Showing posts with label Sarah Marquis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Marquis. Show all posts

Tuesday, 3 December 2019

Brent Council by-election will take place on January 23rd 2020

Barnhill ward

The by-election for the two vacant seats in Barnhill ward will take place on Thursday 23rd January 2020.

The vacancies follow the resignations with immediate effect of Sarah Marquis and Michael Pavey.

The notice of election will be published on the Brent Council website on December 13th 2019 and nominations will be accepted from December 16th to December 24th.

A busy time for Brent Electoral Services...


Friday, 29 November 2019

Cllr Sarah Marquis joins Michael Pavey in resigning from Brent Council

Cllr Marquis

From the Brent Council website
Councillor Sarah Marquis, a local Councillor for the Barnhill Ward in the London Borough of Brent, has resigned today.

Councillor Marquis notified Carolyn Downs, Returning Officer and Chief Executive of Brent Council, of her decision to stand down with immediate effect due to family and personal reasons.
Her resignation creates another vacancy for the office of Councillor for the Barnhill ward, alongside the vacancy opened up in the same ward earlier this week due to the resignation of Councillor Michael Pavey.

In order to trigger a by-election, two local government electors in Brent must write to the Chief Executive’s Office requesting that an election take place.

Two letters are required to fill each vacancy. On receipt of the requests to fill this vacancy, the Returning Officer will set a date for an election to be held within 35 days.

All requests / letters regarding these vacancies must be sent to: Chief Executive’s Office, Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ or by email to: Carolyn.Downs@brent.gov.uk or Chief.Executive@brent.gov.uk.
Cllr Marquis is a former Chair of Brent Planning Committee where she often displayed a principled independent streak. LINK

Wednesday, 11 April 2018

Sarah Marquis announces she will not stand as Chair of Brent Planning Committee again




Cllr Sarah Marquis (Labour, Barnhill) announced at the last meeting of the current Planning Committee tonight that she will not be standing as Chair again.  The new chair is due to be elected at the Labour Group's Annual General Meeting shortly after the May 3rd election.

I understand that Cllr Marquis wishes to return to her legal career. She was always judicious in her role and mindful of the Committee's independence. For a considerable period the Committee was chaired by Councillor Amer Aghar while Marquis was on maternity leave.

The position is a bed of nails at a time when the Committee has to consider many controversial proposals, particularly those in the Quintain regeneration area.  Multi-million developments have been approved by a single vote on occasions when many of the Committee have abstained.

In the background there have also been the controversies reported on this blog over the Council leader's relationship with Quintain and the issue of unminuted meetings with developers that resulted in changes to Councillor Guidelines on planning issues.

Thursday, 13 April 2017

Sorting out Old Oak and Park Royal regeneration - lessons for Wembley?


Vision...
... and reality (Schedule of Board meetings)

The Brent and Kilburn Times has an interesting front page story today on the multi-million Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) plan. London Mayor Sadiq Khan following a review of the project which criticised former Mayor Boris Johnson for rushing into an agreement withe the government on unfavourable terms and leaving the project 'in a mess',  has appointed a new chair, Liz Peace, former CEO of the British Property Federation.

Presumably sorting out the mess may also involve sorting out the OPDC Board which should have been scrutinising the project along with GLA members.  Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, is a member of the Board.

These are the Board's functions:
The OPDC Board is responsible for governing the OPDC. Their responsibilities include:
  • providing leadership, advice and support
  • setting strategic direction and overall policy
  • monitoring standards, performance and corporate governance
  • representing the OPDC with other stakeholders
Cllr Sarah Marquis is a member of the Board's Planning Committee.

What I found particularly interesting, after the controversy over Quintain's high rise developments around Wembley Stadium and elsewhere in Brent, was Navin Shah AM's statement in the Kilburn Times article that he was concerned about the number of 'excessively tall buildings' planned for Old Oak/Park Royal.

Clearly he has a role as GLA member for Brent and Harrow to scrutinise a Mayoral project but it seems odd that he has been silent on the high rise developments in Wembley, including the 26 storey 'Twin Towers' at the junction of Wembley High Road and Park Lane. In his statement to the Kilburn Times he also spoke about engagement with local residents and businesses, something that was sadly lacking in the recent Wembley Stadium/Spurs planning application:
Old Oak Common and Park Royal don't need 'mini Manhattan' like glass and steel towers. The development corporation must actively and genuinely engage at all stages with local residents, businesses and stakeholders to ensure their aspirations are taken into account.
Nor do we and yes, Brent Council must.

The OPDC is holding a consultation on Regulation 19 of the draft Local Plan on Wednesday 26th April at 7pm, at the CoClub, 140 Wakles Far, Road, London W3 6UG 

The OPDC say:
The nature of the next stage of consultations is very different to last year Regulation 18 draft Local Plan, so we’re holding an event to go through the differences. This will enable you to have your say in the future of Old Oak and Park Royal once the consultation is launched.

Tuesday, 5 July 2016

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

Monday, 16 May 2016

UPDATE; Newly elected Chairs of Brent Council committees and an audacious nomination for Standards Chair

Cllr Allie at Full Council  February 22nd
More appointments will be made this evening but I now have fuller information for readers on appointments to positions on Brent Council committees etc.

One nomination, if true,  is particularly audacious - that of Cllr James Allie who sat reading the Catholic Herald through much of the budget setting meeting on February 22nd, which included discussion of the impact of  cuts to services.

A complaint was made to Fiona Alderman who replied:
I have considered the complaint under the Members’ Code of Conduct complaints procedure and have consulted the Independent Person, the Chief Whip and the Chief Executive. In all the circumstances, I have decided that on this occasion your complaint does not warrant any further action under the Code of Conduct. I have, however, reported your complaint to the Chief Whip for the Labour Group and written to Councillor Allie to advise him that the conduct you complained of must not be repeated.
Cllr Butt has apparently nominated Cllr Allie to be chair of the Standards Committee which may well be charged with responding to complaints about Cllr Butt's conduct over the Tayo Oladapo case as well as the  double Planning Committee shenanigans. Sandra Kabir, the Chief Whip who managed the Cllr John Duffy case, is nominated as Vice Chair. Other members are Cllr Krupa Sheth and Cllr Tatler.

Cllr Allie has been a staunch Butt supporter following his defection from the Lib Dems and was one of the few to support Butt's bid to end elelctions for Deputy Leader.

Although Allie was never charged with any offence in a 2011 fraud case, he was referred to the borough solicitor for not declaring an interest by the then Labour leader Ann John. At the time Allie was a Lib Dem councillor for Alperton and chaired the budget scrutiny committee. LINK

Krupa Sheth is a close relative of Cllr Ketan Sheth and replaces Bernard Collier who one councillor said was known to 'ask tough questions'.

Many observers thought Cllr Liz Dixon, a woman of principle, would have been a more independent occupant of the position.

The chairs of the  two Scrutiny Committees elected on Saturday are Matt Kelcher and Ketan Sheth. Kelcher is the chair of the present single Scrutiny Committee and Sheth previously chaired Planning.

Sarah Marquis was elected as Chair of the Planning Committee.  She was interrupted mid-speech  on Saturday by applause when she promised that she would be politically independent in the role. Cllr Agha was challenged to distance himself from Cabinet pressure if he got the role but replied that it was important that all members contribute to the Planning Committee, including the Council leader.

The leadership are claimed to have ignored Marquis' plea that the process of appointing members to the Planning Committee should be opened up to reassure the public that there was not a lack of independence from councillors which would open up claims of political interference in the Committee's work.

I understand that one Cabinet candidate, who was not elected to a position, when asked which other council they admired, replied 'Tower Hamlets.'

Given Cllr Butt's narrow majority for leader and the tied vote for deputy it is not certain that his nominations will get through this evening  but doubtless considerable pressure will be applied on individual councillors.








Saturday, 14 May 2016

Has the time come for a Brent Planning for People Forum?


The above statement was made by Brent Council in response to a discussion on the London Live TV channel on  the Lucozade Powerleague proposals for Kingsbury High School.

It has been received with some cynicism by local campaigners who have been at the receiving end of decisions made by the Planning Committee.

Reporting regularly on planning issues from Wembley Matters I have repeatedly seen residents go along to Planning Committee in the belief that their objections to applications will be taken seriously, only to come out having given their 2 minute speech, listened to the often barely audible proceedings, angered that the Committee had then tamely voted in favour of the developer.

Residents are now realising that the time has come to make links with others in the same predicament.

Recently there have been some more independent decisions by the Committee and the chair, Cllr Sarah Marquis, has stuck her neck out but this seems to have earned her the ire  of Muhammed Butt the Council leader.  The latest manifestation of that was his intervention to ensure that proposals from Quintain for the area around Wembley Stadium, in his own Tokyngton ward, were rushed through at two Planning Committees last week.

That doesn't sound as if the Planning Committee is 'separate from the Council' and appears to be an attempt to get the Planning Committee back into line.

One of the problems is the Council's policy of 'smoothing the way for developers' promoted by Andy Donald, former Director of Regeneration and Major Projects.

Brent Council is in effect a partner with Quintain in the redevelopment of the Wembley Stadium area through the Wembley Masterplan.  This presents difficulties for planning officers' and councillors' independence.

It was reported to me last week that one councillor had allegedly remarked, 'It's Quintain - we have to vote for it.'*

Last week Brent residents were by-standers as Brent Council, Quintain and the Football Association deployed all their resources and experts on a battle that will impact on residents for decades to come. Our voices were barely heard. When one particularly preposterous claim was made and I couldn't suppress a response, a Quintain suit turned round and told me to be quiet. I replied, 'No I won't - I live here.' The exchange summed up our powerlessness.

The Roe Green Village residents challenging Lucozade have found that their ward councillors offer no support and so have mounted their own public campaign while the rsidents challenging the Wembley twin Towers are appealing to Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor.

It is just not Quintain of course but a whole range of developers and multi-national companies as well as Brent Council itself that we are faced with - what they have in common is that they have the money, resources and time. Residents squeeze their research into spare time in the evenings and weekends and have to go through a rapid self-education process in planning law and procedures.

I think it is time to consider setting up an umbrella group that will bring individuals, residents associations and voluntary organisations concerned with these issues together so that experience and expertise can be shared and proposals made to reform the consultation and decision making processes in Brent Council.

In time the group could perhaps pool resources to get their own professional advice as well as hold a 'People's Panel' to consider particular planning applications.  It would be strictly non-party political.

What do people think?

* This is from a previous posting on changes to the Planning Committee Code of Conduct. The issue of pre-determination is particularly relevant:

-->
Members of the Planning Committee are warned:



If a member does not abide by this Code the member may put the Council at risk of proceedings on the legality or maladministration of the related decision; and the member may be at risk of either being named in a report of the Audit and Governance Committee or Council; or if the failure to abide by the Code is also likely to be a breach of the Member Code of Conduct, of a complaint made to the Monitoring Officer.



The disclosure of 'disclosable pecuniary interests' is added to the requirements and members are told that decisions should not be influenced by the interests of Councillors or because of pressure exerted by applicants, agents or third parties. A new paragraph is inserted:



Members of the Planning Committee must take decisions in the public interest and take account of only of material planning considerations. They should not allow themselves to be influenced by members of the public and applicants, agents or third parties who might approach them and they should not be influenced by party politics.

My comment: There is something rather odd about having to take decisions in the public interest but also not being influenced by the public. This is reinforced by the duty to follow the 'rules of natural justice' and give people a hearing: 
The rules of natural justice include the duty to act fairly, the duty to give all those who will be affected by a decision the opportunity of a hearing before a decision is made; and the principle that no person should be a judge in his or her own cause. That principle means that members must be and be seen to be be impartial and without bias, and that members should not take part in any decision that affects their own interests.



A section of 'Bias and Predetermination' has been added:



Members should not take a decision on a matter when they are actually biased in favour or against the application, or when it might appear to a fair and informed observer that there was real possibility of boas, or where a member has predetermined the matter by closing their mind to the merits of the decision before they come to take it.



 ...A member taking part in a decision on a planning matters must be open to any new arguments about the matters up until the moment of a decision. A member should not comment or make any commitment in advance as to how they intend to vote which might indicate that they have closed their mind. Any planning decision made by a member who can be shown to have approached the decision with a closed mind will still expose the council to the risk of legal challenge.



The section on Interests has been amended to allow a member with a disclosable pecuniary interest to have a right to attend a meeting:



...where a member of the public has the right to attend the meeting, make representations, answer questions, or give evidence, then a member will have the same right. Once the member has exercised that right then they must withdraw from the room for the rest of that item and play no further part in the discussion or vote,



At present many planning decisions are made by officers alone but Council members have the power to 'call-in' decisions so that they will be decided by Committee. The Code is amended:


A member considering using the 'call-in' power should consider whether their objective could be achieved by an alternative means, for example by discussing the matter further with the relevant officer or facilitating a meeting between the objector and an officers, bearing in mind the additional cost to the council when a matter has to be considered by Committee. 



The key issue of planning submissions where the council is the applicant or landowner is covered by this paragraph:



Where the council itself is the landowner or planning applicant then a Planning member should consider whether he or she has had such a significant personal involvement in advocating or preparing or submitting the planning proposal that the member would be likely to be perceived as longer able to act impartially or to determine the proposal purely on its planning merits. A member would not be required to withdraw simply because they were, for example, a member of both the Cabinet, or a proposing committee, as well as the planning committee, However a member with a relevant portfolio or individual  responsibility for implementing a particular policy should carefully consider whether that role makes it inappropriate for them to participate in a particular planning decision.

My comment: Does this sufficiently deal with the wider conflict of interest over the Planning Committee being the  judge of the Council's own development schemes?


Wednesday, 11 May 2016

Sarah Marquis absent from tonight's planning meeting

Sarah Marquis, Chair of Brent Planning Committee has sent her apologies to tonight's meeting. No reason was given. Cllr Agha is in the chair and Cllr Patel is also absent. This means that tonight's decision on the controversial Wembley Masterplan development will be made by just six people.

I have now heard that they are absent on legal advice because they have not had time to read ALL the enormous documentation attached to the applications to be heard tonight.

We must presume that the six present have read it all...



Monday, 9 May 2016

Marquis attempts to defer the second of this week's Planning Commiittee meetings

At the end of an arduous Planning Committee which went on well beyond the normal 10pm deadline the Chair, Sarah Marquis, made a statement about the controversial decision to hold two Planning Committee meetings this week. LINK

She said that as Chair she was disappointed that the Committee had been put in the position of deciding important applications,  in a short space of time, that would deliver the new Wembley not just in the immediate future but for generations to come.

She said that the Committee had a duty to be fully informed and deliver fairness and justice through due process.   Members needed to feel comfortable with the decisions that they made.

Given that,  as well as the weighty meeting documentation, members had 385 supporting documents to read on line, she wanted to move that meeting due to be held on Wednesday should be  deferred and moved to the next available Planning Committee meeting date.

Cllr Marquis' proposal seemed to throw the Committee members into a state of panic with Cllr Agha questioning whether such a discussion should be held in public - although only three of us had had the stamina to stay until the end of the meeting.

The Committee's legal adviser suggested that Wednesday's meeting go ahead as the date had been set and documentation provided  but that the deferral motion be heard at the beginning.

Cllr Maurice suggested that the Committee meet in private immediately after tonight's meeting with the legal adviser to discuss the motion.

As far as I know that meeting may still be going on...

Propriety of Butt's conduct on double planning meetings questioned

Claims emerged over the weekend that Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt sought the agreement of his allies on Brent Planning Committee before timetabling two Planning Committee meetings this week ahead of the Labour Group AGM on Saturday.

A reader commented:
It is totally unreasonable to expect Planning Committee to be able consider properly two full agendas, involving major proposed developments, within the space of 48 hours!

Rumour has it that the Chair of Planning Committee, Sarah Marquis, objected to having two meetings so close together, but that the Leader of the Council went behind her back and persuaded some of the other Committee members to agree to it.
The question arises as to whether the Committee can make informed and robust decisions in the limited time available on proposals that will make an impact on Wembley for decades to come and have major repercussions for the country's national stadium.

As the Planning Committee is statutorily independent questions also arise over the propriety of Muhammed Butt's intervention.  I would think that the chair would be entitled to seek independent advice on whether the double meetings are reasonable and enable the Committee to cary out its statutory duties effectively and fairly.

The Members Code of Conduct and Planning Code of Practice are relevant LINK

Sunday, 8 May 2016

Pavey challenges Butt for Brent Labour Group leadership




There has been little rest for Brent Labour councillors over the weekend following the news of likely contests for leadership at Saturday's Labour Group AGM.

Michael Pavey will be challenging Muhammed Butt for the leadership.  So far no job has emerged for Butt from Sadiq Khan, but intriguingly Butt's relatives seem to be pushing him as a possible successor in Khan's Tooting constituency.  George Galloway has hinted that he may stand in Tooting - what a combo!

Senior councillors rejected Butt's suggestion for deputy and I understand that a pliable pudding is standing.  Hopefully someone with more credibility will throw their hat into the ring

Sarah Marquis has been a well-informed and independent Chair of Planning, presiding over a committee of lesser talents. As Butt is a champion of Quintain and all its deeds he may push for someone more pliable in that role too.

Ruth Moher has been a low profile lead member for children and families and has frustrated many by her failure to take a firm position on forced academies.  Both Cllr Shama Tatler and Cllr 'Jumbo' Chan as teachers have a keen interest in education although there has been no confirmation either will challenge Moher for the role.

Cllr Eleanor Southwood has had to deal with Cllr Duffy's revelations over alleged Council incompetence at Environment and a contest between the two of them would be interesting.

Regeneration and housing are key areas,  particularly in the light of the GLA campaign and recent controversial regeneration projects, including South Kilburn, and there may be a challenge to Cllr Margaret McLennan based on a failure to stand up to developers on affordable housing provision.

There are a number of others who may come forward including the ambitious Cllr Roxanne Mashari and Cllr Sam Stopp. Stopp has recently made critical comments on the planning consultation procedures in the borough and called for more open and transparent dealings with residents. Matt Kelcher has probably been chair of Scrutiny for too short a period to face a challenge.

Overall however with 56 councillors, the majority of whom as far as the public are concerned are faceless, and because they don't speak at council meetings have little political form (apart from putting their hands up on command), it is hard to know how close Butt's critics are to garnering sufficient votes. 

Ex Cllr James Powney gives his account of the process on his blog LINK

Process in the Labour Group

It may be worth noting the due process in Group meetings, as they appear to have escaped Cllr Butt and possibly others.  Votes are held of all the paid up Labour councillors and no one else.  The vote is by secret ballot, and follows the rules known as "exhaustive ballot".  This means that where there are multiple candidates (as I imagine there would be if Cllr Pavey becomes leader as far as the Deputy Leader post goes), the candidate with the lowest number is elimated and a new vote taken, until somebody get 50% plus one of the votes.

The Group officers (such as Leader and Deputy Leader) are voted on by the whole group, as should other positions such as the Planning Chair and the members of the Executive.  This also applies to the new Deputy Mayor, but the Mayor post is normally taken by whoever was last year's deputy without an election. 

The Scrutiny positions are voted on by the non Executive members (i.e. excluding the Leader, Deputy Leader, Executive and (I think) the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

Since all these votes are by secret ballot, they can be expected to take a long time and be unpredictable.  My past experience of such elections is that many councillors promise their votes to multiple candidates.  I take it from Cllr Butt's attempts to suspend one of his critics and other rumours I have heard, that he is far from confident of victory.






Wednesday, 6 April 2016

Just 4 councillors allow TwinTowers to change the face of Wembley Central

Impression from Park Lane Methodist Church/Park Lane Primary
The 26/21 storey Twin Towers block at the junction of Park Lane and Wembley High Road was given the go ahead by the Planning Committee on Wednesday evening. There were 4 votes for the the proposal, 2 against and 2 abstentions.  Sarah Marquis, Chair of Planning Committee, voted against the application.

Afterwards residents were aghast that two councillors abstained on such a major issue. If there is any committee where councillors are expected to make a decision it is planning. If you don't have enough information to make a decision you should keep on asking questions until you do.

If the vote had tied 4/4 I presume Marquis would have exercised a casting vote against the application.

Denise Cheong with just 2 minutes to represent hundred of local residents made a presentation on the impact of the high density high rise blocks on the local area, the impact on current over-crowded roads and public transport and the fact that the development did not comply with established GLA and Brent standards.

Cllr Sam Stopp (Labour, Wembley Central) appeared to have been so impressed by the developer's consultation procedures and his openness that this had persuaded him to support the development despite recognising that the building was not perfect. He would like to have seen it less high but its height was based on what officers had told the developer was possible. He thought the building's orientation was not ideal.

Stopp went to to list the positives: The excellent consultation by the developer, quality of the building design, provision of community space.

He went on to contrast the developer's consultation with that by the Council. Local residents seemed to have found out about the proposal late in the day with a rush of contacts comparatively recently. The Council needed to adopt a more open and transparent approach to consultation. As in Islington, we need members' panels which are accessible to the public so they can question developers and councillors.

David Glover, the planning officer,was faced with the task of explaining why officers were supporting the application despite it not complying with policies on density, carbon emissions, living space,  open space, play space and the proportion of affordable housing.

He claimed that although the building did not meet the standards that it could be approved by reference to the  guidelines that interpreted policy.  He echoed Cllr Stopp in praising the quality of the finish of the building and the flats.  He said that the restricted nature of the site justified the developer in building at greater height and density than set out in the local plan.  The 28% affordable hosing (rather than the recommended 50%)  had been subject to independent viability assessments. Initially the developer offered a higher proportion of affordable housing but this was limited to a 7 year period after which it would move to market rents.  Officers had negotiated a lower proportion of affordable housing but for perpetuity.

Some of the most  incisive qustioning came from Sarah Marquis, chair of the committee, who pointed out that the density was double that recommended for town centre locations and doubted that it complied with the requirement that not meeting those standards could only be supported if it was 'clearly and robustly justified by local circumstances.'  The density was that which applied to international city locations rather than a local town centre.

She went on to query the planners' claim that the development was allowed because the local plan allowed 'tall building' in the  Wembley Central vicinity. She pointed out that local tall buldings were much lower and that the previous application in the sites had been for 17 storeys. It was a big leap from the 30metre definition of tall to the 85metres of this development.

In the course of the discussion the developer confirmed that they were also seeking to purchase the green space on the embankment behind Chesterfield house and their aim would be to build residential properties there. This was not followed up by the Committee but would obviosuly add to the issues around local infrastructure including traffic density and school places. The negotiations had not got very far  and purchase of the garage space behind Chesterfield House to provide disabled parking for the new development has not been completed.

The extent of this additional land which is now subject to acquisition and development can be seen in this illustration:

Click to enlarge

There was a group of young people in the public gallery who applauded when the planning application was approved. Apparently in the wake of the closure of the Wembley Youth Centre LINK they thought they would be able to carry on their activities in the ground floor community space provided by the developer.  It is of course by no means certain that they would be chosen to occupy the space and we know from other applications that this could be a fraught process.  It feels sometimes that we grasp crumbs from the rich man's (developer's) table.

The actual process of building on a site surrounded by traffic congestion with difficult access and parking sounds as if it will be a two year nightmare for local residents not to mention the impact when crowds travel to the stadium and arena.

I am left puzzled by how the committee members who voted for the development could have felt persuaded despite all the arguments above. Does a community space and 'quality finish' really outweigh the disadvantages?

The voting details are below. A further puzzle was how Cllr Colacioco asked all the right questions, got extremely unsatisfactory answers, and then voted for the application!
 

Voting on the application was as follows:

FOR 4                           Cllrs Agha, Choudhary, Colacicco and Mahmood
AGAINST  2                Cllrs Marquis (Chair) and Cllr  Maurice
ABSTENTION  2         Cllrs Ezeajughi and Cllr Patel

Denise Cheong's speech on behalf of residents can be found HERE



Saturday, 10 January 2015

Planning Portal comments in support of Welsh School planning application to be verified by officers

Cllr Sarah Marquis, Chair of Brent Planning Committee, told residents attending the site visit at King Edward VII Park this morning that she had instructed officers to investigate comments that have appeared on the council planning portal in support of the London Welsh School's application to build a school in the park.

The resident of 28 Princes Court, whose address and someone else's name, had been used to post support, when she herself was opposed, said that she was not satisfied with the officers' explanation that this was an 'adminstrative error'.

Marquis has asked officers to investigate that and also to verify the 13 other comments (excluding 23 Toley Avenue) in support of the application that suddenly appeared on the portal on January 8th.

Apart from a representative from the Welsh School the 20 or so residents (including children) who attended seem to have been opposed to the planning application.

Debangshu Dey, a local resident, has offered to collate bullet points from residents that could then be included in a presentation to the Planning Committee on Tuesday. Residents can apply to speak for up to 2 minutes and the points could be spread between several speakers.

Debangshu's email is debangshu.dey@medreich.co.uk (corrected)

It would be useful if you could say if you are willing to speak. The collated points can then be sent to all who have responded.

Cllr Sam Stopp (Wembley Central) also continues to welcome comments on the planning application  cllr.sam.stopp@brent.gov.uk  He will be speaking at the Planning Committee and will have up to 5 minutes for his presentation.

The site visit was also attended by Cllr Jean Hossain (Preston) and Preston ward residents can write to her cllr.jean.hossain@brent.gov.uk .  Most of the park is in Preston ward, including Collins Lodge where the land swap is proposed. The Bowling Green is in Wembley Central ward.

Residents who live opposite the park on Park Lane should contact Tokyngton councillors and copy in Sam Stopp.

Here are some photographs of the Bowling Green site taken this morning.

The additional classroom proposed to be built here, 4m from the boundary with back gardens
This area behind the Bowling Green Pavilion proposed to  be resurfaced as a playground

Planning Officers confirmed that the Bowling Green itself did not form part of the planning application.  Councillors were shown the disused yard adjacent to Collins Lodge which had not been considered as a possible school site or land swap.

Tuesday, 17 June 2014

Kensal Rise Library development decision deferred pending legal advice on fraud

The planning application by Andrew Gillick  for the redevelopment of Kensal Rise Library, closed by Brent Council, was deferred tonight at a dramatic meeting of Brent Planning Committee,

Committee membership was reduced by two members when Cllr Shafique Choudhary and Cllr Dan Filson withdrew on the basis that they had expressed strong views prior to joining the Committee.
This left 5 members, including the chair Sarah Marquis, to make the decision.

It had seemed that the fraudulent email investigation had been ignored when the meeting went ahead without any statement about deferment pending the outcome of the current police investigation into fraudulent emails that had supported Mr Gillick's last application.

Karl Abeyasekera, speaking as a member of the public drew members' attention to the fraudulent email issue saying that the 'guilty party' could benefit materially from this application. He called for the Committee to defer pending the outcome of the police investigation.

Stephanie Schonfield of the Friends of Kensal Rise Library spoke in support of the application  and said they had put their trust in All Souls College and the developer and hoped they would reciprocate by supporting FKRL to manage the community space. She regretted that they were only the preferred bidder and not the named occupant.

Horatio Chance, the Committee's legal adviser  told members that the 'binding agreement' with All Souls College was excempt from the Localism Act and had no relevance to the Kensal Rise building's Asset of Community Value status.

Following other contribututions, including a question from Cllr Amer Agha about the email investigation, and the developer's agent saying the community space had to be offered to other voluntary organisations  and ot resreved for FKRL, it looked as if the Committee was about the vote when chair Sara Marquis dropped her bombshell. She made a statement from the chair. She said that despite legal advice to the contrary she could not see why an ongoing police investigation into the previous application could NOT be a material consideration.

There followed a potentially testy but lawyerly interchange with Horation Chance, the Committee's legal adviser, on whether the Committee were legally bound to make a decision on the application on purely planning grounds, ignoring the email investigation. Chance in near exasperation declared that the legal advice  was clear and had come from no less a person than Fiona Ledden.

Marquis insisted the Committee needed further legal advice on whether the fraud investigation should be taken into account and when Chance could add nothing further she said that the Committee should vote on deferment. Various officers warned that the applicant might appeal to thre Secretary of State over the delay and seek compensation.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari, a Cabinet member and former lead member for Environment, who played a large part in brokering the deal with FKRL, made a late attempt to speak. Cllr Marquis rejected the request as the section for contributions had finished and she pointed out that the councillor had had the chance to put in a request to speak with the two days notice required of councillors.

The Committee voted on whether to hear the planning application, and only Cllr Kasangara, perhaps reflecting Conservative values, said that fraud was of no account and the vote on the application should go ahead.

The Committee then voted 3 for  (Cllrs Marquis, Agha, Hylton), 1 against  (Cllr Kasangara)and 1 abstention (Cllr Lia Colacicco) on the motion to defer the decision on the application until further legal advice had been obtained. This will mean the application  returning on the next cycle to the Committee that meets on July 16th.

This was not a vote to await the outcome of the police investigation but to decide if the investigation was something that the Committee should take into account.

It was also clear from the councillors' questions, or lack of them, that they were only concerned about minor aspects of the application itself, so it looks likely to eventually go through given the number of supporting letters. Unless there are further developments...

Cllr Sarah Marquis deserves credit for showing the sort of independence and toughness that one should expect from a Chair of Planning.

Marquis is a lawyer and specialises in fraud and white collar crime.

As a newly elected councillor, chairing her first committee, she has already made her mark.

Friday, 13 June 2014

Police investigation into fraudulent emails not concluded but Kensal Rise planning application goes ahead


Curioser and curioser - Kensal Rise library occupied by tenants despite no change of use granted
Despite calls for the Kensal Rise Library planning application to be postponed until the police investigation into fraudulent emails has been concluded, the new application (by the same developer) will be heard at Brent Planning Committee next week.

For those without long memories, here is how the issue was reported by the Kilburn Times at the time of the last application, just 8 months ago LINK :
Council chiefs have called in the police over claims that emails supporting plans to develop an axed library branch were faked.


The action has been taken after an investigation by Brent Council into the allegations surrounding Kensal Rise Library concluded the case should be referred to detectives.

The council’s IT officers scrutinised the emails including IP addresses which are exclusive to each computer.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari, Brent Council’s lead member for environment and neighbourhoods, is responsible for libraries.

She said: “The council compiled a report after their own investigation and we have handed this over to police.

“Abuse of Brent’s planning system will not be tolerated.

“This has now escalated into a police matter and we await the outcome of the police investigation.”

In September, a council report added strength to claims by campaigners Friends of Kensal Rise Library (FKRL) that false statements were made against its fight to retain the Bathurst Road building for community use.

The report stated that when email notifications were sent to everyone who made a statement about the plans on the council’s website 78 were returned as being undelivered with 70 of those belonged to ‘supporters’.

Andrew Gillick, the director of Platinum Revolver Limited which took over the building from owners All Soul’s College in Oxford, hit back with claims that false objections against the application had also been posted on the council’s website.

He had applied for permission to convert the site into six flats, a cottage and a community hub but it was rejected by the council.

Margaret Bailey, chair of FKRL, said:

“We applaud the action of our council and it’s willingness to take seriously this attempt to subvert local democracy and mislead the public.

“Our community is strongly against this development for the library building and these fraudulent emails of support for the development were an attempt to divide and denigrate this community.

“Fraud is illegal and we support a thorough investigation by the police.”

Cllr Mashari added: 
“We must keep our eyes on the end result of securing a community library at Kensal Rise.

“I am ready to work with the community and any stakeholder to ensure that this happens and that it is viable and sustainable.”
The alleged illegality seems to have been forgotten, or swept under the carpet, with both Brent Council Planning officers and FKRL supporting Gillick's new application.

It appears to me that whether one is for or against the revised application, until issues around the previous application by the same developer have been cleared up, it will be tainted and should not be tabled.

What price Brent Council's commitment to preventing the subverting of local democracy? Sarah Marquis, with no previous experience as a councillor, but with experience as a lawyer, chairs the Planning Committee.

What does she think?

Friday, 6 June 2014

Kensal Rise Library application a baptism of fire for the new Planning Committee

The controversial planning application for the Kensal Rise Library development appears to be scheduled for the new Planning Committee on June 17th, despite the police not having yet reported on their investigation of fraudulent emails submitted on the previous application.

Planning officers are recommending that the committee grant consent 'subject to legal agreement'. What this means will become clearer when their full report is published a week before the meeting.

The new Planning Committee, which is supposed to operate independently of the Council and is not whipped, is chaired by newly elected Barnhill councillor, Sarah Marquis who is a lawyer.

This is the composition of the Committee which consists of 7 Labour and one Conservative councillor:
Sarah Marquis, Amer Agha, Shafique Choudhary, Lia Colacicco, Dan Filson, Orleen Hylton, Suresh Kansagra and Arshad Mahmood.
One issue that immediately strikes me is that the Standing Orders for the Committee LINK, approved as part of the constitutional changes adoped at Full Council, is whether a hearing on June 17th gives enough time for the training of new councillors on the Planning Committee that is now required. A good grounding would seem to be required in such a controversial and complex case.

The Declarations of Interest for new councillors have yet to be posted LINK

The full list of comments on the  planning application can be seen on the planning portal LINK

Meanwhile here are some of the comments which will give readers an idea of the issues involved.

-->
Support: I despair that this historic library, opened by Mark Twain, funded by public subscription; with help from Andrew Carnegie, fought for by so many in the community, and now designated a community asset, is to be carved up into a residential development for private profit, with token space set aside for its original use. If the choice is between nothing and something, then of course I support the Planning Application 14/0846 and FKRL as tenants of the space. But the ethics of the closure remain far from clear to me.

Support: Support for planning application 14/0846 I give my support re Planning Application 14/0846: 1. For D1 community library and space 2. For FKRL to be tenants of the space in the belief that this is the best practical way to use the Kensal Rise library building as a community asset. I hope the planning committee has more relevant information than me, and can better judge these issues: * Is a community library a practical, sustainable activity in the space envisaged? * Would the community get sufficient benefit from a library in the space envisaged to respect the "asset of community value" status? * Does the committee believe that the community could get better value from the building (that was funded by public subscription) in another way; i.e. that it should it reject the planning application or defer a decision until after the end of May when further funding options can be discussed? I await the decision and your reasons with interest

Objection: I object to the planning application 14/0846: 1) The application conflicts with the building's Asset of Community Value ("ACV") listing: The whole building is listed as an ACV. The applicant's/develper's plan for flats occupying almost the entire space within the building (less about 185sqm on the ground floor) conflicts with the requirement of the building's ACV listing for future non-ancillary community use. Were the applicant to succeed, most of the building's potential use as a future community facility would be lost to us forever, and in its place we would have the applicant's provision of an ancillary "D1 community space"; this contravenes the ACV requirement that future use of the building for the community be non-ancillary. 2) The impact on local employment and skills: The applicant's plan will damage the employment prospects of local people. In converting almost the whole building to residential use, the applicant is denying the future use of that space to local companies and organisations which could offer the learning of diverse skills not only to those they employ but those who would use their services; in contrast, the small space offered by the applicant cannot offer the same sustainable and diverse business, education, skills and employment opportunities to local people - and such a loss always affects poorer people most. I note that the Friends of Kensal Rise Library (FKRL) is the developer's "preferred bidder" for the space, however its model for financial sustainability is weak because it relies almost exclusively on volunteer support - this is because there is little space for it to generate revenue to run a library in the D1 space offered by the developer in this application. 3) Not much more D1 space than in developer's first rejected application on the building in August 2013: The D1 space offered now is little more than what was offered in the developer's first planning application when it was rejected by the planning officers on the grounds of insufficient D1 space. At that time, the developer offered D1 space partly in a basement and partly on the ground floor; as a percentage of total floor space available, the D1 space offered now isn't much more than what was offered then - in fact it's probably less because there is now less basement space in the developer's current application. Therefore, if the planning officers rejected the first application after having concluded that it conceded insufficient D1 space, then it only makes sense for the sake of consistency to reject the current application as well. 4) The police's current fraud investigation potentially exposes planning officers and committee to civil proceedings against them: Has the council considered the legal consequences to it of assigning residential status to any part of the building - and therefore immediately enriching the applicant - while there is an on-going police investigation into email and identity fraud around the applicant's support for his first application in August 2013? While the financial implications of assigning residential status to a currently D1-only building are not a matter for the planning officers and committee, the consequences of doing so while an investigation, which could possibly result in criminal charges, might be. 5) The D1 space is unattractive, small, and will not generate a sustained level of interest from the community because the space is too limited in what it can offer; it is essentially a narrow corridor separating two relatively small rooms - which will be small once essential public facilites such as toilets, staff room, and circulation are factored in. The proposed entrance to the D1 area is in a chimney flue, leaving the better and larger entrance for the few flat owners.

Support: This supporting comment is being submitted on behalf of the Kensal Triangle Residents Association. While,like everyone else, we deeply regret that the whole building is not to be saved for community use, as it was originally gifted to the local community, we consider that the FKRL who have worked tirelessly for the last four years have arrived at the best outcome which still retains a library on the site. We wish for the Friends of Kensal Rise Library to be the tenants of the space and to run the Library. Commenting on purely physical details, we agree with many others that the proposed entrance (through the existing chimney flue) creates a cramped space with poor flow, which will not help with optimisation of the space available: surely some way can be found of creating secure entrances to the flats and the Library through the existing main door.

Support: Time to Win the Peace? We have been involved in campaigns for Kensal Rise Library library since 1988, when the people occupied the building. Now is the turning point. Do we support the developer¿s planning application with the proviso that there be a rent-free space for community use on the ground floor whose preferred tenants are the Friends of Kensal Rise Library? For us the answer is a ¿Yes¿. We know and trust the Friends of Kensal Rise Library, who have fought so hard to save this building and who kept the Pop-up Library running in all weathers, a hard and unglamorous task. Thanks to their tireless negotiations with the developer and All Souls, the space offered has been increased to around two-thirds of the original space the library took up. No war ever achieves all its objectives. Ideally we would all like to keep the whole building for community use. But a moral victory is useless if there is no library at the end of it. The Friends and Trustees of Kensal Rise Library have taken the very difficult decision to support the planning application. After years of saying 'No' to an Oxford College, a Council and a developer, it is hard to say ¿Yes¿. But what were we fighting for? A library. Not an embattled plastic tent, brilliant as it was, but a warm, dry space where books, company and computers are free. A space where parents can bring young children, where older school children can do their home-work. The end-game was always a peace, not a war. My husband, the writer Nicholas Rankin, and I believe it is time to win the peace. It is an act of faith. But every library is an act of faith that when people work together, good things can happen that are not just about profit or advantage. We want Kensal Rise to have a real library back and we think the best chance of it now is to support the planning application.

PLEASE NOTE THAT BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS ILL-TEMPERED ANONYMOUS COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH AROUSED STRONG FEELINGS ON BOTH SIDES, I WILL ONLY PUBLISH COMMENTS WHICH INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE COMMENTER.