Showing posts with label planning application. Show all posts
Showing posts with label planning application. Show all posts

Tuesday 8 August 2023

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.

 


Monday 8 May 2023

Developer's proposal to add extra floors to Fairfield Court, Harlesden, at Planning Committee on Wednesday

 

Fairfield Court, Longstone Avenue, Harlesden

The site

With potential building sites at a premium the strategy is to build high on small footprint sites.  In Wembley this has been new towers but across the country it is becoming common for develpers to add extra storeys to existing buildings.

This is what is happening to the sequence of blocks making up Fairfield Court in Harlesden where the proposal to be heard at Planning Commitete on Wednesday May 10th is:

Proposed two second floor extensions and third floor extension to create six new self-contained dwellings including 4 rear dormer windows and new solar panel. Construction of two rear access staircases

The proposal would create additional floors to the building accommodating no’s 5-6 and 20-21 Fairfield Court increasing the height of the building from two- to three-storeys. The other additional floor would be above no’s 7-12 and 14-19 block of units, increasing the height from 3 to 4-storeys. Accommodation would also be provided in the roof of that block. The blocks would be composed to increase from 2 to 3 and then 4-storeys with the taller blocks situated further into the site.

Planning officer are recommending that the application be approved.

Proposed structure - blue line is current height

 The proposal has received 41 objections as recorded on the Brent Council Planning Portal, a 105 signature petition objecting to the plans and opposition for Cllr Jumbo Chan.

This objection is froma Fairfield House resident:

 

As a Fairfield Court resident, I have several reasons to object to this planning application.


This proposal not only changes the original character of this charming purpose built 1930s block but has a significant impact on the amount of light coming to the flat.


Being on the ground floor and due to the new build opposite; the flat has significantly lost light coming in. This would be exacerbated by this proposal. One of the attractions of moving into this building was the garden and amount of light. I already have a low level of sunlight into my living room- this is going to be made much worse. The daylight report makes clear that windows to my flat will be negatively and permanently impacted. To note, Fairfield suffers from damp which will worsen if both height and the staircase is added.


The data within the report about Vertical Sky Component, and No SkyLine is illegible. The conclusions are made that the impacts are not enough to reach the threshold of concern. I cannot decipher or assess the illegible data. However, the tables show that the development WILL negatively impact my flat. Saying the threshold is 20% but the damage to my flat is only 18% seems disingenuous and cruel. There is nothing to stop 18% sunlight being lost today and further 18% being lost in the near future.


The proposed staircase and its footfall would be directly outside my living room and bedroom. I would experience visual intrusion and a lack of privacy into my sitting room and front bedroom. This is not only a visual intrusion but also could add to anti-social behaviour. The space in which the proposed staircase would go has previously been closed to stop antisocial behaviour. This would overall have an overall negative impact on my quality of life and wellbeing.


I see the proposal does not speak about the increased pressure that would be on the communal garden which is well used by the number of children and families living in the block.


For example, any new 'refuse storage' construction would mean we would have to lose more of the front garden and possibly even the trees. With the proposed 'additional car and cycle parking spaces' at the front of Fairfield, would result in the loss of more of the communal front garden area, leading to more noise disturbance and air pollution caused by vehicles. There would be further limited communal garden space for residents.

 

 Planners of course see the high rise building opposite as a reason to support the proposal as it would be 'appropriate in the context' of the surrounding area.

 

The negative impact on the current attractive amenity space is  mentioned by a number of objectors. This is the developer's response.


 

As no affordable homes will be provided in the development the Council is asking for a Section 106 agreement for a payment of £300,000 from the developer for affordable housing elsewhere.

 

Officers' Report Conclusion recommending approval (Application 22/3634)

 

The proposal would not involve any private amenity space for the proposed units, however, there is a substantial amount of communal external amenity space existing within the site, with approximately 1500sq.m of shared gardens space to the rear of the buildings and additional areas to the front. This could clearly cater for the existing and proposed residents (exceeding current standards) and would provide high quality external space. Therefore, in this instance the absence of private external amenity space is accepted. It is noted that the site is also in close proximity of Roundwood Park which provides other good quality external amenity space

 

The proposal would create additional floors to the building accommodating no’s 5-6 and 20-21 Fairfield Court increasing the height of the building from two- to three-storeys. The other additional floor would be above no’s 7-12 and 14-19 block of units, increasing the height from 3 to 4-storeys. Accommodation would also be provided in the roof of that block. The blocks would be composed to increase from 2 to 3 and then 4-storeys with the taller blocks situated further into the site.

 

While officers note that the proposal would be built over some (non-designated) green space within the site, the extent of this is minimal and the submitted revised landscaping plan confirms the planting of new trees and shrubs within the site which officers consider would mitigate against impacts associated with this. Further, the proposed parking arrangements would be made of permeable paving which would be beneficial in terms of drainage.

 

While officers note that the proposal would be built over some (non-designated) green space within the site, the extent of this is minimal and the submitted revised landscaping plan confirms the planting of new trees and shrubs within the site which officers consider would mitigate against impacts associated with this. Further, the proposed parking arrangements would be made of permeable paving which would be beneficial in terms of drainage.

 

The proposal would result in the creation of six new homes, including 4 family sized homes, and a contribution towards the provision of off-site Affordable housing would be secured in line with policy. The proposal would increase the height of the existing buildings above that of some of the homes in the area. However, the resulting scale is considered appropriate when considering the full context of the site including the taller buildings on the eastern side of Longstone Avenue.


An objector has commented that the submitted daylight and sunlight assessment incorrectly assesses whether the development projects above a 25 degree line from the middle of windows of Springwell Avenue properties. This has been examined by officers and while the proposal is likely to comply with the 25 degree line taken from the objector’s property, it appears likely that it will project above a 25 degree line taken from the middle of the nearest windows of two other properties (Nos. 34 and 36). However, the presence of very large trees is likely to already significantly impact the light received by these windows and it is considered unlikely that the proposal will result in a material additional impact. Additional parking capacity would be provided through changes to the frontage parking area, and while over-spill parking is not anticipated, it is likely to be easily accommodated on street.

 

The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan when read as a whole and it is recommended that planning permission is granted.




Tuesday 2 May 2023

Brent Council revises Newland Court planning application reducing the number of units

 

Revised application

July 2022 application


Some residents received a letter from Brent Council before the weekend directing them to a revised Newland Court application. Unfortunately the documentation had not been uploaded to the Council Planning Portal and only appeared this morning, perhaps after a rminder from Wembley Matters.  The deadline for responses is May 25th.


The number of housing units has been reduced from 7 to 5, fewer trees will be removed and on-site parking increased according to Maddox acting for the applicant,  Brent Council:

 

This planning statement addendum has been prepared to account for minor changes to the scheme, in response to feedback received from officers at Brent Borough Council and other stakeholders during the consultation stage on the original planning application which was submitted in September 2022 (LPA ref: 22/3124).

 

Notably, this included concerns from the highways officer regarding parking overspill, whereby the removal of residential units and additional car parking along Newland Court was recommended. The tree officer also raised concerns regarding the future maintenance of trees.

 

The Applicant has carefully reviewed the proposals in line with these comments, with the total number of residential units reduced alongside several other resultant changes. These are summarised below, with this addendum prepared as an updated to the previously submitted planning statement accounting for all key changes.

 

Units 01 and 07 have been omitted from the proposals. As such, the total number of units has been reduced from seven to five units now comprising 3 x 3-bedroom 5 person units and 2 x 4-bed 7 person units.


The removal of two residential units has allowed for a substantial increase to car parking.


In total, 28 on-street car parking spaces are now re-provided as part of the proposals (in comparison to 12 under the original planning application).


The private amenity areas serving the proposed units have been increased in size (again as a result in the reduction to the total number of residential units). This is explained in further under the proposed development section and within the Design and Access addendum (as prepared by FBM).


The overall site area has reduced to 0.350hectares (as a result of the reduction in total unit number).


The location of the bin stores has been revised to more convenient locations for existing/future residents.


The total number of trees and tree groups proposed for removal to accommodate the proposals has been reduced from 13 to eight trees and tree groups. These are all low-Grade C trees and tree groups. 14 new trees will be planted across the site.


15 existing trees and tree groups will be retained, with additional protection measures proposed for five of these trees and tree groups which will be affected by the proposed works. This is summarised in full within the supporting Arboriculture Impact Assessment Addendum (March 2023) (as prepared by Waterman).


The reduction in the total number of residential units minimises maintenance of trees whilst enhancing the outlook for future residents. This directly responds to previous concerns from Brent Borough Councils Tree officer.


Further landscaping has been incorporated at the entrance of the scheme, enhancing outlook and a sense of arrival for residents and visitors directly in line with comments received form Brent Borough Council planning officers. 1.7 metre footpaths are also provided either side of the proposed one-way street, allowing additional green space to communal green areas of Newland Court.