Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
General view of the 12 June Planning Committee meeting, from the
webcast.
There were a number of blog articles last month about the Barham Park
(776/778 Harrow Road) planning application, which was controversially approved at Brent’s Planning
Committee meeting on 12 June. Some of the
comments on them referred to connections which Committee members might have
with the applicant, George Irvin, including free tickets received from him to
one of his funfairs in April 2023. One committee member had declared receiving
these.
I had written to Brent’s Corporate Director for
Governance about this issue, and did so
again a few days before the meeting. In her absence, my email was dealt with by
Brent’s Head of Law. On 9 June I wrote this in an email to her:
‘Whatever value was estimated, by Cllr. Begum or
others, for the gift they received in respect of the Funfair at Roe Green Park,
just a few weeks ago, in order to receive that gift, councillors were given
George Irvin's personal email address and mobile phone number, and had to
contact him personally to obtain it. That should be sufficient to debar them
from having any part in a decision on an application which if approved would be
to Mr Irvin's financial benefit.
In case you are not already aware, application
22/4128 is a controversial one, strongly opposed by many residents, both
individually and through their Residents' Associations. It is a sensitive
matter, and one where it is important that the Council is seen to be dealing
with it openly and fairly.’
The application details from the 12 June Planning Committee agenda.
Despite this, Cllr. Begum was allowed to take part in the Planning
Committee meeting which decided Mr Irvin’s application, along with two other
councillors, Saqib Butt and Akram, who had also declared some sort of
connection with him at the start of the meeting. I requested a detailed explanation
of why this had been allowed, and this is the response I received from Brent’s
Head of Law on 5 July:
‘Cllr Begum was not required by the provisions of
the Brent Member’s Code of Conduct (Code) to declare the gift, she did so in
order to be transparent. Although she
was not required to refer to the gift at the meeting itself, she chose to do
so, again in order to be transparent.
Cllr Begum was advised prior to the meeting that although the provisions
of paragraph 34 of the Code did not apply, she might nonetheless choose to
consider whether a member of the public knowing the facts about the gift would
reasonably consider it likely to prejudice her judgement of the public
interest. Cllr Begum chose to remain in the meeting and did not act contrary to
the Code in doing so.
The information in the statement by Cllr Begum did
not indicate that the applicant was a person connected to her under paragraph
30 of the Code.
In relation to Cllr Akram and Cllr S Butt, both in
fact stated that the applicant and signatories on the petition had
followed/connected with them on social media through their work as
Councillors. They were specifically
asked to confirm that it was not a personal connection and they confirmed that
it was not. It is clear from their statements that they were bringing the
circumstances to the attention of the committee and the public in order to be
transparent and were not declaring that the applicant or signatories on the
petition were “connected persons” for the purposes of paragraph 30 of the
Code. Accordingly there was no reason
for them to leave the committee meeting.’
I have replied, on 6 July, as follows:
‘Dear Ms Henry,
Thank you for your email of 5 July, which clarifies
the basis on which Councillors Begum, Saqib Butt and Akram were allowed to take
part in considering and deciding Mr Irvin's application at the Planning
Committee meeting on 12 June.
You were aware, several days before the meeting,
that there was public concern over Cllr. Begum's participation in considering
and deciding this application, as she had received a gift of free funfair
tickets from the applicant only two months beforehand. In those circumstances I
have to express my surprise that she was allowed to choose whether to take part
in the meeting - surely it would have been best to advise her not to take part.
You say that Cllrs. S. Butt and Akram were
specifically asked to confirm that they had no personal connection with the
applicant, and that they confirmed that they did not. However, it is strongly
rumoured (though I have no hard evidence) that they do have a social connection
with Mr Irvin, either directly or through their close relative, Cllr. M. Butt,
the Council Leader and Chair of the Barham Park Trust Committee.
I will leave these views for you to consider, and
will not pursue them further with you, but I will share the explanations
provided in your email of 5 July with others who have an interest in this
matter. Best wishes,
Philip Grant.’
In order to be transparent, Cllr. Rita Begum has declared a number of
other items in her Register of Interests on the Council’s
website, including that she is an ‘Ambassador
for Gem environmental building services LTD and Paytap’ and a ‘Director of R.B
Associates PVT LTD’.
Two examples from the “Who we work for” page of Gem’s website.
Gem Environmental Building Services Ltd’s (“Gem”) website describes the
company as ‘one of the fastest-growing maintenance companies in London.’ Their
clients include a number of London Boroughs, including Camden, Islington, Tower
Hamlets and the City of Westminster (but not Brent – yet). But why do Gem need
a Labour councillor as an ambassador?
The Companies House website shows that R.B Associates PVT Ltd (Company
No. 14533968) was incorporated in December 2022, with a registered office at a
private address in London NW10, and its sole director and shareholder Ms Rita
Begum. The nature of its business is shown as ‘environmental consulting
activities’. Perhaps that is where any fees for acting as an ambassador will be
paid to?
But, of course, Cllr. Begum has been transparent about these interests,
so that’s fine, isn’t it?
Philip Grant.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
