To Redbridge Council.

 

I wish to make an official complaint regarding the management, conduct and integrity of the Redbridge Planning Department and Committee.

 

I attended the Planning Committee meeting on 22nd January 2024 as an interested member of the public.

 

Items of complaint;

1. Planning Committee Meeting  22/01/23  Public participation. A member of the public, Mr A Walker had previously lodged a request to speak. Late in the afternoon of Monday 22nd January a situation arose that was of a serious nature involving the Planning Department and at the meeting Mr Walker requested to raise this matter urgently before the Council in place of his stated question. The Committee Chair refused Mr Walker permission even though discretion would allow the Chair to accommodate the change of subject.

In my opinion this was an unfair refusal on behalf of the Chair.

 

Requested action; A more flexible approach to public statements to be taken by the Chair.

 

1. Planning Committee Meeting  22/01/23  Scheduled applications.   2327/22    Development At Sainsburys 55, Roden Street, Ilford.  A member of the public, Mr P Scott had requested to speak during which he talked and was questioned about the possible over development of the scheme putting excess pressure on local services, especially G.P.’s and hospitals. The chair ruled that  matters to do with NHS are not matters concerning the Council and therefore not to be discussed further at this meeting.

In my opinion the very considerable increase in population bought about by this scheme and obvious increased pressure on all services is very much to do with the Council and it is their obligation to ensure there is no detrimental  environmental impact on residents in all it’s forms including health care.

 

Requested action; The Planning Committee should take into account all aspects and impacts of the planned scheme in their consideration.

 

1. Planning Committee Meeting  22/01/23  Scheduled applications.   2327/22    Development At Sainsburys 55, Roden Street, Ilford.  A member of the Public, a lady named Lynda I believe, also spoke. The Chair said to Lynda start when you are ready. When she commenced speaking the Chair then commenced a conversation with his two adjacent Committee members for the majority of the time Lynda was speaking.

 

This action was both extremely rude by the Chair and disconcerting to the member of the public during her limited time to speak. Furthermore it is very likely the Chair would not have heard or taken in what the speaker was saying. The member of the public who had just spoken then complained to the Chair at the end of her speech about his conduct, the Chair acknowledged his error and apologised.

Requested action; The Chair to be more attentive and polite to public speakers. If Chair needs to have discussion with colleagues it is done so before or after the speaker.

1. Planning application 3698/23. 50, Gyllyngdune Gardens, Seven Kings, Ilford, IG3 9HY

 

In this case objections made by the public and acknowledged by Council. Council confirmed, “Your comment has been received and will be taken into account in full in the assessment (including any attachments).”

Council ‘Record of decision made under Delegated Powers’ states “No objection is raised to the

works notified of T1 being undertaken.”

 

The Council comments are completely contradictory. Please advise what action will be taken to rectify gross negligence by Planning Department?

There are two other instances,  1223/23 and 3482/23 where there is evidence of public objections being made after which the Council states there had been no objections received.

 

1. Planning application 3698/23. 50, Gyllyngdune Gardens, Seven Kings, Ilford, IG3 9HY

 

Council ‘Record of decision made under Delegated Powers’ states;  Comments

T1 Magnolia is located at the front garden of the property. This tree is visible from the adjacent public road, providing a good contribution to the visual amenity of the local area. The applicant is notifying their intent to remove T1 as it is stated that the trunk has resulted in visible damage to the side wall, posing a safety hazard and a risk to the property's structural integrity.

However, no photos / evidence has been supplied to support this. Although the visual amenity of the local area is affected from the removal, a replacement tree can be easily planted to the property to mitigate the loss. No objection is raised to the works notified of T1 being undertaken.

 

I ask;      What ‘side wall’?

               What property does ‘property’s integrity’ refer too?

               Please state the actions taken in assessing details and statements of application are correct before making decision.

 

 

1. Planning application 3698/23. 50, Gyllyngdune Gardens, Seven Kings, Ilford, IG3 9HY

 

Council ‘Record of decision made under Delegated Powers’ states;  • TIN 6 - There is no statutory requirement to replace tree unless they are dead and/or dangerous. However, in order to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the Local Planning Authority strongly encourages its replacement with an appropriate trees. (Its position need not be identical to that of the removed tree). The following species are recommended: Fig, Hazel and Magnolia.

 

      In my opinion the Council should state a tree replacement must take place in this situation.

 

 

 

1. Planning application 3698/23. 50, Gyllyngdune Gardens, Seven Kings, Ilford, IG3 9HY

 

Whilst the applicant has taken the correct steps in seeking planning approval the Council have not acted responsibly or with due diligence in their assessment of this particular application. 

 

Requested action; Review process of assessment and initiate remedial action.

 

 

Summary of complaint.

 

As a serving member on the committee of the Seven Kings Bungalow Estate Residents Association I know for a fact that myself and colleagues on the committee have over recent years experienced ongoing issues with the Council Planning Department regards planning applications and the interpretation of ‘Guidelines’ relating to Seven Kings Conservation Area.

 

This previous experience together with the items raised above give serious concern as to the state of the planning application process within the Council. These cannot be isolated instances and therefore by implication what other errors, omissions and incorrect decisions have and are being made by the Borough of Redbridge in their planning decisions.

 

Requested action; Investigation and report by an Independent third party on the management and diligence of the Redbridge Council Planning process within the next 12 months.

 

 

Thank you for your time and I look forward to receiving your response. I have copied other local Council and Government representatives into this complaint as I feel strongly it is a matter of public interest.

 

Kind regards,

 

Stuart Vallis.

 

IG3 9NL