'Is this REALLY normal?' commentary on Brent Council Planning's pre-application process

Guest post by Gaynor Lloyd

 

I read Martin's report of what he described as the shambles at Planning Committee when the Mumbai Junction application was decided. LINK  It was concerning to see that not only did officers give no assistance to Committee members in articulating their reasons for the vote against when they were in such evident difficulties but acted to press for change to deferral. An appeal to the Planning Inspectorate can give residents an opportunity to be heard. 

 

However, what I wanted to respond to was Martin's report of the Chair's comment on the normality of the Planning Committee’s pre-application meeting with Fruition Properties, the developer of Mumbai Junction.  I was the author of the complaint and made both requests for the recusal of Committee members. I do have in-depth knowledge of the background here. 

 

For me, everything started when, in preparing my objection, I spotted a one-liner in the developer's application pack: Pre-application presentation to the Planning Committee. (I also noted a meeting with Cllrs Butt & Tatler).  I was completely taken aback and followed up with a Freedom of Information Request (FOIR) about these meetings. The response provided the agenda, and pre-briefing for the Planning Committee and draft Feedback notes. I also received notes of the Cllr Butt & Tatler meeting with 4 representatives of the developer. 

 

Before making my FOIR, I had looked at the Council's protocols, and could see no constitutional basis on which such pre-app meeting with the Planning Committee could take place. I also looked at National guidance - again I could find no basis. (The Council deny this; I await the Council's evidence to the contrary as part of my Stage 2 complaint)

 

It is true that the Council added numerous provisions to its Planning Code and Protocol, re pre-application processes in November 2022, several months after the meeting with the Planning Committee - but adding those evidences there were none at the time. It is also true that the Council added them after a scheduled review of its planning processes. This was  conducted by a  Local Government Association Independent Reviewer but it seems that the Independent Reviewer could not have been aware that the Planning Committee could take pre-app presentations, as he/she pointed out that no protocols were in existence for  the engagement of any Councillor in the pre-app process, and that it would avoid confusion if, for example, ward councillors knew how they should behave when approached by residents. To be helpful, the Independent Inspector gave the Council some examples of good pre-app practice in 2 other Councils; neither of those Councils invite developers in for a cosy pre-chat with the Planning Committee who will hear their application. 

 

Did the Council devise its protocols to cover its then existing practice?

Was that existing process, right?

Is it accountable? 

How often was it used? 

Who knew about it? 

 

In a world where even a Government Department is now for "Levelling Up", what should we think of  a private and confidential meeting that planning officers can just offer at a price to categories of developer - a meeting with the very Committee to which their planning  application will be presented - when an ordinary resident with a planning objection -whose very life may be affected by the development nearby  - cannot even speak to a single member of the self-same Committee without being batted away with suggestions of the impropriety of an attempt to influence, and a direction (if they must) to give details in writing to all Committee members.

 

But, in this case, it looks worse.  I have been told by an officer that developers of "larger" projects are invited by officers to request a pre-app meeting with the Planning Committee. There is a £2000 extra fee for that private and confidential presentation to the Planning Committee. The availability of this service is not on the website - nor details of the fee nor the criteria officers apply. This is not in accordance with national guidance. How many such applications have been prefaced by a pre-meeting with planning committee is an interesting question: I have got a FOIR in on that - but it does link with Cllr Kelcher’s reported reaction to Cllr Lorber's challenge at Committee on this very topic.

 

Martin in his report says, " Cllr Kelcher reacted angrily saying that that the pre-application meeting was part of the normal process." Yes, well...it would certainly appear that it was indeed part of usual practice at the time - look at the emails trail  below - which arrived as part of the Council's  FOIR response to outline how the meeting with the Committee came about. I have asked for the redactions of names to be replaced by descriptions of postholder/members.

 

The top email of 26 May 17:16 (in very prompt response to the request from the developer's adviser below) refers to a meeting the next day between redacted names and the Chair & Vice Chair of the Planning Committee. (There was no actual planning Committee meeting in May 2022) Apparently, "they” will "bring up pre-app presentations to committee."  "Presentations" plural - clearly "business as usual". Maybe it was   but it was not a process constitutionally authorised by Brent Council in May/June/July 2022. Nor (I maintain) in accordance with national guidance. 

 

I was told that the reason for the silence on the website re the availability of the Planning Committee to developers of "larger" projects is because this is offered by officers and not available on request. 

 

 

Yet, look at the earlier email in the screenshot   - 26 May at 14:52 from the Planning Director, Stantec UK, Fruition’s consultants.  What is to be made of these sentences in their email to Team Leader North Area:" I have just had a call with my client, who informs me he has had a call with [name redacted] .... but [name redacted] has advised that we make a formal request to you that we present the scheme to the planning committee. Thus, this email is that request. Can you look to set this up as soon as possible?" 

 

Who was the call with the developer with? Clearly not the Team Leader. If the Head of Planning, surely, he could have organised it himself. Whatever, it seems that   a developer can tell a Council planning officer to set up a meeting with the Planning Committee.

 

Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks the tone of the email to the Council's Area Team Leader very telling?

 

And, talking of tone... what exactly is an ordinary resident supposed to do? Ms Lester, the senior officer charged with dealing with my complaint, had the solution off pat: "If a person sufficiently affected by the planning decision believes that the decision is legally flawed, the correct process to follow is to challenge it via a judicial review." Ah, that's alright then- if I just had the cash, and the professional advisers...Puts me in mind of the adage. One rule for one....

Brent Tories call for Brent Council to return to committee governance rather than Cabinet

Brent Conservatives have tabled a motion for the Council meeting on November 21st calling for Carolyn Downs, CEO, to formulate a commitee meeting of local government for Brent Council.

They claim that the Cabinet system, where most decisions are made by just 8 of 63 councillors, 56 of them Labour, is not working.

It is likely that many of the Labour Group, who feel excluded from key decision making, will be sympathetic but reluctant to publicly support the call.

Model of decision making in Brent 
 

This Council believes that the Cabinet system in Brent is not working. 

The Local Government Act 2000 allowed Councils to adopt different models of government - Brent chose the cabinet model - but we believe it is time for a change. 

We instruct the Chief Executive to formulate a "committee model " of government, whereby all main committees make their own decisions, which are then put to Full Council for approval. 

We believe that this model gives much greater involvement for more members and is a more open and transparent method of running the Council. 

The Chief Executive should present this report to the January Council meeting. 

Brent Conservative Group

Powney calls for councillors to give themselves time to discuss Scrutiny proposals - and not accept a fait accompli

It is good to see James Powney LINK responding to the 'clarification' of Scrutiny proposals which I published from a source very close to Brent Labour earlier LINK

Like me he can see no reference to this detail in the Officer's Report going before Full Council tomorrow and remarks:

If Martin's source is knowledgeable, I wonder whether these are last minute changes to mitigate the apparent intention of removing the operations of the Council from effective scrutiny.  It all seems a very hole-in-the-corner way of doing things.

He says that the requirement that questions to Cabinet members at Full Council be submitted in advance, and without follow-up questions allowed,  will mean that officers will write the answers and they will be read out by the lead members'

He goes on:

All this strikes me as a far cry from how things should be done.  I have suggested that there are three objectives Scrutiny should aim at.  The Welsh National Audit Office has recently gone through a more elaborate analysis.  What the balance between is is an area where I can imagine lots of different points of view, but it is essentially a matter for political value judgements, not simply a technical issue.  Therefore, it should be the subject of a proper debate and decision by councillors, not simply presented to them as a fait accompli within a fortnight of election.

The elected members of the Council should give themselves time to discuss how they want Scrutiny to function, and what they decide should be laid out clearly, not anonymously communicated to Martin Francis. 

I agree completely that a proper report, detailing the proposals and setting out how lay committee members would be recruited is essential for proper consideration of the Scrutiny proposals. Far reaching Scrutiny proposals approved without proper scrutiny would open the Council up to ridicule.

I hope backbench Labour  councillors and the opposition take note and speak up tomorrow.

If you need any persuasion of the confusing aspects of the Scrutiny changes and perhaps evidence of the haste in which they have been prepared see the Supplementary Agenda LINK. Particularly important noteworthy are pages 30 and 48.

If you wish to attend the Full Council on Wednesday as a member of the public you are advised to let Anne Reid of Democratic Services know, as the number of seats is limited:  anne.reid@brent.gov.uk

South Kilburn anger as Council denies them a voice on being dumped with ventilation shaft

A recurring theme of this blog has been the lack of democracy and poor consultation in matters involvng Brent Council: the views of library users over the transformation project, Willesden Green residents over the redevelopment of the library site, human rights campaigners over Veolia's multi-million public realm contract and more recently the denial of residents' requests to speak at Council meetings on matters that affect them.

Here a South Kilburn tenant outlines the latest case of 'democracy denied'.

Last year Brent Council changed the rules so that residents can no longer address full Council meetings about issues of concern, however much support they have. The claim is that this is unnecessary, since petitioners can address the committee meetings or Executive where the issues are discussed, and there are all sorts of consultations where there views can be heard. 

 

Even when such opportunity exists – committees and consultation forums – this is inadequate, since it is only when an issue comes to full Council that all Councillors are present to hear the issues.

 

But what happens when an issue comes to full Council without going to any committee or consultation beforehand? Isn’t it obvious that in such a situation those affected should be heard? It would be a simple matter of suspending Council standing orders for this to happen

 

Far from it. A report is going to Full Council on Monday (March 3rd) about the affect of the HS2 Bill on Brent. This report notes that the HS2 Bill allows for the acquisition of 2 blocks of (Council) flats and St Mary’s school in South Kilburn, and also calls on HS2 to move the planned ventilation shaft, currently proposed to be next to Queens Park station to a site next to St Mary’s school and those flats.

 

That report has not gone to any committee or the Executive. Affected residents were not informed of its existence by any Councillor or Council Officer, despite their Tenants and Residents Association asking for over 2 years now how they would be affected by HS2 and Brent Council being unable or unwilling to provide them with answers. Residents received recorded letters from HS2 last year saying it might want to acquire their property, and still Brent Council was unable to provide advice on what this might mean. And, of course, residents have not been consulted on their attitude to having the shaft moved next door. This in a situation where residents have made numerous complaints about the effect of living on a building site – being in the middle of regeneration with all the dirt and disruption involved.

 

Yet despite all this, Councillors are denying residents the right to put their views to the Council meeting. There have been attempts to fob them off by saying that their Councillors are able to speak and represent their views. Some of those saying this have no idea whether the Councillors and TRA have the same view on the issues concerned! But the very idea is patronising – who better to put their views forward than residents themselves, especially when so directly affected.