Tories enable another Labour administration despite Labour's local election losses

 

Tonight's 'arrangement' 

Cllr Mistry, Deputy Mayor (Conservative) on the left, Cllr Agha, Mayor (Labour) on the right

 

A minority Labour administration led once again by Muhammed Butt, was installed this evening, with the help of an 'arrangement' with the Conservative Party. The arrangement saw the Conservatives installed as the official Opposition (with appropriate allowances), despite the Lib Dems having the same number of seats; being given both Scrutiny chair positions (with appropriate allowances) and the position of Deputy Mayor.

Brent Green Party issued the following statement:

   

On May 7^th  residents gave a resounding response to the question of the type of leadership they want in Brent. Labour lost twenty four seats and their control of the Council, securing under thirty percent of the popular vote. This is not a mandate to continue the status quo. Brent voted overwhelmingly for change.

 

Muhammed Butt has been leader of Brent Council for fourteen years. In any other circumstance, a political leader who led one’s party to such defeat after such long tenure would resign and pass the mantle on to a new leader. 

 

This evening, enabled by a deal with the Conservative Party, instead of change Brent residents have been given more of the same – a minority-led Labour administration under Muhammed Butt – rather than the collaborative model of governance they voted for.

 

This is not the transformation in the way decisions are made in Brent that residents voted for. This does not signify the cultural shift for cross-party collaboration, scrutiny, and accountability that Brent Green Party had hoped for, and indeed that we believe Brent needs.

 

We have been open to a formal arrangement with Labour with policy commitments and governance changes, but their national party would rather they strike a deal with the Conservative Party than the Green Party, ignoring the progressive values of its supporters.

 

What further sign could there be of the moral decay within the Labour Party?

 

Multi-party politics in Brent is here to stay. Voters are moving away from the two-party system and all four parties in Brent are going to have to collaborate, seek consensus and work together for better outcomes for residents.

 

More people voted for the Green Party in Brent than ever before, and our role here on Brent Council is vital. Opposition councillors are essential in keeping this new administration in check, and standing up for democratic decision-making and justice for Brent residents. We are not here to play political games, but to work hard to protect local services and public spaces, stand up for local communities against extractive industries, and protect our natural environment.

 

We are disappointed in today’s outcome for Brent’s residents, and what this means for democracy – but we remain ready to collaborate with anyone who shares our principles of environmental and social justice and a commitment to the best outcome for residents, rather than for a particular political party.

Brent Conservatives likely to prop up a Butt led Brent Council

 

It appears that Labour have likel y made a deal with Brent Conservatives that potentially will give Cllr Muhammed Butt another four years as leader of Brent Council. Not a position that many residents and members of the local Brent Conservatative and Brent Labour parties will find palatable.

In the deal it appears that Brent Conservatives will chair each of the two Scrutiny Committees and possibly be given a Mayor or Deputy Mayor position. There is no news of any detailed policy matters agreed between the two groups.

What is really astonishing, given the huge drop in the Labour vote in the local election, is that Muhammed Butt has made Cllr Matt Kelcher, former Planning Committee chair lead member for Regeneration. Furthermore (surely not!) he has appointed his brother, Saqib Butt, to replace Kelcher as Chair of the Planning Committee (he was vice chair in the outgoing administration).

This marks the continuation of the Towerblock Tatler approach to development now headed by the Towerblock Triad! 

 

RENT RISES, DISREPAIR, UNCLEAR ENERGY BILLS? Calling Wembley Park renters for a meeting tomorrow 7pm Chalkhill Centre with London Renters Union.

Wembley Park ward was excluded from the Brent Landlord Licensing scheme as if bad landlords did not exist there. The story on the ground is quite different:

 

This Thursday 7pm, join renters from across Wembley Park at an open meeting to discuss housing issues in the blocks. Open to all renters, whether private, social or temporary.

Hosted by the London Renters Union at Chalkhill Community Centre, HA9 9FX.

This meeting is an open space to discuss problems you and your neighbours face. There will be a short presentation of the work of the London Renters Union, which supports blocks across the city to organise themselves when faced with negligent landlords who ignore complaints. We work on the principle that far more can be achieved by working together than alone. 

LRU supports renters who are concerned about their housing and want to get organised - if that's you please come by! We've won much more security for private renters through the Renters Rights Act from May 1st - now is the time to get organised.

 Fill out the short survey here and drop by on Thursday: 

https://londonrentersunion.org/2026/wembley-park-housing-survey/

In Barnet, Labour and the Conservatives may as well be one party

   

 

Labour and the Tories made a backroom deal yesterday (Tues May 19th) to share control of Barnet Council, after neither party emerged victorious from the May 7th borough council election.

 

Labour lost control of the council after a successful campaign from the Green Party in Woodhouse elected Cllr. Charli Thompson, which turned out to be the deciding vote in the 63-member chamber, as the Tories and Labour were tied with 31 seats each.

 

She called for councillors to rise to the challenge by increasing transparency, accountability and allowing the voices of all residents to be heard.

 

Instead, they voted unanimously to change the council's constitution to reshape the numbers in all key committees, such that the lone Green councillor would be excluded from all of them. The Tories then abstained on a vote to re-elect Labour’s Barry Rawlings as leader of the council, handing power to Labour as agreed in talks that began immediately after the election. 

 

 Barnet Greens

 

The Green Party received 16% of the vote across the London borough. At Tuesday's council meeting, the first since the election, Cllr. Charli Thompson called for councillors to acknowledge that voters had not given either party a mandate to govern. Instead, she said, the vote showed that the Tories and Labour believe that there is such a thing as "second class councillors…and therefore second-class citizens" 

 

No voters in Barnet voted for a Labour-Conservative coalition, in fact the two parties sank to their lowest ever combined share of the vote, with 37% of voters turning elsewhere - these voters deserve to be represented. 

 

For all practical purposes, in Barnet the Tories and Labour have merged into a single party.

 

Look out for similat events in Brent. watch tonight's Council Meeting live from 6pm. LINK 

 

Call to restore Brent Council General Purposes Committee to its proper status as an independent mainly 'back bench' committee

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

   

Philip Grant has sent this email to Brent Council. He has been trying to get the General Purposes Committee returned to its proper status, as a mainly "backbench" committee independent of the ruling Cabinet, since 2016, as shown in his March 2026 guest post https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2026/03/proposed-stopping-up-order-near-olympic.html

 

This is an open email

 

Dear Mr Patel, Ms Nassr, Mr Kinsella and Ms Wright,

 

In looking at the agenda for the Annual Meeting, and item 11, I am writing to suggest that the timing for meetings of the General Purposes Committee in the Calendar of Meetings will have to be changed. 9.30am on a Monday morning is no longer appropriate, and it should now be at 6pm, and possibly on a different day.

 

The time of 9.30am, before a Cabinet meeting at 10am, only came about because the General Purposes Committee had effectively become a sub-committee of Brent's Cabinet. It should never have been that, as the General Purposes Committee makes decisions on matters which are not part of the Cabinet's remit, and there should be a clear "separation of powers".

 

I am including Ms Wright in this email as she chairs the Constitution Working Group, and copying it to the Leaders of the four Groups on the new Council, as I feel strongly that it is time that the General Purposes Committee was put back to its proper role as an independent, mainly "back bench" committee. I would suggest that the make-up of the committee in the Constitution, whether it has eight or six members, should be restricted to no more than two Cabinet members, and at least one member of each Group on the Council.

 

The downside of the way the previous "Cabinet" model of the GPC operated is that its members had only a maximum of 30 minutes to consider important decisions, and these could be based on detailed Reports, which they had to read in addition to even more Reports ready for their Cabinet meeting at 10am.

 

An example of how this had an adverse impact on Brent Council is the Section 116 Highways Act application, which I was involved in opposing earlier this year. The go-ahead for this application was given at a General Purposes Committee meeting in March 2022, which had six substantive items on its agenda, yet lasted only 19 minutes. 

 

If the committee members had considered what they were recommended to approve more closely, they may have seen what was obvious to me immediately when I saw the plan and draft order for the first time last December. If they had then questioned what exactly was being proposed, it might have made the Officers involved reconsider whether the "generic" wording of a Section 116 Order was appropriate for the specific circumstances of the situation on the south side of Engineers Way.

 

As it was, it took many hours of Officer time, and a detailed hearing before a Magistrate, taking a whole afternoon of time for the barrister representing Brent Council, to get to a sensible solution, which gave the Council and Quintain the permission to swap maintenance responsibilities for small areas of pavement, but did not take away the legal right for people to pass across those areas:-

 

 

I trust that the timing of GPC meetings will be amended, and look forward to hearing that the Constitution will be changed to reflect the proper status of Brent's General Purposes Committee. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

 

Letter: Is this really what Brent residents voted for in May?

 

 

Dear Editor,

  

Labour’s AGM took place on Saturday, where Cllr Muhammed Butt was elected as group leader and Cllr Gwen Grahl was elected as deputy leader.

 

As per Philip Grant's report on Friday, there are rumours circulating that Muhammed Butt is actively considering a deal with the Tories to form an administration. This could involve Labour being propped up, in return for committee positions or even support for the Mayor of Brent.

 

Rumours are that Georgia Gould, MP for Queens Park and Maida Vale (and god-daughter of Tony Blair) is a key proponent of a deal with the Tories. This is not the first time she has intervened in the internal affairs of the Brent Labour Group.

 

Many are wondering, is this really what Labour voters voted for in May?

 

A Concerned Brent Resident 

Next weekend's Event Day closures from12.30pm on Saturday and 9am on Sunday

 

Headache for the new Brent Council as opposition builds to 25 storey care home and co-living proposal on Holiday Inn car park

 

A campaign is building up over a developent planned for the space outside the Holiday Inn near Wembley Stadium Station. 

 

 

 

The Holiday Inn, Wembley

 

 The view from above (Google Earth)

 

The proposal: 

Clearance of site and construction of an interconnected building ranging from 8 to 25 storeys in height to provide a Care Home and Co-Living Accommodation, together with associated car and cycle parking (including within existing basement), hard and soft landscaping and communal amenity space.

There have been concerns about 'warehousing elderly people in the sky' as well as over-development and lack of amenity and infrastructure.  So far there have been 43 objections on the Brent Council Planning portal. This objection summarises some of the issues:

 I wish to formally object to planning application 26/0967 relating to the proposed development on land adjacent to the Holiday Inn, Empire Way, Wembley.

My objection is based on the following concerns:

The proposed height and scale of the development are excessive for this location. A building of up to 25 storeys would add further overdevelopment to an area of Wembley that is already experiencing significant density and pressure. The scale and massing of the proposal would negatively affect the character of the surrounding neighbourhood and place additional strain on existing infrastructure.

I am also concerned about the impact on local services and community infrastructure. The development would significantly increase the local population without clear evidence that GP services, hospitals, schools, public transport, or other community services will be expanded to support this increase. Existing services in the area are already under considerable pressure.

Parking and traffic are already major problems for local residents. The proposal does not appear to provide sufficient parking for the scale of the development, particularly given the combination of co-living accommodation and a care home. Increased visitor, staff, resident, delivery, and service vehicle traffic would place additional pressure on surrounding residential streets.

In addition, the application does not clearly explain the operational nature and long-term functioning of the proposed care home use. If residents require regular carers, transport services, adapted vehicles, medical visits, deliveries, or frequent visitors, this could create further congestion and parking difficulties in nearby streets.

I also have concerns regarding the suitability of a very high-rise building for vulnerable elderly residents and whether sufficient evidence has been provided to justify this approach on public health and wellbeing grounds. While large-scale developments may increase capacity, there appears to be limited evidence demonstrating that a 25-storey care home environment provides better outcomes for elderly residents, particularly those with dementia, mobility limitations, or cognitive impairment, when compared with smaller-scale and lower-rise care settings.

Research and professional guidance relating to later-life and dementia-friendly environments often emphasise the importance of accessibility, ease of navigation, social connection, reduced institutional scale, and access to appropriate communal and outdoor space. The application does not appear to demonstrate clearly how these resident wellbeing considerations have been addressed within a development of this scale and height.

Given the vulnerability of many potential residents, I believe the public health and quality-of-life implications of this proposal require far greater scrutiny before permission is considered.

Overall, I believe this proposal represents overdevelopment and would have a harmful impact on the quality of life of existing residents, local infrastructure, traffic conditions, parking availability, and the character of the area.

I therefore respectfully request that Brent Council refuse planning application 26/096  

The Planning Statement for the developer from Carney Sweeney makes the case for not making any contribution in lieu of providing affordable housing:    

The [viability] assessment identifies that the scheme currently generates a deficit of approximately 22%.

 

However, the accompanying sensitivity analysis demonstrates that viability improves where co-living rents increase in 5% increments and construction costs reduce by 5%, with the scheme moving into a positive viability position under these scenarios. Given the rapidly changing economic environment, this sensitivity testing is considered a reasonable metric for illustrating the scheme’s potential deliverability.

 

Notwithstanding this, the scheme remains financially challenging due to the aforementioned inflationary and geopolitical pressures. In light of these sensitivities, a residential payment in lieu of on-site affordable housing is deemed unviable. As an alternative, the provision of discounted market rent for the care element of the scheme has been explored with Brent Council’s Adult Social Care team, who have expressed support for this approach. At this stage, the applicant proposes that 15% of the C2 care home units be made available at a discounted rate to Brent residents. This provision would be secured through the Section 106 agreement.

 

Given the current economic climate, this approach is considered appropriate and would deliver additional planning benefits as part of the scheme.

Here are some images from the Design and Access statements which give a general idea of the proposed scheme:

From Wembley Hill Road

 

Current view  from a street opposite the development

 

 View incorporating the proposed development

 

Holiday Inn on left and new development including care home and co-living on the right

The proposal to 'green' the site including terraces on upper floors 

 

 The rather meagre greening at ground floor level

 

 

An imaginative view of the 16th floor co-living terrace after dark!

 

The developer has had at least one meeting with members of the outgoing Planning Committee and a number with Brent planning officers ahead of the submission of this application. The new Planning Committee will be confronted with the constraints of the Local Plan with its tall building zones, as well as  those of the London Plan and a Governmenrt committed to reducing local councils' and citizens' say on planning applications.

 

LINK to this planning application on the Brent Planning Portal where you can make a comment in support or opposition to the application.