The controversial Mumbai Junction Planning Application will be heard on Wednesday at Brent Planning Committee, unless there is another last minute challenge. The application was pulled from the July meeting after a challenge regarding the pre-application process. The application has been opposed by more than 500 local residents.
The officers'report, and recommendation to approve the application, remains the same apart from this new intorduction:
This application was deferred from the July planning committee meeting to allow further time to consider and respond to an e-mail complaint / objection that was received following the publication of the committee report.
Within the e-mail, the objector set out their view that the pre-application engagement with the applicant has compromised its Planning Committee members. It was alleged that the members who took part would be in the position of having a pre-determined state of mind in relation to the consideration of the planning application. It was also submitted that there was a lack of a constitutional basis for this and that this meant that these members cannot be in an unbiased position and should therefore be recused from the consideration of the case.
This complaint was not upheld. There is a long standing and sound basis nationally for the conduct of pre application engagement through the National Planning Policy Framework and the Localism Act and the involvement of members in pre-application is actively encouraged and not discouraged.
Planning Committee members have a specific responsibility and role to play in determining planning applications. Pre-existing guidance in the form of Brent's Planning Code of Practice already gave a good basis for acting with probity at the time of the committee pre-application presentation. This was then strengthened in line with an independent review that confirmed that Brent's approach was already well regarded.
Meetings that took place were conducted properly and in an appropriate way. Documents relating to these meeting that were previously disclosed to the objector reinforced this and showed transparency.
In view of the above, it was not upheld that members who took part in the planning committee pre-application presentation should recuse themselves
