Kensal Rise Library application to be heard following legal advice

The controversial planning application for Kensal Rise Library has been tabled for the Planning Committee Meeting of July 16th following legal advice. The item had been deferred at the last meeting LINK in order to seek further legal advice on whether the investigation into fraudulent emails supporting the developer's previous application was a 'material consideration'.

The new report LINK states:

1.     The Council has obtained advice from leading Counsel, Richard Drabble QC, since deferral of the decision by Members on the 17 June. The advice was required to establish whether the Committee could lawfully determine the current application having regard to the fraudulent emails, in support of the application, received during the consultation process in respect of planning application reference 13/2058. Counsel has endorsed the views given by officers, by correctly identifying that such claims of fraudulent activity, are not a material consideration for the purposes of assessing the current application.

2.     Counsel contends that he can see no reason why the grant of planning permission on the current application should prejudice the police investigation into whether earlier representations were bogus or fraudulent. In these circumstances Members are obliged to determine the application on an objective assessment of material planning considerations alone.

3.     3.The Council’s statutory duty also extends to determine planning applications within a reasonable period of time. Accordingly, any unreasonable delay by Members in deciding the current application second time around could result in the developer lodging an appeal to the Secretary of State (Planning Inspectorate) under section 78 (2) of the Act on the grounds of non-determination. Effectively, the Secretary of State would step into the shoes of the Council as Local Planning Authority and determine the application. If the matter were deferred again without proper justification for doing so, the Council will inevitably incur legal costs in dealing with and defending the appeal. The Council may well have to pay the developers professional costs as part of this process, if an order for costs was made on that basis. However, it is very difficult to predict what the overall costs are likely to be, but an estimated guess could run into thousands of pounds. In this respect Members should be mindful of the Councils fiduciary duty towards the local tax payer when balancing the degree of risk.

4.     In relation to the building being listed as an Asset of Community Value under the provisions of the Localism Act 2011 and the relevance of the listing status vis a vie the decision to be taken on the planning application the comments contained within the body of the report are duly noted by officers. Members should however, be reminded that inso far as FOKR being named as “preferred tenant” of the D1 community space, this is not an issue the committee should purport to determine as part of the planning process.

5.     In summary, and for the avoidance of doubt, Members are under a statutory duty to determine the planning application within a reasonable period of time; and that neither the requirements of coming to a proper planning decision or any need to avoid prejudice to the police investigation require any further delay.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal Services and Procurement.

Brighouse says some of Gove's powers should be taken away from him

Following the failure of my motion at Green Party Conference calling for a review if our education policy in the light of Michael Gove's reforms it is interesting to read today's report by Professor Sir Tim Brighouse for the New Visions for Education Group. The report 'Improved National Decision Making About Policy and Practice for Schools' sets 5 key  test questions for improved decision making in education.

The full report can be found HERE

This key  question is particularly pertinent to what I argued at Conference:


Assuming the context of the desirability of the principle of democratic accountability and subsidiarity, will the proposed change increase or decrease the power of the centre and the Secretary of State?’

We have referred to the fact that the Secretary of State now has many more powers than was once the case.
As we have outlined earlier however there is the need for democratic accountability and originally it was envisaged that much of that could and should be exercised locally. We agree with that starting point not least because we think that local knowledge can be powerful in securing equity for individual pupils and their parents.

Some of the powers which the Secretary of State has acquired should be taken away from him. It is astonishing that a system has been created whereby schools (in the form of Academies and Free Schools) have in effect been nationalised and are subject to private contract law to the Secretary of state who controls them in what they do. It is surprising too that parental complaints should be handled not by local government nor by an ombudsman but by the Secretary of State.

There are some powers of course which are best held centrally- for example securing an adequate supply of suitably qualified teachers and making sure that scarce capital resource is distributed fairly and to minimum acceptable standards. They are functions of planning which is necessary to secure equity. It makes no sense for the Secretary of State to abandon the duty in this respect, as has recently been done, as it will lead to shortages of teachers and schools with inadequate space and facilities. But there are other powers which are best exercised locally. A guiding principle of subsidiarity should start from the assumption that powers are best exercised and held democratically accountable locally.

Brent Labour shrinks from supporting Ealing on hospital reorganisation

A motion referring the Shaping a Healthier Future proposals to the Secretary of State, moved by Cllr Claudia Hector, failed to find a seconder at tonight's Brent's Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  The proposals will mean the closure of Central Middlesex A&E.

At the Labour councillors' pre-meeting an alternative motion was amended so that it read that the Committee 'noted' Ealing Council's decision to refer the proposals in case it should appear that Brent Council supported their action. Instead the anodyne motion from Cllr Pat Harrison, seconded by Cllr Helga Gladbaum, said that 'it was right'  that the proposals should be 'thoroughly examined'  and sought assurances that services would not be  reduced or closed  unless changes in infrastructure had 'proved to deliver successful outcomes for residents'. This was passed with Lib Dem support from Cllr Ann Hunter.

The motion was in stark contrast to the earlier passionate call for arms from Sarah Cox of Brent Fightback and Brent SWP who told the Labour councillors that they were heirs to the creators of the National Health Service and, reflecting the commitment of the recently released Spirit of 45,  it was not too late for them to stand up for the NHS, and for the people of Harlesden and Stonebridge, and refer the  decision to the Secretary of State.

Her speech was loudly applauded by Lib Dem councillor Barry Cheese, who went on to make his own heart-felt intervention from first hand sources about the inadequacies of the ambulance service at Northwick Park. He had been told by ambulance workers that two stroke victims in separate ambulances had been delayed treatment because the vehicles had been behind 12 ambulances already on the hospital ramp. As presentations continued he repeatedly called out condemning privatisation. He seems to have moved to the left of the Labour group - which, let's face it, isn't hard.

There was a tedious presentation from NW London NHS on 'Improving Healthcare for people in Brent' that nearly had Cllr Gladbaum chewing the carpet in frustration.  However,  embedded in it was the tiniest hint that there may be slightest of chances that the Central Middlesex A&E decision may only be about 98% final.

One slide read:

CENTRAL MIDDLESEX A&E

• The NWL Hospitals Trust has set up a project board to consider future  options for the A&E (includes senior representatives and clinicians from the trust and stakeholders)
• Commissioners expect to be fully involved in any decisions regarding the future of the A&E and would require reassurance regarding any future change in services around:

The reasons for any changes and the evidence behind this view
The likely impact on neighbouring services (eg Northwick park and Imperial)
The alternatives that had been considered
The monitoring that would be put in place
The involvement of stakeholders inc the OSC

The litmus test is whether a change of service would be safer that the current service

I read this as an opportunity for campaigners to continue to put on the pressure and make the case for the retention of the A&E. What we should also be saying though is that the 'current service' at Central Middlesex needs to be strengthened and its running down halted. This view is somewhat reinforced by news that the number of ambulances being directed to Central Middlesex had increased recently.

So let's not give up just yet - keep up the pressure.