Forum Topic

Dr Onkar Sahota's application in Haven Green rejected

Neighbours are celebrating after a building application for a 128 year old house in Ealing's Haven Green Conservation area was thrown out at committee last night (Wednesday 13th March)The substantial property on Castlebar Road - bordering Longfield Walk was bought in 2011 for £1.4million by Ealing and Hillingdon GLA representative Dr Onkar Sahota.He wanted to add a basement, extend the house both sideways and to the rear and add a glass roof.Over a hundred people objected to the plans, claiming the proposals were highly detrimental to the area.Last night - despite the application being recommended for approval by Ealing Council planners - a committee of Councillors rejected it.10 voted against the proposed development, none for and there were three abstentions. Councillors were particularly unhappy with the glass roof extension which they described as looking like a glass 'roof box'.Liberal Democrat Councillor, Nigel Bakhai, voted against the application. He said: '' The plans were out of character with the Haven Green Conservation Area and I could not support officer's recommendation to approve.'' Victor Mishiku, who has been heading the local campaign says he used his 27 years' experience of planning issues to help local residents.He is appalled by the whole procedure, claiming planners 'ruthlessly' tried to push through this application and adds: '' Is Ealing Council Planning Department "fit for purpose"?  The 43 Castlebar Road case attracted comments from the Committee that the report was poorly written, absurd, in defiance of reality, insulting (to the intelligence) and part of the proposal was described as "disgraceful" and resulting in the glass box roof extension making the top roof part of the development being "lit up like a Xmas Tree''.Next door neighbour Judy Jaafar says: '' I and others will be writing formal letters of complaint to the LBE chief executive about how badly this whole application was handled by the Planning Department, about procedural irregularities and about how the planners were quite happy to break almost all their own planning guidelines in an effort to push this through. Fortunately the councillors saw through all the nonsense, "lies" in the words of one councillor, and we saw informed local democracy in action.'' xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxI am sure you have all read this but what I find interesting is Doctor's sure do earn a lot of money maybe that's why the NHS is in crisis.Secondly, Isn't it strange that Planning control were happy with his plans. I hope it wasn't an inside job or that innapropriate payment was made to any officer. I hope they conduct a full investigation into this state of affairs because something smells fishy. Where there is money, there is corruption.

Anna Lang ● 4765d194 Comments

Victor Mishiku wrote: "Reading the learned Inspector's Decision Letter issused yesterday, one wonders how it is that the Planning Department so determinedly supported this out of character proposal." and elsewhere in the forum, Dr Sahota seems to suggest that the council planners badly advised him to carry out this development which caused all the objections that the government planning inspector has now upheld.What other bad advice have these planners given to others and in instances where perhaps neighbours are less well organised to fight back?

Paul Cameron ● 4485d

Brilliant job Victor!  The recent football match fixing pales into insignificance!

Charles Campbell ● 4493d

Reading the learned Inspector's Decision Letter issused yesterday, one wonders how it is that the Planning Department so determinedly supported this out of character proposal.  Officers rushed through the report without waiting for the consultation period to run (14 days given for revised plans but the report to committee was written up before the time had been allowed to run).  Ward Councillor Anthony Young asked for proper time to be given but his request was brushed aside by the planners.The application report was completed by Ms Maggie Perry, a former Senior Acton Planner, who never visited the neighbouring property to attempt to assess the situation. Ms Perry did not wait for the objectors' planning consultant's 8-page submission and completed the report to committee in its absence.This application showed the unpleasant side of the planning system as abused by Ealing planners.Had planning permission been given for this inappropriate and unsightly development, costly legal proceedings wouuld have had to be incurred using covenants to try to prevent the development, which should never have been recommended for granting in the first place, especially in such a sensitive and publicly visible location next to Longfield Walk and in a sequence of fine Victorian houses all built by James Wills, who actually lived at No.43 whilst his brother William Henry Wills lived at (and built) "Havenhurst" 11 Castlebar Road (also saved by us from a 5 flats and commercial surgery development recently, but now still in use as a family home thanks to the restrictive covenant protecting this Estate).The next battle is for Corfton Road to try to prevent a second line of backland housing being built which the planners again saw fit to fully recommend in a double Conservation Area and despite some 700 objections. Southall Councillors voted it through in September this year, but we have covenants on the Estate so the adverse planning decision (not supported by LBE Conservation Officer, Ms Eleanor Lakew) may not be the end of the matter!

Victor Mishiku ● 4493d

Excellent news let's hope that some bridges can be built (not literally)with a revised, more sympathetic, application.

Nigel Brooks ● 4493d

The Planning Inspectorate has published two Decision Letters yesterday (11th December 2013) re. the appeal by Dr Sahota in regards to his property at 43 Castlebar Road, Ealing W5 in the "Haven Green Conservation Area". The Planning Appeal Decision Letter - comprehensively dismissing the appeal - can be seen at: http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.6075582&NAME=/DECISION.pdf and a further Decision Letter refusing Dr Sahota's "Costs Application" can be seen at: http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.6075586&NAME=/COSTS%20DECISION.pdf My view is that Dr Sahota was poorly advised at the outset and relied on over-ambitious advisers, who have not served him well.  Should there be a further application, I hope a more sympathetic and neighbour-friendly architect and planner will be appointed.  This may result in a much less unneighbourly proposal for this fine heritage property built in 1885 by James Wills for the owner of the "Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing", Edward Wood Esq (benefactor to the Ealing Board in Victorian times).

Victor Mishiku ● 4493d

Having heard nothing from Ms Helen Harris Head of Legal Services or her staff, I wrote earlier today to all the three other leaders (there is no point writing to the Labour Leader as he is the party being complained about, or to our GLA Member for Ealing - the cause of all this unrest) as well as copying in The Chief Executive, Ealing Broadway Ward Councillors, Ms Helen Harris, Mr Noel Rutherford Director of the Environment Group, Ms Aileen Jones Head of Planning, Ms Alex Jackson Senior Planning Manager and others plus The Investigator dealing with the first Complaint made by Cllr. Benjamin Dennehy.Please note my Formal Complaint dated 7th October 2013 included the e-mails that were addressed "Dear Julian" "Best Wishes, Onkar" etc about the intended development planning application and I suspect that there may be others - none of which were on the planning files when I inspected them.  I have never heard of any other case in Ealing or anywhere else where ordinary residents can summon up not only the Leader of the Council (who is not a Ward Councillor either in Southall where Dr Sahota lives or in Castlebar Road where Dr Sahota's latest acquisition awaits butchery) but also the Director of the Environment Group, Mr Noel Rutherford.  Mr Nick Black of 33 Woodville Road was made to wait 12 days before seeing a "humble" duty planning officer, who then told him that he could not discuss the application Plans in any event but merely give general advice!We have heard suggested by Dr Sahota that this is merely a "political" effort to discredit Cllr. Bell/Dr Sahota.  Dr Sahota questions whether the refusal of his planning application at Committee on 13th March 2013 was for political reasons rather than planning grounds  - even though out of the 10 Committee Members, only 5 Members were from the Conservative Party, the main opposition party here in Ealing. There was no UKIP Councillor on the Committee. 4 Labour Members voted against the application and these were Councillors who all admitted knowing and working with Dr Sahota in his political campaigning.How then was the refusal of the planning application a "political" decision?  Is Dr Sahota suggesting that Members of his own party who supported him at the elections deliberately voted his application down for some unknown reason(s)?----- Original Message ----- From: Mettcm To: Benjamin Dennehy ; david.millican@ealing.gov.uk ; Gary Malcolm ; Harrish@ealing.gov.uk ; Martin Smith ; Noel Rutherford ; Aileen JONES ; Alex JACKSON Cc: alex.oram@chi-assoc.com ; Rbarnes@hillingdon.gov.uk ; andrew.Steed@ealing.gov.uk ; roseh@ealing.gov.uk ; Nigel.Bakhai@ealing.gov.uk ; ANGUSJHUCK@aol.com ; Ian Potts ; Anthony.Young@ealing.gov.uk ; David.Scott@ealing.gov.uk ; alan@grampa.demon.co.uk ; Moira Black/Robert Gurd ; 'Will French' ; gtcphelan@hotmail.com ; jjaafar@sky.com ; AnthonyRoden@gmail.com ; ebringerw5@Yahoo.co.uk ; Alex Hawran ; Tracy Evans ; tessaleverton@doctors.org.uk ; Naz Ghanadian ; nadia hajian ; Hazel@talbot68.plus.com ; Laurence Read ; Anthony Lewis ; Stephen Rodney ; mona@monaarshi.com ; James Clifford ; karie clifford ; Michael Russell ; jamesgates@trinitysouth.co.uk ; edit@ealinggazette.co.uk ; Editor ; O'Connell, Steve ; Angie4ealingacton@googlemail.com ; hugo.sutherland@parliament.uk ; Gerald Moran Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 1:27 PMSubject: Complaint dated 7th October 2013Cllr. Benjamin DennehyCllr. David MillicanCllr. Gary Malcolm Dear Councillors, On 7th October 2013 by e-mail and by hand-delivery, I submitted my 8-page Formal Complaint to Ms Helen Harris, Head of Legal Services, LBE. Please see attached Pdf file together with a scanned file containing Censored E-Mails addressed informally between "Julian" and "Onkar" dated 17/10/12 - 21/12/12.  These (and possibly other intervening e-mails as yet undisclosed) were not on the planning files when I last inspected them. I have posted links to these documents on the Ealing Forum, where there is a special topic about this planning case on which there have been almost 190 comments to date - the most in the entire Forum since a controversial case in Acton a few years ago, which Mr Rutherford will remember. As a matter of law, all background documents relied on by a Council in relation to a planning application are supposed to be publicly available for a minimum period of 4 years from the day of the Committee Meeting under the provisions of the "Access to Information Act" (1985). I await an acknowledgment from Ms Harris who implied that she did not approve of the layout and questioning format of my previous Complaint (July/August 2013) and therefore refused to process it. Consequently, I completely revised the layout and changed its interrogatory format to make it crystal clear to Ms Harris exactly what I am talking about. That said, I wonder how some of the Polish residents that I have helped in Newburgh Road in Acton W3 in complicated Landlord/Tenant Court Hearings (as a litigation friend) and who can barely write a letter in English would have satisfied Ms Harris's stringent requirements as to letter-writing and presentation? I also attach Dr Onkar Singh Sahota's letter to the "Ealing & Acton Gazette" published on 26th July 2013 in which he suggests that Councillors may have refused his planning application for 43 Castlebar Road, Ealing W5 for political reasons. Dr Sahota (who originally applied under the name "Dr Sahota Onkar") said: "I hope the councillors on the committee judged it purely on planning grounds rather than seeking to gain political advantage but who knows". The Planning Committee comprises a built-in advantage for whichever Party is running the Council.  On political voting, the Labour Group can pass any application through in any event.  The Chair(man) also has an extra vote if there is a tie (should one of the Labour group abstain or miss the voting for some reason).  One of the Councillors said that he had campaigned for Dr Sahota in the GLA Elections and several others said that they had worked with him but they all said that his planning application had not been privately discussed, etc. 10 Councillors voted against the application on the night of 13th March 2013.  3 Councillors abstained (no reasons given). Out of these 10 Councillors who voted against, only 5 were Conservative, the main opposition Party in Ealing. I have previously sought assistance from my Ward Councillors to bring this matter to the attention of the Local Government Ombudsman but, as mentioned, I am now awaiting Ms Harris's response to my fresh Formal Complaint as to whether this is to be duly processed by the Council? Yours sincerely Victor Mishiku  9/10/13 Attachments:  4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The attachments can all be seen at the following URL Download References:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14377445/FormalComplaint_7thOctober2013.pdf    [FORMAL COMPLAINT 7th Oct 2013]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14377445/Q2%20redacted%20and%20scanned.pdf    [LBE-CENSORED E-MAILS] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14377445/ForumMessage_8thOct2013.pdf          [FORUM MESSAGE 8/10/13] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14377445/YourLettersSahota_26thJuly2013068.pdf [DR SAHOTA'S LETTER TO THE PRESS 26/7/13]

Victor Mishiku ● 4556d

This is the first draft of the investigator's findings, a final report is yet to be made. My experience of Standards is that the draft rarely changes and its recommendations are not binding. However, I've not known a committee to go against a finding.I don't know why we bother even having a standards committee, it's utterly useless!

Benjamin Dennehy ● 4558d

Ms Helen Harris refused to accept my original Complaint & Addendum in August.Instead of going to the Ombudsman, I have decioded to completely revise the format to which Ms Harris took exception (interrogatory style) and submitted my Formal Complaint afresh yesterday (7th Oct 2013) by e-mail and by hand-delivery.Please see my 8-page Formal Complaint and the "LBE-Censored E-mails" referred to on page 4 of the document at the URL references shown below.FORMAL COMPLAINT:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14377445/FormalComplaint_7thOctober2013.pdfLBE-CENSORED E-MAILS:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14377445/Q2%20redacted%20and%20scanned.pdfI hope that Ms Harris will not obstruct my Complaint. I think you will find that it does identify the specific codes/standards that I say were breached by Cllr. Julian Bell (Leader of Ealing Council). I would be glad to hear from you all if you do believe that I have clarified all this sufficiently for Ms Harris to understand what I am saying this time?Thank you, Victor Mishiku 8th October 2013.

Victor Mishiku ● 4558d

Upon reading Helen Harris's reply to Victor Mishiku's excellent complaint letter and her formal decision notice not to refer it for investigation, it is clear that she twice assures Victor that his complaint has been passed on to the independent adjudicator, Mr. Oram, the person scrutinising Cllr. Dennehy's complaint about Cllr. Julian Bell and his involvement in Dr. Onkar Sahota's planning application.I would assume that Mrs. Harris's refusal to refer means to the Council Standards Committee, for reasons that can best be described as a crock (how the complaint was formatted) but that's another issue. It would seem she wants any investigation into the Council Leader's behaviour to be kept at arms length.Talk about involving the Ombudsman or any other legal/government authority may be somewhat unhelpful when the Borough Solicitor has, twice, stated she has passed the complaint on for external scrutiny.

Judith Jaafar ● 4559d

The threat of court action, or the beginning of court action will galvanize the attention of council officers as they are seen in public and are accountable in public whereas ombudsman inquiries do not elicit the same extent of engagement as the complainant and the public do not get to see all the information that the council provides.

Kieren A Wroblewski ● 4565d

The other thing about using the ombudsman is that Ealing Council can present evidence in private and you have no option to cross-examine the witnesses or know who they are unlike the High Court.

Kieren A Wroblewski ● 4565d

I can see what you are saying, and I am not trying to have a go at you or correct you, I just do not want to see you miss the opportunity of challenging this situation appropriately. The ombudsman's role is orthogonal to that of the judiciary and it seems to me that you have to split the complaint between the judgement made by Helen Harris and the process.

Kieren A Wroblewski ● 4565d

Thank you for writing.  The reason why I wished to bring this to the attention of the Local Government Ombudsman was because Mrs Helen Harris only ruled out my Formal Complaint claiming that I had declined to identify the specific codes which I believed had been contravened in fact and/or in spirit. Mrs Harris's statement to this effect is incorrect.It seems to me that what Mrs Harris actually objected to was the format and layout of my 23-page document.I was just wondering how the Polish couple who I helped in a case in Newburgh Road, Acton (Landlord/Tenant), who faced imminent eviction when their Ukrainian Church Landlords's agents had served false papers would have coped on their own. Their Ward Coucillors did not help them. Instead, I helped them write Defences, Witness Statements, attended at Court Hearings where the Judges allowed me to assist them, all of which they won with costs against the Landlords (who were represented by agents, solicitors and barrister).  The couple Wojciech & Magdalena (who had a young son) could barely write a good English letter on their own.  Mrs Harris does not approve of my letter-writing  - how then would she decide when complainants cannot speak or write proper English, what if they have poor English language  - does that mean only people who are able to write as Mrs Harris wants can be entertained?It appears that Cllr. Millican's enquiries have also been returned unanswered. He wrote on the Web (Ealing Gazette Online) about "Lack of integrity and transparency" saying: "Probity, integrity and transparency are of such concern that it seems barely a day goes by without a public official being in the news for some form of underhand behaviour. The public puts trust in its elected officials and that trust should be returned.  This is not least in the area of planning applications, which are worth a lot of money and have such an influence over the lives of the neighboring community.  That is why so many people are concerned about the favours given by the Labour Leader of Ealing Council towards the Labour member, elected to represent the people of Ealing on the Greater London Assembly, for the planning application to extend one of his large houses.On the surface the facts are straightforward.  Cllr Julian Bell, Labour Council Leader, personally met with Dr Onkar Sahota, Ealing's Labour GLA member, on site with Ealing Council's most senior planning official to discuss his contentious application to extensively extend his large house.The planning system can be slow and cumbersome, so its not surprising that people are concerned when one senior elected Labour Councillor so blatantly helps another senior elected Labour official.The issue is that most residents have to wait in the long planning queue and can't obtain such personal high level service.However, we have established from the results of an Freedom of Information request we submitted that, when setting up the meeting, Dr Sahota wrote to Cllr Bell asking him to "do the needful" as his planning application had been "registered".  We would all love know what that means.Hence, immediately this issue became apparent, I wrote to Cllr Bell asking him to refer himself to the Council's Standards Committee, which has now agreed to investigate the case.  So I wrote with a list of questions, to be investigated.  I believe that members of the public would like to know why the Leader felt the need to attend personally this initial planning meeting and not any others, and what was so special about it. However another council official has written back to me saying that my straightforward questions are "out of scope" and won't be investigated.So the whole affair has become a farce and a "whitewash".The residents of Ealing deserve better from their publicly elected officials."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I note that Cllr. Millican complains about the lack of contact with planners.  This is quite correct.  In former days (as still happens in other Councils, such as L.B.Hounslow, L.B.Harrow), members of the public concerned about planning applications were able to telephone the case officer (I recall calling Ms Aileen Jones and speaking to her about the case re. "Westbury" in Ealing when she was a young part-time planning officer almost 20 years ago).Nowadays, any call to a planning officer is intercepted by a general call answering service and you are asked if you wish to leave a message.  One resident in Acton who does not use a mobile, stayed in for two days waiting for a call back.In addition to this "remote" method and lack of one to one contact, another obstacle has recently been introduced in the Planning Department.  Previously, anyone who needed to ask some questions about Plans or details of the Application Drawings could see a "Duty Planner" at Planning Reception.The Duty Planner would sit down and look at the case and go through matters that were unclear, etc.This has all changed now  - if you want to see a Duty Planner, you have to ask for an appointment and come back on another day.  One resident of Woodville Road could not understand the Plans (despite being a former property surveyor) which were misleading and incomplete.  When this gentleman called at Planning Reception, he was told that he would have to make an appointment to see a Duty Planner.  12 days later when he was finally told that he could see the Duty Planner (meantime the 21 days is ticking away in which to respond), the Duty Planner told him that he could not discuss any specific case Plans.  The Duty Planner said his was only allowed to give general advice on planning.  The gentleman concerned left none the wiser!

Victor Mishiku ● 4565d

There is one aspect of a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman that you MUST be aware of before pinning all your hopes on him/her intervening. The Ombudsman is concerned with the PROCESS, not the OUTCOME of the process. This is why Ealing Council loves the ombudsman. All it has to show is that the correct process was followed: the complaints guidelines, timely responses, appropriate consultation, not the decision at the end of the process was right. This is why many complaints end up before both the Ombudsman and in front of the English High Courts. The Ombudsman cannot judge the quality of the outcome, only the processes used by the Local Council in reaching the decision: i.e. not WHAT the judge decided, but rather was s/he wearing the right wig at that particular moment.The High Court is the correct and proper place to challenge the decision.KW

Kieren A Wroblewski ● 4568d

Personally I think this is a disease that courses through politics like marble cake.It's a mix of professional careerist politicians who turn up as graduate interns at the Westminster village having never worked in the real world. They end up in political positions in all sorts of authorities.Trouble is it's a clique and we all see even at local council level how well intentioned councillors get sucked into the party line and how many work in allied occupations.

Oliver Gregan ● 4568d

As mentioned, Mrs Harris says that I have not identified which codes that I have complained have not been observed  - but I especially extended my original Complaint to 23 pages to give sufficient information, which I also believe is of public concern.  Mrs Harris is Head of Legal Services and even though technically she works under the Leader of the Council, Cllr. Julian Bell and sits next to or near him at full Council and Cabinet no doubt, I cannot see how she can come to the conclusion that she does not know what I am saying and therefore that my Complaint cannot even be passed on formally! In making my further Complaint, this time to the Local Government Ombudsman, I am asking for the support of one or more of my three Ward Councillors of the Ealing Broadway Ward in which not only do I live (and have done so for 50 years) but also where the property involved in the Formal Complaint (43 Castlebar Road) is situated.  I wish to ask the Ombudsman to kindly consider finding Mrs Harris's refusal to forward my Formal Complaint unfair and unjustified and if so, direct the Council to forward my Complaint to The Investigator [you may recall that an outside Investigator had to be appointed for Cllr. Dennehy's Complaint and then had to be replaced because she worked for an organisation headed by Cllr. Julian Bell himself as Chair(man)].I am not asking Mrs Harris to decide the matter  - merely to forward my Formal Complaint on to The Investigator so that it can be considered by a person who is not involved with or employed by the Council or any closely associated political person connected to the Leader, Cllr. Julian Bell or his party.I believe that this is tantamount to an obstruction of justice by the Council thus preventing me being accorded the Fair Hearing of my Formal Complaint.My Formal Complaint can be seen at: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14377445/FormalComplaint_23.Page_document.pdfMrs Harris's "DECISION" sent to me yesterday is at:  https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14377445/Scanned_20130927162221.pdfVictor Mishiku 28/9/13.

Victor Mishiku ● 4568d

How sad for the state of Ealing politics?  Where is the moral fibre and credibility?  Is it just the current party in power or is it all parties?

Charles Campbell ● 4568d

Clearly a huge cover up and no doubt far more 'in the thick of it' than is known.This surely is becoming a matter for the police or fraud squad - unless they are part of the closed shop of corrupt establishment.But the Police seems to be the only option to get to the bottom of this cess pit of  corruption

Oliver Gregan ● 4568d

The cover up and protection continues.

Nigel Brooks ● 4568d

----- Original Message ----- From: vmfree To: Harrish@ealing.gov.uk ; Martin Smith Cc: alex.oram@chi-assoc.com ; jjaafar@sky.com ; CHARLES CHARALAMBOUS ; g.berg@rocketmail.com ; John Chapple ; khourymazen@hotmail.com ; hukra@hotmail.com ; aeltourgman@btinternet.com ; susansutovic@aol.com ; elena.c@talk21.com ; Marilyn Ashton ; carole.percival@btinternet.com ; MyMoves ; ebringerw5@Yahoo.co.uk ; River Trading ; Alex Hawran ; Magdalena Kos ; petercauser@hotmail.co.uk ; Valerie Scott ; Anthony.Young@ealing.gov.uk ; Ian Potts ; David.Scott@ealing.gov.uk ; david.millican@ealing.gov.uk ; roseh@ealing.gov.uk ; Gary Malcolm ; andrew.Steed@ealing.gov.uk ; rusidalal@hotmail.com ; ANGUSJHUCK@aol.com ; ballj@ealing.gov.uk ; Nigel.Bakhai@ealing.gov.uk ; justin.anderson@ealing.gov.uk ; colm.costello@ealing.gov.uk ; Jason.Stacey@ealing.gov.uk ; Joanna.Dabrowska@ealing.gov.uk ; Mark.Reen@ealing.gov.uk ; John.popham@ealing.gov.uk ; alan@grampa.demon.co.uk ; nickblack ; AnthonyRoden@gmail.com ; Michael Evans ; Hazel@talbot68.plus.com ; tessaleverton@doctors.org.uk ; Helen Kimball Brooke ; mjalal@hotmail.com ; Naz Ghanadian ; nadia hajian ; pjpercival@btinternet.com ; PJ Fleming ; Martin Tighe ; Ann Salaun ; James Clifford ; karie clifford ; collettdunkley@london.com ; suerobson@btopenworld.com ; Stephen Rodney ; bill.blyth@tnsglobal.com ; richard.barras@gmail.com ; Judy Harris ; Moira Black/Robert Gurd ; Vivienne Hanreck ; Anthony Lewis ; shares ; MiejoMortimer@yahoo.co.uk ; anybody.101@whatsit.plus.com ; Clive Jackson ; Michael Russell ; jamesgates@trinitysouth.co.uk ; emmaheseltine@trinitysouth.co.uk ; mira.barhillel@standard.co.uk ; sinemsirri@hotmail.co.uk ; Esin Sirri ; richardstokes295@btinternet.com ; Dexter Smith ; Plimmer_Robert@Hotmail.com ; z David Munkley ; Richard Sable ; Alan Gerry Joe and James Wickens ; Alan Forbes ; rex@ankersfamily.org.uk ; John Jurkiw ; Rohit Radia ; shilps100@doctors.org.uk ; kuldip sandher ; Shelagh Daboul ; Diane O'Neill ; ozegovic@btinternet.com ; alex Butler ; Bruno Rondinelli ; peter gallagher ; Peter Hutchison ; carolynbrown@credence.fsworld.co.uk ; Richard HERING ; jrinw3@aol.co.uk ; edithoakes@aol.co.uk ; Peter.White@sms.xerox.com ; Matthew Walker ; pandora.hadfield@googlemail.com ; triciawcox@btinternet.com ; Jean Cutts ; Alan Smith ; Jenny King ; Michael Burrows ; Lucien Gover ; Tim Owen ; Petebamber@aol.com ; Tony Kaye ; irene@wears.demon.co.uk ; YENIJ@aol.com ; nicky gill ; Chester Ball ; Riet van Bremen ; jane@stats.ucl.ac.uk ; ravi kaushal ; lailitakaushal@hotmail.co.uk ; IreenEsmann@talktalk.net ; stevepoundmp@parliament.uk ; Angie4ealingacton@googlemail.com ; Fraserk@ealing.gov.uk ; DTeevan@aol.com ; declan ; editor@ActonW3.com ; zac@zacgoldsmith.com ; eric.pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk ; Mayor@London.gov.uk ; edit@ealinggazette.co.uk ; 'Kevin Redford' ; ipcunningham@uwclub.net ; Sonia Mansurian ; Margaret Griffiths ; Frank Chesworth ; Gerald Moran ; Nok Nok ; Bennett, John K. ; Benjamin Dennehy ; Tracy Evans ; Susan Deans ; John Talbot ; Liam O'Brien ; Mirek Malevski ; Hughes, Matthew J ; DIANE BRUCE ; Beth van der Eems Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:11 AMSubject: Reply to Mrs Helen Harris - My Formal ComplaintMrs Helen HarrisHead of Legal Services, LBE. Dear Mrs Harris I am astonished to receive your note below of 27th instant and attachments.  I wonder have you actually read my complete Formal Complaint (23 pages) fully?  You will recall that you specifically asked me to identify the specific codes that I believed were being breached and that is exactly what I did. You now (incorrectly) suggest that I did absolutely nothing after you asked me to identify which codes I wanted to refer to specifically, but this is exactly what I did do. As I say, your letter implies that I completely ignored your request! The codes I identified were as below and please see pages 7 & 8 of my Complaint for the final document text: Ealing Council Code of Conduct for Members - Part 2High standards of conduct - Section 3You must maintain a high standard of conduct, and comply with the following general principles of conduct:The General PrinciplesSelflessness — you should serve only the public interest and should never improperly confer a benefit on yourself or an advantage or disadvantage on any other person.Integrity — you should maintain high standards of conduct at all times; you should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned; and you should avoid any appearance of improper behaviour.Ealing Council Code of Conduct for Members - Part 2 - Section 4You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the council into disrepute. Ealing Council Code of Conduct for Members - Part 2 - Section 7You —(a) must not use or attempt to use your position as a member improperly to confer on or secure for yourself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage;Ealing Council Code of Conduct for Members - Part 4Related documents14.. The council has adopted other codes and protocols which do not form part of this Code but which deal with specific activities you may be required or wish to carry out in the course of your duties as a councillor.  You are required to comply with the latest version of these from time to time and any breach may be regarded as a breach of this Code.  The following codes and protocols are currently in effect :(1)  Code of Conduct for Members in relation to Planning Matters…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Code of Conduct for Members in relation to Planning Matters - Section 5The Council’s Protocol for member involvement in pre-application presentations and discussions is set out below as follows:- Any presentations or discussions with developers should be part of structured arrangements agreed with officers and may also include other interested parties. Officers of appropriate seniority should normally attend the meeting.A written note of the meeting should be kept and the meeting should be recorded in the subsequent planning report. Code of Conduct for Members in relation to Planning Matters - Section 7If you are approached about a planning matter (even if you are not a member of the Planning Committee) by any applicant, agent, objector or other interested party, you should : (a) Consider whether or not it would be prudent in the circumstances to make notes of the meeting and (if so) make such notes (b) Disclose any such contact if you make representations about a planning matter (either at or outside the Planning Committee meeting) (c) In the light of such contact, and of other relevant considerations (including, for members of the Planning Committees, the importance of remaining impartial as a decision maker), carefully exercise your judgment as to the best means to play your representative role as a ward member with regard to the planning matter in question (d) Avoid giving the impression that you, or anyone else, can exert any improper influence over the planning process (e) If the contact is to seek professional, technical or legal advice with regard to a planning matter, consider whether or not it is appropriate to refer the enquirer to the appropriate council officer or other appropriate independent person or organisation, and (f) Immediately report to the appropriate officer any improper contact, pressure or inducements to yourself or - if you become aware of them - to others involved in the planning process. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The "Questions" style of presenting the Complaint you refer to is merely my way of expressing my complaints and how I believe these codes have not been observed, which seems pretty obvious. For instance as an analogy, a complaint might say "Why did he break the speed limit of 30mph?"  - this equates to a complaint that: "he broke the speed limit"!  As Head of Legal Services LBE, it would hardly take you much delving to understand what my Complaint is all about! You  also received or saw e-mails where I went into detail on some of the matters and referred you Forum postings which were indexed to show public concern (the most read topic of recent times, I believe). To reject my Complaint out of hand, which, contrary to what you say, does identify the codes because it seems that you do not like the precise printed layout of my Complaint, when its meaning and essence is crystal clear, is, I believe, unjust. I regret that I do not consider that you have dealt with my Complaint fairly and I will there seek to challenge this by reporting the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman and if possible, the Scrutiny Committee of the Council. My full Complaint final text and documents (total 23 pages) may be seen at the following URL reference: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14377445/Formal Complaint_23.Page_document.pdf I am posting this reply on the Forum in the public interest.Yours sincerely, Victor Mishiku  28/9/13. Copy to  The Investigator - Alex Oram Esq, and others as listed above. ----- Original Message ----- From: vmfree To: Helen Harris ; alex.oram@chi-assoc.com ; jjaafar@sky.com ; Gerald Moran Cc: CHARLES CHARALAMBOUS ; g.berg@rocketmail.com ; John Chapple ; khourymazen@hotmail.com ; hukra@hotmail.com ; aeltourgman@btinternet.com ; susansutovic@aol.com ; elena.c@talk21.com ; Dina Dmitrijeva ; Ewelina Lapinska ; Marilyn Ashton ; carole.percival@btinternet.com ; carolynbrown@credence.fsworld.co.uk ; Richard HERING ; MyMoves ; ebringerw5@Yahoo.co.uk ; Alex Hawran ; Magdalena Kos ; petercauser@hotmail.co.uk ; Valerie Scott ; Anthony.Young@ealing.gov.uk ; Ian Potts ; David.Scott@ealing.gov.uk ; david.millican@ealing.gov.uk ; roseh@ealing.gov.uk ; Gary Malcolm ; andrew.Steed@ealing.gov.uk ; rusidalal@hotmail.com ; ANGUSJHUCK@aol.com ; ballj@ealing.gov.uk ; Nigel.Bakhai@ealing.gov.uk ; justin.anderson@ealing.gov.uk ; colm.costello@ealing.gov.uk ; Jason.Stacey@ealing.gov.uk ; Joanna.Dabrowska@ealing.gov.uk ; Mark.Reen@ealing.gov.uk ; John.popham@ealing.gov.uk ; alan@grampa.demon.co.uk ; nickblack ; jjaafar@sky.com ; AnthonyRoden@gmail.com ; Michael Evans ; Hazel@talbot68.plus.com ; tessaleverton@doctors.org.uk ; Helen Kimball Brooke ; mjalal@hotmail.com ; Naz Ghanadian ; nadia hajian ; pjpercival@btinternet.com ; PJ Fleming ; Martin Tighe ; Ann Salaun ; James Clifford ; karie clifford ; collettdunkley@london.com ; suerobson@btopenworld.com ; Stephen Rodney ; bill.blyth@tnsglobal.com ; richard.barras@gmail.com ; Judy Harris ; Moira Black/Robert Gurd ; Vivienne Hanreck ; Anthony Lewis ; shares ; MiejoMortimer@yahoo.co.uk ; anybody.101@whatsit.plus.com ; Clive Jackson ; Michael Russell ; jamesgates@trinitysouth.co.uk ; emmaheseltine@trinitysouth.co.uk ; mira.barhillel@standard.co.uk ; sinemsirri@hotmail.co.uk ; Esin Sirri ; richardstokes295@btinternet.com ; Dexter Smith ; Plimmer_Robert@Hotmail.com ; z David Munkley ; Richard Sable ; Alan Gerry Joe and James Wickens ; Alan Forbes ; rex@ankersfamily.org.uk ; John Jurkiw ; Rohit Radia ; shilps100@doctors.org.uk ; kuldip sandher ; Shelagh Daboul ; Diane O'Neill ; ozegovic@btinternet.com ; alex Butler ; Bruno Rondinelli ; peter gallagher ; jrinw3@aol.co.uk ; edithoakes@aol.co.uk ; Peter.White@sms.xerox.com ; Matthew Walker ; pandora.hadfield@googlemail.com ; triciawcox@btinternet.com ; Jean Cutts ; Alan Smith ; Jenny King ; Michael Burrows ; Lucien Gover ; Tim Owen ; Petebamber@aol.com ; Tony Kaye ; irene@wears.demon.co.uk ; YENIJ@aol.com ; nicky gill ; Chester Ball ; Riet van Bremen ; jane@stats.ucl.ac.uk ; ravi kaushal ; lailitakaushal@hotmail.co.uk ; IreenEsmann@talktalk.net ; stevepoundmp@parliament.uk ; Angie4ealingacton@googlemail.com ; Fraserk@ealing.gov.uk ; DTeevan@aol.com ; declan ; editor@ActonW3.com ; Team P13 ; zac@zacgoldsmith.com ; eric.pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk ; Mayor@London.gov.uk ; edit@ealinggazette.co.uk ; 'Kevin Redford' ; ipcunningham@uwclub.net ; Sonia Mansurian ; Nok Nok ; Bennett, John K. ; Benjamin Dennehy ; Tracy Evans ; Susan Deans ; John Talbot ; Liam O'Brien ; Mirek Malevski ; Hughes, Matthew J ; DIANE BRUCE ; Beth van der Eems ; Martin Smith Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 2:14 AMSubject: Complaint Addendum - My Complaint Form dated 31st July 2013Mrs Helen HarrisHead of Legal Services, LBE. Dear Mrs Harris I have received your "automatic reply" message that you are away until 19th August 2013 as below: ----- Original Message ----- From: Helen Harris To: vmfree Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 2:52 PMSubject: Automatic reply: My Complaint Form dated 31st July 2013Thanks for your email.  I am out of the office until Monday 19th August and will look at your email following my return. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please note, further to my e-mail response to you yesterday (8th August), I will be preparing for you a Complaint Addendum referring to the specific  breaches of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Councillors as relate to Cllr. Julian Bell's conduct in the Sahota matter that you asked about. Regarding such breaches, of which there are more than one, it may well be necessary for interrogatories to determine the extent of these breaches.  The Council will receive the Complaint Addendum from me before your return to work. Yours sincerely, Victor Mishiku  9/8/13. ----- Original Message ----- From: Helen Harris To: vmfree (vmfree@madasafish.com) Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 5:37 PMSubject: Your complaintDear Mr MishikuI apologise for my delay in making a decision in relation to your complaint against Cllr Bell.  I have now had the opportunity to consider in detail the issues you have raised.  In all the circumstances, I have decided not to refer your complaint for investigation.  I attach a copy of my decision.Please be reassured that I sent a copy of your complaint to the investigator looking into Cllr Dennehy’s complaint, at an early stage in his investigation.  I am confident that investigator will take into account any standards issues that he considers may arise from the questions you raised.  For your information, I also attach a further copy of the council’s adopted standards procedure.Kind regardsYours sincerelyHelen HarrisDirector of Legal and Democratic Services * Please see further documents contained within the posting attached to my original posting on 13th August 2013.

Victor Mishiku ● 4568d

Mrs Helen Harris, Head of Legal Services LBE, has refused to forward my Formal Complaint against the Leader of the Council in the "Sahota Affair" to The Investigator appointed to examine this matter of public concern.Mrs Harris's writes that I failed to identify which codes were breached and complains that my Formal Complaint document (23 pages) includes a questioning style format as to the matters raised and complained of.  Mrs Harris's e-mail reply of 27th September can be seen at the end of this posting. Mrs Harris's "Decision" can be read at:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14377445/Scanned_20130927162221.pdfMy reply sent to Mrs Harris today (28/9/13) is as below:----- Original Message ----- From: vmfree To: Harrish@ealing.gov.uk ; Martin Smith Cc: alex.oram@chi-assoc.com ; jjaafar@sky.com ; CHARLES CHARALAMBOUS ; g.berg@rocketmail.com ; John Chapple ; khourymazen@hotmail.com ; hukra@hotmail.com ; aeltourgman@btinternet.com ; susansutovic@aol.com ; elena.c@talk21.com ; Marilyn Ashton ; carole.percival@btinternet.com ; MyMoves ; ebringerw5@Yahoo.co.uk ; River Trading ; Alex Hawran ; Magdalena Kos ; petercauser@hotmail.co.uk ; Valerie Scott ; Anthony.Young@ealing.gov.uk ; Ian Potts ; David.Scott@ealing.gov.uk ; david.millican@ealing.gov.uk ; roseh@ealing.gov.uk ; Gary Malcolm ; andrew.Steed@ealing.gov.uk ; rusidalal@hotmail.com ; ANGUSJHUCK@aol.com ; ballj@ealing.gov.uk ; Nigel.Bakhai@ealing.gov.uk ; justin.anderson@ealing.gov.uk ; colm.costello@ealing.gov.uk ; Jason.Stacey@ealing.gov.uk ; Joanna.Dabrowska@ealing.gov.uk ; Mark.Reen@ealing.gov.uk ; John.popham@ealing.gov.uk ; alan@grampa.demon.co.uk ; nickblack ; AnthonyRoden@gmail.com ; Michael Evans ; Hazel@talbot68.plus.com ; tessaleverton@doctors.org.uk ; Helen Kimball Brooke ; mjalal@hotmail.com ; Naz Ghanadian ; nadia hajian ; pjpercival@btinternet.com ; PJ Fleming ; Martin Tighe ; Ann Salaun ; James Clifford ; karie clifford ; collettdunkley@london.com ; suerobson@btopenworld.com ; Stephen Rodney ; bill.blyth@tnsglobal.com ; richard.barras@gmail.com ; Judy Harris ; Moira Black/Robert Gurd ; Vivienne Hanreck ; Anthony Lewis ; shares ; MiejoMortimer@yahoo.co.uk ; anybody.101@whatsit.plus.com ; Clive Jackson ; Michael Russell ; jamesgates@trinitysouth.co.uk ; emmaheseltine@trinitysouth.co.uk ; mira.barhillel@standard.co.uk ; sinemsirri@hotmail.co.uk ; Esin Sirri ; richardstokes295@btinternet.com ; Dexter Smith ; Plimmer_Robert@Hotmail.com ; z David Munkley ; Richard Sable ; Alan Gerry Joe and James Wickens ; Alan Forbes ; rex@ankersfamily.org.uk ; John Jurkiw ; Rohit Radia ; shilps100@doctors.org.uk ; kuldip sandher ; Shelagh Daboul ; Diane O'Neill ; ozegovic@btinternet.com ; alex Butler ; Bruno Rondinelli ; peter gallagher ; Peter Hutchison ; carolynbrown@credence.fsworld.co.uk ; Richard HERING ; jrinw3@aol.co.uk ; edithoakes@aol.co.uk ; Peter.White@sms.xerox.com ; Matthew Walker ; pandora.hadfield@googlemail.com ; triciawcox@btinternet.com ; Jean Cutts ; Alan Smith ; Jenny King ; Michael Burrows ; Lucien Gover ; Tim Owen ; Petebamber@aol.com ; Tony Kaye ; irene@wears.demon.co.uk ; YENIJ@aol.com ; nicky gill ; Chester Ball ; Riet van Bremen ; jane@stats.ucl.ac.uk ; ravi kaushal ; lailitakaushal@hotmail.co.uk ; IreenEsmann@talktalk.net ; stevepoundmp@parliament.uk ; Angie4ealingacton@googlemail.com ; Fraserk@ealing.gov.uk ; DTeevan@aol.com ; declan ; editor@ActonW3.com ; zac@zacgoldsmith.com ; eric.pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk ; Mayor@London.gov.uk ; edit@ealinggazette.co.uk ; 'Kevin Redford' ; ipcunningham@uwclub.net ; Sonia Mansurian ; Margaret Griffiths ; Frank Chesworth ; Gerald Moran ; Nok Nok ; Bennett, John K. ; Benjamin Dennehy ; Tracy Evans ; Susan Deans ; John Talbot ; Liam O'Brien ; Mirek Malevski ; Hughes, Matthew J ; DIANE BRUCE ; Beth van der Eems Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:11 AMSubject: Reply to Mrs Helen Harris - My Formal ComplaintMrs Helen HarrisHead of Legal Services, LBE.Dear Mrs HarrisI am astonished to receive your note below of 27th instant and attachments.  I wonder have you actually read my complete Formal Complaint (23 pages) fully?  You will recall that you specifically asked me to identify the specific codes that I believed were being breached and that is exactly what I did. You now (incorrectly) suggest that I did absolutely nothing after you asked me to identify which codes I wanted to refer to specifically, but this is exactly what I did do. As I say, your letter implies that I completely ignored your request!The codes I identified were as below and please see pages 7 & 8 of my Complaint for the final document text:Ealing Council Code of Conduct for Members - Part 2High standards of conduct - Section 3You must maintain a high standard of conduct, and comply with the following general principles of conduct:The General PrinciplesSelflessness — you should serve only the public interest and should never improperly confer a benefit on yourself or an advantage or disadvantage on any other person.Integrity — you should maintain high standards of conduct at all times; you should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned; and you should avoid any appearance of improper behaviour.Ealing Council Code of Conduct for Members - Part 2 - Section 4You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the council into disrepute.Ealing Council Code of Conduct for Members - Part 2 - Section 7You —(a) must not use or attempt to use your position as a member improperly to confer on or secure for yourself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage;Ealing Council Code of Conduct for Members - Part 4Related documents14.. The council has adopted other codes and protocols which do not form part of this Code but which deal with specific activities you may be required or wish to carry out in the course of your duties as a councillor.  You are required to comply with the latest version of these from time to time and any breach may be regarded as a breach of this Code.  The following codes and protocols are currently in effect :(1)  Code of Conduct for Members in relation to Planning Matters…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Code of Conduct for Members in relation to Planning Matters - Section 5The Council’s Protocol for member involvement in pre-application presentations and discussions is set out below as follows:- Any presentations or discussions with developers should be part of structured arrangements agreed with officers and may also include other interested parties. Officers of appropriate seniority should normally attend the meeting.A written note of the meeting should be kept and the meeting should be recorded in the subsequent planning report.Code of Conduct for Members in relation to Planning Matters - Section 7If you are approached about a planning matter (even if you are not a member of the Planning Committee) by any applicant, agent, objector or other interested party, you should: (a)    Consider whether or not it would be prudent in the circumstances to make notes of the meeting and (if so) make such notes (b)    Disclose any such contact if you make representations about a planning matter (either at or outside the Planning Committee meeting) (c)    In the light of such contact, and of other relevant considerations (including, for members of the Planning Committees, the importance of remaining impartial as a decision maker), carefully exercise your judgment as to the best means to play your representative role as a ward member with regard to the planning matter in question (d)    Avoid giving the impression that you, or anyone else, can exert any improper influence over the planning process (e)    If the contact is to seek professional, technical or legal advice with regard to a planning matter, consider whether or not it is appropriate to refer the enquirer to the appropriate council officer or other appropriate independent person or organisation, and (f)    Immediately report to the appropriate officer any improper contact, pressure or inducements to yourself or - if you become aware of them - to others involved in the planning process.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The "Questions" style of presenting the Complaint you refer to is merely my way of expressing my complaints and how I believe these codes have not been observed, which seems pretty obvious. For instance as an analogy, a complaint might say "Why did he break the speed limit of 30mph?"  - this equates to a complaint that: "he broke the speed limit"!  As Head of Legal Services LBE, it would hardly take you much delving to understand what my Complaint is all about! You  also received or saw e-mails where I went into detail on some of the matters and referred you Forum postings which were indexed to show public concern (the most read topic of recent times, I believe).To reject my Complaint out of hand, which, contrary to what you say, does identify the codes because it seems that you do not like the precise printed layout of my Complaint, when its meaning and essence is crystal clear, is, I believe, unjust.I regret that I do not consider that you have dealt with my Complaint fairly and I will there seek to challenge this by reporting the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman and if possible, the Scrutiny Committee of the Council.My full Complaint final text and documents (total 23 pages) may be seen at the following URL reference:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14377445/Formal Complaint_23.Page_document.pdfI am posting this reply on the Forum in the public interest.Yours sincerely,Victor Mishiku  28/9/13.Copy to  The Investigator - Alex Oram Esq, and others as listed above.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----- Original Message ----- From: vmfree To: Helen Harris ; alex.oram@chi-assoc.com ; jjaafar@sky.com ; Gerald Moran Cc: CHARLES CHARALAMBOUS ; g.berg@rocketmail.com ; John Chapple ; khourymazen@hotmail.com ; hukra@hotmail.com ; aeltourgman@btinternet.com ; susansutovic@aol.com ; elena.c@talk21.com ; Dina Dmitrijeva ; Ewelina Lapinska ; Marilyn Ashton ; carole.percival@btinternet.com ; carolynbrown@credence.fsworld.co.uk ; Richard HERING ; MyMoves ; ebringerw5@Yahoo.co.uk ; Alex Hawran ; Magdalena Kos ; petercauser@hotmail.co.uk ; Valerie Scott ; Anthony.Young@ealing.gov.uk ; Ian Potts ; David.Scott@ealing.gov.uk ; david.millican@ealing.gov.uk ; roseh@ealing.gov.uk ; Gary Malcolm ; andrew.Steed@ealing.gov.uk ; rusidalal@hotmail.com ; ANGUSJHUCK@aol.com ; ballj@ealing.gov.uk ; Nigel.Bakhai@ealing.gov.uk ; justin.anderson@ealing.gov.uk ; colm.costello@ealing.gov.uk ; Jason.Stacey@ealing.gov.uk ; Joanna.Dabrowska@ealing.gov.uk ; Mark.Reen@ealing.gov.uk ; John.popham@ealing.gov.uk ; alan@grampa.demon.co.uk ; nickblack ; jjaafar@sky.com ; AnthonyRoden@gmail.com ; Michael Evans ; Hazel@talbot68.plus.com ; tessaleverton@doctors.org.uk ; Helen Kimball Brooke ; mjalal@hotmail.com ; Naz Ghanadian ; nadia hajian ; pjpercival@btinternet.com ; PJ Fleming ; Martin Tighe ; Ann Salaun ; James Clifford ; karie clifford ; collettdunkley@london.com ; suerobson@btopenworld.com ; Stephen Rodney ; bill.blyth@tnsglobal.com ; richard.barras@gmail.com ; Judy Harris ; Moira Black/Robert Gurd ; Vivienne Hanreck ; Anthony Lewis ; shares ; MiejoMortimer@yahoo.co.uk ; anybody.101@whatsit.plus.com ; Clive Jackson ; Michael Russell ; jamesgates@trinitysouth.co.uk ; emmaheseltine@trinitysouth.co.uk ; mira.barhillel@standard.co.uk ; sinemsirri@hotmail.co.uk ; Esin Sirri ; richardstokes295@btinternet.com ; Dexter Smith ; Plimmer_Robert@Hotmail.com ; z David Munkley ; Richard Sable ; Alan Gerry Joe and James Wickens ; Alan Forbes ; rex@ankersfamily.org.uk ; John Jurkiw ; Rohit Radia ; shilps100@doctors.org.uk ; kuldip sandher ; Shelagh Daboul ; Diane O'Neill ; ozegovic@btinternet.com ; alex Butler ; Bruno Rondinelli ; peter gallagher ; jrinw3@aol.co.uk ; edithoakes@aol.co.uk ; Peter.White@sms.xerox.com ; Matthew Walker ; pandora.hadfield@googlemail.com ; triciawcox@btinternet.com ; Jean Cutts ; Alan Smith ; Jenny King ; Michael Burrows ; Lucien Gover ; Tim Owen ; Petebamber@aol.com ; Tony Kaye ; irene@wears.demon.co.uk ; YENIJ@aol.com ; nicky gill ; Chester Ball ; Riet van Bremen ; jane@stats.ucl.ac.uk ; ravi kaushal ; lailitakaushal@hotmail.co.uk ; IreenEsmann@talktalk.net ; stevepoundmp@parliament.uk ; Angie4ealingacton@googlemail.com ; Fraserk@ealing.gov.uk ; DTeevan@aol.com ; declan ; editor@ActonW3.com ; Team P13 ; zac@zacgoldsmith.com ; eric.pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk ; Mayor@London.gov.uk ; edit@ealinggazette.co.uk ; 'Kevin Redford' ; ipcunningham@uwclub.net ; Sonia Mansurian ; Nok Nok ; Bennett, John K. ; Benjamin Dennehy ; Tracy Evans ; Susan Deans ; John Talbot ; Liam O'Brien ; Mirek Malevski ; Hughes, Matthew J ; DIANE BRUCE ; Beth van der Eems ; Martin Smith Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 2:14 AMSubject: Complaint Addendum - My Complaint Form dated 31st July 2013 Mrs Helen HarrisHead of Legal Services, LBE. Dear Mrs HarrisI have received your "automatic reply" message that you are away until 19th August 2013 as below:----- Original Message ----- From: Helen Harris To: vmfree Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 2:52 PMSubject: Automatic reply: My Complaint Form dated 31st July 2013Thanks for your email.  I am out of the office until Monday 19th August and will look at your email following my return.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Please note, further to my e-mail response to you yesterday (8th August), I will be preparing for you a Complaint Addendum referring to the specific  breaches of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Councillors as relate to Cllr. Julian Bell's conduct in the Sahota matter that you asked about.Regarding such breaches, of which there are more than one, it may well be necessary for interrogatories to determine the extent of these breaches.  The Council will receive the Complaint Addendum from me before your return to work.Yours sincerely,Victor Mishiku  9/8/13.----- Original Message ----- From: Helen Harris To: vmfree (vmfree@madasafish.com) Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 5:37 PMSubject: Your complaintDear Mr MishikuI apologise for my delay in making a decision in relation to your complaint against Cllr Bell.  I have now had the opportunity to consider in detail the issues you have raised.  In all the circumstances, I have decided not to refer your complaint for investigation.  I attach a copy of my decision.Please be reassured that I sent a copy of your complaint to the investigator looking into Cllr Dennehy’s complaint, at an early stage in his investigation.  I am confident that investigator will take into account any standards issues that he considers may arise from the questions you raised.  For your information, I also attach a further copy of the council’s adopted standards procedure.Kind regardsYours sincerelyHelen HarrisDirector of Legal and Democratic Services

Victor Mishiku ● 4568d

Having a cursory 'root around' the Council website, the charges were in place in March 2013, before the meeting in question.

Nigel Brooks ● 4588d

I could be wrong but was it that preplanning advice was free for householders, but more recently the Council decided to change the rules and start charging?

George Knox ● 4589d

One wonders what is more rotten? The politicians and wealth backed powerful or the obstructive actions of council officers.Rotten to the core is a most apt description.But I fear it goes way beyond just Ealing Council, Neighbouring authoritires are just as bad indeed, worse in some ways.

Oliver Gregan ● 4590d

It is clear from the Council website that the Council DO offer a pre-application advice service as they quote a charge for so doing.So have they been 'economic with the truth' when responding, with a denial that this service is offered, to Cllr. Dennehy's FOI request? Phil, the page you quote is for major developments, the more relevant page is:http://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/200011/building_control/1262/applications_and_chargesThis clearly shows a charge of £67.60 per hour per building control surveyor for the 'non-existent' service.If it's £67.60 for a building control surveyor, what is the charge I wonder for the more senior personnel that did attend?

Nigel Brooks ● 4590d

OK, having looked at his blog and an attached document from Ealing Council, I'm getting a bit confused again because the direct conclusions Mr Dennehy draws from the answers to his questions aren't apparent to me.It IS apparent that this whole thing stinks.The Council's response claims that it "does not offer a paid service for pre-application advice to householders" and therefore the freedom of information request he made "is not applicable and there is no relevant documentation".  So, on the face of it, not much for the police to be interested in - BUT the Council then provide a link to their website, where, as far as I can make out, they DO make a charge for pre-application advice to householders:http://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/1023/planning_advice_and_guidance/351/telecommunications_register/5It still seems to me that this whole episode makes a farce of our local processes but there's a lot of detailed work to do on it before any enforcement authorities - police, CPS etc - will look at it.For clarity, Mr Dennehy's verbatim freedom of information question reads:"Dr Sahota, the local GLA Member had pre-planning application meeting with the Director for the Built Environment and also the Leader of the Council on the 25th October. The Council offers this as pre-planning application as a paid service."Can I have copies of the application for this meeting that was made and also a copy of the invoice/receipt for the fees paid or any equivalent document that states the information requested."Ealing Council's verbatim response is:"The Director of Built Environment attended a meeting to offer procedural advice. The Council does not offer a paid service for pre-application advice to householders. For your additional information, the Council publishes details of its pre-application advice service on its website at the following link:http://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/1023/planning_advice_and_guidance/351/pre-application_guidance"Therefore the request is not applicable and there is no relevant documentation."

Phil Kay ● 4590d

Even were the information potentially libellous, were Mr Dennehy to ask a question containing that information in a council meeting he would be covered by what is known as "qualified privilege"  that would protect him so long as the question was relevant to the council's activity: i.e. a defamatory question about a major media celebrity's activities on holiday would not be covered, while a question about alleged misdemeanors in dumping rubbish in Ealing by said celebrity would be. Anyone reporting the text of the words spoken in the council meeting would also be covered so long as the report was accurate and sourced to the person who made the statement itself (and a wise person would include the place and occasion, i.e. at the council meeting).K.

Kieren A Wroblewski ● 4590d

Here is the evidence;http://benjamindennehy.com/2013/09/06/dr-sahota-did-not-pay-for-his-pre-planning-application-advice/

Benjamin Dennehy ● 4590d

Checked yeasterday and that's correct, my oversight . I'm afraid.

Oliver Gregan ● 4590d

Sub judice relates to the interim period between a charge being brought and a CPS case being prepared and the case coming to public court. Before prosecution, and after the start of a trial, publishing and reporting is allowed in any medium.

Judith Jaafar ● 4590d

In that case that's fine, I was under the impression it could be defamatory or void any investigation if presented publicly.

Oliver Gregan ● 4591d

Sub judice does not come into play until, at the very least, an oral charge has been made.Unless Mr Dennehy is aware that such a charge has been made, he cannot be guilty of sub judice.Once again, I believe it would be useful for all of us to see the evidence he has obtained.

Phil Kay ● 4591d

If it's possibly a criminal offence then posting the evidence on this site can be deemed sub-judicy.The evidence has to be presented to the police or the prosecutors.

Oliver Gregan ● 4591d

Mr Dennehy - Please post the evidence here on the forum, it would be instructive for all of us to see it.Thanks

Phil Kay ● 4591d

It turns out that Dr Sahota DID NOT pay for the pre-plannning application advice. I have obtained evidence that confirms this. This now looks like corruption by Bell and Rutherford and Sahota. I shall be making a formal complaint to the Police.

Benjamin Dennehy ● 4592d

If the alleged lies were material to planning permission being obtained then I would speak with both the LGO and, possibly, the police.

Nigel Brooks ● 4603d

The same three lies on the planning application were pointed out at full Planning Committee.It still wasn't considered important and was completely ignored.

Rosco White ● 4603d

AFAIK a planning application is a legal document. The PO by allowing an allegedly fraudulent application is therefore complicit in the fraud is he not?

Nigel Brooks ● 4603d

A neighbour was applying for planning permission for a development to which I objected. At a meeting with the Planning Officer I pointed out three blatant lies on the Planning Application and asked the Planning Officer what they would be doing about it. The answer was .... "Not a lot." With a Planning Department who isn't bothered and cares little about accurate information on planning applications  I think the system is far more than, and beyond, broken.

Rosco White ● 4603d

* letter in the Gazette on page 14 "No-one is above planning laws"

Paul Cameron ● 4603d

The problem is, Judith, that the system is broken and wrong.I have experienced almost the same issue with Hounslow on a much smaller scale ( an extension to a terraced house )  The design was flawed and on building experts advice I lodged an objection. However, the owners/builders jumped the gun and started building.  Less than 6 months after construction I start to get damp problems my 6 year old adjoining wall.Planning was granted but with a footnote referring to building having commenced prior to permission and that an objection had been filed and that the owners therefore were taking a risk of which they would be liable for the consequences.In this instance the owners were decent responsible people and paid to have the problems identified put right all without having to go to court.But the problems is the whole system is supposed to protect me and the other party and time and again it fails, Leaving the victim to resort to very costly legal procedures and if you are up against someone who is very wealthy or well connected you are more than likely to be stuffed.My brother has a small property in Isleworth, He currently works abroad and it is temporarily let. He recently found that planning permission has been granted by Hounslow for an extension to the house next door which is into his garden!The house is part of a conjoined block, in a conservation area, and a completely untouched development which was built under very strict guidlines.The gardens are collectively owned by six freeholders so are communal. Even though he did not get any notification and he was living there at the time of application, other residents did object.The Hounslow Planning officers recommended the proposal and dismissed all the conservation criteria and the fact that the land is not the applicants to build on.The councils answer to this debacle? Go and get a lawyer.The residents have sought such but these are modest homes occupied by people of very modest means. The cost of legal action is way beyond even their collective means.LBH councillors and officers simply refuse to engage in the matter even via the complaint procedure.The applicant, it turns out is a wealth multiple property owner in Hounslow who has very close connections with the Labour party, again it is a very similar  episode as with Dr. Sahota with meetings and links being rather too strong for  good to prevail.In this case Hounslow councillors approved, no questions asked and Hounslow practice does not allow any form of Q&A from objectors when planners omit or brush over objections. One LBH Councillor, Theo Dennison who clearly noticed that things were not right tried to change the procedures so as to be more open, accessible and fair was swiftly removed from the chair and committee by his own party.Apart form the politics, some of the planning professionals seem to make very strange recommendations and a lot of strange things happen like sub-stations and drainage relief installations being omitted from maps presented to voting councillors.The conflict of interests, and how everything is rigged if the client is..London Borough of Hounslow.It is becoming a virulent disease with politics, money, greed and power all fuelling it.We are supposed to have and evolved system that keeps these very excesses in check, but too many are finding ways to abuse it or pick through the weak links.Clearly it has spread from Hounslow and Brent to Ealing and it is now something that the Government need to take a closer look at but I suspect they are no better than the likes of Sahota and Bell et all.

Michael Brandt ● 4610d

I was present at the Planning Committee meeting on 13th March, in the upper public gallery. First time I've ever been to such a thing, but then I've never had someone try to dig a basement recreational area next to me nor try to join their house to mine so I can never again reach my flank wall, guttering or chimneys on that side of my property.The meeting was embarrassing in the extreme. The planning officer tasked with defending the indefensible favourable recommendation of the planning department could hardly string a sentence together. She mumbled incomprehensibly not into the mic and was constantly requested to speak up more clearly. It was obvious she had no clue about the case and had been thrown in at the deep end, as the original case officer had left, in unknown circumstances, not long before. This new officer had never even made a site visit to the property, at least not one that we know about.Of the 13 committee members, 7 are Labour (in-built majority), the rest mixed Tories and Lib Dems. All Labour members declared an interest at the outset, that they had campaigned with Dr. Sahota or knew him, but said this would not influence their decision. Ten voted against the application, none for, with three abstentions. In that respect Dr. Sahota is correct - the proposal was so awful that even his own political colleagues voted against it. But why did the planners push so hard to get this application through, even though it breached all their planning guidelines?We were then in the perverse and ludicrous position of these same planners having to defend the Committee decision against Dr. Sahota's appeal, a position for which they had no stomach and which they have defended so badly to the Insectorate that it's verging on a travesty. The Inspectorate have refused our request for a hearing because Ealing Planning Services did not push for it as they had promised us. The appeal will be decided now by written representations only, without us having a chance to have an informal meeting with the Inspector.The Planning Department's behaviour in this whole case has been unethical, incompetent and illogical. The turnover of case officers is higher than sales assistants at Primark - we're on the third one now for the application next door on the other side! The fact that the Planning Committee voted down the Sahota proposal does not mean that everything was ethical and transparent at the planning stages - not at all, so this does not make everything proper and hunkydory as Dr. Sahota suggests. There's something really rotten going on in this borough when it comes to certain types of planning applications. Decisions are being made that are causing real pain and distress to long-term residents, decisions that flout all the planning rules and which are favourable to unscrupulous developers - and I mean many cases in Ealing and Acton, not necessarily Dr.Sahota's next door to me. 130/140 year old Victorian gems, such as the Peacehaven villa in Acton are being targeted and could be ruined through unsympathetic development or building in back gardens. Garden grabbing was outlawed by this government, or the last one, yet it seems nobody has told Ealing Planning Services. Westminster and K&C are planning to, or now have, banned basement excavation because of the subsidence and misery to neighbours it causes, but seemingly Ealing are all for it and it's not a planning issue anyway, I was told. It comes under building control, Noel Rutherford's province. Interesting! The very areas and architecture that made Ealing "Queen of the Suburbs" are under serious threat.

Judith Jaafar ● 4610d

Dr Sahota thinks "as his planning application was put through the normal process for consideration and then rejected by the planning committee, there can be no proper basis to a suggestion that he was given any out-of-the-ordinary favourable treatment by the Council"Um NO! The minutes say the planning committee for the hearing was made up of 13 councillors only 7 of which were Labour. All the opposition members spoke vehemently against it and so did a Labour one, Cllr Rennie, so the Labour majority was smashed from the start. 2 of the Labour ones didn’t go to the site visit and didn’t voice opinion on the night, further eroding any influence that Bell might have had on his Labour members swaying the vote in favour. One Labour member spoke of the merits of the application and tried to get it deferred to no avail. So I read the minutes like the stronger side won rather than evidence that ‘no out-of-the-ordinary favourable treatment’ was given Sahota. On the contrary the officer’s report trying to steer the committee to grant the permission so unacceptably looks a lot like evidence of "out-of-the-ordinary favourable treatment" was given… and probably given as a result of the leader of the council's extraordinary meddling.

Anthony Collingbourne ● 4610d

Brings a new twist to 'Pull the other one, it's got Bell on it!'

Michael Brandt ● 4610d

Dr Sahota thinks "that as the meeting with Cllr Bell was attended by officers there can be no proper suggestion of improper political influence being exercised or attempted in that meeting"Err NO! If the leader of the council attending isn't standard practice then wouldn't officers be wondering why he was taking a particular interest in this application and feeling this to be potentially intimidating?

Anthony Collingbourne ● 4610d

So Dr Sahota "considers that asking the Council for advice on a potential planning application is standard practice"OK BUT the leader coming to a meeting at your house isn’t standard practice and that’s the point here isn’t it?

Anthony Collingbourne ● 4610d

Oh, I think there's loads of porkies flying about!

Rosco White ● 4611d

If no-one of expertise or representative of the planning department or planning matters was present then surely there would not be a meeting?Just two political bedfellows sitting in a room.Someone must be telling porkies!

Michael Brandt ● 4611d

I may be starting to misunderstand this complex thread, however I read it that Dr Sahota said the meeting was attended by "Officer/s", and by this I believe he means Noel Rutherford?I don't think he mentions Planning Officers per se??

Rosco White ● 4611d

Hmmmm, he says planners were present, Cllr Bell denies that, Whose telling the truth?Response from GLA Monitoring Officer:Councillor Dennehy I have, further to our exchanges below, now had the opportunity of discussing this matter informally with Dr Sahota, making him aware of the nature of the concerns set out below and asking for his views. Dr Sahota stated categorically that his activities in respect of the planning application are and have been solely and entirely in his private & personal capacity as a resident / applicant and not as a Member of the London Assembly. Dr Sahota informed me that he did respond to the email that was sent to him by Cllr Bell’s PA on his GLA email address as that was the address to which the message was sent by the LB Ealing officer - but that that has been the only occasion on which these matters have touched upon his GLA role. As such, Dr Sahota is of the view that this cannot be a matter to which the GLA Code of Conduct applies (the statements in emails to Councillor Bell regarding the request to do the “needful” were not sent from him as a GLA Member but rather from him in his personal capacity, and therefore outside of the scope of my remit as GLA Monitoring Officer – as is the case also regarding any concerns about Cllr Bell’s actions on this matter and those of Ealing Council generally). Dr Sahota confirmed that he did have a meeting (in his personal capacity as applicant) with Councillor Bell and council officers, the purpose of which (I am told) was to seek advice on the planning process in advance of any application being prepared; Dr Sahota’s architect (but not Dr Sahota directly) then had further contact with council officers at the point that the application was submitted. (I did not ask Dr Sahota about the issue payment for pre-application advice as you have stated that you are pursuing that matter already, separately.) Dr Sahota considers that asking the Council for advice on a potential planning application is standard practice; that as the meeting with Cllr Bell was attended by officers there can be no proper suggestion of improper political influence being exercised or attempted in that meeting; and also feels that, as his planning application was put through the normal process for consideration and then rejected by the planning committee, there can be no proper basis to a suggestion that he was given any out-of-the-ordinary favourable treatment by the Council. I hope that information is helpful to you in relation to your concerns. Please do let me know if you would wish to progress matters further as regards the GLA. Yours sincerely GLA Monitoring Officer

Benjamin Dennehy ● 4611d

It seems Cllr Bell has been on the war path. The FOI officer got back to me to retract the 5 meetings attended by Cllr Bell. They now say the information they gave me was wrong and that Cllr Bell did not attend the 14 Eccleston property meeting, though he did facilitate the meeting.They say that the other 3 meetings they refer to were at the behest of the Leader but no planners attended.I have sought clarification in case they feel Noel Rutherford is not considered a planner. I believe he is the lead planner. But let's look into that as they may have excluded him because I did not specifically say Director. I have now made that request.See the latest letter hear;http://benjamindennehy.com/2013/08/13/cllr-bell-the-5-meetings-the-5-approvals-and-more/

Benjamin Dennehy ● 4612d

The relationship and dealings of Dr.Sahota and Cllr.Bell and others in Ealing Council re this sad affair are rather disturbing. Equally alarming and disturbing is the lack of interest and response apparently shown in the matter by our MP Angie Bray. I would have thought and expected this concern to be at the top of her urgent in-tray topics. Strange really.

Gerry Tan ● 4612d

Thanks Anthony for copying your post to this thread as well.Unfortunately Cllr. Bell has branched out from offering "planning advice" for solely  Southall applications - this latest one by Dr. Sahota is right next to me in the heart of Ealing Broadway. Dr. Sahota currently lives in Southall, however, although he has stated he lives in the "derelict" (according to his planning consultant) house next to me. They try to kid the town planners into thinking that anything, no matter how outrageous, is better than dereliction. The house is worth a vast sum and is anything but derelict. It just looks abandoned. Why would a very wealthy politician be living in a derelict house anyway? This is where these spin doctors (forgive the pun)shoot themselves in the foot with contradictory logic.The real practice of "deliberate dereliction" is widespread, however,and there's a case going through the ropes at the moment in Corfton Road where run-down garages at the back of the big old houses, which should never have been allowed to be sold off from the back gardens, are proposed to be knocked down and two two storey houses built in their stead. The garages have actually been used illegally as storage for masses and masses of white goods, and the developer, a Mr. Singh Juneja, sold the land to himself even though he doesn't appear to actually own half the land, either in his first or second selves. It's like a circus, all this back garden-grabbing greed.And talking about MPs - our MP for Ealing and Acton, Angie Bray, despite being copied into many emails and letters about the apparent impropriety at the heart of Ealing Council, and the "procedural irregularities" in the Planning Department, has not acknowledged a single one. Even a specific request for assistance has resulted in doodly squat. Poor show indeed.

Judith Jaafar ● 4612d

(posting here as Judy requested)Well this is all intriguing. Why is Bell getting involved at all and why just in Southall? The council’s website says the applicant for 14 Ecclestone Road was Mr Balwant Grewal. He put in a retrospective application in 2010 for an extension already built that breached planning control and it was refused and enforced. However after Cllr Bell became leader of the council Mr Grewal got a new retrospective application approved. Why the change and why did Bell get involved? Did the planner overturn the refusal and enforcement because the leader of the council intervened? Did Bell interfere because Balwant Grewal is the Chair of the India Association with links to MP Virendra Sharma (ref.Google) and as Bell works for Sharma does he do what his boss tells him?There is a link between the 46-54 Beresford Road and the Shackleton Medical Centre applications ie Mr Gurpal Grewal. Oddly enough Grewal is also connected to the India Association as joint Secretary and also an acquaintance of Mr Sharma. A search on the council's planning website for Shackleton Road, Shackleton Medical Centre or PP/2012/0034 produces no results. Why? Is someone making it hard to find? There is a link to another planning application from Gurpal Grewal for a Acton property where he changed the use from medical center to residential flats (115 Gunnersbury Lane, Acton W3 8HQ (Agent: Beacon Care Services). The company Beacon Beresford Group is a private business with a nursing home and companies specialising in cosmetic surgery, medical services and staff and medical construction development and property management. Why are they getting the intervention of the leader of the council on both planning applications? A search for Himalaya Palace is also hard to find on the council site. You have to look under Himalaya Cinema. Intriguingly the applicant was Mr Surjit Pandher, Director of Himalaya Carpets and Vice president of the British Sikh Association. Another big name in Southall. Another linked to Sharma?All 4 of these applications are in Sharma’s Southall constituancy and all applicants seem like high profile Southall business men with influence and wealth just like Sahota and likely to be of importance to Sharma. Are they big donors to Sharma’s campaign fund? Is Bell facilitating their planning applications because boss Sharma tells him to? Should Bell be working for Sharma? Was the Southall car park about pleasing businessmen who pledge support for Sharma? Is the leader of the council Sharma’s puppet?

Anthony Collingbourne ● 4613d

Shackleton - an intriguing web of companies with one still active carrying a 1.5m current liability and no current assets.

Charles Campbell ● 4613d

Yes, also do your own "Due Diligence" and find out how many Planning Officers have a cosy little company on the side offering planning advice.Could Mr Simon Dunn-Lwin be the same Mr Dunn-Lwin of SDL Ltd?

Rosco White ● 4614d

I wonder how many other employees suddenly leave?You have to keep on checking that an officer is still employed.  It never pays to become complacent.  A bit like checking that the baby is still breathing.  We learned this when an Enforcement Officer was suddenly "no longer working for the Council".

Philippa Bond ● 4614d

On 11th August 2013, I e-mailed to Mrs Helen Harris, Head of Legal Services, LBE my Formal Complaint including the 5-page Addendum and the 4 attachments referred to therein. The composite file can be read at the following URL:  https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14377445/FormalComplaint_23.Page_document.pdfI hand-delivered a full set of the 23 page document last night at Ealing Town Hall.The covering e-mail to Mrs Harris reads:Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 8:52 PMSubject: Formal Complaint Addendum dated 11th August 2013 attached + Oct & Dec 2012 E-Mails, Pdf file (censored by Ealing Council) + NGL255900 + Posting 10/8/13 + Letter published 31/5/13.Mrs Helen HarrisHead of Legal Services,Ealing CouncilTown HallUxbridge RoadEaling W5Dear Mrs HarrisFurther to my letter to you by e-mail dated 9th August 2013 (set out below), please find attached 5 documents (all Pdf files):-COMPLAINT - 10-page Composite Document - Formal Complaint (5-pages) + Formal Complaint Addendum (5-pages), making the composite document 10 pages in all. HM LAND REGISTRY Title NGL255900  - 43 Castlebar Road, Ealing W5. E-MAILS (LBE-censored) - exchanged between The Leader, Cllr. Julian Bell's office/Dr Onkar Singh Sahota/Cllr. Julian Bell in October and December 2012, which I refer to on the 8th page of the composite document at (iv). As Ealing Council has censored the E-Mails, I trust that the originals will be supplied uncensored to The Investigator, Alex Oram Esq., so that he has all the information before him.Further Background Information - on the 8th page of the composite document, in please note that part of item (vi) is to follow (although all the information is already publicly available). With this submission. I attach my Web posting of 10th August 2013 re. the censored e-mails. The 9th and 10th pages of the composite document set out the text of Cllr. David Millican's letter published by the "Ealing & Acton Gazette" (online) on 6th August 2013 containing the 17 Questions for Cllr. Bell to answer and I see that Cllr. Millican  has already supplied that letter to you.Query: In Questions 12 & 13 of Cllr. Millican's List of Questions, he enquires about the original Planning Officer, who was Ms Fiona Abrahamsen. Before the case came before the Planning Committee on the night of 13th March 2013, Ms Abrahamsen left the Council's employ.  At the outset of the application 21-day consultation period, Ms Abrahamsen had visited Castlebar Road to also view from the immediately adjoining property (No.41)  - something that neither Cllr. Bell nor Mr Rutherford did in October 2012 when they attended upon Dr Sahota and his Architect (whose name has been censored in the e-mail exchange of 17th October 2012).  I was in fact very surprised to see the final planning report to committee for 13th March 2013 and how little consideration had been given to the objectors' observations (not helped by the report having been drafted before the re-consultation period of 14 days had been allowed to run). On 31st May 2013, the "Ealing & Acton Gazette"  published a letter from Mrs Judy Jaafar in "Your Letters" (attached) which refers to this.The letter reads: "When planning ethics went Awol - I NOTE with interest in your recent article regarding Ealing Planning Services that their spokeswoman  said all business is conducted with transparency and to the highest ethical standards, whilst interested parties are given ample opportunity to send in their comments.  In a recent case in my area the first planning application was notified to residents for the normal 21 day commentary period.  After a local campaign of objection, a second application with revised plans was immediately entered and notified to residents for an unusually curtailed 14-day period.  It transpired that the planning officer's report, favourable to the developer, was completed and signed off before the end of this period, ensuring that several important letters, including one from a formally engaged planning consultant, were not even seen before the report was finalised.  Exactly how transparent and ethical is that, I have to ask?  Thankfully the planning committee councillors saw fit to throw the application out." ....Judith Jaafar, Ealing (by email) My query is who actually completed or partly re-wrote Ms Abrahamsen's report  to committee and/or the "briefing notes" recommending favourably Dr Sahota's application, since whoever it was did not have the benefit of a site view from No.41.  Furthermore, was undue pressure put on any planning officer directly or indirectly to ensure a favourable report and outcome for Dr Sahota?. The report itself was subsequently described by Planning Committee Members on 13th March 2013 as being "In defiance of reality"  "Not to be trusted"  "Absurd"  and "An insult to the intelligence".  Yours sincerely,Victor Mishiku  11th August 2013.cc. Ealing Broadway Ward Councillors, The Chief Executive LBE, Gerald Moran, Hunters, Lincolns Inn, Mrs Judy Jaafar, 41 Castlebar Road, Ealing W5,  The Investigator - Alex Oram Esq and others as listed above.Attachments:  5

Victor Mishiku ● 4614d

Further FOI shows Cllr Bell has initiated a total of 5 meetings since 2010 for pre-planning applications. ALL were recommended for APPROVAL. A Shackleton Medical Centre in Southall was one. I wonder if Dr Sahota has an interest in it?See documents here;http://benjamindennehy.com/2013/08/13/cllr-bell-the-5-meetings-the-5-approvals-and-more/

Benjamin Dennehy ● 4614d

I believe Victor is still working on modifying his formal complaint addendum. I'm sure he will clarify things when he can. It might be easier to read if he just posted here the list of codes of conduct for councillors that have been breached by Councillor Bell, rather than repost his whole complaint letter to Helen Harris, the Borough Solicitor. It is rather long.It would be interesting to find out if there are similar codes for conduct in public life for GLA members.

Judith Jaafar ● 4615d

It can't be too difficult to find out who Bell's PA is can it?

Tony Colliver ● 4615d

VictorAs you've said yourself, this thread is now very large.If you amend a posting of over 700 words, it would be REALLY helpful to highlight where the amendments have been made.What did you change in your second posting?Thanks

Phil Kay ● 4616d

From the Website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_the_needful"Do the needful" is an expression which means "do that which is necessary", with the respectful implication that the other party is trusted to understand what needs doing without being given detailed instruction. The expression is currently used mainly in South Asian English (particularly Indian English).The events in this case appear to be:1) According to Cllr. Julian Bell (as he himself stated in the Town Hall Chamber at Full Council on the night of 16th July 2013 in reply to a question from Cllr. Ian Potts, Ward Councillor), "Pre-Application Advice" was given to the intended applicant for planning permission, Dr Onkar Singh Sahota.  We now know that this advice was given at a meeting convened by the Senior PA to Cllr. Bell.  Mr Noel Rutherford, Director of the Environment Group (who is not a planner) attended. The Head of Planning Ms Aileen Jones knew of the meeting but apparently did not attend it.A heavily censored e-mail has been produced by the Council (no doubt The Investigator, Mr Alex Oram, will require the uncensored original version) which is dated 17th October 2012.  The e-mail is written by Cllr. Bell's office at 16.45 to Dr Sahota and copied to [censored], Mr Noel Rutherford, Ms Aileen Jones. It has for the "Subject" - Meeting - Planning Issue.The e-mail says "Dear Dr Sahota, I have been asked to set up a meeting between Julian, Noel Rutherford and yourself" and goes on to ask about suitable times and the location.  The e-mail states "I am also copying this email to Aileen Jones and Noel Rutherford in Planning to see if either of them are able to attend. Thanks [censored]"At 17.36 on the same afternoon, Dr Sahota using his GLA office e-mail address Onkar.Sahota@london.gov.uk replies: "Dear [censored]  Thank you for progressing this meeting. It would be helpful to meet on site so that we can have better context to the discussions and space perspective. Monday 22 October at 1.00 p.m. at 43 Castlebar Road. Ealing W5 4PL. The architect will be [censored - censored] of De Matos Ryan Architects www.dematosryan.co.uk  Look forward to the meeting. BW, Onkar"2) The next censored e-mail produced by the Council is on 21st December 2012 sent by Dr Sahota to Cllr. Julian Bell from a NHS e-mail address at the Hanwell Health Centre, Church Road, W7.  The e-mail reads:  "Dear Julian, I am pleased to let you know that the application has been made and registered. The application reference number is PP-02367585.  Please do the needful. Best wishes, Onkar"We do not yet have the reply from Cllr. Bell to the 21st December 2012 e-mail, but it seems to show that the two of them were still in contact about the proposed development during October to at least just before Xmas 2012.However, in his comments made to Mr James Gates at the "Ealing & Acton Gazette" reported in the 19th July 2013 issue on page 2 of the newspaper, Cllr. Bell suggests that the (October) meeting at No.43 ended his involvement. Cllr. Bell told the newspaper: "Subsequent to this meeting I took no further part in the process and Dr Sahota's application was submitted and then decided on at planning committee".Cllr. Bells suggests therefore that there was no further contact after the (October) meeting, yet it is clear that AFTER submitting the planning application, Dr Sahota was back in touch with "Dear Julian" and his e-mail of 21st December 2012 was marked "Importance - High".As I say, we have not yet seen the reply by Cllr Bell to that e-mail of "High Importance".Why was it so important?  "Please do the needful" - What exactly did Dr Sahota want Cllr Bell to do that was of such high importance to him?It is said that Cllr Bell only holds his position as Leader by the grace of the Southall block vote and that important positions have now been given over to Southall Councillors, who effectively control "The Queen of the Suburbs". Cllr Bell works for the Southall MP, who is Dr Sahota's political ally."Please do the needful" - One wonders, was it a request or an "instruction"?Why was Mr Noel Rutherford roped in?  He is not a planner, but a former Building Control Officer.  Was he there to advise about "subsidence"?

Victor Mishiku ● 4616d

Seems to be LOADS of "censored" emails provided. Why do they need to be censored?What a rotten, stinking to high heaven cover-up.

Rosco White ● 4616d

From the Website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_the_needful"Do the needful" is an expression which means "do that which is necessary", with the respectful implication that the other party is trusted to understand what needs doing without being given detailed instruction. The expression is currently used mainly in South Asian English (particularly Indian English). The events in this case appear to be:1) According to Cllr. Julian Bell (as he himself stated in the Town Hall Chamber at Full Council on the night of 16th July 2013 in reply to a question from Cllr. Ian Potts, Ward Councillor), "Pre-Application Advice" was given to the intended applicant for planning permission, Dr Onkar Singh Sahota.  We now know that this advice was given at a meeting convened by the Senior PA to Cllr. Bell.  Mr Noel Rutherford, Director of the Environment Group (who is not a planner) attended. The Head of Planning Ms Aileen Jones knew of the meeting but apparently did not attend it.A heavily censored e-mail has been produced by the Council (no doubt The Investigator, Mr Alex Oram, will require the uncensored original version) which is dated 17th October 2012.  The e-mail is written by Cllr. Bell's office at 16.45 to Dr Sahota and copied to [censored], Mr Noel Rutherford, Ms Aileen Jones. It has for the "Subject" - Meeting - Planning Issue.The e-mail says "Dear Dr Sahota, I have been asked to set up a meeting between Julian, Noel Rutherford and yourself" and goes on to ask about suitable times and the location.  The e-mail states "I am also copying this email to Aileen Jones and Noel Rutherford in Planning to see if either of them are able to attend. Thanks [censored]"At 17.36 on the same afternoon, Dr Sahota using his GLA office e-mail address Onkar.Sahota@london.gov.uk replies: "Dear [censored]  Thank you for progressing this meeting. It would be helpful to meet on site so that we can have better context to the discussions and space perspective. Monday 22 October at 1.00 p.m. at 43 Castlebar Road. Ealing W5 4PL. The architect will be [censored - censored] of De Matos Ryan Architects www.dematosryan.co.uk Look forward to the meeting. BW, Onkar"2) The next censored e-mail produced by the Council is on 21st December 2012 sent by Dr Sahota to Cllr. Julian Bell from a NHS e-mail address at the Hanwell Health Centre, Church Road, W7.  The e-mail reads:  "Dear Julian, I am pleased to let you know that the application has been made and registered. The application reference number is PP-02367585.  Please do the needful. Best wishes, Onkar"We do not yet have the reply from Cllr. Bell to the 21st December 2012 e-mail, but it seems to shows that the two of them were still in contact about the proposed development during October to at least just before Xmas 2012.However, in his comments made to Mr James Gates at the "Ealing & Acton Gazette" reported in the 19th July 2013 issue on page 2 of the newspaper, Cllr. Bell suggests that the (October) meeting at No.43 ended his involvement. Cllr. Bell told the newspaper: "Subsequent to this meeting I took no further part in the process and Dr Sahota's application was submitted and then decided on at planning committee".Cllr. Bells suggests therefore that there was no further contact after the (October) meeting, yet it is clear that AFTER submitting the planning application, Dr Sahota was back in touch with "Dear Julian" and his e-mail of 21st December 2012 was marked "Importance - High".As I say, we have not yet seen the reply by Cllr Bell to that e-mail of "High Importance".Why was it so important?  "Please do the needful" - What exactly did Dr Sahota want Cllr Bell to do that was of such high importance to him?  It is said that Cllr Bell only holds his position as Leader by the grace of the Southall block vote and that important positions have now been given over to Southall Councillors, who effectively control "The Queen of the Suburbs". Cllr Bell works for the Southall MP, who is Dr Sahota's political ally. "Please do the needful" - One wonders, was it a request or an "instruction"?Why was Mr Noel Rutherford roped in?  He is not a planner, but a former Building Control Officer.  Was he there to advise about "subsidence"?

Victor Mishiku ● 4616d

In the censored emails now released by the council, Dr Sahota sends a 'High Importance' email to councillor Julian Bell from Hanwell Health Centre on 21-12-12 addressed 'Dear Julian' (he also uses the City Hall email service on 17-10-12) instructing Julian Bell to: 'Please do the needful'. What does that mean to you? - I suspect that most people will interpret that as 'Please make sure that my application goes through asap' and it seems that it would have but for the determination of the local people to try to safeguard the architectural integrity of their area but then, it sounds like Southall is now in charge!

Paul Cameron ● 4617d

I would think that was obvious. Because no-one else posted them here.And Cllr Dennehy has done the digging and found the dirt.Unlike the rest of the tories who throw stones and run.

Oliver Gregan ● 4617d

Judith,For clarity these 17 questions were framed by the leader of the Conservative group, David Millican, and published on 29th July.  Not quite sure why Cllr Dennehy is passing them off as his own work.  Perhaps he can explain?

Phil Taylor ● 4617d

Perhaps I should clarify things, as Cllr. Dennehy has turned up a paper trail through FOI, not of what took place at the meeting itself, but how it was organised.Dr. Sahota contacted the Leader's office via his (Bell's) PA. The PA's name has been redacted on all the emails. This person offered to organise a meeting at the Town Hall or the application site. Sahota preferred the house and was given two days when Bell would be available, one was decided upon. It was discussed who else should be invited to this meeting, and Noel Rutherford and Aileen Jones, the Head of Planning,  were mentioned. In fact both of these people were copied into all the emails. We know that Noel Rutherford did attend the meeting, but we do not know if Ms. Jones attended or not. It has been stated by Sahota that no planners were in attendance.There is a hiatus of a couple of months and then an email from Sahota to Bell just before Xmas last year telling him that he had now completed and registered his planning application with the planning department. Bell was then asked in one stark sentence, "Please do the needful." Dr. Sahota used both his GLA and NHS email addresses during this email dialogue.

Judith Jaafar ● 4617d

Firstly, may I respectfully suggests that it would be better if Cllr. Dennehy were to put his postings onto the original thread about Dr. Sahota's application. The information he is turning up is very important, and the more postings on the thread the more of interest this becomes to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol, where the application now lies on appeal. Having information about this affair over several threads does not best consolidate the case or the evidence. Secondly, the use of the phrase "please do the needful", as discussed, can indeed be interpreted in different ways, but the point is why was Dr. Sahota communicating at all with Julian Bell about a householder application before the fact, and why was he emailing him to "do" something or anything after the fact, why was he even bothering to tell the Council Leader that he had done something as ordinary and normal as submitting a planning application, unless the communication of "do the needful" was the whole point of the email?I will copy this posting onto the other thread as well.

Judith Jaafar ● 4617d

As I said before this surely is a matter for the police as it's worse than some fraud cases that have been successfully prosecuted.

Oliver Gregan ● 4618d

I don't think they'll be putting him up as Leader in future.If they've got half a collective brain.

Rosco White ● 4618d

This story gets more rotten by the day.And the lack of even half plausible explanations says it all really.

Rosco White ● 4618d

Interestingly, Cllr Dennehy's 17 questions posed on another thread in this forum have been lifted and now appear as an on-line Gazette letter by Mr. Millican, head of the Conservative group in the Council! So if he doesn't mind, I'll lift Vlod Barchuk's 8 further questions on the other thread and repost them here. Lots of questions, and as yet no answers.Topic: Another eight questions requiring answers      Posted by: Vlod Barchuk  Date/Time: 30/07/13 15:24:00  It’s not just the leader of the Council who has questions to answer. 1. When did the site meeting between Dr Sahota, Cllr Bell and Noel Rutherford take place?2. Was any person other than Dr Sahota, Cllr Bell and Noel Rutherford present at the meeting?3. Who proposed the meeting at Dr Sahota’s house?4. What other Council officers were informed that the meeting took place, who informed them and when?5. What, if any, communication did Dr Sahota have with Cllr Bell or any council officer (other than planning officers dealing with this case) regarding the planning application after the meeting?6. Did Noel Rutherford make any representation to Cllr Bell regarding the propriety of the pre-planning application site meeting?7. What communications did Noel Rutherford have with planning officers regarding the application in respect of Dr Sahota’s property?8. Will the investigation by Mr Alex Oram include searches of the email accounts of Cllr Bell, Noel Rutherford and officers involved in the planning application to identify any relevant correspondence (back up files should be available should any items have been ‘inadvertently’ deleted from users' accounts)?

Judith Jaafar ● 4619d

I see that in another topic from Cllr. Dennehy, who made the original complaint against the Leader of the Council, Cllr. Julian Bell, he also raised questions about the "pre-application advice" procedure, which is, as we read on the Council's own website, chargeable to prospective planning applicants. See his Questions Nos. 1 - 10.  From what has been said at full Council by Cllr. Julian Bell, he himself insists that the pre-arranged meeting was merely to render "pre-application" planning advice to Dr Onkar Singh Sahota and his Planning Consultant/Architect, who also attended along with the Director of the Environment Group Mr Noel Rutherford who was apparently roped in to be "introduced".The whole thing sounds very odd to me.  You have two high-ranking political persons with one working for the other's political ally, the Southall MP, Virendra Sharma plus the Director, Mr Noel Rutherford no less.  None of these persons are Town Planners though.  The only person who likely qualifies for that would be the Planning Consultant/Architect who was also present. As Dr Sahota already has Planning Consultants, one wonders what Cllr. Julian Bell or Mr Noel Rutherford could add to that?What was the real purpose of the Meeting? That is what is baffling - I mean how many people could get the Leader  of the Council and the Director of the Environment Group of Ealing Council down to their homes about a mere Householder Application?Ordinary people cannot even get to speak to a planning officer over the telephone anymore! You  have to leave a number and sit by the phone for the next few days. One resident from 33 Woodville Road asked to speak to a Planning Officer to ask about Plans that he could not understand and was made to wait 12 days for an appointment. When he finally got there, the officer said that he could not possibly discuss a live case only give general planning advice!  The resident was left none the wiser (and bearing in mind the 21 days or less given in which to respond was ticking away).Mr Rutherford declared on this Forum at the time of the controversial Friars Place Lane case on the "Goldsmith's Acton Estate", which also received a mass of postings on here, that all people would be treated equally in the planning process - no matter who they are and regardless of what their status may be.That comforting declaration seems to have been blown sky high!From the Cultural Dictionary: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"  [A proclamation by the pigs who control the government in the novel "Animal Farm", by George Orwell. The sentence is a comment on the hypocrisy of governments that proclaim the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite] Victor Mishiku 4/8/13.NB. My full Formal Complaint against the Leader of Ealing Council, Cllr. Julian Bell, dated 31/7/13, can be seen at the following URL:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14377445/Complaint_letter_31stJuly2013.pdfIt was e-mailed and hand-delivered to the Council 4 days ago and remains unacknowledged by Mrs Helen Harris, Head of Legal Services, LBE.

Victor Mishiku ● 4623d

As the information from the council clearly says "a pre-application charging service" and "charges for advice provided to agents with respect to householder and other less significant proposals", there should be a record of what the party and his agents benefiting from the advice was charged. You suggest that he wasn't charged? So who's actually paying for the Director's time, etc?

Paul Cameron ● 4624d

As per my earlier posting, I hand-delivered my Formal Complaint to the Town Hall 3 days ago and e-mailed it through before doing so. As yet, I have not received any acknowledgement from Mrs Helen Harris (Head of Legal Services, LBE) either by e-mail or by letter.I have seen the Council's "Pre-Application Advice" general information which states:------------------------------------------Pre-application guidanceAbout our service Under the Local Government Act 2003 Ealing Council operates a pre-application charging service for all 'Strategic, Major and Minor’ development proposals.The council acknowledges that many of these development proposals raise complex planning issues.  In recognition of this and the desire to deliver better and timely planning decisions, the council operates a structured pre-application service for development proposals.This service enables the council to become more actively involved in planning applications at an early stage.  It helps to improve the quality of design, encourage greater public consultation, highlight the main issues, areas of concern and assist the council to process pre-application enquiries and subsequent planning applications more quickly.To ensure that this service is provided to a consistent and high standard, the cost of this service will be recovered from the applicant.The council has altered its duty planner service and introduced charges for advice provided to agents with respect to householder and other less significant proposals. ----------------------------------------Dr Onkar Singh Sahota was not charged as far as we know for the Planning "Pre-Application Advice" that Cllr. Julian Bell said (at full Council on 16th July 2013) he was given.  In fact, I don't see how any such advice could have been given, as neither Cllr Bell nor Mr Noel Rutherford (Director of the Environment Group) are town planners.In another controversial case in Corfton Road (developer Navjeet Singh Juneja), a question of a false Ownership Certificate A and Declaration of Truth has arisen. When residents wrote to Mr Rutherford about this potential criminal offence, Mr Rutherford after initially not understanding the issue, quickly delegated the matter to the Head of Planning, Ms Aileen Jones to deal with.The conduct of the Planning Department has been under scrutiny of late with articles in the press and on this Forum in March and May 2013 and again last month.At the last Planning Committee, a resident of W.Ealing said the following in his 3 minute slot before the case officer's usual developer-favourable report to Committee was discussed:"Judging by the contradictory and inaccurate case officer’s report, our own personal experience and other residents’ experiences it seems that the Planning Department is always on the developer’s side.  Residents seem to be marginalised, disenfranchised and dismissed whilst the local environment and Victorian heritage is being slowly and insidiously degraded. We have to conclude that Ealing Planning Department, in conjunction with the developers it supports, leaves a trail of misery, resentment, and anger, in its wake. If it carries on for much longer, Ealing “The Queen of the Suburbs” will have to go into intensive care!  Intelligent, moral, and balanced policies are desperately needed!"

Victor Mishiku ● 4624d

Unless there is to be a challenge from within, I would suggest that the Labour ranks will close faster than a clamshell and remain as resolutely closed.

Nigel Brooks ● 4625d

The latest information from the Borough Solicitor who has engaged Alex Oram as the investigator into the propriety or otherwisw of Cllr. Bell's behaviour is that the report of the investigation will be confidential and produced only for the Council Standards Committee. That is acceptable if the investigation were into a local government officer, but it is into the Leader of the Council who is a politician, and therefore answerable to the electorate. Or have I got something wrong here? Should not an inquiry into the behaviour of an elected official/party be made public? One would think at least that his own party who put him up as Leader should know the findings of an investigation.

Judith Jaafar ● 4625d

On 31st July 2013, I hand-delivered to the Town Hall my FORMAL COMPLAINT against the Leader of Council, Cllr. Julian Bell over the Sahota affair.The 5-page Pdf document can be downloaded at:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14377445/Complaint_letter_31stJuly2013.pdf

Victor Mishiku ● 4626d

Depends I suppose, on who he is 'pals' with.Still it does seem that LBE have realised that the previous choice would be plastered all over the press and probably end up on Panorama - which is likely anyway now

Oliver Gregan ● 4628d

Quick update on my last posting. LBE has decided not to use the services of Fiona Ledden from Brent Council in the investigation into Cllr. Julian Bell's behaviour in this Sahota planning application. The new investigator is a Mr Alex Oram, formerly an investigator on the England Standards' Board and Co-Founder of ch&i Associates, a Local Government "trouble shooter" organisation whose website describes him as an "experienced investigator who conducted many of Standards for England's most complex, politically sensitive and high profile cases." A good or bad move? Hmm! Don't really know.

Judith Jaafar ● 4628d

I previously wondered how Mr Noel Rutherford is complying with his own previous Statement of Principles in the Acton case mentioned by Charles C. in the earlier posting re. Friars Place Lane where Mr Rutherford "lectured" concerned Acton residents pronouncing authoritatively that ALL applicants will be treated fairly and equally regardless of their "status" or their importance or who they are, etc.How many other applicants for planning permissions (or for that matter objectors to them) are able to summon up the presence of such important high-ranking Council dignitaries?Dr Sahota is hinting that his Application was refused owing to his political position and if that is the case, he must be suggesting that his own Labour colleagues who are the majority on the Committee deliberately turned his application down for non-planning reasons to spite him even though several of them campaigned for him to be elected to his GLA position supposedly representing our interest.When residents in Norbury on the "Christian Fields Estate" (laid out by the Whitgift Foundation) were facing aggressive backland developers "Devine Homes Plc", they contacted their Croydon GLA Member, Cllr. Steve O'Connell for support.Cllr. O'Connell not only came to speak on behalf of the residents at the Planning Committee Meeting at Croydon Town Hall held on 16th February 2012 but also attended and spoke at the subsequent Appeal Hearing held at Croydon Town Hall on 26th June 2012.  You could not ask for a better and more supportive GLA Member.By contrast, our Ealing GLA Member is holding private meetings with the Leader of the Council with strong political connections to him and the Southall MP, who employs Cllr. Bell and who are all involved in high level grand politics with Cllr. Bell a future Labour MP, according to those who know of his ambitions.Dr Sahota is also a would-be MP.  However, incumbent MP, former LBE Cllr. Steve Pound declined to recommend him, I have been advised by a former Ealing resident, because Dr Sahota owns 8 properties and therefore he did not fit the "socialist" mould.When I mentioned that we were fighting an application by Dr Sahota to a senior Council employee formerly an important Labour Party officer and Councillor, he appeared to "groan". Perhaps, it is true what one observer said (also a former Councillor in Ealing who thought this was "clearly a case of the most flagrant political interference and favouritism." that "His behaviour suggests a very arrogant man who is unable to keep himself out of trouble through a combination of greed, egomania and poor judgment. The Labour Party will live to rue the day they ever entertained him."

Victor Mishiku ● 4634d

Amongst many distinct oddities in this whole planning application, amply highlighted in previous postings by myself and Victor Mishiku of The Covenant Movement, the one that I'm grappling with now is the Borough Solicitor's decision to bring in an independent investigator to scrutinise Cllr. Julian Bell's behaviour.Whilst superficially this may look like a swift and righteous move by Helen Harris, if we take a slightly closer look at this initiative we discover the usual smoke and mirrors employed by some local government institutions, (and no doubt national government for that matter too).Ms. Harris's choice of Ms. Fiona Ledden seems, to those in the know, to be completely predictable, as she appears to be the "go to" person for this sort of thing. She may indeed be very skilled at investigating her civil and public servant colleagues.However, in this case, her appointment cannot in any way be justified, on a conflict of interest basis, or at very least an impression of such. Councillor Bell sits as the chair of the WLA, the West London Alliance, an inter-borough organisation that appears to have been initiated by LBE, from what I can glean from their website. Fiona Ledden from LB Brent is also listed as a member of this organisation, as the Legal and Procurement officer. It is entirely possible that Cllr. Bell, as set-up chairman, may have appointed Ms. Ledden to this role himself, but I cannot be sure of that.What we might reasonably assume, however, is that these two people know each, likely work with each other and sit as officials in the same organisation. How can one, with any hope of unbiased transparency, be tasked to investigate the other (especially in this instance her eminent superior)?This type of issue should, and must, be dealt with by someone completely outside of Ealing and the WLA, indeed outwith local government altogether. Normal procedure in this instance would dictate that the Borough Solicitor engage the services of a completely independent barrister or QC.I shall be writing about this to my MP, the Mayor and to local and national newspapers. I might, under other circumstances, have contacted my London Assembly member, as has been done fruitfully in other cases where the local Council was not listening to residents, but can hardly do so in this case, for obvious reasons - Dr. Sahota is my London Assembly member.The whole Dr. Sahota planning application is turning into a farcical disgrace. The first inkling we had that Planning Services was less than ethical and transparent was way back in March when they wrote up their favourable-to-Dr.Sahota shambles of a Report long before the public consultation period had elapsed. I was so exercised by this, and afraid that our objection letters would not even be looked at (and they were certainly not a part of the report to committee recommendation) that I contacted the Borough Solicitor's office by email, pointing out that there had been serious breaches of trust and glaring procedural irregularities.I was contacted by Jackie Adams from Helen Harris's office, as she is the person appointed to deal with property and planning matters. She assured me that all letters and objections sent into the Council, even after the Report had been prepared, and after our case officer had just "left", would be delivered to the councillors on the Planning Committee in good time. In the event, Mr.Mishiku hand-delivered information packs to all the councillors via the internal mail bag, just in case but I have subsequently learned that all that is done is that a briefing note summary is made by the planners and circulated to councillors a couple of hours before the start of the committee meeting and in our case, it was very scant, quickly brushing aside the detailed objections made. But the whole point of my email to Legal Services had been ignored and just brushed under the carpet - the procedural irregularities and unethical behaviour. At that time, of course, little did we know just how many "irregularities" we would eventually uncover, and how many more we may yet find.It's shocking, the whole affair. Incompetence? Deliberate obfuscation? Abuse of pubic office? Who knows, unless we have a proper, independent investigation led by a total outsider.

Judith Jaafar ● 4636d

After 27 years of following many hundreds of planning cases under 7 Council administrations and at least 8 Chairmans/Chairs, I have never known any local resident whether applicant or objector to receive a personal visit from not only the Leader of the Council but also (and simultaneously) from the Head of Planning or Director of the Environment Group whether singly or both together. Having procured the services of Council Leader Cllr. Julian Bell to assist Dr Sahota with his "Householder" Application to extend his "home" - a property in which he has never lived (does he not live at 19 Thorncliffe Road, Southall, which is not in Cllr. Bell's Ward?) - I still fail to see what planning pre-application advice Cllr. Bell was capable of providing or supposed to be required to render to Dr Sahota and his planning consultants/architect in any event.What does Cllr. Bell know about planning exactly?  Cllr. Bell did not go to view the application land from the adjoining dwellinghouse 41 Castlebar Road to try to gauge the likely effect of the proposed development on the occupiers of that property, who likely would be forced out of their home whilst the demolition and building works were being carried out - that is if their house was still in one piece after massive excavations and demolition works on a 128 year-old house that already cracked in half on one side in the past. Cllr Bell did not go into the rear garden or patio of No.41 to observe the present views and assess how the adjoining residents' amenity would be affected by the overbearing 5-directional development proposals which are so greedily designed that Dr Sahota shockingly even proposes to build rooms extending into and right across the side passage between No.41 and No.43 thereby cutting off all direct access to side of both houses, their guttering, chimneys, underground drain pipes, etc, forever and effectively turning No.41 into a semi-detached house!Mr Rutherford - he was a Building Control Officer promoted after Mr Richard Kirby left the Council - he now is the superior officer to Head of Planning, Ms Aileen Jones, who, in the 90s, when she was a young part-time planning officer used to refuse the backgarden developments that her Department now advocates for backland developers Luke Pulham, Singh Juneja and others. Mr Rutherford did not attempt to go to No.41 to see the likely impact from the adjoining property either. So, I fail to see what meaningful planning pre-application advice Mr Rutherford could have rendered - he did not view from the adjoining property at No.41 and his expertise is Building Control. Did he note that No.43' flank wall had cracked in half on the Longfield Walk side?  Perhaps he gave advice about Building Control matters that are within his expertise?Why exactly did Dr Onkar Singh Sahota (with his architect in attendance) summon these two high-ranking persons to attend upon him? What other pre-application advisers helped too?  I wonder if there was another perhaps although not at this meeting maybe? I need to check the files again.But how does this comply with Mr Rutherford's statement in the Acton case mentioned in a previous posting (re. Friars Place Lane) suggesting that ALL applicants will be treated fairly and equally regardless of their status or their importance, etc?Dr Sahota now even seems to be hinting that his application was refused owing to his political position  - is he really suggesting that his own Labour colleagues who are in the majority on the Committee deliberately turned his application down for non-planning reasons to spite him?  Several of them campaigned for him to be elevated to the position he now enjoys.The application was in fact rejected by Members of all three parties, Labour, LibDem and Conservatives that night (13th March 2013).  When the vote was taken, NOT ONE of the 13 Councillors on the Planning Committee voted in favour of the development and there are a majority of 7 Labour Councillors on the Committee to 5 Conservative and 1 LibDem, so how did hostile "political" voting upset his plans?The officer (Ms Fiona Abrahamsen apparently pictured on the Web with Cllr Bell and Dr Sahota looking at Plans for another development) who is said to have written the Report to Committee left the Council's employment during the time of this application and the Report, which was rushed through before the re-consultation period had been allowed to run, was possibly altered by another officer (who had not visited the area to assess the development from No.41) and who was perhaps much less sympathetic to the arguments of the over 100 objectors. Despite requests from Ward Councillors and the writer, the Head of Planning, Ms Aileen Jones, did not seek to intervene and she allowed the rushed Report to go before the Committee.  The Report was thus completed without the planners seeing the 8-page submission by Mr Peter Causer on behalf of the objectors.  [Mr Causer was formerly Ms Jones's superior officer when he was the Area Team Manager for some 18 years at Ealing Council before going into private practice].The questions remain. What planning pre-application advice did Cllr. Bell and/or Mr Noel Rutherford provide?Where are the Minutes of this pre-application advice? Cllr. Bell says that no notes were taken. Why not? No notes - not even afterwards?  There were 4 people there it seems: Dr Sahota himself, Dr Sahota's planning consultant or architect, the Leader of Ealing Council and Chair(man) of the "West London Alliance" and the Director of the Environment Group, LBE.  Not one of these professional persons made a note either at the time or thereafter? How professional is that? In a case in Northolt some years ago, I recall that the assistant Chief Planning Officer, Mr Kevin Newsom, at the time even minuted on the case file that the developer's agent "likes 2 lumps of sugar in his coffee"!But why were Cllr. Bell and Mr Rutherford there at all if they gave no proper pre-application advice or if only one of them gave advice, why was the other one there?I also think that Dr Sahota or his agents may have received more pre-application advice. I shall go and inspect the files again to see what is there (if anything).But whoever gave this pre-application advice  - it was pretty poor advice and the resulting officer's Report to Committee was heavily criticised on the night of the Committee Meeting. "In defiance of reality”"Not to be trusted""Absurd" "An insult to the intelligence" - this is what a number of the Committee Members complained of and thought about the officer's Report and rightly rejected it.NB. If the Report to Committee was not fully written by Ms Abrahamsen, then whoever really wrote it in its published version also failed to view from the adjoining property on which Committee Members considered the development would be overbearing.In fact, the original officer, Ms Fiona Abrahamsen, seemed quite sympathetic to several matters raised by neighbours and also viewed from Longfield Walk, which she herself commented was akin to a "public open space" (with grass verges, trees, the walkway and public seating). Ms Abrahamsen noted the tall trees near No.43 and that they were within falling distance of the proposed development and excavations (the Application Form presented in the name of "Dr Sahota Onkar" falsely stated the opposite) and I was very surprised to see the published report to Committee and have my doubts that this was really all written by Ms Abrahamsen given the dismissive tone accorded to the many objections lodged?  As mentioned in an earlier posting, the officer(s) Report having been written without allowing the minimal 14-day re-consultation to run its course - a despicable practice of the Planning Department that was criticised by Cllr. Norman Pointing (Chairman of the Town Planning Committee) in 1990.On 13th March 2013, the word "overbearing" amongst others was used by the Committee when putting forward reasons for Refusal, but the Planning Department omitted the word and substituted other wording in the final Refusal Notice (which only appeared on the 19th March).  Residents suspect that this was done to assist the developer when he later appealed.This is not the only case of subsequent Planning Department's "editing" of reasons for Refusal. Another recent example is known to Mr Nik Ozegovic, who fought the backland "Peacehaven" case.The reason that the Castlebar Road proposal was refused was not because Dr Onkar Singh Sahota is a (Labour) politician but because he was about to destroy the harmonious group of 128 year-old Conservation Area houses (built by James Wills for Edward Wood's "Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing") with an out of character, overbearing and unneighbourly development, which no other developer would have been allowed to get away with.Much less intrusive alterations were not allowed on a similar corner house at 29 Castlebar Road owned by a "rogue landlord" (local press description) known as "Mr Singh" (not Singh Sahota) and nearby, at 39 Castlebar Road, the new owners have only last week withdrawn their plans to build a "Sahota-style" roof extension after being told of the Committee's negative decision two doors away on 13th March 2013."The Independent Investigation":  - Mrs Helen Harris's choice of Ms Fiona Ledden looks like throwing up another serious question as to total independence.  If you check the Annual Report of the West London Alliance (on the Web), you will find familiar names from the planning world and Ealing's unpleasant past when Ealing residents were oppressed in the late 80's at the time of Ealing Planning Supremo Cllr. Gareth Daniel (now Chief Exective of Brent Council and a very senior official in the WLA).  The Legal Officer appointed to "investigate" Cllr Julian Bell is Ms Fiona Ledden connected, I think, with Brent Council. Ms Ledden is named as a Legal Officer for the WLA's Procurement Board and it was set up in November 2011. At the front of the Annual Report (the first ever Report), we find Cllr. Julian Bell beaming down on us as the honourable "Chair" of the WLA who created the WLA's Procurement Board that includes Ms Fiona Ledden. Therefore, Ms Ledden appears to have been appointed under the Chairmanship of Cllr Julian Bell himself, "Chair" of the WLA.It is the opinion of the former Chairman of Ealing Hospital, Professor Alan Gillett OBE FRICS that it is essential that "the Inquiry is conducted by a completely independent person" and that "a QC without party political background should be found quickly."What do you think?Victor Mishiku 21/7/13.

Victor Mishiku ● 4637d

After 27 years of following many hundreds of planning cases under 7 Council administrations and at least 8 Chairmans/Chairs, I have never known any local resident whether applicant or objector to receive a personal visit from not only the Leader of the Council but also (and simultaneously) from the Head of Planning or Director of the Environment Group whether singly or both together.Having procured the services of Council Leader Cllr. Julian Bell to assist Dr Sahota's with his "Householder" Application to extend his "home" - a property in which he has never lived (does he not live at 19 Thorncliffe Road, Southall, which is not in Cllr. Bell's Ward?)- I still fail to see what planning pre-application advice Cllr. Bell was capable of or supposed to be required to render in any event. What does Cllr. Bell know about planning exactly?  Cllr. Bell did not go to view the application land from the adjoining dwellinghouse 41 Castlebar Road to try to gauge the likely effect of the proposed development on the occupiers of that property, who likely would be forced out of their home whilst the demolition and building works were being carried out - that is if their house was still in one piece after massive excavations and demolition works on a 128 year-old house that already cracked in half on one side in the past.Cllr Bell did not go into the rear garden or patio of No.41 to observe the present views and assess how the adjoining residents' amenity would be affected by the overbearing 5-directional development proposals which are so greedily designed that Dr Sahota shockingly even proposes to build rooms extending into and right across the side passage between No.41 and No.43 thereby cutting off all direct access to side of both houses, their guttering, chimneys, underground drain pipes, etc, forever and effectively turning No.41 into a semi-detached house!Mr Rutherford - he was a Building Control Officer promoted after Mr Richard Kirby left the Council - he now is the superior officer to Head of Planning, Ms Aileen Jones, who, in the 90s, when she was a young part-time planning officer used to refuse the backgarden developments that her Department now advocates for backland developers Luke Pulham, Singh Juneja and others. Mr Rutherford did not attempt to go to No.41 to see the likely impact from the adjoining property either. So, I fail to see what meaningful planning pre-application advice Mr Rutherford could have rendered - he did not view from the adjoining property at No.41 and his expertise is Building Control. Did he note that No.43' flank wall had cracked in half on the Longfield Walk side?Why did Dr Onkar Singh Sahota (with his architect in attendance) summon these two high-ranking persons to attend upon him?How does this comply with Mr Rutherford's statement in the Acton case mentioned in the previous posting suggesting that ALL applicants will be treated fairly and equally regardless of their status or their importance, etc?Dr Sahota now seems to be hinting that his application was refused owing to his political position  - is he really suggesting that his own Labour colleagues who are in the majority on the Committee deliberately turned his application down for non-planning reasons to spite him?  Several of them campaigned for him to be elevated to the position he now enjoys.The application was in fact rejected by Members of all three parties, Labour, LibDem and Conservatives that night (13th March 2013).  When the vote was taken, not one of the 13 Councillors on the Planning Committee voted in favour of the development.The officer who is said to have written the Report to Committee left the Council's employment during the time of this application and the Report, which was rushed through before the re-consultation period had been allowed to run, I suspect was likely completed by another officer. Despite requests from Ward Councillors and the writer, the Head of Planning, Ms Aileen Jones, did not seek to intervene and allowed the rushed Report to go before the Committee.  The Report was thus completed without the planners seeing the 8-page submission by Mr Peter Causer on behalf of the objectors.  [Mr Causer was formerly Ms Jones's superior officer when he was the Area Team Manager for some 18 years at Ealing Council before going into private practice].The questions remain. What planning pre-application advice did Cllr. Bell and/or Mr Noel Rutherford provide? Where are the Minutes of this pre-application advice? Cllr. Bell says that no notes were taken. Why not? No notes - not even afterwards?  There were 4 people there it seems: Dr Sahota himself, Dr Sahota's planning consultant or architect, the Leader of Ealing Council and Chair(man) of the "West London Alliance" and the Director of the Environment Group, LBE.  Not one of these professional persons made a note either at the time or thereafter? How professional is that? In a case in Northolt some years ago, I recall that the assistant Chief Planning Officer, Mr Kevin Newsom, at the time even minuted on the case file that the developer's agent "likes 2 lumps of sugar in his coffee"! But why were Cllr. Bell and Mr Rutherford there at all if they gave no proper pre-application advice or if only one of them gave advice, why was the other one there?  I also think that Dr Sahota or his agents may have received more pre-application advice. I shall go and inspect the files again to see what is there (if anything).But whoever gave this pre-application advice  - it was pretty poor advice and the resulting officer's Report to Committee was heavily criticised on the night of the Committee Meeting. "In defiance of reality" "Not to be trusted""Absurd" "An insult to the intelligence"  - this is what a number of the Committee Members complained of and thought about the officer's Report and rightly rejected it.NB. If the Report to Committee was not fully written by Ms Abrahamsen, then whoever really wrote it in its published version also failed to view from the adjoining property on which Committee Members considered the development would be overbearing.In fact, the original officer, Ms Fiona Abrahamsen, seemed quite sympathetic to several matters raised by neighbours and also viewed from Longfield Walk, which she herself commented was akin to a "public open space" (with grass verges, trees, the walkway and public seating). Ms Abrahamsen noted the tall trees near No.43 and that they were within falling distance of the proposed development and excavations (the Application Form presented in the name of "Dr Sahota Onkar" falsely stated the opposite) and I was very surprised to see the published report to Committee and have my doubts that this was really all written by Ms Abrahamsen given the dismissive tone accorded to the many objections lodged?  As mentioned in an earlier posting, the officer(s) Report having been written without allowing the minimal 14-day re-consultation to run its course - a despicable practice of the Planning Department that was criticised by Cllr. Norman Pointing (Chairman of the Town Planning Committee) in 1990.On 13th March 2013, the word "overbearing" amongst others was used by the Committee when putting forward reasons for Refusal, but the Planning Department omitted the word and substituted other wording in the final Refusal Notice (which only appeared on the 19th March).  Residents suspect that this was done to assist the developer when he later appealed.This is not the only case of subsequent Planning Department's "editing" of reasons for Refusal. Another recent example is known to Mr Nik Ozegovic, who fought the backland "Peacehaven" case.The reason that the Castlebar Road proposal was refused was not because Dr Onkar Singh Sahota is a (Labour) politician but because he was about to destroy the harmonious group of 128 year-old Conservation Area houses (built by James Wills for Edward Wood's "Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing") with an out of character, overbearing and unneighbourly development, which no other developer would have been allowed to get away with.  Much less intrusive alterations were not allowed on a similar corner house at 29 Castlebar Road owned by a "rogue landlord" (local press description) known as "Mr Singh" (not Singh Sahota) and nearby, at 39 Castlebar Road, the new owners have only last week withdrawn their plans to build a "Sahota-style" roof extension after being told of the Committee's negative decision two doors away on 13th March 2013.Victor Mishiku 21/7/13.

Victor Mishiku ● 4637d

As a resident of the Borough for the last 44 years, over this period gradually we have lost faith in the operations of the Council as a result of its Members especially after a case in our own road  ref. 53 & 55 Friars Place Lane (which had a topic with a vast number of postings on the sister Acton website).As to the present matters of Castlebar Road, it seems that nothing has changed and that our Planning Department are acting as if the opinions of local people were non-existent.In our case, Mr Noel Rutherford made a public statement at the time faced with over 1,000 objections. He said:"The applicant and the Council’s involvement - The council must consider all applications received and treat all applications fairly regardless of who the applicant is, their status, or history. Applications are assessed on their planning merits only. Any other approach would be unlawful."Mr Rutherford added "I would urge anyone with any genuine concerns about this, and any other application to contact the council directly with their concerns especially if they think they are in possession of any proof of wrongdoing by a council officer."Note that Mr Rutherford says that the Council must "treat all applications fairly regardless of who the applicant is, their status, or history."Having read the above postings some very detailed, it seems that that fairness does not come into it!If so, where is it?Charles Charalambous 20th July 2013Resident of the Goldsmith's Acton Estate

Charles Chara ● 4638d

Excellent observations from someone who obviously knows the process and procedure.  It is these questions and issues that I hope will be addressed by those investigating.  Although if past reports tells us that Mr Bell & Co are very good at stonewalling and avoiding difficult local issues in council meetings.One more thing ... those that chose to reject the proposals need to be commended for their independence, and playing by the rules.  The casual and yet not-so-innocent involvement of the senior members of the council may have put some pressure on them.  Well done to those involved in an objective decision.

MIchael Cass ● 4638d

Is it easier to get the Council’s cats out to a preplanning meeting rather than a planning officer?Ik Onkar is the symbol that represents the One Supreme Reality and is a central tenet of Sikh religious philosophy. See Wiki.If stripping a traditional Sikh down to his bare essentials you may find 5 items about his person all beginning with the letter K. Including:Kachhera (a pair of shorts now usually worn under the clothes). It seems Onkar Singh Sahota has been caught with his pants down, while the word Supreme got co-mingled with the word Omnipotence. (Remember co-mingling anyone?)Kirpan (small sword) a symbol of self-defence and the fight against injusticeIt seems he handed his little thing, which he tried to use as a property vandalising butcher, to his neighbours to fight for and win justice.What are among the most important beliefs held by Sikhs?- in earning their living honestly and through hard work.The three duties that a Sikh must carry out can be summed up in three words; Pray, Work, Give.This includes, Kirt Karna: Earning an honest living. Since God is truth, a Sikh seeks to live honestly. Sikhs try to avoid the five vices that make people self-centred, and build barriers against God in their lives.These include: Covetousness and greed; Attachment to things of this world.If a person can overcome the vices they are on the road to liberation.As for Mormons, they are required especially on Mondays to think about wholesomeness. (Wiki)If the result of the investigation goes against Mr Bell, and please remember we do not know all the detail, then my advice would be1). Sahota's ‘liberation’ should be from politics after his shameful letter in the front page of the website ; before upright Southall Sikh supporters are smeared with bigotry arising from their political leader's hypocrisy.2). Sack the relevant government officer for not meeting his basic role of advising the other people that they keep their noses out of what Sahota says/implies was a political issue.Far too much damage has occurred whatever the investigation finds.3). Vote anything but Labour.http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites/1162_sikhs/sikhism/sikhism.htmhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/sikhism/beliefs/beliefs.shtml

George Knox ● 4639d

In his answer on Tuesday night (16th July 2013), Cllr. Julian Bell claimed at full Council that there is an established protocol practice in cases in this Borough where a politician makes a planning application, which Cllr. Bell stated is done to ensure "transparency". It seems that in this instance, the reverse is the case!In 1988, when Cllr. Gareth Daniel was the Labour Party Planning Supremo in L.B.Ealing (he later left Ealing to become the Chief Executive of Brent Council), all access to planning files was suddenly cut off.  At the time, Cllr. Daniel stated that he had personally approved the steps taken by the then Assistant Chief Planning Officer (Mr Richard Kirby who was ex-Haringey). We did not really believe this and we were later proven to be correct. The Planning Department put out a statement that the new measures were so as to accord with the "Access To Information Act 1985"!Someone wrote in to the local press saying "if that is the case, then the Act is clearly misnamed".In the instant Dr Sahota affair, it seems slightly similar  - an undeclared meeting of dignitaries, an all Labour Party affair, things are done behind our backs with no consultation; no minutes taken or any record kept - even though some 7 or 8 months later, an FOI request starts bringing things that were kept in the dark out into light. Cllr Bell confirmed in the Town Hall Chamber that no notes were taken of this meeting at which Dr Sahota was given "pre-application advice" about his intended planning application. I am not sure but do we have the exact date of this now infamous "Sahota/Bell/Rutherford" meeting at 43 Castlebar Road? (the home of James Wills, the builder of the 128 year-old dwellinghouse that Dr Sahota now seeks to butcher). As a neighbour pointed out, if no notes were made either on site or off site, not even a summary at the time or even back at the Council offices/Town Hall, one wonders how the FOI Officer (whoever that is?) is now able to give details of the meeting and what it was about? As I enquired before, what qualifications does Cllr. Julian Bell have to give planning advice to an applicant for a Householder Planning Application?Did Cllr. Bell for instance seek to visit or view from adjacent properties to estimate then effect of the 5-directional extensions proposed by Dr Sahota?Did Cllr. Bell assess the views from Longfield Walk noticing the harmonious rear elevations and complete lack of rear glass box dormers on all of Victorian houses built by James Wills 128 years ago? Did Cllr. Bell consider the impact on the Conservation Area houses or the disruption to Longfield Walk or the fact that Dr Sahota greedily even plans to build over the side passage with rooms up against the house wall of No.41 next door undermining the stability of that house and blocking off all easy access to the side of both houses for roof, chimnney and guttering repairs forever?Similarly, why would the Director of the Environment Group who is the direct superior to the Head of Planning, Ms Aileen Jones, be giving "pre-application advice" when planning is not even his expertise - no doubt he was an excellent  Building Control Officer, but he is not a Town Planner as far as we know. As it turned out, this "pre-application advice" must have been extremely poor for the Planning Committee to reject Dr Sahota's application in no uncertain terms.  The planning officer's report to Committee fully supporting Dr Sahota was publicly criticised by members of all three political parties. On the evening of 13th March 2013, in the Town Hall Chamber, the criticisms made against the Planning Department officer's report (said to have been written by Ms Fiona Abrahamsen, who left the Council's employment during the case), which had been fully supported by her planning manager, Ms Alex Jackson, included remarks that: "the report is in defiance of reality" and that it was "not to be trusted" "absurd" and "an insult to the intelligence". I have never heard such words of condemnation used publicly in all my 27 years of attending Planning Committees in Ealing. I  am wondering if Dr Sahota got even more "pre-application" advice from any another senior person in the Council and if so, did that person know of the un-minuted "Sahota - Bell - Rutherford" pre-application advice meeting at 43 Castlebar Road.  Developers have to pay for "pre-application" advice I believe.  Did Dr Sahota pay or was it "on the house" courtesy of the Labour chief? I  examined the planning file for 43 Castlebar Road and requested copies of various plans and papers when we were responding to the application, which got rushed through to Committee, but I never saw any meeting notes of this said "pre-application" advice unlike in other cases, where a developer may have paid to have a meeting with planning officers (but not with the Leader of the Council or the Director being present) and then later it gets minuted as a typed transcript and placed on file.As I said before if Labour Planning Chairman Frank Impey and Labour Leader John Cudmore were still in office, I believe that this sort of thing would never have occurred. Yours sincerely, Victor Mishiku 19/7/13.PS. In 1988, when all access to planning files was cut off by Mr Kirby, one of the reasons later given was that local people he referred to as "The Covenant Movement" were coming into Planning Reception and asking to see files, etc and this was time-consuming, so it was better, he said, that no one should have access at all until 3 days before the Committee Meeting (the minimum period for access in those days before Freedom of Information came in)!  Of course, just 3 days before the Committee Meeting meant that there was no time to write in to have your comments included in the officer's report to Committee (reports are drafted about 14 days before the night of the Committee Meeting). Against that hostile background forced on us by the Labour Party and their operatives, we still nonetheless managed to defeat backland developers left, right and centre by use of restrictive covenants when the planning system failed people.Aftermath:  It took me 13 months to get this reversed and in May 1990, following a change of administration, Cllr. Norman Pointing and Mr John Birch (Chief Planning Officer) re-drafted all Council planning arrangements including giving "open access" to planning files and papers, as we have to this day.

Victor Mishiku ● 4639d

Cllr Dennehy's complaint is against Cllr Bell, not Onkar Sohota - me thinks Dr Sahota protests too much. In approaching Cllr Bell, he at the very least showed poor judgment. I was trying to obtain planning permission for my house whilst I was a councillor and made a point of not involving any of my councillor colleagues in the matter, as that was by far the best way to protect them from any accusations of impropriety. Why could Dr Sahota not see the danger he was exposing Cllr Bell to by approaching him on this subject?Why did Cllr Bell not simply tell Dr Sahota it would be inappropriate for him to become involved? Did Noel Rutherford - an council officer with enough experience to know better - advise Cllr Bell to avoid personal involvement in this matter? Did Noel Rutherford attend the meeting of his own volition or was he instructed/requested to attend by Cllr Bell? In light of the risk of improprietary, did Noel Rutherford report his involvement in the visit to his line manager or to the Council's legal department?

Vlod Barchuk ● 4639d

Dr Sahota's response is really quite incompetent.When I next want to make changes to my house I'll make sure I get The Leader of the Council and the Director of Built Environment to come round and give me free advice.It was the proposed changes to the house that were controversial not the fact that Dr Sahota is a local politician. When it comes to planning the law is that we are all equal.The 'early engagement' which Dr Sahota failed to do was with the people who live in the adjacent houses.Dr Sahota's allegations that the Ealing Council Planning Committee might have acted on political grounds is a serious one. Just how might he have formed that controversial view?I don't think Mr Denehy is making political capital out of reporting Dr Sahot's behaviour. No doubt he would do the same if a UKIP member attempted to subvert the planning system.

Eric Alan Leach ● 4639d

What is also telling is that he approached Bell because he already knew that his plan was going to be controversial! My guess is that the goal of the plan is to get permission for an extended family home and then at a later stage apply to turn the property into a House of Multiple Occupation.  Sorry, just thinking outloud.

Charles Campbell ● 4639d

Hmmm...The plot sickens.

Gerry Tan ● 4639d

Sahota's response is very telling.  He responds by stating incomplete facts, introducing diversion tactics, and by playing the victim.  He states that 'no planning officers were present'.  That may be true, but people who were far more influential and further up the food chain in the planning process were.  Who needs the lowly planning offices.  You can't go any higher than Cllr Bell who Sahota claims 'made introductions'.  The big question is .. why?  Doesn't Bell have better things to do than get involved in a single planning process?  Who else gets this privilege?  One can only come to their own conclusions why the leader of Ealing council was there.Astonishingly, Sahota said that the reason he did this was that as a local politician, that he 'wanted to engage early with the council.'  As a local politician common sense would say that is why NOT to engage the council at any point outside of the process that us plebs need to deal with Ealing Council.  What was he thinking?  To be seen to be playing by the rules, you would run a mile from involving anyone from the council outside of the normal procedures. Certainly not contacting senior members.  Perhaps he thought that this the sort of treatment he deserves, or is used to.  This time others have found out.  Which brings me to my next point.He is screaming that others (meaning those who hold our politicians to account) are using this to political advantage.  And most of us would say 'so they should.'  Sahota using the last resort of playing the victim says it all.  He has been caught with his pants down, and hopefully we will get to the bottom of this.  No pun intended.  But as it is Labour-run Brent council investigating, I won't hold my breath.  This is just 'business as usual' for our council.

MIchael Cass ● 4639d

There has lng been a rather cosy relationship between certain architects and builders and local authority planning departments.Examples are dotted all over the borough where approval has been given to places with some aspects which break rooflines and viewlines and yet less offensive plans in the same street get flatly refused.Take a closer look and the same names come up who get approval and those refused are generally from architects and builders who are independent or 'not in the loop'It is not a level paying field and there is certainly a bias towards those who have large resources getting what they want and getting away with it.With so much coming and going in planning departments, it's no surprise that developers and their clients are targeting councillors probably indirectly, via family, friends etc.It's the motive that is the worry and the weakness of individuals.Is that corruption?

Oliver Gregan ● 4640d

"...Planning has been a thorny issue for many for a while and the word "corruption" has always been used, I have often ascribed that interpretation to frustration and the combined constant incompetence of the planning department looking deliberate, however, I am now starting to alter that stance, perhaps there is more going on? I wonder."Cllr Dennehy, might one dare to ask is there something rotten in the State of Denmark?

Gerry Tan ● 4640d

Planning notices don't arrive in Brent either.

Philippa Bond ● 4640d

Brent has hardly a squeaky clean image.It's universally known as Bent.I still think it needs more than another political stooge investigating.It needs the Police  from outside of the met as well.

Oliver Gregan ● 4641d

Things are moving fast.Helen Harris, Ealing's Director of Legal and Democratic Services, has appointed an out of borough investigator.  Ms Fiona Ledden is to be the investigating officer into the complaint I have made against Cllr Bell.  Ms Ledden is the Director of Legal and Procurement at the London Borough of Brent.This is a most remarkable development and so quickly. Clearly the need to go outside the borough sends a message that this matter can't be handled internally. What should we as residents think about that?Planning has been a thorny issue for many for a while and the word "corruption" has always been used, I have often ascribed that interpretation to frustration and the combined constant incompetence of the planning department looking deliberate, however, I am now starting to alter that stance, perhaps there is more going on? I wonder.

Benjamin Dennehy ● 4641d

Sounds like the formation of a local political pressure group which just happens to include a pro-Singh Sahota lobby.

Charles Campbell ● 4641d

I think local residents should also make a complaint to the Legal Services Director and I have some further comments to make following last night's "admission" by Cllr. Julian Bell at the Town Hall that it is true that he was involved with Dr Sahota giving him "Pre-Application" advice.Also present at No.43 we are told was the superior officer to the Head of Planning, Ms Aileen Jones, namely the Director of the Environment Group, Mr Noel Rutherford (formerly a Building Control officer) at LBE. Yesterday evening (16/7/13) at the Town Hall main Council Meeting, I was very perplexed to hear Cllr. Julian Bell, the Labour Leader of our once-respected Ealing Council, claiming that he (an employee of a prominent Labour Southall MP who is a very close colleague of Labour GLA Member for Ealing & Hillingdon and politician Dr Onkar Singh Sahota), had been merely giving "PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE" to Dr Sahota in respect of his Householder Planning Application for the dwellinghouse he purchased at 43 Castlebar Road. As I recall, there is no mention at all in the Council's Householder Application paperwork of Cllr. Julian Bell's involvement or of the details of the planning advice that was procured from Cllr. Bell.Note that it was a mere "Housholder Application"  - how could that merit such important Labour dignitaries being assembled in our road in this undeclared gathering?Why has this information been withheld from neighbours and residents in the Haven Green Conservation Area on the planning file?Cllr. Julian Bell revealed last night that the "Assistant" Director, Mr Noel Rutherford as he described him, was also in attendance at 43 Castlebar Road to give more pre-application advice to Dr Sahota.  Firstly, I thought Mr Rutherford was the Director of the Environment Group, which includes the Planning Division headed by Ms Aileen Jones.  Has he been demoted?But since when was Cllr.Julian Bell a planning expert?  Is Cllr. Bell a Chartered Town Planner and a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute qualified to advise about the proposed "Playroom" underground and the single-storey Extension in the back garden of Dr Sahota's property (one of his 8 or so properties)?Noel Rutherford was a Building Control Officer as far as I know before he was promoted after Mr Richard Kirby left.  I was not aware that Mr Rutherford was a planning expert either and I am very surprised that Mr Rutherford should be called upon to render pre-application planning advice at all. I have never known him do so on this Estate for a house extension, etc. (a mere "Householder" application to boot - not even a normal planning application).I frankly fail to see what useful pre-application advice either of the so-called "planning advisers" could render and I would like to see a summary of what the supposed "pre-application advice" actually was, since Cllr. Bell said last night in the main chamber of Ealing Town Hall that neither he nor Mr Rutherford had made any notes of the meeting at 43 Castlebar Road!The planning application to effectively butcher the grand Victorian dwellinghouse at 43 Castlebar Road is grossly unneighbourly and would be an eyesore, especially viewed from Longfield Walk and would be totally out of character with the adjoining Castlebar Road houses also built by James Wills in the 1880s for Edward Wood Esq, the owner of the "Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing" and benefactor to the then Ealing Board in the 1880s and it was thrown out by the Planning Committee on Wednesday 13th March 2013, at which I attended.At the Planning Committee on 13th March 2013, not a single Member of the Committee voted to approve Dr Sahota's application [it is also to be noted that the application was submitted with incorrect information giving the applicant's name as "Dr Sahota Onkar" (i.e. with his name reversed) and also incorrectly stating that the applicant's address was at the house in Castlebar Road, when in fact Dr Sahota and family all live in Southall and are on the current Electoral Register as living there].The application was thus REFUSED by the Committee members of which openly criticised the officer's Report as being "in defiance of reality" "not to be trusted" "absurd" and "an insult to the intelligence"  - so much for Cllr. Bell's pre-application planning advice!I am afraid to say that this whole matter is disturbing and distasteful. If this is a Southall-style politics takeover, it is not welcome here on our Estate, which is also protected by covenants which not even an important Labour Party politician, developer and Ealing GLA Member such as Dr Onkar Singh Sahota (or Dr Sahota Onkar as he calls himself on his Application Form) can easily brush aside. I am sure that if the former Labour Planning Committee Chairman, the much-respected Northolt-based Cllr. Frank Impey and the former Acton-based Labour Party Leader, Cllr. John Cudmore were still in office, this kind of thing would not have taken place.  Indeed, Cllr. Cudmore pledged before coming into office in May 1994 that:“Council planners will work closely with local communities..” “Nature conservation will be an important priority..” “New buildings must add to the character of the area not destroy it.”  “Planning decisions must take account of the feelings of local people.”  “We are opposed to backland development.” “Labour is committed to maintaining existing conservation areas and to introducing new ones with local community support.” The Fourth Pledge:  How was that fourth pledge observed in the recent Hanwell case at "Oak Wharf" one might ask, where the wishes of some 450 objectors were totally disregarded by ALL the Labour Members of the Planning Committee and the application was then pushed through on the casting vote of the Labour Chairman, Cllr. Chris Summers in the absence of Cllr. Abdullah Gulaid, the one Labour member of the Committee who has shown that he does care for the plight of local residents. Why he was absent has not been explained - his name was on the Agenda sheet?  Had Cllr. Gulaid been there, I suspect that the application to build 4 houses on Metropolitan Open Land would have been refused.Victor Mishiku  17/7/13

Victor Mishiku ● 4641d

Rumbled.That sounds more  like a matter now for the police than a council investigation. If they are doing this, what else are they getting up to?

Oliver Gregan ● 4641d

Cllr Bell was reported by me to the Standards Committee. The Director of Legal Services has confirmed that Cllr Bell will now be the subject of a formal investigation.Last night at Full Council he refused to answer questions and claims he followed protocol.What protocol says that The Leader should use his office to "introduce" wealthy politicians to planners for an application in a ward he does not represent, a development that is not strategic and requiring his assistance,  a secret meeting where the planning committee and ward councillors were not informed of invited and no notes or minutes of the meeting taken?It looks very transparent and proper protocol, doesn't it?

Benjamin Dennehy ● 4641d

So, when the leader also acts as a lobbyist, it makes it difficult to get an unbiased result.  I suppose that means no point in having a government with a checks and balance system.

Charles Campbell ● 4641d

It's the same whiff of something putrid that has been going on in Hounslow for far too long.If it's this bad then maybe the evidence should be put to the fraud squad or are they in this lots pockets too?Utterley corrupt and disgusting.

Michael Brandt ● 4642d

It has now been brought to light that Labour politician Dr Onkar Singh Sahota, multi-millionaire property owner (who Steve Pound MP did not recommend to be an MP because he owns some 8 properties  - not in the "socialist" mould) procured the services of his political colleague Cllr. Julian Bell, the Leader of Ealing Council (but only just - per the grace of Southall Councillors, we hear) and employee of the Southall MP, Mr V.Sharma (political colleague of Dr Sahota) to "introduce" him to Ealing Council Planners in connection with his proposed development planning application.Not only was Cllr. Bell present in our Victorian road (Castlebar Road - "Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing") to render his services but also Mr Noel Rutherford, Director of the Environment Group, Ealing Council (he is the boss of Head of Planning, Ms Aileen Jones and her managers, Ms Alex Jackson, etc) was in attendance to discuss Dr Sahota's single-storey garden extension, etc.This seems very odd!Dr Sahota has professional Planning Consultants  - why does the Leader of the Council, Cllr. Julian Bell, who is not a Ward Councillor for this area, think it proper for him to be involved with his close political ally in what is likely to be perceived to be effectively "leaning" on the planners?Is Cllr. Bell a planning consultant now?How many other people can get the busy Leader of the Council and the Director of the Environment Group as well over to their home to advise and "introduce" them to a planning officer to discuss their planning application for an extension?I mean what is a humble planning officer over from New Zealand say to make of this, when the Leader of the Council giving the officer employment and the Environment Group Director of the Council (the superior officer to the Head of Planning, Ms Aileen Jones) are present "introducing" (thus most people would agree giving the seal of approval) a developer to the planning officer?Wouldn't he or she be trembling with all the assembled powerful figures on the face of it "introducing" and in effect impliedly recommending Dr Sahota to him or her?Is this not an Abuse of Power?If this is the underhand politics of Southall, then it is not welcome on our Estate.

Victor Mishiku ● 4642d

This is very strange and could be disturbing.  I hope those responsible and involved with this planning aplication come forward and explain their actions. Thank you for drawing our attention to the case. We the residents of Ealing are concerned about this application.

Gerry Tan ● 4642d

It has now been brought to light that Labour politican Dr Onkar Singh Sahota, multi-millionaire property owner (who Steve Pound MP did not recommend to be an MP because he owns some 8 properties  - not in the "socialist" mould) procured the services of his policital colleague Cllr. Julian Bell, the Leader of Ealing Council (but only just - per the grace of Southall Councillors, we hear) and employee of the Southall MP, Mr V.Sharma (political colleague of Dr Sahota) to "introduce" him to Ealing Council Planners in connection with his proposed development planning application.Not only was Cllr. Bell present in our Victorian road (Castlebar Road - "Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing") to render his services but also Mr Noel Rutherford, Director of the Environment Group, Ealing Council (he is the boss of Head of Planning, Ms Aileen Jones and her managers, Ms Alex Jackson, etc) was in attendance to discuss Dr Sahota's single-storey garden extension, etc.This seems very odd!Dr Sahota has professional Planning Consultants  - why does the Leader of the Council, Cllr. Julian Bell, who is not a Ward Councillor for this area, think it proper for him to be involved with his close political ally in what is likely to be perceived to be effectively "leaning" on the planners?Is Cllr. Bell a planning consultant now?How many other people can get the busy Leader of the Council and the Director of the Environment Group as well over to their home to advise and "introduce" them to a planning officer to discuss their planning application for an extension?I mean what is a humble planning officer over from New Zealand say to make of this, when the Leader of the Council giving the officer employment and the Environment Group Director of the Council (the superior officer to the Head of Planning, Ms Aileen Jones) are present "introducing" (thus most people would agree giving the seal of approval) a developer to the planning officer?Wouldn't he or she be trembling with all the assembled powerful figures on the face of it "introducing" and in effect impliedly recommending Dr Sahota to him or her?Is this not an Abuse of Power?If this is the underhand politics of Southall, then it is not welcome on our Estate.

Victor Mishiku ● 4642d

This goes on in Hounslow all the time as well. Nor are any members of the public allowed to make any comments or ask any questions or correct misleading or incorrect facts.The one Councillor who made a point to clean up this rather undemocratic process has been pushed out by the clique of councillors who seem to think this is the way forward.Now it's happening in Ealing.It needs to be dealt with.  In fact the whole UK planning system is becoming a farce.

Michael Brandt ● 4664d

Please see below a letter recently sent to The Leader of the Council, Cllr.Julian Bell dated 17th June 2013 from the representative of a longstanding Acton Residents Association (CARA) which includes the Ealing Common area.This relates to the Victorian villa "Peacehaven" at 3 Creswick Road on the "Springfield Park Estate" (locally-listed by Ealing Council about 13 years ago).Cllr. Julian Bell,Leader of the CouncilLondon Borough of EalingTown HallEaling W517th June 2013Dear Julian,Re -- Planning Committee--12 June 2013I attended last week’s Planning Committee meeting because I was objecting to an application for the Victorian locally-listed property “Peacehaven”, 3 Creswick Road, Acton W3.Following submissions from speakers objecting to and supporting the said application, the Committee then debated the application, where several points were asked etc. Following further discussion, the Chair said are you ready to vote?However, before the Chair took the vote he announced to the Committee, and members of the public in the gallery, that he was supporting the application. I have attended a number of planning meetings over the years, but I have never heard the Chair announce before a vote was taken that he was in support.I am aware that the Planning Committee has new members since last Month, including the Chair, but I find this was not in accordance with the usual protocol for Planning Committee meetings.It seems to me that additional training is required, so that the correct procedure is applied for future Planning Committee meetings.I would welcome your views?Yours sincerelyPeter Gallagher 33 Rosemont Road, W3 9LU.cc. Ms Jackie Adams, Legal Adviser to the Planning Committee, LBE - adamsj@ealing.gov.uk

Victor Mishiku ● 4665d

Councillor Dennehy set up a similar petition recently, through the council website, and received only 66 signatures - 1500 are required for the council to discuss the concern.It's really worrying just how many unsuitable developments Planning Services are recommending and trying to push through without allowing for proper consultation. At least some are being rejected by the councillors on the planning committe, thankfully. At a recent committe meeting the chairman, contrary to established practice, voted first in favour of a particularly bad development, when it is normal for the chair to vote last, or not at all unless a casting vote is needed. This convention is adopted to avoid the possibility of the chair influencing the other voting members. In this particular case, the remaining committee rejected the proposals.

Judith Jaafar ● 4668d

I have read this lengthy thread with great concern. It may be of interest to readers to note that there is currently a petition being organised by Mr Duncan McNair - Secretary of Park Crest Residents Assocn - expressing a total lack of confidence in the LBE's Planning Dept. (via the Council website). I write this from my hospital bed so do not have further details to hand, but will encourage Duncan to pass any on.

Mark Walker ● 4675d

We asked the Ealing Civic Society to comment on No.43 and in another case in W3 (please see below) but heard nothing.We are looking at the case at No.39 Castlebar Road too and we have already identified a proposed trespass against Mrs Jaafar's land. We have asked the case officer to visit plus the residents are instructing a planning consultant to scrutinise the plans, as before at No.43."Battle of the Buildings" - Last night at the Town Hall, we won our battle with the planners and developers over a proposed backgarden development in the grounds of a magnificent locally-listed 130 year-old villa in Acton called "Peacehaven". The proposals had been the subject of over 240 objections (not a single letter of support) but these were all brushed aside by the planners, who fully supported the developers recommending "grant".The Committee declined to accept the officers' favourable recommendation and refused the application citing several grounds.This is the fourth backgarden development proposal to be rejected by the Planning Committee contrary to officers' advice.

Victor Mishiku ● 4675d

Have you contacted the Ealing Civic Society? I'm sure they will also place an objection if these are not in keeping with the character and intention of the dwellings of this town.They have had a formidable record over the last 35 years of keeping this town as good as it is. Politically non aligned they have done well at keeping clueless councillors and their chums at bay.

Michael Brandt ● 4685d

Just to let you know, folks, that a planning application has gone in for the house next door to me on the other side. A similar proposal for a roof conversion and a sizeable extension in the back garden that will deprive me of light and ruin my open views. So nos. 43 and 39 Castlebar Road are going to be torn apart, if planning permission is given, and I will be sitting right in the middle of two building sites. Ain't life grand?I feel another campaign coming on.....

Judith Jaafar ● 4685d

What do you expect? Most politicians of his ilk are complete and utter hypocrites.

Michael Brandt ● 4690d

We support the campaign to keep the Casualty Departments of local Hospitals open  - it is a pity that this was ever suggested. God knows how you get to Northwick Park in the middle of the night if you are in Acton Vale and have an accident not serious enough for an ambulance?It would be nice if the good Doctor respected the grand "Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing" houses built by James Wills in 1885 and thus spared Mrs Judy Jaafar at No.41 next door, who does not enjoy good health, from being driven out of her own home by the unneighbourly proposals shortly expected to be the subject of an Appeal by Dr Sahota to the Secretary of State.

Victor Mishiku ● 4690d

I couldn't possibly comment on the closeness or otherwise of councillor Bell's and Dr. Sahota's relationship, but there sure are a lot of photos of them together on the online Ealing Gazette. Fighting against A&E closures mostly, but some of them posing with architect's plans. Does the council leader normally get involved in on-site planning issues? I don't know. Maybe this is quite normal?

Judy Jaafar ● 4692d

I am sorry, I got it wrong. It was not Phil Taylor who noted that the planning committee make-up had been change, it was councillor Dennehy in a post elsewhere on the Forum about the new mayor of Ealing: "He was parachuted in. Usually the Deputy Mayor becomes Mayor, however Cllr Bell had a purge of his party and Southall Cllrs were promoted and a lot of non-Southall cllrs removed from their posts. Check out how many Southall Cllrs have made it onto planning. 50% of the Labour lot."From this the question is: is Bell making it easier for Labour Member of the London Assembly Onkar Sahota's planning application to get through second time around by putting his apparatchiks in place instead of councillors who objected to the planning application in the first place?

Wladyslaw Miech ● 4694d

Is Ealing's planning committee being rigged to get Labour Member of the London Assembly Onkar Sahota's planning application passed? Councillor Phil Taylor's blog notes that Labour Council Leader Julian Bell and his mate Mahfouz have changed the planning committee make up to include a large number of Southall Labour Councillors so this debate may resurface again.

Wladyslaw Miech ● 4694d

The Council's Planning Department procedures were heavily criticised in the Dr Onkar Singh Sahota case. The worst elements being the fact that the case officer (who left the Council whilst the application was being considered) wrote her report to committee (or did someone else complete it?)BEFORE the objectors planning adviser, Mr Peter Causer and others had time to lodge their submissions on the Revised PlansAs you may recall, the Planning Department would not wait even for 14 days (the curtailed consultation time given) for Mr Causer's 8-page submission to be lodged - let alone digested and taken into account before the final report to committee was completed. Residents feel that this was a very serious breach of trust. The Government and previous planning ministers have stated that they wish to encourage people to participate in the decision-making process.  This is sometimes a tough job in L.B.Ealing these days!Since this topic started re. 43 Castlebar Road Ealing, there have been two other extraordinary cases, one at No.1 Rosemont Road (part of the "Springfield Park Estate, Acton") and another at "Peacehaven" No.3 Creswick Road on the same estate.  "Peacehaven" is a magnificent red-bricked house in a leafy setting at the corner of two roads (Creswick Road and Pierrepoint Road) not far from the small but popular "Springfield Gardens" Park. There is a photo of the Victorian house (which had a ballroom) on this Website under an article entitled "PLANNING UNDER FIRE".In both cases, neighbours living nearby and in the same house in Rosemont Road (divided into flats 6 permitted, but 7 built - no enforcement and no communal garden for 3 flats contrary to the application details approved) were unaware of the applications.  One neighbour only found out about the proposed development (another 2-storey house in the back garden) when she bumped into all the Planning Committee walking around the property on the Saturday morning before the night of the Committee Meeting!The "Peacehaven" and another Garden Land development in Acton come before the Committee next Wednesday and needless to say, once again the planners are fully recommending more "Garden Grabbing" (the worst ever example was at No.2 Creswick Road next to the Park where 8 three-storey houses and an Access Road replaced an elegant 1920's cottage named "Trevenna Cottage" built for Mrs Olive Athawes of the Auctioneers' family in Acton and its beautiful long garden adjacent to the Park and thus extending the leafy vista from the Park).I hope that the Committee REJECTS the recommendation of the planners for out of character backgarden development. "Peacehaven" is actually a locally-listed building (thanks to the efforts of Mrs Edith Oakes, who also resisted attempts over 15 years to build next to the Park and who saved the grand Victorian house "Grasgarth" from destruction some years earlier).I would invite you to view Harrow Council's latest SPD (Supplementary Planning Document) at: www.harrow.gov.uk/spdOne could not ask for more to protect green spaces (bearing in mind that residential gardens are now classified as "Greenfield" land as of 9th June 2010 - not that you would know this by the actions of some in Ealing Planning Department).It seems (and as MP Angie Bray has complained of) that some at Ealing Planning are not prepared to recognise the intention of the then Planning Minister when he said:-"For years the wishes of local people have been ignored as the character of neighbourhoods and gardens have been destroyed, robbing communities of vital green space. It is ridiculous that gardens have until now been classified in the same group as derelict factories and disused railway sidings, forcing councils and communities to sit by and watch their neighbourhoods get swallowed up in a concrete jungle. Today I am changing the classification of garden land so councils and communities no longer have their decisions constantly overruled, but have the power to work with industry to shape future development that is appropriate for their area. This is just the start of wholesale reform I want to make to the planning system, so councils and communities are centre-stage in a reformed system that works for them, and is not just a tool of top-down policy."Victor Mishiku 9/5/13 - "The Covenant Movement"vmfree@madasafish.com

Victor Mishiku ● 4710d

Dr. Sahota has expressed on this website his intention to appeal this decision, so we cannot be assured that things will not go against the feeling in the neighbourhood. The appeal must be lodged within 3 months of the council decision.Any appeal would be heard by the Planning Inspectorate, an impartial government body in Bristol, I believe. There are two methods of conducting an appeal: informal hearing or written representations. At the request of our ward councillors (Ealing Broadway) the council has agreed to indicate to the Inspectorate the informal hearing method as their preference, as the case has caused so much local interest. The Inspectorate will make the final decision about this, but hopefully it will be the informal hearing at which we can attend and discuss our concerns with the inspector directly.No appeal has been lodged as yet, as far as I know.

Judy Jaafar ● 4714d

With this unfortunate and wretched application rejected, can this be considered a result for the worried neighbours in Castlebar Road?

Gerry Tan ● 4717d

Further to my previous posting about the general air of decrepitude about 43 Castlebar Road after 18 months of vacancy, and the dreadful state of the gardens, lo and behold gardeners have turned up and set to with a vigour about restoring some semblance of decency to the grand old premises.The irony, though, is that the gardeners are my occasional gardeners of 25 years, brought with me through three house moves within Ealing!(chronic illness precludes my doing heavy gardening myself.) Don't you just hate it when someone poaches your valued tradesmen? Personal feelings aside, it's good to see the place looking half-decent again.

Judy Jaafar ● 4718d

As opposed to the "no touch" scheme already running in places?When Delegated Powers can be used also needs questioning!

Philippa Bond ● 4723d

The Government has said:House extensions move: consultation scheme unveiledMinisters have outlined a system incorporating a "light touch" neighbour consultation scheme as part of the administration’s proposal to grant permitted development rights for larger house extensions for a period of three years.User SurveyDetails were unveiled in a letter to MPs and Peers and outlined during Parliamentary debates about amendments to the Growth and Infrastructure Bill.Under these proposals, which will require secondary legislation, homeowners wishing to build extensions under the new powers would have to notify their local council with the details. The council would then inform the adjoining neighbours. If no objections are made to the council by the neighbours within 21 days the development could proceed.If objections are raised by neighbours, the council would consider whether the development would have an unacceptable impact on neighbours’ amenity.Speaking in the Lords, Communities and Local Government Minister Baroness Hanham said: “It will be up to individual councils to decide how they handle the consideration of these proposals. We would expect it to work in the same way as for planning decisions: that is, for the council to decide whether the decisions are delegated to officers or made by a planning committee.“If approval is not given, the home owner will be able to appeal against a refusal or may wish to submit a full planning application. The home owner will be able to appeal against a refusal of consent but, as with normal planning consents, neighbours will not be able to appeal against a grant of permission.“This approval process will not be onerous and we do not expect that it will impose significant costs on local authorities, but we will discuss this and other implementation issues with the Local Government Association.”She added; “These proposals should remove the need for local authorities to feel that they have to resort to using Article 4 directions to remove the new permitted development rights.”During the debate in the Lords Baroness Hanham confirmed the new permitted development rights would not apply in conservation areas.Read the Lords Hansard record (22 April; column 1229).___________________But what happens when the notices don't get received or are "disappeared"?

Victor Mishiku ● 4723d

Dear Philippa,There are all sorts of problems being reported now with residents not receiving notices from the Planning Department.This is a letter (below) sent out 2 days ago and since then, yet another neighbour living right next door has written to me to say she did not receive a notice either!"----- Original Message ----- From: Mettcm To: River Trading ; Sean Currie ; jrinw3@aol.co.uk ; Andrea Ubbiali ; CARA ; peter gallagher ; Mirek Malevski ; Rosco White Cc: Daniel Crawford ; Patricia Walker ; ozegovic@btinternet.com ; Maria Fitzsimmons ; CHARLES CHARALAMBOUS ; John Chapple ; CrawfordD@ealing.gov.uk ; g.berg@rocketmail.com ; Mark.Reen@ealing.gov.uk ; Chris.summers@ealing.gov.uk ; Ian Potts ; ballj@ealing.gov.uk ; roseh@ealing.gov.uk ; Nigel.Bakhai@ealing.gov.uk ; Anthony.Young@ealing.gov.uk ; Jason.Stacey@ealing.gov.uk ; Edward Rennie ; RichardKotas@Hotmail.co.uk ; Abdullah Gulaid ; edithoakes@aol.co.uk ; petercauser@hotmail.co.uk ; edit@ealinggazette.co.uk ; editor@ActonW3.com ; Editor ; John Woodcock ; jjaafar@sky.com ; AnthonyRoden@gmail.com ; Tracy Evans ; charles.mic@btinternet.com ; tessaleverton@doctors.org.uk ; BGChautard@aol.com ; nadia hajian ; Naz Ghanadian ; alan@grampa.demon.co.uk ; Gerald Moran Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:55 PMSubject: Another backgarden development refused contrary to officer's recommendationYet another backgarden extra house development was refused at the Planning Committee last night - despite the usual favourable recommendation from the case officers.No.1 Rosemont Road, Acton, W3.  One of a group of very old Victorian houses at Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7 & 9 Rosemont Road  - laid out as One House per Plot.Neighbours living within No.1 (it's now in flats) never received the Notification Letters and were only able to object at the 11th hour.Several councillors expressed concerns about the Planning Department's notification process. An Acton Ward Councillor was also concerned about lack of notification.I recall a case in Neasden a few years ago where all the other residents in an existing building of flats but with a communal post area, which was also accessible by the freeholder developer, never got the letters that were said to have been sent to them by Brent Council."

Victor Mishiku ● 4723d

Thank you Victor.  It seems to not always happen.

Philippa Bond ● 4724d

Re: Philippa's question:The bare Legal requirements are pretty minimal!Extracts from "The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010" are below:-(2) In the case of an application for planning permission for development which — (a)is an EIA application accompanied by an environmental statement; (b)does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; or (c)would affect a right of way to which Part 3 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (public rights of way)(1) applies, the application shall be publicised in the manner specified in paragraph (3). (3) An application falling within paragraph (2) (“a paragraph (2) application”) shall be publicised in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (7) and by giving requisite notice — (a)by site display in at least one place on or near the land to which the application relates for not less than 21 days; and (b)by publication of the notice in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land to which the application relates is situated. (4) In the case of an application for planning permission which is not a paragraph (2) application, if the development proposed is major development the application shall be publicised in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (7) and by giving requisite notice — (a)(i)by site display in at least one place on or near the land to which the application relates for not less than 21 days; or (ii)by serving the notice on any adjoining owner or occupier; and (b)by publication of the notice in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land to which the application relates is situated. (5) In a case to which neither paragraph (2) nor paragraph (4) applies, the application shall be publicised in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (7) and by giving requisite notice — (a)by site display in at least one place on or near the land to which the application relates for not less than 21 days; or (b)by serving the notice on any adjoining owner or occupier.--------------------------------------------------------So, for non-major developments (10 units), the publicity requirement under the law is as per (5) above namely either a Site Notice on the lamppost for 21 days or Notices (Notification Letters giving 21 days from the date of service) sent to any adjoining owners.Query: Does "adjoining" mean one or two houses either side only?  It does not say "immediately adjoining". As you can see, the above is barely satisfactory especially if a developer tears down the Notice the same day! or as happened in a case in Lewisham, because of delay, where the 21 days Notice only went up on the day it expired!However, there is a Government Planning Circular and in addition and most important of all, the Council has agreed Neighbour Notification Procedures at least two decades ago.I believe that CIRCULAR 15/92 is still extant although some of the legislation referred to may have been either updated or replaced. Part of it reads as below:7. Neighbour notification may be the more appropriate method where interested parties are limited to those living in the immediate vicinity. In many cases, the development will only be of interest to close neighbours, whose main concern may be about a loss of light or privacy. It enables those who are unable to see a site notice, for example the housebound, to express their views. Although not part of the statutory requirements, local planning authorities may find the definition of "neighbouring land" used in Scottish legislation (which is annexed to this Circular) helpful in deciding which other neighbours to notify. 8. Written communications should be addressed to "the owner and/or the occupier" of land adjoining the site. It will be particularly difficult to ensure time-share owners are aware of developments likely to affect them. Where local planning authorities are aware that a neighbouring property is owned under time-share arrangements, neighbour notification may he the most appropriate method of publicity. The letter should be addressed to "the owner's association or trustee." 9. Site notices can be particularly effective where there is doubt about who interested parties are, perhaps because the ownership of adjoining land is uncertain, or because the siting or design of the development is likely to be of interest to more than immediate neighbours. They also allow information about the proposed development to be passed by word of mouth to a larger audience than might otherwise be possible. 10. Notices should be displayed on or near the site and should be visible and legible to anyone passing by without the need to enter the site to be read. A large site, one bounded by several roads and footpaths, or with more than one frontage will normally require more than one notice. The main disadvantage of site notices is that they are susceptible to damage from vandalism and inclement weather. Where a site is thought to be particularly prone to such problems, neighbour notification is preferable. 11. Apart from the statutory minimum requirements, local planning authorities should consider what other methods of publicity are available for attracting a wider audience. Parish and community councils are an integral part of the development control process. They may have a more intimate knowledge of their area than the local planning authority, and could be invited to participate fully in publicising planning applications, particularly in rural areas, where local newspapers may not be widely available. Lists of applications should be available in public places such as libraries, notice boards and citizens advice bureaux. Local planning authorities should also ensure that the press, local civic and amenity societies, and residents' associations are made aware of proposed developments. -----------------------------------------------------In any event, Ealing Council decided as a matter of procedure many years ago that it would widely notify neighbours. The exact number of neighbours and locations was listed long ago (and I had an input into this years ago since a proposed backland development meant that more people would be affected)I will try to locate the Council's own existing Neighbour Notification procedure and I'll write back further. There may also be a special procedure for Conservation Areas (as in the instant case in Castlebar Road). As to Appeals, I will check into that too but normally, the Council does notify persons who wrote in to either object or support a planning application. Where there is a Petition of many people, some Councils, I think, write to the first person on it or perhaps, to the person who presented it?Elmbridge Borough Council stated in the press on 9th September 2009 that a Petition they had received from neighbours objecting to a planning application "would form a material consideration in the determination of the application".  NB. This is contrary to well-meaning "advice" that has been given to neighbours occasionally that Petitions are a waste of time and will be ignored!

Victor Mishiku ● 4725d

Under the Planning Acts Notices had to be sent to neighbours - is this no longer the case?Also if you had previously objected to a development then you had to be notified about an Appeal.  Is this no longer the case?

Philippa Bond ● 4726d

At the Planning Committee Site Visit on Saturday 9th March 2013, neighbours were barred from accompanying the Council officers and members of the committee on their inspection of the property (although everyone was welcomed to view from No.41 next door).  The neighbours were told that "the lady resident" of No.43 did not wish neighbours to be allowed to view. In fact, no one has been residing at the house for almost 1½ years, since Mr & Mrs N.Woodward left Ealing for Richmond. At night, it's unlit with no car in the front garden.As previously noted, the developer's Agents De Matos Ryan put the Applicant's address down as 43 Castlebar Road and also named the Applicant developer as "Dr Sahota Onkar" and that is how the Council registered the name.  Likewise, the Land Registry Wales Office were also informed that the address of the freeholder is 43 Castlebar Road (as apposed to the property site address).It is strange that the Agents (who are also the project Architects) do not know the name and address of their own VIP client!If there really was a lady "resident" at No.43, I am sure that she would not wish her home to be left open, unlocked and exposed to any stranger or would-be squatter walking straight in through the open side gate which leads to the back of the property with the door banging all night in the wind.This is not very considerate to neighbours even if the owner does not even seem to care about the safety of his own property.

Victor Mishiku ● 4726d

I have not heard of any appeal being lodged as yet. The side gates were banging in the wind again the other night at 43. I got my dressing gown on and my torch ready, but reneged on my intention when I discovered it was also pouring. I have also been told off by my other half for the folly of wandering around in my pyjamas in the wee small hours - someone could be lurking in the bushes intent on harm. I therefore had to wait till a reasonable hour and then tell him to go and sort it out, which he did.I just cannot understand how the owner of a valuable property like 43 can let it become so uncared for, no matter what his future intentions. Doesn't someone at least have a key for the front side gate so that it can be locked? Cannot someone make sure all three side gates are secured? As it stands, anyone can walk in off the street right down the side alleyway round into the back garden. Anything could happen and it's not how I would treat a £1.4 million investment.

Judy Jaafar ● 4728d

Re. the Appeal mentioned by Dr Sahota in his response to the Website Forum, I have not myself received notice from the Council of the expected Appeal.  I don't know if any other Forum members have lately received notices?

Victor Mishiku ● 4729d

Has he appealed now?

Patrick Derry ● 4732d

May I please make a correction to one of the paragraphs in my earlier posting of 9th April.".....Mrs Judy Jaafar and other neighbours distinctly heard an additional reason relating to the "overbearing nature and impact on the neighbouring property" cited by Members of the Planning Committee on the night of 13th March 2013, but by the 19th March 2013, these had been omitted and the word "overbearing" (obviously relating to the impact on No.41 Castlebar Road) had been transformed into "over-intensive" (a word that was never used by a single Member of the Committee)...."You would think that the word "overbearing" means as would appear from adjoining property rather than a general detriment to the wider neighbourhood.In the recent case in Acton at 219 Horn Lane where it was proposed to replace a single-storey former Petrol Station shop and nearby canopies with a five-storey building with balconies (the four upper floors to be flats), the proposals would have been two storeys higher than the adjacent flats at Fell's Haugh and Springfield Court and would have severely overlooked their communal gardens. The five-storey development would also have backed onto a busy commercial site with noisy plant hire vehicles operating at 6.30am. The Decision Notice dated 3rd April 2013 gave three solid reasons for the Refusal. The second Reason for Refusal states:-2. The proposal, due to its bulk, height and relative position to the adjoining properties, would represent an unacceptable and overbearing form of development, harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring properties by reason of visual intrusion, loss of outlook from the outdoor balconies and an increased sense of enclosure. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies 4.1 and 5.5 of the Council's Adopted Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004); policies 3.4 and 3.5 of the Draft Ealing Development Plan Document (2012) and Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (July 2011).You will note the word "overbearing" is stated and that is linked to the words "harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring properties by reason of visual intrusion, loss of outlook from the outdoor balconies and an increased sense of enclosure."So, I think that it's clear that the Members of the Planning Committee debating the 43 Castlebar Road case on the night of 13th March 2013 had in mind the overbearing nature and impact on No.41 immediately adjoining (as the Council Committee Clerk's hand-written Minutes accurately record).  But, as you have heard, none of this appears in the official Decision Notice typed 6 days later on 19th March 2013.Why the word "overbearing" does not appear anywhere in the Decision Notice has not been explained satisfactorily.  The only word used near to this is "over-intensive" but that relates only to the Conservation Area. As mentioned in an earlier posting, no councillor ever uttered the word "over-intensive" to my hearing (despite the fact that one of the gallery loudspeakers was not working!).This looks like someone in the Planning Department has wanted the wording altered  - possibly this is because the case officer (who left the Council in the middle of the case) had written a Report (or someone else wrote or changed it?) saying that would be no detriment to No.41.So, were the words altered merely to spare the Planning Department's blushes? (the Planning Department of course had fully supported the developer applicant Dr Onkar Singh Sahota however the Planning Committee voted against it 10 - 0 with 3 abstentions including Cllr. Shital Manro, who had unsuccessfully tried to have Dr Sahota's application deferred rather than seeing it refused that night).One of the Reasons for Refusal has thus been "lost", which makes the appeal by Dr Sahota less easy to defeat.

Victor Mishiku ● 4735d

Trouble with theses types of applications is the change of usage once they obtain planning permission.They  start off by applying for a seemingly straight forward project.However,when building is finished it is used for a totally different purpose. eg.across from me the owner applied to build a garage to the side of the house.But when the builders left,instead of a garage door being installed,a window, and front door appeared and the space was used for accommodation....just scamming the system...

Marie OConnell ● 4736d

Trouble with theses types of applications is the change of usage once they obtain planning permission.They  start off by applying for a seemingly straight forward project.However,when building is finished it is used for a totally different purpose. eg.across from me the owner applied to build a garage to the side of the house.But when the builders left,instead of a garage door being installed,a window, and front door appeared and the space was used for accommodation....just scamming the system...

Marie OConnell ● 4736d

I have contacted Ealing Council more than once about the difference between the hand-written minutes taken by the official clerk on the eveing of the Planning Committee Meeting, and the published minutes and Decision Notification, and the reasons for refusal cited therein.I have been fobbed off with illogical and easily challenged nonsense. One reply from the Planning Department officer defending the case on the night mentioned that several reasons for refusal can be given by the councillors, but what was important was "the final decision". I have politely enquired who exactly makes that final decision - the councillors (as it should be) or the planning department who actually supported this over-development and issued the refusal notice? There was also a remark in one email that "it had been agreed" about something - I asked exactly who had made this agreement that was not in the minutes or anywhere else.I have not had any satisfactory responses to these two very important questions, and it leaves us with the impression that whatever the Planning Committee decides, people within the Planning Department will influence, edit and nuance any documents put into the public domain in a way that suits the developer whom they are supporting.The whole refusal notice has been written in such a way as to give the impression that the application was refused solely on Conservation Area grounds, with no reference whatsoever to the councillors' stated reasons, and recorded in the minutes, that the proposed development would be overbearing to, and have a negative impact on the neighbouring property, i.e. my house. This has just completley disappeared from the reasons for refusal. I am hopping mad.

Judy Jaafar ● 4736d

You think that's bad.Hounslow Council take months to produce minutes of planning meetings and when they do they have been heavily edited.Major reforms are needed and fast. especially with huge developers and the very wealty using any means to get their way.

Michael Brandt ● 4738d

The latest postings refer to complaints that the planning decision notice of refusal did not follow what the committee had said and flagged up as the grounds for refusal and you say notes taken differ from the wording that followed in the notice 6 days after the event. Richmond Council was mentioned in previous comments and if you check their web site under Planning Committees, it shows their solution saying:-"Welcome to London Borough of Richmond upon Thames webcasting page. Following the successful webcast of full Council on 13 September 2011, the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames will now be webcasting all Planning Committee and Full Council meetings from 13 October, as part of its commitment to making its democratic processes as transparent and accountable as possible. If you have a computer and a broadband internet connection you will be able to watch the meetings live and for up to six months afterwards.  By clicking the webcast library tab above you can access all webcast meetings held in the last six months." If Ealing Council did the same, there could be no argument about what was actually said.

Patrick Derry ● 4738d

There is a God. Good. He should not get away with it. How can we trust him when. he builds a house with play rooms in the plans while all his children are grown up?Sizteen-cats Peter.

Peter Cumberpatch ● 4738d

I have now heard third hand that the Council is apparently  set to do something about the "Minutes mess" complained of by me and others.Meantime, I have myself typed out a "Composite Minutes" (Unofficial) document, which we will be sending to The Planning Inspectorate re. Dr Sahota's appeal, notice of which is expected at any moment, so that the Inspector does not have to trawl through three sets of Council Minutes and Amendments to Minutes to try to work out the final version!This "Composite Minutes" unofficial document can be seen at:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14377445/AgreedMinutesCompositeunofficial.docThe official Decision Notice dated 19th March 2013 is shown at:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14377445/PP.2012.5125_REFUSAL_DECISIONNOTICE_19thMarch2013.pdfNormally, Decision Notices are sent out the next day after the night of the Committee Meeting, but in this case, it was not done so for 6 days in which time the wording of Refusal seems to have been changed (in favour of the developer).Mrs Judy Jaafar and other neighbours distinctly heard an additional reason relating to the "overbearing nature and impact on the neighbouring property" cited by Members of the Planning Committee on the night of 13th March 2013, but by the 19th March 2013, these had been omitted and the word "overbearing" (obviously relating to the impact on No.41 Castlebar Road) made been transformed into "over-intensive" (a word that was never used by a single Member of the Committee).The whole matter and handling of this case is very unsatisfactory.  The Planning Department's failure to allow the full consultation time on the revised application plans to run before finalising their favourable Report to Committee was a disgrace and an unpleasant reminder of the inadequacy of the developer-loaded planning system to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents.In a very recent Local Government Ombudsman's Report on a planning complaint in another Council, the Ombudsman stated:“Local planning authorities have a duty to the public to properly consider the impact of any proposed development on its neighbours and the surrounding environment, and in this instance Walsall Council fell short of its responsibilities.”Please see at: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stories/2013/mar13/280313/28032013_4

Victor Mishiku ● 4739d

In the lengthy process of trying to get Ealing Council to see sense and publish the full approved Agreed Minutes on their March Committee section on the Web (instead of the erroneous ones), I asked for the single page "Correction Sheet" that was produced by Mr Mike Davidson, Committee Clerk, for the 3rd April Committee to be forwarded to me so that I could e-mail it to all the other neighbours who had attended the previous 13th March Planning Committee Meeting, when the Committee rejected the Application by Dr Onkar Singh Sahota.The Committee Clerk, Mr Mike Davidson, who had attended the 13th March Meeting kindly said that he would "gladly foward" the document by e-mail to me.  That was on the 4th April. Mr Davidson wrote: "I am working away from the office today but will gladly forward you the 1 page summary of the changes agreed at last nights meeting when I am next in the office tomorrow." As it had not arrived by today, I wrote to Mr Davidson earlier and reminded him about it  - whereupon I received a somewhat hostile and dismissive reply from his superior officer, Ms Linda Zimmerman saying that we were not to contact Mr Davidson again as he had already dealt with all the various enquiries on the (Dr Sahota) case.Since Mr Davidson himself had said that he would "gladly" send me the document, I fail to see what was wrong is reminding him of that fact and asking for the item.Last month, Mr Davidson himself had specifically asked me to inform all the neighbours who had queries to kindly contact him rather than his superiors. I have written back to Ms Linda Zimmerman today (please see my full reply at the link below) and repeated my request for this one-page document.I am also going to ask the Ward Councillors if this case could be sent to the Scrutiny Committee as there are a number of rather unusual aspects to the entire mishandling of it by more than one Council Department and all seeming to favour the Labour GLA Member - the developer in this case who seeks to, in my opinion, "butcher" a grand Victorian detached villa built 128 years ago by Mr James Wills (who lived there) without glass roof boxes and unneighbourly side extensions up against next door's living-room walls (making the properties semi-detached) or massive underground "playrooms" and sundry unsightly and inappropriate flat roof extensions.My letter to the Council can be read at:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14377445/LettertoMsLindaZimmerman_8thApril2013.pdfAs was once said: "Where there is error, may we bring truth"

Victor Mishiku ● 4741d

As per Tony's comment and as you said " - why not post up the proper agreed final version of the Minutes rather than a flawed one, which would seem only sensible". Sure, I would agree but have you checked any of the other local authorities? Maybe they have more sense.

Patrick Derry ● 4742d

Thank you very much Tony for your comment. As I wrote to the Council yesterday in my fourth letter about these Minutes, since a separate item is posted up purporting to be the Council Minutes, why not post up the proper agreed final version of the Minutes rather than a flawed one, which would seem only sensible. Then, people can see straight away what happened at the previous Planning Committee Meeting without having to explore subsequent Meetings twice or thrice-removed to see if any changes may have occurred.As to "paper chases", the Administrative Court has in several Judicial Review cases criticised Councils' Planning Departments for laziness in not putting the proper reasons for granting permissions and instead sending people on a paper chase to check various parts of the UDP or other Planning Policy Documents by giving mere references of publications to locate and pore over and the Court accordingly quashed the permissions. I assisted a family in Twickenham and their planning consultant prepare for one such case a few years ago. The planning permission was quashed by the Court and they were awarded £19,000 towards their legal costs of about £26,000 against L.B.Richmond. When the case later returned to Committee for a re-determination, this time it was refused by a differently-constituted Committee. A subsequent appeal against the Refusal was dismissed by The Planning Inspectorate following a Hearing (Informal mode) at York House, Twickenham.In case Forum members missed the article in the "Ealing & Acton Gazette" on 22nd March 2013 re. Dr Sahota's planning application at 43 Castlebar Road, Ealing W5, it can be seen at this link below:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14377445/EalingGazette_Article_22ndMarch2013.pdfThere are also two "Letters to The Editor" published in the same edition, which can be seen at:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14377445/YOURLETTERS_13thMarch2013.pdf

Victor Mishiku ● 4743d

It is completely ridiculous that amended minutes are not posted in place of (or at least by the side of) the original flawed versions.My already very low opinion of the bureaucrats that lord it over us just got even lower.

Tony Colliver ● 4744d

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14377445/LettertoMikeDavidson_5thApril2013.pdfAs can be seen at the above link (PDF file), today I have written a fourth letter to the Chief Executive's Committee Clerks Section regarding what I think is a most unsatisfactory system of posting up incorrect and superseded Minutes though these would appear to any viewer to be the Agreed Minutes as they are appended to postings to the relevant Committee Meeting when the case was decided.In fact, the Minutes displayed in the March 2013 Planning Committee postings area are both incorrect and have no notice to state that they are only "Draft" Minutes and that they are "Subject to Change".People using the Council's Website would be obliged to go on "a paper chase" to see exactly what the real agreed Minutes should say.  The Council do not intend to post up that correctly-worded document however so the accuracy of the Minutes depends on how many different Website entries in up to three or more different locations people are prepared (if they are even aware that they need to do this) to trawl through to get to the bottom of the matter!Since the incorrect draft Minutes carry no warning that they are onli in "draft" and may be "Subject to Change", most people, having located what appears to be the Agreed Minutes, would go no further and hence would be using the wrong information!In Court cases or in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), the Judge or Tribunal Member often releases a draft Judgment and sends it to the parties for any corrections, etc, which when notified are then put into the final version that goes on the record. Sometimes, there is some further text relating to any costs awards.  The final version (published on the Web for UTLC cases) then replaces the earlier version.I have asked the Council to consider making the effort to publish - as a composite document - what the Minutes that were agreed should actually say.Victor Mishiku "The Covenant Movement"  5/4/13.

Victor Mishiku ● 4744d

So after the house is bought and sold a few times the enquiries before contract are really going to be interesting when some new young green naive freshface in the Council deals with answering the enquiries.If it was the kind of information which in some way led to a loss on the part of a later purchaser, then the Council would be sued for negligence.No Council lawyer can be clever enough to predict all the possibilities of negligence.And if the Council has many claims against it for such a high degree of stupidity (assuming the facts reported here contain the whole picture)then you wonder if their insurance policy for lossess is loaded on the grounds of a poor record.Since the Council is on notice they would be had for maladministration as well. Get it sorted by someone who has an adult view of life.

George Knox ● 4744d

As you have read, the householder planning application made by Dr Onkar Singh Sahota of 19 Thorncliffe Road, Southall (applied for in the name of Dr Sahota Onkar as resident of 43 Castlebar Road, Ealing) was refused 10 votes to Nil (with 3 abstentions).The draft Minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting were published shortly after the night of the Meeting but they contained errors and omissions.The Minutes have now been partially corrected. The Decision Notice was prepared 6 days after the night of the Meeting and the Reasons for Refusal outlined by councillors have been modified by the Planning Department it seems removing one of the matters complained of by various councillors as to the "overbearing nature and impact on the neighbouring property" of the proposed development.Neighbours have written in to the Council but whilst the Minutes were revised, the omission of the refusal ground mentioned above has not been remedied.In addition to the above, the publishing of agreed Council Minutes is, in my opinion, unsatisfactory and defective.In this case,  the draft Minutes were posted on the Council's Website a few days after the Committee Meeting (which was on 13th March).We objected to these on two grounds. At the Planning Committee last night (3rd April), a somehat differently-constituted Committee was asked to agree a correction to one of the paragraphs in the draft Minutes of the previous Meeting (13th March)  - which the Committee did.I therefore checked the Council's Website today expecting to see and to be able to download the final Agreed Minutes (as agreed last night).I was quite surprised to be told that the Council's Agreed Procedure is to leave the "draft Minutes" on the Website and expect people to scour the Website for possible modifications in twice-removed future Agendas and to then read these in conjunction with the wrong Minutes.I have written to the Council about this but they are insistent that the incorrect "draft Minutes" are the only full Minutes that are going to be available on the Web.It just does not make sense  - supposing the Decision Notice contained an error and put the wrong address for instance, would the Council leave it all wrong up on the Web?  I think not.  The planning case officer always writes a "draft report" to Committee and this then gets altered by a manager  - the only report that the Council put up on the Web is the final revised version.My second letter to the Council today can be seen at the link below:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14377445/LettertoCouncil.re.Minutes_4thApr2013doc.docMy third letter to the Council can be seen at:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14377445/ThirdLetter_4.4.2013.docI will refer to the Decision Notice and the omission from it in another separate posting to follow.

Victor Mishiku ● 4745d

We have always had greed, we have had excessive greed.What seems to have changed in this country is the concensus that this is morally acceptable.But in reality it is the slow poison of our society and our elected representatives need to have the gumption to stand up to greed and power and take the moral line rather than defer to it.

Michael Brandt ● 4753d

Don't know if anyone saw the 25th March Evening Standard (or online)with a feature about basement excavations, as Dr. Sahota would want to do next door to me. It makes horrific reading. Months or years of noise and disturbance, conveyor belts of excavated soil clanking and thrumming all day long, houses cracking or falling into holes, mud and filth being sprayed all over neighbours. The article is focused mainly on K&C and Westminster, where basement digging seems to have become a hobby of the rich and famous, but the outrage from residents and the structural disasters have caused such problems for these local authorities that they are considering banning basement excavations altogether.It would be nice to think that Ealing were watching this carefully and taking heed, but that's unlikely. It's known that Ealing planners are very happy to okay basements, even when knowing that this borough is one of the worst in London for subsidence, particularly W. Ealing, where there have indeed been terrible disasters wrought on neighbouring properties after Planning has passed entirely unsuitable applications.As Ealing rises from her enforced slumber, with new shopping arcades, new town centre developments, a new cinema complex at last, Crossrail etc. it has become again a very desirable place to live or develop. There could be massive underground garages or swimming pools being built all over the place under these beautiful old Victorian and Edwardian properties, with much profit to be made. As I was mulling over the content of the newspaper article whilst driving down Park Hill from Hanger Lane, I noticed a huge advertising billboard in someone's front garden - "More Space" Basements. 'Nuff said!

Judy Jaafar ● 4753d

I recall a case in Weybridge. There were 3 elegant detached houses on the "Oakfield Estate" built in the 1930s fronting the main road with a very nice Cedars of Lebanon tree in the front garden of the middle house. The owners of the two outer houses acquired the middle house when that elderly owner passed away and promptly applied to the local Council to demolish all three houses (which were in excellent condition) in order to replace them with no less than 10 new houses squeezed in on the land with a mixture of semis and terraced houses (which did not feature elsewhere on the estate).The Planning Department indicated their satisfaction with the proposed development to the developers without even having carried out a site visit to the area in question and, needless to say, without making the effort of viewing the land from neighbouring vantage points.When I went over to help the neighbouring residents in several roads on the estate, the Planning Department were gearing up to deal with the application internally (under delegated powers) and therefore it could have been passed without any Committee scrutiny. At my suggestion, the residents requested their Ward Councillor to require that the case be submitted to the Planning Committee no matter what recommendation the planners were making. The Head of Planning duly confirmed that any decision would have to be at Committee.Whilst the planning matters were going on, residents sent two letters to the developer parties re. certain restrictive covenants burdening the land. Our covenant solicitors followed this up, when the residents' letters were ignored, giving notice of intended proceedings should undertakings not be forthcoming.Thereupon, shortly after, the developer parties "withdrew" their application and abandoned the whole project.Just before this, there was an article in the local Surrey Herald newspaper. Please see the 9th September 2009 article by Rupert Basham at this reference:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14377445/10.9.09%20Surrey%20Herald.1000.bmpThe word "greed" sticks in my mind.The instant case in Castlebar Road would seem to be a candidate for a similar description.  Not content with a full-width rear extension (specifically prohibited in Conservation Area policy referred to in the Ealing UDP), and other out-of-keeping additions to both the main roof and the mezzanine roof, this developer also wishes to build over the side passage that is a part of the style and established layout of these James Wills' houses built in the 1880s.I know how useful these side passages are for repairing the valley areas and flashing (following water leaks to the two ceilings below), replacing missing slates, access for chimneys including fixing or repairing TV aerials on the chimneys without having to put up scaffolding, etc.  There is usually about a 3½ or 4 foot space in between the houses either side where a long ladder can be placed on the ground and the roofer can go up and often carry out the necessary repairs in a matter of an hour or so.I believe that the developer in this Ealing case is doing himself a disservice in trying to build over the side passage in effect using his neighbour's wall for protection but selfishly and unwisely denying that neighbour and himself future easy and immediate access to the flank walls and side roofs of their two respective (now detached) houses without the expense and delay of putting scaffolding up round the house.Despite this highly objectionable feature of the proposed development, the Planning Department dismisses this objection (even though planning guidance refers to the benefit of preserving gaps between houses for maintenance and separation) claiming that a gate exists at the entrance to the side passage leading to the rear of the property and therefore, the proposed 9½ metres extension right up against next door No.41's two living-rooms would make little difference  - but as our solicitor Gerald Moran immmediately quipped "who lives in the gate?"

Victor Mishiku ● 4756d

Yes, Victor' s knowledge in this area is legendary, even though party wall surveyors have told me otherwise. Does Victor know something Dr. Sahota doesn't? I do hope so.I note with interest and quote Dr. Sahota's comment on this site that the idea that he would ever "knowingly and willingly do damage to my neighbours or the local area is deeply and personally hurtful". I think he knows by now just how his neighbours feel about the damage to property and conservation his grand scheme will incur, how the planning committee felt about his proposals, and yet he is going to appeal in order for his monstrosity to be passed rather than scale down his plans and aspirations, massively, in order to get an appropriate pass and be able to have some kind of relationship with his neighbours.Says it all, for me. Politician's self-serving words. 'Twas ever thus.

Judy Jaafar ● 4758d

Victor - many thanks for all your information. The dropbox worked very well.

Charles Campbell ● 4758d

"....the house wall (No.41's two living-rooms' walls) is wholly on the land of No.41. No.43 cannot build a wall that is joined into No.41's wall. The external wooden stud wall proposed at No.43 must be built as if No.41 did not exist  - it should not weigh upon No.41's house wall or use it for shelter/support...."Further to my message to Charles re. No.41's house wall, please see the letter I received from Consultant Engineer, Rusi K Dalal, who lives on the estate in an 1897 house also built by James Wills (Mr Wills built and lived at No.43 in 1885).  Hopefully, the link below will provide the letter:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14377445/RKDalal.pdfAs Dr Sahota has instructed his agents (who didn't seem to know his right name or home address when making the Application a few days before Xmas) to lodge an Appeal with The Planning Inspectorate in Bristol, the planning merits (or should I say "demerits") will be looked at independently by an Inspector. I am reminded of a case in Norbury, L.B.Croydon when the many objectors to a proposed backgarden development (recommended by the planners without even a site visit to view from neighbouring vantage points, but unanimously REFUSED by the Planning Committee at a well-attended meeting at Croydon Town Hall) had requested assistance from their local GLA Member, Cllr. Steve O'Connell.Cllr. O'Connell was very sympathetic and not only attended the Planning Committee to speak against the proposals (as did the Ward Councillor) but also attended the subsequent Appeal Hearing conducted in the main Chamber of the Town Hall and gave evidence to the Inspector saying how the GLA was against building in back gardens.  The Appeal was later dismissed and the developers (Devine Homes Plc) have entirely abandoned the project after legal covenant issues arose.In the Ealing case, our GLA Member is the developer!  So, hopefully our Ealing MP will help.

Victor Mishiku ● 4759d

Dear Charles,Re. your enquiry.  On the "Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing", the houses in the block have their flank wall of each detached house on the boundary line i.e. forming the boundary. So, the house wall (No.41's two living-rooms' walls) is wholly on the land of No.41.No.43 cannot build a wall that is joined into No.41's wall.The external wooden stud wall proposed at No.43 must be built as if No.41 did not exist  - it should not weigh upon No.41's house wall or use it for shelter/support.Regards, Victor Mishiku (The Covenant Movement)  20/3/13.

Victor Mishiku ● 4759d

Message removed at author's request

Victor Mishiku ● 4759d

Do your deeds actually state that your house wall is a party wall? Would the actual builder have intended that?  It can be a boundary wall with the entire wall being on your side of the boundary.  As we know, a boundary line is microscopic and invisible.  Can he actually prove that the boundary line runs through your wall?  To answer my own question, I guess so if the deeds say so.  I have read that is possible to attach something to another's wall if there is not visible damage such as a single screw but surely not an entire wall.  Sahota evidently has been down this road before -lot of experience with the planning department and has won an appeal before if I read that right.  There is certainly is a lot of Sahota's making planning applications.  I wonder if they are all related as some even have the family name Singh in the middle.

Charles Campbell ● 4760d

My house wall is the boundary wall, but I have the right of "eavesdrop", i.e. my eaves and guttering can overhang the alley way next door.The garden wall, back and front, which runs straight off my flank wall, is a party wall.If things progress, then I'll need to bring in a specialist party wall surveyor. There's not a lot they can do, though, only make sure the correct advisories have been given and that any work proposed which will touch my property or go down under my foundations is done with due care and diligence. They can't actually stop anything, it would seem. It's crazy stuff.Someone has said that Sahota is appealing. Can you tell me where I can find that information? Victor has spoken with the editor of Ealing Gazette to highlight this awful case, and we neighbours have sent in several letters. Let's hope the feature gets published. Personally I think an article in a national paper about people coming in and destroying our architectural heritage is long overdue. It's happening everywhere, and planners are allowing it. I have no problems with new building and refurbishment of old properties as long as they are in keeping with the character of the area and are not overbearing. The plans for next door don't fit in with any of that.

Judy Jaafar ● 4760d

Good example of when people who have no sense of our heritage come along and vandalise it.It gets worse when malfeasants have power added to their name. When a lot of the local decision makers are of the same political persuasion, it is difficult to resist questioning impartiality. It also is yet another example of the poverty in the minds of some of our planning senior people.There was a building which Sahota wanted to build a surgery on.A building which contributed to the typical character of the borough, but which now does not even have a brick to prove that it once stood there.Another arriviste in whom it will be difficult to place trust. Strange how ambition eats up some people meaning others get trampled upon.

George Knox ● 4760d

To answer my own question: yes, this is the same Dr Sahota.Hanwell Health centre is currently being extended. It surprised me that development had passed planning criteria.

Tony Sleep ● 4760d

Does the boundary include your wall or does it stop with the overhang of the guttering system? Check the line of the fence between your properties - does it allow for the overhang.  My party wall fence allows for the overhang. However, don't know if that means much.  Just a thought, but worth checking with a specialist.

Charles Campbell ● 4760d

I see he is appealing!! that is it simply batter the opposition until you get what you want knowing that any beauracracy will not cope. In common language bullying!!

Peter Chadburn ● 4760d

Is this the same Dr Sahota who is a GP (or at least operates a list) at Hanwell Health Centre, Church Road, W7? It would be very useful to know.

Tony Sleep ● 4760d

Firstly, thanks to all you folks who are taking an interest in this case. I know how easy it is to be remote when it's not taking place on your doorstep, or back garden, as the case may be.When it comes to planning and property ownership, the law is an ass. When is my flank wall not my flank wall? When a wealthy developer with no sensitivity or concern for his neighbour decides to take an angle grinder to my property to insert lead flashing as weatherproofing on his new flat roof. This is what he would intend to do if plans go ahead, and there's outrageously nothing I can do about it. The propsed extensions are in 5 directions, increasing the footprint by one third and doubling the floor space. If this sort of thing is allowed to go ahead, on revised plans, then nowhere in the Consevation Area is safe. Nobody's house is safe from their neighbour extending and joining onto their house. A law brought in, the 1997 Party Wall Act, allows for such. It's perverse and absurd.As Victor has mentioned in his posting, thankfully there are other laws that can protect us. They will be brought into force to protect no 43, as well as my house next door, if necessary.Judy

Judy Jaafar ● 4760d

Re: Lots of Flats:  The Application Plans (2 sets seen to date but there were apparently 4 or 5 earlier even worse versions) reveal the property proposed as a private dwellinghouse.  The whole of the basement being a "Playroom" and for "Plant".  I was told that the Applicant's two children are grown up. One of them, I believe, was described as "the resident" of No.43 when the Site Visit by the Planning Committee (not all Members attended) took place on 9th March  -  in fact, no one has been living at the house for 16 months.  There is also another "Playroom" shown on the Ground Floor Plan.Lots of Flats would, in any event, be contrary to the Restrictive Covenant and could easily be stopped no matter whether planning permission were to be granted. There is no power to vary the covenants - an Application would have to be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) and that would take about 1 year with little chance of success.  Our first ever case in Longfield Road took almost 4 years, April 1987 - March 1991 with 8 days in Court and The Lands Tribunal. That case involved No.8 Longfield Road and the horticultural land "Hawkins Nurseries" behind houses in Gordon Road, Longfield Road and Castlebar Road. Developers Hassall Homes Ltd were roundly defeated despite gaining full planning permission from The Planning Inspectorate.I am currently waiting to see the Refusal Decision Notice from the Council, which should have been issued.  Usually, the Decision Notices go out the next day but this one may take longer, since the Notice that the planner (who left the Council's employ mid-case) had earlier prepared was, of course, for a "Grant"!There are several unsatisfactory issues relating to the handling of this case.  Two more cases involving building on garden land were refused by the Planning Committee hot on the heels of our case.  In each case, the planners had favourably recommended the developments (one was nearby in Gordon Road on a corner plot at No.96).  It was totally out of character as the houses are laid out to a density of "One House per Plot" and No.96 has been intact with its full garden for the last 123 years!How can the planners suggest that dumping a white-rendered box in the back garden of a large Victorian villa is in keeping with the historic and spacious leafy character of the neighbourhood?It's just nonsense again.Not long ago, one of the former LBE conservation planners was recommending that huge blocks of "Dallas-type" glass-fronted Flats be erected at Nos.81 and 83 Madeley Road (two grand red-bricked Victorian villas in a streetful of similar properties).  Fortunately, the case officer, Mrs Kathryn Robinson (formerly from RBKC) was having none of it!If Mrs Robinson had been the case officer for the instant case at 43 Castlebar Road, then I am sure that these Plans by Dr Sahota to butcher the 1885 house built by James Wills would have received little support.The previous owner of No.43 told me that any number of people had come calling at the house before he and his wife vacated and that several firms had declined to take on Dr Sahota's project apparently on account of its risky nature.  Two properties in Drayton Avenue have suffered huge damage and losses after a similar basement excavation took place not long ago - described by respected local Consultant Engineer, Rusi K Dalal, as "the latest disaster"!Victor Mishiku (The Covenant Movement)  19/3/13.

Victor Mishiku ● 4761d

My only question on this theme is no matter how ghastly Dr Sahota's plans may have been, would it not have been better to keep the property as a single family residence rather than probably having it split into a dozen pokey studio flats?

Edward V Smith ● 4761d

Judy -  The underpinning of 43 looks like it is well below your foundations. Maybe causing slippage of your foundations?  Get a lawyer sooner than later. A letter stating he will be held responsible for any damage needs to be lodged at a minimum.  They cannot attach anything to your walls without your permission. The space between the two walls will then have to be closed at the top somehow(probably a screen) so debris doesn't get down there.  A large Eucalyptus tree nearby may cause the planning dept. a bit of a headache.  They will want a much deeper foundation - perhaps 3 meters - probably would have to use a floating platform (expensive!!)  Just talking to myself and may not be entirely correct.

Charles Campbell ● 4761d

Judy Jaafar wrote:[i]"Dr. Sahota wants to knock down his side wall and join his house onto mine! We are part of a run of 7 fully detached Victorian villas, 130 years old, and yet this sort of trespass and destruction is not overseen by planning law."[/i]I read the Council Planners' report off the Internet. They dismiss this as an objection because they point out that there is a gate at the side of the house.There's a big difference between merely a side gate of maybe a few inches in depth at the entrance of a side passage compared to building a side extension over 30 foot in depth and joined onto another person's detached house!The Planning Report is illogical. Do they actually believe all this rubbish they write?

Patrick Derry ● 4762d

Does not the Party Wall Act relate to below ground foundations?

Martin C. Harris ● 4762d

This is indeed a sorry story with currently a good result.Some other perspectives:I believe that throughout England 40% of Planners have lost their jobs over the last year or so.. It's highly likely that Ealing Planning Department is suffering from lack of permanent resource. As we enter our third consecutive recession this permanent resourcing could decrease even more.According to property experts GVA Grimley  Crossrail fever has galvanised developers and rich buyers in their interest in the Ealing Metropolitan Town Centre and Southall. This will be leading to massive Ealing Council Planning Department activity in selling these folks Pre-Application Advice. This will receive priority as it is revenue generating.Finally in this country apparently  there is no effective legislation or regulations concerning basement developments. All we seem to have have, which is woefully inadequate, are laws and regulations re underground mining!

Eric Alan Leach ● 4762d

Many Ealing residents are interested to see where this planning application takes us to.It would seem to me that there are an increasing numbers of PRIVILEGED AND INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE that are indignant with any protest made against the plans of the people with Wealth.They are genuine in their own belief of self importance and will use their Position to get through by hook or crook. It was the Son of a humble Carpenter who said ," Father forgive them for they know not what they do". It is still true in today's world.

Os A Whittle ● 4763d

It's rife.I often wonder why so many elected councillors are so keen to get involved with portfolios that handle tenders and contracts.Is Dr Sahota a GP or a businessman? He would have to be superhuman to be both and consistently successful at both. To be a first rate GP involves dedicating a lot of time to the job. And on top he is involved in politics. Amazing.Probably as a means more than duty and honour.Take a look at some councillors declared interests. Any party colours will do.Why are so many involved with PR and lobbying companies with specialities in driving through developments.?  Take a look at firms like Indigo and Fortyshillings . All of which are rather good at spinning and countering public objections to planning applications. Rather than an envelope stuffed with fiftys, they are 'advisors or consultants'  to make it all legitimate.But it's far removed from being elected to serve you ward and your electorate.And if you think Ealing is bad, take a look at Hounslow. They are masters of the gravy train. Corrupters of democracy

Michael Brandt ● 4764d

Problem is, Anna, that Dr. Sahota has registered no.43 as his residence, not a second home, with both Ealing Council and the Land Registry. This is demonstrably untrue and must surely be breaking a law. I know people do this (lots of politicians "flip" their houses) so they can sell without paying CGT, but whether that is relevant in this case I would not know.

Judy Jaafar ● 4764d

It seems to that the whole world is fraudulent, corrupt and dishonest, save thee and me, but sometimes I have me doubts about thee.

Gerry Tan ● 4764d

Also, another Ealing councillor was involved in benefit fraud but was let off.A disgraced former Ealing councillor who swindled thousands of pounds in benefits has been spared jail after repaying the full amount.Joginder Saroe, 63, reaped more than £45,000 in housing benefits and income support over a seven year period but was finally caught out in 2005 after an Ealing Gazette sting.Saroe, of Beaconsfield Road, Southall, was found using running equipment at an exclusive gym while claiming disability benefits and further investigations revealed he was claiming council tax relief while renting out a number of flats.The former Dormers Wells representative failed to inform the council he owned a property in Hengoed Mid Glamorgan which was earning him £250 per week in rent for four years and almost £10,000 a year from leasing the garage.In May 2008, Saroe was convicted of dishonestly obtaining tens of thousands in benefits and a confiscation order for £120,000 was secured in September.Isleworth Crown Court gave him six months to repay the money or face two years in prison and Ealing Council has now recovered the full compensation amount of £31,752.74.Compensation of £13,280.53 was awarded to the Department of Work and Pensions and the remainder has been awarded to the Treasury.Councillor David Scott, Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance, said: "It's disgraceful that anyone would try to cheat the system for their own gain, this money comes from the honest, hard-working taxpayer. "It is even more shameful that a former councillor would go to such lows and I am pleased that he has had the sense to return the money that he was never entitled to in the first place. "People have gone to prison for a lot less, Saroe has had a lucky escape."Can we trust our councillors. Who exactly is honest?

Anna Lang ● 4764d

Isn't it a policy by Ealing Council that if a second home remains empty then they will repossess it and let it out to the people waiting on the housing register as they do not have enough properties. Well if that is correct, Dr Onkar Sahota has never lived in this property(now over 16 months) so why hasn't the council done anything.UNLESS the Dr has his family working in the council or personally knows the 'top' people so of course he can bend the rules. This is Ealing and we know that the council is corrupt.Just a few years ago, a councillor was caught with porn images on his computer.A SENIOR Ealing councillor has resigned from his party after pornographic images were allegedly found on his work computer.Cllr Philip Portwood, 46, a Labour councillor who served the East Acton ward resigned from the Ealing Labour Group last week after the Standards Board for England began an investigation into images allegedly found on his Ealing Council computer at his Acton home.Cllr Portwood is a former mayor of Ealing who also held key roles with the London Fire Authority and Association of London Government.

Anna Lang ● 4764d

I am the next door neighbour at 41. The proposed development at 43 is devastating, for the Conservation Area yes, but for me personally even more. Dr. Sahota wants to knock down his side wall and join his house onto mine! We are part of a run of 7 fully detached Victorian villas, 130 years old, and yet this sort of trespass and destruction is not overseen by planning law. Likewise his plan to excavate a massive basement recreational area under a house that has had such terrible subsidence that it is almost totally underpinned with huge concrete blocks. The re-engineering required to hold the house up while they demolish and rebuild load bearing walls and dig out a basement is incredibly precarious, and if things go wrong, as happened recently in West Ealing in a similar project, my house could be terribly damaged. Planning also washes its hands of these issues- not within their remit.Apart from appalling mistakes being made by town planners, we really need to be looking at why such things as dangerous sub-foundation intrusions into neighbouring properties and the forced joining of two properties when one does not consent is actually not within the remit of planners but left to civil law. This whole area needs to be rethought by our legislators.In the meantime, I am sitting listening to next door's side gate banging forlornly in the wind, as nobody has been to the house since the planning site visit last Saturday. The gate is attached to my side wall and the banging reverberates through my whole house. Yet again, I'm going out with my torch to prop the gate open with bricks, else I will not get a wink of sleep. The villa has now, after 16 months of emptiness, assumed an air of desolation and dereliction. There is an aura of sadness settling over it, a beautiful old house crying out for a loving, caring family who will revel in and respect its uniquely Ealing heritage.

Judy Jaafar ● 4764d

Ms Anna Lang wrote in the initial posting on the Forum:"...Secondly, Isn't it strange that Planning control were happy with his plans."The way that the Planning Department dealt with this case was very unsatisfactory.Initially, when the Application was notified to a number of neighbours in the New Year, residents examined the Plans via the Council's Website or in my case, I called at Planning Reception at Perceval House and requested A3 versions as the A4 downloads were near illegible in parts.One of the immediate neighbours wrote to the case officer, Ms Fiona Abrahamsen, requesting a site visit to which Ms Abrahamasen kindly agreed.On her visit to No.41 next door, Ms Abrahamsen was able to view (despite the falling snow) from the patio and rear garden, upper windows, etc. Ms Abrahamsen also listened to several neighbours' concerns (we had asked if a few other neighbours could attend).  So far, so good.Objection letters went in and Mr Peter Causer, Planning Consultant wrote in a professional letter on behalf of several of the closest neighbours in Castlebar Road, Carlton Road and Longfield Road.During the third week of February 2013, a fresh notice arrived from the Planning Department stating that revised application Plans had been received and gave only 14 days in which to comment.  The notice did not really explain what the changes were and the Plans are quite complicated for laypersons to figure out in any event.  The 14 days was to expire on close of business Tuesday 5th March 2013.However, an extraordinary thing happened.  A third notice was sent out informing residents that the case was going before the Planning Committee on Wednesday 13th March.  It is well-known that the case officer's report to Committee has to be written up about 2 weeks before the night of the Committee.  The published Agenda by law has to be available for 5 clear days (not including weekends or the day of the Committee Meeting).  The Agendas were circulated to Councillors and published on the Web in the early afternoon of 5th March  - but this was the last day promised in the consultation notice!  Residents could have walked in to Perceval House just before 5pm (closing time) on 5th March with 50 letters of objection.In  fact, Mr Causer sent a new 8-page letter to the Planning Department on 4th March, but of course, that was not seen by Ms Abrahamsen BEFORE she had passed her completed report to be assembled and printed for inclusion in the Agenda.  This means because of the unseemly haste, a very important letter was not looked at.Back in 1990, Cllr. Norman Pointing (Chairman of the Town Planning Committee) had instructed the Planning Department to prepare "balanced" reports for the Committee taking into account not only what the developers say but also having regard to policies of the Council and Government, comments from various internal departments and of course, from neighbours and amenity groups, etc.But in the No.43 case, this was not really possible as the Planning Department jumped the gun and did not allow even the 14 days to run.  In fact, 2 days were lost in the post, then the 14 days were cut short by at least 5 days. With the weekend, residents effectively had 5 working days in which to try to respond to the revised application Plans.Both myself and Ward Councillor Anthony Young requested the Planning Department to allow the full consultation time to run  - neither of us received any response to say yes or no and the Agenda was duly published on 5th March (the last day for responses to be lodged) therefore making it iompossible for those responses to be referred to in the report.This is "sharp practice" and was outlawed in 1990, but, as you can see, those in control of planning in the Council have forgotten all the principles laid down by Cllr. Pointing.Actions like this make people wonder about the integrity of the planning system?  By coincidence, just in the last few days, there have been several stories of blatant planning abuses in the UK.Since our most recent objections went in following the publication of the inadequate and absurd report, we have discovered that Ms Abrahamsen has resigned from the Council, so we have no idea what part of the report was really hers or whether others are involved, who hitherto did not know about the case and who had never visited the neighbnourhood to view from various vantage points.As various councillors from all three political parties commented, the report to Committee was very poorly written (by whom, we don't know now?).  It was said to be "absurd" "insulting" "in defiance of reality" "not to be trusted" as councillors tore it to pieces.  The planners' total failure to give weight to the heritage of the neighbourhood, the cohesive character of the similar Victorian houses as viewed from Longfield Walk (which is akin to a public open space) and the detrimental effect on the neighbouring house was remarkable.The Application was rightly thrown out.Two further Applications for garden development were also rejected by the Committee immediately after the No.43 case. Both had, of course, been fully recommended for "Grant" by the planners.I recall in the 1980's, we defeated 10 backgarden or other unneighbourlydevelopment Applications, all of which the planners had fully recommended for "Grant".  Then, the planners were told to clean up their act.I think that the time has come again.Victor Mishiku (The Covenant Movement)  16/3/13vmfree@madasafish.com

Victor Mishiku ● 4764d

"I understand that there are tax implications when ... selling a second property."Yep - CGT will be payable."According to the previous owner of No.43, Dr Sahota told a Labour MP that he had 7 properties (now 8) and this was when he was apparently being interviewed to become an MP. He was, I was told, rejected as not fitting in with "socialist" ideals."Oh, the irony.It only becomes acceptable to their socialist ideals *AFTER* one becomes an MP!!!And of course yet another demonstration of left-wing hypocrisy because there are oodles of minted lefties in the party and in parliament for them already.(And then there are the union leaders on £100K+ packages plus all the trimmings.  Makes you puke - not that they earn that much but that they take that much from their members whilst spouting the stuff they do.)

Tony Colliver ● 4764d

I would like to make some comments about the planning aspects of this case if I may.  It was a strange Application made 4 days before Xmas.The notice from the Council on the lamppost referred to an application made by "Dr Sahota Onkar".  The Application Form gives the First Name as "Sahota" and the Surname as "Onkar". The Application Form gives the home address of the Applicant as 43 Castlebar Road, Ealing W5 2DJ.Both these pieces of information (stated to be true and accurate in section 14 of the Form) are not true.The name on the Land Registry Title NGL255900 states: "ONKAR SINGH SAHOTA".  The address on the Land Registry home address of the Registered Proprietor is given again as "43 Castlebar Road" but as far as is known, Dr Sahota lives with his family at 19 Thorncliffe Road in Southall (as per the current Electoral Roll) and he has never lived at 43 Castlebar Road, Ealing. The house has been empty for 16 months.I understand that there are tax implications when a developer sells his own home as against selling a second property.According to the previous owner of No.43, Dr Sahota told a Labour MP that he had 7 properties (now 8) and this was when he was apparently being interviewed to become an MP. He was, I was told, rejected as not fitting in with "socialist" ideals.Of course, we support Dr Sahota's efforts to retain our Casualty Departments in local hospitals but we do not like the way he is muscling in on the Victorian estate ("Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing") of fine old houses some more than 130 years old and basically he is trying to butcher, it turns out, the very house where the builder himself (James Wills) of so many of these houses actually lived.Residents have engaged and defeated developers in a court case in Longfield Road in past years and protected the estate from unwelcome changes.Dr Sahota has now shown up here like "a bull in a china shop" presumably relying on the Ealing planners to pass almost anything these days - and no matter how much detriment to the heritage character of the area or distress to the neighbours.We have many letters of objection and unlike in L.B.Richmond, they are not available on the Council's Website, but we can post them up here via links, I think.I am very grateful to this site for providing public information. I believe that the local press may also be running a planning story next Friday.Victor Mishiku (The Covenant Movement) 15/3/13.vmfree@madasafish.com

Victor Mishiku ● 4764d

Not being a multinational he will not enjoy the same freedom of scope to not do so.

Tony Colliver ● 4764d

I hope Dr Onkar pays his taxes or does he do a starbucks/amazon. Time for an investigation by inland revenue.

Anna Lang ● 4764d

Whereas we could all trust Ed Ballsup to do just that...

Keith Iddon ● 4765d

Bliar and his chums killed the labour party and so come the next election i can see another coalition as no one would want Osborne to be in the position of saving the economy.

Peter Chadburn ● 4765d

Hypocrisy always was Labour's biggest suit.

Tony Colliver ● 4765d

This is where Labour is asking us to save the NHS from privatisation and yet one of the faces behind the campaign is someone who will benefit from privatisation

Peter Chadburn ● 4765d

I think one thing that you can be fairly certain of is that he is not running on the Waitrose model...  :-)OTOH, The Argyle Surgery (on the Argyle Road of course :-) ) certainly seems to.  (Though I must stress that I have no actual knowledge of the business model adopted by the Argyle practice - it just seems like the way a practice would be run if it was run along Waitrose lines / philosophy.)

Tony Colliver ● 4765d

I know of at least one council planning department that is corrupt and I'm sure that it is not alone.  Ditto for building control (at the same council as it happens) - "why pay twice for structural calculations when I have to repeat them all to check them anyway?" - a direct quote from a council employee.I also know of several others where the incompetence is breathtaking.  And then there are the ones that specialise in sheer bloodymindedness and straight stonewalling.I have insufficent dealings with Ealing to know whether they are a part of the problem or not.

Tony Colliver ● 4765d

This Dr.Sahota sounds like a smart man - we could do with many more like him to help rivitalise our weak economy. I'm all for clever business acumen - we want more Bransons, Sugars, Ryans, Heseltines and Cohens to get us going again. We need more Waitrose models - as Delia Smith says ... "Come on, let's be having you!"

Gerry Tan ● 4765d

Anna,Onkar Sahota poses as "A practicing GP" but is in fact a very successful medical entrepreneur and I might say good luck to him but he isn't very honest about himself.  He runs a business called Healthcare 360 Limited of which Sahota is 100% owner.  This business runs three GP practices two of which are located in properties owned by Sahota himself.  To give you an idea of the size of these businesses and Sahota's personal income I can tell you that Sahota personally received rent of £271,919 for the year ended 31st March 2012 from Healthcare 360 Limited in respect of the two properties he owns.  I think we can speculate that Sahota enjoys an income that eclipses both the Prime Minister and even Boris Johnson.  In addition to the rich man's house Sahota is trying to build in the centre of Ealing he owns a property in Hounslow where he has been based for many years and a property in Southall which he bought in the run up to the 2012 GLA elections so that he could have a home in the Ealing & Hillingdon area to qualify to stand.  Sahota does practice as a GP I believe but he is also a multi-millionaire medical entrepreneur with an MBA so he is not quite as fluffy as he makes out.  He likes the staff at Healthcare 360 to refer to him as "the Director".  If he ever talks about privatising the NHS ask him why GPs have always refused to be directly employed by the NHS and instead like to run their own private businesses that sell services to the NHS.  Probably because you can get seriously rich this way.

Phil Taylor ● 4765d

Tounge in cheek Gerry? ;-)