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.
