tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post2215807326680606337..comments2024-03-28T19:20:52.408+00:00Comments on WEMBLEY MATTERS: Fraud & error risk in Brent Planning Application process found by auditors Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-71987784319417426472017-01-02T18:52:06.727+00:002017-01-02T18:52:06.727+00:00Sarah Marquis also absented herself from the first...Sarah Marquis also absented herself from the first two Wembley developments discussed at the last Planning Committee meeting.Martin Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02194641151012303116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-7027888895414170712017-01-02T18:49:11.814+00:002017-01-02T18:49:11.814+00:00This is how I covered it at the time:
http://wemb...This is how I covered it at the time:<br /><br />http://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2016/05/marquis-attempts-to-defer-second-of.html<br /><br />http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/sarah-marquis-absent-from-tonight.html<br /><br />Martin Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02194641151012303116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-82499656673149066482017-01-02T16:38:23.305+00:002017-01-02T16:38:23.305+00:00If there are doubts as to the legality of Planning...If there are doubts as to the legality of Planning decisions will there be any chance that a decision can be overturned? The expansion of Byron Court Primary School has not started....it should have begun at the end of October!!! Can we hope that it may not happen or is this wishful thinking on the part of residents and the parents of the pupils?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-65469279616230853972017-01-02T10:05:11.502+00:002017-01-02T10:05:11.502+00:00You miss the big one. Why did two planning meeting...You miss the big one. Why did two planning meetings on Wembley / Quintain Lonestar development get forced through in the week before the Labour group election for leader. Why did the planning chair not feel able to chair both meetings. Now that is a mystery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-18872541573072818652017-01-01T11:51:07.830+00:002017-01-01T11:51:07.830+00:00I was particularly interested in the PwC comment t...I was particularly interested in the PwC comment that: 'Planning Officers are required to flag any potential conflicts of interest in processing planning applications on an ad-hoc basis, ...' as this was something which has cropped up as a problem several times in recent years where the Council itself, either directly or indirectly, is making the planning application.<br /><br />The redevelopment of Willesden Green Library saw Brent as the "development partner" of Galliford Try, but the Council tried to claim that it was not a party to the planning application. I successfully challenged this (as far as ensuring that the Conservation Area Consent had to be given by the Secretary of State, not the Council's own Planning Committee), but the register recording potential conflicts of interest was not available to Planning Committee or the public (although it should have been) at the meeting when the plans were approved in March 2013.<br /><br />I had argued that a potential conflict of interest should be disclosed to Planning Committee, in considering the application, as Brent's Regeneration Director (then Andy Donald) was the direct line manager of the Planning Officer who was recommending the application for approval. Brent's Legal Director claimed that this was not the case, as there were "Chinese Walls" in place. As the regeneration officers promoting the redevelopment scheme worked side-by-side with the planning officers in Brent House at that time, my response was that those walls must be made of rice paper!<br /><br />The Willesden Green Library redevelopment had a high risk for inappropriate or fraudulent actions, because of the large profits the development company could make from the deal. In return for building Brent a new Willesden Green Library on part of its existing site, Brent gave Galliford Try 72% of that site. It then gave planning permission to build 95 flats on the land it had given away, and accepted that none of those flats should be affordable (on the basis of the developer's viability assessment). We never did find out at what stage Brent / Andy Donald knew that its British "development partner" was going to sell all of the private flats "off plan" to a property investor in the Far East.<br /><br />Other instances of questionable "Brent" planning applications going before the Council's Planning Committee have been the "change of use" of the former Barham Park Library from "community" to "business" use (where Planning Committee actually rejected the application by 6 votes to 1, but the Barham Park Trustees, five members of Brent's then Executive, overturned that on appeal), and the more recent application to expand Byron Court School.<br /><br />Yes, there have definitely been suspicions of "foul play", and I hope that things are tightened up, and the tighter rules are actually enforced in practice, so that we can have more trust in Brent Council.<br /><br />Philip.Philip Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08216646114377430489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-16629229174955713762016-12-31T22:35:36.439+00:002016-12-31T22:35:36.439+00:00PriceWaterhouseCooper (PcW) appears to confirm the...PriceWaterhouseCooper (PcW) appears to confirm the long held suspicions of Brent residents. 2017 is destined to be a very interesting year. A truthful audit trail would make wonderful reading, if only one was available. Judgement day is coming and I can't wait. A shame so much damage has already taken place. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-51119934336369134352016-12-31T21:39:27.288+00:002016-12-31T21:39:27.288+00:00Sadly, yet again there is going to be a clash of m...Sadly, yet again there is going to be a clash of meetings for the residents of Wembley who would like to attend both the meeting discussing this report and the Brent Connects meeting which is being held at the same time at a different venue. Sadly this has not been the first time this has happened. We hope that this has not been done on purpose.Concerned resident of Wembleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-91618062458755175572016-12-31T13:40:10.429+00:002016-12-31T13:40:10.429+00:00I sold software to the public sector for many year...I sold software to the public sector for many years. Acolaid was pretty poor back then with major failings of functionality. Seems little has changed. It's also clunky as heck for public access and doesn't allow proper alert set ups. <br /><br />As to the rest, my huge worry is about undue influence by elected members, especially Butt. Alison Hopkinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-63300337564731039772016-12-31T12:58:05.518+00:002016-12-31T12:58:05.518+00:00Particular decisions are not itemised in the repor...Particular decisions are not itemised in the report but I presume that the raw evidence would show instances where there was not a proper segregation of duties. The report does give these as percentages from theirsampling: We reviewed a sample of 40 Planning Applications received in the period 01/01/2016 to 31/07/2016 to assess whether planning tasks and approvals had occurred in line with defined roles and responsibilities:<br />• 2/40 (5%) cases where the name of the person who input the application onto the system was not completed;<br />• 1/40 (3%) case where a Planning Manager had input the application onto the system rather than Customer Services. There was no clear reason why this occurred;<br />• 1/40 (3%) case where an application had been input, vetted and processed by the same individual. It should be noted that in this instance there was approval by a Planning Manager before it was finalised;<br />• 15/40 (38%) cases where the Planning Officer processing the application had allocated the work to themselves. It should be noted that these predated the changes made in May 2016 where cases can only be allocated by a Planning Manager in the system;<br />• 3/40 (8%) cases where work had been reallocated to another Planning Officer, however there was no audit trail to identify who has reallocated the work; and<br />• 2/40 (5%) cases where the Manager reviewing the application had also completed the application assessment and there was no segregation of duties.Martin Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02194641151012303116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-36084539519291655522016-12-31T12:01:14.203+00:002016-12-31T12:01:14.203+00:00Be interesting to see if Asda is included in this ...Be interesting to see if Asda is included in this report. <br />Our ongoing battle over noise pollution from the Asda home delivery and click and collect areas could have been avoided had planning permission been rejected following our concerns and objections. Wembley Residentshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04382240210487035546noreply@blogger.com