EXPOSED! – Improper bias by Brent’s Planners over the Hazel Road application.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

1. The Victorian mission hall (now Harriet Tubman House) and Community Centre in Hazel Road, NW10.

 

How often have you heard complaints that Brent Council’s Planning Officers appear to favour developers, rather than the local community? Well now there is clear evidence that they have done that, in a blatantly unfair way, in the case of the application (ref. 25/0041) by the Making The Leap (“MTL”) charity to demolish a heritage Victorian building, and replace it with a larger four storey aluminium-clad building.

 

In January 2025, Martin published an article about opposition from Kensal Green Residents’ Association (“KGRA”) to these plans. KGRA asked Willesden Local History Society for help with the heritage aspects of the application, and as a result I prepared an alternative heritage statement (“my AHS”), which was shared with Wembley Matters readers in February.

 

This will be a long guest post, but I hope you will stay with it while I take you, step-by-step, through the evidence, to show the underhand way in which this application has been dealt with. 

 

Much of the evidence comes from Brent’s response (on 2 September, after taking the full 20 working days allowed) to a Freedom of Information Act request by Kensal Green Residents' Association. This asked for copies of the “feedback” on the application, given by Brent’s Planning Officers to MTL or its agents. The information was in thirteen separate pdf documents, with titles like ’07.04 corr_redacted’, containing copies of email exchanges between January and early August 2025. As some of the emails referred to my AHS, KGRA forwarded the response to me.

 

Most of the email correspondence was with Brent’s Planning Case Officer, and I have added extra redactions to the copies included in this article, so that this is not a personal attack on one Council employee. I will refer to the Planning Officer as “AB” (with “A” the first name and “B” the surname – you will see why!). It seems unlikely that the Officer was “one bad apple”, and more likely that what has occurred in this case is symptomatic of a wider culture which operates within Brent’s Planning Department.

 

Before I show you what was wrong with the handling of MTL’s application 25/0041, I hope you will forgive me for explaining the way in which planning applications should be dealt with. In Brent’s Case, this is set out in a Planning Code of Practice, which forms part of the Constitution (the rules which govern how the Council operates).

 

2. Two key extracts from Brent Council’s Planning Code of Practice.

 

Brent’s Planning Code of Practice makes clear that Officers must deal with planning applications fairly and impartially and comply with the standards set out by the Royal Town Planning Institute (“RTPI”) in carrying out their work. These are two relevant extracts from the RTPI’s ‘Practical Advice on Ethics and Professional Standards’:

 

3. Two key extracts from the RTPI guidance ‘Probity and Professional Planners’.

 

“Probity” is not a commonly used word, but it is a very important one (also repeated in the Local Government Association’s guidance to local planning authorities: “Probity in Planning”). It means carrying out your duties with a high standard of honesty and integrity, and according to the procedures and rules set out for those duties. Sadly, as I’m about to show, that was not the case with application 25/0041, which was submitted in January 2025.

 

4. Email of 6 January from DP9 to the Case Officer – application submitted.

 

DP9 are the planning agents handling the application on behalf of MTL. From the way in which the Case Officer is addressed by their first name, and the familiar tone of the email, the Senior Planner at DP9 appears to already know the Planning Officer who will be handling the application on behalf of Brent Council. This was probably because of pre-application advice which was sought before the application was submitted. That is a service which Brent’s Planning Department offers, and which potential applicants are encouraged to use (but see the note at the bottom of this advice).

 

5. The Pre-application advice section from Brent’s Planning website.

 

Not only is pre-application advice informal, with no guarantee that it will lead to a subsequent application being given planning permission, but Brent’s Planning Code of Practice makes clear that the advice given at that stage must not lead to pre-determination or bias in the way in which the application is dealt with by Brent’s Planning Officers.

 

6. Extract from the Pre-application Advice section of Brent’s Planning Code of Practice.

 

The January 2025 correspondence, which followed from the 6 January email at 4. above, was mainly about the “validation” of application 25/004, and also involved a Technical Support Officer. Although Brent’s planners did not accept that the application was valid until 16 January, they agreed (at DP9’s request) to backdate the validation date to 7 January. That date is when the time limit for deciding the application starts to run. 

 

It was expected that the decision would be made at Delegated Team Manager level, and it appears that MTL were hoping its application would be approved within the time limit, so that work could begin in April 2025. However, by the end of January there were already enough objections, mainly from local residents but also from Queens Park Ward councillors, to ensure that the application would have to be decided by Brent’s Planning Committee. Many had been submitted by email, and DP9 wanted copies:

 

7. Email from DP9 to the Case Officer on 4 February 2025.

 

After a chasing email from the planning agent, the Case Officer responded on 20 February, saying: ‘We would have to do a lot of redactions to remove personal information from the objections we’ve received which would be very time-consuming. So instead I think its best if I just send across a summary of the main objection points received from these objections in question - would this be ok with you?’ 

 

The next day, the Case Officer did send the Senior Planner at DP9 a large batch of information on the objections received, with an email beginning (after ‘Hi [first name], I hope you are well’):

 

8. List of main objection points from Case Officer’s email to DP9 on 21 February 2025.

 

I had submitted my AHS on 13 February, setting out why the application failed all six of the tests in Brent’s heritage planning policy BHC1, and other Brent planning policies, and must be refused. My AHS was also referred to in the 21 February email, along with advice on how the planning agent should respond to it! This is what the Case Officer wrote:

 

‘Just further on the heritage element, you may have also seen an objector submit an alternative heritage statement online? This has been made in response to the formal submitted one. I have shared with our own heritage consultant who has advised that as it is well researched, an updated heritage statement should be submitted to consider the significance scoring as set out in the alternative HS.  It would also need to better justify the proposals as well as set out the benefits.  For example, in terms of 'good design', the need for a fit for purpose building and one that delivers public benefits.  The fact that it can't be delivered currently within the building and needs to be on this site (not elsewhere) etc.’

 

9. The Case Officer’s email to DP9 on 27 February 2025.

 

The Case Officer followed up that email on 27 February (see image 9. above), and it is clear from the second highlighted sentence that ‘we’ (Brent’s Planning Officers) were already getting ready to put the application forward to Brent’s Planning Committee. They would only do that if they were going to recommend that the application should be approved, despite all of the objections received showing that it failed to comply with Brent’s adopted Local Plan policies. In ‘trying to pre-empt some of the questions that councillors would have’, they were looking to find ways of justifying why the application should be approved, despite failing to comply with planning policy. That goes against Brent’s Planning Code of Practice, which is ‘designed to ensure that planning decisions are taken on proper planning grounds’!

  

There were exchanges of emails between the Case Officer and DP9 during March 2025 (on first name terms), and on 26 March the Case Officer sent the agent a copy of the pdf document version of my AHS (which had been redacted, to hide my identity). I have no objection to that action, as it was only fair that the planning agent should have the opportunity to respond to my detailed demolition of the application’s original heritage statement! 

 

10. The Case Officer’s email to DP9 on 4 April 2025.

 

The email on 4 April (see image 10. above) clearly shows that the Case Officer hoped to get MTL’s application decided at a Planning Committee meeting in early May, and was chasing for a revised heritage statement (which would be needed so that Planning Officers could claim that it answered the points raised in my AHS). That revised heritage statement was submitted with an email on 7 April, following a telephone call with the Case Officer, which DP9 had asked for ‘to discuss some items on the application’.

 

11. Email from DP9 to Case Officer on 7 April, sending applicant’s revised heritage statement.

 

The Case Officer responded by email on 8 April, saying:

 

‘Thank you for your call yesterday and for sending the revised heritage statement and the drainage plan which we will review.

 

As mentioned to allow for enough time for review and given that we do not have space at the May committee, we are therefore targeting the June committee for determination. Please can we agree to a time extension until the end of June (30.06.2025)?’

 

The revised heritage statement was loaded onto the “View Documents” page on the Brent planning website for application 25/0041 on 17 April. On the same date (the last working day before the Easter long weekend) there was this exchange of emails between the Senior Planner at DP9 and the Case Officer:-

 

12. Email of 17 April at 14:38 from DP9 Senior Planner to Case Officer.

 

 13. Email of 17 April at 16:24 from Case Officer to DP9 Senior Planner.

 

DP9 had to submit a revised version of their revised heritage statement after the Case Officer had pointed out that the document sent on 7 April still referred to the Barnet Core Strategy as the relevant local policy! The Case Officer’s final comment, that they’re hopeful of ‘reaching a positive outcome at committee’, confirms that Brent’s Planners intend to recommend that the planning application is approved, despite its failure to comply with a number of Brent’s adopted planning policies.

 

I had seen that there was a revised heritage statement when checking the planning website, and submitted another objection comment online on 28 April. This made clear that it was only a slightly revised version of the original heritage statement, and did not undermine the case I had made in my AHS of 13 February:

 

‘My AHS set out clearly, at paragraphs 4.2 to 4.8, how the proposals in application 25/0041 failed to meet the requirements of all six parts, a) to f), of policy BHC1, as well as Brent’s Local Plan policies DMP1, BD1 and BP6 South East. That is still the case, and those failures, both individually and combined, are very good reasons why this application must be refused.’

 

A few days later, on 2 May, the Case Officer sent this email to the person who had taken over responsibility for the MTL application at DP9:

 

 14. Email from the Case Officer to DP9 on 2 May 2025.

 

By saying that: ‘unfortunately we do not consider that [the April revised heritage statement] has fully addressed the matters raised in the alternative heritage statement’, the Case Officer is admitting that I had shown the application failed to comply with the Council’s heritage planning policy. It would not be possible for Planning Officers to recommend approving planning consent unless they could claim that my AHS had been disproved (or at least a key part of it).

 

However, the Case Officer did not leave it to DP9 (or the apparent author of its heritage statements, The Townscape Consultancy) to consider how they should respond, for a second time, to my AHS. They actually told them, in the final highlighted paragraph, what they should write! That would not deal with the whole of the case I had set out as to why the application must be refused, but it would allow Planning Officers, in their Committee Report, to make the argument that the application fulfilled the requirements of the crucial paragraph e) of Brent’s heritage planning policy BHC1. And when the second revised heritage statement (“RHS2”) was submitted, its paragraph 1.3 was almost a copy of the final paragraph of the Case Officer’s 2 May email!

 

15. Extract from the May 2025 revised heritage statement on behalf of the applicant.

 

The RHS2 was sent to the Case Officer on 27 May, by the Associate at DP9 who had taken over from the Senior Planner. I will ask Martin to attach a copy of that statement at the end of this post, if possible, so that anyone who is interested can read it.

 

16. Email from DP9 to the Case Officer on 27 May, attaching the second revised heritage statement.

 

The Case Officer replied to that email the same afternoon, thanking the Associate at DP9 for the document. In the final paragraph of their email the Case Officer wrote:

 

‘Moving forward, we are looking at future committee dates and we have a target for the July committee which is set for the 9^th July. However, I will confirm this with my manager and this date may depend on whether a re-consultation for the revised heritage statement is necessary. I will keep you informed.’

 

It was correctly decided that a new public consultation period was necessary, and the Case Officer sent out letters about this on 10 June 2025:-

 

17. The top section of Brent’s re-consultation letter of 10 June 2025.

 

The re-consultation was specifically so that anyone who wished to could comment on the RHS2, which had been submitted on 27 May, and the letter went on to say: ‘Comments should be made by: 10 July 2025.’ However, the RHS2 was not published on the online “View Documents” planning webpage for application 25/0041 until 9 July!

 

18. Extract from the “View Documents” menu for application 25/0041 on Brent’s planning website.

 

Was this just a “clerical error” by Brent’s Planning Department, or was it a deliberate attempt to try to prevent any further objections to the RHS2, which said what the Case Officer (and others?) wanted, as set out in the email of 2 May (see image 14 above)? I do know that an email I sent to the Case Officer on 10 June, with a copy to the Head of Planning (“HoP”), should have alerted them to the fact that the RHS2 was not available to comment on. I wrote:

 

‘Dear A B,

 

Application 25/0041 - Harriet Tubman House, 28 Hazel Road, NW10 5PP

 

Can you tell me what is going on over this application, please?

 

Today I have received eight emails from RegenAdminservices, each with a copy of a 10 June letter from you attached, telling me about a "new" consultation period for this application. 

 

I went to the webpage, and could not see anything new, but when I read the letter more closely, I saw that the only "new" item was the revised heritage statement, which was received around eight weeks ago! I submitted a comment in response to that revised statement around 28 April, showing that it was only marginally better than the pathetic original attempt at a heritage statement submitted as part of the initial application.’

I received no reply to that 10 June email to the Case Officer, and it was only when I was checking the website for application 25/0041 in late July, for anything “new”, that I discovered the RHS2, which had only appeared there on 9 July. I also saw this on the “Important Dates” page:

 

19. The “Important Dates” page for application 25/0041, as shown on 28 July 2025.

 

The redacted emails supplied by Brent, in response to KGRA's FoI request, show that on 25 June the Case Officer had written to DP9 saying:

 

‘The revised heritage statement is out for consultation, and we are aiming for a committee date of the 6th August, however the latter is subject to the progression of a draft legal agreement. I am about to instruct our legal team on this and I will inform you of the heads of terms shortly.’

 

That legal agreement, about which there was further correspondence, was the Section 106 agreement which would be required as part of the planning consent, involving various financial contributions and undertakings from the applicant. However, other problems emerged, which meant that the application could not go to the August Planning Committee meeting:

 

20. Email of 22 July from the Case Officer to DP9.

 

Network Rail had made an early objection to the application, because of the possible effect of the proposed demolition, and construction of a new building, above railway tunnels that run under the Hazel Road Open Space and part of Harriet Tubman House. The Case Officer was telling the planning agent that this objection had to be withdrawn ‘before we can take this to committee’ – in other words, before we can recommend Planning Committee to approve the application.

 

At that stage, the Case Officer did not see the heritage objections (there were others beside my own) as a problem, because no one had raised objections to the RHS2 (for reasons which are obvious above!). However, on 19 August I did submit a further detailed objection comment (‘in response to the Revised Heritage Statement submitted in July 2025’ – not knowing then that it had been submitted in May!). I will ask Martin to attach a copy of that document at the end of this article, if possible, for anyone who wishes to read it.

 

My August objection comment disproved the claim that the RHS2 rebutted the method of scoring the heritage significance of the Victorian building (I had used the method adopted by Brent’s Planning Committee in July 2015!), and the claim that the demolition would only cause a low to medium level of harm to the heritage asset. As yet, there has been no published response to my latest objection. 

 

  

 21. Email of 7 August from the Case Officer to DP9.

 

The most recent email from the Case Officer, obtained through the FoI request, is dated 7 August (before my latest heritage objection comment), said that Planning Officers were ‘aiming to get this case heard at the September planning committee.’ But it was not on the agenda for that meeting, and the request for ‘an extension of time until the 31^st October 2025’ suggests that they hope to get the application approved at the next meeting, on 23 October.

 

Thank you, if you have had the patience to read through this article, and the copy documents I have displayed in it. I hope you will agree that the evidence shows a lack of both impartiality and fairness by Brent Planners, through their Case Officer in particular, in dealing with the MTL application 25/0041.

 

There were numerous valid objections, from the local community, pointing out failures to comply with planning policy over the size of the proposed building, it being totally out of character with the Victorian street, overlooking and loss of sunlight to neighbouring properties, among other reasons. All of these objections were treated as if they did not matter – they could be argued away in the Officers’ Report to Planning Committee, either as minor and “acceptable” breaches of Brent’s Local Plan policies, or that Officers “consider” that those policies were complied with. (How many times have we seen that in other Reports!)

 

On my own objections, over the failure to comply with Brent’s heritage planning policy, the applicant’s own heritage statements could not make a strong enough case to show that their application met the necessary requirements. The Case Officer actually told them what they should write, so that Brent’s Planners could claim that my AHS of February 2025 should be discounted. The evidence is there, in the Case Officer’s emails to the planning agent of 21 February and 2 May (see image 14 above). That action is the opposite of the requirement in Brent’s Planning Code of Practice that Officers must consider and decide planning matters ‘in a fair, impartial and transparent manner.’

 

Throughout the email evidence, which has only come to light because of a Freedom of Information Act request (thanks to KGRA!), it is clear that the Case Officer has been biased in favour of approving the planning application, and that their Manager(s) have done nothing to prevent this. Not only has there been bias, that appears to have been the attitude from the time application 25/0041 was submitted in January 2025, so there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there was pre-determination by Brent’s Planners, that they’d already decided it should be approved. That would be a serious ‘procedural impropriety’ (to use the words of the Planning Code of Practice), or in plain English downright dishonest, and potentially unlawful.

 

Having seen the evidence, I felt that I must share it publicly, to expose what has gone on in the Council’s Planning Department over the Hazel Road application. It was unacceptable behaviour, and must be challenged and dealt with if Brent is to have a fair and honest planning system.

Philip Grant.