This is a more complicated question than it seems. I'd say, yes and no. Leningrad was mentioned in the planning phases and was seen as an important geographical point to seize or destroy, but the first and end-all objective of Barbarossa was destruction of forces rather than destruction or capture of the military centers they originated from; Moscow being the closest thing to an exception. Seizing Leningrad was therefore an objective, but one that was a mean to a greater operational end. It was not a decisive point of effort but rather a point of maneuver. This changed as it became evident that wholesale destruction of the Soviet forces was not possible, and therefore the objective to 'seize or destroy' Leningrad rose in priority.

Initially, the objective to 'besiege' or 'seize' Leningrad during the broad-front offensive phase, was part of the Northern Army Group's overall objective to secure a link-up with the Finnish forces driving in a general South-Eastern direction. The goal, as was the goal of Barbarossa in general, was to encircle and destroy the Soviet armed forces in grand battles of envelopment around key areas considered concentration areas for the RKKA; such as the Baltic coast, which historically had always been defended by the Russian government, this included Leningrad as a result. By the time the Germans were in the region of Leningrad, this strategy had proven to be based on incredibly false expectations; the Soviet Army had not collapsed, new fronts were forming, and large numbers of Soviet soldiers were escaping or filtering through encirclement, or even worse, bitterly resisting.

Strategy shifted; destruction of forces would not be enough; the Soviets were showing incredible strategic dexterity for an army facing overwhelming defeat operationally in every sector. Leningrad, like Moscow in the center, was an important military-industrial hub, and thus became an objective specifically. Its best to say that it no longer was a means to an end, but rather an end in and of itself.

Not able to follow your question. Could you rephrase please?