I know it is annoying when you follow a story and then don't hear about the outcome. Philip Grant has written in detail on Wembley Matters about the Broadview Garage planning application. LINK
This demolishes garages on the edge of Fryent Country Park and documentation was confused about how many houses were planned to replace them, one or two? Whether trees due for removal were within the site or Fryent Country Park? Whether there was satisfactory access for large vehicles into the site during the build as well as afterwards?
To follow the sometimes Alice in Wonderland nature of the Planning Committee's discussion watch the video of the meeting above. It features trees with the apparent ability to uproot and wander around the area and flooding which isn't there - because Brent Planning has no record it it - despite residents regularly seeing it.
There were quite a few Humpty Dumpty's in attendance. LINK
So what happened?
In the event the application was passed despite obvious defects and questionable information and representations ignored - planning professionals and ward councillors. Cllr Maurice was the only councillor to vote against on grounds of damage to the environment, density and access.
4 comments:
Butt's selected councillors always do as they are told, just like the officers. In fact, it is doubtful they are told what to do now, we all know what that is.
I attended the Broadview Garages planning committee meeting and again I witnessed a complete one-sided biased meeting. It always starts with the chair Cllr Matt Kelcher stating the housing crisis and the amount of people on the housing list and the thousands in temporary accommodation and the need for urgent affordable housing. Now even though there wasn’t any clarity on T1 and T2 trees and the planning officers’ reports were inaccurate and misleading especially with the flood risks it was still approved by all 6 labour cabinet members. But of course, they all ask questions about the trees, the flood risks and access as a formality like they were concerned or unsure. Yet they all couldn’t wait to put their hands up as soon as the chair Cllr Matt Kelcher said ‘all in favour’. There has to be a way of making sure that these planning committee meetings are fair. How many of the planning applications on all the ‘infills’ in Brent have had a rejection as of yet??? NONE.
I did not post a comment on this blog straight away, because there was so much I wanted to say, but I was also asking myself 'what more can I say?'
It seems as if for years (it's only really since the summer of 2019) I have been battling against misleading information in planning applications, AND in Planning Officer Reports in support of applications, leading to what I consider to have been incorrect planning consents.
I have tried speaking plainly about the problems with planning officers, and although they are courteous, nothing seems to change. They make up their minds, often at the pre-application stage, that they will support an application, and they will see that through to the end, whatever facts, objections and evidence of planning policy breaches are brought to their attention.
When they are recommending a housing application for approval, they will always argue that the benefits outweigh the often blatant breaches of adopted planning policies. In this particular case, they ignored some of the breaches, and described the rest as 'minor conflicts with policy'!
I have tried formal complaints to Brent's Chief Executive or Monitoring Officer. Every time those Senior Officers will defend their Council colleagues, even when the facts I can point to show that their defence is flawed.
I have tried bringing matters to the attention of the Independent Chair, and elected Vice Chair, of the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee, which is supposed to oversee proper governance standards at Brent. Each time they have accepted assurances from Senior Officers that there is no valid basis for my complaints.
On the Rokesby Place planning malpractice, I even contacted the top people at the Local Government Association, highlighting the Council's failure to comply with the LGA's guidance on "Probity in Planning". Their response was that they could only look at the matter if it was referred to them by Brent Council (whose Chief Executive I had copied my email to), which (of course!) it wasn't.
Continued in a second part:
Part 2 of my Comment:
What about councillors themselves standing up for what is right? You may think I'm joking here, but they, just like Council Officers, are supposed to uphold the seven Principles of Conduct in Public Life:
Selflessness;
Integrity;
Objectivity;
Accountability;
Openness;
Honesty;
Leadership.
You may have read about my long battle to get the Council to review Cabinet's August 2021 decision, to accept the Regeneration Director's recommendation that 152 of the 250 new homes at the Council-owned former Copland School site (Cecil Avenue) should be built for a developer to sell for profit, with only 37 of the remaining 98 let to Council tenants at genuinely affordable rents.
I tried for eight months this year to get that decision properly scrutinised by at least one of Brent's Scrutiny Committees, but they eventually brushed that responsibility aside (under pressure on the Chair "from above"?).
And what about Wednesday's Planning Committee meeting itself?
The Planning Officers and the Chair were fully aware, from evidence provided by me as well as from earlier comments by local residents, that tree T1 was growing in the Country Park, and not on the garages site.
The trouble was that unless that tree was removed it would not be viable to build the proposed two homes. So they had to find a way to "muddy the waters" (and speaking of muddy waters, ignore the facts given to them at the meeting by a resident over flooding) so that they could claim it was possible that the tree was on the site, and proceed on the basis that it was!
Some committee members did ask questions, but only accepted the words of the applicant's agent and architect, and the Planning Officer, and appeared to take no notice of what the objectors said. As well as the flooding, a resident told them, correctly, that the daylight/sunlight report in support of the application was made on the basis that both of the tall ash trees to the south of the site, T1 and T2, would be removed.
The only committee member who picked up on this was Cllr. Maurice. He could see that this would make a big difference to whether light to the proposed two homes and their tiny gardens would be at an acceptable level. He suggested that the application should be adjourned to get a proper report on this, following the applicant's acceptance that tree T2 was in the Country Park, and could not be removed.
The Chair, Cllr. Kelcher, said that it was too early to consider whether the application should be adjourned. It would have to wait until they had heard all of the submissions and answers to questions.
When they reached that point, a good Chair would have asked Cllr. Maurice whether he still wished to propose an adjournment. Instead, Cllr. Kelcher went straight to the vote on the application, and shot his hand up in favour, followed by the other six Labour members. When Cllr. Maurice asked about the adjournment, he was told that it was too late. The application had already been approved!
What can be done to stop what, it appears to me, are abuses of power in Brent's planning system?
I'm afraid that I don't know the answer to that. I only wish that I did.
Post a Comment