Forum Topic

Greenfield v Brownfield - planners blunder!

On 9th June 2010, planning law was changed with the intent to give some protection to gardens of residential properties in built-up areas.Previously the garden grounds of houses were considered to be "Brownfield" land along with the houses to which the gardens belong, so that the whole curtilage including the green space was treated as possible for extra development. The change in the law followed years of campaigning by Councillors and MPs across all the parties protesting about so-called "Garden-Grabbing". However, on Wednesday 20th September 2017, garden lovers suffered an apparent setback when the expert planners of Ealing Council told the Planning Committee in writing and verbally on 4 occasions that normal domestic gardens are NOT to be treated as "Greenfield" (as intended by the Government Planning Minister at the time) if they belong to a house which is within the overall curtilage!Most private gardens do indeed belong to houses!Despite this bizarre and wrong information being given to the Planning Committee 4 times during their consideration of a rear garden proposed development at 33 Amherst Road (an Edwardian property with an L-shaped garden), neither the Assistant Head Planner (Ms Alex Jackson) nor the Planning Legal Solicitor (Ms Jackie Adams) saw fit to intervene as their Interim East Area Team Leader, Mr Miguel Martinez, floundered and confused both himself and councillors alike.It was left to astonished members of the public sitting upstairs in the gallery to call out  - of course, to no avail and at the risk of being evicted from the Public Meeting.Having (voluntarily) assisted residents in L.B.Ealing and elsewhere oppose "Backgarden Vultures" for over 31 years, I was amazed to hear the utter nonsense from the planners on the 20th September at Committee and I have subsequently written to the LBE Chief Planning Officer, Mr David Scourfield, with a formal complaint over his planners' handling of the case at 33 Amherst Road.I have uploaded my letter and its attachment to Dropbox and these can be read at the following link locations.https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Public/Greenfield%20-%2033%20Amherst%20Road/LettertoChiefPlanningOfficer22ndOct2017.pdf?role=personalhttps://www.dropbox.com/preview/Public/Greenfield%20-%2033%20Amherst%20Road/DelegationReport16.ChurchfieldRoad.pdf?role=personalI await a response from Mr Scourfield.Two other worrying matters have arisen from this case about which I am writing to Mr Scourfield and the Council's Committees Section separately.Yours sincerely, Victor Mishiku  29/10/17vmfree@madasafish.comPS. If there is any difficulty with the Dropbox links above, please let me know and I can send the two documents by e-mail.

Victor Mishiku ● 3076d5 Comments

Absolutely no personal or professional interest in the case, or indeed knowledge or wasn't said at committee, but it is rather a fundamental omission in the opening post to fail to acknowledge that an independent Planning Inspector had previously (in October 2014) assessed a similar proposal on this site and at no point concluded that the principle of an additional residential unit on this land was unacceptable.Given the Inspector failed to offer an "in-principle" reason to dismiss the appeal, that didn't the LPA with a leg to stand on in trying to refuse an application on such grounds.Not wishing to be awkward, but as someone who works for developers, objectors and LPA's it always irks me when on the one hand members of the public are so quick to label developers as being 'devious' and worse if they think they haven't presented every bit of relevant information, yet the public often do exactly the same themselves by omitting or failing to acknowledge an important or relevant fact or consideration.

Adam Beamish ● 3037d

We need easy access to Judicial Review.It has also been made clear recently that both English Building Regulations and Planning is not fit for purpose.

Philippa Bond ● 3058d

Dear Mr BarchukThank you for your comment. I was once told by a female planning officer that planning staff feared your appearances at the Planning Committee!Now it is a question of the tail wagging the dog, I fear.I have been advised by Cllr. Seema Kumar, who was an Acton Councillor some years ago like yourself, that she has asked Mr Scourfield the Chief Planning Officer to reply to me but I am still awaiting a response to my letter to him of 22nd October 2017.I am about to post up a new comment on the recent prevention of Public Speaking suffered by a resident of Hanwell at Committee on 18th October 2017.Regards, Victor Mishiku  5/11/2017.

Victor Mishiku ● 3069d

The activities enjoyed in the Garden of a house can be enjoyedbest only in that part of the area they call Home.The House is a private blissful little part of the House and Home Who would argue otherwise unless they have "BATS IN THEIR BELFRY". Some Councillors do not Have the Community in mind but their own ideas WHAT  is or what is NOT.

Oswald Anthony Whittle ● 3073d

Having been a councillor and sat on the planning committee, the behaviour of planning officers you describe comes as no surprise. They give the appearance of having decided on a planning application first and then seeking planning guidance to justify their decision whilst ignoring anything that challenges their predetermined conclusion. Of course, it could just be gross incompetence - with Ealing Council planners officers, anything is possible.

Vlod Barchuk ● 3075d