There are few areas where local councillors lack confidence in
speaking up for local residents. However, dealing with Planning and Licensing
applications are two such topics that can sometimes leave us and residents feeling
powerless. In the UK,
both Planning and Licensing are surrounded by complex statutory and legal
processes backed up by ‘local’ policy frameworks. In general terms
the legal framework is ‘permissive’, meaning they are intended to
help good planning development and promote business activity in the interests
of the local economy and jobs. That’s fine so long as developers and
businesses follow the legal and policy ‘rules’. But local residents
need their interests and properties protected as well, and these can come into
conflict with what other property owners what to do. That is where local
councillors come in.
As well as being elected to lead the council, we are also
elected to represent and be advocates for our constituents and to help them
navigate their concerns through the highly complex and sometimes frustrating
council strategy decision making processes. In relation to Planning, the
democratic interface is carried out through the Planning Applications
Committee. For licensing, it’s through hearings of the Licensing
Sub-Committee (and I am a member of this committee). Both hear and decide
applications based on professional and legal advice of professional officers.
Both are what are called ‘quasi-judicial’
functions, meaning councillors cannot be ‘whipped’ to a political
position. Councillors must base their decisions on the evidence before them and
by using their own judgement independently. Importantly, councillors can also
attend Planning and Licensing Committee meetings on ‘the other side of
the table’ to be advocates for resident objectors.
So far, so good. So what’s the difficulty you ask? The
problem is that developers and businesses have the time and financial resources
to hire experts and lawyers to help them through the complex decision making
processes, something local residents don’t have. So residents turn to
their councillors to help them, quite rightly. But councillors who sit on
Planning and Licensing Committees can’t turn applications down simply
because some residents object, as we have to stand by locally agreed policies,
if these become the issue.
I want now to illustrate one on-going ‘case
study’ in Ferndale that illustrate the frustration that can result from competing
policies, interests and in this case flawed residents engagement and consultation.
Planning case study – the old Fulham
Timber Yard site (170-174 and 176-188
Acre Lane, SW2).
Back in 2008, with residents backing, the Leader of the
Council (Councillor Steve Reed) and
I wrote to Big Yellow Storage Company saying we would oppose their plans to
build a second storage facility in Acre
Lane on this site they had recently purchased.
This campaign was successful, but they were then encouraged to go away and find
a partner to develop a housing proposal for the site, as everyone recognised
that it would be developed for something.
Fast forward to August 2010, and Lambeth Planning Committee
granted Genesis Housing Association and Yellow Box Company permission to build
60 houses, 100% ‘affordable and social housing’, given the land was
protected for employment uses and affordable housing was the only permitted
alternative – a good outcome if it was a good quality development. However,
local residents objected on many issues and both they and I as their ward
councillor made representations to the Committee. The principal issues were the
perceived high density of the proposal on the site and fear of a loss of
privacy and security, because there has been an ancient tall brick wall up to
18 foot tall in places surrounding the former Fulham Timber Yard site. In
recognition of these concerns, the Committee required a number of important
Planning Conditions, including the ‘Treatment of the Boundary
Wall’, to be approved by the Planning Committee before Genesis could
start the development.
Fast forward to early July 2011, and residents had to kick
up a stink as Genesis had started the development prior to receiving approval of
the Conditions. This was illegal, and Genesis had to be ordered to ‘stand
down’ by Lambeth Planning (see the picture). This inflamed residents
opposition so the when the 26th July meeting of the Planning
Committee was called to consider the ‘discharge’ of the important
‘Boundary Wall’ Condition, residents were gunning for Genesis.
However, eleven residents and I endured 3½ hours of waiting to make our case
until 10.45pm at night, only to then have the application
‘adjourned’ because of a lack of time! This left my group of 11
residents very confused, frustrated and powerless.
The reconvened meeting of the Planning Committee on Tuesday,
16th August, a year to the day since the original Planning
permission in August 2010, resulted in a further deferral following nearly two
hours of debate and discussion because of errors and problems with what Genesis
was proposing. However, this time residents and I felt vindicated. There
concerns had been heard, and the Committee told Genesis they needed to work
more constructively with affected residents to come to an agreement.
As a local councillor all I have sought to do over the 2½
year history surrounding this proposal is to put
existing residents ‘interests’ on an equal footing with
the developers in the eyes of the Planning Committee. Residents expect the
Council to look after their interests, given there are 50+ properties (and many
more residents) who surround all three sides of this site in Ashmere Grove, Plato Road and Linom Road. But
their interests are not always given due weight in the Planning process. As far
and the developer is concerned, if Genesis had properly consulted and engaged
residents from the start back in August 2010 on the specific concern around the
Boundary Wall Treatment options for protecting existing residents privacy and
security, its possible this saga would have been concluded by now. They also
need to be ‘held to account’ as a Housing Association who are in
receipt of public money to build social housing, but have to respect existing
residents rights as well.
As it is, the case continues and the development has to come
before Planning Committee for the forth
time soon for a final decision. I shall update this blog when an
outcome is decided…
Cllr Paul McGlone
Ferndale Ward
