Alleged political interference in Brent's planning decision making process brought to attention of Monitoring Officer

 From Philip Grant (first published as a comment on Andrew Linnie's psot)

Further to Andrew Linnie's post LINK, this is the text of an email I have sent to Debra Norman, Brent's Chief Legal Officer:-

Dear Ms Norman,

I am writing to you in your role as Brent Council's Monitoring Officer, to bring to your attention allegations of interference in decision making over planning applications, which, if true, are in clear breach of Brent's Planning Code of Conduct and Members' Code of Conduct.

You will remember that, on 3 October, you replied on behalf of the Council to a Freedom of Information Act request I had made, about hospitality received on 10 May 2017 by two Cabinet members and two Senior Officers from Terrapin Communications Ltd, on behalf of some of their developer clients. I shared the information provided, and my views on it, in a blog on the "Wembley Matters" site on 5 October, which I believe I drew your attention to.

As a result of my involvement in that matter, I received private email correspondence in early October from several Brent councillors, who shared information with me "in confidence". I responded to them, saying that I felt their allegations and supporting evidence should be passed on to you, as Monitoring Offier. I do not know whether any of them have done so, as they may be concerned about the personal consequences to their political careers if they were to "blow the whistle" on the Council Leader.

I was not intending to get involved further, but information from another FoI request has been shared today on the "Wembley Matters" site, in a blog headed "No records kept of Cllr. Butt's closed-door meetings with Alperton tower developers", which I would suggest that you read at:
http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/no-records-kept-of-cllr-butts-closed.html

In view of the concerns raised in that article, I felt it only right to ensure that you were made aware of the nature of the information I was given by councillors early last month, so that you can consider what action should be taken to stop the potentially illegal manipulation of Brent's planning process, and help to restore trust in that process, which many Brent residents feel has been brought into disrepute. Even though I cannot give the names of my sources, I believe that the information they gave me was in good faith, and is probably true.

1) It is "common knowledge" among Brent councillors that there is "political interference" with the planning process at Brent Council.

2) A former planning officer and a former legal officer at Brent Council have confirmed that there was direct interference by Cllr. Butt in planning decisions made.

3) At least three current or former councillors on Brent's Planning Committee have admitted that Cllr. Butt has told them how to vote on planning applications - but none of them are willing to speak out publicly.

I will copy the text of this email as a comment on today's blog article (see link above), so that it is in the public domain that this information has been given to you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

No records kept of Cllr Butt's closed-door meetings with Alperton tower developers

Plans for Minavil House site in Alperton

-->

Guest Post by Andrew Linnie

It has emerged that, contrary to Local Government Association advice, no minutes or notes were kept of three meetings between Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt (Labour) and the developers of a controversial £150m tower in Alperton. Not only were there no notes kept, but the meetings took place in a short period before the project was due to be deliberated on by the planning committee, including one meeting the day before the decision was due to be made.

The LGA advises that such meetings, which can be beneficial in allowing councillors and developers to discuss pertinent matters, should take place in the formative stages of a plan. However, meeting with developers and their representatives the day before the council is due to rule on a scheme, especially one of such scale, is unprecedented and brings the entire planning process into disrepute. Councillors are expected to ensure that there is no possibility of predetermination. The final meeting took place on May 23^rd of this year, the day before the committee met to decide. The two previous meetings were in the preceding weeks, on April 5^th and May 10^th respectively. At the latter, Butt and the council’s lead for regeneration Cllr Shama Tatler also accepted lunch as hospitality from the developer’s representatives.

The 26-storey tower is well above the 17-storey limit Cllr Butt and his colleagues promised for the area when they adopted the Alperton Masterplan in 2011. It was opposed by dozens of neighbours, and a petition I arranged, previously discussed on Wembley Matters LINK, gained over 200 signatures. The development was also criticised for failing light tests and being twice the maximum density for the area. Cllr Butt’s colleagues representing Alperton admitted in a letter that many concerns were ignored, but claimed that there was nothing they could do. A freedom of information brought the lack of record keeping to light:

22 storey block incorporating a pub to replace The Boat in Alperton

The Boat (Pleasure Boat) as was

As planned

Plans revealed at today's consultation propose the replacement of the two storey 'The Boat' public house in Alperton by a 22 storey block incorporating a replacement pub and 'affordable' workspaces.

The joint venture between developers and Heineken includes 99 'affordable' homes with parking for 6 disabled Blue Badge holders only.

Brent Council would  achiueve £1.5m planning gain.

Today's consultation ends at 8pm this evening. The second consultation session is Thursday September 21st  3.30pm-8pm at Brent Play Association, Peppermint Point, Alperton

MAP

Some additional info on The Boat redevelopment plans

I am grateful to a local resident for this copy of the leaflet on The Boat redevelopment consultation after my blog on the dearth of information LINK. I am still waiting for a response from Four Communications the PR company managing the consultation.

As you can see the intention is to incorporate a new pub into the plan for a housing and workspace development.

Is the consultation about the future of Alperton's 'The Boat' a secret?

The regeneration proposals for Minavil House and the former Midland Bank/The Plough pub sites at Alperton have attracted opposition  LINK so that may explain why a consultation about the future of The Boat (formerly The Pleasure Boat) 346 Ealing Road has been very low profile to say the least.

Rumour has it that this site is destined to be more flats and it is unclear whether like The Plough developers will want to retain some kind of public house or community facility.  Few would deny that the pub is run down at present (see below) but it has historic interest as the starting point for pleasure cruises along the Grand Union Canal in the 1850s.

The consultation is at Peppermint Point (previously Middlesex House) which is between Sainsbury's and the canal.

Wednesday September 20th 2.30pm-8pm at Brent Play Association, Peppermint Point

Thursday September 21st  3.30pm-8pmat Brent Play Association, Peppermint Point

MAP

This is what the website InsideTrack had to say about The Boat in 2014:

-->

The area around Alperton Station is fairly industrial, with lots of small factory type units on the surrounding roads. The Pleasure Boat is a short walk along Ealing Road. If you head towards the big green tower block, you can’t miss it!

I think perhaps the best way to describe The Pleasure Boat is forlorn. The interior of the pub is rather non-descript and bleak, with little or no decorations on the white walls where the paint has started to peel and discolour in places. The seating is also suitably basic and weathered.  The pub was empty when we arrived, adding to the air of desolation. It only opens three days a week, Thursdays to Saturdays from 6pm onwards,  further suggesting this is not a pub in the best of health.

It also advertises a garden beside the Grand Union canal. Surrounded by broken tables and with weeds threatening to invade the patio area, this too has seen better days. Oddly enough, an area of it now seems to have been given over to a hand car wash – a business you assume is open more frequently than the pub.

At the front of the pub there is another outside seating area, so we chose to go there. It backs onto a rather busy road so it isn’t the nicest spot either. There was no ale available so from the limited selection available, I went for a Budweiser.  A few people had arrived by the time we left so it wasn’t completely deserted, it still didn’t suggest the Disco, which was starting at 8pm, would be busy in any way.

With its limited opening hours and small clientele, I wouldn’t bet on the Pleasure Boat still being open by the time I finish this blog.  And while it pains me to see any pub close, this is clearly one that has run aground and in need of some fresh ideas and direction. Sadly its position on the edge of a main road and surrounded by industrial parks makes me feel there won’t be a queue of people lining up to take it on.

But maybe there is a queue of developers...

Uproar over Brent's Alperton high rise approval, despite application “failing to meet requirements in 13 different matters”

Guest post by Alperton resident Andrew Linnie

Once again questions are being raised regarding the scrutiny under which Brent Council Planning Committee examines applications in the Alperton growth area, after the approval on August 9^th of a development at 245-253 Ealing Road. 

The site is formed of two small plots separated by a private laneway, one section a disused HSBC bank and the other formerly a pub called the Plough. As was the case with Minavil House in May, I was speaking on behalf of locals in opposition to the proposal. Neighbouring residents objected for a wide variety of reasons, and the planners at Brent Council conceded that the plans for the development, which will feature 92 flats in two towers over 9 and 10 stories, failed to meet a large number of planning regulations and considerations.

 

144 neighbouring windows failed light assessments, yet were deemed acceptable anyway. Some homes, between this scheme and the impact of 255 Ealing Road, are losing almost all of their direct sunlight. It was asked at the meeting of August 9^th what the point of such assessments is, if even the worst affected windows are to be deemed “acceptable given the context”. The effect of the buildings’ imposing height is exacerbated by the fact that their positioning fails to meet standards – none of the nearby existing buildings is 20m away as recommended by the London Plan, and one building, the currently-under-construction 255 Ealing Road, is less than 10m away from the proposed towers, failing to even meet the less stringent 10m separation guideline required elsewhere.

 

Residents also raised concerns over the legality of access through private land to the new development. According to the submitted plans, the emergency exit at the rear of Block A of the building opens directly into garden beds owned and maintained by residents of the 243 Ealing Road development, though the plans incorrectly show this as being paved. The residential and commercial refuse stores on the side of the same block open facing a privately owned laneway connecting Hatton and Ealing Roads. The access to these stores along the side of the building is less than 100cm wide at its narrowest point, narrower than Brent Council’s 1100 litre bins. 

Planners recommended in a supplementary report that access should be added into the refuse stores from the private laneway bisecting the site, ignoring the fact that it is privately owned and maintained by residents of the development next door. This was just one of many design flaws in the plan, including a wheelchair accessible unit included on the ninth floor of a building with just one lift, and the fact that, although obscured windows are planned for the rear of block A to avoid encroaching on privacy in neighbouring Braunston House, there are still balconies looking directly into nearby homes.

The mix of housing was another concern which failed tests. Just 16% of units are family sized, well short of the 25% requirement, and the affordable housing provision fails to meet expectations by some distance, at 26%. The density of surrounding schemes is 260 housing units/hectare, the maximum recommended in the London Plan. The scheme approved this week is 800 units/hectare. Planners said this is mitigated by the community space provided, a community space which less than a quarter of respondents in the public consultation said they wanted, and which is only 166sqm.

The current non-residential space provided on the site is 832sqm, so this “mitigation” actually represents a loss of over 80% plus added demand, while Alperton still has under half the open space of an average London ward. Saying that the density is similar to nearby developments ignores the fact that those developments included a significant provision of open space and retail units, which are still unused due to a lack of access.

 

This, like other developments nearby, is described as ‘car-free’ and provides 10 disabled spaces for accessible units, but no parking for the other 82 homes. The impact of this is estimated to be 66 additional cars parking in neighbouring streets, leading to an extension of the Controlled Parking Zone. There is a large provision for cycle parking, however the roads nearby are all marked red in the lowest category for cycle safety by TFL, and the only segregated cycle lane in the ward of Alperton, along the canal, is unlit and dangerous at night. 

While the buildings are close to Alperton Station, TFL say Alperton ward has one of the lowest average PTAL (Public Transport Access) scores in all of Brent. Hundreds of new homes have been approved in the area without any plan for improved services, notably the 251 units in the controversial 26 storey Minavil House tower, approved in May despite widespread opposition and a limit of 17 storeys in the area’s Masterplan. According to an independent transport assessor the figures presented at the council for the transport impact of Minavil House nearby were out by a factor of 8. Once again, there was much debate at planning committee level regarding the quality of transport services in the area, particularly with regard to the accessibility of Alperton Station and the lack of night services. The state of medical services in the area, already severely stretched, was also raised.

 

The Plough Pub, which has been closed for over a year, was open until developers purchased the site. Cllr Mary Daly pursued the planning officers on the issue of the pub’s upkeep, and the fact that it was not advertised for lease for the statutory 24 months after closure. The building has been allowed to decay since its closure, according to residents. 

Cllr Michael Maurice at one point of the meeting counted off 13 matters in which the proposal failed to meet guidelines and requirements.

The developers of the scheme failed to take into consideration the views put forward in the initial consultation. The design is seen by many as inappropriate for the site and lacks context, to the point that the area will become a patchwork of clashing styles. There are five unrelated styles of high rise architecture already approved or constructed, this adding yet another. The developer made no effort to gather views from residents until the week in the run up to the planning meeting, at which point it was much too late to make a difference. 42 addresses objected to the scheme, none responded in favour. Many also raised concerns as to the safety of residents during the construction phase, as the buildings occupy the entire site and will necessitate external building space, impacting on the ability of emergency services to access neighbouring homes.

 "Are our councillors and planners here to enforce the laws and guidelines for local people, 

or to make excuses and exceptions for private developers?”

When speaking at the meeting on behalf of objecting residents, I concluded by asking our representatives what their duty in the process is, in the their opinion: “This scheme fails light, massing, density, air, noise, access and other tests, yet is recommended for approval. Are our councillors and planners here to enforce the laws and guidelines for local people, or to make excuses and exceptions for private developers?”

The Planning Committee was split three votes to three, with Cllr Daly abstaining despite raising many concerns. At that point the chair, Cllr Agha, cast a deciding vote in favour of the development proceeding, and in doing so gave me an answer to my question. One wonders at this point just how many guidelines and regulations a developer would have to ignore for Brent Council Planning Committee to refuse them permission.