PARK ROYAL: Hammersmith & Fulham object to London Mayor usurping planning powers while Brent remains silent

This Guest Blog from Harlesden Blogspot highlights a neighbouring borough's  reaction to the London Mayor's proposal to take planning powers from Brent, Ealing and Hammersmith & Fulham in order to develop the Old Oak Common and Park Royal site. So far Brent Council has been silent on the issue, merely advertising the consultation, which closes on September 24th, on its website LINK

The issue will be discussed at the Harlesden Brent Connects meeting on July 8th at Tavistock Hall, off the High Street AGENDA

A proposal to take local planning powers away on one of the capital’s biggest housing projects are ‘an anti-democratic land grab’ which gives the potential for the Mayor to allow the building of properties for overseas speculators rather than homes Londoners can afford, according to Hammersmith & Fulham (H&F) Council.

The Mayor of London launched a consultation on plans to create a Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC) around Old Oak Common and Park Royal which is the area where the new High Speed 2 (HS2) hub station is expected to be built.

The MDC would assume planning powers within its borders, which span large parts of the north of H&F and parts of Brent and Ealing. H&F’s new administration objects to this and has raised concerns that this is nothing more than a land-grab designed to make life easier for the developers – at the cost of local people.

Concerns over Brent's tree cutting addressed but highlights need to communicate with residents

I have been hearing recently of residents' concerns about the removal of apparently healthy mature trees in the borough. Concerns have been followed up by resident Martin Redston in his local area and his findings are set out below. Clearly, following the recent tragic death caused by a falling branch, LINK the Council has a duty to make sure that trees are safe while also maintaining and increasing the borough's stock of trees.

Following concerns about the cutting down of trees locally I met  Gary Rimmer (Brent Tree Officer) in Park Avenue on Tuesday afternoon for an hour or so. We looked at every tree. He showed me that each tree that had been cut, was actually in poor condition. Most were hollow at the base and one outside no 2 was actually dead. We talked at length and ex- councillor Maloney joined us for a few minutes so he was also given some of the information. 

Brent Council closes down Wembley Market's temporary site

The original market (Image: wembley.blogontheblock.com)

Brent Council served a 'stop' notice on Wembley Market yesterday which looks as if it spells the ending of the market for good.

The market had shifted to the Unisys building at Stonebridge Park after losing its Wembley Stadium site because the Council thought it would undermine the London Designer Outlet. There are plans to replace it with a more upmarket 'artisan' market.

Wendy Markets had submitted a planning application to regularise the Stonebridge Park site but the stop notice has been served before that can be heard. Wendy Markets face a £20,000 fine if they don't comply so the market of some 100 stalls will not operate this Sunday. Brent Council claimed there had been complaints about the market according to Get West London LINK

Kensal Rise Library application to be heard following legal advice

The controversial planning application for Kensal Rise Library has been tabled for the Planning Committee Meeting of July 16th following legal advice. The item had been deferred at the last meeting LINK in order to seek further legal advice on whether the investigation into fraudulent emails supporting the developer's previous application was a 'material consideration'.

The new report LINK states:

1.     The Council has obtained advice from leading Counsel, Richard Drabble QC, since deferral of the decision by Members on the 17 June. The advice was required to establish whether the Committee could lawfully determine the current application having regard to the fraudulent emails, in support of the application, received during the consultation process in respect of planning application reference 13/2058. Counsel has endorsed the views given by officers, by correctly identifying that such claims of fraudulent activity, are not a material consideration for the purposes of assessing the current application.

2.     Counsel contends that he can see no reason why the grant of planning permission on the current application should prejudice the police investigation into whether earlier representations were bogus or fraudulent. In these circumstances Members are obliged to determine the application on an objective assessment of material planning considerations alone.

3.     3.The Council’s statutory duty also extends to determine planning applications within a reasonable period of time. Accordingly, any unreasonable delay by Members in deciding the current application second time around could result in the developer lodging an appeal to the Secretary of State (Planning Inspectorate) under section 78 (2) of the Act on the grounds of non-determination. Effectively, the Secretary of State would step into the shoes of the Council as Local Planning Authority and determine the application. If the matter were deferred again without proper justification for doing so, the Council will inevitably incur legal costs in dealing with and defending the appeal. The Council may well have to pay the developers professional costs as part of this process, if an order for costs was made on that basis. However, it is very difficult to predict what the overall costs are likely to be, but an estimated guess could run into thousands of pounds. In this respect Members should be mindful of the Councils fiduciary duty towards the local tax payer when balancing the degree of risk.

4.     In relation to the building being listed as an Asset of Community Value under the provisions of the Localism Act 2011 and the relevance of the listing status vis a vie the decision to be taken on the planning application the comments contained within the body of the report are duly noted by officers. Members should however, be reminded that inso far as FOKR being named as “preferred tenant” of the D1 community space, this is not an issue the committee should purport to determine as part of the planning process.

5.     In summary, and for the avoidance of doubt, Members are under a statutory duty to determine the planning application within a reasonable period of time; and that neither the requirements of coming to a proper planning decision or any need to avoid prejudice to the police investigation require any further delay.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal Services and Procurement.