Letter: Barham Community Library will stand by our community - 'We will not be surrendering our lease'

 The painting of Titus Barham that hangs in the community library

 

Dear Editor

 

The events on Tuesday morning at the Civic Centre highlight the fact that local people and existing users of the Barham Park Complex support Barham Park as a local place that provides them with recreation as Titus Barham intended.

 

Barham Park and its buildings used to be the home of the Barham family. Titus Barham was a big local benefactor supporting local causes including Wembley Hospital, the Tennis Club in Sylvester Road and many more. Barham Primary School, where I have been a School Governor since 1994, stands on land that belonged to Titus Barham.

 

Titus was a keen Roses grower and every year he opened up his Gardens to local people for "Rose Sunday". In 1936, a year before his death, 8,000 local people attended.

 

He was due to become the Charter Mayor of Wembley in 1937 when Wembley became a Borough Council. He donated the Mace and Chains of Office and wanted all residents of Wembley (around 80,000 at the time)  to participate in the Ceremony. Sadly he died on the very day he was due to become Mayor. Wembley Borough Council went ahead with the Celebrations later and over 50,000 local people attended at tea party at the old Wembley Stadium later in the year.

 

On his death in July 1937 Titus Barham donated his home and gardens for the enjoyment of local people. The donation was made to the Wembley Borough Council.

 

It is now the responsibility of Brent Council to manage the Park and buildings as any other Park in Brent. It is the current Labour Administration that closed the Council run Barham Park Library which served the area for almost 60 years in 2011. It is the same Labour Administration that has neglected the buildings and areas of the Park since - despite wasting tens of thousands of pounds on consultants whose previous reports. are collecting the dust.

 

it is Councillor Butt and his colleagues who decided to spend another £25,000 of public money on the latest "hypothetical" Architects study without checking some very basic facts. The aim of the Architects proposals seems to be the achievement of commercial income from redevelopment for Hotel rooms, Shops, Airbnb, Offices etc. The existing tenants would be kicked out because the redevelopment would require a completely vacant site and the requisitioning of the public car park near the children area for a building materials depot.

 

The existing tenants were not consulted and when Francis Henry, from Friends of Barham Library tried to ask some relevant questions, he was interrupted and prevented from speaking by the Leader of Brent Council.

 

Brent Council pays lip service to community engagement, diversity or to being a Dementia Friendly Borough. We have already been deprived of space in Barham Park to provide an advice and outreach base for people with Dementia and their Carers. The latest proposals are aimed to deprive local people of community space which serves the diverse community in the Sudbury & Wembley area and beyond.

 

As I said earlier - the Architects have said that their re-development proposals can only progress if they have a fully vacant site. Friends of Barham Library are not going anywhere. Barham Community Library serves our community and will continue to do so. We are STANDING UP for our community and our neighbours in Barham Park - the Barham Veterans Club, The ex Gurkhas and all the others. 

 

As our email to officers of Brent Council makes clear our Lease has another 8 years to go and we have absolutely no intention of moving out.

 

The wishes of Titus Barham are clear. Barham Park - his home and gardens - are for the recreation of local people and not for Hotels or Airbnb for visitors to Wembley Stadium or shops and supermarkets that no one has asked for.

 

Our Community Library will continue to serve local people. We now need every one who cares for Barham Park (and all our Parks to rally round - so come and support us and come and support our beautiful Barham Park.

 

With best wishes

 

Paul Lorber

for Friends of Barham Library

 

 

Email to Brent Council

 

 

We write as Trustees of Friends of Barham Library in reference to yesterday's AGM of the Barham Park Trust, and in particular, the Report at Item 7 and the recommendation to Trustees at paragraph 2.2.1. 

 

It seems that, following production of the outline specification, that  the Trustees have accepted that recommendation, and are proceeding with the "Silver" option.

 

Mention was made in the meeting of the Trust generating officer time. It is clear that further officer time will be generated in connection with this recommendation. It also now seems entirely possible that the Trust (and/or the Council (Capital Grant funds)) may incur yet further consultant's fees. Appreciating the responsibilities of charity trustees ourselves, we would clearly like to assist in preventing  unnecessary expenditure, whether of officer time, scarce Trust unrestricted funds or indeed Capital Grant funds. 

 

We had hoped to inform the Trustees at the meeting as part of Francis Henry's contribution on our behalf, that FoBL has a Lease of Unit 4 at Barham Park and full exclusive possession until 6th October 2031. There is no landlord break clause in that Lease.

 

Not having previously been asked about our position,  as charity trustees, we thought it only responsible now to inform you that FoBL will not be surrendering its Lease - nor, therefore, giving vacant possession of Unit 4 at any point prior to expiry of our contractual term.  We shall also, of course, expect the Barham Park Trust as our Landlord to meet in full its obligations of quiet enjoyment under our Lease.

 

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Francis Henry

Paul Lorber

Robert Wharton

Trustees of Friends of Barham Library.

 

PS. You may wish to advise all the Trustees.

 

Barham Park Trust Accounts - Two questions that need answering

 I am publishing, with permission, the text of an email sent to Brent's Head of Internal Audit and Investigations:

 

 

Dear Mr Armstrong,

 

 

I am sorry for the short notice, but I have been reading the papers for the Barham Park Trust Committee meeting on Tuesday 5 September at 10am.

 

 

There are a couple of points arising from the Trust accounts for 2022/23 which I believe need to be explained to the Committee and the public at that meeting (even though I will only be able to watch it when the webcast is available to view online later in the week).

 

 

You were the Independent Examiner of those accounts, and at para. 4.2 of your Supplementary Audit Review, you have stated that:

 

 

'No matter has come to my attention, which gives me reasonable cause to believe that, in any material respect, the requirement:

...  To which, in my opinion, attention should be drawn in order to enable a proper understanding of the accounts to be reached.'

 

 

Although I have been accustomed to reading accounts for many years, there are two points with the 2022/23 Barham Park Trust accounts which I think are material for a proper understanding of them:

 

 

1.    Fun Fair Receipts - The 2022/23 accounts show no Fun Fair receipts (previous year £28,172), but the Trustee's Annual Report (6a Appendix 1) states that 'The park hosted a Fun Fair on two occasions.' 

The General Update Report to the September 2022 Trust Committee meeting gave these details: 'Irvin’s Fun Fair were at Barham Park: Operating days between the 20th May to 5th June 2022 (on site 12th May to 6th June); Operating days between the 19th August to 4th September 2022 (and will be on site until a few days later).'

How much was payable by Irvin's Fun Fair for its use of Barham Park for those two periods in 2022/23, and why does this amount not appear in the Trust's 2022/23 accounts?

 

2.    Consultancy Payments - The 2022/23 accounts show Consultancy payments of £21,244 out of the Trust's unrestricted funds. The Officer Report to the Committee on the Trust's Annual Report and Accounts refers to: 'additional one-off costs have been incurred associated with commissioning a Barham Park Feasibility study to consider the use of the Barham Park building and its condition in the long-term.'

It is clear from earlier meetings of the Barham Park Trust Committee, particularly that of 27 January 2022, that the Trust had agreed to appoint Rider Levett Bucknall ("RLB") architects to produce a feasibility study on the future of the Barham Park buildings. It was also clear that it had been agreed the £25,000 cost of this would be met as capital expenditure by Brent Council.

The results of the RLB report are to be considered at the Trust Committee meeting on 5 September, but to understand the 2022/23 accounts properly, more explanation is needed. The meeting on Tuesday should be told, and the answers minuted, on who the £21,244 was paid to, what services were provided to the Trust in return for that payment (and where is the evidence for those services?), who authorised this expenditure and where that authorisation is recorded.

 

 

Thank you, in advance, for your prompt attention to the points I have raised. I am copying this email to other Council Officers who may need to be involved in ensuring that these points are dealt with at Tuesday's meeting. 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

 

 

Brent Council seek to commercialise historic old buildings in Barham Park at expense of community groups

 

The Harrow Road frontage

The community library space

The attractive cluster of buildings - including artists' studios

The Veterans' Club

Nepalese Community Centre

The Children's Centre

When the planning application for the building of four 3 storey houses in Barham Park was approved there were warnings about setting a precedent that could be a threat to other parks and gave rise to a 1,000 plus petition calling on Brent Council to protect our parks. The news that the Barham Park Trustees were seeking to revise the covenant preventing building on the park reinforced fears and these seem to be borne out by a new threat.

Brent Council (not the  Cabinet members under the leadership of Muhammed Butt but who call tell the difference?)  have commissioned a feasibility study to refurbish the site to allow commercial development in order to maximise income by charging market rents. 

In the process it would  the whole feel and purpose of the buildings which once housed the Brent Council Parks Department and a Brent Council public library, closed by a previous Labour administration. The volunteer community library set up by a 'Save Our Libraries' campaign group, and offering many more community activities than just a library, would not be able to afford a commercial rent and its future would be threatened if the plans went ahead. A similar fate would await the other community groups that use the various buildings.

The brief is set out below with a key factor highlighted.

The key items considered within this report are:

•   Location of additional parking (including EV charging)

•   Partial demolition & rebuild of certain elements of the building (eg. the flat-roofed areas towards the rear) have insufficient potential to add value to the project as a whole and has been excluded from the project scope.

•   No full demolition & rebuild - design to relate to & incorporate existing building.

•   Not to consider existing tenancies and to consider the building as vacant.

•   Tracking and tracing of all underground drainage / pipe routes.

•   Topography survey and levelling to ensure sufficient drainage.

•   Structural constraints of the Barham Park Trust building

•   EPC C to be targeted.

•   Trees located within a conservation area that are not protected require written notice to the local planning authority.

 

When I visited this morning it was clear that few of the user groups had any knowledge of the plans that will be discussed by the Barham Park Trustees Committee at its meeting on Tuesday September 5th at 10am in Brent Civic Centre  The public can attend in person or on zoom LINK and everyone who cares about the future of Brent parks is urged to attend.

 

 AGENDA

 

The Feasibility Study suggests that the construction costs would be £3,161,537.50 but many key items are left out and it is likely to be more that £4m.

 

 

 

The suggested occupants of the site, rather bizarrely, include an Air B&B, when many councils are discouraging them as they take away permanent local housing provision. Four retail outlets including a supermarket are  proposed when this section of the Harrow Road has little footfall other than park users, and a restaurant (there is a large restaurant opposite that has recently been converted from a pub.  

 

The only non-commercial uses mentioned are a community hub with local information and a library. Whether the latter would be at an affordable rent and affordable service charges will be vital for the continuation of the Barham Park Community Library.  Considerable financial investment and volunteer hours have been invested in the current library as can be seen in the photograph above, taken just after a morning yoga session, one of many activities that take place there.

 

 

Like many Brent Council properties the buildings have been allowed to run down and fall into disrepair, although users have done their best to rectify the defects spending their own funds. This run down strategy can sometimes be used to justify demolition and rebuild as happened with the previous Willesden Green library, and on a smaller but widespread scale with garages on council estates.

 

There are buildings in many Brent parks with development planned in King Edward VII   Wembley pavilion and the Bowls Court in Roundwood Park being offered to potential users. Watch this space!

 

Boarded up windows

To enable the users I met today and other members of the public to see the full study I have embedded it  below.

 

 

 

Trustees set to rubber stamp process to remove covenant restriction on building in Barham Park

The proposed George Irvin development of four 3 storey houses in Barham Park that would require the removal of the covenant

Trustees Meeting Agenda September 5th 2023

Reader will be familiar with the controversy over the proposal by funfair owner and property developer George Irvin to replace two  modest two storey park workers' houses  in Barham park with 4 three storey houses. At Planning Committee the elephant in the room was the restrictive covenant on developing the site, dismissed by officers as not a planning consideration. Planning permission was granted despite massive resident opposition.

Readers will also remember that the Trustees of Barham Park consist of Brent Council Cabinet members, chaired by Brent Council Leader, Muhammed Butt. Readers will also recall disquiet over Irvin giving free tickets away to councillors and concern over alleged social connections between Irvin and councillors, including Muhammed Butt.

Now the elephant in the room is due to make an appearance at the Barham Park Trustees meeting at the Civic Centre on Tuesday September 5th. 

The proposal by the existing owner, contrary to the terms of the restrictive covenants, is to seek consent from the Trust Committee to amend the restrictive covenants to enable him to demolish the existing buildings and erect 4 houses on the combined plot, whereas currently the restrictive covenants allow for only 2 dwellings on the combined plot.

However, the public and backbench councillors will not be allowed to know the size and value of the elephant/covenant as the result of an Independent Valuation has been 'restricted':

"Appendix 3 is not for publication as it contains the following category of exempt information as specified in Paragraph 3, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, namely: “Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information."

There is a clue to how it could be worked out in the papers for the meeting:

The varying of the restrictive covenants is a matter for the Trust Committee and Charity Commission. As beneficiary of the restrictive covenants, the Trust Committee can negotiate a monetary consideration for varying the restrictive covenants. Simply put, the monetary consideration is usually determined by what the market value of the 2 additional completed properties might be and deduct from that the estimated development costs to arrive at a gross development value. This gross development value is then typically split 50/50 between the Covenantor and Covenantee by negotiation and is the formula used in the valuation for varying the restrictive covenant.

Developer, George Irvin,  will of course be a beneficiary as well but the report attempts to sweeten the pill by suggesting that the proceeds from varying the  covenant will be used to the benefit of the park, which as Trustees would have to do anyway, although they only refer to 'potential':

Officers will explore the potential to reinvest the proceeds from varying the restrictive covenants in respect of 776-778 Harrow Road back into the Estate as part of developing a multi-faceted investment strategy for the refurbishment project. Accordingly, the proceeds would count as permanent endowment funds (capital funds which are held in trust for the benefit of the charity over the long term and are subject to restrictions as regards how they may be used).

Those proposals on  refurbishment are a separate part of the agenda for the meeting and will be covered in a separate blog post.

So is there any mention of the 1,000 signatures plus petition calling for the covenants to be upheld? No - neither in the report or as as a Petition Presentaton Agenda item. A new elephant in the room!?

A key question is whether the Agenda or accompanying reports leave open the possibility of the Trustees deciding not to vary the covenants at all and thus fulfill their role in protecting the Tutus Barham legacy. The answer is already implied - they will protect the legacy by using the covenant variation monies to improve the park not by refusing to negotiate  a variation.

So what do officers' recommend to the Barham Park Trust Committee?

Recommendation(s)

 

That the Barham Park Trust Committee RESOLVES

 

Agree for the Director for Environmental and Leisure Services in consultation with the Chair of the Trust Committee to negotiate in principle the variation of the restrictive covenant in respect of 776 and 778 Harrow Road for the best terms that can reasonably be obtained, subject to final approval by the Trust Committee, and any approval required by the Charity Commission under the Charities Act 2022 and 201l.

 

So the Committee is asked to agree to hand over negotiation to Muhammed Butt and the Director and, subject to Charity Commission approval,  will then rubber stamp it. All done by a small group of cabinet members, albeit wearing trustee hats - with, as I said at the beginning no resident or backbencher input.

 

There is one other area that may be considered by supporters of the covenant and critics of the process regarding whether the owner/developer is a 'connected person' and thus a conflict of interest arises. This is the relevant section of the report:

5.7 Use of s117, pre-supposes that the owner of the cottages is not a “connected person” within the meaning of section 118. Connected persons2 includes:

 

“Who at the time of the disposition in question, or at the time of any contract for the disposition in question are, for example—

(a) a charity trustee or trustee for the charity…

(c) a child, parent, grandchild, grandparent, brother or sister of any such trustee or donor,

(d) an officer, agent or employee of the charity…

(f) a person carrying on business in partnership with any person falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (e)”

 

5.8 In accordance with s120, any disposal of Trust land over seven years to a third party is also subject to similar requirement imposed by s119 above.

 

Furthermore, the disposal of charity land, or letting for more than two years to a third party or connected person requires consultation in the form of being notified in the local press and onsite and providing for at least one calendar month, from the date of the notice, for members of the public to make representations.

 

5.9 Accordingly, if the owner of the cottages is a connected person, or a conflict of interest is deemed to exist in the decision making process re the disposal (for example, amongst other things because payment of a capital sum to the Council (as trustee) for releasing the covenant would reduce the contribution required to be made in practice by the Council (as local authority) to subsidise the running of the charity), the Trustees should request the Charity Commission consider the Qualified Surveyor’s Report (referred to under the 2022 Act as the Designated Advisor’s Report (DARs) (valuation) and release or varying the restrictive covenant pursuant to their s105 Charity Act powers, to authorise dealings with the charity property.

 

On the same Agenda there is an item on governance which proposes the first update since 2013. The item makes clear that Brent Council is the corporate Trustee of Barham Park but must ensure that the management of the Charity and its interests is separate from its responsibility as the Council and its interests Decisions have to be made solely on the basis of the former. What is in the interests of the  Charity may not be in the electoral interests of the Council. See 10a Appendix A for the changes.

Interesting...

Review of Barham Park Trust Governance Document PDF 137 KB

• View the background to item 10.

This report sets out for review proposed updates to the Barham Park Trust Governance and Guidance Document. Primarily designed to reflect changes following organisational restructures in the council and updated guidance issued by the Charity Commission.

Additional documents:

• 10a. Appendix A - Reviewed Governance and Guidance Document 2013 PDF 865 KB
• 10b. Appendix A(i) Cllrs Guide to a Councils Role as Charity Trustee (Appendix B Trust Governance Document) PDF 253 KB
• 10c. Appendix A(ii) Charity Commission Guidance Conflict of Interests (Appendix C Trust Governance Document) PDF 511 KB
• 10d. Appendix A(iii) Charity Commission Essential Trustee Guidance (Appendix D Trust Governance Document) PDF 943 KB

 

 

Brent Council challenged on apparent attempt to restrict public information on the Barham Park restrictive covenant

 

The elephant in the room at the Planning Committee that approved George Irvin's planning application to build 4 three storey houses in Barham Park was the restrictive covenant on the two small park workers' houses on the site.

'Not a planning issue' residents were told by officers as they consigned the poor elephant to invisibility.

Perhaps not but the elephant was perhaps a fly in George Irvin's or Muhammed Butt's ointment.

Now a Barham Park Strategic Property Review, including the covenant, is to take place with Muhammed Butt heading it up as Leader of Brent Council. He is also Chair of the Barham park Trustees charged with preserving and enhancing the park for the benefit of residents in the spirit of the Titus Barham bequest. 

Unfortunately residents who hoped to see the elephant properly dealt with in an open and accountable manner may be kept in the dark as a restriction has been placed on publication and thus public discussion of any proposal:

Barham Park Strategic Property Review

By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Explanation of Reasons

• By Virtue of Paragraph 3

  Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

  Condition:

  Information falling within paragraph 3 above is not exempt information by virtue of that paragraph if it is required to be registered under-(a)the Companies Acts (as defined in section 2 of the Companies Act 2006); (b)the Friendly Societies Act 1974; (c)the Friendly Societies Act 1992; (d)the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1965 to 1978; (e)the Building Societies Act 1986; or (f)the Charities Act 1993

  Information is not exempt information if it relates to proposed development for which the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission pursuant to regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992

  Information which-(a)falls within any of paragraphs 1 to 7 above; and (b)is not prevented from being exempt by virtue of paragraph 8 or 9 above, is exempt information if and so long, as in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information

Cllr Paul Lorber is challening the claim in the restriction that:

....the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information

In a letter to Brent Council officers he says:

I note the latest Forward Plan mentions a number of Reports coming to the above meeting including on issues of the Covenant, Architects Report and Governance.

There is a suggestion that some of the information may be exempt and not provided in the public reports. 

As you are aware there is a great deal of public interest and concern in relation to these matters. 

In relation to all the matters to be reported on it is clear that the Public Interest in disclosing the information outweighs any public interest in maintains the exemption.

In view of this I trust that you will ensure that all information is published in full in all the reports to be presented to the meeting (including any information & advice given in pre meetings) on which any recommendations or decisions will be based.

If any information is to be withheld please provide a list of this information and the grounds on which it is withheld and the justification why the public interest withholding it outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. 

Please confirm that this will be done.

The Barham Park planning decision on 12 June – Brent Head of Planning’s response to my challenge.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The Chair of Planning Committee, with Head of Planning on his left,
at 12 June Planning Committee meeting. (Screenshot from webcast)

 

On 13 June, Martin published the text of an email I’d sent to Brent’s Head of Planning, challenging the way in which Brent’s Planning Officers had presented the planning policy position to the previous evening’s Committee meeting, over the application to demolish two homes within the Barham Park Local Green Space, and build four new homes on the site.

 

Martin had reported the controversial decision to approve the application, with all seven Labour committee members accepting the recommendation of Planning Officers, despite being told by other councillors (Lib Dem Cllr. Paul Lorber and Labour Cllr. Ketan Sheth, a former Chair of Planning Committee himself, and Conservative committee member Michael Maurice) that the Local Green Space policies in the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan meant that the application should be refused.

 

It appeared to me that the Committee had been misled by Brent’s Development Management Manager, who appeared to state that what mattered, more than those policies, was that the application would not cause harm (in the opinion of Brent’s Planning Officers!). My email to the Head of Planning asked:

 

‘What is the planning policy, relevant to application 22/4128, which dictates that if an application would not cause harm, that overrides policies such as those in the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan?’

 

It was two weeks before I received a reply, and I apologise that I have not shared it with you sooner than this (pressure of other matters, I’m afraid!). However, as there have been several other posts, or comments on posts, which have raised questions about how Brent’s Planning Department presents applications, which they recommend for approval, to Planning Committee (with possibly more of the same this week!), I am sharing it with you now. 

 

My email was headed “Application 22/4128 - 776/778 Harrow Road - urgent need for a policy explanation.” This is the reply I received from Brent’s Head of Planning on the evening of 26 June 2023:

 

‘Good afternoon Philip

 

Thank you for your email and comments in relation to the above matter.

 

I acknowledge your concerns and your specific question and respond as follows.

 

As stated in the policy section of the report: “Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that the determination of this application should be in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

 

I draw your attention to the following paragraph from the report:

 

Neighbourhood Plan Policies LGS1, LGS2 and BP1 are relevant to the proposal as the site is within the area defined as Local Green Space by the plan. However, the proposal does not result in the loss of any Local Green Space. The site contains house [sic] for which the authorised use is as dwellings within Use Class C3 and as such, the proposal is not considered to result in the redevelopment of park buildings. The proposal is considered to accord with policies LGS1, LGS2 and BP1. Nevertheless, if one contended that Policy BP1 relates to all buildings within the area designated Local Green Space as opposed to all buildings within the park itself, it is noted that the fall-back position for the applicant would be the continued use of the houses and their curtilages for their current lawful use, for purposes within Use Class C3. In this instance the proposed redevelopment of the site would continue to be acceptable having regard to the existing use of the site.

 

The decision that was made by planning committee was on the basis of the officer reports (main and supplementary) as well as the discussions that took place on the evening. The report clearly discusses relevant policies including those in the neighbourhood plan.

 

The case was properly considered and the decision made is valid. There is no basis to have delayed issuing the decision.

 

Gerry Ansell
Head of Planning and Development Services
Brent Council’

 

 

Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan Policy BP1: Barham Park, the most relevant policy!

 

You may have noticed that while the reply acknowledges my ‘specific question’ it does not answer it. It does refer to a piece of legislation referred to in the ‘policy section’ of the Officer Report to the committee, and this is what Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“PCPA 2004”) says, in full:

 

‘(6) If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.’

 

The ‘development plan’, in this case, is Brent’s Local Plan, adopted in February 2022. One of the supporting documents adopted as part of that Local Plan is the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan, which is a “neighbourhood development plan” under Section 38A, PCPA 2004 (as inserted by the Localism Act 2011).

 

I agree that decisions on planning applications ‘must be made in accordance with the plan.…’ That is what Brent’s Planning Code of Practice says, as well as planning legislation. But which policy should be followed, if more than one applies, and there is a difference between them?

 

The Localism Act thought of that when it introduced neighbourhood plans, and inserted Section 38B into PCPA 2004 as well. This says:

 

‘(3) If to any extent a policy set out in a neighbourhood development plan conflicts with any other statement or information in the plan, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy.’

 

In other words, the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan policy BP1: Barham Park should have taken precedence over any other policy which conflicted with it. Several people said that at the Planning Committee meeting, but the Planning Officers present and seven of the eight committee members ignored that.

 

The Head of Planning’s reply draws my attention to a paragraph from the Officer Report to Planning Committee, but omits its paragraph number, which was 13. Mr Ansell was already aware that I knew what para.13 said, because I had sent him a copy of my objection comment, which Martin had published on 5 June as 'Misrepresentation' by officers cited in Objection to the Barham Park Application Committee Report. This set out in detail why para.13 was wrong!

 

I did not try to continue my dispute with the Head of Planning, after receiving his reply. It would have been a waste of time, because he had clearly decided not to accept that he and his Officers were wrong, and I did not have the time or energy in late June to pursue the matter. Also, as he had already issued the planning consent letter, the day after the 12 June meeting, the only way that consent could be formally challenged would be through the High Court.

 

However, I still believe that, in this case, as in some others, Brent’s Planning Officers have made a serious mistake. To do so in such a controversial case must raise the question: “Why?”

Philip Grant.