How to speak at Healthy Neighbourhoods Special Council Meeting - deadline today

In response to queries from readers I asked Brent Council for the procedure for anyone with a view on the Healthy Neighbourhood to speak at the Extraordinary Council Meeting on November 15th.  This is the answer from the officer concerned:

We've had a number of enquiries relating to this meeting so happy to respond, with an outline of the process and timescales.

In terms of the date for this meeting, I can confirm that it will be taking place next Friday 16 October 2020 at 3:30pm.  As you'll be aware this has been arranged, following the submission of a request earlier this week, as an Extraordinary meeting of the Council for the purpose of considering a motion submitted on the Healthy Neighbourhood proposals.  An agenda for the meeting is due to be published later today, which will include details on the motion to be considered and this will be available to view and download via the following section of the Council's website:

http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=180

I should point out that next week's meeting (as is current practice given the restrictions in place relating to corornavirus) is being held virtually via zoom but will also be webcast live, for those wishing to follow proceedings without contributing.  The live webcast will be available to view via the following link: 

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/democracy-in-brent/local-democracy/live-streaming/

For anyone wishing to speak, as this is an Extraordinary Council meeting they would need to request a deputation with the deadline for doing so close of play today.  Under the deputation procedure they would then have up to 5 minutes to speak at the meeting, but any request would need to be submitted in writing to  katie.smith@brent.gov.uk (email would be fine) and cc to me james.kinsella@brent.gov.uk  and will need to specify what the deputation relates to and also who will be speaking and who they be representing.  We will also need a contact email address and phone number.  

We do have a limit of three deputations per Council meeting, so if we should receive more than three request to speak within this timescale the usual process would be to select which deputations go forward by way of a ballot.

In terms of petitions, unfortunately the same deadline will apply.  There is the ability for the lead petitioner to request a debate at Council on petitions which contain over 200 valid signatures.  A valid signature is taken as being from someone who either lives, works or studies in the borough so the signatures provided would need be to be checked beforehand with the petition either provided in hard or scanned copy or via the Council's e-petition facility. 

I realise these timescales are now very tight, given the date for the meeting, but am sure you'll appreciate this has been called as an Extraordinary meeting of the Council and hope this helps to clarify the position.

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. 


Children, young people and parents will challenge Brent Cabinet over cuts on Monday

Monday's Cabinet will be approving the budget to go to the Full Council on March 2nd amidst press coverage of the row over the leadership refusing to take account of the vote of the Labour Group in favour of a Council Tax rise.

Meanwhile residents, and particularly the young and parents, have got togather to challenge some of those cuts.

The Cabinet will be receiving an unusually high number of petitions, accompanied by speeches from the petition organisers, which indicates the strength of feeling in the borough.

I am sure they will welcome support from the public at the meeting which starts at 7pm in the Civic Centre.

These are the petitions:

Cabinet – 23 February 2015

Petitions have been received in the following terms in response to the budget proposals:

1) Keep Stonebridge Adventure Playground Open “We the undersigned insist that the redevelopment of

Stonebridge School and the new housing, includes keeping the Stonebridge Adventure Playground open.”

From:         Brent Play Association

2) Keep Welsh Harp Environmental Study Centre open This petition comprises numerous letters from individual children at Chalkhill Primary School.

From:         Chalkhill Primary School

3) Save our youth service (paper and e petition)

“Youth services are vital for young people as well as the community and we

believe there will be an adverse effect if the service no longer exists. This will

put added pressure on statutory services such as the Youth Offending

Service, the police and social care. We call on Brent Council to consult with young people effectively before making any cuts to any youth provision in the borough.

We call on Brent Council to scrutinise existing provision to ensure that these

resources are appropriate and effective. The young people of Brent are willing and able to assist Brent Council with this important task. We call upon Brent Council to consider the voice ofyoung people in the light of these savings!”

E-petition: started by Roisin Healy (Brent Youth Parliament)

4) Save School Crossings Patrols

“Brent Council is under a legal duty to promote road safety and to promote sustainable transport, such as walking and cycling.  Road traffic accidents are the biggest killer of children in the UK (they peak when children start primary school and secondary school). 2011-2020 is the United Nations Decade of Action for Road Safety. School Patrol Officers are an integral partof the community, ensuring the safety of our children and they encourage children to have independence. Many schools in Brent are on busy roads (e.g. Salusbury Primary School and Islamia on Salusbury Road in NW6) which are only going to get busier with new housing developments with a new influx of cars and residents. Our roads should become safer places for our children, not more dangerous. And children should be encouraged to walk and cycle to school rather than be driven.”

E petition started by: Michelle Goldsmith on behalf of local residents .

5) Leopold Primary School - save our School Patrol

Officer

“Brent Council is considering removing our Lollipop crossing patrol at Hawkshead Road. The School is surrounded by several busy roads. We believe this is unacceptable and will directly put our children in danger of a road traffic accident.”

From:         the Parent, Teachers and Friends Association of Leopold Primary

                   School

6) Keep Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre Open

“The centre provides a venue for many members of our  local community and plays a vital part in our leisure time. Many of us use the facility on a weekly basis to play football, use the gym, relax in the steam and sauna and meet friends. The centre hosts children education, courses and activities th at are beneficial to their development. The centre serves as a venue where rooms can be hired to many different groups who hold meetings, training and celebrations. Closing Bridge Park would affect all of us in different ways. We need this Centre to remain open so that our young people have a place to meet and do sports in a safe environment.

Stonebridge is a deprived area and we feel that crime and unsocial behaviour will increase if the centre is closed. Unlike a few years ago the centre now is used by men and women of all ages and faith. People come to Bridge Park to get fit and improve their health. Although we understand that the council funds are limited, the cost of dealing with health and antisocial behaviour will far outweigh the cost of operating our leisure centre. We have signed below to show our opposition to the closure.”

From:         Mr Adam, Tordjok, local resident.

Begone you pesky petitioners! Brent downgrades petitioner power.

In a constitutional change to be discussed at the Council meeting on May 16th Brent Council is proposing that petitions of 5,000 or more valid signatures should no longer be debated by full Council and that those containing 2,500  valid signatures should no longer require a senior Council officer to give evidence at an overview and scrutiny committee.

Although the Council says its proposal is  a result of the Localism Act 2012 repealing the requirement for councils to adopt a petition scheme and leaving it to the discretion of each authority, there can be little doubt that the Labour Council has been irritated by the petitions organised by the Hindu community over festival funding, library campaigners over the closure of half of Brent's libraries and Keep Willesden Green over the Willesden Green Library Regeneration proposals. The latter was particularly controversial when Democratic Services  refused to hold a Full Council meeting on the issue.

The Council argues that this change will 'make the process more transparent' and will 'direct petitions to the decision maker as set out in the current Standing Order 68(e).

That Standing Order refers to petitions with 50 or more signatures and refers the petitions on upcoming decisions  to the Executive or the General Purposes Committee who can 'make recommendations concerning the petition to Full Council'.

As far as I can see this continues the erosion of democracy in Brent Council removing further citizen's ability to make representations to Full Council rather than the rubber-stamping Labour Executive.  If I was a backbench councillor of whatever political party I would be asking some awkward questions on the issue.