Brent challenged on Willesden Green planning process

Philip Grant writes:

The online copies of plans and supporting documents for the Willesden Green Library Centre applications (12/2924 and 12/2925) have finally appeared on Brent's Planning website (late on Thursday 15 November). They can be accessed at:

https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=101150&reference=109728&st=PL .

Comments and objections have also started to be posted, but the way these remove paragraph breaks, and substitute upside down question marks for apostrophes and quotations, makes any long comment very difficult to follow. A comment which I sent in on 12 November is an example, and as this raises an important issue for the way in which the planning application should be dealt with in practice, I am asking the hosts of the KWG blog to re-publish it here:

I am still unable to comment on the details of the planning application, because the plans and supporting documents are not yet available to view online. I am, however, writing to make clear that although the application is shown as being in the sole name of Galliford Try Plc, this is, in law, a joint application with the London Borough of Brent, and should be treated accordingly when considered by Brent's Planning Committee.

I have previously (in respect of the withdrawn application ref. 12/1190) put this point in writing to Brent's chief legal officer, Fiona Ledden. On 1 June 2012 she replied that:

'It is a requirement of the Development Agreement that Galliford Try Plc submits a planning application to the Council in respect of the proposed scheme and if planning permission is granted to carry out the development. In the circumstances it is not correct to say that the Council should be a party to that application.'

However, it is under that Development Agreement of February 2012, and all of the other surrounding facts and evidence, that Brent and Galliford Try are clearly engaged in a joint development project, whereby Galliford Try will build a new Cultural Centre for Brent in return for Brent giving Galliford Try the land on which to build flats for sale at a profit. The Development Agreement is a contract, but the requirement of that contract referred to by Ms. Ledden cannot over-ride the factual legal relationship between them which is that they are jointly engaged in the development. In law, both parties to a joint development should be named as "applicant" in planning applications in respect of that development.

The fact that Brent is a joint "applicant" (or even if this is still disputed, is at the very least an "interested party" in the application) means that item 12 of Brent's Planning Code of Practice applies. This states that:

'If any officer of the Council who is involved in making recommendations or decisions on planning applications has had any involvement with an applicant, agent or interested party, whether or not in connection with the particular application being determined, which could possibly lead an observer with knowledge of all the relevant facts to suppose that there might be any possibility that the involvement could affect the officer's judgement in any way, then that officer shall declare a prejudicial interest in the public register held by the Director of Regeneration and Major Projects and take no part in the decision making process. This public register to be available for inspection at Planning Committee meetings.'

Brent's Director of Regeneration and Major Projects, Andy Donald, is the person responsible for Brent Council's role in this planning application, and also the head of the department which includes Planning and Development. Therefore: 'any officer of the Council who is involved in making recommendations' on these applications has an 'involvement' with Andy Donald, and must declare a 'prejudicial interest' in the public register in connection with the application, 'and take no part in the decision making process'.

In another letter to me, of 27 June 2012, Fiona Ledden assured me that, whatever their personal views, members of the Planning Committee must approach their decision making with an open mind. She explained that:

'What in practice this means is that members of the planning committee are bound by the Council's Planning Code of Practice and if they have been involved in any way with promoting the scheme for Willesden Library they will be unable to vote on the planning application.'

As Planning Committee member Cllr. Ann John was clearly involved in promoting this redevelopment scheme, she will presumably be barred from voting on it.

'Bog standard' Willesden Green regeneration acclaimed by William Morris?

In a shock move today Brent Council published in the Brent Magazine Page 13 (unlucky?) http://www.brent.gov.uk/media.nsf/Pages/LBB-216 that they were abandoning their plans for a Cultural Centre in favour of a Toilet building on a tiny site crammed between the much loved heritage library and five invisible blocks of 92 flats (these cannot be shown for legal reasons). An expert has speculated that the five blocks will also have the visual impression of Toilets, but a different type of toilet you understand. 

The Toilet building will be constructed of very cheap breeze blocks with white painted rendering. The architect has included unadorned bits of brickwork shoved in as a homage to the general brick nature of the buildings that he has noticed in the Willesden High Road. It is understood from a presentation given a few weeks ago that the Architect has been influenced by the well known William Morris of Arts and Crafts fame, but no sign of any willow leaves could be noted in the picture. It is felt that if William Morris were around today he would have abandoned any pretence of following the lines of nature and would be endorsing this exciting and unoriginal crude approach to architecture.

Andy Donald (Director of Regeneration and Major Projects) should have said " Feedback has been diabolical with just about everyone that I have heard from being dead against the project. We have not reported in any way honestly about the consultation exercise because we are embarrassed to admit that we are turning against the wishes of the community in such a grand fashion". Mr Donald has not actually been observed at any consultation meeting that has taken place in recent weeks and has been relying on the bowdlerised (edited)  half page of biased notes produced after each meeting. http://www.brent.gov.uk/regeneration.nsf/Willesden%20Green%20Library/LBB-343

A spokesperson for the Community said " It is hoped that Galliford Try will not commence any work on such an appalling scheme at any time in the future"

A spokesperson for Galliford Try omitted to mention the £10,500,000 profit that his company will earn by being donated more than 60% of a Council/Community owned site without having to produce a public building of any sort of real quality in return.

It is hoped that the toilet will have free access at all times, especially for those who feel sick of the sight of it.

Martin R

(with apologies to Private Eye)

Stop Press: Admiralty Arch in Trafalgar Square sold for £60m for hotel scheme! A spokesperson explained " we very much respect and cherish this major part of our British heritage. We are currently in consultation about options for the site. These include lopping off 60% of either the northern or southern end to accommodate the iconic new hotel structure or possibly removing the centre section entirely because it tends to block the traffic flow along the Mall (as seen in the recent Olympics)." The Queen was unavailable for comment.

Andy Donald's 'one fell swoop' to take out environmental and transport demands

Kate Spence writes:

Article in Architects Journal dated March 2011: 

With this in mind, it is the right time to call for similarly direct language in the government’s proposed national planning policy framework. At a roundtable at MIPIM last year, Andrew Donald, a regeneration boss with Brent Council, pretty much said as much. ‘I’d take out all the demands around environmental and transport requirements in one fell swoop,’ he said, ‘and replace that with something to the point about what development is going to make to local area, written in plain English.

Andy Donald

 Mr Donald, Director  of Major Projects and Regeneration for Brent Council, has clearly extended his "take out in one fell swoop" list since March 2011.

In Willesden the list includes Conservation Area, Literacy, Cultural Amenity, Public Space, Children's Playground, Car Parking, Market Square, Cinema, Bookshop, circulation space, study desks while across the borough we are losing libraries.

Perhaps, he could explain "in plain English" exactly what difference the Galliford Try development is going to make to Willesden Green and why such highly valued Public Amenity can be taken out "in one fell swoop". 

The Ignoring of the Five Thousand

The 'Gospel According to Brent Democratic Services' is a strange one. Keep Willesden Green are aggrieved at the lack of consultation and full public information on the Willesden Green regeneration proposals and want Brent Council to 'Stop, Listen and Reflect' before carrying on.  We claim that the Executive decision to approve the scheme without proper consultation was wrong.

Two petitions, one on retaining the Old Willesden Library and the other on allocating the Willesden Bookshop space in the proposed Cultural Centre have attracted 5710 and 1295 names respectively.  However because the Executive made the decision to go ahead with the scheme Democratic Services have rejected tabling the petitions at Full Council and may do the same for a request for them to go before the Executive.

In the Old Willesden Library case with more than 5,000 names Brent Council's guidelines are clear:

If a petition contains 5,000 or more signatures and is not a petition requesting officer evidence, it will, if requested by the petition organiser, be referred for debate by Full Council. The petition organiser will be informed of the date of the meeting, invited to attend and to take up to 5 minutes to present the petition. The petition will then be considered by councillors

At the next Full Council is not until May and is largely ceremonial with the induction of the new Mayor, and the planning application will be made before then, Democratic Services have said that both petitions should be taken into account by Andy Donald, Head of Regeneration and Major Projects, as part of the application process.  However Andy Donald is the instigator of the council-private partnership project, has defended it strongly at Executive and Scrutiny meetings, and will be making the planning application.

As far as the Planning Committee goes, despite its statutory independence, it will be Brent Council, via the Executive making an application to Brent councillors.  Labour councillors hold the majority of places on the planning committee.

The Council's stonewalling and avoidance of debate raises vital issues of democratic accountability and Keep Willesden Green will continue to press for a full debate of these issues.