Showing posts with label Mumbai Junction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mumbai Junction. Show all posts

Thursday 19 October 2023

Harlesden Gambling Centre refused, Mumbai Junction approved, and Kilburn Square abandoned at last night's Planning Committee

 

 Speakers against the Mumbai Junction planning application

 

Last night's Planning Committee was a funny old meeting. The Chair had to send for a bucket because water was leaking through the roof of the Civic Centre (c£100m) and evetually the meeting was abandoned when the water got into the audio system and made participants sound like fish.  Cllr Maurice raised a concern about noise coming from the floor below - it turned out not to be a riot but Navratri celebrations.  Eventually the meeting had to be abandoned because of the water seepage and the Kilburn Square application hearing was not completed.

Matt Kelcher vacated the chair for the first item because he had, prior to becoming chair spoken out against the application, (not because his Cabinet member wife Mili Patel was one of the main speakers against the Adult Gaming Centre in Harlesden).

A strong squad of ward councillors opposed the application and quoted police evidence on the damaging impact of yet another gambling joint in Harlesden. Acting Chair Cllr Saqib Butt (whose brother is leader of the council) did his best to sway the committee but four members voted against and only Butt and two others for the application. A senior officer intervened to suggest deferment but that was a gamble too far and the refusal decision stood.

The long-running Mumbai Junction application was another matter.  This had been first refused and then deferred at the August Planning Committee (after an officer intervention) so that defensible reasons for rejection could be compiled. These were included in the officers' report but despite representations by three ex-councillors (Mitchell-Murry, Lloyd and Perrin) and one current councillor (Lorber) the Committee, rather unconvincingly, over-turned their previous decision.  I couldn't possibly comment on post-meeting suggestions that they had been got at.

In answer to a question in comments, the final vote on Mumbai Junction was 5 for, 1 against (Cllr Maurice) and 1 abstention (Cllr Mahmood).

Wednesday 11 October 2023

Mumbai Junction and Kilburn Square at Brent Planning Commitee next week

 Campaigners will be sharpening their swords for next week's Planning Committee as two controversial planning applications are heard. (Wednesday 18th October 6pm) Mumbai Junction is from a private developer while Kilburn Square is from Brent Council itself.

Swords may not be much of a match for the developers' bulldozer (soon to be driven by Keir Starmer!) but a lively meeting is in prospect.

 

Mumbai Junction (John Lyon pub) proposal

 

The Mumbai Junction application was deferred at a previous meeting when officers intervened to derail a straight rejection by the Planning Committee. LINK Officers felt that the reasons for rejection put forward by the members were inadequate and would open the Council to an expensive appeal.

Officers have now come forward with a report that still recommends approval of the scheme but suggests reasons that the Committee could give for rejection. There is an air of 'On your own head be it' about the report:

 

Officers remain of the view that the scheme is compliant with the policies that have been set out. It has been clearly demonstrated that the proposed development would deliver the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing (in this case no affordable housing). A late stage review mechanism would be secured within a Section 106 Agreement to capture any off site contributions towards affordable housing in the event that viability improves.

 

Officers do not consider there to be any substantive grounds for refusal based upon the affordable housing provision as the scheme is in line with the relevant policies.

 

If members are minded to go against Officer advice a reason is suggested below:

 

The proposal would fail to provide an appropriate level of Affordable Housing to meet an identified local need within the Borough. This would be contrary to Policy BH5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policies H4, H5 and H6 of the London Plan (2021).


In summary, the scale and massing of the proposed development is larger than the surrounding context and represents a departure from policy BH4 in this respect and one could reasonably consider that this departure warrants the refusal of planning permission.

 

However, officers consider the overall appearance to be appropriate in light of the site’s specific characteristics. Furthermore, the benefits of the scheme (including the delivery of homes in the borough) are considered to outweigh the policy departure from Policy BH4.

 

Nevertheless, if, bearing in mind the discussion above, the Planning Committee are still minded to refuse the application, then the following reason for refusal could be considered:

 

The proposed development by reason of its scale, design, bulk, massing and siting in relation to the suburban context of the site would appear as an excessively dominant building which would have a detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding area. This would be contrary to Policies DMP1, BD1 and BH4 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021)

 

It is legitimate for Members to ensure that the optimum site capacity is achieved within development proposals. However, officers consider that this has been achieved for the site.

 

Notwithstanding the officer recommendation, if the Planning Committee are still minded to refuse the application for this reason, then the following reason for refusal could be considered:

 

The proposal would fail to optimise the capacity of the site and this would result in a deficit in relation to local needs, in particular affordable housing. This would be contrary to Policies DMP1 and BH5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policies D3, H4, H5 and H6 of the London Plan (2021)

 


Kilburn Square proposal

The Kilburn Square proposal has also been controversial and changes made since the first version of the application have included the removal of a second tower.  However, issues such as densification, loss of daylight, loss of amenity, loss of green and play space, loss of 13 mature trees and fire safety remain concerns. The officers' report introduces a new concept (to me anyway) of 'doorstep play space' that conjures up visions of terraced cottages opening straight on to the street.

Officers' report:

Following public consultation, objections from a total of 117 people have been received. One objection has been received from MP Tulip Siddiq for Hampstead and Kilburn (objection reflects concerns of residents within this constituency), as well as an objection from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) charity and an objection from the Brent Parks Open Space Forum. One objection has also been received from Sian Berry who is a Green Party member within City Hall.

Four (4) petitions have also been received against the development. These include:

·        Petition containing 21 different signatures representing objections from residents of Algernon  Road

·        Petition containing 103 different signatures representing objections from residents of Brondesbury Road, Brondesbury Villas and Donaldson Road

·        Petition containing 14 different signatures representing objections from residents of Sandwood Court

·        Petition containing 176 different signatures representing objections from residents of Victoria Road, Victoria Mews and Hazelmere Road

 

 The tenure split - See Philip Grant's post HERE

 

After a long and detailed discussion of the objectors' alleged 'harms' of the scheme and what officers see as its benefits  LINK officers' conclude:


Conclusion

247. The proposal would provide 139 new homes including 40 extra-care homes and 99 Use Class C3 homes. At least 50 % of those homes would be Affordable, with 70 % of the Affordable homes provided at London Affordable. The proposal is considered to constitute a well composed series of blocks that fit well within their context. The proposal will result in the loss of some of the amenity spaces within the site and some car parking, but improvements to the remaining amenity spaces and play spaces are proposed whilst car parking has been demonstrated to be sufficient to meet demand. All new homes will be "car free" and will be supported by a Travel Plan. Cycle parking has been provided for existing and new residents along with electric vehicle charging points.

 

248. The buildings will be near to existing heritage assets and 'Less than Substantial Harm' has been identified to the significance of the Kilburn Conservation Area. However, a balancing exercise has been undertaken with regard to paragraph 202 of the NPPF, it is considered that the very limited 'less than substantial harm' that has been identified is significantly outweighed by the public benefits that would be afforded as a result of this development.

 

249. When considering other impacts, the development would result in some impact to the light and outlook of a number of neighbouring occupiers both within and adjacent to the existing site. Although the proposal has been designed to limit the degree of impact , it has been noted that there would be some losses of daylight which would be material to a limited number of windows on existing properties. When considering the impacts on the overall living conditions of these neighbouring occupiers, the would largely be modest and not have a significant effect on the function of the function of the properties as a whole. Furthermore, when considering the site allocation, the requirement to make efficient use of land and the impact of any meaningful development would have in comparison, the proposal would achieve an appropriate balance. The benefits of the new dwellings, a policy compliant provision of affordable housing and the NAIL accommodation, for which there is an identified need.

 

250. In addition, the development would enhance security within Kilburn Square by providing natural surveillance, CCTV and appropriate security features. Landscaping would be improved with additional planting and a layout that would provide an attractive setting for the resultant buildings and more useable areas for recreation.

 

These public benefits are significant and would far outweigh any harm that has been identified and the application is considered to be in compliance with the Development Plan when read as a whole.


251. It is therefore considered that the application should be approved subject to the conditions set out,

 

 If you along to the meeting in person it may be an idea to take a flask and sandwiches - it may be a long one. (Also accessible online).

 


Thursday 7 September 2023

Sudbury Court Residents Association: No more deferral of the Mumbai Junction application at Planning Committee - REFUSE IT!

 

Claimed improvements to original plan

 

The Sudbury Court Residents   Association have added several further submissions to the Brent Council Portal on the Mumbai Junction (formerly John Lyon pub) site planning application.

This morning the total number of comments, mainly objections, stood at 546.

 

This is a follow up objection by the SCRA as the documents and reports have altered since the Consultation Period closed.

The SCRA believe and demand that this application is refused at the next Planning Committee Meeting and not deferred any longer because of the following reasons, but not excluding many other valid reasons previously articulated to the Planning Department:

The current building design, materials and finishes matched the Conservation Area properties across the road and can be seen from Carlton Avenue West, The Crescent, Watford Road and Pasture Road, well over twenty properties within the Conservation Area will be able to plainly see this development from their homes. For some reason that remains unexplained the Brent Heritage Officer has changed his view from it damaging the Gateway to the Conservation Area, to not doing so and not being visible from the Conservation Area which is clearly untrue. Meanwhile 266 Watford Road's red roof tiles as a replacement for the original green tiles are being enforced against as it damages the Conservation Area.

The applicant states in mitigation of the size and massing that the representations of the proposed building allow for 10 years growth of the surrounding trees. The surrounding trees are approaching 100 years in age, the majority having reached maturity and will not increase in size. The out of character building will not be hidden by trees.

The officers state that the benefit of the building somehow out ways the damage caused by is height and massing along with it being out of character. This is the view of some planning officers; however, several hundred residents disagree with them along with the SCRA who represent circa 3,000 homes. Officers should reread the Local Plan 6.5.22

Although not a Planning Issue as such there is a large telecom installation in front of the site. Recently trees in front of the site were substantially pollarded, the reason used to gain Council approval was that the trees were affecting the Emergency Telecom signals from the installation. The proposed building is substantially higher and the top two storeys appear to be clad in metal which would almost certainly interrupt the Emergency telecom signals.

Page 11 para 5 of the officers committee report attempts to justify the extreme massing and height because it is near a roundabout, but totally ignores the surroundings of mainly two store buildings, many now known to be within the Conservation Area (evidence can be provide on the ground and from Streetview and Google Earth. The Design Council's workshop with the Developer and Brent Council stated the building was far too large for the site and would not meet carbon targets, nor transport emission targets. Interestingly almost all the objections to the proposal consider the proposal to be too tall and bulky.

The Officers state: The building is of good design quality, relating well to its context and would enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Unfortunately the are at complete odds with local residents on this point as the building is totally out of character and belongs with buildings of a similar bland design tenet and not in the midst of Metroland.

Officers state that there will be no loss of amenity to surrounding properties; however, all residents surrounding the site strongly disagree and will have to provide themselves with forms of shielding to regain their privacy and amenity.

The Met Police were consulted and recommended not using on street parking because of the friction that would be created with other users of the service roads and surrounding residential streets. Basically, the officer is saying that the Design Council and Police are wrong! Additionally, it has not been proven that there is available parking other than after 2am in the morning.

Page 13 para 1 Highways state that "All servicing arrangements are acceptable and safe" This statement is completely unfounded as there are no servicing arrangements on site; all forty two flats will have to be serviced from the busy and the constantly heavily parked service road as the onsite service road is now to be a car park. Furthermore, the bin store opens out across the very narrow pavement in front of the site, itself an illegal obstacle and in addition it would open onto the designated as the unmanaged pedestrian crossing, and the proposed Zebra Crossing funded by a S106. One wonders if officers actually visited the site or fully deciphered the plans presented to them.

The EMF Report regarding the Sub-station is so porous it should be ignored as meaningless. SCRA extrapolations show the EMF levels to be outside the SAGE recommended levels even without being monitored under peak loads which are normally expected in the mornings and evenings. Variations in EMF reading already provided to Planning Comments show a 1446% variation in EMF emissions outside of peak loads.

Ignoring the wildlife corridor running at the rear of Sudbury Court Drive and Amery Road which joins the SINC of Harrow School and Northwick Park is unforgivable even if it is not a designated wildlife protected area.  No bat survey has been completed regarding this foraging and commuting route and therefore the law protecting bats may well be breached if the development is allowed with its current height and massing along with substantial increase in light levels. It is the Council's duty to ensure that the bat foraging/commuting route is protected. There is no doubt that bats utilise the current restaurant's kitchen warmth as an adhoc and winter roost which would not have been noticed during the internal inspection.

Sudbury Court Drive and the John Lyon roundabout had been flooding for several years after and during heavy rainfall a video is available. The manhole cover near Bengeworth Road is ejected due to the large volumes of water travelling at speed down the hill of Sudbury Court Drive and Bengeworth Road. It is becoming obvious that the surface water drain is now overloaded at peak times, possibly due to all the recent explosion of property extensions and paving of gardens to provide parking due to the very heavy on street parking demand. The proposed building would require a flood defence and a substantial SUDS to reduce the flood risk to the ground floor flats, some of which are deemed accessible.

Page 13 para 3  Of the fire statement states: "All floors are served by a central protected stair including an evacuation lift. The stair is accessed by common corridors that do not exceed 15m in length."  Unfortunately the distance from the front doors of flats 1.06, 1.07, 2.06, 2.07, 3.06 and 3.07 are in excess of 18mtrs from the protected stairwell and therefore the building does not comply with London Plan Policy D5(B5) (7), BS9991 (6), ADB 2019 (3).

London Fire Brigade Guidance Notes GN29 - should be used to plan for new premises. As the proposed development site sits behind a narrow heavily parked service road and a large telecom site it has a very limited access for Fire Brigade vehicles and therefore does not comply with the GN29 guidance notes.  Furthermore, as the frontage of the building (within its curtilage) has now been turned from an access/service road into a car park the Fire Brigade would have to access the building from the external service road which is, because of the afore mentioned problems, is an impossibility. The SCRA therefore believe that the proposed building with regards Fire Safety is unsafe and dangerous.

The Highways Officer's report state that the area is not an accident hotspot because very little is recorded on Crashmap. Everyone knows that many accidents are not shown on Crashmap and to utilise its data id just lazy. The Crashmap data does not mean that the area is not a black spot. In the real world - during the last twelve months there have been circa 12 single vehicle RTAs within the locale, with several gardens being entered, bus stops and pedestrian crossings demolished along with street trees. Utilising Streetmap we have found evidence of many accidents on the John Lyon Roundabout over the last ten years including the felling of a substantial tree, a lamp post and several road signs demolished. On at least two occasions vehicles have been overturned and left blocking the pavements. Not more than a hundred yards away a lady was killed performing at right turn at the junction with The Green. The local chemist was attempting a right turn into their driveway on Watford Road just in front of the application site and has hit in the rear and pushed across the road and hit again in the front. The son of the local garage operator was involved in a collision on the service road at the entrance to the application site, besides being a dangerous cross road the concrete of the service road offers no grip in the wet.  Without doubt this is not a safe area for motor vehicles handling as it does 30,000 VPD on the A404 a London Distributor Road and 15,000 VPD on the A4127 a Local Distributor Road, one must not forget that the service road is used as a rat run to avoid queues at the John Lyon roundabout.

The SCRA are extremely concerned that staff at local businesses have been told by the owners of Mumbai Junction that they will get Planning Permission is very concerning, especially as the Developer met with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and the Planning Committee privately while residents were not allowed to approach the Planning Committee themselves.

The SCRA are also concerned at the lack of affordable housing on site nor a contribution to affordable housing. We suggest if the building were reduced to say three stories then the margins per unit and viability would increase due to lower building costs at these lower levels, this would obviously be at the expense of the overall profit to the Developers.

 

 

 

The Planning Committee Report dated 12th July Page 9 para 2 states "The refuse storage area would be sited to the property's frontage"



We would comment as follows:

Having referred to the plans, the refuse store gates open outward across the narrow pavement (highway) at the site of the current unregulated crossing of the service road and Watford Road.



Obviously this is totally unacceptable positioning and function and the use of the gates would block the Highway - The fundamental public right upon a highway is to pass and re-pass, and the obstruction of a highway can also be a criminal offence as well as a tort. Highway authorities are under a statutory duty to prevent, so far as possible, the stopping up or obstruction of highways in their areas.

 

 

 This is an additional objection by the SCRA having reviewed the revised documents published after the end of the Formal Consultation by the applicant and the planning officer.



The Planning Committee Report dated 12th July and the Daylight Sunlight Consulting letter.



9. Page 11 para 6 This statement about good levels of outlook and light are at complete odds with the letter from Daylight Sunlight Consulting Ltd that states that not all the properties have sufficient light. The Design Council stated that the health and wellbeing of residents will be harmed by the long corridors without any natural light or ventilation. Additionally, nearly half the flats are only single aspect and at least three of the flats will have very little natural light to the living area windows as the windows are positioned in corners on the northwest side of the building and have very poor outlooks over the car park and garage next door.

 

It is with great disappointment that we have to yet again point out that the EMF report applies to the current substation and not the new/replacement one mentioned in the previous officer report.

Additionally no mention has been made about the emergency telecom signals from in front of the site which required the pollarding of trees which were half the hight of the proposed  building.

We residents within the SCRA despair at the lack of meaningful consultation over our valid concerns and the council's total intransigence regarding this application. Several residents have put their properties up for sale this month already as the believe this is a done deal.

 

 

The current EMF Report describes the current substation and current usage and emissions from the Sub Station. Unfortunately, as detailed in the Officer Report to Committee it transpires that the substation will need upgrading due to the application property and no doubt for the adjoining site which according to the report will be subject of a future planning application.

It is therefore true to say that the current EMF report will not apply to the proposed building and therefore we must be sure that the future substation does not put residents at a high risk of developing leukaemia from the emissions of the new substation for which there is NO report.

The current substation apparently has negligible risk, presumably an enlargement of the substation could well increase the  risk to low or medium. We therefore recommend that this application is not determined until a new report is produced which includes a substantial increase in power usage. To ignore this request could potentially and knowingly put people’s lives and well-being at risk well into the future.

 


Sunday 13 August 2023

'Is this REALLY normal?' commentary on Brent Council Planning's pre-application process


Guest post by Gaynor Lloyd

 

I read Martin's report of what he described as the shambles at Planning Committee when the Mumbai Junction application was decided. LINK  It was concerning to see that not only did officers give no assistance to Committee members in articulating their reasons for the vote against when they were in such evident difficulties but acted to press for change to deferral. An appeal to the Planning Inspectorate can give residents an opportunity to be heard. 

 

However, what I wanted to respond to was Martin's report of the Chair's comment on the normality of the Planning Committee’s pre-application meeting with Fruition Properties, the developer of Mumbai Junction.  I was the author of the complaint and made both requests for the recusal of Committee members. I do have in-depth knowledge of the background here. 

 

For me, everything started when, in preparing my objection, I spotted a one-liner in the developer's application pack: Pre-application presentation to the Planning Committee. (I also noted a meeting with Cllrs Butt & Tatler).  I was completely taken aback and followed up with a Freedom of Information Request (FOIR) about these meetings. The response provided the agenda, and pre-briefing for the Planning Committee and draft Feedback notes. I also received notes of the Cllr Butt & Tatler meeting with 4 representatives of the developer. 

 

Before making my FOIR, I had looked at the Council's protocols, and could see no constitutional basis on which such pre-app meeting with the Planning Committee could take place. I also looked at National guidance - again I could find no basis. (The Council deny this; I await the Council's evidence to the contrary as part of my Stage 2 complaint)

 

It is true that the Council added numerous provisions to its Planning Code and Protocol, re pre-application processes in November 2022, several months after the meeting with the Planning Committee - but adding those evidences there were none at the time. It is also true that the Council added them after a scheduled review of its planning processes. This was  conducted by a  Local Government Association Independent Reviewer but it seems that the Independent Reviewer could not have been aware that the Planning Committee could take pre-app presentations, as he/she pointed out that no protocols were in existence for  the engagement of any Councillor in the pre-app process, and that it would avoid confusion if, for example, ward councillors knew how they should behave when approached by residents. To be helpful, the Independent Inspector gave the Council some examples of good pre-app practice in 2 other Councils; neither of those Councils invite developers in for a cosy pre-chat with the Planning Committee who will hear their application. 

 

Did the Council devise its protocols to cover its then existing practice?

Was that existing process, right?

Is it accountable? 

How often was it used? 

Who knew about it? 

 

In a world where even a Government Department is now for "Levelling Up", what should we think of  a private and confidential meeting that planning officers can just offer at a price to categories of developer - a meeting with the very Committee to which their planning  application will be presented - when an ordinary resident with a planning objection -whose very life may be affected by the development nearby  - cannot even speak to a single member of the self-same Committee without being batted away with suggestions of the impropriety of an attempt to influence, and a direction (if they must) to give details in writing to all Committee members.

 

But, in this case, it looks worse.  I have been told by an officer that developers of "larger" projects are invited by officers to request a pre-app meeting with the Planning Committee. There is a £2000 extra fee for that private and confidential presentation to the Planning Committee. The availability of this service is not on the website - nor details of the fee nor the criteria officers apply. This is not in accordance with national guidance. How many such applications have been prefaced by a pre-meeting with planning committee is an interesting question: I have got a FOIR in on that - but it does link with Cllr Kelcher’s reported reaction to Cllr Lorber's challenge at Committee on this very topic.

 

Martin in his report says, " Cllr Kelcher reacted angrily saying that that the pre-application meeting was part of the normal process." Yes, well...it would certainly appear that it was indeed part of usual practice at the time - look at the emails trail  below - which arrived as part of the Council's  FOIR response to outline how the meeting with the Committee came about. I have asked for the redactions of names to be replaced by descriptions of postholder/members.


 

The top email of 26 May 17:16 (in very prompt response to the request from the developer's adviser below) refers to a meeting the next day between redacted names and the Chair & Vice Chair of the Planning Committee. (There was no actual planning Committee meeting in May 2022) Apparently, "they” will "bring up pre-app presentations to committee."  "Presentations" plural - clearly "business as usual". Maybe it was   but it was not a process constitutionally authorised by Brent Council in May/June/July 2022. Nor (I maintain) in accordance with national guidance. 

 

I was told that the reason for the silence on the website re the availability of the Planning Committee to developers of "larger" projects is because this is offered by officers and not available on request. 

 

 

Yet, look at the earlier email in the screenshot   - 26 May at 14:52 from the Planning Director, Stantec UK, Fruition’s consultants.  What is to be made of these sentences in their email to Team Leader North Area:" I have just had a call with my client, who informs me he has had a call with [name redacted] .... but [name redacted] has advised that we make a formal request to you that we present the scheme to the planning committee. Thus, this email is that request. Can you look to set this up as soon as possible?" 

 

Who was the call with the developer with? Clearly not the Team Leader. If the Head of Planning, surely, he could have organised it himself. Whatever, it seems that   a developer can tell a Council planning officer to set up a meeting with the Planning Committee.

 

Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks the tone of the email to the Council's Area Team Leader very telling?

 

And, talking of tone... what exactly is an ordinary resident supposed to do? Ms Lester, the senior officer charged with dealing with my complaint, had the solution off pat: "If a person sufficiently affected by the planning decision believes that the decision is legally flawed, the correct process to follow is to challenge it via a judicial review." Ah, that's alright then- if I just had the cash, and the professional advisers...Puts me in mind of the adage. One rule for one....

Mumbai Junction site: a record of floods and accidents that Brent Council doesn't appear to know about

 

 Recorded 9th August 2021


 The applicant denied all knowledge of flooding at 231 Watford Road and last week's Planning Committee when the Mumbai Junction plannin application was approved. The above video has been sent to planning officers as they need to be awate of the real situation.

A resident writes:

There are usually 3 or 4 event like this per year when the drainage manhole on Sudbury Court Drive near the junction with Bengeworth Road blows out due to a lack of capacity in the surface water drainage systems locally. The water runs down hill to the roundabout and across the road towards 23 Watford Road. Thames Water are often contacted via the council to resolve.

Officers also appeared to minimise the number of traffic accidents on roads in the area. Twitter tells a different story.


 


 




 

Thursday 10 August 2023

UPDATED: Decision making shambles on Mumbai Junction planning application leads to deferral

 

 

 

 

UPDATE

 This is the official one sentence Minute of the Deferral Decision:

On the basis that a majority of Members on the Committee had indicated they were minded to refuse the application, it was agreed to defer a final decision to a future Committee meeting in order to  enable a further report to be provided addressing the indicative reasons outlined as the basis for refusal, relating to affordable housing and viability, the height and design of the scheme  in relation the surrounding area and whether the development of the site had been optimised  in order to maximise the potential planning benefits.

After more than two hours of discussion, possibly a record, at the end of Brent's Planning Committee's consideration of the Mumbai Junction application, only Chair Matt Kelcher and Vice Chair Saqib Butt (Council Leader Muhammed Butt's brother) voted to approve the planning application. The other six councillors voted to reject the application.

Rejecting an application against the advice of planning officers is highly unusual and usually results in warnings of costly appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and the likelihood of losing the case if the reasons for rejection are not sustainable in planning terms.

This is what happened last night when the members of the committee who had voted against had difficulty in articulating their reasons for rejection. In one case their reasons were also in conflict, with most members against the bulk of the design while Cllr Liz Dixon wanted the building to be bigger, claiming that increased height could enable affordable housing to be included in the development.  It wasn't a conservation area so why not build higher? Tower Block Tatler watch out - you have a rival!

Councillors'  concerns over the lack of affordable housing in the development were answered by officers in terms of two viability reports that, despite different figures, claimed that the development would not be financially viable if affordable housing was in the mix. As it was the developer would only return a profit of 13% against an industry standard of 17.5%

Interventions by the Head of Planning and a senior planning officer stated that the reasons given for rejection would not be sufficient to win an appeal and could incur costs on the council, were accompanied by a suggestion that instead of rejecting the application, the committee should defer it. This was taken up with relief by a shaken Cllr Kelcher who sought to persuade his committee members that this would be the best approach: officers would return with a new report that would address some of their concerns at a subsequent meeting.

One by one the councillors who had voted against the application agreed to deferral, although it was hard to see what could be changed in order to satisfy the critics who were concerned about the impact of the develoment on the wellbeing of local residents (including traffic), the design being out of character with the local suburban area, the height (2 different views) and environmental concerns - as well as the lack of affordable housing.

There were several public speakers the first of whom was ex Labour and Conservative councillor Wilhelmina Mitchell-Murray who asked, 'Is Brent Council there for the residents or for the developer?'

Cllr Bajwa (Northwick Park) opposed the development citing environmental issues, access to parks, parking and traffic. There was nothing in the application for local people.

Cllr Collymore (Northwick Park) who was only supposed to answer questions from fellow councillors became very angry and seemed to suggest that the commitee were letting down the Labour Group (I can't be sure so please check the video above that begins with her intevention). She said that the way Cllr Kelcher was behaving meant that the decision would not go in favour of her residents who paid Council Tax.

Cllr Kennelly in his submission emphasised the importance of the hospitality industry and the continuation of a hospitality venture on the Mumbai Junction/John Lyon site. He said that the application offered nothing in terms of afforable housing which should be a council priority.

Cllr Lorber (Sudbury) said that the committee should have had a site meeting with residents. The developer had paid £2,000 for a pre-application meeting with committee members but residents were unable to speak to them on site. He spoke of 'devious moves'.  Cllr Kelcher reacted angrily saying that that the pre-application meeting was part of the normal process and said that the way Lorber had raised it was 'Trumpian'. He gave an assurance that the decision on the application would be madse in accordance with guidance.

The applicant, the owner of the Mumbai Junction, said it was a family run business that for various reasons including ageing and illness in the family, they had dcided to discontinue. Despite looking busy they had never had the current level of difficulty in running the business until now. He rejected Cllr Maurice's suggestion that he was using covid as an excuse.

Twitter was busy during the meeting with one person tweeting that information given on traffic accidents by officer was wrong: '12 single RTAs in the last 12 months. Road rage every day at the exit of the roundabout' and 'at least 3 vehicles in the last few years went straight on the roundabout (literally) and a lady died in an RTA 50 yards away. Officers do your job properly, speak to residents.'

Cllr Collymore's references to the Labour Group perhaps reveals misunderstanding. The Planning Committee is supposed to be non-political in its quasi-judicial role and members are not whipped. The Labour Group should play no part.

Or perhaps it is not a misunderstanding and just revealing.

Tuesday 8 August 2023

MUMBAI JUNCTION LATEST: Brent Council refuse to recuse councillors or defer application - consideration will go ahead tomorrow

Alice Lester, Brent Council's Director of Regeneration, Growth and Employment, has refused the request to recluse some councillors or defer the Mumbai Junction item.

In an email she wrote:

You have requested a stage 2 review of your complaint, and also that some members of the planning committee are recused from consideration of the planning application reference 22/3260, 231 Watford Road.  

 

You also suggest that the application should be deferred from the committee as given this request for a stage 2 review, the complaints process is ongoing.  

 

The Council’s position is that the investigation into the stage 1 complaint demonstrated that the planning application can be considered by the committee as currently constituted, and a sound decision is able to be made.  A stage 2 complaint investigation does not outweigh the process of determining planning applications in a timely manner.  

 

If a person sufficiently affected by the planning decision believes that the decision is legally flawed, the correct process to follow is to challenge it via a judicial review 

 

The complaints team will progress the stage 2 review on behalf of the Chief Executive.  

BREAKING: Further demand for recusion of councillors/deferral of Mumbai Junction Planning Application due at Brent Planning Committee tomorrow

 There has been a further request for the recusion of specific councillors or deferral of the Mumbai Junction planning application by Fruition due to be heard at tomorrow's Planning Committee. The request follows the report preamble by officers that Wembley Matters published yesterday.

The letter to Alice Lester, Brtent's Director of Regeneration, Growth and Employment, is very detailed bu I publish here two of the most important sections.

The  respondent suggest that information in the preamble is misleading:

Those reading the addendum to the officer's report would not realise that the finding of "not upheld" is only at Stage 1, and would be  subject to a reasoned request for review, and ultimately by the Local Government Ombudsman. They would probably be aware that the addendum only refers to the initial outcome of investigation of my complaint undertaken internally by an officer, albeit senior. It is not in any sense an independent or  legal assessment of the issues raised.

However, it is clear from that addendum into the Officer's report for Wednesday's planning meeting that consideration of the application by the July Committee Members was deferred pending the outcome of my complaint. It seems, therefore, that the Council realised there was a risk in the July Committee Members hearing the application.

If that is the case, why does the Council not consider that your decision might not be overturned on a final review, and what the risk might then be? It seems that a pre-judgement has been made either that I would not request a final review, or that, if there were such a final review, it could not have  a different outcome, or that it will all be too late anyway, once the consent is granted, if it is. 

 

A detailed argument is put forward about pre-application meetings with develoers and whether those conform to guidance. Of particular significane are those pertaining to the roles of Brent Council Leader, Muhammed Butt, and Lead for Regeneration, Shama Tatler.

 

ii)        You say to me in your response to paragraph 3 in regard to this meeting  that "The Leader and Lead Member meet a variety of people and businesses as part of their leadership roles, including businesses which wish to invest in the Borough and may have planning proposals. Such meetings are provided as a way of update and have no bearing on the assessment of any planning application. They are always attended by a senior  officer of the Council in line with the Planning Code of Practice. Awareness of views the Leader and Lead member may have on a particular application would not as you appear to suggest mean planning committee members are unable to approach the application with an open mind."

iii)       I do not accept that a meeting attended by the Leader, The Lead Member, Mr Ansell and Mr Glover and 4 Fruition representatives (managing director/manager/architect/planning director and communications consultant) can possibly be characterised as you suggest  - as one by a "business which wish to invest in the Borough and may have planning proposals. Such meetings are provided as a way of update and have no bearing on the assessment of any planning application."

iv)        In addition, and by way of evidence,  I attach the Agenda for the meeting, and the notes, which - in so far as they go  - speak for themselves. These were both provided in response to my FOIR and readily available to you in consideration of my complaint. Looking at the meeting notes, what the comment by Cllor Butt "New local councillors. keen to work with developers and the community." means is not clear. Councillor Butt wanted to know the dates of the community group/ward councillor meetings. In fact, he did not attend the resident consultation nor any meeting with the new local councillors on the subject.

v)         As to what was is evidenced as presented at that  June meeting, it did include a 33 page presentation  "for Councillor Butt". Other items may also have been supplied; I have an outstanding query dated 25 July with Mr Ansell, which requests copies of attachments to an email of 22 June from the developer's communications consultants, as they do not appear to be the presentation supplied.

vi)        There may also have been other meetings.(I also have an outstanding query dated 25 July with Mr Ansell, which also requests details of other meetings which the Leader may have attended, as indicated in a redacted email from the developer's communications consultants (I surmise) of 22 June 2022 "We will, of course, keep [name redacted] invited to all of our meetings and our consultation-"). (My emphasis added). I have asked the redaction is clarified by the postholder title, as well as for details of any other meetings. I may well wish to add to my grounds for complaint and review, when I do receive a response from Mr Ansell, the FOI Team to that email.

vii)      To me, it is not credible to suggest that this meeting and possible other meetings and evidence of very direct involvement are not a material factor. As above, it certainly appears to lead to Mr Ansell's arranging the pre-app meeting with the planning committee, although someone (redacted) in the meeting had evidently pre-empted with a contact  with someone (redacted) about "committee presentation". I have asked for postholder details in the cases of these redactions but context indicates it refers to members.   It is certainly a factor  the fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government would add into their consideration.

12        Turning now to the actual planning committee pre-app  meeting, of which the only evidence is the "draft"" Members Feedback"  and a comment in one of the applicant's documents.  I set out in my complaint what I see as evidence of a real possibility of bias or predetermination in those two documents but I will repeat it in summary here.

i)          Firstly, the  "draft"" Members Feedback" referred to in paragraph 2 of the Appendix  is not dated. It is self-evidently not complete,  as I set out in my complaint. ( For example, a comment by members on the "symmetrical option " being " the better building form" - with which preference  the applicant stated it  complied -  appears in the applicant's Planning Statement but not in the "draft"" Members Feedback". If that was omitted, where is the evidence of what else might have been  omitted? ).

ii)        The Member's Feedback is in itself of concern for the inadequate evidencing of such an important meeting for a contentious application, with departures from policy, inconsistency as to mass and construction with its entire surroundings at the gateway to a conservation area . It is a "draft",  though of what stage it is not clear. The record does not follow the Agenda or format.  There is no evidence of when the queries arose - to the developer and answered by the developer, and/or to the officers and whether before or after  the developer left the meeting?

 There is no evidence as to when and whether the "draft"" Members Feedback"   in this or any  other form was sent to the applicant, so there is equally no evidence that the "format" of the meeting was followed. The internal evidence of the Feedback is inconsistent . The developer certainly made responses as to provision of re-worked amenity space calculations, and daylight and sunlight calculations, and overshadowing - to which last point an entirely meaningless remark about trees at the rear of the site providing cover was made - well, meaningless if you know the site.

iii)       the "draft"" Members Feedback"   contains absolutely no reference to detail of applicable policy in the manner suggested in the guidance I quote at Paragraph 10 (ii) above: Local authority members are involved in planning matters to represent the interests of the whole community and must maintain an open mind when considering planning applications. Where members take decisions on planning applications they must do so in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Members must only take into account material planning considerations, which can include public views where they relate to relevant planning matters. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless it is founded upon valid material planning reasons.

Where in the pre-app briefing  or recorded in the "draft"" Members Feedback"   is there any context given to the application from the policy considerations which are to be departed from as set out in the Officer's Report to Committee?  There is no mention of the Sudbury Court Conservation Area to which the site is a gateway. Still less any attention paid to the evidence provided by local photographs of how the original building reflected entirely the residential properties it faced.

The context given is partial, in my view, and a factor  the fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government would weigh in their consideration. Especially in the absence of any clear and transparent process or applicable protocol and private and confidential nature of the briefing in a closed forum.

iv)        As to specifics, you have confirmed that the presentation is identical to that presented to Councillors Butt and Tatler previously. The presentation was a 33 page document with illustrations. The first page is marked "Presentation for Councillor Butt June 2022".

You indicate that there is no evidential basis for me to suggest this in itself might have any effect. You were not aware of the content of the June 2022 meeting, as above.

Of course, I do not know what was in the respective minds of the July Committee Members  but to show prejudgement or bias, I do not have to show that. What I have suggested is that  the planning committee, being provided  with a detailed illustrated presentation on its face addressed  to the Leader of the Council and self-evidently given in private session a few days earlier (and ostensibly triggering this presentation to Committee)  is simply a fact, another element  - amongst the many I include in this complaint - for  the fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government to weigh in the balance on the issue of pre-determination or bias.

The meeting notes of Cllors Butt and Tatler indeed at least might be seen as  suggesting lines which might be put to ward councillors; it is not unreasonable to think these points might also be put the the planning committee. As above, it appears from the Notes of the Cllor Butt/Tatler meeting  that one of the two councillors contacted a planning committee member in advance about the setting of the pre-application planning  committee presentation.

 I do suggest that it is not fanciful for me  to imply that the views of the Leader  of the Council -and  the fact that he took a meeting with a 33 page presentation from the developer and its advisers - would  be seen as influential. Again, however, an issue for fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government to weigh in the balance.

v)         I mentioned other specifics in my complaint. You have not dealt in any way with these in your response, let alone  my reasoning. Indeed, it seems all you state here is that "expressing a general view does not indicate a closed mind or pre-determination". However, the Members Feedback  does not deal with "general views"; it deals with specifics. I will repeat these here.

vi)        The members "supported the general approach to redeveloping the site with housing". So they had already reached a decision on (a) the change of use (for which planning was required); (b) the loss of a well used local business and provider of employment; and (c)  the loss of  a popular and long-standing local restaurant and bar, takeaway provider, and  community hub and venue, used by local walking patrons as well as car users.  For me, evident pre-determination. What would the fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government think of that as evidence of pre-determination or bias?

vii)      The mass of the building and its complete lack of accord with the surrounding area. Members "were happy with the overall massing changes presented"  (Admittedly, one member considered it too large). For me, evident pre-determination. What would the fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government think of that as evidence of pre-determination or bias?

viii)     The form of the building -  The applicant's own planning statement indicates the Committee's favourable comments on a "symmetrical" approach from the various illustrations in the 33 page  presentation, which the applicant "accepted". For me, evident pre-determination. What would the fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government think of that as evidence of pre-determination or bias?

ix)        Finally and very seriously, affordable housing provision.  It is apparent that officers gave advice on issues of affordability. It is not clear when this was given, whether before or after the developer left. However, what is clear is that firm advice was given on a most important policy issue.  "It was also highlighted to members that the RPs do not often want to take on board affordable housing within a single core scheme given the constraints associated with management arrangements". It is impossible for a layperson to understand what the sentence  means, or what it represents in terms of what was actually said to Committee members. There is nothing to indicate that any actual  evidence of that broad statement was proffered, or tested. It appears to be an all encompassing reference to all Brent's "RPs".

However, what seems clear is that that  was officer advice to July Committee Members, which they could surely do nothing other than accept. There is no affordable housing provision in this application.  The only possible conclusion is that officers were explaining to members the position  which must be accepted on the final aspect which might be considered in an affordability test. No RP will take this on, put simply. This particular piece of advice however appears nowhere in the Officer report to Committee under the heading Affordable Housing. The members remained significantly concerned about the lack of affordable provision on site   - but it remains the case that the advice was unchallenged, was given in a totally private and confidential setting and not repeated in the public domain. For me, I am unable to see what other conclusion can be reached but that that there is a risk of bias or pre-determination when that "fact" is introduced into their heads. A "fact" not in the public domain. What would the fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government think of that as evidence of pre-determination or bias?

To return to the Persimmon case guidance:

"1. Actual or apparent bias or predetermination on the part of a decision maker renders his decision unlawful.

2. If a fair minded and informed observer who is neither complacent nor unduly sensitive or suspicious, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias or predetermination, then apparent bias or predetermination is established. For the sake of brevity, I shall use the phrase "the notional observer" to denote an observer who is fair minded, informed, not complacent and not unduly sensitive or suspicious.

3. In the context of decisions reached by a council committee, the notional observer is a person cognisant of the practicalities of local government. He does not take it amiss that councillors have previously expressed views on matters which arise for decision. In the ordinary run of events, he trusts councillors, whatever their pre-existing views, to approach decision making with an open mind. If, however, there are additional and unusual circumstances which suggest that councillors may have closed their minds before embarking upon a decision, then he will conclude that there is a real possibility of bias or predetermination.

4. Before the court makes a finding of apparent bias or predetermination, it must first identify with precision the facts which would drive the notional observer to such a conclusion."

 

I believe that I have established with precision such facts, that a fair minded and informed observer who is neither complacent nor unduly sensitive or suspicious, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias or predetermination, that the precise circumstances of the operation of the pre-application planning committee process and its output, when the Council at the time had no protocol for involvement of any member in pre-application processes are "additional and unusual circumstances"  and that apparent bias or predetermination is established.

The July Committee Members cannot properly consider the application on August 9th,and should recuse themselves. I wish my complaint to be carried to Stage 2 final review.