Builder claims Cllr Biddolph oversteps her role as councillor

163 – 165 Gunnersbury Lane, at the entrance to the Gunnersbury Park Garden Estate

Information Commissioner demands answers from Hounslow Council

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has criticised Hounslow Council for failing to provide information about the refusal of a planning application.

The ICO has said failure to comply may result in High Court proceedings for Contempt of Court.

The reason this is important, says Declan Kelly, who submitted the application, is that:

“This is not simply a planning dispute. The issue is alleged improper councillor involvement, failure to disclose interests, missing records, redactions, and possible alterations or concealment of the decision-making record’.

The councillor he refers to is Joanna Biddolph, who he alleges has not acted with the openness and impartiality required of councillors by their Code of Conduct.

The planning dispute is over two houses at 163-165 Gunnersbury Lane in Acton, which have stood empty since before he bought them in October 2024, which Declan is seeking to redevelop as seven flats.

Cllr Biddolph lives on the Gunnersbury Park Garden Estate, near the site.

CGI of how Declan would like to convert the two houses

Declan Kelly submitted three unsuccessful planning applications to turn two houses into flats

At stake in this for him is the many thousands of pounds he has already spent on trying to develop the properties and the prospect of being stuck with them, unable to develop them.

Having been unoccupied for so long, they were targeted by drug dealers earlier this year, who broke in and set up an illegal cannabis farm.

READ ALSO: Weed farm discovered on the Gunnersbury Park Garden estate

Declan, a builder who has managed contracts on construction sites for big building projects run by companies such as Berkeley Homes and St James before setting up in business taking on smaller projects for himself, bought the houses from another company which already had permission for six flats, but he has had three applications turned down, each time for different reasons at a cost of around £30k each time.

The site is at the entrance to the Gunnersbury Park Conservation Area where there have been several protracted and highly contentious battles over planning applications as residents have sought to extend or improve their properties.

CGI of how Declan would like to convert the two houses

We reported last year on the case of Nick and Claudia Hearne who applied for planning permission for a kitchen extension and having been given approval by Hounslow Council’s planning department, went ahead and built it.

READ ALSO: Residents win approval for home improvements despite intervention by Chiswick councillor Joanna Biddolph

One of their neighbours and Cllr Biddolph, who lives nearby, made objections and the dispute dragged on for three years – “three years of hell”, Claudia Hearne told us, costing them thousands of pounds before the dispute was eventually settled in their favour by the Planning Committee.

Typical houses in the Gunnersbury Park Garden Estate conservation area

‘It is worth running a local campaign against this development’

Planning policy has not been applied consistently on the estate over the years leaving residents on both sides of the arguments feeling that they have been dealt with unfairly by the planning department.

In the case of Declan’s properties at 163-165 Gunnersbury Lane Cllr Biddolph sent a Whatsapp group message to members of the Gunnersbury Park Garden Estate Residents Association in February last year suggesting:

Cllr Joanna Biddolph

‘It is worth running a local campaign against this development. Happy to guide the residents’ association and residents generally through the process and how to maximise the chances of it being refused’.

She advised members of the Association to submit separate objections as well as a collective response from the association, using their own words, as ‘anything that includes copy and pasted content will be lumped together with others and counted as one’.

She suggested a public meeting and followed up on 20 March with a reminder that the extended deadline for comments on the application was approaching.

When Declan’s first application was refused, he followed it with a second and a third which the councillor also opposed, reminding residents:

‘Please put your submission in your own words and shake the content up a bit (such as switching the order of the points) otherwise all similar submissions will be considered campaign letters which are collectively counted as one, reducing the impact of your objections’.

Councillors are entitled to organise a campaign against a planning application. But according to the Members Code of Conduct, if they are publicly opposing it they should not then lobby privately behind the scenes in a way that is not available to members of the public. This is particularly the case if the application affects the area where they live.

Emails subsequently disclosed by the Council show Cllr Biddolph contacted the planning officer directly while the planning application was live and asked to discuss it, a request to which the planning officer acceded.

Declan Kelly

Declan told The Chiswick Calendar:

“The concern is that she was not merely acting as a councillor representing residents. She was already actively involved in a residents’ campaign against the application”.

Declan says planning officers were in favour of his application until her involvement. Hounslow’s Monitoring Officer Benita Edwards has decided nothing is amiss and the Council has found no conduct breaches.

But the way in which Cllr Biddolph’s name and those of Council officers were initially redacted in emails raised his suspicions, so he put in a Freedom of Information request to find out their names.

When the Council would not reveal them, he went to the Information Commissioner’s Office accusing Hounslow of ‘systematic inadequacy’, and of employing ‘unlawful use of blanket redactions to hide official identities’.

After pressure from the ICO the Council came back with the councillor’s name but not those of the officers, so he wrote again to the ICO who gave Hounslow 30 days to comply.

Private Eye has reported on this in their most recent issue. In her comments to them Cllr Biddolph rebutted any suggestion of impropriety, saying she has:

“a very strong record of fighting hard on behalf of residents and business ratepayers and take my elected role extremely seriously”.

She told The Chiswick Calendar:

‘It is wholly appropriate for councillors to guide residents through the planning process which is complex and needs explanation. Councillors here in Hounslow and in other boroughs/councils do this routinely.

‘I have supported residents through the process on numerous occasions and, I believe, residents have been grateful for it.  I am helped by having been a member of the planning committee for a year which gave me valuable insights into the way it works here (it can be surprisingly different, borough by borough).

‘Many consultancies provide the same service, perhaps with less local insight, for large fees. Councillors do this as part of their role.  It is a standard part of the process.

‘I do not believe I met the planning officer about this application and cannot think why I would do that – either privately or publicly. First, I do not represent my own views; I represent the views of residents.

‘That is why, when appropriate, I organise meetings with planning officers for and with residents so residents can put their points to them. This did not arise for this planning application’.

Her role in supporting residents is endorsed by Hounslow’s Monitoring Officer, who wrote to Declan:

‘I find that as the relevant ward member, Cllr Biddolph is entitled to represent and advocate for those in her ward’.

Vincent Lacovara, Director of Planning and Buildings, also told him:

‘There is nothing to indicate that any undue bias has occurred’.

A Council spokesperson gave this statement to The Chiswick Calendar:

“The Council has already responded to the Member’s Code of Conduct enquiry and confirmed that no breaches took place.

“Mr Kelly’s planning applications were considered independently by separate officers. Each application was assessed appropriately and professionally, with the reasons for refusal clearly set out in the relevant reports, which are matters of public record.

“The Council has engaged positively and constructively with the Information Commissioner’s Office throughout its involvement and is currently awaiting its determination.”