired by the former Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis. The aim of the project is to draw up detailed and realistic plans for the construction of crossings on the East Thames.
Recommendation
This report recommends sponsorship of the Centre for London project on East Thames crossings at a cost of £15,000 to be met from your Committee’s Policy Initiatives Fund 2014/15, categorised under the Research section of the Fund and charged to City’s Cash .
Background 1. The Centre for London is a politically independent, not-for-profit think tank. It was established as an independent entity in 2011 with the assistance of £25,000 of start-up funding from the City Corporation. The Centre was originally incubated by Demos but funding from the City of London Corporation helped the Centre to expand its activities and become independent of Demos. The City Corporation has also provided additional core funding since then.
Page 125 2. Through its research and events, the Centre is uniquely placed to act as a ‘critical friend’ to London’s leaders and policymakers, by promoting a wider understanding of the challenges facing London and developing long term, rigorous policy solutions for the capital. In so doing, the Centre has established a high media profile and is recognised as having made significant contributions to London policy debates, especially through its well-attended annual conferences. It has also developed good relations with the capital’s political, business and third sector leaders, as well as academia. Research highlights have included well-received reports on housing, Tech City and the future of London’s transport infrastructure.
3. The Centre is made up of a core team led by Ben Rogers, its director, and Abigail Malortie, its associate director, with support from freelance researchers as required.The Centre for London’s Advisory Board is chaired by Liz Meek (the former director of the Government Office for London) – its members include the Policy Chairman, former Policy Chairman Michael Cassidy, James Crabtree (Financial Times), and Shaks Ghosh (Chief Executive of the Private Equity Foundation). The Centre has partnered with and secured finance from a diverse range of financial institutions and businesses including BT, PwC, KPMG, Nomura, JP Morgan, Cisco, Thames Water, McKinsey, Serco, Capgemini, Qatari Diar Delancey and the BVCA.
Proposal 4. There are 16 fixed river crossings between Kew and Tower Bridge. East of Tower Bridge, there are no road bridges for 20 miles and only two limited tunnel crossings. Despite detailed proposals for several new river crossings in this eastern section of the Thames being actively considered for almost 35 years, only one new bridge has been completed on the East Thames over the past century. Recent Centre for London research has highlighted how this lack of connectivity has severely hampered housing growth and economic development on both sides of the Thames in this area; in the report Go East: Unlocking the Potential of the Thames Estuary , the Centre for London recommended the creation of a Thames Crossings Development Corporation in order to facilitate the construction of new bridges.
5. The Centre for London is now planning a project to develop this research further. The project would take the form of a commission of senior figures from government, academia, civil society, architectural firms, planning consultancies and business representatives. It will be chaired by the former Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis, supported by a secretariat. The aim of the project is to draw up detailed and realistic plans for the construction of crossings on the East Thames. The research would draw
Page 126 upon the expertise of the commission’s members and their respective organisations, as well as existing research and consultations on East Thames river crossings. A literature review of international examples of similar projects would be conducted to identify methods for delivering the projects swiftly and in a cost-effective fashion. The findings of the project would be launched at a high-profile event in London, and actively promoted in local and national media with the aid of pictorial representation of potential new crossings.
6. The budget for the project is £38,400; the Centre for London is seeking £15,000 from the City Corporation as part of the overall funding package which includes a number of high-profile corporate bodies. If the City of London Corporation were to sponsor the project, the Policy Chairman would receive a suitable speaking slot at the high-profile launch event and the City Corporation would be acknowledged on all publicity relating to it.
7. The work of the Centre for London and this project in particular accords well with the role of the City Corporation in promoting debate on key policy issues that affect the City and London. The relationship with this think-tank allows for high level interaction with a number of the City Corporation’s key audiences and stakeholders, as outlined in the Communications Strategy 2014-2017. In addition, the Centre’s research and events align with the City Corporation’s strategy of using its resources to support London’s communities, especially in neighbouring boroughs, and its wider economic development priorities.
Financial Implications 8. Although sponsorship is also being acquired from other sources for this project, the contribution from the City Corporation will form an important part of the overall funding package. It is proposed that the required funding of £15,000 is drawn from your Policy Initiatives Fund 2014/15, categorised under the Research section of the Fund and charged to City’s Cash . 1. The current uncommitted balance available within your Committee’s Policy Initiatives Fund 2014/15 amounts to £467,000 prior to any allowance being made for any other proposals on today’s agenda.
Conclusion 2. The work of the Centre for London and this project in particular accords well with the role of the City Corporation in promoting debate on key policy issues that affect the City and London. The City Corporation’s relationship with this think tank enables a high level interaction to take
Page 127 place with a number of key audiences and stakeholders, as outlined in the Communications Strategy 2014-2017. In addition, the Centre’s research and events aligns with the City Corporation’s strategy of using its resources to support London’s communities, especially in neighbouring boroughs, and its wider economic development priorities.
Contact:
Adam Maddock Assistant Director of Public Relations: Corporate Affairs 020 7332 1771 [email protected]
Page 128 Agenda Item 19
Committee : Policy and Resources Date: 8 May, 2014
Subject: Public Relations Office Activities Report: Public January-March, 2014
Report of: Director of Public Relations For Information
Summary This report updates Members on Public Relations Office activities since the report submitted to your Committee in January 2014.
Activities in this report relate to the Communications Strategy 2013- 2016 and Public Relations Office Business Plan 2013- 2016; it covers the period January to March 2014.
Recommendation The Committee is recommended to receive this report on Public Relations Office activities during the period January to March, 2014.
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report highlights the activities undertaken by the Public Relations Office in the period January-March 2014, in support of the organisation’s medium-term communications objectives, as detailed respectively in the Communications Strategy 2013-2016 and the Public Relations Office Business Plan , as well as new or enhanced areas of work not necessarily covered by the Strategy . 1.2 Work on new/social media
During this quarter, the PR Office has continued to produce a number of videos, focusing on the breadth of services provided by the City Corporation and other key strategic objectives, such as highlighting the City Corporation’s work in partnership with London’s Communities. More than 160 videos about the City Corporation are now available to view and the corporate Twitter feed now has over 10,000 followers. In addition, the PR Office has been trialling several social media monitoring systems which track issues in a sophisticated and proactive fashion.
1 Page 129 1.3 Media coverage
Throughout this quarter, there were 764 City Corporation stories in the UK print media. 247 (32%) of these stories were related to financial services issues, with the remaining 517 (68%) related to City Corporation services. By comparison, from 1 September-31 December 2013, there were 831 City Corporation stories in the UK print media. 293 (35%) of these stories were related to financial services, with the remaining 592 (65%) related to services. In the last equivalent quarter, January-March 2013, there were 962 City Corporation stories in the UK print media – 349 (36%) of these stories were related to financial services, with the remaining 613 (64%) related to services.
1.4 Political Contact Programme
The period since the last report has seen considerable activity on the political contact programme. The City Corporation has engaged with relevant politicians on issues including financial services, business visas, the UK’s relationship with the European Union, infrastructure, arts and culture, and education. The Policy Chairman has had meetings, or hosted roundtable discussions, with the Leader of the House of Lords Lord Hill, the Enterprise and Skills Minister Matt Hancock MP, the Cities Minister Greg Clark MP, the Deputy Prime Minister’s Europe Adviser Michael Moore MP, the Arts Minister Ed Vaizey MP, the Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt MP, and the Shadow Skills Minister Rushanara Ali MP. Future activity is already scheduled with the Education Secretary Michael Gove, the Minister for Government Policy Oliver Letwin MP, the Europe Minister David Lidington MP, the Employment Minister Esther McVey MP, and the Shadow City Minister Cathy Jamieson MP.
1.5 Voter communication
The electoral registration process has now been completed. A new design and content was devised for letters, leaflets, forms, the campaign logo and posters. Three mailings took place over the course of the registration period. The structure of the website content was also reviewed by both PRO and Electoral Services to make things easier to find, more attractive and more intuitive.
2 Page 130 1.6 Publishing
The next edition of Cityview magazine is due for distribution in June to around 23,000 stakeholders; alongside the regular interview slot, it is likely to feature a reminder of voter registration forms arriving shortly after and the newly launched City Corporation ‘local service’ app. The latest edition of Cityview Online went live in March covering the Hampstead Heath dams, airport capacity, economic research, and stress- related health issues. The latest issue of City Resident was published in February; the next edition is also due to be published in June and will include a four page City Police Talkback insert. A production schedule for the next ward newsletters has been sent to editors with a view to the newsletters being distributed in June.
2.0 SUPPORTING AND PROMOTING THE CITY AS THE WORLD LEADER IN INTERNATIONAL FINANCE AND BUSINESS SERVICES 2.1 A new version of the City of London fact card is being devised for production in May 2014. Based around City statistics, this pocket-sized introduction to the City will use graphics to illustrate the figures and make it more interesting for readers. This is being produced in conjunction with the Economic Development Office.
2.2 Activity associated with this communications priority has included a speech and dinner on Europe with the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg MP and a visit by the Police Minister Damian Green MP to the City of London Police’s Economic Crime Directorate led by the Police Commissioner, as well as roundtable discussions with the Immigration Minister Mark Harper MP and Shadow Immigration Minister David Hanson MP. Future activity includes roundtable discussions with the Europe Minister David Lidington MP and Shadow City Minister Cathy Jamieson MP.
2.3 The Corporate Twitter feed continues to promote our work in this area. Research reports are still very popular, generating new followers and many re-tweets. Recent months have shown that a mix of hard news and light-hearted facts about our work seems to work well – something which is demonstrated by the large number of re-tweets. The rate of new followers continues to increase with more than 10,000 at present (a quarterly increase of more than 1,000).
3 Page 131 2.4 A number of videos have been uploaded to the corporate YouTube channel and tweeted to appropriate channels, depending on the subject matter and end users.
2.5 Media coverage in this area included:
• Coverage featuring the Lord Mayor included widespread coverage of her visits to Hong Kong and Taiwan, Scotland, the Gulf, and Turkey. The launch of the Lord Mayor’s Power of Diversity programme was covered by the FT , Forbes , Evening Standard [internal only] , ITV News , BBC London News TV , BBC London 94.9 and HR Grapevine . The Lord Mayor wrote a blog for the Huffington Post on diversity in business and International Women’s Day. Her speech condemning Female Genital Mutilation was also covered by the Evening Standard.
• Media coverage of the Policy Chairman included an op-ed in the Evening Standard focusing on immigration ahead of a debate at Guildhall. He was also quoted by AFP , Yahoo News , France 24 , MENAFN and The Economic Times on the announcement that the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds is relocating from Washington to the City. City AM , The Times , Property Week , London Loves Business and CoStar reported a City Corporation and City Property Association report examining trends in the Square Mile office market. His visits to Germany and Portugal were covered, respectively, by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Jornal de Negócios . He was also quoted in the FT following the publication of the most recent GFCI survey.
• The FT reported on a new partnership between the City of London Police and UK banks. Steve Head, City of London Police commander and national economic crime co-ordinator, is quoted at length.
• Real Business discussed the City Corporation’s plans to improve workplace health . Community & Children’s Services Chairman Rev Martin Dudley is quoted.
3.0 COMMUNICATIONS PRIORITY: WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP LONDON’S COMMUNITIES
3.1 In the previous quarter, events associated with this communications priority have included a dinner discussion on youth unemployment with the Shadow Skills Minister Rushanara Ali MP, a seminar on the future of Cities with Cities Minister Greg Clark MP, and a seminar on education in London with Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt MP. Future
4 Page 132 activity includes an event on School Governors with the Education Secretary Michael Gove MP and dinner with the Skills Minister Matt Hancock MP.
3.2 The media team is currently building a bank of approximately 40 case studies to illustrate how the projects supported by the City Corporation help to change the lives of Londoners, especially in the area of education and skills development.
3.3 Media coverage for this communications priority included:
• The Barking and Dagenham Post reports that the City Bridge Trust has launched a mobile map to help Londoners uncover green spaces around them.
• Policy Chairman Mark Boleat is referenced in an article in Hackney Today about the City Corporation’s City Business Traineeships programme.
• The City Corporation and its funding for Crossrail are mentioned in an FT article about proposed Gulf investment for the rail project’s public art programme.
4.0 COMMUNICATIONS PRIORITY: HELPING TO LOOK AFTER LONDON’S HERITAGE AND GREEN SPACES 4.1 Activity associated with this communications priority has included dinners with the then Culture Secretary Maria Miller MP and Arts Minister Ed Vaizey MP, as well as a reception to highlight the Crossrail Arts Programme. Future political contact activity in this area will include a private dinner with the new Culture Secretary Sajid Javid MP.
4.2 A small publication devoted to the Hampstead Heath Pond Project has been emailed to political contacts and hard copies made available to the public in the areas surrounding the Heath. Delivery by mail of the publication to properties around the Heath is planned for June.
5.3 A business card-shaped list of World Cup fixtures is currently being developed following a similar project in the past. This proved to be a huge success with City audiences when given away outside City stations with one side devoted to fixture lists and the other promoting the City Corporation’s activities.
5.4 Media coverage for this communications priority included:
5 Page 133 • The Guardian reports that a ‘cultural hub’ is proposed for the Square Mile, with the City of London Corporation’s Barbican Centre and Museum of London working together to turn the City into ‘an exciting, accessible, open place'.
• Bill Oddie, the broadcaster and wildlife expert, who supports the City of London Corporation’s plans to strengthen existing dams at Hampstead Heath, was quoted backing the plans in the Evening Standard , The Daily Telegraph and The Ham & High .
• Blue & Green Tomorrow and Business Green run articles on a pledge by City firms to tackle poor air quality. John Tomlinson and Wendy Mead, Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Port Health and Environmental Services Committee, are quoted.
6.0 OTHER PRO ACTIVITIES/UPDATES 6.1 Online
As part of the current work to ensure that all PDFs uploaded to the corporate website meet accessibility requirements, training courses have been created in conjunction with IS/Agilisys for City Corporation staff. A workshop is also being held in April for City Corporation staff and external designers to take them through the key points of the accessibility requirements.
The results of this year’s SOCITM Better Connected report were a disappointing 2 stars, but there was an overall drop off in rankings for all sites due to the change in criteria. The Deputy Town Clerk is reviewing how to redress how this affects user journeys.
Customer Carewords has been engaged to act as consultants to help improve user engagement on the website. Work is currently underway to identify the project team and this ties in with a wider work programme in IS on customer access/service, including improving the site for mobile devices and creating governance documentation.
6.2 Events
The Corporate Affairs team has delivered a wide and varied programme of events and political contact in this quarter. Highlights included:
• Crossrail Arts Programme Reception (13 January)
6 Page 134 A reception hosted to inform key audiences of sponsorship opportunities in the Culture Line – a project to bring ground-breaking, permanent art installations into the central Crossrail stations.. The Minister for Culture, Ed Vaizey MP, and the Minister for Transport, Stephen Hammond MP, both spoke at the event.
• Evening Standard Debate on Immigration (3 March)
Guildhall hosted an Evening Standard Debate on immigration. Over 700 member of the public attended; the panellists included Tessa Jowell MP, Simon Walker, David Lammy MP, Nigel Farage MEP, David Goodhart, and Melanie McDonagh. The Chairman held a private reception for the Editor of the Evening Standard, Sarah Sands, the speakers and others after the debate.
• Sustainable City Awards (19 March) The annual Sustainable City Awards were hosted at Mansion House by The Lord Mayor. Over 250 guests attended, with the overall award being presented to Rosh Engineering.
6.3 Filming
The first quarter of 2014 has seen the number of filming days in the City up by 13% from the first three months of the last year to 255 shoots. ‘Survivor’ (starring Pierce Brosnan) and ‘Suffragettes’ (starring Meryl Streep and Carey Mulligan) have both filmed several days in the City. TV Dramas ‘24’ and ‘Law and Order’ have also been filming in the City. ‘Our Kind of Traitor’ (starring Ewan McGregor) has approached the City for a shoot in April, while Coca Cola and Jaguar are both filming commercials in the City in the near future.
6.4 Internal communications
With the Investors in People accreditation coming up for renewal, it has been suggested that the proposed Staff Survey be replaced by feedback gathered from the IIP focus groups, with special attention on communications and staff engagement. Internal Communications is now working on a communication plan to promote and support the IIP programme going forward. In addition, Internal Communications is part of a team involved with the redevelopment of the Staff Suggestion Scheme.
The latest edition of The Leader is currently under production. Articles will include pieces on the service-based reviews, consultation database
7 Page 135 and diary, an interview with the new City Marshal, Philip Jordan, City Surveyor’s activities during the winter storms, and a feature on IS.
Internal Communications has also played an integral part in organising the Senior Management Forum (5 February) and Managers’ Forum (7 April).
6.5 Database
The Database Team are continuing the annual ward survey to update the City Occupiers Database after supporting the electoral services team in the annual 2013 business registration process.
6.6 Think tank engagement
The City Corporation has engaged with a wide range of think tanks during this period. These have included the IPPR, Reform, Progress, Policy Network, Chatham House and the Centre for London.
6.7 Polling
Ipsos Mori was commissioned to undertake polling of senior business opinion on the British-EU relationship; the results of the survey were communicated to Members and officers during this quarter. In addition, TNS has been commissioned to undertake further polling to determine the reasons for the dissatisfaction with public conveniences during the polling of key audiences in 2013.
7.0 PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICE WORKING ENVIRONMENT AND BUDGET 7.1 The Public Relations Office continues to work closely with the Economic Development Office, the Remembrancer’s Department and Mansion House, as well as other Departments across the organisation, to ensure successful improved coordination of work. In addition, PRO is working closely with EDO and Remembrancer’s Department on political developments in the UK and EU and their impact on the City.
7.2 The table below shows a comparison of revenue budget for the Public Relations Office (Local Risk) with actual income and expenditure for the period January to March 2014.
8 Page 136
Approved Budget Budget for Actual Variance PR Office 2013/14 (£) Period (£) (£) (£)
Total Net Income and 2,401,000 613,500 607,000 6,500 expenditure
Background Papers: Members will find it useful to refer to the ‘ Communications Strategy 2013-2016’ and ‘Public Relations Office Business Plan 2013-2016’.
Contact: Tony Halmos Director of Public Relations [email protected] 020 7332 1450
9 Page 137 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 138 Agenda Item 20
Committee: Policy and Resources Date: 8 May 2014
Subject: Chairman’s visit to Mumbai and New Delhi, India Public 24– 26 March 2014.
Report of: For Information Director of Economic Development Summary
This report advises Members of the outcomes of the recent visit by your Chairman to Mumbai and New Delhi, 24 – 26 March 2014.
The purpose of the visit was to demonstrate the City’s commitment to cooperation and exchange in financial services with India and to strengthen links with the Indian government and financial services sector.
The visit provided insights into the current thinking of the City of London’s key public and private sector stakeholders in India and raised the profile of the City of London Corporation as a partner for bilateral links between the two countries.
Successful bilaterals were held with the Ministry of Finance, central bank (RBI) and the securities regulator (SEBI). In addition, roundtable discussions were held with significant financial services practitioners on the topics of the role of the rupee in global markets; India’s corporate bond market and the reform of India’s economic policy. The meeting of the Advisory Council for India was well attended, and the visit helped to deepen the City of London’s relationship with Council members. The next Advisory Council meeting is scheduled for the autumn in London.
Recommendation
Members are asked to note the report.
Main Report
Background 1. Your Committee previously approved an annual visit to India by your Chairman. This annual visit builds on the work of the Advisory Council and the City of London Representative Office in Mumbai to promote the interests of the UK-based financial and related business services sector and strengthen trade and investment links between India and the UK.
2. Your Chairman visited Mumbai and New Delhi 24-26 March 2014; he was accompanied by the International Affairs Officer (China and India), EDO. The principal objective of the visit was to attend the City of London India Advisory Council and further develop the City of London’s links with the financial and
Page 139 professional services industry in India. The visit also helped the City to reinforce messages in advance of the upcoming Indian elections.
3. The visit programme included meetings with a Deputy-Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Ministry of Finance and the City of London Advisory Council for India. Key events participated in included practitioner roundtables on currency and bond market development and a keynote speech at an Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (ASIFMA) conference on the Indian repo market and international regulation.
4. Further details of the visit are set out in this report and a list of meetings is attached in the annex.
Main report 5. From meeting with key interlocutors it was clear that the City of London is undertaking valuable work, attracting recognition from a broad range of private and public stakeholders. This continuous engagement through the City of London India programme and via the City of London representative office in Mumbai is of vital importance in promoting long-term financial market development in India, which ultimately will benefit UK based firms over the medium term.
6. The current elections the result of which will be announced on 16 May 2014 are dominating economic and financial discussions in India. The outcome of the election is uncertain though the prevailing view from the business community is that opposition candidate frontrunner Narendra Modi would be most likely to take action on reform and is more in tune with the needs of business than any other alternative.
7. Irrespective of the election result, it is unclear as to how quickly key legislation affecting the financial and professional services sector, such as the long awaited Insurance Act, will be passed. It is likely that the slow rate of economic reform will continue in the short term and the entrenched attitude towards protectionism will dominate the post-election landscape.
8. Although insurance sector development remains a problem, interest in exploring the potential development of reinsurance in India has developed strongly over the past 12 months. The City of London has been asked to support the development of a local practitioner group to advance awareness and understanding of the sector, particular as a way of managing risk globally.
9. Interest in discussing the international use of the rupee has risen significantly in the private sector, in recognition of the value of the global Non-Deliverable Forward (NDF) market. However the RBI remains to be convinced that action should be taken or to acknowledge the market's significance.
10. The City of London practitioner led corporate bond working group has gained traction with regulators and local market players. The group is continuing to
Page 140 review existing legislation and to establish new proposals for market development.
Corporate & Strategic Implications 11. The visit to India by your Chairman supported the vision of the City of London’s 2013-2017 Corporate Plan and the strategic aim: “To support and promote The City as the world leader in international finance and business services”.
12. It also met the strategic aim of the Economic Development Office to “promote the City as Europe’s and the world’s preeminent financial and business centre, supporting City interests in global markets, attracting inward investment and building stronger links with other parts of the UK”.
Implications 13. Travel, accommodation, hospitality and incidental expenses for this visit were in accordance with the Business Travel Scheme. The total cost of the visit, including flights and accommodation was under £10,000.
14. Equal opportunities considerations have been taken into account in the preparation of this report and we are content that there is no negative impact.
Conclusion 15. The visit provided valuable insights into the current thinking of the City of London’s key public and private sector stakeholders in India. The City of London’s efforts in supporting the development of the Indian financial sector was recognised and appreciated by Indian and UK firms, and by the India’s regulators and officials.
16. The meeting of the City of London Advisory Council for India was well attended, and the visit helped to deepen the City of London’s relationship with the Council. There was strong support for further dialogue between the UK and India on financial sector issues, specifically the development of the corporate debt market, the establishment of an international reinsurance sector and exploring international attitudes to the international use of the rupee, which will be followed up by the EDO and the City of London representative office in Mumbai.
Appendices
• Appendix – Programme for the Policy Chairman’s visit to India 24 – 26 March 2014.
Angela Lynch International Affairs Officer (India and China)
T: 020 7332 3659 E: [email protected]
Page 141 Appendix 1 – Visit programme
Time Event 15.00hrs Roundtable : Non Deliverable Forward (NDF) markets for BRIC – currencies – Trends and Prospects 17.00hrs
17.30hrs- Roundtable : Corporate Bonds 19.30hrs Resolution and Recovery : evaluating the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Act, 2002 (SARFAESI)
19.30hrs- Meeting with Mr Deepak Parekh, Chairman HDFC 20.30hrs
20.30hrs- Dinner with Mr Kumar Iyer, British Deputy High Commissioner 22.00hrs BDHC, Mumbai
Time Event
09.00hrs – Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association 10.30hrs (ASIFMA) conference : India Repo markets Keynote speech- Global regulatory trends and the post financial crisis landscape
11.00hrs- City of London India Advisory Council Meeting 12.45hrs 13.00hrs- Advisory Council Lunch 14.45hrs Book Presentation & Discussion : The Third Curve – the end of growth as we know it by Mansoor Khan 15.30 hrs- Meeting with H.R. Khan 16.30hrs Deputy Governor – Reserve Bank of India
17.30hrs – Meeting with UK Sinha, Chairman - SEBI 18.30hrs
20.20hrs Depart for New Delhi
Page 142
Time Event
10.30hrs FICCI -City of London Economic roundtable: – Redefining India’s Economic Policy 12.30hrs
12.30hrs- Lunch with the roundtable participants 13.30hrs
16.30hrs- Meeting with Anup Wadhawan 17.30hrs Jt. Secretary – Dept. Of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance and Chairman of PFRDA
Page 143 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 144 Agenda Item 21
Committee : Policy and Resources Committee Date : 08 May 2014
Subject: Policy Initiatives Fund/Committee Contingency Public
Report of: Chamberlain For Information
Summary
1. The purpose of the Policy Initiatives Fund 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 Committee contingency is used to fund unforeseen items of expenditure when no specific provision exists within Committee budgets such as hosting one-off events.
3. In identifying which items would sit within the Policy Initiatives Fund the following principles were applied:
• 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
4. The attached schedules list the projects and activities which have received funding for 2014/15. Whilst the schedule shows expenditure to be incurred in this financial year, some projects have been given multi-year financial support (please see the “Notes” column). It should be noted that the items referred to have been the subject of previous reports approved by this Committee.
5. Having taken account of the unallocated balances brought forward from 2013/14 and the approved projects which have been re-phased from 2013/14 to 2014/15, the balances that are currently available in the Policy Initiatives Fund and the Committee contingency for 2014/15 are £367,600 and £156,000 respectively.
Recommendation 6. It is recommended that the contents of the schedules are noted.
Contact: Ray Green 020 7332 1332 [email protected]
Page 145 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 146 POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - POLICY INITIATIVES FUND 2014/15 ALLOCATIONS FROM PIF STATUS OF BALANCE ACTUAL COMMITTEE RESP PAID BALANCE DATE DESCRIPTION OFFICER ALLOCATION TO 22/04/14 TO BE SPENT NOTES £ £ £
Events 19/09/13 Policy Exchange Conference: the future of financial services in the City of DPR 15,000 0 15,000 Originally allocated from 2013/14, deferred to London and the UK - sponsorship towards this leading independent centre-right 2014/15 think tank: COL to assist in the cost of organising the conference
21/11/13 London Councils' London Summit - the City is to host the annual conference for DPR 14,600 0 14,600 3 year funding - £15,400 in 2015/16 & £16,100 in 3 years 2016/17 12/12/13 Institute for Government: Sponsorship of an events programme on 'Government DPR 25,000 25,000 0 Originally allocated from 2013/14, deferred to and the Economy'. City of London to be sole sponsor of this independent cross- 2014/15 party charity
20/02/14 Centre for Policy Studies (CPS): sponsorship of Margaret Thatcher Conference - DPR 45,000 0 45,000 to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the CPS, a leading centre - right think tank
Urgency Funding for an Education Dinner - to enhance the City Corporation's profile TC 5,000 0 5,000 Page 147 within the education policy environment
Promoting the City 02/05/13 TheCityUK: CoL's additional funding DED 100,000 0 100,000 3 year funding: £100,000 in 2015/16 and £75,000 in 2016/17
25/07/13 City of London Singapore strategy: City of London to commission a scoping DED 10,200 0 10,200 £40,000 originally allocated from 2013/14, paper to investigate the opportunites for developing a substantial regulatory £10,200 deferred to 2014/15 dialogue with Singapore 20/02/14 Sponsor the "New FinTech UK" Initiative - Creation of a new body to promote DED 500,000 0 500,000 3 year funding: £250,000 in 2015/16 and 2016/17 and support the 'FinTech' (financial technology) sector
Communities 04/10/12 New Entrepreneurs Foundation (NEF) - sponsorship of NEF, a not-for-profit DED 20,000 20,000 0 3 year funding: £20,000 final payment in 2014/15 organisation focussing on equipping young entrepreneurs to run scalable businesses
24/01/13 Social Investment Advisor: further extension to the dedicated specialist role, to DED/CGO 1,500 1,200 300 Jointly funded by Policy and Resources and the help accelerate to the Social Investment agenda in London - to March 2014 City Bridge Trust. £50,000 originally allocated from 2013/14, £1,500 deferred to 2014/15
14/02/13 Angels in the City: continued support to deliver the Angels in the City Initiative, DED 25,000 0 25,000 Further 2 year funding: £25,000 final payment in providing an opportunity for the City Corporation to demonstrate clear support 2014/15 for early stage businesses in its neighbouring boroughs, notably in the Tech City cluster ALLOCATIONS FROM PIF STATUS OF BALANCE ACTUAL COMMITTEE RESP PAID BALANCE DATE DESCRIPTION OFFICER ALLOCATION TO 22/04/14 TO BE SPENT NOTES £ £ £ 22/03/13 Continued sponsorship of Teach First through support of its Higher Education DED 18,000 0 18,000 3 year funding: £18,000 final payment in 2015/16 Access Programme for Schools
27/06/13 Institute of Corporate Responsibility (ICR): CoL to be lead supporter of this DED 25,000 0 25,000 2 year funding: £25,000 final payment in 2014/15 new not-for-profit organisation for Corporate Responsibility practitioners 10/10/13 Sponsorship of London Works - a social enterprise temporary recruitment DED 50,000 0 50,000 2 year funding: final payment in 2014/15 agency: CoL's contribution to London Works, an agency set up by the East London Business Alliance, with the aim to place over 3,000 young people into temporary/contract roles with the City and Canary Wharf in its first 5 years
23/01/14 Sponsorship of Tech London Advocates 2014 Programmes: City of London to DED 34,000 12,600 21,400 £50,000 originally allocated from 2013/14; provide sponsorship to Tech London Advocates (TLA), a growing coalition of £34,000 deferred until 2014/15 450+ individuals predominantly from the private sector with an interest in promoting the growth of the technology "tech" sector in London
20/02/14 Access Europe - City Corporation to become one of four core supporters of a DED 50,000 0 50,000 3 year funding: £50,000 in 2015/16 & 2016/17 European Funding hub to improve access to EU funding for London's public and voluntary organisations Page 148 20/02/14 Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Careers Event - to DED 30,000 0 30,000 raise awareness of STEM - subject careers in a way that is attractive to girls - hosted in Guildhall
20/02/14 TeenTech City 2014 - 2017 - support for annual events aiming to change DED 10,000 10,000 0 3 year funding: £10,000 in 2015/16 & 2016/17 perceptions of STEM careers in the UK
20/03/14 STEM and Policy Education Programme - funding of the Hampstead Heath DOS 51,000 0 51,000 3 year funding: £50,000 in 2015/16 & £43,000 in Ponds Project 2016/17
Research 10/11/11 Proposed Polling of City Stakeholders - to carry out surveys of the City of DPR 12,100 0 12,100 £61,700 originally allocated from 2013/14, London Corporation's key audiences, namely City workers, City residents, City £12,100 deferred to 2014/15 businesses and senior City executives
13/12/12 Financial support of the Mile End Group (MEG) (the Queen Mary, University DPR 20,000 0 20,000 Originally allocated from 2013/14, deferred to of London's forum for government and politics) - COL sponsorship 2014/15
25/07/13 Smith Institute: research project on innovative long term individual financial DPR 9,000 0 9,000 £18,000 originally allocated from 2013/14, £9,000 products: City of London to sponsor this project carried out by this leading deferred to 2014/15 independent `think tank' ALLOCATIONS FROM PIF STATUS OF BALANCE ACTUAL COMMITTEE RESP PAID BALANCE DATE DESCRIPTION OFFICER ALLOCATION TO 22/04/14 TO BE SPENT NOTES £ £ £ 10/10/13 Local Government Information Unit (LGiU): Corporate Subscription for DPR 10,000 0 10,000 2 year funding - final payment in 2014/15 Members and Officers: CoL's subscription to this `local democracy think tank', allowing Members to receive high-quality information and research from experts about issues affecting local government in London boroughs and across the UK. This will also allow for high-level interaction with a number of the City of London Corporation's key audiences
10/10/13 Centre for London: Core Funding: continued support to enable this 'politically DPR 20,000 0 20,000 2 year funding - final payment in 2014/15 independent not-for-profit think tank' to further establish itself as a pillar of London policymaking through expansion of its research and activities.
20/03/14 Sponsorship of Demos Research Project - Young Muslim Employment - A DPR 15,000 0 15,000 multi-purpose cross-party think tank, project to examine employment among young Muslims Attracting and Retaining International Organisations 19/09/13 International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC) - City of London to support CS 50,000 0 50,000 5 year funding - £50k per year until 2018/19 the accommodation costs of the IVSC Page 149 1,165,400 68,800 1,096,600 BALANCE REMAINING 467,100 TOTAL APPROVED BUDGET 1,632,500 ANALYSIS OF TOTAL APPROVED BUDGET ORIGINAL PROVISION 750,000 APPROVED BROUGHT FORWARD FROM 2013/14 882,500 TOTAL APPROVED BUDGET 1,632,500
NOTES: (i) The Committee date records the actual approval meeting; in some instances approval is given for multi-year support for a project but the financial details in this table only show the expenditure due in the current year (2014/15). It should be noted that actual payments sometimes are made towards the end of a financial year.
KEY TO RESPONSIBLE OFFICER:- MBC Managing Director Barbican Centre DPR Director of Public Relations CGO Chief Grants Officer DED DirectorDirector ofof EconomicEconomic DevelopmentDevelopment CPO City PlanningDOS Officer Director of Open Spaces DBE Director of the Built Environment TC Town Clerk CS City Surveyor DCCS Director of Community & Childrens Services
CAROLINE AL-BEYERTY - FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR This page is intentionally left blank
Page 150 POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - POLICY INITIATIVES FUND
2014/2015 £
POLICY INITIATIVES FUND - Balance remaining prior to this meeting 467,100
Less possible maximum allocations from this meeting
Additional Events & Topical Issues Programme 55,000 Sponsorship of IPPR Project on Emerging Markets 22,500 Centre of London: Sponsorship of Thames Crossing Project 15,000 G8 Global Dementia Summit 7,000 99,500
367,600
Caroline Al-Beyerty Financial Services Director
Page 151 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 152 POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - CONTINGENCIES 2014/15 ALLOCATIONS FROM CONTINGENCY STATUS OF BALANCE ACTUAL COMMITTEE RESP PAID BALANCE DATE DESCRIPTION OFFICER ALLOCATION TO 22/04/14 TO BE SPENT NOTES £ £ £
21/07/11 800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta - administrative costs of Anniversary DPR 10,000 0 10,000 4 year funding: £10,000 final payment in 2014/15 Committee, to carry out work to mark the anniversary of the Magna Carta in 2015
05/07/12 New London Architecture - proposal for continued City of London support CS 16,700 0 16,700 3 year funding: £16,700 final payment in 2014/15 as a principal sponsor
14/02/13 Platinum Partnership with London & Partners - the official promotional DCHL 25,000 25,000 0 3 year funding: £25,000 final payment in 2015/16 organisation for London 22/03/13 City of London Advertising - continuation of placing advertisements in DPR 50,000 0 50,000 2 year funding: £50,000 final payment in 2014/15 CityAM to promote services provided by COL
22/03/13 City of London Reserved Forces' Cadets' Association: continued funding of TC 42,000 0 42,000 3 year funding - £42,000 final payment in 2015/16. the RFCA Previously the funding has been met by the Finance Grant Sub Committee Page 153 Urgency Event to celebrate the FINA/NVC Diving World Series TC 1,500 0 1,500
27/06/13 The Mayor's Thames Festival: support for an education project known as DPR 12,000 0 12,000 3 year funding - £12,000 final payment in 2015/16 The Rivers of the World - an annual free festival to celebrate the River Thames through arts, music & education
27/06/13 Lord Mayor's Show Fireworks: City of London Corporation to hold a DPR 115,000 0 115,000 2 year funding - final payment in 2014/15. Additional public fireworks display following the LM's Show £22,000 agreed March 2014
10/10/13 Sponsorship of Digital Shoreditch 2014: further funding to cover additional DED 19,700 3,000 16,700 2 year funding - £6,800final payment in 2014/15 in-kind support in the form of three 'meet-up' events (ie events/hospitality at Guildhall)
21/11/13 Chelsea Flower Show 2014: to support the exhibition of an art DOS 9,000 0 9,000 Final payment in 2014/15 installation/concept garden to raise awareness of the threat of Oak Processionary Moth (OPM) to London's tree population
21/11/13 Supporting the City of London Corporation's Programme of European DED / DPR 179,800 0 179,800 2 year funding - £29,800 deferred from 2013/14 Engagement: CoL's additional funding towards the debates about Britain's relationship with the EU ALLOCATIONS FROM CONTINGENCY STATUS OF BALANCE ACTUAL COMMITTEE RESP PAID BALANCE DATE DESCRIPTION OFFICER ALLOCATION TO 22/04/14 TO BE SPENT NOTES £ £ £ 23/01/14 Career fairs - City of London Corporation to host up to three events per DED 53,300 2,593 50,707 3 year funding - £18,300 deferred from 2013/14, year to enhance employability of young people in neighbouring £35,000 final payment in 2015/16 communities
20/03/14 800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta - additional financial support for a DPR 72,000 0 72,000 2 year funding - £16,000 in 2015/16 number of additional activities as the 2015 anniversary approaches
606,000 30,593 575,407 BALANCE REMAINING 194,000 TOTAL APPROVED BUDGET 800,000 Page 154 NOTE: The Committee date records the actual approval meeting; in some instances approval is given for multi-year support for a project but the financial details in this table only show the expenditure due in the current year (2014/15). It should be noted that actual payments sometimes are made towards the end of a financial year.
KEY TO RESPONSIBLE OFFICER:- CH Chamberlain DPR Director of Public Relations CGO Chief Grants Officer DED DirectorDirector of of Economic Economic Development Development CPO City PlanningCPO Officer City Planning Officer DBE Director of the Built Environment TC Town Clerk CS City Surveyor DCCS Director of Community & Childrens Services DOS Director of Open Spaces DCHL Director of Culture, Heritage and Libraries
CAROLINE AL-BEYERTY - FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - CONTINGENCY
2014/2015 £
CONTINGENCY - Balance remaining prior to this meeting 194,000
Less possible maximum allocations from this meeting
Support for Major Sports Events 23,000 Cheapside Business Improvement District 15,000
38,000
Balance 156,000
Caroline Al-Beyerty Financial Services Director
Page 155 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 156 Agenda Item 22
Committee: Policy and Resources Date: 8 May 2014 Subject: Decisions taken under delegated Public authority or urgency powers Report of: Town Clerk For Information
Summary
1. This report advises Members of action taken by the Town Clerk in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman since the last meeting of the Committee, in accordance with Standing Order Nos. 41(a) and 41(b).
Recommendation 2. To note the action taken since the last meeting of the Committee.
Main Report
3. The following action has been taken under the urgency procedures, Standing Order No. 41(a), since the last meeting of the Committee:-
City of London Scholarship: Approval was given to the creation of a scholarship called the City of London Scholarship in the field of Anglo-Irish literature at a cost of £25,000 per annum to be funded initially from the City’s Cash contingency on the basis of a 10 year commitment. The Scholar is due to come into effect for the beginning of the academic year in 2015 and it would be open to Citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who have a close association with Northern Ireland or Citizens of Ireland.
The proposal had the support of the Governor of the Honourable The Irish Society, HM Government and other key stakeholders. Members of the Policy and Resources Committee were also consulted on the matter informally prior to approval.
Urgent action was taken to enable the Rt Hon the Lord Mayor announce the creation of a City of London Scholarship at the Irish State Banquet which took place on 9 April 2014.
Project Approval Procedure: Approval was given to the correction of an error to the threshold for increases to project budgets which require the approval of the Court. It was erroneously noted as £50k instead of £500k. The thresholds for increases are now as follows:-
Page 157
Increase in Project Sum Approval Required £0 to £50,000 or up to 10% Chamberlain (in consultation with the (whichever is lower) Chief Officer for the project) Over £50,000 or more than 10% Spending Committee (whichever is lower) Projects Sub-Committee For projects costing over £5m: Spending Committee Over £500,000 Projects Sub-Committee Court of Common Council
Urgent action was taken as the revised projects approval procedure was to st be considered by the Court of Common Council on 1 May as part of a comprehensive report proposing changes to other aspects of the City Corporation’s Corporate Governance.
Education Dinner: Following on from the City Corporation’s increased focus on education approval was given to the provision of £5,000 towards the cost of an Education Dinner. It was anticipated that the Dinner would assist in raising the City Corporation’s profile within the education policy environment and create links across its own offer. Invitations were to be extended to the Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw and Ofsted’s London schools coordinator as well as others who had contributed to the City’s education offer. The cost of the event was to be met from the Policy Initiatives Fund and would cover venue hire, a reception and dinner.
th Urgent action was taken as the Dinner was due to be held on 28 April 2014 th and the Committee was not due to meet again until 8 May 2014.
4. The following action has been taken under delegated authority Standing Order No. 41(b), since the last meeting of the Committee:-
Barbican Centre Board Terms of Reference: Approval was given to the Board’s terms of reference being amended as follows:-
To be responsible for:-
(a) the strategic direction, management, operation and maintenance of the Barbican Centre, having determined the general principles and financial targets within which the Centre will operate;
(b) the appointment of the Managing Director of the Barbican Centre;
Page 158 (c) the Centre’s contribution to the City of London Corporation’s key policy priority, ‘Increasing the impact of the City’s cultural and heritage offer on the life of London and the nation’, viz: -
i. the provision of world-class arts and learning by the Centre for the education, enlightenment and entertainment of all who visit it; and ii. the provision of access to arts and learning beyond the Centre;
(d) the creation of enterprise and income-generating support for the Centre.
You might recall that at the last meeting the approval of any material change to the terms of reference of the Barbican Centre Board was delegated to the Town Clerk in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman.
Expanded European Engagement Strategy – Proposed Events and Projects
Approval was given to expenditure totalling £22,500 in respect of the following:-
(a) £7,500 to sponsor a high level private dinner hosted by Chatham House with the new UK Permanent Representative Ivan Rogers on 19 May 2014; and
(b) £15,000 to host a half day conference here at Guildhall entitled “ The Future of Europe – ‘How can Financial Services deliver jobs and growth in a reformed Europe” on 23 June 2014 . The conference is being organised by Open Europe (an influential think tank) and would feature a keynote address and three panel sessions followed by a reception and private dinner hosted by the Chairman of this Committee.
You might recall that approval was given to an additional sum of £150,000 being made available in 2014/15 to expand the City Corporation’s European engagement strategy and that the approval of the cost of specific projects to be met from within that sum was delegated to the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman.
Contact: Angela Roach 020 7332 3685 [email protected]
Page 159 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 160 Agenda Item 26a By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 161 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 162 Agenda Item 26b By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 163 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 170 Agenda Item 26c By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 171 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 174 Agenda Item 26d By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 175 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 180 Agenda Item 27 By virtue of paragraph(s) 1, 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 181 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 188 Agenda Item 28 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 189 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 190 Agenda Item 29 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 191 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 194 Agenda Item 30 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 195 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 196