tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post5518041756164023662..comments2024-03-28T18:18:29.643+00:00Comments on WEMBLEY MATTERS: 1 Morland Gardens – How Brent Council won its planning “victory”.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-3403004092662111532020-08-24T15:08:39.047+01:002020-08-24T15:08:39.047+01:00FOR INFORMATION:
Following my email to Carolyn Do...FOR INFORMATION:<br /><br />Following my email to Carolyn Downs, and the support for it from Paul Lorber, I understand that Brent's new Strategic Director of Regeneration, Alan Lunt, is looking into this matter, and hopes to respond by the end of the week.Philip Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08216646114377430489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-43563254616846069362020-08-22T20:39:17.017+01:002020-08-22T20:39:17.017+01:00They are just chasing the money. New Homes Bonus, ...They are just chasing the money. New Homes Bonus, Section 106, CIL etc etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-78773353567528823662020-08-21T19:13:23.487+01:002020-08-21T19:13:23.487+01:00Anonymous (20 August at 10:31) has raised a fair p...Anonymous (20 August at 10:31) has raised a fair point in asking why the supplementary report's response on accessibility wasn't adequate.<br /><br />I only gave brief details about that issue in my blog above, because I was afraid that if I put in more detail, it would make the article such "heavy going" that no one would bother to read it!<br /><br />The objection over policy DMP1 wasn't a 'late objection'. It had been made several weeks before the main Officer Report to the Committee was published, and should have been properly dealt with in that report. For some reason, it was overlooked, and I had to object to the fact that this (and another important point) were missing from the details on which the Committee was meant to make its decision.<br /><br />The actual objection was:<br />Brent’s Development Management General Policy DMP1 says: ‘Subject to other policies within the development plan, development will be acceptable provided it is: … b. satisfactory in terms of means of access for all, parking, manoeuvring, servicing and does not have an adverse impact on the movement network.’<br /><br />This policy is explained further at para. 2.6 of Brent’s 2016 Development Management Policies document, which says: <br />‘2.6 The accessibility of a development is a fundamental component of its success. ... Where buildings need to be served by parking and require accessibility for servicing this needs to be fit for purpose in terms of amount and layout.’<br /><br />I then went into detail about why, in practice, the access and servicing arrangements for the 65 homes would be totally inadequate, in both amount and layout, finishing the objection point by saying:<br /><br />The accessibility and servicing for this proposed development is not ‘fit for purpose’! The application fails one of the fundamental tests of Brent’s policy DMP1, and for this reason also, it should be refused.<br /><br />If you look at the Supplementary Information sheet, issued the day before Planning Committee meeting, which I included as an illustration in my article above, I think you will understand why I do not consider that this adequately explains the nature and seriousness of the objection over policy DMP1 (which it does not refer to).<br />Philip Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08216646114377430489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-62138508642957568042020-08-20T16:23:46.704+01:002020-08-20T16:23:46.704+01:00FOR INFORMATION:
In the interests of openness and ...FOR INFORMATION:<br />In the interests of openness and transparency, here is the text of an email that I have just sent to Brent's Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, attaching a pdf copy of my above article:-<br /><br />Dear Ms Downs,<br /><br />I'm sure you are aware that Brent Council's planning application (20/0345) to redevelop 1 Morland Gardens was approved at the virtual Planning Committee meeting on 12 August.<br /><br />I have written an article, which was published online today, explaining how the Council won that planning "victory". I attach a pdf copy of that article, which raises serious concerns about the way planning matters are dealt with in Brent, and the culture which has been allowed to develop within Brent's Planning Service if what I allege in my article is considered to be acceptable.<br /><br />The basis of my article is that the proposals which went to Planning Committee should never have been allowed to get beyond the pre-application stage, and that the way in which the recommendation to accept the application was put to the Committee misled them into granting approval.<br /><br />This email to you is definitely not a complaint about any members of the Planning Committee. Nor do I intend it to be a complaint against any individual Planning Officers. I do feel that the matters I have raised in my article need to be investigated, however, and if treating this letter as a formal complaint against Brent's Planning Service would be the best way to enable that, then please proceed on that basis.<br /><br />Anyone considering the points I have raised might also find it helpful to read a detailed report on the 12 August meeting, and the many comments below it, at:<br />https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2020/08/planning-committee-votes-to-demolish.html <br /><br />Although planning permission has been given, I would strongly request that no action should be taken to implement the Council's proposals for 1 Morland Gardens until the matters I have raised are resolved. <br /><br />I am also sending a copy of my article to the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee, as I believe it raises a governance issue. The actions of Council Officers in this matter do not appear to comply with Principle A of the Governance Framework - 'behaving with integrity, demonstrating strong commitment to ethical values, and respecting the rule of law.' <br /><br />I will be posting a copy of the text of this email as a "comment" below the online version of the attached article, so that it is in the public domain.<br /><br />I look forward to receiving your reply, in due course. Best wishes,<br /><br />Philip Grant.<br /><br />Philip Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08216646114377430489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-89523402297487012562020-08-20T13:10:28.026+01:002020-08-20T13:10:28.026+01:00Brent is also in discussions to demolish the histo...Brent is also in discussions to demolish the historic Admiralty Chart Office in Dollis Hill, allowing a 22 storey hotel in its place. Alison Hopkinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-85743126004359054712020-08-20T10:31:43.077+01:002020-08-20T10:31:43.077+01:00If the late objection with reference to policy DMP...If the late objection with reference to policy DMP1 was about accessibility, then why isn't the supplementary report adequate?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com