This is the text of an email sent by Philip Grant to Chris Walker,
Brent's Assistant Director Planning and Development, on 23 January
2013:-
VALIDITY OF WILLESDEN GREEN LIBRARY CENTRE PLANNING APPLICATION
REF. 12/2924
Further to my email yesterday,
forwarding a copy of an email I had sent to Andy Bates, I am writing to
formally question the validity of planning application 12/2924 (made in the
name of Galliford Try Plc) for the proposed redevelopment of Willesden Green
Library Centre.
This application was received by Brent
Planning Service on 2 November 2012, and validated on the same day, even though
it took until 15 November to load all of the supporting documents
onto your website. At some later stage, however, one of your Planning
Officers either realised, or had brought to their attention by a comment made
in respect of the application, that this application, as it stood, was not
a valid one.
Having reviewed the Department of
Communities and Local Government document "Guidance on Information
Requirements and Validation" via the Planning Portal website, I can see
why this application, as submitted, was not valid.
- Paragraph 40 makes clear that among 'the information required to
make a valid planning application' is the 'mandatory national
information requirements specified in the GDPO.'
- Para. 44 says: 'The GDPO requires applicants to submit “a plan
which identifies the land to which the application relates”. This is
interpreted as a location plan and a site plan.'
- Para. 46 states: 'The application site should be edged clearly with
a red line. It should include all land necessary to carry out the proposed
development – for example, land required for access to the site from a
public highway, visibility splays, landscaping, car parking and open areas
around buildings.'
The site plan originally submitted
failed to include all of the land necessary to carry out the proposed
development, because it did not, among other things, include land in Grange
Road on which development forming an integral part of the application proposals
would be carried out.
Having discovered that an application
which had been treated as valid was in fact invalid, it appears that the
applicant was invited by one of your Planning Officers to "correct"
the site plan. As Andy Bates explained to me in his email of 21 January:
'I am
happy to confirm that ... the revised plans amended the red line to
include all the land that forms the application site. Previously, the northern
end of Grange Road was shown as being the subject of future highway works that
formed part of the development site, but not within the red line. Planning
Officers requested that this site plan be corrected and it was on this basis
that the new batch of plans was submitted.'
As a result, revised
plans were submitted, including site plans with a new red line site boundary,
just before Christmas 2012, with the revised site plans uploaded onto your
website on 24 December 2012. This revised application must
therefore be treated as replacing the invalid application of 2
November 2012.
The question now shifts to whether this
revised application is valid. On the technical grounds that the revised
site plan now 'includes all land necessary to carry out the proposed
development', it would appear to be valid, but my email yesterday to Andy Bates
highlighted a further point. For ease of reference, I will repeat the main
points of my argument on this aspect of the "site plan".
The site plan showing the site
available to the proposed development partner for the Willesden Green Library
Centre redevelopment was shown as plan A at Appendix 1 of the report by Andrew
Donald, Director of Regeneration and Major Projects, to Brent's Executive on 16
January 2012. In that report, Mr Donald made specific reference to the red line
site boundary, as follows:
4.18 Following the Executive approval of February 2011 the Council also
reviewed the red line site boundary of the site. In order to maximise viability
it was decided to incorporate Chambers Lane - the land marked crossed hatched
black on plan C at Appendix 1 - within the WGLC site, as shown edged black in
the plan A at Appendix 1. In February 2011 the Executive had previously
authorised the Assistant Director of Regeneration & Major Projects
(Property & Assets) to dispose of the land at Chambers Lane Willesden Green
shown crossed edged black on plan C at Appendix 1 with vacant possession by way
of auction.
4.19 In June 2011, having defined the site and the Council's
requirements for the cultural centre, a tender process was followed in
accordance with the HCA DPP Framework procurement procedures, a framework which
the HCA has set up already under the EU procurement rules.
This extract confirms that the
"defined" site marked by the red line (as edged and cross hatched in
black on Plan A) was the redevelopment site on offer to the developer. Brent
Executive's decision on this point (from item 5, Willesden Green Redevelopment
Project, of the minutes of their meeting on 16 January 2012) is recorded
as:
'that the
Director of Regeneration and Major Projects in consultation with Director of
Legal & Procurement be authorised to award and enter into a Development
Agreement with Galliford Try Plc in respect of the Willesden Green Library
Centre site as shown crossed hatched black in the plan A at Appendix 1; such
agreement to provide for the acquisition of the land as shown edged blue and
green in the plan B at Appendix 1 and the development of a new cultural centre
within the land as shown edged orange in the plan B at Appendix 1.'
You will note that the Executive only
authorised an agreement with Galliford Try Plc 'in respect of the Willesden
Green Library Centre site as shown cross hatched black in the plan A at
Appendix 1'. The original site plan submitted for this application on 2
November 2012 did show a red line boundary which matched that approved by
Brent's Executive.
I am not aware of any further authority
given by Brent's Executive to allow the red boundary line to be altered in
order to enlarge the site. What appears to have happened is that Galliford Try
Plc and Brent's Regeneration Department have failed to fit all of the
"Council Works" required by their Development Agreement onto the 2170
square metres of the 7795 sqm Willesden Green Library Centre site which was
allocated as the land for those works. In order to "deliver" those
works, they have moved some of the proposed facilities onto public highway land
at the north end of Grange Road, outside of the site boundary.
Although the "correction" to
the red site boundary line contained in the revised plans brings all of the
proposed development within the red line on the site plan, that site plan does
not show the site boundary as put forward by the Director of Regeneration and
Major Projects, agreed by Brent's Executive, and set out in the Development
Agreement. I would submit that the revised application of around 24
December 2012, which replaced the invalid application of 2 November 2012, is
itself invalid, because it purports to show a site boundary which is not
the actual site boundary.
I will forward a copy of this email to
Joe Kwateng, at Democratic Services, so that he can consider whether this is a
valid application which should go forward to Planning Committee. I will also
ask him to consider whether, if it is valid, it can go before that Committee on
Wednesday 13 February, as Public Notice of the revised application
will not be published in the local press until tomorrow, 24 January 2013, so
that the extended Public Consultation Period will not end until 14 February
2013.