Guest post by Gaynor Lloyd
I read Martin's report of what he described as the shambles at Planning Committee when the Mumbai Junction application was decided. LINK It was concerning to see that not only did officers give no assistance to Committee members in articulating their reasons for the vote against when they were in such evident difficulties but acted to press for change to deferral. An appeal to the Planning Inspectorate can give residents an opportunity to be heard.
However, what I wanted to respond to was Martin's report of the Chair's comment on the normality of the Planning Committee’s pre-application meeting with Fruition Properties, the developer of Mumbai Junction. I was the author of the complaint and made both requests for the recusal of Committee members. I do have in-depth knowledge of the background here.
For me, everything started when, in preparing my objection, I spotted a one-liner in the developer's application pack: Pre-application presentation to the Planning Committee. (I also noted a meeting with Cllrs Butt & Tatler). I was completely taken aback and followed up with a Freedom of Information Request (FOIR) about these meetings. The response provided the agenda, and pre-briefing for the Planning Committee and draft Feedback notes. I also received notes of the Cllr Butt & Tatler meeting with 4 representatives of the developer.
Before making my FOIR, I had looked at the Council's protocols, and could see no constitutional basis on which such pre-app meeting with the Planning Committee could take place. I also looked at National guidance - again I could find no basis. (The Council deny this; I await the Council's evidence to the contrary as part of my Stage 2 complaint)
It is true that the Council added numerous provisions to its Planning Code and Protocol, re pre-application processes in November 2022, several months after the meeting with the Planning Committee - but adding those evidences there were none at the time. It is also true that the Council added them after a scheduled review of its planning processes. This was conducted by a Local Government Association Independent Reviewer but it seems that the Independent Reviewer could not have been aware that the Planning Committee could take pre-app presentations, as he/she pointed out that no protocols were in existence for the engagement of any Councillor in the pre-app process, and that it would avoid confusion if, for example, ward councillors knew how they should behave when approached by residents. To be helpful, the Independent Inspector gave the Council some examples of good pre-app practice in 2 other Councils; neither of those Councils invite developers in for a cosy pre-chat with the Planning Committee who will hear their application.
Did the Council devise its protocols to cover its then existing practice?
Was that existing process, right?
Is it accountable?
How often was it used?
Who knew about it?
In a world where even a Government Department is now for "Levelling Up", what should we think of a private and confidential meeting that planning officers can just offer at a price to categories of developer - a meeting with the very Committee to which their planning application will be presented - when an ordinary resident with a planning objection -whose very life may be affected by the development nearby - cannot even speak to a single member of the self-same Committee without being batted away with suggestions of the impropriety of an attempt to influence, and a direction (if they must) to give details in writing to all Committee members.
But, in this case, it looks worse. I have been told by an officer that developers of "larger" projects are invited by officers to request a pre-app meeting with the Planning Committee. There is a £2000 extra fee for that private and confidential presentation to the Planning Committee. The availability of this service is not on the website - nor details of the fee nor the criteria officers apply. This is not in accordance with national guidance. How many such applications have been prefaced by a pre-meeting with planning committee is an interesting question: I have got a FOIR in on that - but it does link with Cllr Kelcher’s reported reaction to Cllr Lorber's challenge at Committee on this very topic.
Martin in his report says, " Cllr Kelcher reacted angrily saying that that the pre-application meeting was part of the normal process." Yes, well...it would certainly appear that it was indeed part of usual practice at the time - look at the emails trail below - which arrived as part of the Council's FOIR response to outline how the meeting with the Committee came about. I have asked for the redactions of names to be replaced by descriptions of postholder/members.
The top email of 26 May 17:16 (in very prompt response to the request from the developer's adviser below) refers to a meeting the next day between redacted names and the Chair & Vice Chair of the Planning Committee. (There was no actual planning Committee meeting in May 2022) Apparently, "they” will "bring up pre-app presentations to committee." "Presentations" plural - clearly "business as usual". Maybe it was but it was not a process constitutionally authorised by Brent Council in May/June/July 2022. Nor (I maintain) in accordance with national guidance.
I was told that the reason for the silence on the website re the availability of the Planning Committee to developers of "larger" projects is because this is offered by officers and not available on request.
Yet, look at the earlier email in the screenshot - 26 May at 14:52 from the Planning Director, Stantec UK, Fruition’s consultants. What is to be made of these sentences in their email to Team Leader North Area:" I have just had a call with my client, who informs me he has had a call with [name redacted] .... but [name redacted] has advised that we make a formal request to you that we present the scheme to the planning committee. Thus, this email is that request. Can you look to set this up as soon as possible?"
Who was the call with the developer with? Clearly not the Team Leader. If the Head of Planning, surely, he could have organised it himself. Whatever, it seems that a developer can tell a Council planning officer to set up a meeting with the Planning Committee.
Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks the tone of the email to the Council's Area Team Leader very telling?
And, talking of tone... what exactly is an ordinary resident supposed to do? Ms Lester, the senior officer charged with dealing with my complaint, had the solution off pat: "If a person sufficiently affected by the planning decision believes that the decision is legally flawed, the correct process to follow is to challenge it via a judicial review." Ah, that's alright then- if I just had the cash, and the professional advisers...Puts me in mind of the adage. One rule for one....
23 comments:
The London Borough of Bent strikes again in its rush to become a Bladerunner Borough of Dystopia
The most telling part of the email chain, from Brent officer: “I'll also run through the presentation to see if you need to make any changes. You have 15 mins to present and then 15 mins Q&A with the committee.”
Who was the applicant, it sounds like Brent Council by the tone of the officer emails
Gaynor kindly supplied me with copies of some of the documents she received under her FoI request(s) about the Mumbai Junction "pre-application" planning meetings (after the original application by Fruition had been refused). I found the minutes of a meeting held on 21 June 2022 of particular interest.
The people present from Brent Council are shown as: Cllr Butt, Cllr Tatler, Gerry and Dave. Readers will recognise the names of the two councillors as the Council Leader and Lead Member for Regeneration. The two Council Officers, shown by just their first names, are Brent's Head of Planning and Development Management Manager.
The five present from the applicant's side, although their names are redacted, are described as: MD Fruition; Town Planning Manager - Fruition; Planning Director Stantech; BECG; and Barr Gazetas architects.
Following the initial introductions, Cllr. Butt is recorded as saying that he is 'Keen to work with developers and the community.' After the presentation by Fruition and their team, he asks them to 'let him know the dates of the community group / ward councillor meetings.'
Gerry (Head of Planning) makes encouraging comments about the presentation, and says he will 'set up a presentation to the planning committee.'
Tatler gives advice to the Fruition team: 'ensure ward councillors are aware of the journey they've taken to show that they're listening. There will be conversation about what's happening to the restaurant - should be prepared to address this.'
Final piece of advice from DG (Brent's Development Management Manager): 'comply with as many policies as possible.'
My comment on those minutes: they show that two influential Cabinet members and the two Senior Planning Officers (the ones who sit at the top table at Planning Committee meetings) are trying to get the revised 231 Watford Road plans approved!
The redacted emails in Gaynor's article above show that they then involve the Chair and Vice Chair of Planning Committee (the two who voted in favour of the application at last Wednesday's meeting) in the discussions, before the actual presentation by the developer to Planning Committee members in July 2022.
Having given Fruition the impression that their application was likely to be accepted, Brent's top planners are now seeking to reverse the Committee's decision to refuse it, aided and abetted by the Chair of Planning Committee. Surely that can't be right?
Quite right. I meant to mention that but felt I had gone on quite enough!
Perhaps ex Councillor Gaynor Lloyd 2020-2022 could have tried to make change when she was in office as it was equally corrupt then.
"Comply with as many policies as possible".
And we'll say in our Report its acceptable for you not to comply with the rest!!!
After seeing all the fire engines attending a ground floor shop fire jn Ealing Road this afternoon let's hope Brent Council have secured extra fire engines and fire officers to cope with all the hundreds of tower blocks they have granted planning permission for in Brent.
What is wrong with the other Councillors?..why don't they ever challenge what the likes of Butt and Tatler are up to?
One Labour Councillor can't do it alone!
Local councillors get paid about £12k per year in allowances, if they get onto a committee like the planning committee they get paid more taking their annual allowance up to something like £20K per year - why would the Labour Councillors go against what the Labour leader of the council says when they can keep quiet and pocket that extra money?
When dealing with Brent Council to apply for funding, grants etc, one is expected to be honest, clear and transparent, pity this mantra doesn't work both ways.
Butt didnt want Gaynor Lloyd chosen as Labour candidate for the Barnhill byelection in 2020 (she wasnt one of his people, and might be trouble!) and she wasnt a candidate in 2022.
Perhaps she did try to change things, but that didnt suit the Leadership?
Vote for anyone except Labour at the next local election.
Labour claim to
be for the people but they don't listen to us local residents at all!
Too true my friend
Are you speaking for Gaynor as she didn’t speak publicly then and so you do not believe she will speak publicly now?
Anonymous (15 August at 13:46) is right that the only way to bring about any real change at Brent Council is through voting at local elections.
That was clear before the local elections in May 2022, and they did see small increases in the number of Conservative and Lib Dem councillors, but not enough to make much difference (especially as the official Conservative "Opposition", seems ineffectual).
The main reason that Cllr. Butt remains as Council Leader is that too few people bothered to vote. Only about 1 in 3 local residents voted in 2022. More than 50% of them voted Labour, and under the "first past the post" system, that won them 49 of the 57 seats on Brent Council.
Those disaffected by the way that Brent Labour are behaving, and are running the borough, need to raise awareness among their local communities of the need to vote for change at the next opportunity.
The more residents who feel the way that most commentors on this blog do, and who use their votes, rather than not bothering, the better the chance of making a difference next time round (which, unfortunately, is still 21 months away).
People need to vote in local elections based on local issues NOT national issues!
I must have been tired when I wrote my comment above!
The next local Council elections are 2 years and 9 months away (33 months). VERY unfortunate!
Paragraph at the end of Brent Council emails shown here says ...
"Due to limited resources and significant ongoing staff shortages we cannot enter into detailed correspondence with residents or engage in negotiation on planning applications. These efficiencies are essential to ensure we can maintain essential services and process cases in a timely manner. We would therefore be grateful for your patience and understanding under current conditions."
So council tax paying residents can't correspond with Brent Council over planning matters that affect where they live yet wealthy developers get all this free advice and guidance?
developers of "larger" projects are invited by officers to request a pre-app meeting with the Planning Committee. There is a £2000 extra fee for that private and confidential presentation to the Planning Committee.
As a resident of Brent, this stinks and councillors should be ashamed for allowing this practice.
What's the new Brent Council Chief Executive doing to ensure the borough is run properly and ensure council tax paying residents voices are heard?
Also don't like the way you now have to book appointments to see you councillors - if they don't want to see you coz they think you don't vote for them they could just say the are fully booked so only their supporters get any help.
I know there are security concerns but you should be able to just turn on the day of their surgery if you need help, not have book in advance.
Post a Comment