Brent Climate Emergency Strategy - Zoom meeting for residents with a disability, January 13th 5-6.30pm

 From Brent Council Climate Emergency Strategy Team

 Brent Council is holding a virtual workshop to discuss its draft Climate Emergency Strategy. This event is being held specifically for residents with a disability, their carer(s) or a representative from an organisation that supports people with disabilities and/or carers. Below is the invitation to the workshop, which has also been sent out via the Disability Forum. Please send this on to anyone you feel may wish to attend:

Brent Council is working on a plan to tackle climate change in Brent. Climate change is happening because the planet is being damaged. This plan will be called the ‘Climate Emergency Strategy’.

Brent Council are currently asking all residents what they think of the plan. Brent Council also want to ask if anyone has any ideas about what else the council could do about climate change. This draft plan is being put into easy read.

Brent Council has arranged a Zoom meeting to discuss the draft plan. This meeting will be called a workshop. It will take place on:

Wednesday 13th January 5pm – 6.30pm on Zoom.

The easy read plan and a Zoom link to the meeting will be sent around before the workshop for those that would like to attend.

Please send an email to climateemergency@brent.gov.uk if you would like to receive the easy read plan and attend the Zoom workshop. 

Also if you would like to join the Brent Climate Emergency Planning Group and get involved in shaping Brent's approach to the Climate Emergency, you can sign up here:  https://www.mutualgain.org/brent-climate-emergency-planning-group-registration-form/

Pensioner's heating restored after a week of cold

I am pleased to hear from John Healy that his heating was restored yesterday by Oakray. His South Kilburn flat was without heating and hot water for more than a week following a boiler breakdown.  Vaillant were distinctly unhelpful and attempts to make a complaint via Brent Council failed. LINK

Brent Council to increase signatory threshold for planning petitions to be considered by Planning Committee

The proceedings of Brent Planning Committee have been a concern for some time with residents often feeling that their views on applications are not sufficiently taken into account.

A proposed constitutional change, ostensibly designed to reduce the burden on the Planning Committee, may have the effect of reducing the chance of a hearing for the objections of local residents on particular proposed schemes.

The present situation is that a petition will only considred by the Planning Committee if it has at least 10 signatures. Identical or proforma letters or emails are currently not treated as individual objections but as if they are signatures on a peition. 

The proposal is that the 'petition' will now only be considered by Committee members if the number is 51 rather than 10. Below that level the petition will now be considered by officers not members and only referred to the Planning Committee if the officer decided it was appropriate.  The provision for a planning application to be considred by the Committee if requested by a least 3 councillors would remain in place.

The proposal:

Planning Petitions 


.        3.7  Standing Orders contained within the Council Constitution provide that for planning applications and other planning issues, there must be at least 10 signatures before a petition is considered by the Planning Committee. This requirement is repeated in the Planning Committee terms of reference. The position in respect of other petitions is that they are only referred to members if the number of signatures exceeds 51. 


.        3.8  It is proposed that the position for petitions relating to planning applications be aligned with that for other petitions. The Planning Committee should deal with the largest and most strategic applications which require a greater level of public scrutiny; rather than smaller scale applications which may only raise local, rather than strategic issues. Big committee agendas increase use of both Councillor time and council resources in terms of preparation, presentations, administration and the general conduct of the Committee meeting; which as things currently stand, is not always the most effective and/or proportionate way of addressing such issues. 


.        3.9  Items which are referred to the committee should warrant consideration by the committee. The threshold for planning objections triggering referral to the committee was increased from 3 to 8. Identical or proforma letters or emails are not treated as objections but as if they were signatures on a petition. Requiring only 10 signatures to a petition, which are easier to obtain than separate objections, can result in minor applications being considered by the Committee. This has related to around 3 applications over the past year and there is clearly scope for this to increase. 


.        3.10  If this change is agreed, officers would consider petitions with up to and including 50 signatures and if the officer felt it was more appropriate for the Planning Committee to consider the application, the Head of Planning would still have the discretion to refer the matter to the committee. The provision for referral of applications to the committee where requested in accordance with the Constitution by at least 3 councillors will remain in place. 


Has Cllr Butt put himself in situations where his integrity can be questioned?

Philip Grant submitted a comment on the 'Dinners with Developers' story posted earlier but I think the comment deserves a post in its own right:

 It is not so much "dinners with developers" that is the issue here.

It has been confirmed that an hour-long meeting took place on the morning of 6 April 2016 IN THE LEADER'S OFFICE between Cllr. Butt, Aktar Choudhury (Operational Director, Regeneration), Terrapin Communications and their client R55.

Debra Norman has told John Duffy: 'There are no minutes of this meeting, but I am informed by Aktar that the meeting was informal and the developers spoke about their Minavel House site in general and the good progress they were making in bringing forward their proposals.'

She later added, in response to a further question from Cllr. Duffy: 'You have asked below whether it is usual that there were no minutes were taken. Yes, given the nature of the meeting it is usual that no minutes were taken.' But as has been set out previously on "Wembley Matters", there has been specific guidance in place from the Local Government Association for the past few years that a Council Officer should attend any such meeting with a developer, and make a written minute of the discussions, a document which the public should be able to read.

Terrapin Communications was also representing Hub, and although Hub were not present at that meeting, it would have been possible for Terrapin to mention something encouraging support for Hub's Chesterfield House planning application, which (by coincidence?) was being considered by Brent's Planning Committee that evening. In the absence of minutes prepared by a Council Officer, there is no evidence as to whether, or not, that matter was raised.

An FoI last autumn revealed that Terrapin Communications also had a meeting with Cllr. Butt on the eve of the Minavil House planning application being approved by Brent's Planning Committee (another coincidence?). Again, no minutes were taken by a Council Officer of those discussions.

The issue here is whether Cllr. Butt may have interfered with Brent's proper Planning process, which he is specifically not allowed to do.

There is a "hearsay" allegation (from an unnamed Brent Labour backbencher - NOT Cllr. Duffy) that several Labour councillors on the Planning Committee have admitted privately that Cllr. Butt had instructed them how to vote on particular planning applications. Ms Norman was not able to take any action over these allegations, as none of the Labour councillors allegedly involved was willing to go "on record" over this.

Nothing has (yet) been proved against Cllr. Butt, but one of the requirements under the Code of Conduct for people in public life (including councillors and Council Officers) is that you should not put yourself in situations where your integrity could be called into question.

By holding meetings with developers or their representatives (such as Terrapin Communications), close to major planning decisions with which they are involved, and not ensuring that proper minutes are kept of those discussions, Cllr. Butt HAS put himself in a position where his integrity could be called into question.