Hackney "forgot to renew" council policies

From Hackney Planning Watch:

We have now received a letter from the Government Office for London. It appears that the Council may not have a legal basis for the policy document that includes the proposed areas of exception.

This is quite a technical point, but a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) cannot make council policy, it can only give guidance on existing policy. The proposed SPD relied on three Council pre-existing Council policies, two of which have lapsed (it appears the council forgot to renew them), the third of which applies only to conservation areas.

Consequently it appears doubtful that the Council can adopt the SPD without first adopting some basic policies.The Council is suggesting that it can rely on a general 'plan for London', the principles of which the Council has adopted, but this seems unlikely (or should I say 'desperate'). The Council intends to continue with its existing proposals.

We have been led to believe that the Council may remove the phrase 'area of exception' which is viewed a problematic, but they are currently committed to the substance of the proposals. The latest proposed timescale is that the report will go to Cabinet in December, but there is every reason to suspect that this timescale will be extended. In any event, our campaign must continue to build in strength.

The accidental lapsing of important Council policies is of course a typical Hackney Council 'cock up', but what does it mean for our campaign? Well the good news is that it makes it even harder for the Council to simply ram through the existing proposals, and consequently more likely that we will, eventually, get them amended.

The bad news? Well it appears the Council no longer has any policy on residential extensions! It is therefore possible that unscrupulous developers with good lawyers can appeal any application (however outrageous) that is rejected on the basis that the Council has no policy grounds for rejection.

more »

 

That's 'Councillor' spelt U-S-E-L-E-S-S

We pay for these people?

Responses from Councillors:


If you are making reference to a Commuity, kindly have the manners tospell their name correctly. It is Charedi with a "C". Many thanks,

Cllr Linda Kelly
Leabridge Ward

_________

Dear councillor Kelly

As the word is a transliteration it is spelt either Haredi or Charedi and we chose to use Haredi as this is what was used by the eminent Jewish scholar who wrote to the report.
I am sorry this seems to have offended you.

Best wishes
Jane

___________

Just for your information and I will not be responding to any more emails. It did seem to offend me, it did offend me. With regards to your eminent scholar, reading through his findings there are an awful lot of spelling mistakes, he should have used aspell check.With regards to the word, Charedi since you all live in Hackney, perhaps you could have asked your neighbour about the correctspelling.

Cllr Linda Kelly
Leabridge Ward
________________

I was about to make the same observation as Cllr. Kelly, but she has beaten me to it.

Maureen Middleton
Cllr.New River
_____________


Thank you for your email, would you allow me to print this on my blogsite - http://thecazenoveblog.blogspot.com/

Regards

Dawood Akhoon

_______

15 October 2007

Re. Planningwatch email dated 14 October

Thank you for the above dated email.

You have raised very important points. I will discuss the issues raised with my
Colleagues and also ask questions to the Planning Officers.

Regards
Cllr.Shuja Shaikh
_______

Haredi Judaism>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHaredi or Chareidi Judaism is the most theologically conservative form of Orthodox Judaism .[1] A follower of Haredi Judaism is called a Haredi (Haredim in the plural).

Could we perhaps concentrate on the issues raised rather than spelling?

Cllr Linda Smith
________

Thank you for the spelling lesson, spelling is an issue if you aregoing to talk about a Community.The Community referred to in issue live in Stamford Hill and callthemselves Chareidi.

Many thanks

Cllr. Linda Kelly

______

From: "Daniel Kemp" Daniel.Kemp@Hackney.gov.uk

To: "planningwatch" planningwatch@btinternet.com

My understanding is the area of exemption is more simply a nuance ofinterpretation but that the planning guidelines will have to be adheredto so cannot understand the furore.The areas are not within my ward or constituency and so I am notsupposed to get involved, it is not that I am ignoring your emails.
_____________

I have asked Guy if the planning dept could let us know were there had been a legal exention that the staus of property ie single family dewilling conversion or HMO would be usual, it wouldn't bve perfect but might give us any idea of percentages.


Cllr Sharron Patrick

more »

 

Landmark left to rot

From the Hackney Gazette:

CONSERVATIONISTS have raised concerns about the deterioration of a Hackney landmark.

Members of the Central and South Hackney Conservation Area and Advisory Committee (CAAC) are worried about the poor condition of the New Lansdowne Club in Mare Street.

Planning permission was granted in 2004 to turn the grade two listed building, which is on English Heritage's Buildings at Risk register, into a Vietnamese cultural centre on condition it was fully restored.

However, three years on, no repair work has been carried out on the 18th-century building and CAAC members are shocked that it has been left to rot.

One of their number, Louise Oldfield, said: "Ownership of a listed building comes with a responsibility and the deterioration of this building over a few years has been shocking. It's one of the most important buildings in Hackney."

Rossana Tich, another CAAC member, who is also a Hackney Society trustee, added: "It is sitting there rotting. The council is dragging its feet to use its statutory powers."

more »

 

ESTATES SELL-OFF PROTEST

From the Hackney Gazette:

ANGRY tenants protested outside the town hall this week over sell-off plans which could see estates being built on and council homes demolished.

Jeers and boos greeted, Hackney's deputy mayor, Cllr Jamie Carswell, after the council's Cabinet gave the go-ahead on Monday to the plans to transform the borough's estates as part of a £6.8 million investment programme.

For the past nine months, Hackney Council has consulted tenants over controversial plans to sell off land on their estates to a housing association landlord.

more »

 

Building resentment

From Scorn and Noise:

Imagine coming home one day to find that your neighbour had built an extension that was bolted onto the outside wall of your upstairs living room. When you’d suppressed (or not) the urge to dynamite the edifice, you would feel certain that the authorities would take a similarly dim, if less emotional view of the matter.

And so they do: unless you live in Hackney, where official policy allows the council to grant planning permission for structures built on other people’s property.

more »

 

Tenants' fury at 'land swap' deal as estate undergoes £1 billion revamp

From the Hackney Gazette:

ANGRY tenants say they will be forced to suffer the misery of living on a building site after plans for the £1 billion redevelopment of their estate were altered radically.

The blueprint for regeneration of the massive Woodberry Down estate has been re-drawn by the town hall in a land swap deal so that a planned new academy for 11 to 18-year-olds can be re-located.

The academy had been set to be built on the nearby site of the former Woodberry Grove primary school, but English Heritage refused permission as the school is a listed building.

Hackney Council's Cabinet gave approval last month for the academy to be built on another part of the estate earmarked for property developer Berkeley Homes to construct 209 mixed tenure homes.

more »

 

Housing When's a home not a home? When it's a live/work space

Owners of properties designed for home-based workers face eviction, as Lucy Barnard reports in The Guardian.

They're called live/work apartments, and have sprouted in urban centres across the UK. They are targeted at the pioneers of home-based working, and usually feature cutting-edge architectural design.

But now hundreds of purchasers who use them entirely as a residential space, face eviction following a clampdown by council planning departments.

The London Borough of Hackney has already issued 600 "planning contravention" notices, and other councils across the country are watching the situation closely.

Two weeks ago, the 75 homeowners of Union Wharf, a trendy-looking block a stone's throw from Hoxton, N1, woke up to open an innocuous-looking letter from Hackney council.

It was from an official, telling them they were all in breach of planning regulations and had to either leave their homes or apply for residential planning consent within 28 days.

more »

 

Cleared but still suspended

From the Hackney Gazette:

THE town hall's standards watchdog has been accused of a whitewash after it went against independent advice and cleared a Hackney councillor of having a prejudicial interest in a controversial development.

Cllr Darren Parker was suspended for three months after admitting making an "error of judgement" by not declaring an interest in the proposal to bulldoze the 19th-century Dalston Theatre and build a 19-storey high-rise block in its place.

Crucially, however, Hackney Council's standards committee decided the 33-year-old's employment with a government body that supported the scheme did not amount to a prejudicial interest.

more »

 

Stamford Hill deserves better

From Hackney Planning Watch.

Hackney Council is planning to exclude 38 streets in Stamford Hill from normal planning protection. A period of so-called ‘consultation’ on the plans has already concluded, but most residents had no idea that this consultation was taking place. One councillor has already been quoted in the press celebrating what he described as an unprecedented u- turn in council policy. While the councillor was celebrating, most residents had not even been informed of the proposals. Those who have managed to obtain copies of the ‘draft’ proposals are appalled at the proposal to abandon their streets to unregulated property developers.

The Council already has an appalling record of applying its existing policies and often grants planning permission for front, rear and side extensions that are completely out of character with the existing streetscape, and which in some cases involve the almost total in-fill of rear gardens. Not satisfied with the existing levels of architectural vandalism, the Council wishes to relax even further the rules that they so rarely apply.

more »

 

Demolition of Dalston’s historic buildings: Darren “One man, two votes” Parker to face Hackney Standards Committee hearing.

From Open Dalston.

An investigation, instigated by the Standards Board for England (SBE), has found that Hackney Councillor, Darren Parker, had a personal and a prejudicial interest when he used his Chair’s casting vote last July to grant planning permission for the demolition of Dalston’s heritage buildings and their replacement with towerblock flats. The investigation has found that Councillor Parker should have withdrawn from and not voted in the meeting. Had he done so the application would have been refused on the balance of votes cast. Hackney’s Standards Sub-Committee is to consider the report’s findings, and Councillor Parker’s representations, and make a ruling on Wednesday 20th June.

more »

 

Hackney planning dept in complete disarray

The Local Government Ombudsman criticises the Planning Department for administrative malpractice. Days later, Head of Planning Sue Foster was awarded an OBE in the New Year Honours List "for services to Planning".

Hackney Council has been heavily criticised by the Local Government Ombudsman for failing to take enforcement action on planning breaches over several years.

Local Government Ombudsman, Tony Redmond, today (22 December 2006) issued three reports on the investigation of complaints against the London Borough of Hackney.

The complaints were made by residents about the Council’s failure over periods of three to four years to deal with unauthorised works carried out to properties adjoining their homes. He finds the Council to be at fault in failing to take enforcement action and recommends in each case that it pays compensation of £500 as well as ensuring any outstanding enforcement action is now dealt with without delay.

more »

 

Council Cock-Ups See Mobile Masts Go Ahead

From Workers Liberty. Hackney Council cock-up results in mobile masts being built against residents' wishes.

It seems that here in Hackney, we are not alone in having an incompetent Council when it comes to mobile phone masts and planning permission. After an effective campaign by local residents, Hackney Council refused permission to O2 to erect a mast on London Fields, just metres away from a primary school, a kids' paddling pool, an estate (Wayman Court) and residential streets. But the Council missed the deadline to notify O2, so it got the permission by default.

According to Mast Sanity, several other Councils have been equally crap, and their misdeeds are listed at the end of this post. Strangely, this hall of shame is not particularly reassuring to Hackney residents - but it does expose just how much local democracy is degraded by Town Hall bureaucrats.

more »

 

A web of illiteracy and officialdom: welcome to Hackney planning

From Building Design:

All architects will be familiar with the frustration of dealing with local planning departments, so perhaps readers will take pity on a fellow professional who has had a three-month battle with Hackney Council over photocopied signatures and illiterate officialese.

In January, Charles Thomson of Rivington Street Studio was bewildered to discover that a planning application he had submitted was invalid because the signature on it was photocopied, which the council claimed did not constitute a legal document.

He wrote back saying: “Can you confirm to me where you ask for a unique signature and how you determine whether a signature is unique or not? Is this a visual analysis or do you have a specialist piece of equipment? Are you familiar with either a) the attempts by Hackney to develop a user-friendly planning department, or b) the works of Kafka?

“I am enclosing 20 individually signed copies of the front page of the planning application (on the basis that you will almost certainly need more than the three requested, that you may want to verify the signature and that you can afford to lose half the pages and still have spare copies).”

In a separate letter, he wrote to Hackney’s head of planning, Sue Foster, to complain about spelling and grammatical errors in the council’s original letter.

Thomson wrote: “Our postcode is misspelt (not a big issue). ‘Vehicular’ is spelt ‘velicular’. ‘Advise’ is spelt ‘advice’. As this is presumably a computer-generated letter, spelling should be correct. You state ‘your application is invalid for the following reason(s)’ and then don’t give the reasons. The wording, also presumably computer-generated, is ‘application forms in original ink, signature, not photocopied’. This is not grammatical and could mean a) that all copies of the form have to be completed in original ink or b) that none of the forms should be completed in original ink.”

At the time of going to press, Thomson had yet to receive a response. He said: “Bureaucracy in the system allows for poorly written documents to be passed through from planners and they use these rather peculiar devices from time to time as a way of apparently just trying to delay the whole process.”

Hackney Council refused to comment.

more »

 

London council criticised for planning 'chaos'

From the Planning Portal:

The London Borough of Hackney has been recommended to pay £11,000 plus legal costs by the Local Government Ombudsman after a series of planning errors forced the premature closure of a factory.

At the time the council acknowledged that its planning department was "in chaos", according to the official report into the events surrounding the complaint.

At the centre of this case was a long-established furniture-polishing business, run by the complainant from a single-story industrial unit with three and four-story buildings on either side, previously used as flatted factories or for warehousing.

First, the council decided to grant planning permission for the conversion of the building to the west of the unit. A developer wanted to convert the building into flats and workshops.

The complainant was notified of the plan and the proposed consent was subject to a legal agreement requiring the developer to undertake works to address pollution from the factory, chiefly fumes.

Subsequently, the development was implemented but without the agreement being signed, the works done or a permission being issued.

The council then considered a planning application for a similar conversion on the other side of the factory.

In granting permission for this scheme, the council failed to consider the impact of the factory or realise it was there.

more »