City of London Corporation slammed over new tower approvals

The City of London Corporation has been accused of conflict of interest by some of its own councillors after waving through a string of controversial planning applications. More than 1,250 people have signed a petition claiming to have “no confidence in the City of London Corporation’s current planning process” and demanding that councillors with “extensive property interests” be ruled out of the Corporation’s planning decisions for fear of bias towards developers. The petition was brought forward by Cripplegate ward councillor Mark Bostock, himself a member of the planning committee. The Corporation declined to comment on the petition but its planning committee will officially receive it at its next meeting. The petition claims the Corporation has made a series of “bad planning decisions” in recent months which have “generally ignored reasonable objections made on planning grounds”. The chief examples cited include a scheme submitted by Virgin Islands-registered Arindel Properties to revamp Farringdon office block 150 Aldersgate, EC1, which was approved despite 126 objections from residents as well as the Barbican Association. The petition claims the City of London had an “undisclosed interest” in the plans because it has a stake in the freehold of the property and therefore “benefited financially” from the approval. It adds that the approval would not have been granted without the votes of five planning committee members who also sat on a committee which manages the Corporation’s property interests, including the property in question. Separately, it cited approvals for two major office towers on Gracechurch Street, EC3, from developer Tenacity, owned by Hong Kong-based businessman Patrick Wong. Those were given the green light earlier this year despite heritage groups’ complaints that they would harm views of the Grade I listed Tower of London and the Monument, and overshadow Grade II listed Leadenhall Market. As well as the signatories, many of whom are City residents, the petition has been backed by Tower ward councillor Marianne Fredericks, Cripplegate councillor Susan Pearson and Bassishaw councillor Graeme Harrower. All three are also members of the planning committee. “Eroding democratic accountability” The petition said the City should not go ahead with a proposal to delegate major planning decisions to smaller panels within its broader planning committee so as to “avoid eroding democratic accountability”. “Democratic accountability is already weak within the Corporation because a majority of councillors are (uniquely) elected by small numbers of voters appointed by businesses, only a quarter of which register to vote,” it said. This business vote has led to the planning committee “approving ever taller buildings which blight neighbouring properties and degrade heritage assets,” it added. “Allocating decisions to panels will exacerbate this existing problem.” These calls come months after campaign group Transparency International said the City Corporation needed more safeguards against corruption in its dealings with developers. In a briefing note sent to the Corporation in February, Transparency International said the governing body had a “special responsibility” to take corruption risks seriously given its “global leadership role”. TI warned the risk of a “revolving door” between public and private office had not been addressed, adding there was no explicit ban on councillors taking gifts from people with an interest in planning decisions. It also raised concerns about public access to notes on meetings between developers and councillors, as well as the scope of requirements to report financial interests. To send feedback, e-mail alex.daniel@egi.co.uk or tweet @alexmdaniel or @estatesgazette