Brent Planning Committee on July 2nd was far from routine. The application for regeneration of the Wembley Hospital site was eventually deferred after an initial decision in favour was overturned when it was revealed that one councillor who had been in favour was found not to have attended throughout. The vote had passed on the Chair's casting vote. The disqualification meant that the vote was now against. When David Glover raised doubts about the validity of some of the councillors' reasons for opposing grant planning permission, the item was deferred to a future meeting.
The last application heard was to build a house on land currently used for Thanet Lodge garages in Brondesbury Park. This was even more controversial with a resident alleging intimidation by the applicant of Thetford Lodge leaseholders who opposed the development. This had led to some of them fearing going public with their opposition on the Brent Council Planning Portal. In a presentation to the Committee the resident gave examples of intimidation and said that the application should not proceed as there had not been a fair and full consultation process.
The Chair, Saqib Butt, David Glover, Head of Planning and Development Services, and the Planning Legal Officer combined to say that this was not a material planning consideration and could not be taken into account.
The resident was supported by Cllr Ryan Hack, ward councillor for Brondesbury Park who repeated the bullying claims and suggested it was similar to 'nobbling a jury'. Officers remained adamant and I had the feeling that even if an applicant had buried his opponents under a car park it would still have not been enough to stop a hearing.
The resident said that he had reported the intimidation to the police who had expressed concern but did not have the resources to follow up.
The applicant's agent denied that intimidation had taken place and dismissed the representations as 'theatricals' and said councillors has been 'bamboozled'. He suggested that out of 60 letters sent out, there had been 20 responses which was a good response rate. All responses had been against the proposal.
Having expressed concern over a 'compromised' process. Cllr Suzanne Gallagher, explored the applicant's claim that this was a self-build project and as such exempt from paying Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and meeting Biological Net Gain targets. She raised doubts about the validity of the self-build claim after looking up the definition and legislation..
With doubts piling up David Glover appeared to have been doing some internet searching of his own and intervened to say that there appeared to be problems with the ownership certificate for the site.
The Committee agreed to defer this application 'to allow the ownership certificates relating to the application to be evaluated prior to determination and to clarify whether the scheme would fall within the definition of self-build'.
If you have time it is well worth watching the video above. The item was discussed for almost an hour.
PS:
