Lorber: Residents losing all trust in the planning process in Brent

Paul Lorber has returned to the attack over the planning process under Covid-19 arrangements.

In an email to Alice Lester (Operational Director for Regeneration, Growth and Employment) who responded on behalf of Brent CEO Carolyn Downs, he claims local residents share his concern over a democratic deficit in the proposed arrangements:

I regret that I am not satisfied with your reply and would like the Chief Executive to intervene. I can tell you that having discussed this with local residents that they are not satisfied with the process and more importantly that they are losing all trust in the Planning Process in Brent. Losing public trust has major implications for any organisation in the business of public service.

I will make a number of points:

1. Unless you are already an internet user you will not be aware of the changes that Brent Council has introduced in the way Planning Committees will be held. Brent residents are used to the Planning Meetings to be held in the Civic Centre as those without internet access get the information from the Brent Magazine. As the Magazine is not delivered during the lockdown they have not been informed. Further local residents association is only able to communicate any changes to their members via the internet or whatsup messages - which once again excludes a large number of people - especially the elderly and the disabled for whom the loss of the car park on this site is a major consideration.

 

2. Unless there has been a very material change to the site meeting process (and perhaps you can set out the full rules and process) it would seem appropriate for a site meeting to be held in relation to this application. From memory of site meetings while discussions have always been discouraging and residents advised that this would take place at the Committee Meeting itself the process in the past included the officers and councillors arrival, the officers explaining the applicationg and pointing to any site issues, residents' representative being allowed to set out their concerns, councillors allowed to ask questions and seek clarification. Has this changed?

 

3. There are a number of issues in the Planning Report (and when I looked on the site on Thursday the Report was still marked as draft) which a site meeting would help with:

 

a. There is no evidence that Council Officers verified the information from 2018 provided by the applicant that the car park is no longer used. Councillors making a site visit would be able to see for themsleves that cars continue to be parked in the car park even during the lock down and that prior to the lockdown there were usually between 20 and 30 cars parked there at any one time.

 

b. They could see the proposed location for what is now described as the 3 blue badge car parking spaces. They could ask the obvious question as to whether these limited car parking spaces were being reserved for the users of the station or where they could be taken up by residents living on the new estate - especially as 5 of the units will be adapted for wheelchair users.

 

c. By walking or driving through the area to get to the site they would see the extent of the existing CPZ  and get a confirmation that the surrounding streets are heavily parked. That might lead to their better understanding and lead to questions about where will delivery vehicle park, where will visitors park and where will family members coming to visit overnight park - and how will the nearby residents be impacted by their streets being used as the car park for this development.

 

d. By visiting the site Councillors would also better understand the layout of the site and the impact of overlooking on residents of Barham Close. They might also the size of the car parking land TFL intend to retain for their 'Depot' for future works to the tail lines. They might ask the obvious question why the housing development is not repositioned in such a way that the retained land is used as flexible space which could allow the retention of part of the car park for pubic use. The following point is not considered by the report because officers are clearly not familiar with the area and simply take information at face value as provided by the 3rd parties behind the development - the point is this -

 

e. TFL intend to retain a fair sized part of the car par for a Deport for as yet unspecified works. This land is accessed via Barham Close. There is a possible alternative approach which ensures that the Housing proposed is built further back on the land intended to be retained. This would free up land closer to the entrance to the station (towards the pedestrian ramp). This land could than have a dual purpose - allow the retention of a reasonable number of car parking spaces on the site (say around 25), including some spaces for a few visitors and some loading and unloading space while still being available as a Deport as an when TFL need to undertake works to the underground lines. Should any TFL needs arise they could simply suspend public use of the car park for the required period. It would of course be much easier to explain this proposal on site as councillors could walk through the whole of the existing car park and see how this would work in practice.

 

f. The planning report refers to £30,000 and £20,000 future CPZ review contributions to both Brent and Ealing. By coming on site councillors would get an appreciation and view of the area where existing CPZs operate and what is intended. I make this point because I regard as the contributions as totally meaning less - equally meaningless to the Planning Service inability to enforce the condition that any resident of the new development will not have access to a CPZ permit. If I was asking for a site visit I would take the opportunity fo ask councillors to visit the new development of Fishers & Williams Way nearby to highlight the reality of car free developments. I would firstly point out that Planning permission often require developers to contribute money towards CPZ reviews. The developer of Fishers and Williams Estate made a CPZ contribution many years ago - an on the ball councillors could ask the Officers - how was the contribution used to benefit local people and improve the situation locally? I know the answer - very little. Perhaps you can answer this point and explain why nothing has been done for at least 5 years and what the point of the extra money is. And the usually planners response to residents raising concerns about new developments causing parking problems for nearby residents that "we have asked the developers to contribute money towards CPZ reviews" will simply no longer do.

The ability of the public to influence issues at at a Planning Committee is very limited already. They are given a very short time to speak and no opportunity to respond if inaccurate statements are made by the applicant or in some cases by planning officers. The work of Councillors is to provide effective scrutiny and sometimes to listen and take account of what residents have said. The process is very skewed anyway as officers (who have been approached and been influenced by the applicant through pre meetings etc) do not give the same opportunity to residents. 

The planning application for Sudbury Town Station has been around for a while. It has been revised following discussions between the planners and the developers. The ability for local residents to have further input has been limited.

There are other large and controversial planning applications for consideration by the Planning Committee on 6 May 2020. In most cases there is no urgency to determine the application - irrespective of the virtual online meetings allowed by Government legislation. The Zoom system has not been fully tested and as you are no doubt aware has been subject to security breaches. The approach will almost certainly deny large numbers of Brent residents the opportunity to fully participate.

Brent Council exists to serve Brent residents. It should in my view do so properly and fairly. The approach of deciding planning applications, which will have major implications for local people for many years to come, is very damaging for the image of Brent Council and should in my view not be pursued. Brent Council has closed its sports centres, libraries, the Civic Centre, offices, recycling centres and many other facilities and services - it simply is NOT right that it should continue to make decisions behind closed doors about planning applications that local people are very concerned about.

Regards

Paul Lorber