Wembley Housing Zone – Brent’s “soft market testing” with developers including Higgins. Full and honest answers needed

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Diagrammatic view of Brent’s proposed Cecil Avenue development.

 

It is more than four months since I first raised questions about Brent Council’s proposals for the Cecil Avenue site in its Wembley Housing Zone scheme. Brent has an urgent need for genuinely affordable Council homes. This is Council-owned land, and the Council has had full planning permission for it since February 2021. Why was it proposing that 152 of the 250 homes on this site should be for a private developer to sell for profit?

 

I got no answers from the Cabinet members or Council Officers that I asked to explain this “preferred option” (which Brent’s Cabinet approved on 16 August). In order to force them to say something on this matter, I asked a Public Question for November’s Full Council meeting. The written reply I received from Cllr. Shama Tatler before the meeting sidestepped the main points of my question.

 

A supplementary question was asked, on my behalf, at the Full Council meeting on 22 November, but the Lead Member for Regeneration was not there to answer it. I eventually received a written reply, but again the key points in it were not answered by Cllr.Tatler (or the Council Officer who composed the reply on her behalf).

 

As well as the lack of genuinely affordable housing in the Council’s scheme, I was troubled as to why Brent was involving a private developer in what should have been a solely Council housing project. In addition to preparing the supplementary question, I put in a Freedom of Information Act request for information about Brent’s “soft market testing” exercise in April 2021. I’ve now received the Council’s response, and you may well be interested to know what I have found out (and what Brent’s Officers still don’t want to disclose).

 

I learned that this “market testing” had taken place from this paragraph in the Wembley Housing Zone report to the 16 August 2021 Cabinet meeting:

 

'3.5.4 Soft market testing interviews with five developers undertaken April 2021 confirm general market appetite for new housing development opportunities, specific market appetite for Wembley as a location for private sales housing, the two planning schemes, preferred delivery approach for 50% affordable housing, procurement and contractual arrangements.'

 

But why were Brent’s Officers involving private developers in a Council scheme in the first place? An earlier paragraph in the report had said:

 

‘Cabinet Members were consulted in July 2020 and indicated a preferred delivery option for the Cecil Avenue site, namely that the Council finance construction, retain the affordable housing, and procure a developer partner to build out and take the private sales housing ….’

 

I’ve checked the minutes of the July 2020 Cabinet meeting, but I found nothing to substantiate that statement. If Cabinet members were consulted, it must have been “off record”, so who were they? Almost certainly the Lead Member for Regeneration, probably the Council Leader also, and possibly the Deputy Leader and / or Lead Member for Housing. Any of those who were not consulted are welcome to let me know.

 

Some of Cabinet’s “likely suspects” for Brent’s Cecil Avenue scheme.

 

So, what did I find out about the Council’s “soft market testing”, as part of its efforts to ‘procure a development partner’ for the Wembley Housing Zone? Here is the first question I asked, with the reply I received in red:

 

1) What were the names of the five developers who were interviewed?

 

                    Anthology, Higgins, London Square, Lovell and United Living.

 

 

Anyone who has read the Wembley Matters coverage on Granville New Homes and the Ridge Report will be as surprised as I was to see “Higgins” included on the list! They seem to crop up on a number of Brent Council schemes over recent years, almost as if they were a favoured contractor. The only excuse for them being invited to take part in this exercise is that it might have taken place a week or two before Council Officers were aware of the contents of the Ridge Report, including that:

 

 

‘Since taking handover of the buildings, from the original developer Higgins construction, problems with water ingress from the external envelope have been noted.’   and:

‘The external envelopes on these buildings have been constructed from relatively inexpensive materials and there is evidence of poor-quality workmanship.’

 

 

Higgins Homes is a client of Terrapin Communications, who have cropped up over local planning and development issues on “Wembley Matters” before. Back in 2017, Terrapin treated Cllrs Muhammed Butt and Shama Tatler to a three course dinner, where they met a number of the PR company’s developer clients. Those clients included London Square, who are building a scheme at Neasden Lane, with Clarion Housing.

 

 

Anthology are the company behind the Wembley Parade development at North End Road, Wembley Park, while one of United Living’s current schemes is with Network Homes in South Kilburn. Lovell are big nationwide housebuilders, but their only project in London at the moment is in Woolwich.

 

 

Why were these developers chosen for this “soft market testing”, and who chose them? Those were the points I raised in my next two FoI questions (with the Council’s replies in red):

 

2) What method or process was used by Brent Council to choose which developers to interview for this "soft market testing" exercise?

 

The Head of Regeneration and Regeneration Manager selected developers for the WHZ soft market testing based on their knowledge and experience of the London property market, to obtain market intelligence to inform the proposed WHZ procurement; this is a standard approach taken in public procurement.

 

3) How many Council Officers, and how many elected members of the Council, were involved in choosing these developers? What positions within Brent Council did these Officers and elected members hold?

 

The Head of Regeneration and Regeneration Manager selected developers for the WHZ soft market testing. No elected members were involved in selecting developers for the WHZ soft market testing.

 

Now we get onto what Brent’s “soft market testing” actually involved:

 

4) How were the prospective interviewee developers for this exercise contacted to take part in these interviews? Please provide copies of the email, letter or other communication sent to the developers, and a copy of any information about the proposed Wembley Housing Zone developments provided to them in advance of the interviews.

 

Developers were contacted by telephone and emailed a diary invitation and an information pack in advance of the meeting, copy of which is included in this response (names are redacted as personal information exempt under s40(2) FOIA).

 

The email, sent 19 April 2021, was brief, and I will just include its main text here, but the ‘information pack’ is very informative, and I will ask Martin to attach a copy of that at the end of this article:

 

‘Hi …(redacted)…

Please find attached information pack which would be useful to review ahead of our meeting tomorrow, as it provides you with some further information about the schemes we will be discussing.

Look forward to seeing you then! Best,
……(redacted)……

Regeneration Project Manager.’

 

Final page of Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone “information pack” for developers, April 2021.

 

From the “Scheme Design” details for the Cecil Avenue site on page 2, it is clear that Council Officers (perhaps in consultation with a Lead Member?) had decided, well in advance of submitting proposals to Cabinet for a decision, that 152 of the 250 homes to be built on the former Copland School land would be for private sale, including 20 of the 64 family-sized homes. 

 

Although said to be an exercise ‘to obtain market intelligence to inform the proposed WHZ procurement’, this was clearly a very specific piece of “market testing”. This can be seen from the way the exercise was carried out, and the Council Officers involved in it:

 

5) How were the interviews actually conducted in practice (e.g. telephone, online meeting, face-to-face meeting, written questionnaire)? How many representatives of Brent Council took part in each interview, and what positions in the Council did each one hold?

 

All WHZ soft market testing sessions were held online and attended by the Regeneration Manager and a Procurement Officer. The Head of Regeneration, a Senior Lawyer, and a Regeneration Officer also attended some sessions.

 

If a Senior Brent Council Lawyer was involved in some of the sessions, it suggests that at least some of the prospective developers were getting quite serious about the chance of becoming Brent’s “development partner” for this Wembley Housing Zone scheme!

 

That was the last of my FoI questions that Brent (through its Head of Regeneration, Jonathan Kay) were prepared to disclose information on. I had asked for copies of the notes of the five interviews, and was not surprised that these were refused, as being confidential and commercially sensitive. However, I was disappointed with the response to my final point:

 

7) If the person(s) who conducted the interviews produced a report summarising the results obtained, please let me have a copy of that report, and the position(s) at Brent Council of the person(s) to whom that report was addressed.

 

We consider the summary report from the WHZ soft market testing is confidential (s41 FOIA) and commercially sensitive (s43 FOIA) and therefore exempt from disclosure.

 

I won’t bore you with “chapter and verse” of Brent’s legal arguments over why they consider that Sections 41 and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act apply in this case. Nor will I bore you with my reasons why they don’t apply to much of the information in that summary report, but I have made my case and asked for an Internal Review of the refusal to supply a copy. 

 

Brent clearly doesn’t want me, or you, to know what was going on over its discussions with private developers in connection with its Cecil Avenue development. But why should those private developers be invited to make a profit from selling 152 homes on a Council scheme, that Brent residents urgently need? Will anyone at the Civic Centre give us a full and honest answer, and if not, why not?

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

The new Minavil House in Alperton rises and rises but a taller development is to come on the Alperton Bus Garage site

 

A 26 storey giant rises on the site previously occupied by Minavil House (below)

I would not deny that Minavil House (opposite Alperton Bus station) was ripe for development - but from 2 storeys to 26 is a mighty leap and a trip to Alperton today revealed its impact on the local rail and street scene. The original Minavil House became derelict and was damaged by a fire in 2018. The developer R55 was one of several  invited to a three course dinner with the Leader of Brent Council and some council officers by property PR agency Terrapin Communications back in 2017. Questions were asked about the hospitality event and Cllr Butt answered. LINK 

 

R55 is also responsible for the 255 Ealing Road development and The Workshop (Willesden) development near Dollis Hill - a development that is much bigger than the name would suggest. LINK

Questions were raised at the planning stage about the height of the building at the time and how it fitted in with the local landscape. In fact its height was later cited as a justiification for a 28 storey building almost opposite on the site of Alperton bus garage.

 

Minavil House from Alperton Station

From Bridgewater Road

The illustration below gives the height of the various towers in progress or planned:

Alperton High School bottom right and Alperton Station

 

On the way to Alperton on the 297 bus I took a photograph (below)  of the building locally known as the 'Twin Towers', named 'Uncle' by its  owner and on the site of the former Chesterfield House at the junction of Park Lane and Wembley High Road. It shows the visual impact of such a building from  suburban Wembley Park Drive. The tallest tower is 26 storeys.

 

Duffy pursues Cabinet members' 'Dinners with Developers' controversy

The Chesterfield House (AKA Twin Towers) development now underway

In an email to Debra Norman, Brent Council's Director of Legal and HR Services, Cllr John Duffy, standing as an independent in Kilburn ward, has sought further information on councillors' meetings with developers and their public relations advisers.

Duffy's email sets out his concerns and questions:

Dear Ms Norman ,

I wish to raise the issue of meetings between Cabinet Members and developers. 

I asked you in email on the 3/10/2017  "if any meeting with Terrapin involving planning officers, regeneration officers and Councillors was declared during the application to redeveloped Chesterfield House.” you replied" No meetings with Terrapin have been declared by officers or councillors other than the meeting of 9.5.17." 

Later you confirmed in an email on the 23/03/2018 saying  "I confirm that there was a meeting between Terrapin Communications and their client RSS which took place on Wednesday 5th April 2016  between 10-30-11-30 am. The meeting took place in the leaders officers in the Civic Centre and was attended for the council by Cllr Butt and Cllr Aktar Choudhury. (Operational Director Regeneration)".You also stated in your email that " the diaries of the council attendees have been cross referenced to confirm the meeting took place on the date .

As I have said above I asked you in my email on the 3/10/2017  "if any meeting with Terrapin involving planning officers, regeneration officers and Councillors was declared during the application to redeveloped Chesterfield House.” you replied" No meetings with Terrapin have been declared by officers or councillors other than the meeting of 9.5.17." The correct answer should have been yes  a meeting took place on Wednesday 5th April 2016 in the Civic Centre with Terrapin .The 5th April 2016 was the morning the application for the redeveloped of Chesterfield House was to be heard by the planning committee.

Chesterfield House was a controversial planning application because of the lack of amenity space in the development and the lack of affordable housing, falling well below the target set by the Mayor of London. 

The controversial plan was passed at the committee by 4 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions with Cllr Marquis, Cllr Maurice  voting against and Cllrs Agha, Chroudhary, Colaccicco and Mahmood voting for the development and Cllr Patel and Ezeajughi abstaining.

Later Terrapin Communications placed an ad on their web-site saying 

TERRAPIN AIDS BRENT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS

Residents in Brent are set to benefit from an exciting new community centre along with other public improvements thanks to a new development in the Borough. Terrapin Communications helped Hub Group secure planning consent for the scheme.  Designed by Macerator Lavington, it will also include 239 new residential units in two new buildings, one twenty six storeys, the other twenty one storeys. 

Ms Norman , you may think this is an issue about Terrapin Communications and how they operate. Well it is not.

I am concerned about the accuracy of the information I was provided with by officers. My concerns are three fold did any member of the Cabinet speak to members of the planning committee to express support for the application. I hope you will clarify if that took place by asking members of the committee.

However my main concerns is not about councillors, it’s about how officers are setting -up meeting between developers and Cabinet members. These senior officers could not answer a simple members inquiry about a meeting, to the point they forgot the day and the  year the meeting took place. When all they had to do was check their diaries . 

My third concern is the confusion about who attended the meeting , as along with Cllr Warren I wrote to Terrapin about the meeting which took place on April 5th 2016 and they replied they had no meetings with officers or Cllr Butt on that date or any other date.

Cllr Butt and Cllr Tatler (Lead Member for Regeneration) also stated they received  hospitality from Terrapin.  09/05/17 - Three course meal with developers from the construction industry. Estimated value between £30-40. Received from Terrapin Communications, London.

However Terrapin denied they paid for any hospitality for Cllr Butt or Cllr Tatler on that date or any other date.

Ms Norman , I am sure you appreciate when you are dealing with millions of  pounds worth of investment, it’s important that Councillors are told by officers, who they are meeting, who is paying for  the hospitality and [ensure they] are not taken advantage or misled. These meetings cannot be dismissed by the legal department as informal and therefore need no agendas or minutes or details of who attended.

Therefore I would ask you to undertake a full inquiry ASAP to get to the truth of who met who and why. Also why Cllr Butt and Cllr Tatler's entered the wrong who was paying for their lunch.

I would also ask that the inquiry is not undertake by internal audit, as I have no faith in their Independents.

Regards

John Duffy

 Debra Norman responded regarding the April 5th meeting and guideliens on meetings with developers:

The meeting was not minuted as it was informal and so the discussion did not need to be recorded for the purposes of any formal processes.

You have asked whether there is a Code of Practice in respect of meetings with developers.

The Planning Code of Practice has for a long time contained provisions which cover approaches from developers and others to planning committee members.   In January of this year a section was added to the Code (at the request of the Leader) to cover meetings with developers.  It was not in place at the time of the meeting to which you refer.  The new section states as follows:

Discussions between members and meetings with developers or their representatives

28      Provided Members comply with the practical requirements of this code and the requirements of the Members’ Code of Conduct, there is no legal rule against Members, whether of the same group or not, discussing strategic planning issues, general policy issues or even future decisions.

29      Similarly, joint working, both formal and informal, and dialogue between Members of the Planning Committee and Members of the Cabinet is recognised as a legitimate reality of local government life. Members of the Planning Committee need to ensure that when making planning decisions, they make up their own mind and on the planning merits.

30      Relevant Members of the Cabinet are entitled to meet with developers or their representatives and other relevant stakeholders as part of their role to promote Brent and the regeneration, development and other commercial opportunities available in the borough. In doing so, Members of the Cabinet must always act in the best interests of the council and ultimately in the public interest, and in accordance with the high standards of conduct expected of Members, to ensure that the integrity of the planning process is not undermined and the council is not brought into disrepute.

31      Reasonable care and judgement should be exercised in relation to such meetings, taking into account the purpose of the meeting, the nature of the issues to be discussed and the timing. In appropriate circumstances, exercising proper judgement may include ensuring a record is kept of the meeting. Cabinet Members should make sure it is understood that their participation in marketing events or commercial discussions is separate from the administrative and regulatory roles of Members of the Planning Committee.

32      Although Members of the Cabinet are entitled to express support or opposition to  development proposed in the borough, they cannot use their position as a Member improperly to confer on or secure for any person, an advantage or disadvantage.

33      As pre-application discussions or discussions about undecided applications require particular care, the following additional rules apply. An officer must make the arrangements for such meetings, attend and write notes. The meeting arrangements must include agreeing an agenda in advance

Terrapin Communications' response to John Duffy's questions:

 

1.  How did you “ help?” [HUB group secure planning consent]

Terrapin Communications assisted with the community consultation for this scheme. 

2.What meetings were held with Brent Councillors and Officers.... who attended and when ?

Terrapin Communications requested one meeting with Cllr Sam Stopp. Cllr Stopp attended a meeting on 29 May 2015.  

3.What, in broad terms,was discussed at these meetings?

The benefits of the scheme for local people and the applicants’ commitment to consultation were discussed with Cllr Stopp. This is set out in the Statement of Community Involvement submitted as part of the planning application. 

4. What hospitality did you offer to Brent Councillors / Officers. - names,dates,details please?

None. 

5. What lobbying did Terrapin do in respect of the planning committee members making the Chesterfield House decision ?

None.

6. Would you please confirm that ,at all times,Terrapin acted in line with the code of conduct laid down by your regulatory body/ bodies - please confirm which relevant bodies are applicable.

Yes.

-->

Cllr. Butt and hospitality from a property PR company – the details

Thanks to Philip Grant for this guest post. It is a long article but worth reading in full by anyone concerned about the relationship between Brent Council, its councillors and developers.

A recent blog on questions over “hospitality” for councillors, raised by Cllr. Duffy with Brent’s Standards Committee LINK led to many comments from “Wembley Matters” readers. In one comment, I drew attention to an entry in Cllr. Butt’s “Register of Interests” on the Council’s website, which raised concerns over its possible effect on planning matters in the borough:

'09/05/17 - Three course meal with developers from the construction industry. Estimated value between £30-40. Received from Terrapin Communications, London.'

I decided to seek further information from the Council Leader about this meal (paid for by a PR company which represents a number of property developers), so sent him an email and added the text of it as another comment. I had intended to put any reply received from Cllr. Butt as a further comment below that blog, but now feel that more readers could see it, and make their own judgement about the details given and their implications, if they are set out in a separate blog.

I was not optimistic that I would receive a reply from Cllr. Butt, as he has not replied to any emails I have sent him since September 2014. A number of these have included important questions, such as in February 2015, when I asked him (and repeated this in a blog, and in a letter published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times”) why he was still “protecting” two senior Council officers, Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert, when he had known about their misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case since at least September 2014? [I have previously suggested, only half-jokingly, that the reason he won’t reply is because he is afraid that anything he writes to me may be used in evidence against him!]

However, on 3 October I received an email from Brent, thanking me for my Freedom of Information request (I didn’t know that I had made one!) and saying that it had been forwarded ‘to the relevant department’. A few hours later, I received an email from the Chief Legal Officer, Debra Norman, giving the Council’s response to my FoI request. I don’t know why the Council Leader could not just provide the information himself, but at least the Council’s Monitoring Officer (Ms Norman’s “other hat”) realised that the points I had raised needed to be answered fully, and quickly. This is what she wrote (the numbered paragraphs begin with the six questions, in bold type, I had asked Cllr. Butt, so the answers are as if from him):-

Dear Mr Grant 

I set out the council’s responses to your request for information sent to Cllr. Butt which has been allocated to me via the council’s FOI system.  I have spoken to relevant senior officers concerning your request and the members and officers declarations of gift and hospitality have been reviewed.

1. Who else from Brent Council (members or officers) attended that "Terrapin Communications" meal with you? 

·      Cllr Tatler  [Author’s note: Lead Member for Regeneration etc.]

·      Aktar Choudhury  [Note: Operational Director Regeneration]

·      Amar Dave  [Note: Strategic Director Regeneration and Environment]

The officers concerned declared the hospitality on 23.5.17 and 10.5.17 respectively.  Cllr. Tatler declared the hospitality on 10.5.17. Cllr Butt declared the hospitality on 09/05/17.

2. Which companies were the 'developers from the construction industry' who were at that meal with you?

The guest list indicates the following companies sent representatives to the event: 

·      London Square

·      Dukelease

·      Dandi Living

·      Pinnacle

·      Henley Homes

·      R55

·      Stanhope

·      Countryside

·      The Collective

---

3.    What current or proposed developments in the London Borough of Brent are those companies (in question 2) involved with?

The relevant developer and addresses are included below.

·      London Square - 60 Neasden Lane

·      Dukelease and Dandi Living - York House – this is a permitted development

·      Pinnacle - Shubette House aka Pinnacle Tower

·      Henley Homes - Brent House

·      R55 - 255 Ealing Road and Minavil House

·      Countryside - Barham Park Estate

4. What reason did Terrapin Communications give for inviting you to that meal?

To engage and enable developers to better understand the Borough and our aspirations. 

It is important that the council’s Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills (who is not the chair of the Planning Committee and who has a different role) promotes a clear understanding of the council priorities in respect of affordable housing and quality of design.

5.    Were any past, present or proposed developments in Brent discussed at the meal, and if so, what developments or proposals?

The discussions consisted of generalisations about the borough aspirations and what the council wants to achieve. Only one developer (Dukelease) raised a particular development, which was York House.

6.    Were any of the matters discussed at the meal passed on afterwards to any other Brent Council member or officer, and if so, to whom were they passed?

Aside from requesting a relevant officer to respond to a transport issues raised by Dukelease, no information was passed on as operational matters were not discussed.

Best wishes 

Debra Norman 

Chief Legal Officer

Now that we have the information, what are we to make of it? I will give a few thoughts of my own, and I would invite anyone who wishes to, including Ms Norman and the councillors and officers who attended the meal, to add a comment in reply, giving their own views.

I will start with the reply to question 4, the reason that the PR company gave for inviting the Council Leader, and Brent’s top “Regeneration” people, to a meal with a number of their developer clients. The first sentence may be what they said, but the rest looks like a “gloss” put on that, to justify the attendance of Cllr. Tatler. 

Frankly, there was no need for a get together over dinner, especially if (as the answer to question 5 states) ‘the discussions consisted of generalisations about the borough aspirations and what the council wants to achieve.’ Brent’s Regeneration aspirations, and the planning guidance in respect of them, are set out clearly on the Council’s website. For example, this is the online package for regeneration in Wembley LINK .

Terrapin Communications could also have given their clients the information they needed on these issues from its own experience the previous year, in advising Hub Group over its successful planning application for the “Twin Towers” development at the corner of Wembley High Road and Park Lane. This was the proposal for two blocks of flats, up to 26 storeys high, which Planning Committee approved in April 2016 by four votes to two, with two abstentions. It was opposed by hundreds of local residents, but recommended by Planning Officers, despite it not complying with Brent’s and London’s policies on density, carbon emissions, living space, open space, play space and the proportion of affordable housing.  LINK .

Terrapin, as a PR company, of course put a positive “spin” on this decision, when reporting it on their website shortly afterwards:

‘Residents in Brent are set to benefit from an exciting new community centre along with other public improvements thanks to a new development in the Borough.  Terrapin Communications helped Hub Group secure planning consent for the scheme.  Designed by Macerator Lavington, it will also include 239 new residential units in two new buildings, one twenty six stories, the other twenty one stories. Commenting on the success at the Planning Committee, Terrapin Senior Adviser, Christian Klapp, said "It was hard work but rewarding knowing the benefits the new scheme will bring for people in the local area".’

In my opinion, Terrapin’s reason for arranging the meal and inviting Cllr. Butt and others was to “engage and enable developers” to meet, and hopefully influence, key decision makers in the borough. I agree that Cllr. Tatler ‘is not the chair of the Planning Committee’, but she, and particularly the Leader of the Council (and of the Labour Group, which has seven on the eight committee members) are in a position to influence the decisions made by that Committee (even though it would be a serious breach of Brent’s Planning Code if they were to do so).

Turning to the answers to questions 2 and 3, the developers at the meal with Cllr. Butt and the other Brent attendees, and what developments in Brent they are involved with, there are definitely some areas of concern. I will focus on the developer R55. They are not a potential developer who needed to ‘understand the Borough and our aspirations.’ They already had at least one development under construction, and other planning applications “in the pipeline”. 

The meal took place on 9 May 2017, and at the Planning Committee meeting on 24 May 2017 R55’s application 16/2629, for a large mixed-use development (including blocks of flats up to 26 storeys high) at Minavel House, Alperton, was unanimously approved, even though the Council’s regeneration masterplan for this area had set a height limit of ‘up to 17 storeys’. In the declarations of interest at the start of the meeting, under “approaches”, the minutes record: ‘Minavil House - All members and officers received a brochure from the applicant’s agents.’ Although not opposing the development in principle, a speaker against the application ‘expressed concerns on behalf of the residents in the development to the south of the site regarding the scheme’s scale, massing, height and obstruction to light.’  LINK

Although not listed in the response to question 3 above, R55 also have a pre-planning application, 16/0445/PRE, on the agenda for next Monday’s (9 October) Planning Committee meeting. This is in respect of ‘land at 370 High Road, London, NW10 2EA and 54-68 Dudden Hill Lane’, ‘for a mixed use development consisting of 224 residential units, a supermarket, nursery, gym, café, workshops and amenity space.’ A previous pre-planning presentation had been made to the committee on 15 March 2017, when it appears that some councillors may have expressed concern over the proposed height of some of the blocks of flats, in the vicinity of Willesden High Road.

Many Brent residents, and residents’ groups, have been disappointed by Planning Committee decisions in recent years, allowing developments which seem to go against the borough’s own agreed planning policies. An opposition motion calling for an investigation of this issue was put to the Full Council meeting on 18 September, but lost – although the details are not yet available on the Council’s website, it appears from the webcast that most of the Labour Group’s large majority of councillors voted against it. Yet a number of Labour councillors have told me privately that there is “political interference” within Brent’s planning system.

In his email to Cllr. Allie, the Chair of Standards Committee, the comments on which gave rise to this blog, Cllr. Duffy said:

‘In my experience its best to keep clear of hospitality from developers as “When you dance with a developer, it’s always to their tune".’

I hope that Brent’s Monitoring Officer will endorse that view, when she considers the lessons which should be learned from this episode. The Codes of Conduct for both members and officers include a requirement to comply with the seven general conduct principles in public life. If citizens of our borough are to have confidence in the Council, a key principle is:

‘Integrity: you should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.’

How does accepting an invitation to dine with developers, who may want you to help them get their planning applications approved, fit with that principle?