Sudbury Town Station planning application rejected, Ujima House and North Brent School approved

After a lengthy discussion Brent Planning Committee again rejected the TfL application for a development of 'pocket homes' on the car park at Sudbury Town Station. Despite a £600k offer by the developer towards the build costs of 6 three bedroomed homes outside the area, the committee stuck to their original objection on grounds of lack of family homes for the site itself,  the loss of the car park and its impact on acessiblity for people with protected characteristics; and the applications lack of compliance with Local and London plans. Three members of the public and two councillors made very persuasive presentations opposing the application.

Cllr Denselow abstained. Cllrs Hylton and Chappel voted for the application and the four other committee members against.

The Ujima House discussion was a real mish mash.  The owner of Lanmore House and Jaine Lunn occupant of a neighbouring house on Ecclestone Place, were represented and it emerged that a 'letter before claim' against the Council, who are the developer, had been issued. The committee were told by the Council legal officer that the Council had complied with all regulations and that appeared to be the end of that.

Inaccuracies in the officers' report were highlighted concerning the height of the building and the number of windows in adjoining buildings affected, and the committee were told that the architect had failed to get back to the Council about a query, but all this was deftly passed over.  The issue of a weight restriction of 15 tons on the entrance to Ecclestone Place was brushed aside with an assurance that if necessary lorries could access the site from Wembley High Road (traffic jams!)

The committee were told that this was just an outline application and detailed issues could be dealt with at a later date.

The application was approved.

The Executive Headteacher of the Wembley Multi-Academy Trust after initial zoom problems gave a confident presentation on its plans for a new school on Neasden Lane, currently called North Brent School, although it is on the south side of the North Circular.

However, after she had left the meeting some confusion arose over the catchment area of the school as it emerged that pupils would be travelling to the site from North Wembley as the school is currently housed on the Wembley High School site.  The new site would open at the end of 2021 so the children on the current site would have to travel down. One officer muttered something about issue of the school  catchment should have come up earlier and councillors seemed unsure if the new school when fully open would serve the local area or continue to be populated by pupils from the North Wembley area.   Clearly it would be better in terms of Green School Travel Plans if the catchment was local and the area does lack its own non-denominational school.

The new school will be 6 forms of entry so will generate a lot of trips and transport was the main issue discussed. An earlier plan to have 4 coaches travel down to the school from North Wembley had been opposed by TfL and was reduced to one, so pupils will have to travel by public transport either  on the tube, by bus or by cycle. The 297 route would be beefed up in consultation with TfL and the 245 was also mentioned but that only goes as far as Neasden shopping centre before turning off towards Staples Corner. One councillor raised concerns about children from different schools milling around at the Neasden interchange where there were already problems.

It appears that on one side of the borough we will have children travelling north from Harlesden and Stonebridge to Ark Elvin and on the other children travelling south from North Wembley to Neasden Lane!

The one decision made (apart from  approving the application) was to  call for 172 cycle parking places to be provided in the initial phase of the building. No one queried whether cycling to the school would be safe.

Recording of Committee HERE

UPDATED: Controversial deferred planning applications return to next week's Brent Planning Committee

While most Brent Council committee meetings have been cancelled or postponed, as well as the Council's AGM which was due to be held this week, the Planning Committee continues via the internet.

Nex Wednesday's meeting considers a number of heavy-weight planning applications, worth millions, including two that were deferred at the May 6th meeting.

The application for Ujima House, on Wembley High Road, was deferred after a late objection was received from the landowner of neighbouring Lanmor House. His email objecting is not available on the Planning Portal (it is just noted) and of course as usual the 'Consultee' comments are linked but not actually published.

The email's contents can only be gleaned from the Planning Officers' summary LINK:

Additional objection 

Objections have been received on behalf of the owner of the adjoining site at Lanmor House (370 to 386 High Road) and part owner of 26-29 Ecclestone Place. 

A summary of the concerns are set out below: 

1. Consultation

The objector considers that there was a lack of consultation with the adjoining land owner during both pre-application and application stages. 

With regards to consultation requirements for the planning application itself, the Council did post site notices outside the application site and the application was advertised in the local press. In addition, consultation letters were sent to all nearby occupiers. This included the commercial space and all flats within Lanmor House, and 26 to 29 Ecclestone Place. 

The Council therefore exceeded its statutory duty for consulting on the planning application.

Further details of the comments received (including an objection received from 27 Ecclestone Place) are discussed within the “consultation” section below. 

The NPPF paragraph 40 states that local planning authorities should encourage applicants to engage with the local community before submitting their applications, and Brent's adopted Statement of Community Involvement reinforces this by setting out recommended pre-application engagement for planning applications. For an application of this scale, discussions with neighbours and public meetings and exhibitions are recommended. However pre-application engagement is not a statutory requirement. In this case, local residents were invited to attend two public exhibitions and give feedback on the proposals, although non-resident property owners were not explicitly invited. 

2. Accuracy of reporting

The objector considers that there was a lack of consideration of the proposal upon Lanmor House, taking into account the recent planning history and works carried out to Lanmor House. They also raised concern about the scale of surrounding buildings not being accurately reported and inaccurate reference to the building line being in line with adjoining sites where in fact it projects forward, and the resulting impact of the forward projection upon neighbouring amenity. 

The above matters are discussed within the "remarks" section below. 

3. Building scale and mass of envelope parameters

The objector has expressed concern about the footprint and resulting depth of the building and the impact on neighbouring occupiers, specifying that there would be an overdevelopment of the site. 

4. Separation distances, privacy and outlook

The objector is concerned about the potential for overlooking and a loss of privacy and outlook to Lanmor House and 26 to 29 Ecclestone Place. 

Once again, this is expanded upon within the "remarks" section below.

5. Daylight and Sunlight

The objector considers that there are inaccuracies within the daylight and sunlight report in terms of the reporting of the windows within Lanmor House and no consideration of the impact upon the communal roof top garden in Lanmor House. 

This is expanded upon within the "remarks" section below.

6. Right of Light

The objector has highlighted that whilst outside of the remit of planning, the Council should be aware of its legal position regarding rights of light. As highlighted by the objector, this is outside the remit of planning. 

7. Highway matters

Matters have been raised with regards to construction traffic, servicing and delivery traffic, and access to the proposed building.

This has been discussed within the remarks section below. 

8. Streetscene

The objector considers that the assessment of the impact on the streetscape does not consider the curve in this part of the High Road and the potential for a “canyoning” effect along this part of the High Road with the nine storey building on the opposite side. Concerns are raised with the impact on the micro-climate wind tunnelling effect. They also believe that the Design and Access Statement misrepresents the building when viewed from the east as it is only shown as nine storeys.

These matters are discussed within the "remarks" section below. 

The  officers find reasons to reject the objection (see report linked above) and recommend approval of outline planning permission but it appears likely that the owner of Lanmor House will take things further.

The second deferred item is the development at Sudbury Town Station. This was initially rejected outright by the Planning Committee but officers' quickly proposed that it be deferred so that they could talk with the developer, Transport for London and this was, controversially, accepted by Committee members. LINK

These discussions have resulted in an offer by the developer  to contribute £600,000 to 'enable the provision of six 3 bedroomed houses' off-site. Committee members may wish to explore the mathematics involved.

The developer has also offered one additional blue badge parking space and confirmed that the offer of contributing to the cost of a CPZ would be available for 10 years.

The officers report LINK  gives a blurb for the Committee to adopt if they are minded to still refuse the application.

Residents reaction:

Planning Officer explains next steps in Sudbury Town Station Car Park planning process

There have been raised eyebrows over the decision to defer the Sudbury Town Station Car Park planning application last night after a 4-3 majority voted against against it.

This exchange may help explain (perhaps):

Dear Mr Lorber,

I write in response to your e-mail to Carolyn Downs within which you have questioned the deferral of the Sudbury Town Car Park application.

Members voted against the recommendation to grant planning consent and were minded to refuse planning permission due to impacts associated with the mix of housing (lack of Affordable Rent accommodation and family sized home), loss of station car parking and the impact on the surrounding streets.  Where members are minded to grant or refuse planning permission contrary to the recommendation, officers will often recommend that the application is deferred so that a report may be presented to the Planning Committee setting out the policy basis for their decision.  This is undertaken to ensure that any divergence from policy and the associated impacts of this have been clearly set out.  It strengthens the decision and is vital when defending the decision should the applicant choose to appeal or in the instance that a legal challenge is mounted (a Judicial Review).

The views of the relevant members were clear and a report clearly setting out the policy basis for these matters will be presented to the next Planning Committee meeting.  There was some discussion between members about applicants revising schemes to address concerns raised by members.  In some instances applicants do choose to make changes to schemes to address the concerns raised by members but whilst the Council must accept changes to the scheme that do not result in the need for further consultation, amendments will not be requested by officers.

Development Management Manager

Planning and Regeneration

Thank you for your email. I am aware of the arrangement.

My concern is that none of that was explained during the web screening.

A lay person watching would be confused at seeking the application being Refused after a 2 hour discussion only to find that there was then a 2nd vote to defer it.

They will be even more surprised (shocked) that when brought back with some minor cosmetic changes the Refusal decision may then be reversed and the plans approved.

I hope that if the applicants do make changes they resubmit so that a further consultation takes place which is subject to a site visit where the concerns raised will be easier to highlight and explain.

Regards

Paul Lorber

Sudbury Labour hail Planning Committee decision on Sudbury Town Station planning decision

Sudbury Labour on its blog has given an account of theor contribution to tonight's Planning Committee decision LINK.

After strong objections from Sudbury Councillors, Brent Council’s planning committee today voted 4-3 against the Pocket Living application. A vote to refer this back to Council Officers and the applicants was then passed by a vote of 5-2. This follows strong objections from local residents and Sudbury Councillors.

For over a year, Sudbury Cllrs Tom Stephens and Mary Daly have provided consistent opposition this proposal, submitting several written objections to the development (all of which are noted in the Committee Report) and supporting residents to carry out their own survey of car park usage. We also spoke out against the application at today’s meeting. You can watch our speeches on the Brent Council website, and a note of our speeches is also copied below (check against delivery).

Councillor Saqib Butt, as a Member of the Planning Committee, remained neutral and objective throughout, but after a fair hearing of the concerns raised decided to vote against both the application and the decision to refer it back to Officers and the developer.

The main reason Councillors gave in voting against the proposal was because it was contrary to the planning policy of both the Local Plan and the London Plan, both of which stress the need for genuinely affordable family housing units to meet the severe need for housing in London. The provision of 52 1-bedroom units, which only just meet the technical definition of “affordability” without being genuinely affordable, will simply not meet this severe need.

We too felt this was by far the strongest grounds for objection, and gave Councillors a clear material reason to reject this proposal – hence why this featured very strongly in our objections. But it was by no means the only concern we had. Between us, we also covered a range of other issues such as the severe lack of disabled parking space, the lack of amenity space for residents and the impact the developement could have on parking pressures for residents. All of these were highlighted in our objections.

We were glad to see that after a fair hearing, the majority of Councillors in the Planning Committee shared these concerns, and declined to offer the application their approval. We will continue, as we have always done, to fight for Sudbury residents on this issue and to closely scrutinise any future applications which come forward.

Speech opposing the development from Cllr Thomas Stephens

Many other objectors speaking today have already given powerful reasons for rejecting this proposal. But in my representation, I wish to focus on the one issue in particular, which I feel which the Committee by far the strongest grounds for refusal.

There are others and I can talk about these in response to questions.

It is simply this: the affordability and housing mix in this proposal is a direct contravention of our Local Plan and the London Plan. None of the grounds the Committee have been given to accept the proposal in spite of this hold water, as I will explain later.

***
I wish to acknowledge at the outset the acute housing crisis facing this country, with Brent the least affordable borough. All of us see this clearly in our surgeries. People who need stable, genuinely affordable homes for themselves, their families, and their children.
But it is exactly these needs which I want to emphasise here in my objection: the needs of families, with children, without a stable home.

***
As Policy CP21 of our own borough’s local plan acknowledges, this acute need can only be addressed through the provision of genuinely affordable family housing units. It requires that new housing provides, and I quote:[1]

“[F]amily sized accommodation … capable of providing three or more bedrooms … [on] sites providing 10 or more homes.”
Planning policy also contains similarly clear provisions on affordability, with the London Plan (Policy H6A) requiring 30% of affordable homes to be either London Affordable Rent or Social Rent.[2]

This need cannot be met through 52 one-bedroom units which only just meet the technical definition of affordability. Indeed this is expressly acknowledged in numerous parts of the committee report you will have all read:

• It is acknowledged on the front cover, where it states the development is a “departure from policy CP21 of Brent’s local plan.”[3]
• It is acknowledged on page 6, where it states that the housing mix, “does not fully accord with Brent and London Plan policy targets.”[4]
• And it is acknowledged in paragraph 14, page 15, where it states “the scheme would be contrary to Policy DMP15(b) of the Local Plan, and both Policy 3.11 and emerging Policy H6 of the London Plan as no flats would be offered at a social or affordable rate.”[5]

***
In all good conscience, I cannot accept the grounds that have been proposed for passing this application, in spite of this direct contravention of our Planning Policy…
***
I accept that if no viable alternative in keeping with our Planning Policy was available, that could offer grounds to accept. But paragraphs 15 and 16 of the committee report clearly state that a viable alternative, in keeping with our planning policy, could be provided on this site.[6]
***
The committee report notes the unmet need for 1-bedroom intermediate housing in our borough.
But this isn’t grounds for ignoring our own Local Plan, Paragraph 5.94 of which expressly argues against the then-Mayor changing the social / intermediate housing ratio.[7]
 
If we do not think it is addressed in our Local Plan, the proper process would be to address this as a policy in our new Local Plan – and not by simply deciding on the hoof to contravene our own planning policy.

But even more fundamentally than this, the demand for intermediate housing can also be met by freeing-up existing overcrowded smaller housing in a way which is entirely in keeping with our Local Plan: providing suitable, new build family units, at genuinely affordable rates.
***
In conclusion, I wish to stress that there are many other grounds for the Committee to challenge the developers on this application. And I’m sure these will be addressed by other speakers:

• The issue of disabled parking space for commuters still isn’t resolved in this proposal. In fact TfL’s planning condition could mean there are just two disabled spaces for general public use, and not three as stated.[8]
• The availability of parking remains a concern. And there is even an admission in paragraphs 89 and 92 of the report that 38 cars and many blue badge holders could be displaced to residential streets – including streets already in a CPZ outside of CPZ hours.[9] [10]
• There is a serious lack of amenity space, to the tune of 913 square metres
• And concerns have been raised about running this Committee online, I’ve asked for further info on this and I’d be happy to discuss in questions

But there is no clearer argument for rejection than the direct contravention of the Local Plan and the London Plan which I have mentioned.

When I first objected to this development almost a year ago, I assumed that the developer would take steps to address this. I’m disappointed to see that this hasn’t happened.

In the absence of clear reasons to accept such a contravention, and with the grounds for doing this discounted, the Committee is left with just one option: to reject the proposal put forward today.

---

[1] Brent Council, Local Plan: Core Strategy, Policy CP21, page 78. NB Objective 7 (p21) also sets a goal of “ensuring that at least 25% of all new homes built in the borough are family sized (3 bed or more) and 50% (approx.) are affordable.”
[2] Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, page 14
[3] Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, page 1
[4] Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, page 6
[5] Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, paragraph 14, page 15
[6] Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, paragraph 15 and 16, page 16
[7] Brent Council, Local Plan: Core Strategy, Policy CP21, paragraph 5.94, page 78.
[8] This is because TfL asks that “a parking design and management plan to be submitted for approval prior to occupation of any units, in order to ensure at least one disabled space is secured for occupiers of the flats.” See Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, page 11
[9] Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, paragraph 92, page 24
[10] Brent Council, Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, paragraph 89, page 24

Speech opposing the development from Cllr Mary Daly

Para 1 of the report speaks of getting rid of an 84 space underused car park car park and replacing it with two residential blocks

This statement is factually incorrect in the summer of 2019 TFL fenced off the rear end of the site and reduced the size of the car park to 66 spaces this is important because the very sketchy information the developer provided is as a consequence is incorrect. 

Para 87 describes a survey undertaken by the applicant claiming that there was a 30% use of the park based on the incorrect number of spaces.

A survey undertaken by members and residents found a different pattern of use. This was reported to the council but not included im the report to members of the planning committee. Over three weeks during the morning and afternoon members found a consistent 54% occupancy of the 66 space car park. Members observed use was predominantly by commuters. Morning users were different from afternoon users so the car park is not as described underused.

There is no evidence that the statuary bodies TFL or Brent Council undertook any activity to establish use of the car park in contravention of legal equalities obligation.

Parking

Para 97 advises that DPM 12 requires that all overspill be safely accommodated on street
Policy BT2 that developments will be supported where it does not add to on street parking
Policy 90 acknowledges that the nearest Brent streets are heavily parked but claims that Ealing streets can absorb some on street parking.

1. With this in mind it is worth looking at that they will absorb.
2. The site is so tight that even the one disabled space a policy requirement for disabled future disabled residents is proposed to be put on the highway.
3. If future disabled commuters need additional spaces it is proposed they are put on the highway
4. The report advises that Para 96 that the parking allowance for such a development is 39 spaces. Because they cannot be provided it is permit free but not future vehicle owner free. It has nto been estimated how many future professional higher income residents will own a vehicle clearly they will compete with local residents for parking when CPZ are not in operation.
5. Because there has been no comprehensive survey of commuter parking at the car park it is impossible to know how many commuters use the car park for sure  certainly it is considerably more than that suggested by the applicant.
6. Service vehicles for the proposed development including online deliveries, maintenance vehicles, displaced TFL staff  TFL staff using the yard to the back of the site.

None of which can be accommodated on site because it is simply an overdevelopment.
As stated above policy is in place to prevent this level of pressure on existing communities.

Amenity
Para 77 advises the policy DMP19 and emerging policy BH 13 that all new dwelling be required to have external private amenity space this is expected to be 20 sqm of private outdoor space for 1d-2 person dwellings. Based on the policy 1050sqm of space is required Only 11 of the 52 proposed units have outdoor amenity space falling short by 913 sqm.
Para 79 suggests that this cam be mitigated by communal amenity space 476 sqm of amenity space in the communal courtyard. However this space appears to have two uses it is also intended to be a turning space for large vehicles there are two descriptions of this space para 80 “ a communal amenity space” and   “ a turning space for servicing buildings
Para 102 describes the same space as “a turning facility has been incorporated into the lauout between the two proposed blocks to allow refuse vehicles emergency vehicles so that they are not required to reverse long distances” 

In Para there are contrary statements about the courtyard/turning point “ para 80 states “ the communal courtyard has been improved it would be usable”  whereas Para 102 states “ officers recommend a condition of the surfacing of the turning point”  it is clear is that the development is marginally short of private or even communal amenity space requirements it is so unacceptably short as to warrant refusal.

Sudbury Town Station planning application referred back after it was opposed 4-3 by Planning Committee

After members of the Planning Committee opposed the approval of the Sudbury Town Station car park planning application by 4 votes to 3, officers moved quickly to rescue the situation by recommending deferrral so that if could be refered back to officers and the applicant for further review and future resubmission.

When Cllr Maurice expressed concern that this would mean a 'cover up' Cllr Denselow, in his best avuncular manner (despite his youth) said of course not, 'it will be coming back to us.'

Reasons councillors gave for opposing the application  included its departure from several policies, the need for family homes rather than one bedroomed houses, loss of access to the step-free station for disabled people due to the loss of the car park, placing disabled parking spaces in already heavily used local streets, and one councillor who said he who didn't believe the planning officers report.

Sudbury Planners (part of Sudbury Town residents Association) were very active on Twitter throughout the discussion:

Sudbury Town RA's statement re Sudbury Town Station Planning Application currently under discussion at Brent Planning Committee

Sudbury Town Residents Association has sent the following information on the Sudbury Town Station plannin g application currently being considered by Brent Planning Committee:

The planning application is on the Agenda for the Planning Committee Meeting on Wednesday 6 May 2020 at 6pm.We have tried our best to liaison with Brent Council and arrange a meeting in situ so that residents and businesses can share their concerns in the context of the area and reach mutually beneficial solutions. 

Unfortunately, we have received no response to our request for this meeting.

We have also written to Carolyn Downs, requesting her to defer the Planning Application 19/1241 to satisfy Statutory Requirements.This has not happened.

The Local Authorities Executive Arrangements, Meetings and Access to Information, England, 2012 No. 208 9 PART 2 Regulation 7.1 (a) and (b) states that Local Authorities are required to provide all necessary documentation to the public  prior to any decision-making meeting being held.

Please find a summary of the Statutory Requirements that have not been met through this Planning Application process.

1. Documents unavailable from Brent Website

For the Public Consultation in April 2019, 58 documents were uploaded to the Brent Website and were available for the public to review.

There are now only 37 documents remaining as of 4 May 2020.

All documents should remain available for the public to view and should not be removed from Brent’s website.

2. Statutory Consultee Comments not available

The Statutory Consultee comments are not available on Brent’s website.

3. Statutory Consultee Comments DATES not available

There are no DATES provided on Brent Council’s Website of any of the Statutory Consultee Comments. 

4. Planning Officer’s Reports

STRA is a Neighbourhood Forum and a Statutory Consultee since 2012.

The Planning Officer’s report of 27 April 2020 concludes that the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan 2015 does NOT contain any relevant policies that require consideration by the Planning Committee. 

STRA disagrees with the Planning Officer’s conclusions.

The Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan (STNP) 2015 contains policies that are relevant and require consideration by the Planning Committee. 

STRA requests the opportunity to respond in detail.This 21-day period should commence from the date that we receive the last document, as set out in the Development Management Procedure 2016, Part 22. 

STRA requests this document be presented to the Planning Committee and be added to the file for Planning Application 19/1241

Defer these vital planning applications until residents can participate

There are still no clear instructions on the Brent Council Democracy web page (above) on how residents can make representations on planning applications that are tabled for Wednesday's virtual meeting.

Given this blog's long-standing campaign for transparency and accountability in local government I can only echo Paul Lorber's call to Cllr Denselow, the chair of the Planning Committee and its members, that the weighty planning applications be deferred until such time as site visits can take place and residents without internet access can make representations for or against applications.

These are the applications tabled for Wednesday:

0. APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION 
   
   
1. 18/4919 1-26A, coachworks & storage areas, Abbey Manufacturing Estate, all units Edwards Yard, Mount Pleasant, Wembley, HA0 
2.   Demolition and erection of a mixed use development of buildings ranging between 3 and 14 storeys in height comprising residential units (use class C3), flexible commercial floorspace falling within use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, B1(a), B1(c), D1 or D2, associated car parking, landscaping and ancillary facilities (Phased Development)
   
   
   
3. 19/1241 Car Park next to Sudbury Town Station, Station Approach, Wembley, HA0 2LA 
4.   Re-development of existing car park for the erection of two blocks of residential dwellings, with associated residential amenity space, refuse storage, cycle parking, landscaping and other ancillary works, together with re-provision of disabled car parking bays nearest to Station Approach to serve Sudbury Town Underground Station (DEPARTURE FROM POLICY CP21 OF BRENT'S LOCAL PLAN).
   
   
   
5. 19/3092 Ujima House, 388 High Road, Wembley, HA9 6AR 
6.   Demolition of the existing building and erection of a new building up to a maximum height of 39.6m comprising up to 5,000sqm residential floorspace (Use Class C3), up to 600sqm of flexible workspace (Use Class B1A, B and C), with ancillary cafe (Use Class A3) up to 600sqm ancillary floorspace, associated hard and soft landscaping, wheelchair car and cycle parking.
   
   
   
7. 19/3259 1-7 and 15-33 Peel Precinct and garages, 97-112 Carlton House, Canterbury Terrace, 8-14 Neville Close, 2 Canterbury Road, London, NW6 
8.  
9. Full planning application for a phased development for the demolition of 2 Canterbury Road, 1-7 and 15-33 Peel Precinct and 8-14 Neville Close, and erection of seven buildings (A to G) ranging between 5 and 16 storeys, plus part basement, comprising private sale residential units (Use Class C3), shared ownership residential units (Use Class C3), social rented residential units (Use Class C3); new health centre (Use Class D1), new gym (Use Class D2), flexible use class within retail and commercial units (Use Class A1/A3/B1) at ground floor, associated landscaping, highways and public realm improvements (including new public space and market square), private open space, associated car parking, cycle parking and servicing provision
10.  
11. FULL DETAILS HERE 

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.