Brent Conservatives likely to prop up a Butt led Brent Council

 

It appears that Labour have likel y made a deal with Brent Conservatives that potentially will give Cllr Muhammed Butt another four years as leader of Brent Council. Not a position that many residents and members of the local Brent Conservatative and Brent Labour parties will find palatable.

In the deal it appears that Brent Conservatives will chair each of the two Scrutiny Committees and possibly be given a Mayor or Deputy Mayor position. There is no news of any detailed policy matters agreed between the two groups.

What is really astonishing, given the huge drop in the Labour vote in the local election, is that Muhammed Butt has made Cllr Matt Kelcher, former Planning Committee chair lead member for Regeneration. Furthermore (surely not!) he has appointed his brother, Saqib Butt, to replace Kelcher as Chair of the Planning Committee (he was vice chair in the outgoing administration).

This marks the continuation of the Towerblock Tatler approach to development now headed by the Towerblock Triad! 

 

RENT RISES, DISREPAIR, UNCLEAR ENERGY BILLS? Calling Wembley Park renters for a meeting tomorrow 7pm Chalkhill Centre with London Renters Union.

Wembley Park ward was excluded from the Brent Landlord Licensing scheme as if bad landlords did not exist there. The story on the ground is quite different:

 

This Thursday 7pm, join renters from across Wembley Park at an open meeting to discuss housing issues in the blocks. Open to all renters, whether private, social or temporary.

Hosted by the London Renters Union at Chalkhill Community Centre, HA9 9FX.

This meeting is an open space to discuss problems you and your neighbours face. There will be a short presentation of the work of the London Renters Union, which supports blocks across the city to organise themselves when faced with negligent landlords who ignore complaints. We work on the principle that far more can be achieved by working together than alone. 

LRU supports renters who are concerned about their housing and want to get organised - if that's you please come by! We've won much more security for private renters through the Renters Rights Act from May 1st - now is the time to get organised.

 Fill out the short survey here and drop by on Thursday: 

https://londonrentersunion.org/2026/wembley-park-housing-survey/

In Barnet, Labour and the Conservatives may as well be one party

   

 

Labour and the Tories made a backroom deal yesterday (Tues May 19th) to share control of Barnet Council, after neither party emerged victorious from the May 7th borough council election.

 

Labour lost control of the council after a successful campaign from the Green Party in Woodhouse elected Cllr. Charli Thompson, which turned out to be the deciding vote in the 63-member chamber, as the Tories and Labour were tied with 31 seats each.

 

She called for councillors to rise to the challenge by increasing transparency, accountability and allowing the voices of all residents to be heard.

 

Instead, they voted unanimously to change the council's constitution to reshape the numbers in all key committees, such that the lone Green councillor would be excluded from all of them. The Tories then abstained on a vote to re-elect Labour’s Barry Rawlings as leader of the council, handing power to Labour as agreed in talks that began immediately after the election. 

 

 Barnet Greens

 

The Green Party received 16% of the vote across the London borough. At Tuesday's council meeting, the first since the election, Cllr. Charli Thompson called for councillors to acknowledge that voters had not given either party a mandate to govern. Instead, she said, the vote showed that the Tories and Labour believe that there is such a thing as "second class councillors…and therefore second-class citizens" 

 

No voters in Barnet voted for a Labour-Conservative coalition, in fact the two parties sank to their lowest ever combined share of the vote, with 37% of voters turning elsewhere - these voters deserve to be represented. 

 

For all practical purposes, in Barnet the Tories and Labour have merged into a single party.

 

Look out for similat events in Brent. watch tonight's Council Meeting live from 6pm. LINK 

 

Call to restore Brent Council General Purposes Committee to its proper status as an independent mainly 'back bench' committee

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

   

Philip Grant has sent this email to Brent Council. He has been trying to get the General Purposes Committee returned to its proper status, as a mainly "backbench" committee independent of the ruling Cabinet, since 2016, as shown in his March 2026 guest post https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2026/03/proposed-stopping-up-order-near-olympic.html

 

This is an open email

 

Dear Mr Patel, Ms Nassr, Mr Kinsella and Ms Wright,

 

In looking at the agenda for the Annual Meeting, and item 11, I am writing to suggest that the timing for meetings of the General Purposes Committee in the Calendar of Meetings will have to be changed. 9.30am on a Monday morning is no longer appropriate, and it should now be at 6pm, and possibly on a different day.

 

The time of 9.30am, before a Cabinet meeting at 10am, only came about because the General Purposes Committee had effectively become a sub-committee of Brent's Cabinet. It should never have been that, as the General Purposes Committee makes decisions on matters which are not part of the Cabinet's remit, and there should be a clear "separation of powers".

 

I am including Ms Wright in this email as she chairs the Constitution Working Group, and copying it to the Leaders of the four Groups on the new Council, as I feel strongly that it is time that the General Purposes Committee was put back to its proper role as an independent, mainly "back bench" committee. I would suggest that the make-up of the committee in the Constitution, whether it has eight or six members, should be restricted to no more than two Cabinet members, and at least one member of each Group on the Council.

 

The downside of the way the previous "Cabinet" model of the GPC operated is that its members had only a maximum of 30 minutes to consider important decisions, and these could be based on detailed Reports, which they had to read in addition to even more Reports ready for their Cabinet meeting at 10am.

 

An example of how this had an adverse impact on Brent Council is the Section 116 Highways Act application, which I was involved in opposing earlier this year. The go-ahead for this application was given at a General Purposes Committee meeting in March 2022, which had six substantive items on its agenda, yet lasted only 19 minutes. 

 

If the committee members had considered what they were recommended to approve more closely, they may have seen what was obvious to me immediately when I saw the plan and draft order for the first time last December. If they had then questioned what exactly was being proposed, it might have made the Officers involved reconsider whether the "generic" wording of a Section 116 Order was appropriate for the specific circumstances of the situation on the south side of Engineers Way.

 

As it was, it took many hours of Officer time, and a detailed hearing before a Magistrate, taking a whole afternoon of time for the barrister representing Brent Council, to get to a sensible solution, which gave the Council and Quintain the permission to swap maintenance responsibilities for small areas of pavement, but did not take away the legal right for people to pass across those areas:-

 

 

I trust that the timing of GPC meetings will be amended, and look forward to hearing that the Constitution will be changed to reflect the proper status of Brent's General Purposes Committee. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

 

Letter: Is this really what Brent residents voted for in May?

 

 

Dear Editor,

  

Labour’s AGM took place on Saturday, where Cllr Muhammed Butt was elected as group leader and Cllr Gwen Grahl was elected as deputy leader.

 

As per Philip Grant's report on Friday, there are rumours circulating that Muhammed Butt is actively considering a deal with the Tories to form an administration. This could involve Labour being propped up, in return for committee positions or even support for the Mayor of Brent.

 

Rumours are that Georgia Gould, MP for Queens Park and Maida Vale (and god-daughter of Tony Blair) is a key proponent of a deal with the Tories. This is not the first time she has intervened in the internal affairs of the Brent Labour Group.

 

Many are wondering, is this really what Labour voters voted for in May?

 

A Concerned Brent Resident 

Next weekend's Event Day closures from12.30pm on Saturday and 9am on Sunday

 

Headache for the new Brent Council as opposition builds to 25 storey care home and co-living proposal on Holiday Inn car park

 

A campaign is building up over a developent planned for the space outside the Holiday Inn near Wembley Stadium Station. 

 

 

 

The Holiday Inn, Wembley

 

 The view from above (Google Earth)

 

The proposal: 

Clearance of site and construction of an interconnected building ranging from 8 to 25 storeys in height to provide a Care Home and Co-Living Accommodation, together with associated car and cycle parking (including within existing basement), hard and soft landscaping and communal amenity space.

There have been concerns about 'warehousing elderly people in the sky' as well as over-development and lack of amenity and infrastructure.  So far there have been 43 objections on the Brent Council Planning portal. This objection summarises some of the issues:

 I wish to formally object to planning application 26/0967 relating to the proposed development on land adjacent to the Holiday Inn, Empire Way, Wembley.

My objection is based on the following concerns:

The proposed height and scale of the development are excessive for this location. A building of up to 25 storeys would add further overdevelopment to an area of Wembley that is already experiencing significant density and pressure. The scale and massing of the proposal would negatively affect the character of the surrounding neighbourhood and place additional strain on existing infrastructure.

I am also concerned about the impact on local services and community infrastructure. The development would significantly increase the local population without clear evidence that GP services, hospitals, schools, public transport, or other community services will be expanded to support this increase. Existing services in the area are already under considerable pressure.

Parking and traffic are already major problems for local residents. The proposal does not appear to provide sufficient parking for the scale of the development, particularly given the combination of co-living accommodation and a care home. Increased visitor, staff, resident, delivery, and service vehicle traffic would place additional pressure on surrounding residential streets.

In addition, the application does not clearly explain the operational nature and long-term functioning of the proposed care home use. If residents require regular carers, transport services, adapted vehicles, medical visits, deliveries, or frequent visitors, this could create further congestion and parking difficulties in nearby streets.

I also have concerns regarding the suitability of a very high-rise building for vulnerable elderly residents and whether sufficient evidence has been provided to justify this approach on public health and wellbeing grounds. While large-scale developments may increase capacity, there appears to be limited evidence demonstrating that a 25-storey care home environment provides better outcomes for elderly residents, particularly those with dementia, mobility limitations, or cognitive impairment, when compared with smaller-scale and lower-rise care settings.

Research and professional guidance relating to later-life and dementia-friendly environments often emphasise the importance of accessibility, ease of navigation, social connection, reduced institutional scale, and access to appropriate communal and outdoor space. The application does not appear to demonstrate clearly how these resident wellbeing considerations have been addressed within a development of this scale and height.

Given the vulnerability of many potential residents, I believe the public health and quality-of-life implications of this proposal require far greater scrutiny before permission is considered.

Overall, I believe this proposal represents overdevelopment and would have a harmful impact on the quality of life of existing residents, local infrastructure, traffic conditions, parking availability, and the character of the area.

I therefore respectfully request that Brent Council refuse planning application 26/096  

The Planning Statement for the developer from Carney Sweeney makes the case for not making any contribution in lieu of providing affordable housing:    

The [viability] assessment identifies that the scheme currently generates a deficit of approximately 22%.

 

However, the accompanying sensitivity analysis demonstrates that viability improves where co-living rents increase in 5% increments and construction costs reduce by 5%, with the scheme moving into a positive viability position under these scenarios. Given the rapidly changing economic environment, this sensitivity testing is considered a reasonable metric for illustrating the scheme’s potential deliverability.

 

Notwithstanding this, the scheme remains financially challenging due to the aforementioned inflationary and geopolitical pressures. In light of these sensitivities, a residential payment in lieu of on-site affordable housing is deemed unviable. As an alternative, the provision of discounted market rent for the care element of the scheme has been explored with Brent Council’s Adult Social Care team, who have expressed support for this approach. At this stage, the applicant proposes that 15% of the C2 care home units be made available at a discounted rate to Brent residents. This provision would be secured through the Section 106 agreement.

 

Given the current economic climate, this approach is considered appropriate and would deliver additional planning benefits as part of the scheme.

Here are some images from the Design and Access statements which give a general idea of the proposed scheme:

From Wembley Hill Road

 

Current view  from a street opposite the development

 

 View incorporating the proposed development

 

Holiday Inn on left and new development including care home and co-living on the right

The proposal to 'green' the site including terraces on upper floors 

 

 The rather meagre greening at ground floor level

 

 

An imaginative view of the 16th floor co-living terrace after dark!

 

The developer has had at least one meeting with members of the outgoing Planning Committee and a number with Brent planning officers ahead of the submission of this application. The new Planning Committee will be confronted with the constraints of the Local Plan with its tall building zones, as well as  those of the London Plan and a Governmenrt committed to reducing local councils' and citizens' say on planning applications.

 

LINK to this planning application on the Brent Planning Portal where you can make a comment in support or opposition to the application.

Contact your councillors over who should run the new Council!

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

The Brent Council election results in seats.

 

There have been many comments under Martin’s recent posts about the local election results, with people giving their views on how the new four Party / no overall control Council should be run. The formal decisions on this will be made at the Full Council’s Annual Meeting next Wednesday, 20 May, beginning at 6pm.

 

If you feel strongly about something, why not let the decision makers know your views? It is something which I have often done, and it is something you have every right to do, by emailing the recently elected councillors for your Ward. You can check who they are, and get their Council email addresses on Brent’s “Find Your Local Councillor” web page. Even if you did not vote for them, they are your elected representatives for the next four years, and should be interested in what the residents in their Ward think on matters affecting the Council.

 

The choice of ways to find your local councillor on Brent’s website.

 

I happen to live in Queensbury Ward, which now has three Conservative councillors, so as I was concerned to see rumours that Cllr. Muhammed Butt might be trying to court that Group, I sent this email to them, with a copy to their fellow Conservative councillors, on 13 May:

 

‘Dear Queensbury Ward councillors,

 

Kanta and Jayanti have already come across me as a politically independent resident of your Ward, and I am writing to you, with a copy to your fellow Conservative members of the newly-elected Brent Council, to share my views on an important matter ahead of next week's Annual Meeting.

 

It may not be correct, but it has been rumoured online that Cllr. Muhammed Butt has been in contact with your Conservative Group, with a view to retaining the position of Council Leader for the next four years. If that is the case, I hope that no agreement has been reached with him.

 

I have observed, and interacted with, Cllr. Butt on a number of local issues for the past twelve of his fourteen years as Leader of Brent Council. I have watched, investigated and experienced a number of his abuses of power, to the detriment of Brent residents and the Council's reputation, and can provide detailed examples if you would like the evidence (although some of you will have witnessed this for yourselves).

 

I can imagine that Cllr. Butt will have offered inducements, such as the Leader of the Opposition role, nominations for Mayor, Chairs or Deputy Chairs of Committees. Please do not succumb to his temptations. Another four years of Muhammed Butt as Council Leader would do further damage to our borough, and facilitating it would be seen by many as unforgivable. 

 

I am also writing to the Leaders of the LibDem and Green Party Groups. If the Conservative Group stays strong, and votes with these two other Parties against any Labour proposal that Cllr. Butt should continue as Council Leader, he cannot be elected to that position of power. 

 

As Labour has the largest number of seats, but no overall majority, it is entitled to seek to have one of its councillors as Council Leader; but as Labour candidates only received 30% of the total votes cast in the 7 May Brent Council elections, the other three Parties can rightly ask the Labour Group to propose a candidate for the role who will work cooperatively with all three of them. That candidate is NOT Muhammed Butt!

 

In my view, as a long-term resident who prefers to take an independent view on any particular issue, a fair way forward for Brent Council over the next four years would be for positions of responsibility to be shared. That would be a condition which a prospective Labour Council Leader would need to agree, although they would be free to appoint their own Cabinet. 

 

If the three "opposition" Groups cannot agree on who is best suited for the role of Leader of the Opposition, I would suggest that the Leaders of each of the Conservatives and LibDem Groups should each have the role for two of the four years. The Green Party's candidates received more votes across the borough than either of those two, so the Green Group Leader should have the choice of Chairing one of the main Council Committees, such as Planning or the two Scrutiny Committees, with the other two opposition Groups nominating the Chair of the remaining two.

 

As there are now four Parties with at least nine seats on the Council, it would not seem unreasonable that each should nominate one of their councillors to serve as Mayor during the four years to 2030. I would suggest: for this coming municipal year, a Labour Mayor with a Conservative Deputy; for 2027/28, a Conservative Mayor with a LibDem Deputy; for 2028/29, a LibDem Mayor with a Green Deputy; for 2029/30, a Green Mayor with a Labour Deputy.

 

I hope that you, and your Conservative colleagues, will seriously consider my views and suggestions, along with your fellow councillors from other parties, particularly my strongly held belief that Cllr. Muhammed Butt should not be allowed to continue as Council Leader, Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

 

Cllr. Muhammed Butt refusing to respond to a Point of Order I raised, as a petitioner at the May 2024 Cabinet meeting, when he declared his preferred option agreed, despite no Cabinet members raising their hands or speaking, and without even seeking a vote on the second option in the Officers’ Report. (Screenshot from the Brent webcast recording)

 

You may not agree with what I wrote, and will probably not wish to go into as much detail, but if you have a view on who should (or should not) be Leader of Brent Council for the next four years, or how the new Council should be organised so that the views of the 70% of residents who did not vote for Labour candidates are properly represented, you have just as much right as I have to let your councillors know what you think. I hope that at least some of you will.

 

As I said in my email above, I have also written to the Leaders of the Lib Dem and Green Groups on the new Council, and have heard back from both of them (although I have had no response yet from my Conservative councillors, or any of their colleagues). Cllr. Anton Georgiou let me know what his Group’s position is, and said I could share it publicly:

 

‘To be absolutely clear, the Lib Dem Group that I lead will never make any deals or arrangements with Cllr Butt’s Labour Group. The time has come for Cllr Butt to vacate the position of Leader of the Council and allow fresh, new leadership in Brent. That is what residents voted for last week.’

 

Cllr. Mary Mitchell asked me not to share the details of the Green Group’s position publicly, but in general terms they believe that the Brent’s voters have demanded change. They want to see that change brought about in the way decisions are made, including genuine collaboration, scrutiny and accountability. 

 

The Lib Dem Leader has already shared his views publicly with our local newspaper, as you may have seen on the front page of this week’s “Brent and Kilburn Times”:

 

The front page story in Thursday’s local newspaper.

 

Will Cllr. Butt still be smiling after next Wednesday evening’s meeting at the Civic Centre? We may not have a vote at that Annual Meeting, but we have the chance to influence the outcome, if we share our views with our councillors!

Philip Grant.