Former Brent Council Leader issues Official Complaint over lockdown Planning Committee decision making

The proposed buildings on Sudbury Town Station Car Park

The Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday May 6th (6pm) will be a virtual meeting. The Agenda on the Council website states:

Note: Please note the press and public will be welcome to attend this as an online virtual meeting. The link to attend and view proceedings will be available via the Live Stream page on the Democracy in Brent website. 

The Agenda does not state how members of the public may make representations at the meeting, a normal Planning Committee provision, which ensure the public's voice is heard.

However,in correspondence with former Council Leader and Liberal Democrat General Election Candidate, Paul Lorber, the Council has stated:

It is possible to speak at the Committee Meeting (online or via the telephone) subject to the restrictions set out in the Council's Standing Order. These provide for one objector and/or one supporter of the application to speak. The Chair has the discretion to increase this to two people from each side. In doing this, the Chair will give priority to occupiers nearest to the application site or representing a group of people. 

To address the committee you must speak to Democratic Services at least one clear day before the meeting. Please telephone the Democratic Services Officer, Mr Joe Kwateng, on 020 8937 1354 during office hours or email committee@brent.gov.uk

Apart from the Sudbury Town Station proposal that Lorber was concerned about (see image above)  there are also applications for a mixed used development at the Abbey Manufacturing Estate/Edwards Yard site in Wembley  for 3-14 storey buildings, an 11 storey building on the site of Ujima House in Wembley High Road, and Peel Precinct and neighbouring sites  in South Kilburn for 7 buildings of 5-16 storeys.

A pretty heavy agenda by any measure and issues on which the public may well want to make representations.

Paul Lorber wrote to Brent Council CEO outlining his concerns over the absence of site meetings as well as the rights of residents witout internet access:

As you know I raised with you concerns about dealing with Planning Applications during this crisis. As in most cases applicants will not be able to pursue or implement any approved applications there seems no great urgency to rush applications through and deny members of the public an opportunity for a proper say.

It is normal for many residents to attend Planning Committee when they are concerned about an application. Determining applications on line denies them this opportunity. Any resident not on the internet or not familiar with the new technology faces an even greater disadvantage and unfairness.

It has been a long standing practice in Brent for many decades for planning applications which are either controversial or subject to great concern or opposition from residents to be subject to a site visit. Site visit were an important opportunity tfor members of the Planning Committee to better understand the concerns being raised and to see things on site. The reasons for this are obvious - explanations and information on paper only do not tell the full story.

The planning site meetings are also an opportunity for residents to point out the their concerns directly to Councillors.

I am concerned that going ahead with planning applications subject to Planning Committee Meetings, because of the nature of the application or the large level of opposition,in the way proposed undermines the normal Brent Council approach of meaning full public involvement and Brent Council's commitment to Open Government. All the advantage is handed over to the Applicants who have had the opportunity of direct access to Council Officers denied to the members of public. It is those officers who then advise Councillors in Planning pre meetings or in other ways outside of public scrutiny.

The lack of site meetings as a major change to the way planning meetings have been dealt with in the past which also undermines the whole process.

In my view Brent Council should suspend dealing with any applications which are subject to material number of objections and only deal with applications which fall into the category dealt with under delegated powers or those where no materail number of objections have been received.

Besides the risk of extra challenges to decisions were made there is a much more serious issue of public confidence in the whole planning process in Brent.

I trust that you will consider my concerns seriously and suspend the process of dealing with Planning Applications in the proposed way.

Lorber has now issued a formal complaint as a result of his dissatisfaction with the Council's response to his letter:

The Brent Council decision to proceed with planning applications in the way proposed in your letter has a number of implications:

1.     It denies members of the public (or even Councillors) to request a site meeting.

2.     It denies any member of the public without the internet or ability to join the online meeting of the right to participate.

In view of this any consideration of this application should be deferred until such time as things return to normal, site meetings are possible and all memebers of the public are free to attend a normal Planning Committee Meeting in Brent.

UPDATE: Carlton-Granville back at Brent Council Cabinet on Monday. Will they listen to the community?

The Cabinet is due to consider the Scrutiny Committee's recommendations on the Carlton-Granville development at its meeting on Monday April 15th, 4pm Brent Civic Centre. The Scrutiny Committee report was only published on the Council website Cabinet Agenda this afternoon which gives only a limited time for campaigners to prepare their representations.

A crucial point is that the Scrutiny report refers to 'social' housing without any reference to rent levels. At the meeting councillors referred to affordable, council and  social housing without further definition.

This is the key extract from the officers' report for Cabinet:

Recommendation 


That as required under the call-in procedure, Cabinet reconsider its original decision on the Carlton & Granville Centres Site – South Kilburn, taking into account the comments made by the committee (set out ibelow) and agree one of the following outcomes:

.        To amend the decision, having taken account of the comments made; or 


.        To confirm the original decision made, enabling it to take immediate effect. 


Background 


At the meeting held on 11 March 2019, Cabinet considered the report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment, “Carlton and Granville Centres Site – South Kilburn” where it was RESOLVED:

a.     To approve the continuation of Phase 2 of the project at the Carlton and Granville Site to planning submission, on the basis of design Option 3 presented in the report; 


b.     To engage with South Kilburn Trust regarding possible future management arrangements of the Carlton/Granville Centres; 


c.      To note that Property Services would immediately engage with ULFA as set out in the report and to trigger the break clause as set out in the lease; 


d.     To approve in principle that funding will come from different sources as set out in Appendix 2 of the report, with the intention to seek Cabinet approval to enter into any necessary agreements with the Greater London Authority or South Kilburn Trust in due course. 


.   

The Scrutiny Committee met on Wednesday 3 April 2019 to consider the call- in. The Committee heard from the Lead Member for Regeneration, Highways and Planning as well as a number of representations from local residents and stakeholders. As a result of this process the committee agreed to refer the original decision back to Cabinet (as the original decision-maker) for reconsideration. 


In referring the decision back, the Scrutiny Committee insisted that Cabinet only proceeds with the scheme if clear written promises are provided on the following four issues: 


.        In terms of the recommended design option, the 23 units of housing being sought must all be provided as social housing. Whilst recognising the need to address issues in relation to viability, committee were also keen to ensure a predominance of three or four bedroom ‘family-sized’ accommodation.

 

.        Appropriate noise-reduction safeguards be provided for tenants within the new housing units in order to manage the relationship between the mixed residential and community use on the site. Such a provision is to ensure that noise concerns do not limit the use of the facility by the community. 


.        A minimum level of local social enterprise provision is guaranteed within the Enterprise Hub. 


.        Community governance options being developed in terms of future management of the site must be based around the Key Stakeholder Group and involve a broader local community membership. Such governance options must have open membership to locals, with democratic processes for the selection of people and positions.

 The Scrutiny Committee have also requested a further report back in 3 months’ time enabling them to continue monitoring progress in development of the scheme.

 [End of extract]

It is likely that the community will again be present at the meeting to ensure that their voices are heard and that the Cabinet give serious consideration to the recommendations.

You can support the community's demands by signing their petition HERE

Meanwhile this is  the submission made by the Kilburn Housng Co-op to Scrutiny:

Kilburn Housing Co-op is a fully mutual housing co-operative, founded in 1978.  For nearly forty years we have provided high quality well maintained secure and decent housing on low rents, only possible when profit is not the motivating factor.  We now have 37 flats in Kilburn, including several on Princess Rd, near the Granville and Carlton centres.  Our tenant members represent a diversity of ages, ethnic and social backgrounds, household types and situations.

As a self-managed co-op, we know how vital community input is, and that community spaces run in co-operation and with the good will of local people, are the most likely to succeed in meeting community needs. 

In the 80s our office was in the Carlton Centre, and we used the hall for our General Meetings.  Our current office is at the OK Club, around the corner.  Our members and their children are long-standing users of the facilities in both Centres: nursery school, cafes and community kitchen, youth clubs and activities, social and meetings spaces.  It is the only non-denominational community space in our area, and is treasured by many. This why there has been such strong and consistent opposition to the Council’s very damaging plans.

The local area needs an extension of community space, not cuts

·       We strongly oppose the Council’s proposal for a devastating reduction to community services, facilities and space that the planned development would involve. We note that this strength of community feeling has already succeeded in considerably scaling back the original plan which involved demolition of all the community buildings. This is welcome but not enough.

·       Community space has already been reduced as South Kilburn Trust which manages them favours enterprise space over community facilities.  We do not believe enterprise space should be a priority in the Granville.

·       Local people were not widely and fully consulted by the Council and South Kilburn Trust about these changes; many of us who live nearby have heard nothing about it.  And those who opposed the plans have been ignored.

·       With cuts and austerity it is  even more urgent to preserve community spaces like the Granville and its garden where people can meet, get information, services, run projects and generally come together to decide and act on improving our living conditions and the quality of our and our families’ lives.

·       It is a priority that the beautiful hall in the Granville, which has been ruined, be fully restored to its full size and community purpose.  Finding spaces to hold meetings, celebrations and other activities has been a growing problem for years now.  Many in the area complain about this lack. 

   

We oppose any housing being built on the Granville/Carlton site

·       We strongly support building council houses, which are desperately needed. But  Brent’s 11 March 2019 Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration & Environment gave no guarantee that any of the 23 units planned for the site would be council housing. Indeed the opposite is indicated: introducing “shared ownership and/or private housing elements”.  

·       Many other housing developments are completed, underway or planned all over South Kilburn.   None of it has solved or is solving the escalating housing crisis. For example, at Peel Precinct just metres away, of the 308 homes already planned, only 42 would be “social” and are earmarked for existing Council tenants being moved out by other development.  That means in effect no new Council housing, while over 250 homes are likely to be sold or leased - more gentrification, more housing for those on high salaries, and nothing for low income families.  We suggest that those units be converted to Council housing.

·       We are told there is little public land left in Brent on which to build housing and therefore, it must be built on the Granville & Carlton Centres’ site.  Brent Council has created this crisis: between 2015 -2018, Brent Council sold 13 public spaces for about £30 million. Those sites could have been used develop Council homes. Further the Peel Precinct development and others in the area shows the Council’s low priority for Council housing.

·       We understand that the government aims to cut a further £21 million to Brent’s next budget.  These cuts which always hit the most disadvantaged communities hardest, combined with the housing crisis (homelessness, overcrowding and sub-standard unsafe homes) will only lead to more mental ill health, violence and deaths. We don’t believe the Council should accept implementing these cuts and plan around them without consulting the public who elected them.

Could Peel Precinct provide temporary home for Grenfell Tower homeless?

Cllr John Duffy, (Labour Kilburn) wrote to Carolyn Downs, Brent Council CEO, yesterday proposing that Brent Council could offer short-term accommodation to those made homeless by the Grenfell Tower fire:

I am sure Brent officers are doing their best to help Kensington and Chelsea officers to deal with the dreadful situation that happened this morning in Grenfell Tower.

I am sure in the short term accommodation (over the next couple of weeks) can be found for the residents of Grenfell Tower. This will probably be a combination of  b+bs  and friends putting them up. I have already been informed from one Kilburn resident they are taking in residents from the block on a short-term arrangement.

However I believe we could and should do more for our fellow Londoners. I am suggesting we offer K+C to short-life Peel Precinct (PP). As you know PP has only just been decanted a few months ago and therefore  all the services are available. I believe short-lifing it for 9 months to K+C, while they sort out their the permanent re-housing of the Grenfell Tower residents would be a worthy offer from a neighbour. I believe that PP could be ready for short life in a reasonably amount of time.

Since this morning I have been moved by the strong support for the victims, by residents of South Kilburn and the links between both the communities.

I am sure the government will fund this short -life project and the costs in the delay in the regeneration around PP. However i believe this is important to show solidarity with those who have lost all their belongings and in some cases loved ones. I believe that offering a temporary home close to their original home will hopefully help them re-build their lives and their community.

Duffy calls for transparency on Peel Precinct development

Cllr John Duffy (Labour Kilburn) wrote the following letter to Cllr Sarah Marquis (Chair of the Planning Committee) ahead of this evening's meeting:

I would like to raise my concerns at the Peel Precinct development. I am concerned that the development has failed to balance the needs of the local community both in affordability,accommodation and also community facilities.Together with a failure to achieve guarantees from the private sector on a shared profits scheme.

I have further concerns about the future of the Local British Legion Club and the height (16 stories) of some of the development.Where as I have no particular concerns about the height, I do believe the height will be be used to attract private developers for property speculation/profit and not to enhance the area. I also believe the break down of only 42 (18%) units will not bring social cohesion in this part of the development.

My concerns are also about the role of the Lead Member for Regeneration,who had arranged one to one meeting with the Labour Members of the planning committee.I find this completely inappropriate to mix planning issues with party politics and would request that the COP ensures these meetings no -longer take place,and all meeting concerning planning in South Kilburn include at least one elected councillor from Kilburn and are transparent.

My concerns about the redevelopment does not reflect on officers,but are born out of an attempt to ensure that previously Kilburn Councillors (me) were stop from making legitimate enquires by a member of the cabinet (see below) about matters that rightly concerned them.

I therefore I ask the COP to ensure no such similar interventions by members of the cabinet are allowed.That any meetings with Labour members of the planning committee concerning SK planning issues are fully transparent and if a local council raise legitimate questions,they expect no interventions from any cabinet member and the questions will be dealt with in a transparent way.

This is not a formal objection to the outline planning, as there is much to recommend it and I am sure with some hard work, hard negotiations and hard questions  we can ensure the development will enhance and regenerate the area.This however is a plea to ensure that this planning application is transparent and that Local Kilburn Councillors are allowed full access (including costings) to all information regarding the application.

Email December 2014 in response to request for information from Cllr Duffy:

Andy/Richard (Andy Donald/Richard Barrett)

Do we have a legal duty to disclose this information.  If not, I am happy to inform that it is not appropriate.  John is still smarting about not being allowed to speak at the Gloucester/Durham proposal, but I cannot recall seeing him there at Planning! Anyway, dealing with this politically.  Looks like the email below was drafted by another, smile.

Warm Regards

Margaret

Cllr Margaret McLennan
Lead Member for Regeneration and Housing
and Northwick Park Ward, Brent