Friday, 7 March 2025

Planning Officers recommend approval of Reserved Matters in Randall Avenue application to build on back garden

 The development site


 From above

 A controversial planning application will be heard at Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday which received some vociferous opposition at the Outline stage. The application is on reserved matters for the plan to build on the garden at the rear of 7 Randall Avenue in Dollis Hill:

The application relations to the grassed area to the rear of No.7 Randall Avenue. The application site slopes to the south, and currently forms part of the garden to No.7 Randall Avenue. The application site has a shared driveway with the adjacent dwelling to the north, No.9 Randall Avenue.

Ten individuals have submitted objections some of which are multiple. Not mentioned in the officers' report is a Change petition 'Brent Council must reject all plans to approve a private car park and HMO on Randall Avenue, NW2' LINK.

 


 

Front view of development

Extract from  an Objector's comment:

 

I am writing to formally object to the planning application submitted by Mr. Teixeira for the development of the 1.5 storey building right behind my house, based on outline permission 22/0175. This objection is rooted in significant concerns that must be addressed and the risk are too high associated for this planned building.


The proposed development poses a serious risk of land movement and potential landslides due to its location on a higher part of the hill, directly above our home at 98 Dollis Hill Avenue. Any disturbance to the hillside could result in structural damage to our property and neighbouring homes. We already face issues with soil instability, and new construction on the muddy, water-saturated ground significantly increases the risk of landslides. The loss of soil cohesion and added weight from construction could exacerbate this, leading to dangerous consequences for the entire area. Who will take responsibility for the damage if this occurs-the council or the developer?


Additionally, the underground parking proposed on conserved land poses serious environmental and noise concerns. Not only would it disrupt the green space and natural extension of Gladstone Park into our gardens, but it would also increase noise pollution and vibrations from vehicle engines, causing a loss of tranquillity in our outdoor spaces. There is a strong possibility of structural damage to nearby properties over time due to these vibrations, especially considering the already unstable soil in the area.


Further, the introduction of more cars and the associated air pollution from exhaust emissions will have detrimental effects on the air quality in our gardens and could harm the local flora and fauna, not to mention the long-term health risks for residents. The character of this quiet, modest area will be forever altered by a luxury development overlooking our gardens and the tenants looking into our houses, bringing increased noise, traffic, and a social divide that could push long-term residents out of the neighbourhood.


Finally, issues of overshadowing, loss of privacy, and increased traffic congestion must be thoroughly examined. The scale and design of the development are out of character with the local architecture, and the shared driveway arrangement raises legal concerns. This is an area built for tranquillity and a naturally grown community that enjoys nature and privacy, and the proposed development threatens that balance.


I strongly urge the Planning Committee to reconsider this application in light of the risks posed to neighbouring properties, the environment, and the community. The potential impact on our safety, quality of life, and local infrastructure is too great to ignore.
 
Thank you for your consideration

Residents' experience of Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) is raised in the petition and some objections. Planning officers respond:

The development as granted by the outline planning permission seeks to erect a new, self-contained dwellinghouse to the rear of No.7 Randall Ave. Functionally, the proposed dwellinghouse forms a separate planning unit to the premises at No.7 Randall Ave. There is no evidence to suggest that a new home would result in increased anti-social behaviour.

 

The use of 7 Randall Avenue had previously been investigated by the Planning Enforcement Team and found to be lawfully operating as a small HMO with a licence. This had been happening prior to the Article 4 direction, which prevents the change of use to small HMO's within Brent without planning permission.

 

Any change of use into a 'large' HMO of a sui generis nature beyond the threshold of Use Class C4 would express necessitate planning permission anyways. (sic)

 

There is sufficient control in place that would prevent the proposed dwellinghouse to be converted into an HMO without express planning permission.

 

The Planning Officrs' recommend the Planning Committee approve the application LINK

 

Thursday, 6 March 2025

Brent Officers recommend approve of Atlip Centre, Alperton, development of 885 homes in units up to 29 storeys high


 Brent planning officers have recommended  LINK that the Planning Committee approve the Atlip Centre/2 Atlip Road  development at its meeting on Wednesday 12th March.

The application is for 464 resident units on the site near Alperton Station and 421 co-living places.

They will be housed in 2, 8, 10, 20,  23 and 29 storey structures with a single storey workspace and some commercial units.

 145 people have signed a petition opposing the development but only 27 have lodged an objection on the Brent Council planning portal. There are also 3 neutral comments (including an Alperton councillor - not identified by name). No comments in favour have been lodged.

It was quite a task for anyone interested to read all 355 documents on the Council website. 

Approval will be subject to referral to the Mayor of London.

 

The petition:

 

A petition has been lodged at Brent Council to stop the approval of another mega-development at Atlip Road in central Alperton. The campaigners have put forward the following reasons against the proposal.

1. Loss of Light – The development’s height (up to 30 storeys) will cause severe overshadowing, reducing natural light to nearby homes, including Bigler Court and Dawson Court, contrary to BRE guidelines. Reduced daylight can lead to health impacts such as vitamin D deficiency, especially for brown and black residents at higher risk.

2. Overcrowding – The proposal includes 885 residential units, adding excessive strain on already stretched local services, including GP surgeries like Stanley Corner Medical Centre, schools, and public transport.

3. Parking and Traffic – The limited parking spaces will lead to increased congestion on surrounding roads, creating parking difficulties and worsening air pollution.

4. Noise Pollution – Construction noise will cause major disruption, particularly for those working from home or resting at home. Long-term noise from communal spaces will also impact residents’ quality of life and stress pets.

5. Loss of Facilities – The proposed demolition of the existing gym will force residents to travel 30–45 minutes on foot to the nearest affordable alternative, making fitness routines less accessible and harming physical well-being.

6. Flood Risks – Existing flood risks on Atlip Road, with depths up to 600mm, will be worsened by the development. New drainage systems offer no guaranteed protection against surface water flooding.

7. Air Quality – Construction dust and emissions pose health risks, especially for children, the elderly, and those with respiratory conditions, while long-term increases in traffic will reduce air quality further.

8. Privacy and Child Safety – Flats will overlook nearby homes, including Bigler Court, and Alperton Community School’s playground, raising safeguarding concerns for children.

The petition can be signed HERE.


Brent Council consult on closure of Bridge Park Leisure Centre in July ahead of redevelopment

 Brent Council have launched a consultation on the closing of Bridge Park Leisure Centre in Stonebridge aheard of redevelopment.

This is the statement on their website:

 Residents are being asked for their views on the future of Bridge Park Community Leisure including options for leisure and community facilities, as part of a wider redevelopment to provide new homes and green spaces along the Hillside Regeneration Corridor. This consultation will help shape the future of the site and ensure that local needs are met.

At the end of 2024, local people described what they would like to see in a new leisure centre which would include a new swimming pool, new sports hall, larger gym, a function hall, meeting rooms and café.

In the first phase of consultation, residents highlighted the need for improvements to local leisure and community spaces. Respondents shared their views on potential new facilities, including swimming pools, sports halls, gyms, and community areas. We are now seeking further feedback to refine these proposals and ensure they align with community needs.

The deteriorating condition of the existing leisure centre means that it would require very substantial capital investment to keep the site open and safe on a sustainable basis, including major and expensive works to the lifts and other key parts of the building fabric. We do not believe this expenditure is a sensible use of limited council funding when there are proposals to build a new, state-of-the-art centre for the community to use for years to come.

Brent Council is asking local people for their views about closing the existing leisure centre in July 2025, to enable a planned closure to take place in a managed way.

Councillor Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said: 

Bridge Park Leisure Centre is so much more than a building and we want to honour its history and build on its legacy for the next generation of residents. I want to thank residents who told us what they would like to see in a new and improved leisure centre at Bridge Park, including brand new leisure facilities, much needed new homes, a new jobs and skills hub and community and green spaces. Now that we have a clearer vision of the future, we want to work closely with the community to shape the future of leisure and community facilities at Bridge Park. This next phase of consultation is about gathering feedback on the proposed closure, and transition arrangements for residents.

With other leisure facilities available at Vale Farm Sports Centre and Willesden Sports Centre, which are both within three miles of Bridge Park, the consultation is an opportunity for residents to feedback how well these facilities could support transition arrangements.

The redevelopment of Bridge Park is part of a wider plan to transform the local area, which could see £600million invested along the Hillside corridor in Stonebridge over the coming years.

The Unisys buildings, which stand empty over the North Circular, have been derelict for more than 20 years. Brent Council is working with the owners of the Unisys buildings, Stonebridge Real Estate Development Limited (SRED), to redevelop Bridge Park and the neighbouring land.

Your views are vital, so have your say by 11 May 2025.

The statement makes no direct mention of efforts by the community to have the current building listed as a Black History  heritage site  LINK but the Equality Assessment notes the impact on the BAME community:


The closure of a leisure and function facility is relevant to the Council’s Public Sector Equality Duty as it will affect residents that currently use the facility and those who might have used it in future and could particularly impact individuals from protected groups such as older residents, young people, disabled people, BAME individuals, those from certain religions/beliefs  pregnant and maternal residents and those from lower-income households.

 

The users of BPCLC are predominantly from the local area and closing the facility before a new facility is opened will result in users having to travel to another facility and potentially incur greater costs. Although alternative provision is available in the local area, and we would take steps to mitigate impacts, the closure may also have an impact on overall participation and activity levels. Some individuals may not choose to travel further or pay more for alternative provision.

 

As a result there may be an impact on the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a protected characteristic and those who do not, which is one of the three equality needs set out in section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010. However, as explained below, the Council considers that the proposals would be objectively justified, so as not to give rise to discrimination.

 

The Council also acknowledges that Bridge Park has played an important role in the Stonebridge community for many years. Bridge Park is an important chapter in Black British history and the community’s achievements in creating this space in the 1980’s to empower local black residents. It is important to work with the community to ensure this history is commemorated within the new facilities.

 

There may therefore be an impact on the need to foster good relations between persons who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not share it, one of the other relevant equality needs. The Council is seeking to mitigate this as much as possible including through public consultation both on the proposed closure and our plans for the new leisure centre and wider redevelopment.

 

Monday, 3 March 2025

Battle over Gaudiya Mission expansion in Willesden Green as neighbourhood consultation closes


Comments on the application regarding the Gaudiya Mission in suburban Cranhurst Road, Willesden Green, increased from 16 to 26 over the weekend as today's Neighbourhood Consultation Expiry Date neared.

A planning application for a basement, rear extension and single storey outbuilding in the garden, was refused by Brent Council and an Appeal against the refusal dismissed. Now the Mission has come back claiming to have addressed the issues cited by the Planning Inspectorate (see Design and Access Statement below).

 In practice comments are accepted up to the day before the Planning Committee hearing (if an application goes to the Committee and is not delegated to officers) so there is a possibility of submissions after today's date.

Comment HERE

A resident has kindly provided Wembley Matters with a version of their comment on the application:

Since the mid-1980s we have suffered from regular noise pollution and disruption as a result of the activities of the Gaudiya Mission. This was particularly problematic while the centre had consent to act as a Hindu information centre and prayer hall and consent was withdrawn on 2nd February 2004 appeal decision T/APP/T5150/AV01/1073609.   

 

The extensive works proposed in the resubmitted planning application indicate a vast increase in volume of visitors to number 27 Cranhurst Road is planned, but this is a residential area with little space between properties (a 1.8m gap between foundations), small front gardens without driveways,  and no room for crowds to congregate on narrow pavements.   There could be well over 500-700 people  attending services on a regular basis.  

 

In October 2024 the Gaudiya Mission trustees purchased 25 Cranhurst Road for £1.7m.  This forms the other side of the semi-detached property at No. 27.    It has 6 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms and includes a loft and rear extension.  It is not clear why the applicants require additional accommodation space at number 27 or why they need to extend number 27 and overdevelop when they now own such a substantial estate on Cranhurst Road.  Whilst number 25. does not have permission to be used as a prayer hall/place of worship, there is nothing to stop the applicant using number 25 to accommodate visitors whether they be temporary or long term.   

 

It has been noted that Gaudiya Mission wishes to run courses at these properties, the first was run in August/September 2024 and a large number of visitors were attending number 27 over the course of several weeks.  Catering and washing facilities were provided at number 27 and this caused a great deal of noise and disruption to neighbouring properties.  It is planned to have more of these courses and that is one of the expected uses of this facility which is not to be used as a residence at all, but as a bed and breakfast and training centre, college of sorts.   The local sewers, utilities and other facilities do not have capacity for this expansion in population and usage of these two properties.  This is a residential area which is being turned into an institutional development hub without the civic infrastructure necessary to support such overdevelopment.  

 

The proposed works indicate a minimum of a fourfold increase in the size of existing dining facilities, with a basement catering kitchen, dining room of approx 1,300 square metres and a vastly extended existing prayer hall (labelled "Community room" in the plans). The kitchen is currently being used to cater for a congregation sometimes numbering well over 100 people between a number of services which take place most weekends.    Expanding the kitchen and dining area would lead to an increase in activity, noise, cooking emissions (catering for a larger groups of people) and other environmental nuisance not suitable for a residential property with such close proximity to neighbours.

 

Services are noisy and include drums, cymbals and a horn as well as chanting. If the prayer hall is extended this will result in a larger number of people attending services and noise will increase accordingly. The extension will adversely affect the peaceful enjoyment of our property as given its proximity to neighbours, number 27 is not suitable for this level of activity.   No amount of soundproofing will help contain the noise of so many people, who cannot be controlled, frequently open doors, windows and loudly congregate in the garden during visits.

 

The road is residential and has parking restrictions Mon- Sat. These restrictions do not apply on Sundays when the most popular services take place and some services last all day until 10pm. Increasing the activities of the prayer hall will lead to increased parking congestion on the road from visitors to the Gaudiya Mission on Sundays which will adversely affect residents, particularly those who have mobility issues and need to park close to their property (this affects one of us in particular).  It is not true that visitors arrive by public transport.  There is a constant flow of traffic and cars with Sunday visitors to number 27, blocking up the road and creating congestion and parking issues for neighbouring properties. 

 

There is nothing in the plans to indicate how the existing mains sewage system will support the proposed increase in number of washing facilities and volume of visitors.  The property's sewers have been badly blocked on a number of occasions in recent years.  

 

According to the conclusions and recommendations of the biodiversity report, 61.84% of habitat units will be lost.  This is an incredible loss of natural environment in a residential area of established gardens.  There is a comment to say that the client has accepted this will need to be offset but that is not possible on these premises. The front of the property once had a thriving garden but was concreted over by Gaudiya Mission on acquisition of the property in the 1980s.  The Mission removed as much vegetation as possible from the rear garden.  The applicants have also acquired number 25 in October 2024 and have also been removing the established vegetation from the garden of number 25 since gaining possession.    There is no commitment to biodiversity at either property.  But in the confines of the planning application, there is no scope to offset biodiversity at 27 Cranhurst Road as so much of the garden habitat is planned to be destroyed by this development.

 

The residential parts of this property should have HMO status along with appropriate health and safety features.  There are unrelated people living in the property.  For example, the property was also hosting a family for some time.   It has been acting as a hostel of sorts for some members of the congregation.  The additional bedrooms indicate an expansion of this service.  This is turning a residential property into an informal hotel without any regard for rules, regulations and planning / safety requirements for these types of buildings.  

 

There is no information on the occupancy load factor in the plans.    Given the nature of the use of this building and the number of members of the public regularly attending services, why has this been left out of the planning details?

 

There was no Disabled access evacuation assessment in the plans. Given the nature of the use of this building and the large numbers of members of the public regularly attending services, why has this been left out of the planning details?

 

Security of neighbouring properties due to a vast increase in numbers of attendees has not been addressed in the planning applications.     

 

There will be pollution and ground damage caused by the proposed excavation work.   It is not clear from drawings where exactly the outbuilding will be sited or how large it will be 

 

The proposed construction work at the property can be classified as unprecedented specifically on Cranhurst Road and would involve the following.

 

o        a. The excavation of a basement across the full width of the property extending from the front wall , for the full length of the existing property then the new rear extension, then some 3 m past that and then for the stairs. Allowing for hardcore and blinding it is estimated that about 500cu.m some 800 to 900 t of soil will need to be removed. Putting this in visual terms, this would involve some 70 of 80 medium size tipper lorry. The lorries will need to filled in some way. Possibly a crane or excavators would need to be used for this. With the narrowness of the road and access to the property this would be unbearable suffering to the local community living in the neighbouring properties.  

o        b. The proposals would require some 25cu.m of hardcore, that’s about 50t, about 5 tipper trucks .

o        c. There is likely to a need for about 450t of concrete to construct the basement retaining wall and the ground floor, that’s about 20 concrete lorries, plus a couple of lorry loads of reinforcement.

o        d. There will be a substantial need for temporary propping to create this basement so more trucks to bring this in and take it out.

o        e. It is clear from the plans of the ground floor the first floor and the proposed loft that all the internal load bearing walls within the building as well as the real and rear side walls at ground floor are to be removed. Again, this will require more lorry movements to bring in significant temporary works to accomplish this. Followed by the installation of appropriate permanent to support the upper floor and walls allowing the ground floor and basement to have no load bearing element internally and then the removal of all the temporary works. This will create yet more heavy vehicular movements on the narrow road.

o        f. This does not include the transportation required for the finishes and garden works.

o        g. All the transports including the delivery of plant, removal of spoil and bringing in new construction materials, will need to empty, filled, loaded or unloaded in some way. Possibly a crane or excavators would need to be used for this or significant amount of labour. Whichever way this would be noisy and disruptive to the local residents.

o        With the narrow street and access to the property limited, the amount of work proposed, the noise and can considerably increased heavy traffic movement on the street, would cause unbearable suffering to the local community living in the neighbouring properties.  

 

 The design and access statement is very short and does not advise on the frequency of events, the numbers of people attending each event, the street parking which will be required. Currently on Sunday if is difficult to find a parking space on Cranhurst Road in the area of this property due to the volume of people attending worship. These proposals appear to vastly increase the space available for attendance of the at the mission. It is not possible for the local roads sustain any increase in the number of worshipers at this property. These proposals are likely to hinder rather than help the local community.

  

Conclusion

 

 It is very important to note that the main objective of Gaudiya Mission’s planning proposal is to significantly increase the volume of visitors to 27 Cranhurst road, from the usual 100 to over 500 to 700.  It will also put great pressure on utilities, waste disposal, traffic and parking.   As well as the pollution, noise, major disruption of such radical construction works, the planned vastly expanded congregation will further disturb the peace of a residential area with no planned mitigating developments being put into place by public services to manage this increase in footfall.  This expanded usage has not been highlighted in the planning application, which is incomplete and light on detail. 

 

In addition to this the purchase of number 25 should form a part of the planning decision-making process.  The two buildings cannot be seen as separate for the purposes of this planning application.  They are owned by and will be used by the same organisation for the same purposes of attracting large crowds of visitors to the destroy the residential nature of Cranhurst road.   

 

Rather than continuing to seek to adapt 27 Cranhurst Road from a residential property to a public building closely proximate to residential properties, we would strongly encourage Gaudiya Mission to seek more suitable (non-residential) purpose-built accommodation for the expansion of its activities such as renting a local hall or function room.   

 

 


 

Friday, 28 February 2025

Questions at Brent Full Council reveal issues for consideration by the Auditor


 

 As predicted the Labour Group with its massive majority pushed through the reduction in Opposition time to speak on the budget at last night's Full Council meeting.

 The cut in Council Tax support was also passed despite hitting the poorest most in the borough's most deprived wards. A few councillors from those wards looked a little embarrassed but none abstained on proposals that had been overwhelmingly rejected by residents in the 'consultation' and expert advice from Brent Citizens' Advice Bureau.

Similarly, the alternative budget proposals by Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups were dismissed and voted down. The 'debate' on the budget was dominated by a 20 speech by Muhammed Butt and a long commentary by Cllr Mili Patel, Cabinet Lead on Finance, about the Tory Prime Ministers of the last decade or more with little additional budget information of interest to Brent resident. They were followed by a troupe of Cabinet Ministers reading speeches from their smart phones.

It was left to a four-minute exchange between the Auditor and Cllr Paul Lorber (Lib Dem Group Leader) to inject something of value into the 2 hours plus meeting.

I have preserved the exchange in the video above (they have a time limited existence on the Council website) as it is of interest in terms of transparency and accountability in the future.

The Auditor said that the issue of £4m loss in the abandoned Stonebridge Altimira project had not been referred to him by the Council. If the evidence was forwarded to the auditors, they would consider if there were any audit actions required.

On the issue of councillors' declarations of gifts and hospitality the Auditor said that they had remarked that they were 'light on detail' in the level of disclosure and that there was scope for more detail to be provided in the more complex arrangements. Readers interested in the fairground and sports and concert ticket giveaways will be pleased that this is receiving attention.

 Lastly, the Auditor said that they had not been asked to consider the Barham Park Trust account but because the Trust was associated with the Council, they could consider them if there were any concerns

 

Thursday, 27 February 2025

Wembley Manor School taking shape rapidly in London Road. Due for completion in September with places for 150 SEND pupils

 The new Wembley Manor School for 150 children with special needs and disabilities is taking shape at the end of London Road near the path and bridge to Lyon Park is rapidly taking shape. It is part of a project to offer 400 places across the borough.

The school consists of modules built off-site and transported as wide loads to Wembley - no mean feat given current road works etc on the High Road.

I am grateful for our Wembley Central stringer for the video and photographs:

 


 Module being hoisted into position

 


 Wide load lorry

 


 The finished school will have 3 storeys

 


From the Elsley School footpath

The wards that will be hit hardest by cuts in Council Tax Support Scheme. Budget cuts, rise in Council Tax and cuts in Council Tax Support will be voted on tonight.

 

Working age claimants of Council Tax Support bu ward

Earlier this month Wembley Matters wrote about Brent Council proposals on  cuts to the Council Tax Support Scheme LINK. Although those changes, which demand that everyone pay something towards Council Tax despite low incomes and the Cost of Living Crisis, were rejected in the public consultation, the Labour Group will approve them at tonight's Full Council. Brent Citizens Advice Bureau tabled a paper that showed the poorest would be hit hardest and that is evidenced by the ward breakdown above,

The cuts amounts to £8m but a £1.5m hardship fund has been proposed. In their budget proposal Lib Dems will propose that this be doubled to £3m.

Cllr Lorber, Lib Dem leader, told Wembley Matters:

It will be interesting how the Councillors from these wards will react and vote.

The changes have of course been implemented in very short time. They could have started discussing this in April 2024. The consultation was pointless as they already decided what they were going to do and no views would be taken into account.

The result is that many residents will be charged Council Tax for the first time or will see a very high increase. The officers predict that  many will not be able to pay and debts will simply rise - and many will need to be written off. In the meantime the individuals concerned will end up with more worry and more stress.

Councillors were presented with this far too late and needless to say when I went to Cabinet no one was listening.

The overall impact on the claimants is £8 million. They are setting up a £1.5 million hardship fund but this is not enough.

The key point is that the claimants have simply not been given enough time to rearrange their affairs. Finding jobs is hard and the extra charges (£600 a year for some) will hit many as a bombshell on 1 April 2025.
 
In our view the changes should have been introduced in a staggered way rather than the massive hit implemented immediately. 

We are therefore proposing that the support is doubled this year to £3 million to provide some help to as many people as possible.

In the past rather than vote against the Budget and Council Tax motion, dissident Labour councillors have left the Council Chamber before the vote is taken, and returned once next business is underway. Tonight this might well be what happens when the Council Tax Support Scheme is discussed.

You can watch the meeting on Brent Live from 6pm HERE

The Budget and Council Tax is Item 6.

Review of the Council Tax Support Scheme Item 8, 

 

 

Wednesday, 26 February 2025

Brent Council reduces Opposition and Scrutiny time to speak at tomorrow's Budget and Council Tax Setting meeting. Leader gets more time.

 A late change announced yesterday evening deprives Brent opposition parties of time to present their alternative budget proposals at tomorrow's Full Council Budget Setting Meeting. It also reduces the time allocated the the chair of the Scrutiny Budget Task Group.

The new order is set out below with previous timings set out on Monday February 26th in brackets:

  • Leader to introduce the main budget report - up to 20 minutes. (15 mins)
  • Leader of the Conservative Group (or their nominated representative) to respond and move their alternative budget proposals –up to 10 minutes. (15 mins)
  • Leader of the Liberal Democrats Group (or your nominated representative) to respond and move their alternative budget proposals – up to 5 minutes. (10 mins)
  • Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources – up to 15 minutes to speak on the budget and alternative proposals that have been moved. (10 mins)
  • Councillor Conneely (as Chair of Scrutiny Budget Task Group) – up to 5 minutes to introduce the main outcomes and recommendations within the Scrutiny Budget Task Group report. (10 mins)

These timings will be subject to a Procedural Motion moved at the start of the meeting by the Majority Group Whip.  Once the debate on the budget has concluded (for which any members wishing to speak will still have up to 3 minutes each to contribute) the Leader will then have up to 10 minutes  (5 mins) to sum up and close prior to the Mayor moving on to conduct separate roll call votes on firstly the alternative budget proposals moved by the Conservative Group and then the Liberal Democrat and then the final substantive budget recommendations, which will all be taken en bloc.

Cllr Paul Lorber, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group said:

This is not acceptable to the Lib Dem Group.

This is total abuse of power and should have (but has not been) discussed at the Constitutional Working Group.

To increase the time allocated to Labour Leader and others and reduce the amount of speaking time for the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Leaders is a pathetic attempt to suppress democratic debate.

The result of the recent Alperton by election clearly shows how unpopular the Labour Party has become in Brent and this action by the Labour Leader is another example of his dictatorial abuse of power.

I trust that the Chief Executive will at long last intervene and to stop the nonsense which is turning Brent into a laughing stock.

 

Labour's Budget Proposals

Conservative Group Proposals

Lib Dem Group Proposals