Barham Park has been the subject of a lengthy blog by Philip Grant on Wembley Matters. Without wishing to pick on anyone, I think it worth looking at in detail as it illustrates many of the confusions about local government debates that create unnecessary heat.
Member and Officer Roles
One of the key confusions is between the roles of members and officers. The elected members (councillors) determine the policy of the Council in committee. The reports that committee considers is a set of recommendation by Council officers, based on their professional expertise. Therefore the suggestion that there is a split where the officers are forcing the councillors to make a decision is wrong, and cannot be right. When councillors feel they are being "forced" into a decision that usually means that they cannot think of an argument why the officer recommendation is wrong. To me, that seems more likely councillors failing to engage intellectually.
Essentially, the role of officers is to give information and advice on technocratic questions like cost, legality, feasibility and so on. The councillors are supposed to make value judgements. For instance how much weight should be given to retaining community space compared to bringing it into use for another purpose, for example?
The odd thing about Mr Grant's post is that he explicitly refers to officers being overruled by councillors in an earlier planning decision, but seems to feel that councillors were "forced" to follow advice at a meeting of the Barham Trust where the councillors decided to appeal the planning refusal.
The Barham Park Trust
The five members of the Barham Park Trust could have overruled the officers in exactly the same way as the Planning Committee. They interpreted their role as trustee as appealing the planning refusal, which is entirely in line with the earlier decision to rent out the property to ACAVA. The Council officers are simply implementing the decision that the councillors have made. They would be professionally remiss, and probably sackable, if they did anything else.
Incidentally, I dislike the way that Mr Grant names specific officers and accuses them of particular forms of misconduct. Not only have none of these officers committed any misconduct, by convention they cannot answer back to such accusations. To make personal criticisms of named individuals when they cannot answer back violates the principles of basic fairness.
What is the Agenda Here?
I am now going into speculation about motives, which is risky as I think Mr Grant demonstrates. I don't think his speculations about various peoples' motivations make sense, and in speculating on other peoples' motives I risk the same problem. However, here goes.
This whole row has essentially been whipped up by Cllr Paul Lorber, who seems to me to have two motivations. One is party political. He wants to whip up controversy ahead of the election on 22 May as he thinks that may benefit his party. That is perhaps understandable. The second relates to his position as one of the bidders in the original tendering process. Despite his best efforts to muscle in on the committee's decision, Cllr Lorber's bid was considered on the same basis as everyone else. I was on the Committee and it was obvious to me that Cllr Lorber's bid was markedly inferior to that of ACAVA. I believe that Cllr Lorber's second motivation for seeking to use legal and planning objections to block the new tenant is down to a combination of sour grapes and an attempt to use the planning process to secure a tenancy when a decision was made not to give him one.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query planning decision. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query planning decision. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, 9 May 2014
Tuesday, 1 May 2018
Another Erratic Planning Decision
Back in March, Brent's Planning Committee decided it wanted to refuse the Planning permission for a new development on Queens Parade in Willesden for more student housing, a position consistent with previous decisions made in the Willesden High Road area. Normally that would be that, but for some reason this has been recorded as a "minded to" decision rather than the outright rejection that I reported before. This is very odd as previously refusals have tended to be done on the night and noted; only granting permission against officers recommendation has led to this kind of pause. The reason being that granting has no appeal whereas a refusal can always be appealed through the Planning Inspector.
This is another way in which Planning in Brent appears to become increasingly peculiar during Cllr Muhammed Butt's leadership.
It was followed by another deferral in April. Previously officer practice was to discourage deferrals without good reason as they stopped the Council meeting its targets for timely resolution of planning applications and therefore damaged the Council's reputation.
This is another way in which Planning in Brent appears to become increasingly peculiar during Cllr Muhammed Butt's leadership.
It was followed by another deferral in April. Previously officer practice was to discourage deferrals without good reason as they stopped the Council meeting its targets for timely resolution of planning applications and therefore damaged the Council's reputation.
Monday, 15 June 2015
Corrib Rest Queens Park
The Corrib Rest on Salusbury Road is closed, and a number of residents are seeking to prevent its redevelopment by listing it as an asset of community value (ACV). Unfortunately ACV status does not do what many people seem to think it does.
Planning
An idea has gone around that ACV status is important in refusing planning permission. This emerged as widely held belief as part of the campaign against rebuilding The Queensbury in Willesden. In fact, the Planning Inspector gave no real consideration to ACV status in that case. Whereas ACV status is a "material consideration" that just means that the Committee consider it, it carries no particular guidance as to how much weight they attach. In both The Queensbury and the former Kensal Rise Library cases, officers advised that ACV status was not an important factor.
What can be more important is change of use from "community use" (D1) status. Brent has a policy of resisting loss of community space (defined as D1 class in planning terms), so that can be a barrier to redevelopment. It certainly was in the Kensal Rise case, as library use is unequivocally D1 status. It also featured in The Queensbury, as it was argued that some of the pub uses were effectively community use (especially the Busy Rascals toddler group). However, the developer met those concerns in the proposal so it was not a reason for refusal, and therefore never came before the Inspector.
I am not sure whether parts of the Corrib Rest might have a claim to D1 status, given its former somewhat controversial history as the Irish Centre. It may do as it might be viewed as a community centre, and it might be possible to retrospectively classify it as such, although I am sure that any developer would challenge such a move. If it is simply seen as a pub such a move would not be possible and it would not have protection against change of use.
Pub Protection
In some authorities, pubs do have specific protection, but not in Brent. I understand The Queensbury campaign lobbied for such a policy, and were even promised changes would be made to the Council's Planning policies, but no such changes were made at the relevant meetings.
ACV Status and Ownership Transfer
Where ACV status might be relevant to any Corrib Rest development is in terms of transfer of ownership. This is in fact the main purpose of ACV status under the Localism Act. If successfully listed, ACV listing would force a moratorium on any sale for six months to allow community groups to see if they could muster sufficient funds to buy the property.
Again this is not as much of a barrier as it sounds. With London prices, I doubt whether any community group could afford anything like the market price. The owner does not actually have to sell to such a group in any case, merely allow a six month pause. Ownership has no effect on planning permission. I have heard a rumour that people are being told that the Council can delay considering a planning application because of ACV status. I am sure that is wrong. The Council is obliged to consider all applications (including any that came from some one who did not own the land). If it were to refuse to do so, or delay without good reason, the applicant could appeal to the Planning Inspector and get a decision that way.
A final point worth making, is that ACV status only kicks in if the Council actually decides to grant it, which is not automatic. If the building were to be sold prior to ACV status being granted, there would be no moratorium, as happened in the case of the former Kensal Rise Library.
UPDATE
One of the comments below points out that ACV status will automatically force an applicant to ask for planning permission if they want to change the Corrib Rest from a pub to something else, following changes to the use class rules that came into force from April. I still suspect that this something of a distraction, however, as Brent has historically given little weight to ACV status as a planning consideration.
FURTHER UPDATE
It is odd how irate anonymous comments can be. In response to the most recent comment, I have published a correction. As far as I am aware, no one currently knows if there is any plan to change the use of the Corrib Rest. There may be, or it might reopen as a pub/restaurant again as has often happened in other cases.
Planning
An idea has gone around that ACV status is important in refusing planning permission. This emerged as widely held belief as part of the campaign against rebuilding The Queensbury in Willesden. In fact, the Planning Inspector gave no real consideration to ACV status in that case. Whereas ACV status is a "material consideration" that just means that the Committee consider it, it carries no particular guidance as to how much weight they attach. In both The Queensbury and the former Kensal Rise Library cases, officers advised that ACV status was not an important factor.
What can be more important is change of use from "community use" (D1) status. Brent has a policy of resisting loss of community space (defined as D1 class in planning terms), so that can be a barrier to redevelopment. It certainly was in the Kensal Rise case, as library use is unequivocally D1 status. It also featured in The Queensbury, as it was argued that some of the pub uses were effectively community use (especially the Busy Rascals toddler group). However, the developer met those concerns in the proposal so it was not a reason for refusal, and therefore never came before the Inspector.
I am not sure whether parts of the Corrib Rest might have a claim to D1 status, given its former somewhat controversial history as the Irish Centre. It may do as it might be viewed as a community centre, and it might be possible to retrospectively classify it as such, although I am sure that any developer would challenge such a move. If it is simply seen as a pub such a move would not be possible and it would not have protection against change of use.
Pub Protection
In some authorities, pubs do have specific protection, but not in Brent. I understand The Queensbury campaign lobbied for such a policy, and were even promised changes would be made to the Council's Planning policies, but no such changes were made at the relevant meetings.
ACV Status and Ownership Transfer
Where ACV status might be relevant to any Corrib Rest development is in terms of transfer of ownership. This is in fact the main purpose of ACV status under the Localism Act. If successfully listed, ACV listing would force a moratorium on any sale for six months to allow community groups to see if they could muster sufficient funds to buy the property.
Again this is not as much of a barrier as it sounds. With London prices, I doubt whether any community group could afford anything like the market price. The owner does not actually have to sell to such a group in any case, merely allow a six month pause. Ownership has no effect on planning permission. I have heard a rumour that people are being told that the Council can delay considering a planning application because of ACV status. I am sure that is wrong. The Council is obliged to consider all applications (including any that came from some one who did not own the land). If it were to refuse to do so, or delay without good reason, the applicant could appeal to the Planning Inspector and get a decision that way.
A final point worth making, is that ACV status only kicks in if the Council actually decides to grant it, which is not automatic. If the building were to be sold prior to ACV status being granted, there would be no moratorium, as happened in the case of the former Kensal Rise Library.
UPDATE
One of the comments below points out that ACV status will automatically force an applicant to ask for planning permission if they want to change the Corrib Rest from a pub to something else, following changes to the use class rules that came into force from April. I still suspect that this something of a distraction, however, as Brent has historically given little weight to ACV status as a planning consideration.
FURTHER UPDATE
It is odd how irate anonymous comments can be. In response to the most recent comment, I have published a correction. As far as I am aware, no one currently knows if there is any plan to change the use of the Corrib Rest. There may be, or it might reopen as a pub/restaurant again as has often happened in other cases.
Thursday, 11 September 2014
Barham Park Planning Decision
I understand that the Planning Inspector has approved the permission for change of use of the Barham Park buildings. In reality, this was always predictable. There simply was no real grounds for refusal. Former councillors Dhiraj Kateria and Paul Lorber simply teamed up to bamboozle the Planning Committee into making a foolish decision causing unneeded delay and expense to both the taxpayer and ACAVA. In my view, it is simply a matter of a small number of people making vexatious objections to decisions they don't like. In this case, they invented a number of facts to support their case.
Recently, I have been active in the Indyref debate in Scotland, and some of the campaigners up there seem to have a similar ability to ignore inconvenient facts. Hopefully the No side will win, so we won't find yow how wrong the Yessirs were.
Recently, I have been active in the Indyref debate in Scotland, and some of the campaigners up there seem to have a similar ability to ignore inconvenient facts. Hopefully the No side will win, so we won't find yow how wrong the Yessirs were.
Monday, 4 March 2019
The Local History of Volunteer Library Bids in Brent
Some days ago, I posted on the apparent change in "Kensal Rise Library" policy between running the building independently and running it as a Council building. Given the ongoing decline in Council budgets, running the building as a Council library would entail reversing the successful Transformation strategy and closing down at least one library somewhere else, presumably one of the closest alternatives Kilburn (as suggested by the litigants in the past), Harlesden or Willesden.
The original intention of the campaign that first met on 1 December 2010 was simply to reject the Brent Council Transformation proposals, at least as they related to Kensal Rise Library. That meeting also thought about the possibility of bidding for the building although I sensed with a lack of enthusiasm and a certain lack of realism about what it entailed.
In January, along with the Head of Libraries, I met the two chairs of the FKRL to discuss the possibility of a third party takeover of the building in the old Education room at Willesden Library Centre. My heart sank when before they even sat down I was asked "How much money can you give us?". I was then shown a map with a triangle drawn with Chamberlayne Road on one side and All Souls Avenue on the other and the assertion that this was the area that "the Community" lived in. To their disappointment I emphasised how Brent Council was being forced to reduce budgets, and suggested that they needed to construct a business case if they wanted some sort of transitional arrangement to an independently run branch. I also offered to meet other members of the group, but was declined.
FKRL continued to pursue its campaign against the strategy in general with one of the co-chairs apparently trying to persuade some councillors not to vote through a Council budget at all that year.
The FKRL bid was sent to the Council by the March deadline and dealt with in the 11 April Executive report. It was rejected on the grounds I explained at the time.
The litigants then persuaded some councillors to call the decision in, which resulted in it being reaffirmed. They then took the Council to court with a judicial review. I am sure that at this stage they did so because they were certain that the Courts would overturn the decision. The challenge was to the whole strategy, but also relied on arguments specifically relating to the rejection of the various alternative proposals. The High Court heard the action in a case in July, and delivered a verdict in the Council's favour in October. That day the Council started implementing its decision with notices to staff etc. This quickly led to the litigants launching an appeal to block the strategy.
The first positive steps for the Strategy came with the introduction of seven day opening in November.
The appeal Court again rejected the appeal in December, when the Council was able to resume implementing its decision. At that time, FKRL submitted another bid to run the building independently, arguing this time that it would do so at no cost to the Council.
Meanwhile they attempted to persuade the Supreme Court to take another appeal. This appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court in February the following year, whereupon FKRL decided to threaten the Secretary of State with legal action over his failure to make a decision on some of their other complaints. He effectively voided this by rejecting their complaints.
Meanwhile, in February 2012, if you are still with me, All Souls College wrote to the Council suggesting that they now owned the building. The Council took legal advice on this contention, and wrote to the College in April saying it did not contest it. Finally, the building was handed over to the College in vacant possession to the College in May that year.
Since the building was no longer owned by the Council there was no actual decision to reject FKRL's second bid to run the building as an independent concern. It simply became irrelevant.
Once the building was back in possession of All Souls College, they decided to put it on the market. Brent Council briefly considered using for school places, but the College decided to sell it to a developer instead. At this time I believe FKRL put in their own independent bid to obtain the building. The developer appeared to be keen to work with FKRL, but the group reacted furiously to their third attempt to run the building being rejected, and demanded that the College rerun the whole process. The College declined to so, and the litigants met the new owner.
There followed an extremely lengthy war of attrition against the new owner, seeking to prevent him from getting planning permission for the building. This lasted until July 2014, when the decision went through. Once granted the owner decided to sell to a new developer called UpLift, who converted it and began marketing the flats from July 2016. FKRL appear to have managed a less hostile relationship with this developer and since then repeatedly suggested that they are going to manage the building independently again.
Although they have had a number of capital grants from the Council, these have not been as part of the Council's statutory library service, but are based the idea that the FKRL group is an independent charity for the purposes of running the building as a stand alone institution. A recent announcement put this in doubt.
The original intention of the campaign that first met on 1 December 2010 was simply to reject the Brent Council Transformation proposals, at least as they related to Kensal Rise Library. That meeting also thought about the possibility of bidding for the building although I sensed with a lack of enthusiasm and a certain lack of realism about what it entailed.
In January, along with the Head of Libraries, I met the two chairs of the FKRL to discuss the possibility of a third party takeover of the building in the old Education room at Willesden Library Centre. My heart sank when before they even sat down I was asked "How much money can you give us?". I was then shown a map with a triangle drawn with Chamberlayne Road on one side and All Souls Avenue on the other and the assertion that this was the area that "the Community" lived in. To their disappointment I emphasised how Brent Council was being forced to reduce budgets, and suggested that they needed to construct a business case if they wanted some sort of transitional arrangement to an independently run branch. I also offered to meet other members of the group, but was declined.
FKRL continued to pursue its campaign against the strategy in general with one of the co-chairs apparently trying to persuade some councillors not to vote through a Council budget at all that year.
The FKRL bid was sent to the Council by the March deadline and dealt with in the 11 April Executive report. It was rejected on the grounds I explained at the time.
The litigants then persuaded some councillors to call the decision in, which resulted in it being reaffirmed. They then took the Council to court with a judicial review. I am sure that at this stage they did so because they were certain that the Courts would overturn the decision. The challenge was to the whole strategy, but also relied on arguments specifically relating to the rejection of the various alternative proposals. The High Court heard the action in a case in July, and delivered a verdict in the Council's favour in October. That day the Council started implementing its decision with notices to staff etc. This quickly led to the litigants launching an appeal to block the strategy.
The first positive steps for the Strategy came with the introduction of seven day opening in November.
The appeal Court again rejected the appeal in December, when the Council was able to resume implementing its decision. At that time, FKRL submitted another bid to run the building independently, arguing this time that it would do so at no cost to the Council.
Meanwhile they attempted to persuade the Supreme Court to take another appeal. This appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court in February the following year, whereupon FKRL decided to threaten the Secretary of State with legal action over his failure to make a decision on some of their other complaints. He effectively voided this by rejecting their complaints.
Meanwhile, in February 2012, if you are still with me, All Souls College wrote to the Council suggesting that they now owned the building. The Council took legal advice on this contention, and wrote to the College in April saying it did not contest it. Finally, the building was handed over to the College in vacant possession to the College in May that year.
Since the building was no longer owned by the Council there was no actual decision to reject FKRL's second bid to run the building as an independent concern. It simply became irrelevant.
Once the building was back in possession of All Souls College, they decided to put it on the market. Brent Council briefly considered using for school places, but the College decided to sell it to a developer instead. At this time I believe FKRL put in their own independent bid to obtain the building. The developer appeared to be keen to work with FKRL, but the group reacted furiously to their third attempt to run the building being rejected, and demanded that the College rerun the whole process. The College declined to so, and the litigants met the new owner.
There followed an extremely lengthy war of attrition against the new owner, seeking to prevent him from getting planning permission for the building. This lasted until July 2014, when the decision went through. Once granted the owner decided to sell to a new developer called UpLift, who converted it and began marketing the flats from July 2016. FKRL appear to have managed a less hostile relationship with this developer and since then repeatedly suggested that they are going to manage the building independently again.
Although they have had a number of capital grants from the Council, these have not been as part of the Council's statutory library service, but are based the idea that the FKRL group is an independent charity for the purposes of running the building as a stand alone institution. A recent announcement put this in doubt.
Friday, 8 August 2014
Changing Planning Policy
Some of the Tweets around the campaign for Brent to have a Pub Protection policy in its planning rules say that some councillors promised this to The Queensbury campaigners some time ago. If so, I think the campaigners should ask those councillors why they didn't follow up. The matter was discussed by the Planning Committee back in February, and I have been talking to officers about different aspects of Planning policies for some time before that. I don't have strong feelings on the Pub issue, preferring to concentrate my attention on betting shops, payday loans, shisha bars and takeaways. These were reflected by officers in the documents now drafted for consultation. I am sure that had the councillors The Queensbury campaigners spoke to made similar representations, there would have been more detail on the possibilitities of a pub protection policy. I can find no evidence that any councillors raised this.
I would add a caveat, however. I don't think it would have affected The Queensbury decision. I think people ought also be realistic about how far planning can prevent pub closures. Pubs are independent businesses and a lot of what determines their success or failure is to do with their own decisions or those of their customers.
UPDATE
Thank you to The Queensbury campaign for their comment on a pub protection policy. The relevant planning policies were discussed by the Executive in March. The minutes show no mention of a pub protection policy. They do confirm that Cllr Butt was present, but evidently he chose not to raise the issue.
I would add a caveat, however. I don't think it would have affected The Queensbury decision. I think people ought also be realistic about how far planning can prevent pub closures. Pubs are independent businesses and a lot of what determines their success or failure is to do with their own decisions or those of their customers.
UPDATE
Thank you to The Queensbury campaign for their comment on a pub protection policy. The relevant planning policies were discussed by the Executive in March. The minutes show no mention of a pub protection policy. They do confirm that Cllr Butt was present, but evidently he chose not to raise the issue.
Tuesday, 14 November 2017
Planning and Ethics
Martin Francis reports that Cllr Muhammed Butt has been meeting developers and discussing planning applications with them. He implies this reprehensible.
Such would be the case if Cllr Butt were to subsequently pressure or otherwise instruct members of the Committee as to what decision they were to make. Indeed any such instruction might invalidate the decision altogether. It would also be dubious if he were to seek to influence the Planning officers in their recommendations. It is striking that Cllr Butt seems to show a great deal of interest in planning application, much more so than his predecessors.
Such would be the case if Cllr Butt were to subsequently pressure or otherwise instruct members of the Committee as to what decision they were to make. Indeed any such instruction might invalidate the decision altogether. It would also be dubious if he were to seek to influence the Planning officers in their recommendations. It is striking that Cllr Butt seems to show a great deal of interest in planning application, much more so than his predecessors.
Monday, 31 July 2017
Is Brent Council Getting a Good Deal from Quintain?
Right at the end of last week's Brent Council Cabinet there is a document recommending a £17.8 million spend on the public realm around Brent Civic Centre. That is a lot of money by any standard.
I have long been an advocate of a high quality public realm around the Civic Centre, and Wembley Library in particular, so you might think I would simply welcome this. In fact I have already welcomed the existing surroundings. The burden of the changes would partly fall on the Council and partly on Quintain, and it leaves me wondering whether the Council is getting the best possible deal.
I am not not reassured by the opacity of Quintain's relationship with the Council, or what often strike me as the perverse judgements of Cllr Muhammed Butt in planning matters, or the degree to which the Planning Committee is independent of the Council Leader's influence. The days when a Council Leader was subject to an investigation for a (false) accusation that she was seeking to influence a planning decision appear to be far behind us.
The contribution to Quintain is phrased as being in return for concessions, but it is not clear what these are or why Brent wants to change its previous policies. In the past, there have been strong pressures for more parking spaces near the Civic Centre, with little apparent understanding that urban planners regard the provision of more spaces as just generating more car use and therefore more pressure for parking spaces. I am really not at all clear that the current political leadership of Brent Council is sophisticated enough to negotiate with a major company such as Quintain.
I have long been an advocate of a high quality public realm around the Civic Centre, and Wembley Library in particular, so you might think I would simply welcome this. In fact I have already welcomed the existing surroundings. The burden of the changes would partly fall on the Council and partly on Quintain, and it leaves me wondering whether the Council is getting the best possible deal.
I am not not reassured by the opacity of Quintain's relationship with the Council, or what often strike me as the perverse judgements of Cllr Muhammed Butt in planning matters, or the degree to which the Planning Committee is independent of the Council Leader's influence. The days when a Council Leader was subject to an investigation for a (false) accusation that she was seeking to influence a planning decision appear to be far behind us.
The contribution to Quintain is phrased as being in return for concessions, but it is not clear what these are or why Brent wants to change its previous policies. In the past, there have been strong pressures for more parking spaces near the Civic Centre, with little apparent understanding that urban planners regard the provision of more spaces as just generating more car use and therefore more pressure for parking spaces. I am really not at all clear that the current political leadership of Brent Council is sophisticated enough to negotiate with a major company such as Quintain.
Monday, 23 October 2017
Another Odd Decision by Brent's Planning Committee
Brent's Planning Committee has been getting an increasing reputation for odd decisions during Cllr Muhammed Butt's time as Leader. The Manor Park Works decision strikes me as another one. Oddest about it is the voting figure that the Kilburn Times report gives: two councillors in favour, one against, three abstentions.
The Planning Committee has eight members. To have only two vote in favour and five either absent or abstaining seems rather odd. It suggests to me that the Committee did not entirely believe its case for rejecting officer recommendation to grant permission, in which case the Developer may well appeal.
The Planning Committee has eight members. To have only two vote in favour and five either absent or abstaining seems rather odd. It suggests to me that the Committee did not entirely believe its case for rejecting officer recommendation to grant permission, in which case the Developer may well appeal.
Monday, 16 December 2013
The Curious Case of the Barham Park Planning Appeal
Back in November, the Planning Committee was asked for permission to change the use of the various buildings that used to be the house of Mr Barham. I absented myself from that item, because I had been party to awarded the contract to the new tenant ACAVA, so I felt there might be an appearance of bias. Officers recommended granting permission, but the Committee decided to refuse, which would make it impossible for ACAVA to use it for artists' studios as intended.
The curiosity of this situation is that the application was made by the Council in its role as Trustee of the Barham Park charity. On Tuesday last week, the Charity decided to appeal the decision, meaning that the Council is now appealing against a decision of its own Planning Committee.
The curiosity of this situation is that the application was made by the Council in its role as Trustee of the Barham Park charity. On Tuesday last week, the Charity decided to appeal the decision, meaning that the Council is now appealing against a decision of its own Planning Committee.
Friday, 18 October 2019
Haringey Momentum Learns Local Government the Hard Way
Haringey Momentum influence a decision to block a scheme in the Borough. This decision is now overturned. The Planning Inspector has the power to levy costs on Haringey Council if he thinks the previous decision unreasonable. This is why you cannot have political caucases simply issuing dictats on planning applications.
Friday, 5 February 2016
Spending Other Peoples' Money
Brent Council is considering on Monday a report on spending planning gain monies, which amount to £3.8 million in this financial year. This is the funding that property developers pay the Planning Authority to offset the social impact of development. Brent takes a very centralised approach to this, in contrast to other Boroughs that spread decision making to all the Councillors in the Council. I am not sure that having the Cabinet nod through officers' recommendations in this way really provides the best democratic scrutiny or secures the most effective outcomes.
If you read the detail of the report there are some quite major decisions being taken. For instance, the report states that the entire education reserve has been spent. How much scrutiny did that get? I am not saying that that was necessarily a bad decision given the needs of Brent, but it should surely be made in a more transparent way. All of these themes" will have multiple projects that are being accepted or rejected. Effectively, who is really making the decision in each case and why? Again, the report states that Wembley gets the lion's share and Church End the least. I suspect there are good reasons for that, but should they be a bit more obviously in the public domain?
If you read the detail of the report there are some quite major decisions being taken. For instance, the report states that the entire education reserve has been spent. How much scrutiny did that get? I am not saying that that was necessarily a bad decision given the needs of Brent, but it should surely be made in a more transparent way. All of these themes" will have multiple projects that are being accepted or rejected. Effectively, who is really making the decision in each case and why? Again, the report states that Wembley gets the lion's share and Church End the least. I suspect there are good reasons for that, but should they be a bit more obviously in the public domain?
Thursday, 11 July 2013
Precautionary Principles and Politics
The Guardian blogs on the shortcomings of the precautionary principle and some rather disparaging remarks about the nature of its appeal.
The author is right in that the precautionary principle can easily become a way of simply blocking change, which can be bad if the potential change has positive consequences. Since big changes usually have both positive and negative consequences, this suggests a rational approach is to weigh up the evidence in a dispassionate manner.
Unfortunately, politics (and many of these decisions are inherently political even when taken by non-politicians) generally doesn't work like that. I thought it would be interesting to think about why not, and here is what I came up with:
1) Simplicity is great for campaigns. If you are organising a campaign, you need a simple message that people can easily get. Stop this, is such a message. Slightly more difficult is: GM foods could be dangerous, so stop them, but that still works pretty well. The message: here is all the evidence, and a careful examination shows a net disbenefit does not work at all.
2) Elite groups are these days distrusted. I suppose in the 1950s many people were more inclined to trust various expert or authoritarian groups such as governments, scientists etc. numerous scandals revealing lying, arrogance, incompetence and manipulation in their own self interest have greatly damaged the reputations of such groups. The whole NSA spying scandal is just the most recent prominent example. There also seems to have been a change in popular culture to value an image of an heroic outsider taking on authority, although I suspect this is more valued as fiction than in reality.
3) Problems are getting more complex. Or at least we seem to have more and more information about problems which makes decision making more complex. It is natural to seek a way to simplify such problems with a crude principle such as the precautionary principle, although I believe it is one example among many. Another commonly used simplification is ad hominum. I like and trust so-and-so, who is on this side of the argument so I will back his argument is another example. It was noticeable that Dr Wakefield was discredited over MMR not by the scientific arguments, but by allegations of self interest.
4) The Pristine Myth. This applies to particularly to the field of ecology, that there is a natural or original state that everything should conform to. In fact we know that everything is always changing in all sorts of ways. The entire English landscape has been fundamentally shaped by human interaction. Indeed human beings themselves and various organisms they interact with have shaped each other; just look at the domestic dog. The argument that the current state of things is natural ignores the way in which things have been changed by mega fauna that no longer exists _ a central argument for rewilding for example.
5) There is only one right decision. Finally, there is the idea that the public good unequivocally demands one decision, often the one that coincides with the advocate's own good. more generally, political decisions are made to distribute resources between different groups with different views and interests, and the decision maker has to balance these different groups rather than just caving in to one. A rigid application of the "precautionary principle" would presumably benefit those who benefit from the status quo rather than those who would benefit from change.
6) Groups have disproportionate stakes. A group that loses out particularly may shout much louder than a larger number of people who benefit from change only a small amount. There is also a paradoxical effect where a small interest group can convince themselves and others that they represent the true public interest, when in fact they represent only a sectional interest (Classically seen with NIMBY groups in planning applications).
The author is right in that the precautionary principle can easily become a way of simply blocking change, which can be bad if the potential change has positive consequences. Since big changes usually have both positive and negative consequences, this suggests a rational approach is to weigh up the evidence in a dispassionate manner.
Unfortunately, politics (and many of these decisions are inherently political even when taken by non-politicians) generally doesn't work like that. I thought it would be interesting to think about why not, and here is what I came up with:
1) Simplicity is great for campaigns. If you are organising a campaign, you need a simple message that people can easily get. Stop this, is such a message. Slightly more difficult is: GM foods could be dangerous, so stop them, but that still works pretty well. The message: here is all the evidence, and a careful examination shows a net disbenefit does not work at all.
2) Elite groups are these days distrusted. I suppose in the 1950s many people were more inclined to trust various expert or authoritarian groups such as governments, scientists etc. numerous scandals revealing lying, arrogance, incompetence and manipulation in their own self interest have greatly damaged the reputations of such groups. The whole NSA spying scandal is just the most recent prominent example. There also seems to have been a change in popular culture to value an image of an heroic outsider taking on authority, although I suspect this is more valued as fiction than in reality.
3) Problems are getting more complex. Or at least we seem to have more and more information about problems which makes decision making more complex. It is natural to seek a way to simplify such problems with a crude principle such as the precautionary principle, although I believe it is one example among many. Another commonly used simplification is ad hominum. I like and trust so-and-so, who is on this side of the argument so I will back his argument is another example. It was noticeable that Dr Wakefield was discredited over MMR not by the scientific arguments, but by allegations of self interest.
4) The Pristine Myth. This applies to particularly to the field of ecology, that there is a natural or original state that everything should conform to. In fact we know that everything is always changing in all sorts of ways. The entire English landscape has been fundamentally shaped by human interaction. Indeed human beings themselves and various organisms they interact with have shaped each other; just look at the domestic dog. The argument that the current state of things is natural ignores the way in which things have been changed by mega fauna that no longer exists _ a central argument for rewilding for example.
5) There is only one right decision. Finally, there is the idea that the public good unequivocally demands one decision, often the one that coincides with the advocate's own good. more generally, political decisions are made to distribute resources between different groups with different views and interests, and the decision maker has to balance these different groups rather than just caving in to one. A rigid application of the "precautionary principle" would presumably benefit those who benefit from the status quo rather than those who would benefit from change.
6) Groups have disproportionate stakes. A group that loses out particularly may shout much louder than a larger number of people who benefit from change only a small amount. There is also a paradoxical effect where a small interest group can convince themselves and others that they represent the true public interest, when in fact they represent only a sectional interest (Classically seen with NIMBY groups in planning applications).
Monday, 7 April 2014
Barham Park Planning Appeal
Last year, the Planning Committee _ foolishly in my opinion _ refused planning permission for change of use of the Barham Park buildings. This is unfortunate as it creates a delay in getting the buildings occupied. The Council went through an elaborate tendering process and awarded the lease to an Arts Charity called ACAVA. Unfortunately, Cllr Paul Lorber was able to exploit his position as a councillor to try to secure the building for his own purposes. He succeeded in bamboozling the committee into making a decision that makes very little sense in planning terms.
The matter has now gone to appeal. I would certainly expect permission to be granted. It is just a pity that delay and expense has been needlessly caused to the Council.
The matter has now gone to appeal. I would certainly expect permission to be granted. It is just a pity that delay and expense has been needlessly caused to the Council.
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
High Street Harlesden Planning Application
Very pleased with the result at Brent Council's planning committee last night. The proposed block of flats at 147 to 153 Harlesden High Street got turned down. This site has a long history, and I spoke against the application refused last night, just as I voted against the December proposal and the proposal of a couple of years ago.
Surprisingly, for a site with such a long history, a new issue has emerged in the past few days. 139 Harlesden High Street has two windows that abut the site and which would have had a severely restricted outlook. No one worried about these very much as there was an impression throughout the various applications that they were not the windows of habitable rooms. Planning policy makes a sharp distinction between "habitable rooms" like bedrooms, kitchens and living rooms, and non habitable rooms such as bathrooms, corridors and stairwells. It turns out that they are actually kitchen windows, and the only windows those rooms have. That dramatically changes the wieght they should be given in the decision, which in my view was the right one.
However, isn't it worrying that the error over whether they were habitable rooms persisted through the original application, the appeal, a subsequent outline application, and only got uncovered with the planning application refused last night?
Surprisingly, for a site with such a long history, a new issue has emerged in the past few days. 139 Harlesden High Street has two windows that abut the site and which would have had a severely restricted outlook. No one worried about these very much as there was an impression throughout the various applications that they were not the windows of habitable rooms. Planning policy makes a sharp distinction between "habitable rooms" like bedrooms, kitchens and living rooms, and non habitable rooms such as bathrooms, corridors and stairwells. It turns out that they are actually kitchen windows, and the only windows those rooms have. That dramatically changes the wieght they should be given in the decision, which in my view was the right one.
However, isn't it worrying that the error over whether they were habitable rooms persisted through the original application, the appeal, a subsequent outline application, and only got uncovered with the planning application refused last night?
Saturday, 24 August 2019
Preston Library Development Controversy
Interesting take from Martin Francis on the proposed "Preston Library" development. It sounds like a stormy and difficult meeting, not least because of the inaccurate statements being made. In particular Cllr Hirani should know better than to condemn the Brent Libraries Transformation Project since as a member of the Labour Group at the time he repeatedly voted for it. Cllr Kennelly's position is more forgivable since he was not a councillor back in 2011 and is presumably relying on inaccurate reports. However, his reported comments seem to be somewhat inconsistent.
Turning Down the CLG
Also interesting to have the CLG SoS ask the Planning Committee not to decide that night. That seems like an ultra low level for an SoS to operate on. It can't be based on the DCMS duty of supervision of libraries duty since (a) the Preston building is not part of the Library statutory service (b) that would be the job of the DCMS Secretary.
It could be based on a planning ground, but I can't imagine what. I think it is unhelpful if the Committee did, as in Martin's report, tell the public it was some kind of provisional decision which wasn't binding as I don't think that is really arguable under Brent's own rules (in which case he may have exposed the Council to a judicial review).
The final possibility I can think of is that someone at the CLG thinks that there is something decidedly about the way this whole development is being handled. The relatively small group running the "Library" has been given £258,000 grant by the Council, which dwarfs most of tits budget, and is reported to be expected a 49 year peppercorn rent. The amount of money going into such a small organisation seems to be disproportionate since the only publicly available figure about the number of users suggests that it managed 663 users in one month in 2015. I have suggested that this might be annualised to about 8,000/yr. Compare that to the usage of Brent public library at (say) Kilburn of about 200,000 per year.
Decline in Behavior
The reported raucous behavior of the audience is sadly a return to the way the library litigants behaved at various previous hearings and decision meetings. There were a num,ber of incident when they just shouted at people. In that respect, the 2011-12 process was somewhat reminiscent of the increasingly nasty behavior being normalised on twitter. Of course, it did no good when the case was decided in the Council's favour by the High Court.
I am saddened, but not surprised to find that Committee members made no effort to stick up for officers, who are just giving professional advice, and should not be subject to abuse as a result.
Turning Down the CLG
Also interesting to have the CLG SoS ask the Planning Committee not to decide that night. That seems like an ultra low level for an SoS to operate on. It can't be based on the DCMS duty of supervision of libraries duty since (a) the Preston building is not part of the Library statutory service (b) that would be the job of the DCMS Secretary.
It could be based on a planning ground, but I can't imagine what. I think it is unhelpful if the Committee did, as in Martin's report, tell the public it was some kind of provisional decision which wasn't binding as I don't think that is really arguable under Brent's own rules (in which case he may have exposed the Council to a judicial review).
The final possibility I can think of is that someone at the CLG thinks that there is something decidedly about the way this whole development is being handled. The relatively small group running the "Library" has been given £258,000 grant by the Council, which dwarfs most of tits budget, and is reported to be expected a 49 year peppercorn rent. The amount of money going into such a small organisation seems to be disproportionate since the only publicly available figure about the number of users suggests that it managed 663 users in one month in 2015. I have suggested that this might be annualised to about 8,000/yr. Compare that to the usage of Brent public library at (say) Kilburn of about 200,000 per year.
Decline in Behavior
The reported raucous behavior of the audience is sadly a return to the way the library litigants behaved at various previous hearings and decision meetings. There were a num,ber of incident when they just shouted at people. In that respect, the 2011-12 process was somewhat reminiscent of the increasingly nasty behavior being normalised on twitter. Of course, it did no good when the case was decided in the Council's favour by the High Court.
I am saddened, but not surprised to find that Committee members made no effort to stick up for officers, who are just giving professional advice, and should not be subject to abuse as a result.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Kensal Green Planning Appeals
There are two outstanding Planning Appeals in Kensal Green, which I thought I would update on.
The first is the appeal on the old service station site on High Street Harlesden, but backing on to Rucklidge Avenue. Submissions were over in August, but a decision is not expected until about four weeks from now. There is no way of telling what it will be until it is given.
The second is an appeal on the old ice cream place next to Furness Road pocket park. That is going to a public hearing on 25 October, although a decision is only likely to come some time after.
The first is the appeal on the old service station site on High Street Harlesden, but backing on to Rucklidge Avenue. Submissions were over in August, but a decision is not expected until about four weeks from now. There is no way of telling what it will be until it is given.
The second is an appeal on the old ice cream place next to Furness Road pocket park. That is going to a public hearing on 25 October, although a decision is only likely to come some time after.
Friday, 18 May 2012
Cllr Paul Lorber and his Standards Complaint
The report clearing Cllr Ann John of the charge of trying to fix a planning decision has now been published. It could not be clearer that there was no wrongdoing. However, the actions of Cllr Paul Lorber are worth commenting on. He instigated a complaint, but when the investigator asked for further details of the email he decided not to respond. To make a complaint and then fail to co-operate with its investigation is curious behaviour.
Saturday, 22 November 2014
The Importance of Forward Planning
I see Martin Francis is taking Brent Council to task for putting Stonebridge Adventure Playground on its Forward Plan and then off again. He concentrates on the suggestion that a report on a decision is being advertised as being taken before the consultation will have finished, which would suggest the consultation is something of a sham and that the Council is disregarding its own procedures. Both of these could potentially lead to legal action.
The Council has a statutory duty to put items on the Forward Plan at least three months before decision. Brent's own Constitution certainly used to demand a slightly long period of four months, although I am not sure if this has changed. Violation of such a rule could be a ground of legal challenge, as of course could the suggestion that the Council's miond was made up prior to the decision.
The Council has a statutory duty to put items on the Forward Plan at least three months before decision. Brent's own Constitution certainly used to demand a slightly long period of four months, although I am not sure if this has changed. Violation of such a rule could be a ground of legal challenge, as of course could the suggestion that the Council's miond was made up prior to the decision.
Sunday, 6 September 2009
Liberal Democrats Breaking Promises on Tall Buildings
When I started posting about Brent Liberal Democrats breaking their election promises, I didn't realise how much material the topic would cover. It is certainly a much longer list than if I tried to post about the promises they kept.
One promise they made was to ban tall buildings in Brent. Since then, they have given permission for several of more than twenty stories. One reason for this is that legally a Planning Authority cannot have a blanket ban on a particular kind of development. If you have a rule saying that you will never allow a building of more than X stories (say) you run into a concept called "fettered discretion", and either a Planning Inspector or a Court will overturn your decision.
Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats made a big issue of tall buildings in the run up to the local elections in 2006. Genesis Housing had a proposal to put up a 26 storey tower near Queens Park station in 2005. They withdrew the application in October 2005, because it obviously wouldn't have got planning permission. Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats went round telling the voters of Kilburn and Queens Park that Labour had a secret plan to build such a block. Of course, the Labour Party didn't but that did not stop the Liberal Democrats from peddling that line. Nor, to his shame, did it stop Jonathan Davies (until then a Labour councillor) from making the same claim.
The episode was also interesting as an example showing what the Americans call "astroturf" organisations. The kind of phoney grassroots organisations that the Republicans seem to have set up to block Obama's healthcare reforms. Of course, there was Jonathan Davies himself, who put out letters purporting to be independent when he was obviously in cahoots with the Liberal Democrats. But there was also a local residents group called "Stop the Tower" HERE. Although they claimed to be local people interested in the area. They haven't posted anything on their site since September 2006, when they congratulated themselves on defeating the Labour councillors.
I guess that made them feel that their work was done.
One promise they made was to ban tall buildings in Brent. Since then, they have given permission for several of more than twenty stories. One reason for this is that legally a Planning Authority cannot have a blanket ban on a particular kind of development. If you have a rule saying that you will never allow a building of more than X stories (say) you run into a concept called "fettered discretion", and either a Planning Inspector or a Court will overturn your decision.
Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats made a big issue of tall buildings in the run up to the local elections in 2006. Genesis Housing had a proposal to put up a 26 storey tower near Queens Park station in 2005. They withdrew the application in October 2005, because it obviously wouldn't have got planning permission. Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats went round telling the voters of Kilburn and Queens Park that Labour had a secret plan to build such a block. Of course, the Labour Party didn't but that did not stop the Liberal Democrats from peddling that line. Nor, to his shame, did it stop Jonathan Davies (until then a Labour councillor) from making the same claim.
The episode was also interesting as an example showing what the Americans call "astroturf" organisations. The kind of phoney grassroots organisations that the Republicans seem to have set up to block Obama's healthcare reforms. Of course, there was Jonathan Davies himself, who put out letters purporting to be independent when he was obviously in cahoots with the Liberal Democrats. But there was also a local residents group called "Stop the Tower" HERE. Although they claimed to be local people interested in the area. They haven't posted anything on their site since September 2006, when they congratulated themselves on defeating the Labour councillors.
I guess that made them feel that their work was done.