In the latest Acton Newsletter it states re. The Oaks:"The Oaks Action Group (OAG) says lawyers have sent notices to both the Acton Regeneration Company and Ealing Council that a Judicial Review was being sought...." and that the second ground for seeking a Judicial Review is: "that the Planning Officer's report, which recommended Committee approval, excluded important evidence from English Heritage -and from its own Conservation Officer. Both were fundamentally critical of the ARC plan."I was at the Committee Site Visit when there were a lot of local people there and the Reverend spoke on behalf of many objectors. I also attended the Committee Meeting when Cllr. Daniel Crawford spoke against the development (as a non-committee Ward Councillor).I do not know a great deal about the planning battle as I was not involved with the case in the same way as I have (voluntarily) assisted residents elsewhere with cases in Acton, Ealing, Hanwell, Northolt, Southall, Greenford, Chiswick and Perivale over the last 28 years.However, there is a ring of truth about the second above-stated ground and claim that unfavourable comments from within the Council were suppressed.This was exactly the complaint that neighbours in the 1 & 3 Corfton Road case in Ealing W5 made when the objections by one of the longtime Council's own Conservation Officers, Ms Eleanow Lakew, were completely omitted from the final report to Committee!As for the first ground for Judicial Review which states: "that the composition of the Planning Committee which voted 7-6 in favour of the plan was deliberately engineered by the ruling Labour group to ensure that marginal result. We claim this broke Ealing Council's own Planning Code rules. As did public and Council chamber comments by leader Julian Bell, extolling the virtues of the plan just prior to the vote.", again there is something familiar about this.In the 2 Creswick Road (Trevenna Cottage) case, where a most "beautiful garden" in Acton (the words of Cllr. Phil Portwood, former Mayor of Ealing) was covered in backland houses next to "Springfield Gardens" Park (despite 15 years of previous refusals of applications and dismissal of appeals), an instance of "manipulation" of the composition of the Planning Committee was felt there and noted in the High Court by the Judge (although unfortunately the Application for Leave on other grounds did not succeed hence all the buildings now overlooking the children's play area in the Park and destroying open views to the Park from the neighbouring St Vincent's Catholic School and the residents of 4 Creswick Road). Epilogue: I was later told by Cllr. Daniel Crawford at a site visit for another Acton case that the 2 Creswick Road case (Trevenna Cottage) had been voted through as it had been "political".Futhermore, the Acton Central Ward Councillors later indicated that they felt that they were being "sidelined" in the words of Cllr. Daniel Crawford and he rightly said this openly in an e-mail to Mr Mark Deitch at the time of the 91 Shakespeare Road (demolition) Acton case. Shortly after, Cllr. Kate Crawford was re-appointed to the Planning Committee.Leaving aside the planning demerits of unsightly Oaks development (as relates to the corner of Churchfield Road next to the CA), it has been claimed that a voting Member on the Committee was threatened with deselection if that Member voted against the proposal! This is a very serious breach of what started out as Lord Nolan's Report into the conduct of councillors and is now covered by various Codes of Conduct.Given the fact that the Leader of the Council referred to Waitrose at the main Council Meeting - the night before the vote was to take place on the Oaks planning application said to involve Waitrose - lends credence to the claim of possible political interference behind the scenes.Is it true that a Member of the Planning Committee was threatened with deselection unless a favourable vote was cast?If so, who was it that made this threat, because I feel sure that the rules would require, if this is correct, that the person involved (if a councillor) should be removed from office no matter how high an office the person might hold?Victor Mishiku 24/4/15"The Covenant Movement" vmfree@madasafish.com(campaigner for fairplay in planning matters for 28 years)
Victor Mishiku ● 4527d