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. 

Cllr Kelcher plays a highly prominent role in determining how our local landscape changes. Not only is he a leading Brent Cabinet Member, but he sits directly as a member of the OPDC Planning Committee, representing the interests of the London Borough of Brent where portions of the OPDC boundary fall. .

A key question from residents is whether Cllr Kelcher will declare and recuse himself from 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:  

 

 

'Stop the loss of more green and well used spaces in the South Kilburn high density building area' - Plea to save Granville Rec

 

South Kilburn residents stand up to to show their support for Granville Rec at the Council Meeting 

 

This is the speech Leslie Barson made about the Granville Rec, a rare mature greem space in South Kilburn:

   

I'd like to thank Pete Firmin, for presenting an overview of the structural problems  that we face in South Kilburn for more than twenty years. It's important to address this new council at the beginning of its term for you to know about the situation in South Kilburn. I'm here from Granville Community Kitchen and have worked at the Granville and South Kilburn for more than 30 years. I want to talk about saving a small pocket park on Granville Road, which residents named The Granville Recreation Ground, The Rec.

 

The history of this small space is that it was opened in 2009 when Granville New Homes were built on much of the open space that had been on Granville Road.  The Rec was built to replace open space lost at that time.  Unfortunately, there was no money to manage it.  It fell into disrepair and became a site for anti-social behaviour. With the eventual outcome that about 2011, it was locked permanently. 

 

It was then left abandoned, unused and unloved until 2023, when it was given to Granville Community Kitchen as a temporary place to grow food. GCK lost its garden space with the building of the new garden hall built in the garden at the front of Granville. 

 

After working hard for our first year uncovering the Rec, we have been able to fill it with flowers,  food.  Children, families, elderly people, the isolated, and learning projects for children, young people and adults.

 

We have shown that if it is managed well the Rec can be lovely, wanted, much used place and an asset to residents for their mental and physical health as well as an asset to environmental health and even supporting economic health giving residents vegetables and upskilling volunteers toward possible employment. 

 

In 3 years we have been managing the Rec we have brought it back to life

 

In 2025 alone:

 

407 visitors to education sessions

275 school learners

1102 educational sessions

2 open events with over 100 people attending 

And volunteers sessions twice a week

 

It is used by

Brent family services

Salisbury world refugee project

Local people birthday parties

Over 100 kg of veg distributed to volunteers , community meals and local residents 

 

The regeneration plans to build 14 new homes 4 stories high, completely covering the site with buildings.

 

In these plans a new space bigger than Rec and relocated on the edge of the estate near Kilburn Park tube is to be made as a ‘replacement’. It is called a ‘pedestrianised environment’ and is 10002m bigger than Rec but with trees planted in regimented rows with a road and parking going through this pedestrian area. 

 

There are many reasons why we object to this plan and why this pedestrianised area is NOT a replacement for the loss of old biodiverse land.

 

1.Location and Accessibility

The existing park is centrally located within the South Kilburn estate, making it easily accessible to residents. The proposed replacement would be situated on the edge of the estate, reducing its integration with the community.

2.Size and Usability:  

 

While the new space is technically larger (2500 sqm vs. 1500 sqm), much of this area includes roads and parking. This results in:

· Reduced safe, usable space for recreation

· Only four small designated "safe spaces" within the park

· An overall decrease in pleasant, car-free areas for residents to enjoy

 

3.Conflicts with Brent Councils Policies and Goals

The current Granville Recreation Ground aligns with and supports several key Brent Council policies:

1. Climate Emergency Declaration (2019, updated 2021): Helps achieve the goal of becoming the greenest borough by 2030.
2. Clean Air Targets: Contributes to improved air quality in the area
3. Green Infrastructure Vision: Provides valuable green space within the urban environment.
4. Health Equity: Offers a natural space that promotes better health outcomes and reduces inequalities.

4.Biodiversity and Ecological Value

The existing park boasts significant biodiversity with its mature trees, diverse plant life, and undisturbed areas. The planned replacement, with its manicured design, would severely limit the potential for supporting a rich ecosystem.

5.Community Amenities

Replacing the Granville Recreation Ground with this proposed pedestrian area would result in a net loss of valuable community space and amenities, particularly in an area slated for high-density housing development.

6.Natural vs Designed Landscape

The Rec offers a more natural, wild environment with mature vegetation. In contrast, the proposed pedestrian area  is highly designed with:

·       Trees planted in regimented rows along roads

·       Less opportunity for biodiversity and natural growth

·       Reduced foraging opportunities for wildlife and residents

We have  been asking for the last year that the plans be changed for The Rec and it to be left as a park for residents. We have a Petition with nearly 1000 signatures,

 

I now, ask all  the supporters of the Rec  who made the long expensive and time consuming journey from SK to please stand up show their support to stop any building on the Rec

 

We implore the Councillors to  listen  to those who live and work in South Kilburn, rethink the plans for the Rec  and stop the loss of more green and well used spaces in such a high density building area. Please, you have the power to do this! Save the Granville Rec!

A group of Labour councillors start the fight back against the democratic restrictions of the National Scheme of Delegation for Planning Decisions,

 

 

A group of Labour Councillors supported by Chris Hinchliff MP (LINK) are organising against the  National Scheme of Delegation for Planning Decisions that reduces the role of planning committees and local residents in planning decisions. the Scheme comes into effect on October 31st.  SEE LINK

 

Given the lingering influence of ex-councillor Shama Tatler, now in Labour high places and the YIMBY (Yes in My Back Yard) movement, I rather doubt if any of our Labour councillors will sign the above but here is the link - just in case: GOOGLE DOC

Powers of local council planning committees to be further reduced - what are the implications for Brent?

Recently elected councillors to Brent Council's Planning Committee will likely find their powers severely reduced when the  National Scheme of Delegation for Planning Decisions comes into force on October 31st 2026. Councillors will finding themselves less able to represent local residents than even current restriction,  with more decisions made by Brent Council Officers. 

The is  current Labour Government legislation and part of their growth agenda, It  flies in the face of Andy Burham's 'communities first' and de-centralisation agenda.

Foot Anstey LINK explain;

Regulations due to come into force on 31 October will introduce a new framework governing how planning applications are determined by local planning authorities in England. The National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions is intended to standardise decision-making and reduce reliance on planning committees.

 

The latest figures show that 96% of planning applications in England are already determined under delegated powers, a figure that has remained stable since 2014[1]. These Regulations are expected to increase that proportion further.

 

How applications will be categorised

 

The Regulations divide applications into two broad categories.

 

Schedule 1 applications include:

 

• Householder applications
• Minor commercial development
• Minor residential development
• Applications for permission in principle

 

Schedule 2 applications comprise all other applications, together with related consents and applications, including:

 

• Major planning applications
• Applications for listed building consent and related variations
• Section 73 applications (where connected to a Schedule 2 application)
• Reserved matters approvals linked to large outline permissions
• Applications to modify or discharge planning obligations (where connected to a Schedule 2 application)

 

In practice, Schedule 2 applications generally cover more complex and strategically important development.

 

Most decisions will be made by officers

 

Schedule 1 applications must be determined by planning officers. For Schedule 2 applications, there is an “overriding presumption” in favour of determination by officers rather than by planning committee.

 

Referral to committee will only be justified if at least one of two statutory criteria is met:

 

• the application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area; or
• the application raises a significant planning matter, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations

 

This introduces a restrictive statutory test. In practice, the threshold for committee involvement will be high.

 

What counts as “significant”?

 

The guidance recognises that “significance” will vary by context, but indicates how this is likely to be interpreted in practice.

 

Examples of applications that may meet the threshold include:

 

• A large, multi-phase residential development, even if allocated in the local plan
• The loss of a community facility, such as a rural shop
• Works affecting a notable listed building in a town centre 

 

By contrast, applications are unlikely to raise a significant planning matter where:

 

• They broadly comply with an up-to-date development plan and national policy; and
• Any initial technical objections from statutory consultees have been resolved

 

This points towards a more policy-led system in which compliant proposals are less likely to be subject to committee scrutiny.

 

Actions required before 31 October

 

Many local planning authorities currently operate “call-in” arrangements, allowing councillors to refer applications to committee, or provide for automatic referral where a certain number of objections are received.

 

These provisions will not be compatible with the new Regulations and will need to be revised. Authorities will therefore need to amend their constitutions before 31 October to align with the new framework.

 

The risks of non-compliance are material. Decisions taken by the wrong decision-maker may be vulnerable to judicial review and could be quashed, creating delay and cost.

 

A shift in decision-making?

 

The National Scheme of Delegation represents a clear shift towards a more streamlined, officer-led system of determining planning applications.

 

While this is likely to improve consistency and efficiency, it also raises questions about the role of elected members in the planning process. In particular, this may reduce opportunities for local political engagement in individual applications, particularly where proposals accord with the development plan. [Editor's emphasis]

 

Much will depend on how authorities interpret “significance” in practice and how sparingly committee referral is applied within the new statutory framework.

 

Key takeaways:

 

For local planning authorities:

 

• Constitutions should be updated before 31 October to remove non-compliant provisions
• Decision-making processes should align with the new statutory tests

 

For developers and promoters:

 

• A greater proportion of applications will be determined by officers
• The “significance” threshold will be critical in determining whether committee involvement is possible
• Decisions taken at the wrong level may be open to legal challenge
• The decision-making route and any assessment of significance should be clearly recorded by the authority

---

[1] Planning applications in England: January to March 2026 - statistical release - GOV.UK