The above statement was made by Brent Council in response to a discussion on the London Live TV channel on the Lucozade Powerleague proposals for Kingsbury High School.
It has been received with some cynicism by local campaigners who have been at the receiving end of decisions made by the Planning Committee.
Reporting regularly on planning issues from Wembley Matters I have repeatedly seen residents go along to Planning Committee in the belief that their objections to applications will be taken seriously, only to come out having given their 2 minute speech, listened to the often barely audible proceedings, angered that the Committee had then tamely voted in favour of the developer.
Residents are now realising that the time has come to make links with others in the same predicament.
Recently there have been some more independent decisions by the Committee and the chair, Cllr Sarah Marquis, has stuck her neck out but this seems to have earned her the ire of Muhammed Butt the Council leader. The latest manifestation of that was his intervention to ensure that proposals from Quintain for the area around Wembley Stadium, in his own Tokyngton ward, were rushed through at two Planning Committees last week.
That doesn't sound as if the Planning Committee is 'separate from the Council' and appears to be an attempt to get the Planning Committee back into line.
One of the problems is the Council's policy of 'smoothing the way for developers' promoted by Andy Donald, former Director of Regeneration and Major Projects.
Brent Council is in effect a partner with Quintain in the redevelopment of the Wembley Stadium area through the Wembley Masterplan. This presents difficulties for planning officers' and councillors' independence.
It was reported to me last week that one councillor had allegedly remarked, 'It's Quintain - we have to vote for it.'*
Last week Brent residents were by-standers as Brent Council, Quintain and the Football Association deployed all their resources and experts on a battle that will impact on residents for decades to come. Our voices were barely heard. When one particularly preposterous claim was made and I couldn't suppress a response, a Quintain suit turned round and told me to be quiet. I replied, 'No I won't - I live here.' The exchange summed up our powerlessness.
The Roe Green Village residents challenging Lucozade have found that their ward councillors offer no support and so have mounted their own public campaign while the rsidents challenging the Wembley twin Towers are appealing to Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor.
It is just not Quintain of course but a whole range of developers and multi-national companies as well as Brent Council itself that we are faced with - what they have in common is that they have the money, resources and time. Residents squeeze their research into spare time in the evenings and weekends and have to go through a rapid self-education process in planning law and procedures.
I think it is time to consider setting up an umbrella group that will bring individuals, residents associations and voluntary organisations concerned with these issues together so that experience and expertise can be shared and proposals made to reform the consultation and decision making processes in Brent Council.
In time the group could perhaps pool resources to get their own professional advice as well as hold a 'People's Panel' to consider particular planning applications. It would be strictly non-party political.
What do people think?
* This is from a previous posting on changes to the Planning Committee Code of Conduct. The issue of pre-determination is particularly relevant:
-->
Members of the
Planning Committee are warned:
If a member does not
abide by this Code the member may put the Council at risk of proceedings on the
legality or maladministration of the related decision; and the member may be at
risk of either being named in a report of the Audit and Governance Committee or
Council; or if the failure to abide by the Code is also likely to be a breach
of the Member Code of Conduct, of a complaint made to the Monitoring Officer.
The disclosure of
'disclosable pecuniary interests' is added to the requirements and members are
told that decisions should not be influenced by the interests of Councillors or
because of pressure exerted by applicants, agents or third parties. A new
paragraph is inserted:
Members of the
Planning Committee must take decisions in the public interest and take account
of only of material planning considerations. They should not allow themselves
to be influenced by members of the public and applicants, agents or third
parties who might approach them and they should not be influenced by party
politics.
My comment: There is something
rather odd about having to take decisions in the public interest but also not
being influenced by the public. This is reinforced by the duty to follow the
'rules of natural justice' and give people a hearing:
The rules of natural
justice include the duty to act fairly, the duty to give all those who will be
affected by a decision the opportunity of a hearing before a decision is made;
and the principle that no person should be a judge in his or her own cause.
That principle means that members must be and be seen to be be impartial and
without bias, and that members should not take part in any decision that
affects their own interests.
A section of 'Bias
and Predetermination' has been added:
Members should not
take a decision on a matter when they are actually biased in favour or against
the application, or when it might appear to a fair and informed observer that
there was real possibility of boas, or where a member has predetermined the matter
by closing their mind to the merits of the decision before they come to take
it.
...A member
taking part in a decision on a planning matters must be open to any new
arguments about the matters up until the moment of a decision. A member should
not comment or make any commitment in advance as to how they intend to vote
which might indicate that they have closed their mind. Any planning decision
made by a member who can be shown to have approached the decision with a closed
mind will still expose the council to the risk of legal challenge.
The section on
Interests has been amended to allow a member with a disclosable pecuniary
interest to have a right to attend a meeting:
...where a member of
the public has the right to attend the meeting, make representations, answer
questions, or give evidence, then a member will have the same right. Once the
member has exercised that right then they must withdraw from the room for the
rest of that item and play no further part in the discussion or vote,
At present many
planning decisions are made by officers alone but Council members have the
power to 'call-in' decisions so that they will be decided by Committee. The
Code is amended:
A member considering
using the 'call-in' power should consider whether their objective could be
achieved by an alternative means, for example by discussing the matter further
with the relevant officer or facilitating a meeting between the objector and an
officers, bearing in mind the additional cost to the council when a matter has
to be considered by Committee.
The key issue of
planning submissions where the council is the applicant or landowner is covered
by this paragraph:
Where the council
itself is the landowner or planning applicant then a Planning member should
consider whether he or she has had such a significant personal involvement in
advocating or preparing or submitting the planning proposal that the member
would be likely to be perceived as longer able to act impartially or to
determine the proposal purely on its planning merits. A member would not be
required to withdraw simply because they were, for example, a member of both
the Cabinet, or a proposing committee, as well as the planning committee,
However a member with a relevant portfolio or individual responsibility
for implementing a particular policy should carefully consider whether that
role makes it inappropriate for them to participate in a particular planning
decision.
My comment: Does this sufficiently deal with the wider
conflict of interest over the Planning Committee being the judge of the Council's own development
schemes?
