Thursday, 24 January 2013

Galliford Try the soft soap on land grab

Thanks to James Thurber
 In response to our 'land grab' story below Linden Homes released the following statement:

+++STOP PRESS: Galliford Try Statement in response to recent land acquisition claim

 ‘This claim is completely misleading - Galliford Try is not receiving or acquiring any further land from Brent Council.

We were asked by officers, just before Christmas, to resubmit drawings for the planning application. Those revised drawings show an amended red line around the development site which reflects the fact that Galliford Try will be undertaking significant landscaping improvements to the area around the Cultural Centre, including a section of Grange Road, to the benefit of the local community. Consultees have been informed of this change in line with statutory planning procedure.’
 Kate Spence has issued the following rejoinder:
The original area of the WGCC site allocated for WGCC works and attendant housing scheme was clearly defined by an edged and cross-hatched area on Plan A and presented to an Exec committee in Jan 2012.
The brief from Brent Council to the tendering developers and the agreement signed with Galliford Try required the provision of an improved public realm WITHIN the constraints of this hatched area. The brief required parking spaces for 8 cars, 2 library vans and cycle parking. It also required good out door amenity for children and teens. There was never an agreement that the boundaries of the site could be expanded in order to provide these essential requirements.
Currently the play provision for younger children on the site is 50 sq m of safe, fenced play ground. The land at the end of Grange Road is a safe, calm pedestrianised highway giving the benefit of uncluttered and neutral space facilitating cohesion to the High Road.  This is now to be cluttered by cycle parking and pavement play interventions which should have been accommodated within the agreed site leaving a calm area at the High Road end of Grange Road. 
We would welcome an improved public realm. There is nothing that the adjacencies of a cycle route, pavement play interventions and reduced pedestrian highway offer as an improvement to the stretch of land at the end of Grange Road. 
If there had been a smaller area of land made available for housing, then there would have been sufficient space to include these essential requirements within the agreed red boundary.  There should also be provision for 8 parking spaces on the site. 
The brief was written to protect public interest. Surely, Brent Council cannot approve a scheme that so clearly deviates from the agreed contract and their own brief.

Wednesday, 23 January 2013

Formal challenge issued on validity of Willesden Green planning application

 This is the text of an email sent by Philip Grant to Chris Walker, Brent's Assistant Director Planning and Development, on 23 January 2013:-

REF. 12/2924

Further to my email yesterday, forwarding a copy of an email I had sent to Andy Bates,  I am writing to formally question the validity of planning application 12/2924 (made in the name of Galliford Try Plc) for the proposed redevelopment of Willesden Green Library Centre.

This application was received by Brent Planning Service on 2 November 2012, and validated on the same day, even though it took until 15 November to load all of the supporting documents onto your website. At some later stage, however, one of your Planning Officers either realised, or had brought to their attention by a comment made in respect of the application, that this application, as it stood, was not a valid one.

Having reviewed the Department of Communities and Local Government document "Guidance on Information Requirements and Validation" via the Planning Portal website, I can see why this application, as submitted, was not valid.
  • Paragraph 40 makes clear that among 'the information required to make a valid planning application' is the 'mandatory national information requirements specified in the GDPO.'
  • Para. 44 says: 'The GDPO requires applicants to submit “a plan which identifies the land to which the application relates”. This is interpreted as a location plan and a site plan.'
  • Para. 46 states: 'The application site should be edged clearly with a red line. It should include all land necessary to carry out the proposed development – for example, land required for access to the site from a public highway, visibility splays, landscaping, car parking and open areas around buildings.'
The site plan originally submitted failed to include all of the land necessary to carry out the proposed development, because it did not, among other things, include land in Grange Road on which development forming an integral part of the application proposals would be carried out.

Having discovered that an application which had been treated as valid was in fact invalid, it appears that the applicant was invited by one of your Planning Officers to "correct" the site plan. As Andy Bates explained to me in his email of 21 January:

'I am happy to confirm that ... the revised plans amended the red line to include all the land that forms the application site. Previously, the northern end of Grange Road was shown as being the subject of future highway works that formed part of the development site, but not within the red line. Planning Officers requested that this site plan be corrected and it was on this basis that the new batch of plans was submitted.'
As a result, revised plans were submitted, including site plans with a new red line site boundary, just before Christmas 2012, with the revised site plans uploaded onto your website on 24 December 2012.  This revised application must therefore be treated as replacing the invalid application of 2 November 2012.

The question now shifts to whether this revised application is valid. On the technical grounds that the revised site plan now 'includes all land necessary to carry out the proposed development', it would appear to be valid, but my email yesterday to Andy Bates highlighted a further point. For ease of reference, I will repeat the main points of my argument on this aspect of the "site plan".

The site plan showing the site available to the proposed development partner for the Willesden Green Library Centre redevelopment was shown as plan A at Appendix 1 of the report by Andrew Donald, Director of Regeneration and Major Projects, to Brent's Executive on 16 January 2012. In that report, Mr Donald made specific reference to the red line site boundary, as follows:

4.18 Following the Executive approval of February 2011 the Council also reviewed the red line site boundary of the site. In order to maximise viability it was decided to incorporate Chambers Lane - the land marked crossed hatched black on plan C at Appendix 1 - within the WGLC site, as shown edged black in the plan A at Appendix 1. In February 2011 the Executive had previously authorised the Assistant Director of Regeneration & Major Projects (Property & Assets) to dispose of the land at Chambers Lane Willesden Green shown crossed edged black on plan C at Appendix 1 with vacant possession by way of auction.

4.19 In June 2011, having defined the site and the Council's requirements for the cultural centre, a tender process was followed in accordance with the HCA DPP Framework procurement procedures, a framework which the HCA has set up already under the EU procurement rules.
This extract confirms that the "defined" site marked by the red line (as edged and cross hatched in black on Plan A) was the redevelopment site on offer to the developer. Brent Executive's decision on this point (from item 5, Willesden Green Redevelopment Project, of the minutes of their meeting on 16 January 2012) is recorded as:

'that the Director of Regeneration and Major Projects in consultation with Director of Legal & Procurement be authorised to award and enter into a Development Agreement with Galliford Try Plc in respect of the Willesden Green Library Centre site as shown crossed hatched black in the plan A at Appendix 1; such agreement to provide for the acquisition of the land as shown edged blue and green in the plan B at Appendix 1 and the development of a new cultural centre within the land as shown edged orange in the plan B at Appendix 1.'
You will note that the Executive only authorised an agreement with Galliford Try Plc 'in respect of the Willesden Green Library Centre site as shown cross hatched black in the plan A at Appendix 1'. The original site plan submitted for this application on 2 November 2012 did show a red line boundary which matched that approved by Brent's Executive.

I am not aware of any further authority given by Brent's Executive to allow the red boundary line to be altered in order to enlarge the site. What appears to have happened is that Galliford Try Plc and Brent's Regeneration Department have failed to fit all of the "Council Works" required by their Development Agreement onto the 2170 square metres of the 7795 sqm Willesden Green Library Centre site which was allocated as the land for those works. In order to "deliver" those works, they have moved some of the proposed facilities onto public highway land at the north end of Grange Road, outside of the site boundary.

Although the "correction" to the red site boundary line contained in the revised plans brings all of the proposed development within the red line on the site plan, that site plan does not show the site boundary as put forward by the Director of Regeneration and Major Projects, agreed by Brent's Executive, and set out in the Development Agreement. I would submit that the revised application of around 24 December 2012, which replaced the invalid application of 2 November 2012, is itself invalid, because it purports to show a site boundary which is not the actual site boundary.

I will forward a copy of this email to Joe Kwateng, at Democratic Services, so that he can consider whether this is a valid application which should go forward to Planning Committee. I will also ask him to consider whether, if it is valid, it can go before that Committee on Wednesday 13 February, as Public Notice of the revised application will not be published in the local press until tomorrow, 24 January 2013, so that the extended Public Consultation Period will not end until 14 February 2013.

Tuesday, 22 January 2013

Town Square is heart of Willesden Wassail

Willesden High Road shops were blessed and sang to by more than 100 residents as part of an ancient ritual, which returned to Willesden Green this weekend.

The Willesden Wassail saw residents joined by a team of spoken word artists as they marched down High Road to honour their local food providers on Sunday.

Wassailing is a tradition dating back to pre-Christian times in which a group of people sang a traditional winter song to their weather-beaten apple trees in order to encourage a good harvest for the year ahead.

The modern event, which takes place every year, sees residents do the same but for their local high street food providers.

Rachel Rose-Reid, who organised the event, expressed the importance of keeping to the tradition.
She said::
Small acts of kindness and appreciation can make a lot of difference, there’s always a good reaction from shopkeepers and we always stop at a new shops as well. 
I’ve learned so much from shopping there, these are the people who create a local community so it’s important to recognise them.
The festival then moves onto the town square outside Willesden Library where residents decorate the trees that line the area.

The square is currently subject of a bid by campaign group Keep Willesden Green who want it to be given Town Square public status.
Ms Rose-Reid added:
The square is at the heart of our area and in big cities there are fewer and fewer community spaces.It’s at the heart of the Wassail and it’s incredible to have a space where we can do this sort of thing.

Saturday, 19 January 2013

Brent Council gives more Willesden land away to developers

Martin Redston writes:

Brent Council have made a last minute decision to give away yet further Conservation Area High Road space to facilitate private housing development and assist Galliford Try in maximising profit. 

We should object to the inadequate children's play area, cycle parking/ cycle route, outreach/ library lorry parking (and reversing) and parent and child parking bay, all of which are to be squeezed in together in the Grange Road strip. This is not a well considered plan. There will also be a considerable impact on privacy of residents in Grange Road, houses 1-15.

The area agreed by Brent Council in Jan 2012, as developable land, has been the subject of recent campaigns as residents believe, amongst other concerns, that the Town Square Conservation area in front of the 1980's library should not be used at all to facilitate private housing development. Yet again, this is a cynical 'land grab' by the developer in collusion with Brent Council who have fiddled development guidelines in order to generate funds.

 The Planning Application shows development in the area at the High Road end of Grange Road but these proposals were outside the agreed boundary of the Application. The brief was for the scheme to include good play space and cycle parking within the hatched area defined in Jan '12. Instead of requesting that the plans are revised by Galliford Try, the Council has simply revised the boundary and given away the last scrap of Town Square to the private property developer. 

Friday, 18 January 2013

Willesden Green planning application delayed further - more time for your comments

The details for application 12/2924 on the Brent Planning website have been amended today, and now state:
This application was advertised on 24/01/2013 for the following reason:
Departure & affecting conservation area.
This case will be decided no earlier than 14/02/2013
It appears that, despite issuing a consultation letter on 27 December 2012 advising of the "Revised Proposal" it had received with a changed site boundary line, the Planning Service did not place a newspaper advertisement or on-site notices about it. This will now be advertised next week, with the consequence that the revised public consultation period will end on Thursday 14 February. This is the day after the Planning Committee meeting on 13 February, so that the planning application cannot now be considered until March 2013 at the earliest, and residents are free to carry on submitting comments.

There has been a further development on the Brent Planning website, with a whole batch of new "Revised Documents", mainly plans including detailed landscape plans for the Grange Road part of the enlarged site, attached to the planning application 12/2924 page. The conservation area consent application is also affected, with public consultation period also now extended until 14 February. Although no new application documents have been added to the 12/2925 page on the website yet, there is a copy of a new site notice

Thursday, 17 January 2013

Mystery of Brent Council support for WGLC planning application solved!

Philip Grant writes:-
Around Christmas time, a mysterious item was added to the comments section for the Willesden Green Library Centre application (ref. 12/2924) on the Brent Planning website:
    > 05/12/2012 - Brent Council , Town Hall , Forty Lane , Wembly , HA9 9HD . Support.
As Brent is, in reality, a joint applicant with Galliford Try Plc in this application, and also the Local Planning Authority, which needs to be seen to consider all planning applications fairly on proper planning grounds, this was a little worrying. I wrote straight away to the Planning Officer, Andy Bates, with the request

‘Please let me know, and make this information publicly available, who on behalf of Brent Council, and in what capacity, has submitted the Council's support for this application.’

I eventually received the following reply from Andy Bates on 16 January:

‘In terms of the point about the specific letter of support to which you refer, I have been able to ascertain what has happened. The correspondence has come from Ward Councillor Lesley Jones and her address has been entered as the Town Hall. It is this information that has been entered onto our database and which appears in the public view that interested parties can see. I am currently asking my colleagues in Technical Support to have a look at the way that the information is displayed in this particular case and I apologise it has taken as long as it has to clarify this particular point.’
So, the mystery has been solved, and it was all a mix-up by someone within the Planning and Development Department who did not know the difference between Brent Council and an individual Councillor. On the same day, the Brent Council entry above was deleted from the “View Comments” section of the Planning website, and replaced with:
Consultee comments:
> Cllr Lesley Jones , Member for Willesden Green Ward , Members Room , Brent Town Hall.

As a local Councillor, Lesley Jones counts as a “Statutory Consultee”, but her actual comments were not posted on the Planning website as they were sent by email. Luckily, when I called in at the Brent House One Stop Shop to look at some other planning documents on this application, a copy of her email was in the box. Brent's adopted Statement of Community Involvement says that representations received on planning matters will be published and made available, both online and at key locations, so that they can be read and considered by those who have also submitted comments and all other interested parties. I took a copy of the email, and this is available below, for any interested party to read and consider.

I wrote to Lesley Jones and suggested that she might want to publish hew views on her Council 'blog' ,as she had not yet shared them with her constituents, before they are made public elsewhere, 

I have received a reply from Cllr. Lesley Jones stating that  she has now put her planning application submission on her blog. She says:
'Could have put it on before but I get behind with updating my blog. Prefer to spend most time on case work for residents and following through with planning and conversion breaches in the ward.  Believe me, I do a lot!'

Thursday, 10 January 2013

Press letter on Willesden Town Square battle

Willesden and Wembley Observer 10.1.13

Zadie Smith attacks loss of Willesden Green public square as 'cultural vandalism'

The Evening Standard reports today that local author Zadie Smith has stepped ino the debate about the Willesden Town Square application:
A council that closed half its libraries wants to demolish another to make way for new homes, then rebuild it on a cherished public square.

Brent residents are fighting plans to build 100 flats on part of the Willesden Green Library Centre site and erect a “cultural centre” on land in front.

Author Zadie Smith, who grew up in the borough, attacked the scheme as “cultural vandalism” and said the square is one of the few public places where locals can meet for free.

In the New York Review of Books, she wrote about visiting the square when it hosted a French market, saying people were “simply standing around in the sunshine, like some kind of community”.

Protesters claim the plan will result in the loss of a community “breathing space” where local events are held. They have applied for the land to be recognised as a town square. A public inquiry will be held next month.
Martin Redston, leading the campaign, said: “The public square is essential as one of the last pieces of open space in Willesden Green. It is sunny, but sheltered by a lovely old plane tree and looks out on to the 1894 heritage of the old library. It is a place where shoppers and workers can rest, pause and reflect. It is a safe place where parents can let their kids play without straying into main roads.”
Brent, which closed six of its 12 libraries despite residents’ protests, plans to give part of the existing library site to developers in return for them funding the new building, and said it was an “innovative opportunity” to get a new facility without direct investment.

Willesden Green consultation failure has led to wrong scheme

From the Brent and Kilburn Times 10.1.13

Philip also has a letter in the Willesden and Wembley Observer about the Town Square application anhd loss of open space.

Thursday, 3 January 2013

Willesden Green Library Centre – some New Year thoughts

Philip Grant has asked me to post this article:-
If Brent’s Regeneration Department had got their way, Willesden Green Library Centre would now be an empty building site, and the 10,000 local people who used its former building every week would be making do with small temporary facilities spread across the borough. The thousands of local residents who signed petitions, and the hundreds who have put in a lot of time and effort to fight the proposals, have ensured that this has not happened yet, and that even if the Cultural Centre plans go ahead, the 1894 library building will be retained. 

We can look back on 2012 with some satisfaction, but as we look forward to 2013 the key battles will come in the next few weeks. In order for the Cultural Centre scheme to go ahead, Brent’s Regeneration Department and Galliford Try Plc have three hurdles to overcome. I hope that these notes, and your own ideas and comments resulting from them, will help us to understand what needs to be done in order, hopefully, to see the scheme fall flat on its face.

1. The Town or Village Green application

The Public Inquiry on Martin Redston’s application to have the public square in front of the Library Centre registered as a Town or Village Green will begin on Monday 11 February. In my view, the square could meet all of the legal tests necessary for registration, and current chances of success are around 50/50, but it is up to the Applicant to produce the evidence necessary to prove his case. That is why Martin needs witness statements from as many people living within the Willesden Green area (the “neighbourhood within a locality” on which the application is based) by Monday 14 January at the latest, giving evidence which shows that they have used the square for leisure activities during the period from 1991 until May 2012 (or for whatever part of that period they have done so). It is very important that only genuine information and details are given, and that no one “invents” evidence thinking that this will help. Any statement which the objectors can show to be false, or the Inspector conducting the Public Inquiry considers likely to be false, will undermine Martin’s case by raising doubts about the validity of all his evidence.

Anyone is welcome to attend the Inquiry (from 10am each day in Space 2 on the first floor of the Library Centre – via the lift opposite the BAR Gallery). I hope that any supporters of the application will treat the proceedings with respect, as any placards or noisy demonstration would probably do more harm than good. From what we saw at the preliminary hearing, the Inspector appears likely to handle the Inquiry properly, and to consider the evidence and arguments of both sides fairly before reaching a conclusion. He hopes to produce his report and recommendation by the end of February. If he decides that the case for registration has not been sufficiently proved, I cannot see any point in trying to pursue this application any further. If he recommends that the square should be registered, Brent Council are not obliged to accept his recommendation, and could just sit on his report without taking any action on it. In that case it will be necessary to campaign publicly to shame Brent into registering this open space as a Town or Village Green, because it is only actual registration which protects the land from being built over.

2. Planning Application ref. 12/2924

Brent’s Planning Committee is likely to consider this application at its meeting on Wednesday 13 February at 7pm. The Planning Committee are not “the enemy”. They are independent of Brent’s Executive, and have a duty to decide applications on proper planning grounds and in accordance with Brent’s stated planning policies (unless material considerations indicate otherwise). There is a reasonable chance that they will reject the application, if the defects of the application are put before them.

Many of us will want to be there, and anyone who has commented on the application should receive notification of the meeting from Brent Planning Service. People should attend as individuals, carrying their notification; this is not the occasion for crowd action, placards or anything that could justify officials at the Town Hall barring the public from the meeting. We need to respect the committee proceedings, so that our views as well as those of the applicant and the Planning Officer receive a fair hearing.

The Planning Officer’s report and recommendation will be very important. It should be available to view online, as part of the meeting agenda documents, about a week beforehand. It will be a long and detailed report, and it needs to be studied very carefully. All of the points showing that planning policies have not, or not fully, been complied with need to be noted and referred to in objectors submissions to the committee, and any points where we disagree with the report over whether a planning policy is satisfied also need to be identified and brought to the committee’s attention. I think it would be a good idea if an individual or small team began listing these planning policy points now (from objections and comments already submitted), so that the list is ready to check against the Planning Officer’s report and be available to the KWG representatives who will speak as objectors at the meeting.

It is likely that a maximum of only three members of the public will be allowed to speak at the Planning Committee meeting, and probably for only two minutes each (one may be allowed three minutes). It is probably safe to assume that only two objectors will be allowed to speak, and to identify who would be the best two (with one “in reserve”) to speak clearly, concisely and confidently as to why, on proper planning grounds, the application should be rejected. Those two should notify the committee’s Democratic Services Officer, Joe Kwateng, at: that they wish to speak as objectors as soon as possible after the date for hearing of the application is confirmed, with the “reserve” sending an application as soon as those two requests to speak have been acknowledged. [I will not be putting myself forward as a speaker, as I think local people from Willesden Green would carry more weight – I will do what I can to ensure that several procedural matters are dealt with properly, including that of Cllr. Ann John as a member of the committee].

As indicated above, the key points to get across are why the application should be rejected on planning grounds. It might be best for one speaker to deal with the housing part of the application, and one to deal with the Cultural Centre points. They will need to work together to see who will have room in their two (or three) minutes to also include the planning policy failures on consultation, the fact that unlike the Civic Centre, WGLC is not in a regeneration area but in a district centre whose suburban character is meant to be protected under Brent’s own policy CP17, and the points arising from part of the site being in a conservation area (with the rest within that area’s “setting”). It will be a tall order to get everything into such a short time, by with careful preparation I think it can be done.

It will not be possible for the Planning Committee to grant full planning permission to this application at their meeting. If they are “minded to accept” the application, it will have to wait while the linked conservation area consent application is referred to the Secretary of State (see below). If the Planning Officer’s report recommends granting planning permission, the committee will not be able to reject the application at their meeting – they will have to record that they are “minded to refuse” the application, set out their grounds for this view, and then adjourn hearing of it to a later meeting. The only way that the application can be refused outright at the meeting is if the Planning Officer recommends refusal and they are satisfied that he is correct to do so. We do not yet know the recommendation will be (or whether, exceptionally in the particular circumstances of this case, there will be no recommendation) but the more proper planning grounds for refusing the application we can draw to the Planning Committee’s attention at the meeting, the better for our case.

3. Conservation Area Consent Application ref. 12/2925
This application cannot be decided by Brent’s Planning Committee, as despite its attempt to hide behind Galliford Try as the “sole applicant”, Brent is legally the joint applicant, at least as far as the proposed Cultural Centre is concerned. The conservation area consent application will only be considered by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (or the planning advisors which recommend what decision he should make) if Brent’s Planning Committee are “minded to accept” the planning application. 

Brent’s Planning Service will have to submit all of the documents in respect of this application, including all of the objections and comments made on it, for consideration. There is nothing further that we can do to influence the outcome, and there will be no public hearing. The usual time for such consideration before a decision is given is, apparently, between 16 and 20 weeks, but can occasionally exceed six months in a complicated case. If the decision is to grant the application, this would then allow Brent’s Planning Committee to grant full planning consent.

Because the two applications have been combined in a single form and set of documents, it is difficult to work out what the conservation area consent application part of it actually consists of. When I managed to do so, in order to submit my detailed comments, I discovered that it is a total mess! The application form seeks permission for the partial demolition of just the southern extension of the 1894 library building, confirming this in its proposed demolition plans and Town Planning Statement, then puts forward plans for work involving the complete demolition of all internal walls and floors within the locally listed building. This and other contradictions in the documents, together with a failure to actually consider the tests which the application needs to pass before it could be accepted, means that the Secretary of State would have little option but to reject it.

Brent’s Regeneration Department are aware of my detailed comments on this conservation area consent application, and if they have any sense, they and Galliford Try will withdraw it and submit a fresh application in place of 12/2925. This would mean another public notice, providing a further 21 days to consider, comment on or object to their consent application. If they press ahead with the existing application, they may well trip over this hurdle, even IF they manage to clear the first two. That is a big “IF”, and something which is far from certain as long as we organise and prepare properly the cases in favour of the Town and Village Green and against the planning application.

Tuesday, 1 January 2013

Galliford Try grab more Willesden land

Kate Spence writes:

The site plan below shows land to be assigned for development by a partnering developer in Willesden Greeen as agreed by the Executive Committee in February 2012. This plan was drawn up in order to define the land made available in order to deliver a new Cultural Centre at zero cost. The contracted developer, Galliford Try  agreed to provide a new Centre that would add cultural benefit to the area, the public realm was to be enhanced and at the same time Council offices would be provided to provide a South of Borough presence for Brent Council. In order to deliver the project at zero cost, a master plan was agreed by Regeneration Team and the developer to provide private housing to fund the project.

I note from Andy Bates'  letter of 27th December that, almost one year on, there is now further land required for disposal to Galliford Try in order that proposed new Planning Application 12/2924 & 12/2925 can meet Planning Regulations. There has been no question of the rear line of the Cultural Centre being adjusted to allow for public provision as this would decrease the space available for private housing and therefore reduce developer profit.

The developer has also not shown any willingness to reduce profit and include a basement to house archive and museum allowing better provision for public amenity. Instead it has been agreed, behind closed doors, that yet more Public High Road, Conservation Area open space should be assigned to Galliford Try for development purposes.

In the proposed plans the developer has failed to make space for adequate on-site car parking provision, they are also unable to deliver cycle parking.  I can see that the proposed plans for Grange Road include cycle parking and therefore a cycle route.

Currently the Grange Road area is enjoyed as a safe pedestrianised walkway. Will the inclusion of a cycle route and parking enhance this area and do the proposed children's pavement interventions really sit safely alongside the cycle access? This appears to be yet another ill-conceived plan which does not offer public benefit and will not enhance the area. 

Has the post-contractual decision to give over yet further public land to achieve a large housing development with small Cultural Centre been formally authorised by the Executive? 

Clearly the allocated site was insufficient for the proposed public facility along side the private housing and therefore yet more public land has been assigned without consultation in order to achieve a positive outcome for the applications ref 12/2924 and 12/ 2925. 

The goal posts seem to have moved in order to facilitate an untenable application and the basis on which the WGCC and housing contract was signed with Galliford Try has been adjusted in order to make the unacceptable plans viable. This alteration has been agreed by a Council who claim to be impartial in their assessment of the scheme.

I do hope that when the scheme is presented to the Planning Committee that there will be a more objective approach and the developers requirement for additional public land in order to meet their objectives, will be highlighted in the Planning officers report to the Committee.