EXCLUSIVE: Rokesby Place – Brent's possible planning malpractice exposed

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Architect’s drawing of the two proposed new Council houses at Rokesby Place.

 

There was a flurry of blogs on “Wembley Matters” last month about the planning application for the proposed Brent Council housing “infill” development at Rokesby Place. On 12 August, Martin wrote about the loss of green space and the tenure change. Straight after the meeting on 17 August, he reported that Planning Committee had “dumped” the a recommendation of the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission Report, and allowed a changed of tenure for the two new homes from Social Rent to London Affordable Rent.

 

I could not understand the justification for Brent’s Planning Officers recommending LAR when the planning application, only 4 months earlier, had said that the houses would be let at Social Rent level. 

 

Extract from the Planning Statement for the Rokesby Place application, 22/1400.

 

I added a comment below the second blog, giving the text of a Freedom of Information Act request I’d sent to Brent’s Head of Planning, seeking the evidence behind that change of tenure. Martin published that as a separate post the following day.

 

I received the information I’d requested on 1 September (that was quick for an FoI, but I’d told the Head of Planning that he should not issue the consent letter until my enquiries were resolved!), I said I would share the response with “Wembley Matters” readers, and will ask Martin to attach it at the end of this article, if possible.

 

I am not attaching the two enclosures, which were series of emails between Brent Planning Officers, the Brent Project Manager for the Rokesby Place scheme and the planning agent representing Brent Council for application 22/1400. The names of senders and recipients had been redacted (in order to protect the guilty?). 

 

I will include copies of the key emails below, as I explain what Council Officers did wrong, and why the change from Social Rent to LAR was not justified, and should be reversed. There is more detail on this in an open letter, and formal complaint about the conduct of the Council Officers involved, which I have sent to Brent’s Chief Executive. I hope that Martin can also attach a copy of that, as it includes some important points which MUST be put right before any more planning applications for Council “infill” housing schemes are considered.

 

Email from Planning Case Officer to Project Manager in Brent Property Services.

 

The email above was sent by the Planning Case Officer (“CO”) to Brent’s Rokesby Place Project Manager (“PM”) when the Officer Report was about to be published with the agenda for the Planning Committee meeting on 17 August. There should not have been any doubt about which rent level should be in the recommended affordable housing condition, as the application clearly stated Social Rent!

 

But worse than that, the CO should not have been communicating with the PM over the application (especially offering the chance to change a detail in it). There have to be special procedures in place where a Council, like Brent, is both the developer and the Local Planning Authority, to ensure that the Council’s applications are dealt with fairly. This is summed up in the Local Government Association booklet, “Probity in Planning”:

 

Extract from “Probity in Planning”, 2019 edition.

 

I have set out why this contact, which could (and did) have an unfair influence on the planning decision, was wrong in my letter to Carolyn Downs, if you are interested in the detailed reasons.

 

Further emails from the CO to the PM over the next few days, after the Officer Report had been published, show that the Planning Officer knew that recommending LAR might be a mistake, and that if it was, that should be reported to Planning Committee members.

 

The “confirmation” CO sought was finally provided by PM later that day, and acknowledged by the Planning Case Officer:

 

But LAR was not correct. It might be what was intended on the New Council Homes ‘master tracker’, but it was not what was shown by the planning application. That was Social Rent, which should have been the tenure included in the Officer Report for Planning Committee.

 

The emails between the planning agent, Maddox & Associates (“M&A”) and CO, and copied to another person (possibly the Senior Planning Officer who would be presenting the application to Planning Committee) are even more worrying. There were no communications involving the tenure of the proposed new homes after the application was submitted until the afternoon of 17 August, just a couple of hours before the Committee meeting. This was the first, from M&A:

 

Email from planning agent to Brent Planning Officer(s), 125 minutes before Committee meets.

 

M&A were concerned. They’ve discovered that “residents” are raising the issue of what rent level should be charged for the proposed new homes (they’d been discussing it on “Wembley Matters” since 12 August!). So M&A claim ‘we have always proposed that the units are 100% London Affordable Rent’. AND, in the final sentence, they effectively ask Planning Officers to repeat that claim, ‘in case Members ask the question to officers directly’ at the meeting!

 

We know that claim was false, because M&A had proposed that the homes would be for Social Rent. But Brent’s CO also knows it was false, because eight minutes after receiving that email from M&A, the CO sends this reply:

 

 

Undeterred by the truth, M&A send a further email to the CO (again cc’d), less than 50 minutes before the start of the Planning Committee meeting which will consider the Rokesby Place application. [The warning that it ‘contains information that may be confidential’ and that the recipient ‘may not … disclose it to anyone else’, does not protect it from a valid FoI request!]:

 

 

M&A are “flagging” to Brent Planning a line of argument which could be used to justify LAR being the tenure required in the affordable housing condition included in the Rokesby Place planning consent letter. I don’t know whether the Senior Planning Officer who presented the application to the meeting that evening saw this email, or was aware of its contents. But I do know, from watching and listening to the webcast, that this was the basis of the argument which she used.

 

I have set out in my open letter to Brent’s Chief Executive, in much greater detail, why the actions of Brent Planning Officers before and at the Planning Committee meeting were wrong and unacceptable. This includes the fact that the objectors (particularly the Ward councillor, Ketan Sheth, over the Social Rent or LAR point) were not dealt with fairly and impartially.

 

I have also set out how I believe my complaint(s) should be resolved, including the measures needed to ensure that future planning applications where Brent Council is the developer (and there is likely to be a string of new “infill” housing applications over the next few years) are dealt with properly, fairly and impartially.

 

I may not achieve everything that I hope for, but I am confident that Brent should reverse the decision over affordable housing tenure, so that the two new homes at Rokesby Place will be for Social Rent, not London Affordable Rent. 

 

The tenants of those four-bedroom houses are likely to be large families in urgent housing need. The Planning Officer claimed that the two rent levels were ‘very, very similar’. But, even on the figures she gave, each tenant would be paying £772.20 a year more than they should be if LAR is charged, rather than Social Rent. That’s why the Social Rent level recommended by the Brent Poverty Commission Report is so important to families on a tight budget.

Philip Grant. 

Information Request and Open Letter to Brent CEO.  Click on bottom right corner for full page view.

 

 

Brent Elections Returning Officer steps into skips row

 

Carolyn Downs, who as well as being Brent Council CEO is also the Returning Officer for the May 5th local elections, wrote to party returning officers this afternoon:

 

Dear all

You will be fully aware that purdah starts on 24th March. All councillors including those who will be seeking re-election have been advised of this and to be very careful of any publicity used in the near run up to that date. A particular issue has been drawn to my attention.  The council has been working with the community and residents associations on a programme of community skips located in wards around the borough where people can take rubbish. This initiative is warmly welcomed by the community. We have a few more to take place between now and 24th March and we have advised all Councillors not to promote themselves through their own or party publicity in relation to these skips. I am sure that you, as agents, would agree that prospective candidates who are not currently Councillors should desist in doing so as well to avoid this valuable initiative being marred for the community by [political] controversy. I would be grateful for your cooperation.

 

Carolyn Downs

Chief Executive

EXCLUSIVE: Wembley's famous football mural will remain on public view until at least August 2024 after Philip Grant's tenacious campaign wins public support

 

The mural beneath Bobby Moore Bridge, Olympic Way, Wembley Park

 

It  turned out that  Debra Norman's letter to Philip Grant LINK  cutting off any further correspondence about the campaign to keep the football mural on permanent public view  was not quite the last word. Following Philip's persistent correspondence and forensic analysis of Brent Council planning documentation. along with emails of support from residents, Brent Council Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, has written to Philip. 

Although the email still claims to uphold the Council's view over advertisement consent, Ms Downs has now asked for, and received, Quintain's promise that they will not cover the "footballers" mural with adverts for the rest of their lease (up to August 2024).

Dear Mr Grant,

I have spoken to both the Leader of the Council and Councillor Nerva before responding to you, as you requested.

The Council has taken your representations on this matter very seriously. It is not just Brent’s lawyers but also external legal advice which aligns with that of the council regarding Quintain’s right to advertise over the football mural.

Because the Council values the mural very much and because we have requested of Quintain that it remain on view, and because they too value it, it has now been on display for a considerable period of time and has not been covered by advertising. Furthermore Quintain have confirmed to me in writing that they do not intend covering the mural for the remaining period of the lease. 

I concur with Ms Norman that we have spent enough time corresponding with you on this matter particularly given that the mural will remain on view and that is what you have sought to achieve.

Yours sincerely,

Carolyn Downs

Chief Executive

Congratulations Philip!

 

Bobby Moore Bridge “footballers” mural – Brent Council’s “final word”?

 Guest post by Philip Grant

Following my “open email” of 26 May, Carolyn Downs appears to have accepted that it would be unreasonable for the Council not to answer the strong case that I put forward, showing that there is no advertisement consent to cover the “footballers” mural in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway with adverts. 

 

 

Last Thursday evening, I received an email for the Council’s Legal Director, saying that ‘the Chief Executive has asked me to write to you this final time.’ I will set out the full text of that email below, so that anyone can read how some Senior Council Officers feel they can treat Brent’s citizens. Although Ms Norman considers the correspondence on this matter is over, there are some important things I wish to say in response to her, and I will say them here.

 

You might think that, because ‘a substantial amount of council resource has been devoted to considering the concerns’ I raised, I have been wasting the Council’s time. 

 

I have submitted Freedom of Information Act requests, to establish the facts behind transactions that Council Officers have failed to conduct openly and transparently.

 

I did make ‘a whistleblowing complaint’ when those FoI’s uncovered potentially fraudulent arrangements, which may have given a false impression that a “deal” done by Council Officers was “best value”. You’d have thought Brent’s Director of Audit & Investigations would be grateful for my bringing this to the Council’s attention!

 

I have written a number of letters to Senior Council Officers about this matter, but if those letters had been dealt with properly, from the start, the difficulty I drew attention to could have been sorted out much earlier. Unfortunately, it is a dispute which has still not been resolved.

 

Last month I suggested what I believe was a sensible way to resolve it, quickly and efficiently, through a small arbitration panel of our elected councillors. Ms Norman dismissively refers to this as ‘some sort of agreement between yourself and the council’. The reason she gives for that opinion is that ‘such an agreement would not include the holder of the legal rights’, but those “legal rights” only exist if the Council has given them and they are still valid. 

 

It’s a simple point, and I think that councillors are capable of considering it fairly, and deciding it on the basis of the facts and evidence. But if Brent wants to invite Quintain to have their say to an arbitration panel, I would have no objection, as long as they, like the Council and myself, agree to accept the panel’s decision.

 

If the dispute is resolved that way, we would not need ‘repeated correspondence.’ I’m ready to “put my cards on the table”, and will ask Martin to attach my ‘up to 1,000 words’ submission to the panel setting out why there is no advertisement consent for the footballers mural.

 

The Council’s Legal Director would prefer me either to “go away”, or ‘to consider what legal steps may be available to you.’ She would be prepared to spend £000’s on legal fees of our Council Tax money (some of which might be recoverable from me if the Council managed to “win” the case on some legal technicality), rather than have our dispute settled quickly and effectively by arbitration. 

 

There is no need to go to Court over this, but I think that is Ms Norman’s last line of defence for what can now be exposed, through the details set out in her email, as a very weak case in claiming that there is advertisement consent. The Council’s case is so weak, and based on a superficial reading of only some of the relevant documents, that Brent’s Legal Director should be ashamed to put her name to it!

 

I have accepted from the start that the consent given in August 2017 (13/2987) did allow the subway walls, including the footballers mural, to be covered with vinyl advertising sheets. Ms Norman claims that this consent remains in place for the “footballers” mural, but that is where her case goes wrong. You could only take that view if you ignore most of the evidence!

 

Council lawyers seem to fixated on the 2019 consent being for ‘the use of light boxes … for advertising purposes.’ They’ve assumed this must mean that application 19/1474 does not apply to the footballers mural, but all of the supporting documents and drawings for that application show that it does, and that this tile mural scene will be uncovered as part of it.

 

The email says that I rely on ‘on references to 19/1474 being a “replacement scheme”.’ Yes, and for very good reasons! The letter submitting the application says it ‘will replace the existing system of wall coverings (approved under ref. 13/2987).’ This is also supported by the Officer Report to the Planning Committee meeting in July 2019 which approved it, that says: ‘The current application seeks consent for a replacement scheme.’

 

You will note that I have used a primary evidence source here, backed up by secondary evidence from a report on what the application documents show. The Legal Director’s argument falls apart when she bases it just on that same secondary source (and ignores all of the original application documents as well).

 

“The advertisements already consented can be displayed irrespective of the outcome of this application” is a quotation from a summary at the start of the Officer Report. If whichever Legal Officer researched this had read the body of the report, or taken the trouble to consider the application documents, they would have realised that this statement actually means the opposite of what Brent now claims!

 

In para.15 of the detailed part of the Officer Report it says: 

 

‘Advertisement [consent] has also been previously granted for vinyl adverts over the tiles (also in a way that does not damage them), and should advertisement consent not be granted for the light boxes, the vinyl advertisements also could still be installed revealing less of the tiles than what would be visible under this proposal.’

 

In other words, the consent under 13/2987 would only continue to apply to the walls of the Bobby Moore Bridge subway if application 19/1474 was not approved. 

 

It was approved, and replaced the 2017 consent, both for the new light boxes, and for the footballers mural. The advertisement consent documents show that, including the “Statement of Significance” (see quotes from this in my document below) submitted because the murals were identified as a heritage asset. Additional confirmation is given in para. 11 of the Officer Report:

 

‘The Council’s Principal Heritage Officer notes that, given that the tiles are not a designated heritage asset, the proposals are a reasonable compromise. Officers therefore consider it appropriate that the plaque would be visible and the Twin Towers would be permanently exposed in recognition that they are part of Brent’s Heritage.’

 

The plaque in the footballers mural, below one of the Stadium towers.

 

It was a key part of Quintain’s application that they recognised there was a heritage issue over the tile murals in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway. While applying for consent to advertise on the light boxes, they committed to put the footballers mural back on permanent public display. That was an integral part of the consent given under 19/1474, with a majority of Planning Committee members approving it because it was seen as ‘a reasonable compromise.’

For some reason (potential profits?) it appears that Wembley Park’s commercial team, and a few Council Officers, are seeking to claim an advertisement consent for the footballers mural which does not exist.

I will send a copy of this “guest blog” to Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs. I will ask her to decide, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, whether Brent should continue to hold to its false view over advertisement consent (and the disrepute this would bring, if the footballers mural is unlawfully covered with adverts when football fans come to Wembley for the Euros), or accept what the evidence clearly shows, that there is no such consent.

Philip Grant.

 

This is the full text of the email I received on 3 June:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

 

The Chief Executive has asked me to write to you one final time to answer your most recent emails to her and to reiterate the grounds upon which the council considers that Quintain has advertising consent to place vinyl advertisements on the tiles of the footballers mural. 

 

 

The council’s position, and the reasons for that position are as follows, and have already been given. 

 

 

Consent to the placing of vinyl advertisements on the tiles of the footballers mural is given by advertisement consent 13/2987 [25 August 2017]:

 

 

‘Advertisement consent for eight “gateway advertisements”  comprising… .. 4 no. vinyl advertisements attached to the east and west tiled walls of the underpass and adjoining Olympic Way’

 

 

This consent in respect of vinyl advertisements remains in place notwithstanding the subsequent advertisement consent 19/1474 [22 August 2019] which relates to the use of light boxes for advertising purposes and does not permit the light boxes to extend over the footballers mural.

 

 

19/1474 does not expressly restrict reliance on 13/2987. 

 

 

I understand it to be your view that despite the lack of an express restriction, 13/2987 can no longer be relied upon in respect of the Bobby Moore Bridge and its underpass because 19/1474 gives consent covering the same area, except of course that it does not extend to the footballers mural.

 

 

You rely on references to 19/1474 being a “replacement scheme”.  As stated in my email to you of 9 April, although the applicant for consent 19/1474 stated the consent was sought as a replacement scheme to 13/2987, there is nothing in the 19/1474 consent itself which prevents reliance on 13/2987, to the extent that the two consents are compatible. Display of vinyl advertisements on the footballers mural pursuant to 13/2987 would not impede reliance on 19/1474 to use light boxes for the display of advertisements on the area permitted by that consent, which does not include the footballers mural.

 

 

I also note that the officers report considered by the Planning Committee on 16 July 2019 expressly states that “The advertisements already consented can be displayed irrespective of the outcome of this application.”

 

 

I think the council’s position and the reasons for it have been made very clear.

 

 

As the Chief Executive has pointed out, Quintain has indicated that it does not in fact intend to place vinyl advertisements over the footballers mural in reliance on the 13/2987 consent.  With reference to your email of 24 May 2021, this is an informal indication from Quintain and not a binding commitment, although the Chief Executive hoped it would provide you with some re-assurance.

 

 

Consent 13/2987 will expire on 22 August 2022, so next year.  As you have pointed out, the reference to re-tendering at the end of this year in the Chief Executive’s email of 24 May 2021 was an error, perhaps connected to the consent expiring next year.  She has asked me to apologise for the confusion.

 

 

Your most recent email of 26 May 2021 repeats your assertion that the legal position could be resolved by some sort of agreement between yourself and the council.  This suggestion ignores the fact that such an agreement would not include the holder of the legal rights in relation to the advertising consents and so could be of no effect.

 

 

As indicated at the start of this letter, the Chief Executive has asked me to write to you this final time.  In addition to the correspondence with myself and the Chief Executive you have submitted FOIs requests and a whistleblowing complaint.  These have been, or are being, responded to. As set out in my email of 16 April 2021, a substantial amount of council resource has been devoted to considering the concerns you have raised and the council is not able to agree with your view or to take the steps you wish.

 

 

If you consider that there is something legally wrong in how the council has proceeded, I would urge you to consider what legal steps may be available to you.  It is clear that the disagreement between yourself and the council as to the legal position is not going to be resolved through repeated correspondence and it is not appropriate that any more council resource be devoted to such correspondence.

 

 

Best wishes

 

 

Debra Norman 

Director of Legal, HR, Audit & Investigations