Secretary of State refers Wembley Park Station car park tower block development to Planning Inspectorate

The Communities Secretary, Robert Jenrick MP, has called-in the controversial Wembley Park station car park development which means he will make the decision on whether it goes ahead rather than Brent Council whose Planning Committee approved the development.

The application will be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at a public inquiry, with recommendations then going to the Minister to decide the outcome.

In a letter to Bob Blackman MP, the Planning Inspectorate said:

The Inspector instructed by the Secretary of State is T Gilbert-Wooldridge MRTPI IHBC and the inquiry will open at 10.00am on 28 September 2021. We have currently scheduled 6 sitting days (provisionally 28 Sept – 1 Oct and 4-5 October).

The Planning Casework Unit cannot forward any correspondence that was submitted to them before this case was called in. Therefore, if there are any matters which you wish to put before the Inspector, you can write to me at this address or email (leanne.palmer@planninginspectorate.gov.uk) quoting reference APP/T5150/ V/21/3275339.

You can also use the Internet to submit documents, to see information and to check the progress of cases through GOV.UK. The address of the search page is https:// acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/

Please submit any representations by 8 July.

The date by when the application will be decided will be published at the time the report is submitted to the Secretary of State.

At the Planning Committee only Cllr Michael Maurice voted against the application and Cllr Kansagra, leader of the Conservative Group said that the Council had been bribed by the developer with flats. (FULL REPORT)

Philip Grant, a regular contributor to this blog, presented a forensic analysis to the Committe based on the Council's own existing Tall Buildings policy which limited developments on the site to 10 storeys. It breached policy that had been made as a result of public consultation.  He concluded:

Committee members, please don’t allow yourselves to be fooled into accepting an application which doesn’t comply with the policies adopted by Brent Council, after consultation with its residents.

This application is a flagrant breach of those policies, and you can, and should, refuse it on those grounds. 

Philip's presentation followed a Guest Post he had written for Wembley Matters the day before the Planning Committee setting out his case in detail.  LINK

Regardless of party politics the Inquiry represents a second chance to stop over-development of the site as well as possibly putting a stop to officer's increasing propensity to make excuses for developers' failure to adhere to the Council's own planning policies and guidelines.

Philip Grant adds this comment:

AMENITY SPACE -

Although my main objection to this planning application was over its breach of Brent's tall buildings policies, there were a number of other failures to comply with planning policies.

When I had a look at the webpage for this application (20/0967) today, I found that although Planning Committee approved it last November, Brent has not yet issued a consent letter, so the application is still "undecided" (although with no mention that the Planning Inspectorate is now involved).

The other interesting thing I noticed was that an extra document had appeared in February 2021, described as a "Post Committee Delegated Report". It's main subject was 'Amenity Space Provision'.

It appears that Brent's Amenity Space policy DMP19 had been the subject of a Judicial Review, and this had found that Brent's planning officers had not been interpreting their own policy correctly! 'The JR judgement has clarified that all 3bed or larger units should be assessed against the 50sqm 
standard.' 

When planning officers had assessed the amenity space required for the 451 homes in the five tower blocks proposed at the Brook Avenue site, they had used 20 square metres as the standard requirement for the larger flats.

This meant that the cumulative private amenity space shortfall for the development was actually 7,498.9sqm, rather than the 6,178.9sqm reported to the Planning Committee meeting. 

[To give an idea of what these figures mean, the standard professional football pitch has an area of 7,140 square metres - so the residents together would be "robbed" of more than a football pitch in size of private amenity space, if the proposals are approved.]

Did the new information make any difference? This is what the planning officers' delegated report concluded:

'it is considered that the scheme would still be acceptable in planning terms, notwithstanding the shortfall against Policy DMP19 as the external amenity space provision remains to be of sufficient size and type to satisfy the proposed residents’ needs. The amount and type of external amenity space proposed was clearly expressed to members, and it is considered that members would not have come to a different view on the proposal had the greater shortfall been reported.'  

 

 

Final outcome of Tory showdown at Brent's OK Corrall uncertain

Last night's Full Meeting of Brent Council must have left the new Chief Executive Carolyn Downs wondering about the tough task ahead in getting the Council out of its slough of despond, while Christine Gilbert could be forgiven for celebrating her forthcoming liberation by performing  cartwheels in the Civic Centre atrium.

The showdown between the two groups of Tory Councillors dominated the business part of the meeting but when the gunfire died down no one could agree on the final outcome.

The 56 Labour councillors may have decided to recognise the Kenton Tories as the principal opposition with the status and funding that goes with that or the decision may have been  handed over to a constitutional working party to negotiate on before the next meeting of the General Purposes Committee.

CLARIFICATION (sic) These are the responses I got this morning:
 

Brent Council Press Office:

The group led by Cllr Kansagra was voted in as the principal opposition last night.  

Cllr Michael Pavey (Deputy Leader - Labour)

As it stands Kenton are the principal Opposition. There is a meeting of the constitution committee next week which will review the situation,  but only a vote by Full Council or a change in the number of members in either Tory Group can change this.

The next challenge is to try and allocate Committees between the two.

Cllr Joel Davidson (Briondesbury Park Conservatives)

What happened is that Mo Butt has chosen the Kenton Group to be Principal Opposition, that's what he got his Group to vote for last night. That means that Kansagra and Colwill will once again draw the allowances - 12k and 8k - that come with being Leader and Deputy Leader.

The constitutional working party, if there is one, is supposed to negotiate between the 2 Opposition Groups - Brent Tories and Kenton/Butt Group - as to who sits on the 6 main committees - GP, planning, equalities etc. 

If we can't agree, as seems very likely, then Council will again vote to give all the main committee posts to the Kenton/Butt Group.  It's another sad day for democracy in Brent when a Dear Leader can hand-pick a pliant Opposition which has no political affiliation and is committed to giving him as easy a ride as possible.  As I asked Butt last night - is 56 Labour Cllrs not enough that you need to co-opt 3 more AND make them the 'Opposition'??  

Meanwhile the tweets can tell the story:

A tale of two soap boxes at Brent Connects

Guest blog by Philp Grant

I was not able to be at the Wembley “Brent Connects” meeting on 26 March, but hope that the following “soapbox update” item which I sent in was read out:-

A “Wembley Lion”

At the Wembley “Brent Connects” forum in October 2013, I asked for the support of local people, councillors and Council Officers to get a lion head from the former Palace of Industry building put on permanent public display for the 90^th anniversary of the British Empire Exhibition. The meeting responded well to my “soapbox”, and I am pleased to let you know that Wembley will soon have its “Lion” again.

Volunteers from Wembley History Society and the Exhibition Study Group have worked together with Brent’s Regeneration, Heritage and Parks sections since last October. As a result of this, one of the lion head corbels will be placed on a concrete plinth at the new open space in Wembley Hill Road, opposite York House, by the end of next month. 

The plinth will have a plaque donated by Quintain, the Wembley Park developers who gave Brent three lion heads from the demolished building. It will also have a panel giving details about the history of the British Empire Exhibition in 1924/25. This Exhibition, which helped to put Wembley “on the map”, brought people together from across the world, to get to know each other better. 

I hope that today’s Wembley community, whatever their origins, will enjoy visiting this piece of our shared local history. From the end of April, please go and see it – take your families, take a picnic, and have your photograph taken with a “Wembley Lion”!

If you go between late April and 31 July, why not combine this with a visit to Brent’s BEE 90^th anniversary exhibition at the Civic Centre.

I also hope that everyone at this evening’s meeting will note from this example that good things can happen when the Council works together in co-operation with interested local people. Thank you.

I was good to be able to report back on this example of “Brent Connects” helping to provide a positive result. It is part of the consultation system set out in Brent Council’s Constitution, to encourage local people to get involved in the way decisions are made. This time it worked, but things are not looking so good over another “soapbox” I gave at the Kingsbury and Kenton “Brent Connects” in February 2014
(http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/respecting-brent-councils-constitution.html). When I received my invitation to the next meeting of this forum I had to reply as follows:

Thank you for your email, link to the minutes of the meeting on 4 February and copy of the agenda for the meeting on 9 April, which I certainly plan to attend.

Please note that there are some errors in the soapbox feedback section of the February notes on my item headed "Respecting Brent's Constitution":

Under "You Said" the text misses the main point of what I did say (see copy attached). I would suggest that this paragraph should be amended to:

‘Mr Grant quoted extracts on consultation from the council’s Constitution, and felt that the council was in breach of them. He gave one example of how staff at Museum and Archives had been restructured while consultation was in progress on a new Museum and Archives Strategy, which should have been completed before any restructuring. This was one of a number of examples of Brent's Officers ignoring what were supposed to be council commitments about consulting with the community. He said that he was writing jointly to the Council Leader and other party group leaders, asking them to work together to find a solution to this problem, so that everyone at Brent Council respected its commitments and worked together with local people for the benefit of the community.’

Under "We Said" it states: 'The Leader’s Office has responded to Mr Grant.'

It may be that the Leader's Office intends to respond to me before 9 April, but at the moment this should read: 'The Leader’s Office has not responded to Mr Grant.' I am copying this email to Councillor Butt, so that he can ensure that a response is sent in good time before the meeting.

In fact, the only written response I have received from any of the three party group leaders on the Council to the joint letter that I gave or sent to each of them was a copy of an email from Cllr. Paul Lorber to Fiona Ledden, Brent’s chief legal officer, on 12 February. He asked her to bring the matters I had raised about Brent Officers not respecting its Constitution to a meeting of the Council’s Constitutional Working Group, and to invite me to that meeting to explain my concerns in full.

Cllr. Lorber’s email was copied to Cllrs. Butt and Kansagra, but in the spirit of the group leaders working together which I had requested, it would have been better if he had asked them to support a joint approach to Brent’s Director of Legal and Procurement on this. As it was, she swiftly replied to the group leaders, with copy to me, that: ‘the Constitutional Working Group is not the venue for discussions with members of the public, or consideration of staff related issues, [and] I therefore feel unable to comply with the request.’

So there we have it, Brent has a Constitutional Working Group, but it is not allowed, by a Senior Council Officer, to consider alleged breaches of Brent’s Constitution by Senior Council Officers. It is certainly not allowed to hear what ordinary members of Brent’s public have to say about the Constitution, a document which includes the following commitment, quoted in my “soapbox” of 4 February:

‘The Council is committed to involving the community through effective consultation and two-way communication.’ (Article 10.1)

Philip Grant

Butt: The working poor, disabled and young families will be hit by 'Coalition Poll Tax' passed tonight

Brent Council tonight approved the Council Tax Support scheme that Council leader, Muhammed Butt, described as a Coalition Poll Tax that had been forced on the Council by the Government.

Butt, confessing that the scheme was the most unsettling thing that he'd had to do in his political life, said that the Council had been faced with 'equally nasty' choices over which vulnerable groups would be hit. The working poor, the disabled and families with young children would all suffer.  By definition, anyone entitled to Council Tax Support was vulnerable but 'some are more vulnerable than others.'  Pensioners and war pensioners had been protected and most now having to contribute would pay no more than £4.99 a week. He went on however to admit that was still  'a significant amount of money from people who, frankly, just don't have it.'

'Painful and difficult' changes had to be made with the better off claimants having to pay more and the amount of savings allowed reduced from £16,000 to £6,000.

Cllr Butt called for councillors to support the scheme that was 'as fair as it can be'.  Rounding on the Opposition benches  he declared, 'It is your government, your  Coalition, your actions that have brought this about, You are taking money from the strivers and strugglers, the vulnerable and the disabled and giving it to the rich. You should stand up and say sorry to the people of Brent.'

In the questions that followed Butt was asked why the scheme assumed a collection rate of 80% rather than 85%. He responded that  the Council had to make a realistic assumption when collecting tax from 24,000 people who had never paid it before. Lib Dem councillor Barry Cheese asked Butt to look again at the levy on young job seekers who were already under pressure with parents who themselves would be hard up. 

Lib Dem leader Paul Lorber asked why an £800,000 buffer had been set aside in a scheme of £5.1m and why reserves weren't used instead. A cushion of 20% was excessive. Butt responded that the buffer was normal prudential action. Lorber said that the reduction of savings allowance to £6,000 from £16,000 was too much and that this was often money put aside for a funeral.

Lorber went on to say that in the briefing that preceded the council meeting they had been told that they had to accept the scheme - there was no alternative.   He put forward amendments that would protect young job seekers for the first 12 months after their first claim, retain the £16,000 savings allowance and  reduce the minimum contribution to Council Tax from 20% to 15%.  Conservative leader Cllr Kansagra repeated his usual 'blame the Labour government' line and suggested that Labour was choosing to hit the poor rather than make the necessary cuts in services. Tory councillor HB Patel made a somewhat incoherent attack on the plans to increase council tax on empty properties and second homes - 'You are taking away money!'

Defending the proposed Council Tax Support scheme Cllr Powney said that the low level of council reserves had been criticised over many years and that the incoming administration had decided to bring them into line with auditors' recommendations. We had to recognise the difficulty in getting the 24,000 to pay up and that the monies available for the scheme would be eroded by inflation in subsequent years. He said that the £6,000 savings threshold had been chosen to be in line with the Coalition's proposals for Universal Benefit and that if he disagreed with it Lorber should the issue up with Sarah Teather and government ministers.

Labour voted down the Lib Dem amendments and the scheme was approved.

The Labour benches were unusually subdued, as were the Lib Dems, and it was clear that Cllr Butt was not the only one 'unsettled' by the measures that were being taken that will, in a few months times, lead to people's lives becoming even more difficult and some families having to choose between food, heating and paying their council tax.

What is even worse is that many of those that will be hit do not yet know what is coming...