Kim Wright, Brent Chief Executive's, statement ahead of the constitution debate
The Extraordinary Council Meeting on Monday certainly lived up to its billing! The meeting followed the united opposition of the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Conservatives to changes in the constitution tabled at the last Full Council. The constitutional changes were necessary as a result of the Labour Government's changes to Planning Regulations that reduces the role of councillors and residents in planning decisions. The changes are part of the government's efforts to speed up the planning process in response to the housing crisis but there are misgivings among some Labour MPs.
The council is required to make the necessary changes by Halloween so an extraordinary meeting was necessary to resolve the issue.
Perhaps extraordinarily before the debate got underway Brent Council's CEO, Kim Wright, made an intervention in a statement outlining all the dire consequence for the authority if councillors failed to adopt the required changes. (See video above)
Addressing the concerns of councillors that they could no longer call-in applications she drew attention to a change in the original proposal LINK (in bold):
5.12 Under the national scheme of delegation, current practices set out in local authority constitutions, such as the power for ward councillors to require cases to be called in for committee consideration or having trigger points for referral to committee if a certain number of objections is reached, will not be possible.
Local authorities are required to amend their constitutions to align with the national scheme of delegation.
However, it is recognised that at the Full Council meeting on 14 September 2026 and the All Member Briefing on 1 October 2026 Members expressed concerns about these changes. In response, paragraph 2 of the terms of reference of the Planning Committee has, so far as possible, been reinstated but with necessary modifications (see Appendices). In outline, this will allow three or more Brent councillors (irrespective of political group membership) to request that certain applications be considered for referral to the Planning Committee
An indication that the unity at Full Council was broken was quickly evidenced when the Tories abstained on a Liberal Democrat amendment allowing Labour to have a narrow majority over the Lib Dems and Greens.
For the record this is the proposal from the Liberal Democrats that was not debated as result of this vote.
NEW PLANNING REGULATIONS
We note that the new Regulations imposed by the Labour Government undermine the role of locally elected Representatives and remove our abilityto effectively represent the interests of local people and our community.
In response to the new Regulations and the reduction of the role and powers of local Councillors we confirm the need to amend the Council constitution and resolve to include the following additions/changes:
1. To reduce the size of the Planning Committee to 5 members made up of Labour, 1 Liberal Democrat, 1 Conservative and 1 Green.
2. To resolve that the Chair of the Planning Committee will be a member of one of the opposition parties until May 2030 when the position will be reviewed.
3. To reflect the reduced role of the Planning Committee by reducing the SRA for the Chair of the Planning Committee to £7,500.
Specifically in relation of regulation 5(3) of the 2026 Regulations we resolve:
1. To set up an Advisory Board made up of 3 members of the Planning Committee or their alternates who will advise/inform the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer on whether a ‘qualifying’ application should be referred to the Planning Committee.
2. To ensure that when information/publicity about a planning application is issued by the Council it states
a. That the specific application will be determined by Planning Officers under delegated powers or
b. That the application falls within the defined areas of Regulation 5(3) and where a decision to refer it to the Planning Committee is possible
a clear explanation is provided on how and who makes the decision to refer the application to Committee – and if so referred explain the process the Planning Committee has to follow.
c. In all cases publish the Planning Officer Report relating to each Planning Application and the decision made and any conditions imposed.
The debate on whether to accept the changes to the constitution contained many defences of local democracy and allegations that central government was undermining the role of local councillors in representing the views of residents through planning committees. The Tories strongly condemned the Labour Government with stirring speeches that can be heard in the video below - but as you will see in the final minutes said, with something of a whimper, that they had no option but to comply and abstained - again giving Labour a majority over Liberal Democrats and Greens:
Cllr Mary Mitchell, Green Group Leader, said that the changes were borne out of the reality of the housing crisis, a crisis Greens recognised and believe requires radical solution, but the changes would further erode public trust in the planning system and strengthen the perception that the planning system is rigged in favour of those who have power and know best how to play the system. She advocated the plans of Green-led Lewisham Council to bring planning closer to local communities while also meeting housing need.
Cllr Muhammed Butt emphasised that this was not something of the council's doing: ''If there was any other way, we would have found the way.' He remained open to further discussion.
The constitutional changes were adopted by a small Labour majority over the Greens and Liberal Democrats when the Tories abstained.
Cllr Anton Georgiou, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said he could see that some Labour councillors were uncomfortable and warned them that they would have to defend themselves when residents came to complain that they had no say in planning applications.
The planning system will now hand over most decision-making to council officers as illustrated in the Brent Council document below:
12 comments:
Excellent news, at last trained professionals will have more weight in the planning process rather than two-bit ill informed politicians who are only worried about getting votes.
"Trained professionals" who do not live in Brent and who do not have to put up with the consequences of their decisions?
So the brother of the current Labour Leader will collect over £15,000 of taxpayers money for being the Chair of Planning Committee that will hardly ever meet as a result of local planning decisions being taken away from local Councillors who Brent elected just a few months ago. How refreshing for the Labour Government to impose North Korean style democracy on our area.
When will the Tories show some bottle and STOP propping up the discredited Labour Administration? Is that what Tory voters voted for?
Brentexit South Kilburn, Stonebridge, St Raphael's....
Bizarre Brent 'meanwhile trusts' on council estates passing on social infrastructure bit-by-bit to developers no longer needed.
Lets hope that the new Brent Local Plan clearly states Brents actual strategy of fully existing South Kilburn by 2050. A full justification of 'small Brent' policy would be basic human respect too.
small b- rent
Object today - 15th Oct is the deadline at 5pm. This is from Barnwt groups: Are you aware of the London Plan? : BARNET RESIDENTS HAVE UNTIL 5PM TODAY, THURSDAY 15 OCTOBER, TO HAVE THEIR SAY
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is consulting on a new London Plan. This is the strategic planning framework that will shape how London develops over the next 20 to 25 years, including housing, building heights and density, transport, infrastructure, the environment and land use.
This matters to Barnet because the London Plan forms part of the statutory planning framework that local councils have to work within when making planning decisions. Barnet’s own Local Plan must be in general conformity with it.
The Mayor also has separate powers to call in major planning applications, meaning City Hall can take over a planning application and become the planning authority instead of the local council. This is what happened with the Great North Leisure Park: Barnet Council refused the application, but the Mayor subsequently called it in and became responsible for approving it.
So this is not simply about one development. The policies being consulted on now will help shape the planning framework within which future decisions affecting Barnet are made.
Barnet is facing significant growth, while local evidence identifies areas that could potentially be suitable for greater-density development, including Green Belt and other open land. The Great North Leisure Park is also part of the wider development picture.
The consultation closes at 5pm TODAY, Thursday 15 October.
If you are a Barnet resident and are concerned about what these policies could mean, you can make your views known. You do not have to comment on the whole Plan. You can respond only to the sections that concern you.
EMAIL: londonplan@london.gov.uk
You can copy and paste this:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a resident of Barnet and wish to object to aspects of the Draft London Plan that could have a significant impact on our borough.
I am particularly concerned about the scale of housing growth proposed for Barnet and whether our transport, schools, healthcare and other infrastructure can support it.
I am also concerned about the potential impact of greater-density development on Green Belt land, playing fields, open spaces and existing communities.
I believe planning decisions affecting Barnet should properly reflect local circumstances, infrastructure capacity, environmental assets and the needs of existing residents.
I am also concerned about the increasing role of City Hall in major planning decisions and the ability of the Mayor to take decisions away from locally elected councils.
I ask that these issues are properly considered and that the relevant policies are reconsidered before the London Plan is adopted.
Yours faithfully
'Professional' enough to build life raft protected conservation areas segregated away as 'another country' from the rest of the Brent grow, grow, grow, no final plan, climate denial.....
Financialisation-led.
The London Plan is a rigid fix, very much like the Brent Local Plan is. Tenants certainly can't influence this domination with its arbitrary inclusion and exclusion zonings.
What's interesting is where Local, Regional and National Government are in a co-ordinated way abandoning highest density tenanted zones to be private tower lord de-regulation estates. The chosen state method this, to achieve small government and reduce the welfare (wellbeing) bill by simply not providing to scale welfare state infrastructure to car-free housing private tower zones.
Local, Regional and National Government EXIT these zones where public services will be flaky, less will rapidly become too much- that's what meanwhile trusts are for.
Planning Officers already decide the vast majority of applications in Brent, so for most applications in future, this should not make a difference.
However, although they are trained professionals, they do sometimes get things wrong, and it is important that their recommendations to approve applications in contentious cases are subject to public scrutiny at Planning Committee meetings.
I will give two examples from past meetings where applications which would not go to Committee in future were decided, but with differing outcomes.
When George Irwin's application to demolish two former park keeper 's houses in Barham Park and replace them with four taller ones a couple of years ago, Officers recommended approval. The Officers'. Report misrepresented the effect of adopted policies in the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan, which should have meant that the application be refused, and local councillors from both Labour and LibDem parties pointed this out at the meeting. Despite this, the Labour majority on the Committee approved the application.
An application for a modern square house on a narrow strip of grass verge next to a c.1930 house in Preston Road was also recommended for approval by Planning Officers. This was despite it breaching several Brent planning policies.In this case the importance of the policy which was meant to protect the inter war character of the area persuaded Planning Committee to reject the application. That was an example of the Committee doing it's job properly, and scrutinizing a case where our trained professional Officers had got it wrong.
Getting it wrong....
Orwell House South Kilburn, the only post Grenfell single staircase new build tower in England, opened 2025.
Connected to the Public Services ( Social Value) Act 2012 and its Social Value Model (2026) whereby;
Central government defines social value in procurement as “taking account of how a supplier will work for our communities to provide good British jobs, skills and opportunities in every postcode.”
Ballymore in the NW6 postcode, but Ballymore in the 45 ha tall building zone within NW6 is granted impunity by Brent to do as it wants to, with zero tenant opportunities being required.
So this, very much a continuity of the growth area brownfield, every day year zero ongoing since 2010, in the towers zone of NW6. A perfect model for growing inequalities, young families and new labour immigrants trapped in a zone of England Not and Reform policy structured as neighbourhood never to be.
Post a Comment