Keep Kensal Green - Ladbroke Grove Sainsbury's development site contamination issue VIDEO

 

Brent Renters Picnic in Roundwood Park on Saturday August 12th 12 noon

 

Asylum seekers' protest outside Wembley's Holiday Inn: Homes not Hotels

 

 

When asylum seekers currently accommodated at the Holiday Inn, Wembley, protested yesterday they were joined in solidarity by local people sick of the anti-refugee propaganda put out by the Government and much of the press.

In a leaflet given out at the protest they said:

Homes Not Hotels: The vast majority of us have been waiting for over 9 months for a decision - many of us for two years and more. Imagine what it is like, waiting with daily anxiety and sleepless nights to know if you are safe. With no right to work, nutritionless food, a few pounds a week, guards at the door. Theses are more like prisons than hotels. But with no fixed sentence or check out time.

Compassion not Cruella: We know we're not the only group in need. Other people are using food banks, struggling with rents and health services. When our claims are processed that will be us too! But asylun seekers are being blamed for all the problem of this country. We hope that everyne can see that this is the divisive strategy of Home Secretary Suella Braveman.

MUMBAI JUNCTION LATEST: Brent Council refuse to recuse councillors or defer application - consideration will go ahead tomorrow

Alice Lester, Brent Council's Director of Regeneration, Growth and Employment, has refused the request to recluse some councillors or defer the Mumbai Junction item.

In an email she wrote:

You have requested a stage 2 review of your complaint, and also that some members of the planning committee are recused from consideration of the planning application reference 22/3260, 231 Watford Road.  

 

You also suggest that the application should be deferred from the committee as given this request for a stage 2 review, the complaints process is ongoing.  

 

The Council’s position is that the investigation into the stage 1 complaint demonstrated that the planning application can be considered by the committee as currently constituted, and a sound decision is able to be made.  A stage 2 complaint investigation does not outweigh the process of determining planning applications in a timely manner.  

 

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.  

 

The complaints team will progress the stage 2 review on behalf of the Chief Executive.  

Wembley high rise residents object to more tower blocks on their doorstep - Young professionals in revolt!

 Site currently

Proposed

There was a time when there was barely a peep out of anyone about proposals for tower blocks in the development zone around Wembley Stadium, mainly because apart from the residents of North End Road, few people were impacted.

Now the picture is different as the first residents of the high rises find that more buildings are going up in close proximity affecting their access to light and creating a claustrophobic atmosphere. In addition some are also protesting that the plethora of student accommodation is undermining attempts to create a sense of community. 

Both issues are cited in objections to new buildings on Watkin Road which replace low rise light industrial buildings. I am surprised that the residents did not realise this was inevitable given the high value of these sites to developers as height and densification leading to higher profits. Some even comment favourably on Quintain's developments as having more respect regarding light and privacy.

 Density and Height

This is the proposal for at total of 619 student units at 1-4 and 9 Watkin Road

The proposal includes land on both the northern and southern sides of Watkin Road, each containing blocks of purpose built student accommodation.

The southern site would contain a building that is a maximum of 27 storeys in height and is part 18 storeys and part 6 storeys and has a basement, whilst the northern site would contain a building that extends to 21 storeys in height.

The southern site is proposed to deliver 1,490sqm of commercial floorspace within the basement to 2nd floors and 419 student accommodation bed spaces (and ancillary amenity spaces) across the 3rd to 19th floors.
 

The northern site is proposed to deliver 200 student accommodation bed spaces (and ancillary amenity spaces)

Obviously with lower standards than residential accommodation more students can be fitted into the space.

The large majority of of the 54 objections to the development come from 581 North End Road but there are also objections from residents of the Helix, St Andrew's Court and Foster Apartments. The only support comes from UCFB (University Campus of Football Business) and there is one neutral comment from Great Portland Street. 

This is  representative of the the objections from 581 North End Road:

581 North End Road I, like my neighbours, strongly object to the proposed plan. I find it unacceptable that the initial plan has changed so significantly over time despite how devastating its effects on the other residents in the area are. The initial plan had many issues, too. But, the additions over time have made it even worse. Please find my reasons below.

1. Complete blockage of all daylight to my home

My home, placed on Floor 12, only gets a sliver of daylight every day from one angle, with much of my home constantly in the dark. The planned building would completely block the only daylight I get every day while working from home and resuming my daily life. The serious health implications of little to no light every day include Seasonal Affective Disorder, depression, vitamin d deficiency (which leads to bone and back pain, fatigue, frequent illness and more), and sleep disorders. The financial implications would see me having to switch on my lights almost all the time, creating an unmanageable increase in my bills. It would also mean that without the sunlight naturally warming up my flat, my flat would be colder and thus I would need to keep my heating on a lot more often.

2. Excessive number of Student Accommodation buildings in the area causing immense anti-social behaviour and a complete lack of community.

When I decided to make Wembley my permanent home and invest my hard-earned money here, I was painted a picture of a blossoming community trying to move away from hotels, student accommodations and anti-community initiatives. As it stands, our building is suffocated by the number of student accommodations (e.g. Grand Felda House, Canvas, Pavilion Court, iQ Student Accommodation, Unite Students, Host the Helix, etc.). These temporary young residents do not treat our neighbourhood as a residential area. They litter, smoke, consume drugs outdoors, throw alcohol bottles and eggs from their windows onto our communal areas and the streets below, and more. Our parcels and post get stolen all the time. There are random, stolen supermarket trolleys in front of the student accommodation buildings almost all the time, too. We are barely feeling safe and like we have neighbours we can start to build a community with as it is. We do not need more temporary residents, especially students, wreaking havoc and making Wembley Park insufferable. This has and will continue to increase our maintenance fees, too, as we have to pay to get our communal areas cleaned after they throw eggs and glass bottles.

3. Complete blockage of my flat's view

One of the main reasons I bought this specific property as opposed to other new build developments was the view of the city it promised. Currently, from my flat's two windows facing where this new plan would be built, I can see the Shard, the London Eye and more. This not only increases the quality of my life, but adds quantifiable value to my property. If this planned building was to go ahead, my flat would be boxed in without any daylight and any view. All I would be able to stare at would be a brick wall and the private lives of the residents in the new building, both of which are unacceptable. My flat's value would understandably plummet, as I, too, don't and wouldn't want to live somewhere with no view but a brick wall, no daylight, no sense of community and lots of anti-social behaviour.

4. Complete invasion of privacy

As my windows are only on one side and the proposed building's unacceptably close to ours, if I wanted to have any chance at getting fresh air or some sliver of daylight, I would need to accept the fact that complete strangers will be able to watch my every move and invade my privacy. This would mean I have to change the way I act, dress up, where I can change my clothes, how I store valuables, and more, in order to keep myself safe as a female occupant. It would also make it very easy for strangers to take photographs of me or my neighbours, our homes, etc. This is obviously not defensible.

5. We have not been formally informed about this proposal at all

We, the residents of 581 North End Road, have not been sent any formal notifications or offered opportunities to object to a plan that is happening a stone's throw away from us. We found out by sheer luck. I believe that this is not legally sound.

6. Brent Council should prioritise safety and a sense of community over money for money's sake.

We pay our council taxes, have put all of our savings into investing in the future of Wembley and show commitment to building a community in an area that lacks it. Yet, Brent consistently accepting more and more student accommodation buildings and quick rental business models like Quintain’s shows that the council is more interested in filling its pockets than taking care of its dedicated residents who hope to spend years if not decades of their lives here.

7. I do not believe the proximity of the proposed buildings to ours complies with the legal regulations and privacy recommendations for London.

8. It is difficult enough for any family to consider raising children in the area with so many young students wreaking havoc and making the area dangerous. The proposed plan would make it even less likely for families to ever want to live in or stay in Wembley. This would cause the continued deterioration of the area, the culture it breeds and the community it harbours.

9. The culmination of these issues would make other young professionals, innovators, communities, etc. avoid investing in and enriching the culture of Wembley. This would make Wembley retain its unfortunate reputation as a "student village" that is only visited for a football game or a concert once a year and avoided at all costs otherwise.

View from Empire Court, North End road 0- before and after:

 

 

Another flood zone development in Stonebridge at Planning Committee tomorrow

 

Prospect House as was

The new development on the Prospect House site next to Shurgaard

Readers may remember controversy over the appalling conditions at Prospect House, manahed by Shepherd's Bush Housing Association LINK and its rather dubious history LINK. The planning application to be decided tomorrow at Brent Planning Committee replaces it with  23 storey storey building with residential accommodation from the third floor up.

The building lies between the Grand Union Canal that crosses the North Circular by aqueduct nearhy and the River Brent. It is in a flood zone and a short distance from Tokyngton Avenue and the Agenta House site opposite Stonebridge Park station. Tokyngton Avenue has been flooded three times in the last few weeks.

 

The site is described by planning officers:

The site is immediately adjacent to the River Brent and near to the Grand Union Canal. The site falls within flood zone 3a. Protection of and access to the River Brent is a keyelement of the scheme as is the flood mitigation measures needed to ensure flood resilience.

 

This includes reducing the footprint of the built structures, raising floor levels, locating the more sensitive uses i.e. the residential element, at 3rd floor level and above, and the creation of a Flood Warning & Evacuation Plan. A SuDS strategy is proposed to retain and re-use as much rainfall prior to discharge into the public sewer.

It is worth looking at some of the comments on the Planning Portal. It is unclear whether the Metropolitan Police objection has been  satisfactorily answered.

Environment Agency

 

Following an initial objection in relation to an inadequate flood risk assessment; its proximity to a watercourse; and a detrimental impact on nature conservation, the objections have been removed following the submission of additional information. Conditions are proposed to secure details of ecological enhancements for flood risk; and a landscape and ecological management plan.

 

Inland Waterways Association

 

Objections are raised for the following reasons:

· The sheer height and bulk of the proposed development would have a harmful visual impact on the adjacent canal as well as frequently causing wind problems for boats and non-boating visitors on the towpath.

· To mitigate, the Council should seek contributions for the provision of community moorings, visitor moorings and/or residential moorings, and the provision of an electrical supply and a water point for servicing the moorings.

 

Local Lead Flood Authority

 

No objections are raised because the Flood Risk Assessment is considered acceptable. A condition is requested for details of: an overall drainage plan to include SudS attenuation such as blue roofs; and an access / egress diagram

 

Metropolitan Police

 

The Secure By Design Officer does not support the application for the following reasons:

· The walk from the tube station to the site using the footpath next to the A406. During the day there would be some activity but at night it would be poorly used and observed leading to a risk of robbery and other violent crimes from occurring.

· The plans to make the site more permeable and attractive to acquisitive forms of crime such as burglary.

· On the actual main building there is no active frontage on the first two floors (overnight), light industrial is proposed but this would close after a certain time and possibly weekends also leaving no legitimate activity.

There is an interesting comment from the owners of the current Prospect House who say thay have had problems marketing it as 'it is not located in the immediate vicinity of local amenities or the High Street (sic) lowering the appeal to potential tenants.'

Brent Council officers continue to term Shared Ownership as affordable in their description of the accommodation despite admitting recently that it is not affordable to people on the median Brent income.

A viability assessment stated that the amount of affordable housing (35% by habital room) was acceptable despite not hitting the 50% target. Shared Ownership should perhaps be subtracted from that percentage.

 The development will be situated next to the highly polluted North Circular Road and a rather poignant diagram shows the distance a parent or carer would need to walk their child to a green space.

 

 

BREAKING: Further demand for recusion of councillors/deferral of Mumbai Junction Planning Application due at Brent Planning Committee tomorrow

 There has been a further request for the recusion of specific councillors or deferral of the Mumbai Junction planning application by Fruition due to be heard at tomorrow's Planning Committee. The request follows the report preamble by officers that Wembley Matters published yesterday.

The letter to Alice Lester, Brtent's Director of Regeneration, Growth and Employment, is very detailed bu I publish here two of the most important sections.

The  respondent suggest that information in the preamble is misleading:

Those reading the addendum to the officer's report would not realise that the finding of "not upheld" is only at Stage 1, and would be  subject to a reasoned request for review, and ultimately by the Local Government Ombudsman. They would probably be aware that the addendum only refers to the initial outcome of investigation of my complaint undertaken internally by an officer, albeit senior. It is not in any sense an independent or  legal assessment of the issues raised.

However, it is clear from that addendum into the Officer's report for Wednesday's planning meeting that consideration of the application by the July Committee Members was deferred pending the outcome of my complaint. It seems, therefore, that the Council realised there was a risk in the July Committee Members hearing the application.

If that is the case, why does the Council not consider that your decision might not be overturned on a final review, and what the risk might then be? It seems that a pre-judgement has been made either that I would not request a final review, or that, if there were such a final review, it could not have  a different outcome, or that it will all be too late anyway, once the consent is granted, if it is. 

 

A detailed argument is put forward about pre-application meetings with develoers and whether those conform to guidance. Of particular significane are those pertaining to the roles of Brent Council Leader, Muhammed Butt, and Lead for Regeneration, Shama Tatler.

 

ii)        You say to me in your response to paragraph 3 in regard to this meeting  that "The Leader and Lead Member meet a variety of people and businesses as part of their leadership roles, including businesses which wish to invest in the Borough and may have planning proposals. Such meetings are provided as a way of update and have no bearing on the assessment of any planning application. They are always attended by a senior  officer of the Council in line with the Planning Code of Practice. Awareness of views the Leader and Lead member may have on a particular application would not as you appear to suggest mean planning committee members are unable to approach the application with an open mind."

iii)       I do not accept that a meeting attended by the Leader, The Lead Member, Mr Ansell and Mr Glover and 4 Fruition representatives (managing director/manager/architect/planning director and communications consultant) can possibly be characterised as you suggest  - as one by a "business which wish to invest in the Borough and may have planning proposals. Such meetings are provided as a way of update and have no bearing on the assessment of any planning application."

iv)        In addition, and by way of evidence,  I attach the Agenda for the meeting, and the notes, which - in so far as they go  - speak for themselves. These were both provided in response to my FOIR and readily available to you in consideration of my complaint. Looking at the meeting notes, what the comment by Cllor Butt "New local councillors. keen to work with developers and the community." means is not clear. Councillor Butt wanted to know the dates of the community group/ward councillor meetings. In fact, he did not attend the resident consultation nor any meeting with the new local councillors on the subject.

v)         As to what was is evidenced as presented at that  June meeting, it did include a 33 page presentation  "for Councillor Butt". Other items may also have been supplied; I have an outstanding query dated 25 July with Mr Ansell, which requests copies of attachments to an email of 22 June from the developer's communications consultants, as they do not appear to be the presentation supplied.

vi)        There may also have been other meetings.(I also have an outstanding query dated 25 July with Mr Ansell, which also requests details of other meetings which the Leader may have attended, as indicated in a redacted email from the developer's communications consultants (I surmise) of 22 June 2022 "We will, of course, keep [name redacted] invited to all of our meetings and our consultation-"). (My emphasis added). I have asked the redaction is clarified by the postholder title, as well as for details of any other meetings. I may well wish to add to my grounds for complaint and review, when I do receive a response from Mr Ansell, the FOI Team to that email.

vii)      To me, it is not credible to suggest that this meeting and possible other meetings and evidence of very direct involvement are not a material factor. As above, it certainly appears to lead to Mr Ansell's arranging the pre-app meeting with the planning committee, although someone (redacted) in the meeting had evidently pre-empted with a contact  with someone (redacted) about "committee presentation". I have asked for postholder details in the cases of these redactions but context indicates it refers to members.   It is certainly a factor  the fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government would add into their consideration.

12        Turning now to the actual planning committee pre-app  meeting, of which the only evidence is the "draft"" Members Feedback"  and a comment in one of the applicant's documents.  I set out in my complaint what I see as evidence of a real possibility of bias or predetermination in those two documents but I will repeat it in summary here.

i)          Firstly, the  "draft"" Members Feedback" referred to in paragraph 2 of the Appendix  is not dated. It is self-evidently not complete,  as I set out in my complaint. ( For example, a comment by members on the "symmetrical option " being " the better building form" - with which preference  the applicant stated it  complied -  appears in the applicant's Planning Statement but not in the "draft"" Members Feedback". If that was omitted, where is the evidence of what else might have been  omitted? ).

ii)        The Member's Feedback is in itself of concern for the inadequate evidencing of such an important meeting for a contentious application, with departures from policy, inconsistency as to mass and construction with its entire surroundings at the gateway to a conservation area . It is a "draft",  though of what stage it is not clear. The record does not follow the Agenda or format.  There is no evidence of when the queries arose - to the developer and answered by the developer, and/or to the officers and whether before or after  the developer left the meeting?

 There is no evidence as to when and whether the "draft"" Members Feedback"   in this or any  other form was sent to the applicant, so there is equally no evidence that the "format" of the meeting was followed. The internal evidence of the Feedback is inconsistent . The developer certainly made responses as to provision of re-worked amenity space calculations, and daylight and sunlight calculations, and overshadowing - to which last point an entirely meaningless remark about trees at the rear of the site providing cover was made - well, meaningless if you know the site.

iii)       the "draft"" Members Feedback"   contains absolutely no reference to detail of applicable policy in the manner suggested in the guidance I quote at Paragraph 10 (ii) above: Local authority members are involved in planning matters to represent the interests of the whole community and must maintain an open mind when considering planning applications. Where members take decisions on planning applications they must do so in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Members must only take into account material planning considerations, which can include public views where they relate to relevant planning matters. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless it is founded upon valid material planning reasons.

Where in the pre-app briefing  or recorded in the "draft"" Members Feedback"   is there any context given to the application from the policy considerations which are to be departed from as set out in the Officer's Report to Committee?  There is no mention of the Sudbury Court Conservation Area to which the site is a gateway. Still less any attention paid to the evidence provided by local photographs of how the original building reflected entirely the residential properties it faced.

The context given is partial, in my view, and a factor  the fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government would weigh in their consideration. Especially in the absence of any clear and transparent process or applicable protocol and private and confidential nature of the briefing in a closed forum.

iv)        As to specifics, you have confirmed that the presentation is identical to that presented to Councillors Butt and Tatler previously. The presentation was a 33 page document with illustrations. The first page is marked "Presentation for Councillor Butt June 2022".

You indicate that there is no evidential basis for me to suggest this in itself might have any effect. You were not aware of the content of the June 2022 meeting, as above.

Of course, I do not know what was in the respective minds of the July Committee Members  but to show prejudgement or bias, I do not have to show that. What I have suggested is that  the planning committee, being provided  with a detailed illustrated presentation on its face addressed  to the Leader of the Council and self-evidently given in private session a few days earlier (and ostensibly triggering this presentation to Committee)  is simply a fact, another element  - amongst the many I include in this complaint - for  the fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government to weigh in the balance on the issue of pre-determination or bias.

The meeting notes of Cllors Butt and Tatler indeed at least might be seen as  suggesting lines which might be put to ward councillors; it is not unreasonable to think these points might also be put the the planning committee. As above, it appears from the Notes of the Cllor Butt/Tatler meeting  that one of the two councillors contacted a planning committee member in advance about the setting of the pre-application planning  committee presentation.

 I do suggest that it is not fanciful for me  to imply that the views of the Leader  of the Council -and  the fact that he took a meeting with a 33 page presentation from the developer and its advisers - would  be seen as influential. Again, however, an issue for fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government to weigh in the balance.

v)         I mentioned other specifics in my complaint. You have not dealt in any way with these in your response, let alone  my reasoning. Indeed, it seems all you state here is that "expressing a general view does not indicate a closed mind or pre-determination". However, the Members Feedback  does not deal with "general views"; it deals with specifics. I will repeat these here.

vi)        The members "supported the general approach to redeveloping the site with housing". So they had already reached a decision on (a) the change of use (for which planning was required); (b) the loss of a well used local business and provider of employment; and (c)  the loss of  a popular and long-standing local restaurant and bar, takeaway provider, and  community hub and venue, used by local walking patrons as well as car users.  For me, evident pre-determination. What would the fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government think of that as evidence of pre-determination or bias?

vii)      The mass of the building and its complete lack of accord with the surrounding area. Members "were happy with the overall massing changes presented"  (Admittedly, one member considered it too large). For me, evident pre-determination. What would the fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government think of that as evidence of pre-determination or bias?

viii)     The form of the building -  The applicant's own planning statement indicates the Committee's favourable comments on a "symmetrical" approach from the various illustrations in the 33 page  presentation, which the applicant "accepted". For me, evident pre-determination. What would the fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government think of that as evidence of pre-determination or bias?

ix)        Finally and very seriously, affordable housing provision.  It is apparent that officers gave advice on issues of affordability. It is not clear when this was given, whether before or after the developer left. However, what is clear is that firm advice was given on a most important policy issue.  "It was also highlighted to members that the RPs do not often want to take on board affordable housing within a single core scheme given the constraints associated with management arrangements". It is impossible for a layperson to understand what the sentence  means, or what it represents in terms of what was actually said to Committee members. There is nothing to indicate that any actual  evidence of that broad statement was proffered, or tested. It appears to be an all encompassing reference to all Brent's "RPs".

However, what seems clear is that that  was officer advice to July Committee Members, which they could surely do nothing other than accept. There is no affordable housing provision in this application.  The only possible conclusion is that officers were explaining to members the position  which must be accepted on the final aspect which might be considered in an affordability test. No RP will take this on, put simply. This particular piece of advice however appears nowhere in the Officer report to Committee under the heading Affordable Housing. The members remained significantly concerned about the lack of affordable provision on site   - but it remains the case that the advice was unchallenged, was given in a totally private and confidential setting and not repeated in the public domain. For me, I am unable to see what other conclusion can be reached but that that there is a risk of bias or pre-determination when that "fact" is introduced into their heads. A "fact" not in the public domain. What would the fair minded and independent observer cognisant of  the practicalities of local government think of that as evidence of pre-determination or bias?

To return to the Persimmon case guidance:

"1. Actual or apparent bias or predetermination on the part of a decision maker renders his decision unlawful.

2. If a fair minded and informed observer who is neither complacent nor unduly sensitive or suspicious, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias or predetermination, then apparent bias or predetermination is established. For the sake of brevity, I shall use the phrase "the notional observer" to denote an observer who is fair minded, informed, not complacent and not unduly sensitive or suspicious.

3. In the context of decisions reached by a council committee, the notional observer is a person cognisant of the practicalities of local government. He does not take it amiss that councillors have previously expressed views on matters which arise for decision. In the ordinary run of events, he trusts councillors, whatever their pre-existing views, to approach decision making with an open mind. If, however, there are additional and unusual circumstances which suggest that councillors may have closed their minds before embarking upon a decision, then he will conclude that there is a real possibility of bias or predetermination.

4. Before the court makes a finding of apparent bias or predetermination, it must first identify with precision the facts which would drive the notional observer to such a conclusion."

 

I believe that I have established with precision such facts, that a fair minded and informed observer who is neither complacent nor unduly sensitive or suspicious, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias or predetermination, that the precise circumstances of the operation of the pre-application planning committee process and its output, when the Council at the time had no protocol for involvement of any member in pre-application processes are "additional and unusual circumstances"  and that apparent bias or predetermination is established.

The July Committee Members cannot properly consider the application on August 9th,and should recuse themselves. I wish my complaint to be carried to Stage 2 final review.

 

Mumbai Junction application hearing goes ahead on Wednesday. Independent review says Brent's pre-application approach 'well regarded'.

 

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