Guest Post: ‘Why Land Value Tax is the key to real devolution’ by Murad Qureshi

 

Source:  

https://www.landvaluetax.co.uk/about-lvt/what-is-lvt

 

 

The advent of Andy Burnham as Labour Leader and Prime Minister, has brought Land Value Tax into the spotlight as a way of addressing the iniquities of Council Tax. It is a tax favoured by some in the Labour Party and the not very prominent policy of the Green Party. The latter may change as politicians across parties try to address the crisis in local government financing.

 

Murad Qureshi, former chair of the London Assembly Environment Committee, has given Wembley Matters  kind permission to reproduce his timely article first published in London List LINK. I publish it as a Guest Post.

 

   

In [a]  previous piece for LabourList, I argued that Britain’s broken, regressive property tax system demands bold, systemic reform. Council Tax, frozen in 1991, economically damaging Stamp Duty, and punitive Business Rates do nothing but entrench inequality and stifle local growth. For a Labour government aiming to build an economy that works for the many, Land Value Tax (LVT) represents the most rational, growth-friendly path forward.

But the case for LVT extends far beyond national Treasury spreadsheets. If we are serious about shifting power out of Westminster, LVT is the foundational tool required to make regional devolution a reality. This reality was brought into sharp focus by Andy Burnham’s major policy speech at the People’s History Museum in Manchester.

Championing a philosophy he terms “Manchesterism,” Burnham laid out a sweeping vision for his forthcoming administration, headlined by a “No. 10 North” to coordinate regional growth and a radical overhaul of business rates. While his immediate focus is on practical adjustments—like slashing hospitality rates and penalising giant online distribution warehouses—these proposals directly align with his long-standing advocacy for LVT. Burnham has consistently argued that “land is under-taxed”. By blending his fiscal localisation strategy with the principles of LVT, we can fundamentally supercharge UK devolution in three key ways.

 

Smashing the “Whitehall Cap” with Financial Autonomy

True devolution cannot exist on an allowance. Currently, metro mayors and local councils are trapped, heavily relying on central government grants or highly regressive, outdated tax systems. As Burnham rightly points out, it is absurd that a modest family home in Blackpool can face a comparable tax burden to a multimillion-pound property in London due to outdated Council Tax bands.

To fund local infrastructure, leaders shouldn’t have to “beg” Whitehall. Transitioning toward an LVT—or a Proportional Property Tax as a stepping stone—allows local authorities to capture revenue directly from the unimproved value of the land itself. Because land value is largely created by the community through infrastructure, schools, and jobs, capturing this wealth locally grants regions stable, independent funding. This breaks the financial leash, giving areas like Greater Manchester the genuine autonomy to invest in their own futures.

Ending the “Housing Trap” and Spurring Regeneration

In his Manchester address, Burnham prioritised lifting Britain out of a chronic “housing trap” by accelerating council house building and revitalising empty town centres. Our current system penalises progress; if a developer improves a site, their taxes rise, but if they leave a storefront vacant or a plot empty, they face little penalty.

An LVT flips this incentive structure. By taxing the underlying value of the land regardless of what is built on it, land banking and speculation become financially unsustainable. Speculative landlords can no longer hoard vacant sites in hope of unearned windfalls. This creates a highly productive form of taxation that forces development, empowering combined authorities to reclaim brownfield sites and transform them into affordable homes.

Rebalancing Wealth Across the Postcodes

Devolution only succeeds if regional economies possess the baseline wealth to sustain themselves. Because land values are exponentially higher in London and the South East, LVT naturally shifts the national tax burden onto these high-value areas.

This shift provides a massive financial breather to middle and lower income postcodes across the North, Midlands, and coastal towns. By freezing or reducing the tax burden on working families, we free up local household income. This keeps wealth circulating within the regional economy rather than draining back into the capital, fostering what Burnham calls “good growth in every postcode.”

The Rational Path Forward

Burnham’s call for a “No. 10 North” and immediate business rates reform shows that the appetite for radical decentralisation is there. But temporary tweaks to business rates are just the beginning.

To permanently shift civil service power and economic gravity away from London, we must alter the tax foundation beneath our feet. As the Labour Land Campaign has long championed, LVT is not a radical fringe theory; it is a market-efficient, progressive mechanism backed by modern digital mapping and Land Registry data.

If Labour wants to deliver on the promise of national renewal, it should look to the trailblazing vision emerging from the North. By backing Land Value Taxation, the party can provide leaders like Andy Burnham with the permanent fiscal teeth needed to make devolution a lasting success.

 

EDITOR'S ADDITIONAL NOTES 

www.economicsobservatory.com notes that tax proposals from the Greens include a land value tax and more aggressive carbon pricing. Land value taxes – which have a long intellectual tradition going back to founding fathers of economics Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill – attract unusually wide-ranging support, with the New Economics Foundation, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and the Institute for Economic Affairs among those in favour of the policy, as well as academics such as John Muellbauer (2023)

   

The case for a land value tax is overwhelming Martin Wolf Financial Times 

Labour Land Campaign 

Briefing Paper for Motion: The GPEW Manifesto 2024 and Economics

 

 

Key questions remain unanswered about the Health & Wellbeing Hub in Gladstone Park

 

The proposed building

The proposed Health and Wellbeing Hub  in Gladstone Park has aroused some strong feelings on either side with debate on Wembley Matters and Next Door. In particular read the comments as well as the Letters:    LETTER: We have not been told the whole story about the Gladstone Park Health Hub and  LETTER: Gladstone Park Medical Centre - Is there a Phase 2? What is it?

Cllr Mary Mitchell, Green councillor for Willesden Green ward where the Hub is planned to be situated, has been carefully considering the issues involved.

Cllr Mitchell writes:  

As Brent Council prepares to consider plans for a new Health and Wellbeing Hub in Gladstone Park, I have written to the Leader of the Council, Cabinet Members and the Chair of the Planning Committee to set out a number of concerns that I believe should be addressed before the application is determined.

To be clear, I support the expansion of local GP services and recognise the need for improved healthcare provision across Brent. However, I am not yet convinced that building on Metropolitan Open Land is the only way to achieve this.

My letter calls for greater transparency over how the site was chosen, fuller assessment of alternative locations, clearer evidence of the project’s environmental and community impacts, and a more informed public consultation before decisions are taken on the use of protected public land and nearly £3 million of public funding.

I hope the letter contributes constructively to the debate and helps ensure that residents have access to the information they need as this important planning application progresses.

Full text below:

 

To Cllr Muhammed Butt, the Leader of the Council, Cllr Saqib Butt, the Chair of Brent Planning Committee, Cllr Matt Kelcher, Lead Member for Planning and Regeneration, and Cllr Liz Dixon, Lead Member for Community Safety and Public Health.

 

As we imminently expect the submission of the full planning application for the proposed Willesden Health and Wellbeing Hub in Gladstone Park, I wanted to set out my concerns, building on those I raised in my emails of 26 March and 28 April to the former Cabinet Member for Regeneration.

I fully recognise the need to expand GP provision in Cricklewood, Willesden Green and across Brent and support these efforts. However, there are a number of significant concerns that this plan raises, which I hope can be addressed through the provision of additional information to support the planning process, and made public to residents to ensure adequate transparency and scrutiny.

 

I believe that the Planning Committee should seek the following information before determining the application.

 

1. Confidence in the assessment of alternative sites

 

The proposed site is the former Gladstone Youth and Community Centre at 162 Anson Road, adjacent to the children’s playground. Although buildings currently exist on the site, it is designated Metropolitan Open Land.

 

Metropolitan Open Land benefits from the highest level of planning protection in London with Policy G3 of the London Plan affording MOL the same level of protection as Green Belt. Any proposal seeking to override that designation on the basis of “very special circumstances” must therefore be supported by compelling evidence and subject to exceptional scrutiny. Although every planning application must be determined on its own merits, approval of development on MOL in this instance would inevitably be cited in future proposals affecting similarly protected land.

 

At a time of increasing biodiversity loss, urban heat stress and surface water flood risk, it is essential that this designation is only overridden where the justification is clear and robust. It is therefore essential that the evidence underpinning site selection is robust, up to date and available for public scrutiny.

 

The Committee should require publication of a more recent NHS Estates options appraisal demonstrating why this site is the only viable location. The most recent feasibility work referenced dates from 2023 and, importantly, Brent Council confirmed on 14 May by email that it “does not hold the full NHS/applicant site-wide assessment or options appraisal.” It is difficult to conclude that the “very special circumstances” test has been met if the underlying evidence is unavailable.

 

The Council should also demonstrate that it has independently assessed alternative locations rather than relying solely on the NHS Estates process. If it is prepared to provide public land to facilitate the relocation of Willesden Green Surgery, it should be able to evidence that no other suitable site exists to serve residents in the Church End, Neasden Stations and Staples Corner growth areas.

 

In particular, I would welcome an explanation of why this flagship Integrated Care Centre cannot be accommodated within one of Brent’s designated regeneration areas. 

 

For example, Site Allocation BSSA2 within the Church End Growth Area Masterplan already identifies provision for a 1,855m² health facility. Likewise, the Council should explain why existing assets, such as the former Neasden Library within the Neasden Growth Area, have not been considered appropriate alternatives.

 

The Committee should also clarify why a single flagship practice serving upwards of 20,000 patients is considered preferable to a distributed “hub and spokes” model using smaller premises, potentially including Council-owned buildings such as 395 Chapter Road, a designated health centre that currently stands empty. Such an approach could reduce travel distances for patients while aligning with the Government’s “Health on the High Street” agenda.

 

2. Transparency about the scale and type of the proposed development, and the decision-making process that has led to this partnership between the Council and the Willesden Green Surgery

The Committee should receive full transparency regarding the process through which this site was selected and the basis upon which a 150-year peppercorn lease is proposed, enabling a private enterprise to profit from public land.

 

Given the value of both the public land being given to the GP practice with no yearly rental costs, and the proposed £2.97 million Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy allocation, residents are entitled to understand on what basis this offer was made, and whether this financial subsidy was also offered to other GP practices to enable their growth.

 

The patient catchment should also be clarified. Residents should note that the consultation catchment was amended only two days before the close of the initial consultation period, on 30 March, to include a 1.5-mile catchment area. This inevitably affects how residents interpret the scale and impact of the proposal.

 

Wider detail of how this site has been assessed and fits into the wider healthcare picture for Brent would increase transparency and help to provide confidence in this plan. Is this Hub designed to be a Neighbourhood Health Centre (with a minimum patient roll of 30,000 patients)? Guidance from NHS England on Neighbourhood Health Centres (NHCs) in April 2026^[1] states that where new build centres are proposed, locations including town and local centres and high streets should normally be preferred.

Where a new NHC is proposed away from an existing community focal point, a local authority assessment may be provided. There are requirements for Integrated Care Boards to propose a pipeline of NHCs and how they are organised across the footprint to deliver effective clinical strategies. If these activities have taken place, they have not been made public.

 

Furthermore the ongoing financial management and governance of the NHC should be made available, so as to assess the Council’s role in financially supporting it. It is noted that there is no reference to the establishment of an NHC in any public papers from the Brent Health & Wellbeing Board, Brent Primary Care Executive Group, or the North West London Integrated Care Partnership board meetings as would reasonably be expected.

 

3. A full assessment of impact

 

Before determining the application, the Committee should require a comprehensive Travel Plan demonstrating how patients from Church End, Staples Corner and the wider catchment will access the site. This should assess public transport, walking routes, parking demand and traffic impacts. 

For some patients, particularly those with mobility issues, attending appointments may require multiple bus journeys despite the proposal being intended to improve access to healthcare.

 

The application should also include a robust assessment of footfall on the park and the local area and knock-on impacts such as littering. The proposal represents a significant change in the use of the site, from recreation and community use to a healthcare facility operating seven days a week, employing between 50 and 100 staff and potentially attracting up to 1,000 visitors each day.

 

Although the building is intended to achieve a high BREEAM standard, this should not substitute for assessing the wider environmental impacts of the development itself. Construction impacts, biodiversity, urban heat, carbon emissions and surface water flood risk all require careful consideration, particularly as the site is identified as being at high risk of surface water flooding.

 

4. An updated and comprehensive view of community benefit

 

The proposal also involves the permanent loss of an existing community site on open public land. While the current buildings are no longer fit for purpose, this reflects decades of underinvestment rather than an absence of community need. The former community centre, with estimated repair costs of around £410,000, could potentially have been refurbished or repurposed to meet any of the very real community needs residents in Willesden Green and Cricklewood have, including youth services and recreation. This proposal should therefore be considered in the wider context of Brent’s continuing loss of community assets, including libraries and community centres.

The Committee should seek updated proposals for the café and first-floor community space, reflecting the feedback received during consultation. Although Cabinet has already approved £2.97 million of Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy funding, the planning process should still consider whether the community facilities genuinely reflect identified local need.

 

Residents are entitled to understand why this represents the best use of almost £3 million of developer contributions when alternative investments across Willesden Green and Cricklewood, including youth provision, crime prevention initiatives and the refurbishment of existing community facilities, could potentially deliver greater community benefit at significantly lower cost.

 

5. A new consultation process

 

Finally, I hope the Planning Committee will ensure that residents are able to comment on the application with all the relevant evidence before them. Without the Travel Plan, assessments of footfall and environmental impact, and with the patient catchment only expanded towards the end of the original consultation period, it is difficult to conclude that residents participating in the first stage of engagement were fully informed.

 

If Brent Council continues to support this scheme, including through the allocation of £2.97 million of Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy funding and the proposed grant of public land through a long-term peppercorn lease, I would encourage those who have championed the project including the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Planning to engage directly with residents during the planning process. To date, much of the public advocacy has fallen to the Willesden Green Medical Practice. Those responsible for the Council’s decisions concerning public land and public funding must be prepared to explain and defend those decisions openly.

 

I remain fully supportive of expanding healthcare provision for Brent residents. However, I am not yet persuaded that the Council has demonstrated why this development must take place on Metropolitan Open Land, why alternative sites have been discounted, or why this proposal represents the best use of both scarce public land within the boundaries of a much used and much loved local park and £2.97 million of Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy funding.

 

I hope these issues will be addressed before the application is determined, and I look forward to continuing to engage constructively throughout the planning process to ensure that Brent delivers both the healthcare facilities and the public spaces that our growing communities need.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Councillor Mary Mitchell

 

Ward Councillor for Willesden Green

Guest Post: Tech Giants, the CNI "Loophole," and the Battle for Park Royal’s Environmental Future

 

Image from actonw3

   

Guest post by Olivia Law-Zygadlo

A major planning battle is brewing on the borders of Brent and Ealing that should concern every resident who cares about local democracy, corporate transparency, and the air we breathe.

This Friday, July 17th, residents from North Acton’s Wesley Estate will protest a proposed mega-data centre at the Frogmore Industrial Estate (NW10 7NQ). Modern data centres are notorious energy drains, requiring immense power grids and cooling systems that create persistent noise and strain local infrastructure. Residents are rightfully demanding that the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) enforce strict environmental protections and mandate transparent air quality monitoring from Brent and Ealing councils.

However, this local planning application highlights a broader national issue.

The CNI "Shield"

Increasingly, tech infrastructure operators are using Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) designation to bypass standard planning scrutiny. Since the government designated the UK data centre sector as CNI in September 2024, operators have leaned on this status to secure smoother planning treatment.

If planning authorities treat sector-wide CNI status as a reason to lower environmental scrutiny, it sets a dangerous precedent. When operators like Kao Data invoke "national security and vital infrastructure," they effectively create a against local accountability. Our message to the OPDC and the national government must be uniform: there should be no CNI-linked planning advantage without mandatory green standards. If the sector is critical enough to sit alongside water and energy providers, protecting local air quality and the climate must be a non-negotiable condition.

The Role of the OPDC and Cllr Matt Kelcher

Because this development sits within the multi-million-pound Park Royal regeneration zone, the ultimate planning and development authority does not rest with standard council planning boards. It rests with the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC). 

This brings us to a familiar face in Brent politics: Councillor Matt Kelcher.  

   

Not only is Cllr Kelcher  Brent's Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Planning, overseeing major local development portfolios, but he was a long-serving voting member of the OPDC Planning Committee, representing the interests of the London Borough of Brent, where portions of the OPDC boundary fall, during the critical early stages and milestone planning decisions for these major local developments

 

A key question from residents is whether Cllr Kelcher will declare and recuse himself from regeneration and planning decisions given his professional role at TheCityUK. While TheCityUK represents the financial and professional services sector rather than the data centre industry itself, its membership consists of the UK’s largest consumers of digital infrastructure, who rely heavily on data centres to manage risk, host digital services, and process high-volume financial transactions. Residents are asking whether this close alignment between his professional focus and the heavy reliance of his members on data capacity creates a perceived conflict of interest with his impartial responsibilities on the OPDC planning committee.

 

CAMPAIGN WEBSITE 

Cllr Alexandre calls on the Met to make 'More Trust, Less Crime and High Standards' a reality for Harlesden - the Met responds

 

  

Cllr Amandine Alexandre, elected as a councillor for Harlesden and Kensal Green in May, has written to  the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, Detective Chief Superintendent Luke Williams, Northwest Commander for Barnet, Brent and Harrow, Detective Superintendent Tony Bellis, Superintendent for Safer Neighbourhoods in Brent, Inspector Naomi Wilder, Inspector Harlesden and Kensal Green Safer Neighbourhoods Team, raising residents' concerns over policing in Harlesden.

 

The Green Party councillor wrote:

 

Dear Mayor of London, DCS Luke Williams, DS Tony Bells and Insp. Wilder,

 

I am writing to you as a councillor for Harlesden and Kensal Green and a long term local resident.

 

Over the last two months, I have received multiple emails and messages from Harlesden residents alerting me to drug taking, drug dealing, threats, thefts and antisocial behaviour happening on their doorstep as well as on the high street.

 

Since the three attempted murders in Golders Green on April 29th, the absence of police officers patrolling the streets of Harlesden has been worse than usual. Over the last three months, Harlesden and Kensal Green have lost out every time an urgent policing matter arose in north west London. 

 

Unsurprisingly, the dispatching of police officers to other neighbourhoods has led to an increase in the number of crimes reported to the police in Harlesden, as confirmed by Sergeant Sarney during a Safer Neighbourhood Panel meeting held on July 2nd.

 

Sergeant Sarney’s dedication to Harlesden is outstanding. The fact that he’s been in his job for about 5 years - whereas his predecessors only lasted a few months - says a lot about his commitment to our area and his professional ethos. However, with officers only available to focus on the ward Safer Neighbourhood Panel’s priorities 3-4 days per month, Sergeant Sarney is not able to serve the needs of our community.

 

Police officers are demoralised and the fact that the surge of police activity that we have been promised in August relies on them doing extra overtime does not bode well for local safety - nor does it for the health and wellbeing of members of the police.

 

Instead of burn-out police officers working with a very short term objective, our community needs a stable and visible police force, able to work collaboratively with residents, business owners, grassroots organisations and council services. In other words, action is required to ensure that the number of police officers deployed every week  in Harlesden is adequate to our policing needs.

 

Boots on the ground alone won’t be enough to make our area safer and overall more pleasant. We need all police officers to care about Harlesden as much as we do.

 

For years, we have been told that for crime to be tackled by the police in Harlesden we, residents, needed to report it to the police to build up the data. However, no amount of reporting will be sufficient if those reports are not followed up by action.

 

“If members of the public take the time to report crimes and provide evidence, but the police do not even follow up to collect it, what hope is there of improving the local area or tackling repeat offending?”,  a resident questioned in an email he sent me on May 14th.

 

Residents expect the same diligence from police officers than in less deprived areas of Brent, and London in general. And yet, based on incidents reported to me, it seems that some officers are not very inclined to tackle crime in Harlesden.

 

Recently, a police officer was encouraged by a member of the public to approach a person smoking crack a few meters away from their car. The officer didn’t budge “because it’s Harlesden” and “(they) don’t care”.

 

This incident is not dissimilar to another disturbing story that was recounted to me only last week.

 

A resident emailed me to complain about the fact that they had submitted 6 reports to the police about crack cocaine use on Craven Park Road but were yet to hear back from anyone. On one occasion, the same person walked past a police officer and immediately reported the incident to him. Despite the scene taking place a few minutes away from where the officer was standing, the witness was told to go online to create a report.

 

I think that you will agree with me that this haphazard kind of law enforcement is not up to the standards expected from our police forces. This is not conducive to people trusting the police to keep our neighbourhood safe.

 

I am therefore asking you for assurances that ;

●      the Harlesden Town Centre and Safer Neighbourhood Teams won’t be sent to over parts of the borough going forward,

●      a ward-level violence reduction strategy, including work with schools, youth services, community groups and local partners, is implemented in Harlesden,

●      police officers will be reminded that their duties to the public do not differ depending on the area they operate,

●      the person who will take over from Sergeant Sarney in the coming month shares the same level of commitment to Harlesden and Kensal Green as their predecessor.

 

More Trust, Less Crime and High Standards is the ambition the Met has set for itself. It is an ambition that needs to become a reality for residents, business owners, workers and organisations in Harlesden and Kensal Green.

 

Finally, I’d like to bring your attention to the fact that, as part of the Pride in Place government programme, Harlesden is about to receive £20 million over the next 10 years. For our neighbourhood to be more prosperous and more resilient, we need adequate policing resources in Harlesden. Otherwise, the risk is this grant won’t lead to any major improvement of people’s lives.

 

Thank you for the attention paid to my letter.

 

I look forward to hearing back from you and sharing your response with Harlesden and Kensal Green residents.

 

Kind regards,

 

Cllr Amandine Alexandre

Councillor for Harlesden and Kensal Green

 

Detective Superintendent Tony Bellis, Brent Safer Neighbourhoods, replied:

  

Dear Councillor Alexandre,

 

Thank you for your letter of 7 July 2026 regarding policing and community safety in Harlesden and Kensal Green. I recognise the concerns that you and residents have raised and welcome the opportunity to respond. 

 

The Metropolitan Police Service remains committed to tackling crime, anti-social behaviour and violence in Harlesden. I appreciate the impact that these issues can have on residents, businesses and visitors and I fully understand why communities rightly expect a visible and effective policing response. 

 

You raise concerns regarding neighbourhood policing resources and the deployment of officers. While I recognise those concerns, it is not possible for me to provide assurances that specific police teams will not be deployed elsewhere. Across London policing resources must remain capable of responding to emerging threats, serious incidents and operational demands. Decisions regarding deployments are therefore made on the basis of threat, harm and risk and are kept under constant review to ensure we meet our responsibilities to keep communities safe.

 

That said I want to reassure residents that we remain committed to maintaining a visible and effective neighbourhood policing presence in Harlesden. Neighbourhood policing is most effective when officers are able to build relationships with residents, businesses, schools, community groups and local partners over time. We recognise the importance of that continuity and remain committed to providing a regular and sustained neighbourhood policing service to the community.

 

While I recognise residents' concerns, it is important to note that Harlesden has continued to receive significant proactive policing activity in recent weeks.

 

Recent activity has included:

 

-       A Live Facial Recognition operation in Harlesden on 26 June, resulting in four arrests.

-       Operation Terminos 3 across Harlesden and Willesden Green, which resulted in twenty five arrests, including the arrest of wanted offenders and the recovery of drugs and a weapon.

-       Knife arch operations in Harlesden Town Centre which resulted in two arrests.

 

These outcomes demonstrate the continued focus being placed on tackling offending and addressing issues that matter to local residents.

 

You also refer to the development of strategies to address violence and wider community safety issues. While I recognise the importance of this work, there are already established and effective partnership arrangements in place through the Safer Brent Partnership and associated multi-agency forums. These arrangements bring together the Metropolitan Police, Brent Council, health partners, education providers, housing services, youth services, probation and community organisations to review emerging issues, share information, identify those most at risk of harm and coordinate both enforcement and preventative activity.

 

Through these forums, partners work collectively to address a range of issues including violence affecting young people, anti-social behaviour, substance misuse, exploitation, neighbourhood crime and safeguarding concerns. This enables a coordinated response that extends beyond enforcement activity alone and focuses on addressing the underlying causes of offending, vulnerability and community harm.

 

Community safety challenges within Harlesden are regularly considered through these established structures, ensuring that local concerns inform partnership priorities and activity. We will continue to work closely with our partners to ensure that resources, interventions and problem-solving activity are directed towards those areas and issues presenting the greatest threat, risk and harm.

 

 

I agree that all communities across Brent should receive a professional and consistent service. We continue to work closely with neighbourhood policing teams to ensure that reports from the public are assessed appropriately and that officers remain focused on the issues causing the greatest harm within our communities.

 

I would also like to join you in recognising Sergeant Sarney's commitment to Harlesden over recent years. The value of strong neighbourhood policing leadership is fully understood, and we remain committed to maintaining effective engagement with residents, businesses and local partners.

 

Harlesden is an important part of Brent and remains a priority for local policing. While no single agency can address these challenges alone, we will continue to work alongside residents, councillors, Brent Council and our wider partners to tackle crime, anti-social behaviour and the issues that matter most to the community.

 

Thank you again for writing.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Detective Superintendent Tony Bellis
Safer Neighbourhoods – Brent

 

Brent Planning Committee: Were opponents of the Thanet Lodge application 'nobbled'?

 

 

Brent Planning Committee on July 2nd was far from routine. The application for regeneration of the Wembley Hospital site was eventually deferred after an initial decision in favour was overturned when it was revealed that one councillor who had been in favour was found not to have attended throughout. The vote had passed on the Chair's casting vote. The disqualification meant that the vote was now against. When David Glover raised doubts about the validity of some of the councillors' reasons for opposing grant planning permission, the item was deferred to a future meeting.

The last application  heard was to build a house on land currently used for Thanet Lodge garages in Brondesbury Park. This was even more controversial with a resident alleging intimidation by the applicant of Thetford Lodge leaseholders who opposed the development. This had led to some of them fearing going public with their opposition on the Brent Council Planning Portal. In a presentation to the Committee the resident gave examples of intimidation and said that the application should not proceed as there had not been a fair and full consultation process.

The Chair, Saqib Butt, David Glover, Head of Planning and Development Services, and the Planning Legal Officer combined to say that this was not a material planning consideration and could not be taken into account.

The resident was supported  by Cllr Ryan Hack, ward councillor for Brondesbury Park who repeated the bullying claims and suggested it was similar to 'nobbling a jury'. Officers remained adamant and I had the feeling that even if an applicant had buried his opponents under a car park it would still have not been enough to stop a hearing. 

The resident said that he had reported the intimidation to the police who had expressed concern but did not have the resources to follow up.

The applicant's agent denied that intimidation had taken place and dismissed the representations as 'theatricals' and said councillors has been 'bamboozled'. He suggested that out of 60 letters sent out, there had been 20 responses which was a good response rate. All responses had been against the proposal.

Having expressed concern over a 'compromised' process. Cllr Suzanne Gallagher, explored the applicant's claim that this  was a self-build project and as such exempt from paying Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)  and meeting Biological Net Gain targets.  She raised doubts about the validity of the self-build claim after looking up the definition and legislation..

With doubts piling up David Glover appeared to have been doing some internet searching of his own and intervened to say that there appeared to be problems with the ownership certificate for the site.

The Committee agreed to defer this application 'to allow the ownership certificates relating to the application to be evaluated prior to determination and to clarify whether the scheme would fall within the definition of self-build'.  

 

If you have time it is well worth watching the video above. The item was discussed for almost an hour.

 

PS: