| Topic: | Re: Answers awaited (rev) | |
| Posted by: | Victor Mishiku | |
| Date/Time: | 21/07/13 15:42:00 |
| 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. |