The long awaited cycle link between Harlesden Station and Wembley Central Station takes a step (or pedal) nearer with a consultation on three sections. Click on the links for maps and full details.
20mph Zone and traffic calming features – A new 20mph Zone is proposed Conduit Way,
Durand Way, Wyborne Way, Sunny Crescent, Twybridge Way, Meadow Garth and
Pramukh Swami Road along with sinusoidal (smooth stop) speed humps to
reduce vehicle speeds and the severity of accidents.
Junction improvement – The existing mini-roundabout at the junction
of Brentfield Road and Meadow Garth will be removed and replaced with
“give-way” priority junction and raised speed table.
Upgraded pedestrian crossing– A new parallel crossing (for use by
pedestrian and cyclists) is proposed at the junction of Brentfield Road
and Meadow Garth. This will improve priority and accessibility for both
pedestrians and cyclists.
Raised entry treatments– Raised speed tables are proposed at
side roads junction with Conduit Way to reduce vehicle speeds and increase
accessibility for pedestrians.
Additional greening – Additional trees and greening are proposed to
improve the public realm along the length of the cycleway connection.
New parallel crossing and cycle connection – A
new footway, cycle track and parallel crossing (for use by pedestrians and
cyclists) are proposed on the eastern side of Old North Circular Road to
connect existing cycling facilities with Cycleway 72.
Upgraded pedestrian crossing–
A new zebra crossing is proposed at the entrance to Stonebridge Park
station. This will improve priority and accessibility for pedestrians.
Junction improvement – The
layout of the Argenta Way / Old North Circular Road junction will be
improved by removing the existing traffic splitter and tightening the
corners.
Additional greening – Additional trees and greening
are proposed to improve the public realm along the length of the cycleway
connection.
New parallel crossing and cycle connection – A
new footway, cycle track and parallel crossing (for use by pedestrians and
cyclists) are proposed on the eastern side of Old North Circular Road to
connect existing cycling facilities with Cycleway 72.
Upgraded pedestrian crossing–
A new zebra crossing is proposed at the entrance to Stonebridge Park
station. This will improve priority and accessibility for pedestrians.
Junction improvement – The
layout of the Argenta Way / Old North Circular Road junction will be
improved by removing the existing traffic splitter and tightening the
corners.
Additional greening – Additional trees and greening
are proposed to improve the public realm along the length of the cycleway
connection.
Q: I hope that
Brent Council can get some funding from the GLA's SAHP programme to help
finance genuinely affordable homes to rent for local people in housing need,
but I was concerned to read that your bid for 1 Morland Gardens has included
'65 social rent homes, the same number as was proposed for the previous scheme
at the site.' The failed "previous scheme" included construction of a
block of flats on land outside 1 Morland Gardens (the Harlesden City Challenge
Community Garden) which Brent did not have the legal right to build on, and the
demolition of the Victorian heritage building. Please explain why, in these
circumstances, a figure of 65 homes at 1 Morland Gardens was chosen for
inclusion in the Council's submission to the GLA.
Arbitrary? An English dictionary definition of that word is: ‘based on
chance rather than being planned or based on reason.’ I wondered whether that
figure of 65 homes was also what the Council was seeking from the consultants,
Mott MacDonald, who they’d commissioned to carry out a feasibility study, so I
submitted a Freedom of Information Act request. I’ve now received the
information (everything I had requested, unlike some where Council Officers
seek to hide things they don’t want you to know, claiming that it is not ‘in
the public interest’ to disclose that information!), and here is my update on
Brent’s Morland Gardens project.
Brent’s initial approach to Mott MacDonald to carry out the feasibility
study.
Brent’s initial approach about the study was on 12 May (above), just
after the local elections, and you will see from the final line that Mott
MacDonald (“MM”) were already the Council’s consultants for its Bridge Park
proposals. MM submitted their response as a ‘Feasibility Stage Fee Proposal’ on
24 June, with the amount of fees redacted but with the billing provision:
‘Monthly drawdown sums to be agreed prior to contract execution / start of
appointment.’ (I will mention some actual fee payments at the end.) Agreement
must have been reached, as a “Kick-off Meeting” between Council Officers and
the MM team took place on 19 August.
Extract of key points from MM’s notes of the 19 August 2026 “Kick-off
Meeting”.
The study would look at the feasibility of three design options, with
the first retaining and reusing the locally listed Victorian villa
(“Altamira”), and the other two based on its demolition. All three options include
‘residential accommodation of up to 65 units’, with point 4.7 of the notes
stating ‘additional homes may be possible if building heights are increased’!
The youth facilities note at 4.8 discloses that the youth organisation
Brent is working with here is the Young Brent Foundation (it was suggested last
year that the Barham Park Trust may wrongly have allowed this organisation to occupy part of the former
Brent library building at Barham Park rent free for four years). They
apparently wish to use part of the Morland Gardens buildings for ‘educational
and life skills activities, including technology, financial literacy and
cooking.’
When Brent’s Cabinet agreed the future use of 1 Morland Gardens in June
2025, it was for affordable housing and a youth facility. There was no mention
of any change from that use in the Bridge Park (with brief mentions of the
other “Hillside Corridor” sites) Report to the July 2026 Cabinet meeting. But
now the proposals also include a SEND (“Special Educational Needs and
Disabilities”) facility. Note 4.9 above showed separate spaces for both primary
and secondary pupils, but that was soon reduced to a facility for 15 primary
pupils with SEMH (Social, Emotional and Mental Health) needs.
MM’s schedule of accommodation details and space requirements for the 15
primary pupil facility.
The schedule above does not include the rooms for staff use and offices,
or circulation space. The total internal floor area needed for the proposed
SEND facility at Morland Gardens is calculated as 871 square metres, plus a
minimum of 450 square metres of outdoor space. The sympathetic classroom
extension to the north side of the restored Victorian villa, when it was
converted to become Brent’s adult education college in the mid-1990s, seen
beyond the tree in the photograph below, is an excellent example of how this
could be done, with the open area in front of it providing the outdoor space
(fenced off for the safety and security of the students).
The Victorian villa, with 1990s classroom extension to its right,
pictured in June 2023.
If that suggestion was followed, and the heritage building retained, the
rooms in the main part of the Victorian villa, as adapted for the college in
the 1990s, would provide the necessary space for the proposed youth facility
needs. But the site would still need to provide ‘up to 65 homes’! When Brent’s
Head of Capital Delivery replied to my first question on 9 October he wrote: ‘The
actual number of homes on the site will be dependent on the suggested quantity
of housing the feasibility work identifies is achievable ….’
Email from Brent to MM on 1 September 2026.
However, in an email to MM on 1 September, referring to Option 1, the
same Council Officer wrote that Option 1 was: ‘retain the locally listed
building for SEND and youth facilities and build the 65 homes around the
locally listed building.’ This suggests that 65 homes is not just an
“arbitrary” or an “up to” figure, but what the Council actually wants delivered
on the 1 Morland Gardens site. If that is the case, the findings from the Mott
MacDonald study will say that Option 1, retaining the Victorian villa, is NOT
feasible.
Providing that many homes at 1 Morland Gardens while retaining the
Victorian villa is unlikely to have been feasible even when affordable homes
plus a youth facility was the proposal. Adding a special educational needs
facility to the mix has made it virtually impossible. I hope I’m wrong, but
trying to squeeze too much onto the site was the mistake which Brent made in
2019, which led to the flawed 2020 scheme. That scheme failed. Are they going
to make the same mistake again, nearly eight years later?
Philip Grant.
P.S. I said I would mention fee
payments at the end. As work began on the feasibility study in August, I
expected to see at least some fees included on Brent’s July to September 2026
payments Excel spreadsheet, which can be viewed under “Transparency” on the Council’s
website. The two payments shown for Mott MacDonald Ltd in that quarter include
£4,222 charged to “SEND expansion”, which probably relates to work on the
Morland Gardens study. It could be that the non-SEND work is being included in
MM’s payments for their services in the “Bridge Park” category. MM received
£83,838 from Brent in the quarter under that heading.
In a unique move Conservatives, Liberal
Democrats and Greens have joined forces to challenge Brent Council’s decision
to sell the freehold of Northwick Park Golf Centre,
despite 205 objections and representations.
Brent’s three opposition
groups have united in opposition to the Council’s controversial decision to
sell its freehold interest in 42 acres of public open space at Northwick Park
Golf Centre.
Conservative, Liberal
Democrat and Green councillors are demanding greater transparency and
accountability over the proposed disposal, raising serious concerns about the
loss of public ownership, the financial justification for the sale and the
long-term future of one of Brent’s significant green spaces.
The council approved the
disposal on October 12, despite receiving 205 objections and representations
during the consultation process. The decision authorises officers to market the
freehold interest in the site at 280 Watford Road, which is currently subject
to a long-term lease.
The three opposition
groups believe the Council has yet to demonstrate why selling an
income-generating public asset is preferable to retaining it for future
generations. They are calling-in the decision for scrutiny.
The cross-party
challenge brings together councillors from across Brent who are calling the for
the decision to be reconsidered and for residents’ concerns to be properly
addressed.
Cllr Keith Perrin,
Councillor for Northwick Park Ward, leading the call-in said:
The Golf
Centre on the A404 Watford Road forms part of an important Public Open Space
with a long history of recreational use by the community. It was originally
purchased in 1913 by public subscription to protect the area from development
and has remained an important part and lung of North Wembley since then.
As a ward
councillor who has followed this site since 1995, I have serious concerns about
selling the freehold, especially while questions remain around the existing
lease’s powers, the income the Council receives and outstanding enforcement
matters relating to unlicensed waste.
If the
freehold is sold Brent Council could easily lose control of this green space’s
future. It’s designation of Metropolitan Open Land, Site of Importance for
Nature Conservation and Public Open Space, along with its public footpaths
could all disappear.
This is why
I believe the decision to sell deserves proper scrutiny, and ultimately,
reversal.
Cllr Suresh
Kansagra, leader of the Brent Conservative Group, said:
We do not
believe selling this site is the right decision for Brent. The Council already
receives rental income from the land, while retaining the freehold also
preserves its long-term value for future generations.
Once the
asset is sold, that opportunity is gone. But this is not just about money. This is a
large area of green and
recreational
land which has been part of the local community for generations and brings real
value to the surrounding neighbourhood.
We are using
every formal route available within the Council to ensure this decision is
properly examined and every opportunity for it to be reconsidered is exhausted.
Residents
also have an important role to play. We want people who care about the future
of this site to make their views known and show the Council how strongly the
community feels about what happens next.
The council
should be able to demonstrate clearly why selling is better than keeping an
income-producing asset with long-term value. We do not believe that case has
yet been made.
Cllr Anton
Georgiou, leader of the Brent Liberal Democrat Group,
said:
The Labour
council’s decision to sell this important piece of public land without proper
consultation sets a dangerous precedence. The administration is opening the
door for potential developers to have free reign over what this open space will
be replaced with.
The
interest of our community isn’t typically the primary concern of developers and
there is a risk that this decision will allow the expansion of high-density
tower blocks into the area.
The reason
I am speaking out and supporting the cross-party call-in, despite it not being
in my ward, is to help get greater transparency of the deal for residents and
prevent this same opaque tactic from being used in our other green spaces.
Residents deserve to have a say when these kinds of major changes are proposed
on their doorstep.
Cllr Mary
Mitchell, Leader of the Brent Green Group, said:
Northwick
Park Golf Course is far more than a commercial asset on a balance sheet. It is
one of Brent's most important green spaces, providing vital wildlife habitat,
absorbing carbon, helping to reduce flood risk, and offering an invaluable
sense of openness in an increasingly built-up borough.
As a Site of
Importance for Nature Conservation and public open space, it plays a crucial
role in both the ecological health of our area and the wellbeing of local
residents. The proposed freehold sale risks removing a key layer of public
protection and stewardship from a site that has been held for public benefit
for nearly one hundred years. Once public land is sold, it is extraordinarily
difficult to recover.
Residents
are right to ask why Brent would relinquish control of such a significant
environmental and public health asset at a time when access to green space,
biodiversity recovery and climate resilience are more important than ever. We
should be protecting this space, not putting its future at risk
The three
opposition groups are calling on Brent Council to fully explain the financial
case for the disposal, address outstanding questions
surrounding the existing lease and the site’s management, and reconsider
whether surrendering the freehold is in the
long-term interests of residents.
Press Release from Brent Council published unedited but Wembley Matters readers may wish to comment below.
Brent Council, which completed more homes than any other local authority in the UK this year, has welcomed the Mayor of London’s Draft London Plan and urged City Hall to support its ongoing efforts to tackle the housing crisis.
It backs the Plan’s ambitions for more housing including affordable options, sustainable growth, climate resilience and high street renewal, but warns that boroughs cannot deliver London’s growth ambitions without investment.
Cllr Matt Kelcher, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Growth, said:
"We know the difference that a safe, secure and genuinely affordable home can make to a family's life. As the leading housebuilding authority, Brent has consistently shown that it is prepared to play its part in delivering the homes, jobs and infrastructure Londoners need.
"We support the ambitions of the Draft London Plan and stand ready to continue delivering new homes, including affordable homes. However, if London is serious about tackling the housing crisis, we need to be clear that boroughs cannot do it alone. Future growth must be supported by investment which backs the builders not the blockers, and there is no better builder in London than Brent.”
Having already delivered more than 20,000 homes over the last decade, major regeneration schemes continue across the borough of Brent. In South Kilburn, one of London's largest estate renewal programmes is delivering new homes, parks and community facilities, while the Bridge Park development will bring forward a new leisure centre, community facilities, public spaces and more than 1,000 new homes.
In its response to the London Plan consultation, the council is particularly supportive of City Hall’s proposals to recognise Staples Corner as a key growth location, as well as to upgrade Wembley to Metropolitan Town Centre status in recognition of the area’s growing national and international significance.
Brent also suggests an alternative to proposals to remove the current carbon offset funding mechanism for new developments, which could reduce the funding available to improve the energy efficiency of existing homes and buildings. Instead, it proposes a hybrid model that combines tougher on-site energy performance standards with a more limited financial contribution for unavoidable emissions.
I submitted the first part
of my comments to the Brent planning website for application 26/1351 in July,
but never expected it to take so long for me to finish the task! For various
personal reasons, and commitments that had to take priority, it was not until
16 October that I submitted the final part, and sent an illustrated document
copy of my full objections to Brent Planning Officers. The application has yet
to be referred to Brent’s Planning Committee (but could be at its next meeting
on 11 November), so hopefully my delay is a case of “better late than never”.
I will ask Martin to
attach my objection comments document below, so that anyone who is interested, including
any objectors who may wish to speak against the application when it does come
before councillors for a decision, can read the reasons I have set out as
to why the application should be refused, on proper planning grounds, in the
hope that this assists in the fight to keep this site as open space for the
local community and visitors to enjoy.
Philip Grant.
The petition to retain the Market Square and Samovar Space is still live and available to sign HERE
The application (16/1351) is on the Brent Council Planning Portal where comments in support, opposition or neutral can be made HERE. The expiry date is November 27th 2026 but comments can be made up to the eve of the Planning Committee meeting hearing which may be sooner. It has not yet been fixed.
As I listened to the self-congratulatory discussion at Monday's Cabinet meeting I could not help thinking that the Wembley Park branch of Spec Savers, very handy for the Civic Centre, must have run out of their stock of rose-coloured glasses.
Admittedly an occasional dark cloud from the past was glimpsed in the glorious new dawn for South Kilburn that was painted with evangelical zeal by councillors and officers alike.
Cllr Robert Johnson (lead member for housing) kicked off the discussion by claiming he was the architect of the first South Kilburn Masterplan when he was a Brent Council officer. He said that the multi-site development of the last 10-15 years had been complex and lengthy and the appointment of a single developer would move things along faster.
Cllr Tina Amadi (lead member for community) who said she had a personal connection with South Kilburn, emphasised the importance of community facilities, culture, opportunities for young people and support for local organisations. It was essential for a continued neighbourhood where people feel connected, supported and proud to belong. She said this was something we haven't necessarily seen in South Kilburn. People used to be proud to be from South Kilburn and regeneration should bring that back, an emphasis on pride in place.
Cllr Amadi asked if officers and perhaps Cllr Kelcher could expand on how residents and local community organisations could shape and monitor the first years of social value and how progress would be reported to the community. Replying Jehan Weerasignghe, the officer who authored the Cabinet paper, said that in the procurement process Ballymore had made ongoing engagement front and centre of the community offer and that was why they were recommending their appointment.
He said the partnership would last through several economic cycles and more 'than a couple' of political cycles and that is why 'we need a partner we can trust, that values input from the community.'
Cllr Amadi did not follow up on this rather inadequate answer to her question.
Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of the council, mentioned some of the problems the council were facing in South Kilburn at present that had given rise to the single delivery partner idea to move things forward at pace. It would address some of the issues the council could have addressed earlier that had been acknowledged in the report. Affordable housing was part of the offer and there would be one estate management that would end the divisions between different parts of the development. He said the emphasis would be on quality, pace of delivery, resident experience, affordability, stewardship and accountability to deliver what the council intended.
Guardian August 2026
BBC London September 2026
Financial aspects of the deal were excluded from publication but the contract which may last another 15 years has been reported as being worth £1bn. The Cabinet paper did not cover the risks associated with the council putting all their eggs in one single partner basket, or refer to some of the difficulties that Ballymore have had elsewhere LINK. More generally the discussion took place with little mention of issues of financial viability in the face of rising interest rates, material shortages and delivery delays leading to higher costs, and labour shortages. These factors are likely to impact on the eventual balance of tenures. Currently the private market is finding it hard to shift flats and affordable housing, including social housing, is encountering financial viability challenges.
The Cabinet decision is subject to call-in and the deadline to do so is Monday October 19th.
In response to the appointment of Ballymore, the local ward councillors, Cllr Paul Ryan, Cllr Suzanne Gallagher and Stephen Malonga of the Green Party said in a statement:
We as local councillors hope that this decision can mark the beginning of a new chapter in South Kilburn regeneration.
Local residents have unfortunately had an experience of regeneration that has been defined by limited community engagement and unacceptable build quality. New developments have been marred by water penetration, damp and mould problems, fire safety concerns and a wide host of other issues. This all while living in a permanent construction site with dwindling community spaces.
We hope that Ballymore Ltd will not replicate the failings of their predecessors and will prove to be an integral part of the rebuilding of the South Kilburn community. We look forward to engaging with Ballymore to understand how their 10-year social value strategy can benefit local residents.
Wembley Matters asked long-term South Kilburn resident, Pete Firmin, for his view from the frontline after he watched the livestream of Monday's Cabinet meeting;
I'm told that screaming at the
screen is bad for me, bit it’s an inevitable consequence of watching Brent
Council deciding on the next phase of the regeneration of South Kilburn.
Reading the Council's background document to the decision adds nausea to the mix.
As a South Kilburn resident for
the last 40+ years, I've lived with regeneration going on around me since the
earliest consultations. Its hard (impossible?) to reconcile the reality with
the picture given by Cabinet members and Council officers.
South Kilburn regeneration
started in 2004, and was supposed to finish by 2029. It is now scheduled to
finish by 2041. That's 37 years (at least, not counting overruns) of
disruption, noise dust, movements of heavy vehicles. Yet there is very little
recognition by the Council of the effect this has on residents, especially when
it is compounded by the fact that Brent Council persuaded HS2 to build their
vent shaft in the middle of the estate. HS2 that is currently carrying out
measurements in the area to check whether buildings are moving as they tunnel
further towards Euston. Having dumped the vent shaft on us, Brent refuses to
provide any reassurance (or communication of any kind) to residents affected.
What about the new flats built
under regeneration? The Council document says, "In line with the South
Kilburn Promise 933 South Kilburn tenants have moved into modern, comfortable,
spacious, well insulated and award-winning homes that meets their housing
needs." That would be the homes which are by and large smaller and more
expensive than the demolished ones, virtually all of which have been plagued by
damp and mould. Homes which have scaffolding up for years with 24-hour fire
watch until flammable cladding is removed. Homes which have had emergency
heating, roofs which leak. Not to mention the 2 blocks which have to be
completely refurbished because building them was such a botch job. Yes, there
have been awards – by planners and architects to planners and architects for
the designs. Ask those living in them what they are like? When residents tell
you they would move back into their old flat if they could, that says a lot.
This gets described as “In a small number of developments however
residents have experienced build quality issues.”. That would be pretty much
every new block.
What else has regeneration
brought us? One of the biggest effects is the destruction of community. When
long-standing neighbours are moved (some several times), they lose touch. They
may no longer know where their old neighbour lives, and they certainly are no
longer next door. All the old blocks had community rooms where residents could
socialise, discuss problems with their landlord etc. None of the new blocks
have.
Regeneration has also brought
increased anti-social behaviour of many kinds, since Brent neglects the area,
leaving it to developers, and fails to secure blocks which have been emptied
prior to demolition, leaving them open to those creating marijuana farms and
other criminal activity.
Rarely., if ever, does the
Council admit to any of these problems. Its "South Kilburn Regeneration
News" magazine only prints good news, never anything admitting to
problems. Never once has Brent said to South Kilburn residents "we
promised x, but unfortunately circumstances have changed". Instead, they
hope we have forgotten.
Would all this be worth it if the
regeneration addressed the housing crisis? That could be discussed if that was
ever what it was about. But right from the start, Brent only said that it would
build as much social housing as was here in the first place. The rest is
private, for sale on the market or at market rents. Yet by the Council's own
admission, the majority of the 50,000+ people on its housing waiting list
cannot afford more than social rents. This next phase of regeneration will only
see a small proportion of homes for social rent built, the others will be
passed to a U.S. private equity company to sell or rent as it wishes. So much
for the Council's claim that South Kilburn regeneration is dealing with the
housing crisis.
An altogether laughable claim is
that residents have been involved in plans. A little bit of tinkering at the
edges of what Brent has decided it will do is not serious resident involvement.
Alternative detailed proposals for retrofitting instead of demolition ignored.
A popular campaign to keep the Granville Rec told it will have to settle for a far
worse alternative. The lauding of the South Kilburn Community Panel rings
hollow when the Council will not contribute a single penny to its running,
unlike the £thousands being provided in St Raphs.
Reading Council documents or
watching the Cabinet discussion bears little relation to this reality. Instead,
we see gross self-congratulation on display. These people are either
deluded or know the truth and choose to ignore it.
When agreeing to give the £1
billion contract to Ballymore, nobody even mentioned in what passed for a
Cabinet `discussion' the opposition there is to Ballymore's development in
Kensal Green, or the fires in their East London development. Never let the real
world intrude on Brent Council decisions.
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:
