In the first posting in this topic, the writer says:"As you know, the public must be given access to all documents relating to planning applications. In the case of these applications not only was the public not fully briefed, neither was the Council's own Planning Committee!"As to public access to background planning papers, I have found that this is sometimes easier said than done.One of the cases that I have been assisting neighbours in Madeley Road, Westbury Road and Haven Lane (part of the Haven Green Conservation Area) is at "Westbury" 1 Westbury Road, a spacious plot laid out in 1895 by Edward Wood Esq., the owner of the "Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing". From 1995, there have been many planning applications and revisions for flats and extra houses in the back garden. The house was rebuilt by Mr Brian McGee about 11 years ago to match the original Victorian property as a private residence.A Deed of Covenant was issued in the High Court Chancery Division in 2003 (amended in 2004 to allow a swimming-pool) to ensure that the property was used as a private residence. The Covenant was in favour of numerous adjoining residents in the adjacent three roads.Now, Mr McGee has made a planning application to use the property as 14 Flats with associated car-parking including turning the swimming-pool and ante-room into 4 Flats accessed via the side passage, adjacent to 3 Westbury Road, which would be contrary to the Covenant that he and his wife signed in 2003/2004.Once again, I have been assisting residents (many of whom are the beneficiaries of the recent Covenant) and I wrote to Mr Miguel Martinez, the Acting East Area Planning Team Manager, on two occasions requesting to see the "working file" (the Case Officer's file) as unlike other Councils (such as Harrow, Richmond, Reigate and Banstead), Ealing Council does not publish on their planning website a full complement of "Background Papers". Not having heard from Mr Martinez, I wrote to the Chair of the Planning Committee and others including the Head of Planning, Mr David Scourfield, the Chief Executive and Ward Councillors, etc.This may be of assistance to all persons who are involved in having to defend their neighbourhoods from unneighbourly and unwelcome changes to penetrate the complex and rather secretive workings of the Planning Department as perceived by ordinary laypersons, who do not have instantaneous contact with and advice from LBE Planning Department staff (sometimes including as in the recent "Haven Stables" case the exchange of hundreds of e-mails and letters between developers' agents and senior LBE officers).EXTRACT OF MY E-MAIL TO THE COUNCIL DATED 26TH OCTOBER 2016:"Inspection of Working Files: I first wrote to the East Area Planning Team Manager, Mr Miguel Martinez asking to view 5 files (one file for 1, Westbury Road and four files for 1, Mount Park Crescent) on 13th October 2016 (copy e-mail attached). These include three working files (i.e. pending case files). The only reply I had was an automated response from Mr Stuart Ardlie to say that he was no longer working at Ealing Council Planning Department.I wrote a second time to Mr Martinez on 20th October 2016 (with a corrected e-mail on the 22nd). I attach the corrected e-mail (the correction was on the surname of Andrew "Vaughan" which should have read Andrew "Forrest", who now works at Kingston Council, I believe).10 days have passed since I first wrote to Mr Martinez without any response from him.When the "blueprint" for Access to planning files was laid down in the Report on 23rd May 1990 by the Chairman of the Town Planning Committee Cllr. Norman Pointing (also a Mayor of Ealing), it included the following extracts stating that the Council:"....will place particular emphasis on consultation, as a matter of course, with Residents' and Tenants' Associations, and with bodies such as Ealing Civic Society.....is pledged to take into account fully the views of the residents of the Borough". and in Clause 7 (vii) of the Report, it states:"any interested person, upon giving 48 hours notice, may inspect the Department's working case file(s) for any current planning applications. File(s) may be inspected, without notice, within 5 working days of the case going to Planning Committee..."When Cllr John Cudmore became Leader of the Council in May 1994, he had pledged that:"Both developers and objectors have a right to expect fair and honest treatment from the Council..." "Planning decisions must take into account the feelings of local people."You will note that planning files of cases going to Committee are available for viewing without notice for a minimum of 5 working days before the Planning Committee Meeting. These 5 days do not include weekends or the day of the Meeting itself.One wonders if the Planning Department East Area Team Manager does not respond to a request with notice made 10 days ago, how then will the Council be able to provide filed background documents 5 working days before Committee without notice as required by law?When the 23rd May 1990 Report mentioned this "5 days without notice" period, it reflected the law under the "Local Government (Access to Information Act) 1985", which requires planning file background papers & documents to be available for a minimum period of 5 working days before and 4 years after the day of the Planning Committee Meeting, under Section 100D of the Act (as amended).In a DCLG Government publication, the following appears:"It is a criminal offence if, without a reasonable excuse, a person who has in his or her custody a document *10, which the national rules require to be made available to the public, refuses to supply the whole or part of the document or intentionally obstructs any other person/s from disclosing such a document.If a person is found guilty of such a criminal offence, he/she can be fined up to £200.*10 A document can be the agenda and connected reports for public meetings, documents relating to executive decisions made by an individual member or officer, or any other background papers."Section 100H of the "Local Government (Access To Information Act) 1985" provides:(4) If, without reasonable excuse, a person having the custody of a document which is required by section 100B(1) or 100(1) above to be open to inspection by the public -(a) intentionally obstructs any person exercising a right conferred by this Part to inspect, or to make a copy of or extracts from, the document, or(b) refuses to furnish copies to any person entitled to obtain them under any provision of this Part, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.NB. In my second e-mail to Mr Miguel Martinez of 20th October 2016 (re-sent 22nd October 2016 with a correction), I mentioned the treatment of the "Abbey Lodge" (40 - 44 Gordon Road) case by the Planning Department when the developers' Agents requested copies of all the 100 odd filed objection letters & e-mails, petitions, etc. In fact, according to the Committee correcting "Briefing Notes", there were 140 letters and e-mails of objection excluding the Petitions. The objectors supporting the Petitions (including the Children's Petition) numbered well over 600 persons (the original Report to Committee had wrongly said that the total number of objections of 140 included the petitioners!). Long before the case went to Committee, the developers' Agents asked the Case Officer, Mr Andrew Forrest, for copies of all objections to date on the file to be provided to them. The Agents only had to ask the Planning Case Officer once and they were instantly supplied with everything (something like at least 250 pages of A4 plus some A3 illustrations submitted by the owners of the adjacent dwellinghouse in Carlton Gardens). After receiving all the information that they had asked the Planning Case Officer for, the Agents then set about analysing the mass of documentation and they subsequently submitted a lengthy A3 "Commentary" document going through all of the objections one by one (so as to more or less rubbish them to the Case Officer, who they also bizarrely "instructed" to count the main Petition (signed by almost 600 objectors) as a single letter of objection!Fortunately, the Planning Committee later refused the Application and a similar one was dismissed on Appeal by PINS (despite the fact that the LBE Appeals Case Officer, Ms Maggie Perry, had failed to lodge the Council's Appeal Statement in time with PINS (and then re-submitted it again out of time under the guise of a Final Comment document) to PINS, who described the Council's conduct as being like "a pantomime").In the "Haven Stables" case at 1A Haven Green W5, the developers' Architect and Agent have exchanged literally hundreds of e-mails and letters prior to the case coming to Committee - when it was refused and a subsequent appeal dismissed - which took place on the deferred date thus avoiding another very controversial case in W3 at "Peacehaven" possibly creating adverse conditions to the Agents' clients in a highly-charged atmosphere, so it was thought by the Case Officer. It is to be noted that the developers' agents were never kept waiting for 10 days for a response from Planning in any of these cases - God forbid!NB. Ironically, the Planning Consultant Agent who was acting for the developer (Mr John Francis) in the "Haven Stables" case was also, along with me, assisting the residents opposing the "Peacehaven" case that the said Case Officer was worried about!In the 1 & 3 Corfton Road case, Mr Eleanor Lakew LBE Conservation Officer's strong objection was suppressed by the Case Officer and only brought to light after I had inspected the working file and made the objection public. I was told by a very experienced and respected Architect that Ms Lakew was later hounded out of her job and I wonder if it was over that case? These are not the only cases but I mention them because it clearly shows the disparity in which developers are treated very well by some in the Planning Department compared to the poor and biased treatment of local residents in these matters, who were promised and believed that they could expect fair and honest treatment from the Ealing Planning Department."Victor Mishiku vmfree@madasafish.com The Covenant Movement, Ealing.19/11/16.
Victor Mishiku ● 3363d