Tulip Siddiq: 'Why I did not support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza'

 Tulip Siddiq, MP for Hampstead and Kilburn, unlike her Brent colleagues Barry Gardiner and Dawn Butler, abstained on the SNP motion supporting an immediate ceasefire,

She has written to 'thousands' of constituents at considerable length to explain her position:

 Firstly, I want to assure you that I of course want to see a ceasefire in the Middle East as soon as possible, and I think anyone looking at the devastating scenes in Gaza we have seen over the last few weeks would feel this way. This is such an important topic, so I hope you will bear with me while I take the time to explain my thinking on both the issue and the vote on the amendment which you wrote to me about.

I did not come into politics to stand by as death, destruction and suffering on the scale we are seeing in Palestine takes place, and I have thought long and hard about what I can do to give the best chance of bringing to an end the horrifying and unacceptable killing of innocent people that we have seen over the last few weeks, including so many children in Gaza. As I made clear to the Government this week in an intervention in Parliament which you can watch here, the conditions across Gaza including in hospitals are inhumane and indefensible. An end to the fighting must be our top priority and a meaningful, lasting ceasefire which leads to a negotiated political settlement and a two-state solution with a viable state of Palestine is the only way that we are going to get there.

I understand the frustration and anger of those who asked me to back the Scottish National Party’s amendment to the King’s Speech this week. I take my responsibility as your local MP very seriously, and I can assure you that my priority in all of this is to do whatever I think is most likely to prevent further bloodshed and achieve a genuine, lasting peace between Israel and Palestine. I took the decision to support Labour’s amendment to the King’s Speech as I truly believed that it provided a more realistic chance of bringing the violence to an end and achieving a ceasefire that holds, and I will explain why.

The Labour amendment I voted for condemned the fact that there have been far too many deaths of innocent civilians and children in Gaza and set out the need for “an enduring cessation of fighting as soon as possible and a credible, diplomatic and political process to deliver the lasting peace of a two-state solution”, as well calling for an immediate end to the siege conditions in Gaza, for essentials like water, food, fuel, electricity and medicine to get to the Palestinians, and for the fighting to stop to allow the free flow of desperately and urgently needed humanitarian aid. The amendment I voted for also called for international law to be followed by and enforced on all parties, a guarantee that fleeing Gazans can return to their homes, and an end to the expansion of illegal settlements and settler violence in the West Bank.

The UN definition of a ceasefire is “a suspension of fighting agreed upon by the parties to a conflict” which is “intended to be long-term” and usually aims “to allow parties to engage in dialogue, including the possibility of reaching a permanent political settlement”. While I can assure you that this outcome is absolutely what I want to see as soon as possible, at the moment the two parties which would need to agree upon the suspension of fighting – Israel and Hamas – will not accept it. Hamas has said that they will continue to attack civilians in the manner they did on 7^th October “again and again” and continues to hold innocent hostages and fire rockets at civilian areas, and Israel won’t accept a ceasefire as long as this is the case. There is tragically no prospect for an immediate ceasefire of the kind the Scottish National Party’s amendment called for, as has been acknowledged by the UN’s humanitarian coordinator who has said that right now humanitarian pauses are “the only viable option” to get the necessary relief into Gaza and alleviate suffering.

Though I want to see a ceasefire as soon as possible, I do not believe it is in the interest of the suffering Palestinian people for me to vote for something that we know cannot happen right now, when I could be voting for solutions that actually have a chance of being accepted and alleviating the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Securing a full, immediate humanitarian pause is the only substantial, practical step that the parties in this conflict might accept at this stage, and therefore putting pressure on them to do this is, in my view, the best way I can try to help the Palestinians. It is also, in my opinion, the only viable way that we can start to create the necessary pre-conditions for a genuine, lasting ceasefire and a two-state solution, which I believe is the only route to a Palestinian state and the peace that you and I want to see.

There is more agreement on this issue than much of the framing of it suggests as I know from my discussions in recent weeks that my Labour colleagues and I all want to see an end to the fighting and death of civilians in Gaza as soon as possible, even if we may disagree on exactly what role the UK Government and Parliament can play in getting there. The Scottish National Party’s amendment was very similar to Labour’s, including in demanding that Hamas release hostages and Israel end the siege of Gaza. However, their amendment did not mention the role of the International Criminal Court in holding parties to account for war crimes, nor did it specifically call on Israel to protect hospitals, both of which are essential steps to safeguard civilian life and infrastructure in Gaza. The amendment also did not directly address the awful settler violence we have seen in the West Bank, nor did it call for a guarantee that people in Gaza who have been forced to flee during this conflict are allowed to return to their homes, which is essential.

An amendment that calls for an immediate ceasefire has to confront the tragic reality that, at this moment in time, neither party to the conflict will accept it. My overwhelming wish is to see the bloodshed stop as soon as possible, and I truly believe that the Labour amendment was the most constructive one in support of that principle and a realistic roadmap to peace. While I considered it very carefully, I decided not to vote for an amendment that I felt was an empty gesture towards an unrealistic outcome and lacked the necessary substance and practical steps to help those Palestinians suffering so horrendously as quickly as possible. I can assure you that I have raised my concerns about the appalling situation in Gaza and breaches of international law directly with Ministers including in Parliament and in a letter to the Foreign Secretary, and I have taken every opportunity to raise the views of my constituents including on a ceasefire with my colleagues who lead on foreign affairs in Parliament including the Shadow Foreign Secretary and Labour Leader.

As a mother of two, I cannot imagine what it must be like to lose a child or raise a child in the dire conditions we can see in Gaza, and heartbreakingly we know that this is the unimaginable situation for so many Palestinian families. All human life is equal, and I can assure you that I will always do what I believe has the best chance of preventing bloodshed and is in the best interests of people facing this appalling suffering, wherever they are. My Labour colleagues and I will continue to do everything we can to push for an end to the fighting, the punishment of war crimes in this conflict, and peace in the region that is based on the creation of a state of Palestine – something I have called for my entire life and argued for in Parliament ever since I was elected as your MP.

I have received thousands of emails on this topic in recent days and weeks, and I am doing my best to reply to each one as quickly and personally as I can. However, if there are any points from your email that you feel I have not addressed in my response or further questions you would like to ask or concerns you would like to raise about this, please write to me again and I will get back to you as soon as I can.

Thank you once again for writing to me about this important and harrowing issue, and for taking the time to read my lengthy response. If there is ever anything I can help with or write to you about as a constituent, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me again.

Best wishes,

Tulip Siddiq MP

Member of Parliament for Hampstead and Kilburn
Shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury (City Minister)

Saturday's actions across Brent, Camden and Harrow supporting 'Ceasefire Now!' in Gaza conflict

 Supporters of a ceasefire in Gaza will be marching to the Camden  offices of Tulip Siddiq (MP for Hampstead and Kilburn) and Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) tomorrow to call on them to declare their support for a 'Ceasefire Now! before more lives are lost. 

 

Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) and Dawn Butler (Brent Central) both defied the Labour whip yesterday and joined other from Labour, SNP and Green Party in voting for a ceasefire and have been thanked by PSC members.

Members of Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Tulip Siddiq's constituents from both side of Kilburn, plus supporting organisations ,will travel to Chalk Farm Station to assemble from 1130am and march to Camden Town station to join with Camden PSC and others at 12.30pm for the last lap of the march to the Crowndale Centre near Mornington Crescent station where a rally will be held at 1pm.

 

The 31 bus from Swiss Cottage Station, Kilburn High Road station and Kilburn Park goes to Chalk Farm station. Those wanting a shorter walk are advised to join at Camden Town station by 12.30pm.

 

The route will be the direct main road between the stations,

Last week Brent and Harrow PSC held a candlelit vigil outside Kilburn station where the names and ages  of Palestinian and Jewish children killed in the conflict were read out, interspersed with poetry readings in a deeply affecting event supported by diverse members of the community.

 

Tomorrow there will also be an event in Harrow organised by Brent and Harrow PSC  with a
rally outside the office of Harrow East MP Bob Blackman at 11am-12 noon outside 209 Headstone Lane, Harrow HA2 6ND.  In  Kingsbury leafleting will take place outside Barclays, 505-507 Kingsbury Road, NW9 9EG. Barclays invests in arms companies that supply Israel's armed forces.

Members of both groups are invited to join the rally in Camden at 1pm at the Crowndale Centre, 218 Eversholt Street, NW1 1BD.

 

Brent and Harrow PSC on the peaceful 800,000 strong march on Saturday

ACE Brent (Action on the Climate and Ecological Emergency Brent), a new coalition of Brent environment groups, challenges Brent Council to step up its climate action

 From words to action

 

 

 

ACE Brent (Action on the Climate and Ecological Emergency Brent), a new coalition of Brent environment groups, challenges Brent Council to step up its climate action. 

 

ACE Brent does not believe that Brent is working effectively to reach Net Zero in 2030, and are asking for : 

• A clearer, more measurable, accountable and ambitious Climate Action Plan
• Prioritisation of actions that reduce emissions most and that protect the most vulnerable residents
• Annual monitoring and reporting 
• A new Climate and Ecological Emergency Scrutiny Committee
• A new Brent Climate Assembly and regular reports to open meetings

Ace Brent have also drawn up a list of specific demands covering cycling and transport, insulation and retrofitting, divestment, planning, renewable energy, food, trees and green space.

 

They have written to all Brent councillors with their requests, and have organised a deputation to the full Council Meeting on Monday 20^th Nov, Brent Civic Centre, at 6pm. 

 

Members of ACE Brent are Brent Cycling Campaign, Brent Friends of the Earth, Brent Parks Forum, Brent Pure Energy, Brent XR and Divest Brent.

 

Christine Smith, from Brent XR, says: 

 

This is an emergency. Act now!

 

Simon Erskine, Co-ordinator of Divest Brent, says:  

 

Divestment of the council pension fund from fossil fuels is an example of a climate action that has been a very long time coming despite active discussions with members and officers.

 

Sylvia Gauthereau, from Brent Cycling Campaign, says:

 

According to the council's own statistics, road transport is the largest contributor to air pollution in Brent, accounting for over 52% of emissions in the borough. The Council urgently needs to implement some specific measures, that are known to effectively tackle road pollution. This cannot be achieved without significant changes to the built environment, to enable anyone who wishes to actively travel, to choose so. The time for talking about it is over, now is the time to act. The evidence is there, the 'how to' examples are plenty, the guidance is available, the opportunity and appetite are there. It doesn't have to be massively costly. Just get on with it now.

 

Suzanne Morpurgo, from Brent Parks Forum, says: 

 

It's Brent's stated intention to be ‘one of the greenest, most biodiverse and climate resilient boroughs in London’ by 2030' . This needs an increase in tree cover and green spaces,  including sports ground provision. At the moment there is no clear plan for this, or any form of 'FiT' status for sites. We are happy to help.

 

Elaine Sheppard, A Co-ordinator of Brent Friends of the Earth, says:  

 

It's 4 years since Brent Council declared a climate emergency.  We are experiencing flooding and extreme weather in Brent. Our relatives and friends in the Global South are facing much worse. We have come together to request a stronger response as appropriate to the emergency. We need bigger change to reduce emissions, proper reporting and proper involvement of Brent residents in the actions being taken. We are looking for more action, ambition and accountability.

The Wembley bus that disappears on Event Days

 England play Malta tonight at Wembley Stadium so once again the 206 bus that runs between Kilburn Park and The Paddocks in Wembley Park will be curtailed at Bridge Park:

Kick-Off isn't until 7.45pm but the bus stops running at 2.45pm affecting secondary school pupils travelling towards Harlesden.

Stops affected:

Residents have been trying to get the Council to do something about this for decades and the need is now greater because of the increased number of events at the stadium. A local residents submitted a question to Krupa Sheth to try to pin down when the promised introduction of full working on event days will be implented:

 

Question from Peggy Wylie to Councillor Krupa Sheth (Cabinet Member for Environment, Infrastructure & Climate Action)

 

The 206 bus route is for many living in the Kings Drive, The Paddocks, Salmon Street area a real necessity. However, when there is an event scheduled at Wembley Stadium no 206 service is provided to the area after 11.00/noon (or even earlier) because the service is curtailed at Brent Park.

 

The suspension of this service to the Wembley Park, Kings Drive, The Paddocks and Salmon Street area disproportionately affects our most vulnerable residents - the elderly, disabled, parents with small children and women travelling home alone at night. It also affects people needing to travel from this area to reach their place of employment and in particular those that work for Tesco, IKEA.

 

 

Brent's local plan for our area proposed the opening of North End Road to allow traffic to and from Bridge Road, Wembley Park, which would enable the 206 to serve our area on event days. The changes to the road layout have been completed and yet we are still deprived of our bus on event days.

 

As a result, can the Cabinet Member for Environment, Infrastructure & Climate Action advise if the combined forces of the London Borough of Brent, Transport for London ("Every journey matters!") and Wembley Stadium Limited will listen and take note of residents' needs and finally commit to seeking an urgent and permanent solution allowing the 206 bus to run its full route to the Paddocks on Wembley Stadium event days?

 

Response:

 

Transport for London (TfL) are responsible for the provision of bus services in London and consult on route changes and frequencies to improve services and efficiency.

 

Brent liaises with TfL on the bus services provided in the borough and requests improvements to satisfy the needs of residents and businesses. Brent also liaises with TfL buses for Wembley Stadium events where it is necessary to curtail / divert services for security. However, the council is committed to implementing infrastructure improvements identified under the Wembley Area Action plan and

recently completed the North End Road connection and Wembley 2 Way working projects which will enable bus services to be provided via this route on stadium event days in the future.

 

TfL carried out a consultation earlier this year on proposed changes to bus routes 92, 206 and 440 through the Wembley Park area with a view to simplifying the bus network following the introduction of two-way working arrangements in the area and which would allow for services to continue to serve the area on event days. The plan below outlines the proposals for all three services.

 

 

 

Following the consultation and following subsequent route tests, TfL has advised that the proposed changes to routes 92 and 440 will now go ahead, but a revised change to route 206 is to be implemented. This is due to the need for further works to signalise the junction at Bridge Road/North End Road (which is planned) control parking, and to strengthen a culvert. The latter is now required in order to support the intention to introduce electric buses on the 206 route. As such, and for the immediate future at least, route 206 will continue to serve Fulton Road and Rutherford road (see plan below). It is intended that all these changes will be introduced during 2024.

 

 

 

 

The Council will continue to work with TfL to deliver improvements to bus services through the area on stadium event days and throughout the borough.

 

Editor's Note:

 

On event days I often find people at The Paddocks bus stop vainly waiting for a 206 bus. At the weekend this is often after they have been walking in Fryent Country Park. They have sometimes waited for an hour. Public tramsport acess to the Park should be enouraged.

At Brent Park you find confused passengers told to disembark, milling around trying to find an alternative  route home. Often quite young school pupils are stranded.

UPDATED: Cost of putting Granville New Homes right rises to £25m. Brent Council purchased them for £17.1m

 

Tucked away in the Housing Management Update tabled for next Thrsday's Scrutiny and Wellbeing Committee is the above paragraph, devoid of context.

Granville New Homes were built via  partnership between Higgins and Brent Council in 2009, and purchased by Brent Council for £17.1m.

In 2021 mounting defects led to the independent Ridge report that put the costs of remediation at c£13.5m:

 

 

Philip Grant queried a report to Scrutiny in October 2021  that put the costs of remediation at £18.5m and Debra Norman replied for Brent Council LINK:

 

As you point out, page 26 of the Ridge Report gives the cost estimates as totalling £13,645,000 but the Cabinet, ASAC and Scrutiny reports refer to estimated costs of £18.5m.  You query why this is and whether there is a second specialist report on fire safety issues which accounts for the difference.

 

 

This figure of £13,645,000 is included in the £18.5m referred to in the reports.  As set out in paragraph 3.9 of the Cabinet report, that higher figure also includes the cost of fire safety work already undertaken and paid for by FWH, e.g. the waking watch over the premises and a new fire alarm system, and a contingency figure.  In addition, paragraph 3.9 make clear that the total figure is inclusive of VAT, which FWH and I4B, unlike the council, would be required to pay.  The final sentence of 3.9 should have read that the £18.5m is “based on” an estimated value from Ridge, but in the overall context of the paragraph I think the position was clear.

Brent Council had rejected various options to address the problems including a rebuild.

 Instead they settled for a complex financial arrangement with FWH (First Wave Housing) disposing of the blocks to the Council's Housing Revenue account. LINK

The Extraordinary Scrutiny Committee of October 2021 asked some tough questions, not least Ketan Sheth's on why Higgins was still being offered contracts by the Council after its Granville New Homes failure,. With superb irony Higgins having been involved with building a block that needed £13.5m/£18.5m remediation was awarded the remediation countract, for another faulty block, Merle Court.

The Committee were told that the amount of time that had passed since 2009 meant the Council were not likely to succeed in any settlement claim against Higgins. I believe that changes in the law about time limits means that is no longer the case and there are reports that the Council may be in tlaks with Higgins.

Certainly that is something that Scrutiny should take up with the Council as well as the failure to complete the works by October 2023 as first forecast and of course the rise of costs to £25m which with the original purchase price of £17.1m brings the total to c£42m. It would also be useful to know if the bald £25m is the end of the story or other costs will need to be added as in Debra Norman's response.

It may be instructive for Scrutiny Committee members to revisit the Minutes of their October 2021 meeting. Here is an extract:

The Committee queried whether the Council, as Guarantor of FWH, had chosen to challenge FWH on the issues. Minesh Patel advised that the Council’s role as a Guarantor was to meet with the Board of FWH on a regular basis to go through Key Performance Indicators and understand how the Company was running. The Guarantor had not been made aware of any issues prior to the final Ridge report.

Hakeem Osinaike (Operational Director Housing, Brent Council) advised that the properties were managed by Brent Housing Management (BHM) on behalf of FWH, and they had managed the repairs in those blocks up until the inspection. He advised that it was in rectifying the fire safety issues a decision was taken to rectify any other issues as well.

The Committee noted that Higgins had been appointed to design and build the blocks in 2009, and had heard from residents and staff that there had been problems with the blocks since they were built. They queried what legal action against Higgins, as the contractor, had been pursued, considering the roofs had been previously replaced when FWH took over the building. Peter Gadsdon confirmed that BHP had replaced one of the roofs before FWH took over, and once FWH had taken over they had done works on water ingress issues and had planned to replace all roofs over time as part of previously published business plans for the Company, with an original cost estimate of £2m – 2.5m. With regard to any legal action taken, Peter Gadsdon advised that the records showed the building had been signed off and handed to the Council, but he was unable to comment on anything before 2017 when FWH took over the buildings. He advised that FWH had not had any conversations with Higgins regarding the defects which they were made aware of in May 2021. Legal advice was previously sought about whether there was any chance of redress but due to the passage of time were advised it was unlikely. The Board’s priority was to ensure the properties were repaired back to safety.

Continuing to discuss the contract with Higgins, the Board queried why the Council were not communicating with them on this considering they were current contractors on other blocks being built. They queried whether there was a risk of this happening in other blocks that had been built or were being built. Minesh Patel advised that he did not have the details on the construction contracts with Higgins as that was a procurement process, but nothing had been brought to his attention that there were any concerns on any of the blocks Higgins had worked on.

Councillor Southwood advised that the contractor had been awarded work by the Council through a procurement process without prejudice, the specification of which would have applied modern building control and expectations to whatever they built, and which would include monitoring on the delivery of their contracts. From a FWH perspective it was highly unlikely any other stock would have these issues as Granville New Homes were the only medium rise buildings in the assets. Peter Gadsdon added that, like the Council, FWH and i4B commissioned stock condition surveys and had Fire Risk Assessments in place and there were no issues in that regard. Councillor Southwood agreed to provide written assurances to the Committee that there was no issues in any of the blocks Higgins had worked on, and further information on the procurement process such as whether past performance of a contractor was considered before awarding a contract.

 

Philip Grant adds:

 

 

Another interesting sideline on Granville New Homes is that Brent Council is supposed to have acquired Granville New Homes (for its Housing Revenue Account) from First Wave Housing Ltd for £0 in early 2021. [That should probably say early 2022]

This was part of a refinancing arrangement that would reduce the interest payable on the £17.8m loan Brent had made to Brent Housing Partnership Ltd (as it was then called) to buy Granville New Homes from Higgins (or to pay them for building the four blocks).

It appears that the £17.8m loan is still outstanding, but according to the Charges Register in the Companies House records for First Wave Housing Ltd (as at today, 16 November 2023), that loan is still secured on a property known as Granville New Homes!

How can a loan be "secured" by a 'Fixed Charge over land known as Granville New Homes, Granville Road, South Kilburn, London NW6 0JJ', when First Wave Housing Ltd no longer owns that property?

And another odd thing from the Companies House records. Despite owing Brent Council £17.8m on a loan for a property it no longer owns, as at 31 March 2023, First Wave Housing Ltd had £11,028,334 in its bank account, up from £4,231,167 at 31 March 2022. What is going on?

Perhaps the Community & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee should be asking Peter Gadsdon, Corporate Director of Resident Services, about that, when he makes his Report to its meeting next week. He should know the answers, because he is also a Director of, and Company Secretary of, First Wave Housing Ltd (a company wholly owned by Brent Council, but a separate legal entity from the Council).

LINK TO FIXED CHARGE CERTIFICATE

 

All three of Brent Council's estate infill applications approved tonight

 

Kilburn Square opponents of the infill plans in the public gallery

 

 

 

 

Which should not surprise regular readers who will have got used to 'What Brent Council wants, Brent council gets' as far as the supposedly politically independent Planning Committee goes.

It's sad to see months of research, campaigning and well thought out representations by residents come to nothing as the Kelcher-Butt Juggernaut crunches on.

The three applications had much in common - new homes squeezed into estates at the expense of loss of green and amenity space, mature trees and access to daylight.

Kilburn Square was approved by 7 votes to one (Cllr Mauricer), Clement Close (which has received less publicity) approved unanimously, and Newland Court 6 for, 1 against (Cllr Maurice) and  1 abstention (Cllr Seelan).

The pressing need for council homes trumps the quality of life of existing council residents every time.  However, as Cllr Georgiou pointed out, there is often the possibility of a compromise that provides additional homes on estates as well as respecting the views of existing residents. Speaking  in favour of the Kilburn Square application on behalf of himself and Cllr Conneely (Kilburn ward councillors),  Cllr  Molloy supported the application saying that the area was much less densely built than Paris or Barcelona and the opposition came from the owner occupiers of nearby streets.

As I have observed over years of attending Planning Committee residents attending for the first time are often shocked by the proceedings - not just the mumbled, often incoherent, contributions but the factual mistakes that shocked residents try to point out but are quickly silenced. Poor chairing enables senior planning officers to ramble on down all sorts of bye-ways.

Tonight there were desperate attempts to correct one officer who several stated that one flat facing a proposed new building, was north facing, when the plan on the screen clearly showed it was east facing. The resident who actually lives in the flat was told she was not allowed to speak, so decisions were made based on misinformation.

After the meeting, having watched it on the livewebcast, Philip Grant sent Wembley Matters this comment about the Kilburn Square proceedings:

 I've just watched the live webcast of the Planning Committee meeting for the Kilburn Square application.

Whether or not 100% affordable housing should be set down in Condition 3, rather than 'a minimum of 50%' was a live issue, with 100% supported by two Kilburn Ward councillors and Cllr. Georgiou, on the basis that anything other than that would not be acceptable if the application was accepted.

After fudging around it, Planning Officers finally admitted that the Committee could impose a 100% affordable housing condition, if that was what they decided was necessary to justify the harm which the application would cause.

There was some discussion about whether Brent Council would ever reduce the level of affordable housing from 100%, given their election promises and the acknowledged need for genuinely affordable homes.

The Chair, Cllr. Kelcher, said if the Council (or Cabinet) tried to reduce the amount of affordable housing, there were ways that could be challenged, such as call-in. He then moved the discussion on to other points of the application, and never came back to the affordable housing point. 

In particular, he did ask committee members whether they wished to change Condition 3 from 'a minimum of 50%' to 100%. At the end of the discussion he just asked who was in favour of accepting the recommendation to approve the application, putting up his hand and noting that five other Labour members of the Committee did the same.

Cllr. Kelcher must have known that his wife, Cllr. Mili Patel, supported a Cabinet decision in November 2022 which would mean the "conversion" of at least around 40 of the LAR homes proposed for Kilburn Square to "intermediate" homes, or even to private sale. 

The Vice Chair of the Committee, Cllr. Saqib Butt, also quick to put his hand up, must have known that his brother, the Council Leader, both supported and spoke in favour of the "conversion" of LAR homes at Kilburn Square at that Cabinet meeting.

Planning Committee could have ensured that 100% of the 99 general needs homes they approved for Kilburn Square were protected as genuinely affordable homes through Condition 3. They could also have ensured that any change to that which the Council later wanted to make would have to be by way of a fresh application for a "material change" (under Section 73, Town and Country Planning Act 1990), which would then need proper scrutiny and a possible further decision by Planning Committee.

The Chair of the Committee made sure that they did not even get a vote on that point (so that he and none of the other Labour councillors were seen to be directly voting against 100% affordable homes).

That is not how planning decisions on important points should be made - but it is the level that planning in Brent has sunk.