Issue - meetings

To debate the Group motions submitted in accordance with Standing Order 41.

Members are asked to note:

·            The motions submitted for debate have been attached.

·            Where a motion concerns an executive function, nothing passed can be actioned until approved by the Executive or an officer with the relevant delegated power.

(Agenda republished to include the Group motions submitted for debate on 5 November 2025 along with an amendment submitted by the Labour Group on the Conservative Group motion on 10 November 2025)

To debate the Group motions submitted in accordance with Standing Order 41.

Members are asked to note:

·            The motions submitted for debate have been attached.

·            Where a motion concerns an executive function, nothing passed can be actioned until approved by the Executive or an officer with the relevant delegated power.

(Agenda republished to include the Group motion submitted for debate on 9 September 2025 and amendments moved by the Labour Group on the Conservative & Liberal Democrats motions and Liberal Democrats on the 2^nd Labour motion on 15 September 2025)

Before moving on to consider the motions listed on the summons, the Mayor advised members that a total of 40 minutes had been set aside for consideration of the four motions submitted for debate, based on an initial allocation of 10 minutes per motion. Should the time taken to consider the first motion be less than 10 minutes he advised that the remaining time available would be rolled forward for consideration of the remaining motions.

10.1  1st Motion (Conservative Group) – Addressing Safety and Fly-Tipping Risks in Bee Corridor Management in Brent

The Mayor invited Councillor Jayanti Patel to move the first motion, which had been submitted on behalf of the Conservative Group.  Councillor J. Patel began by, highlighting the way in which the motion had been presented to reflect resident concerns about safety, hygiene, and accessibility of bee corridors and wildflower initiatives, with specific issues identified including fly-tipping, unmanaged vegetation, dumping of waste and litter often in areas adjacent to where children played.  It was also pointed out that overgrown grass near footpaths and crossings, particularly around Kingsbury Roundabout, had created hazards for pedestrians and drivers with enhanced risks in relation to fire safety also identified as a cause for concern.

As an alternative approach, Councillor Jayanti Patel highlighted the way similar challenges had been addressed elsewhere, including the use of hanging baskets within Harrow with bee-friendly plants which had been installed across lamp posts and railings supporting the approach towards biodiversity and corridor links between green spaces.  In summing up, he highlighted the call within the motion to ensure Brent's bee and wildflower corridors were managed in a safe, welcoming, and responsible way, which he hoped members would support given the concerns being raised by local residents.

The Mayor thanked Councillor Jayanti Patel for moving the motion and then drew members attention to an amendment submitted by Councillor Kabir on behalf of the Labour Group, which had been circulated in advance of the meeting.

In moving the amendment, Councillor Kabir began by highlighting the importance of the Council’s commitment to environmental initiatives such as the bee and wildflower corridors across the borough as well as climate change action.  Whilst acknowledging the importance in listening to concerns raised around the impact of green projects it was felt the original motion had failed to recognise the successful work being undertaken across Brent that was making a real difference in bringing cleaner air, flourishing wildlife, and a collective ambition to do better back to the borough.  As an example, reference was made to over 7 miles of wildflowers having been sown across the borough since 2019 creating 22 wildflower meadows which have added bursts of colour to parks, as well as helping to reverse declining insect populations delivering real change which it was felt would have a material impact on the borough for many years to come.

In highlighting that the original motion had included reference to work being undertaken by a number of other Labour administrations across London in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10

To debate the Group motions submitted in accordance with Standing Order 41.

Members are asked to note:

·            The motions submitted for debate have been attached

·            Where a motion concerns an executive function, nothing passed can be actioned until approved by the Executive or an officer with the relevant delegated power.

(Agenda republished to include the motions submitted for debate on 2 July 2025)

Before moving on to consider the motions listed on the summons, the Mayor advised members that a total of 40 minutes had been set aside for consideration of the four motions submitted for debate, based on an initial allocation of 10 minutes per motion. Should the time taken to consider the first motion be less than 10 minutes he advised that the remaining time available would be rolled forward for consideration of the remaining motions.

10.1    1^st Motion (Conservative Group) – Protecting Equality and Community Cohesion in Brent’s International Partnerships

The Mayor invited Councillor Kansagra to move the first motion, which had been submitted on behalf of the Conservative Group.  Councillor Kansagra began by acknowledging the decision already taken by the Council to enter into a twinning partnership with Nablus, and advised members that the motion being moved was focused on ensuring all international partnerships undertaken by the Council followed a consistent, fair and inclusive process with community cohesion at the heart. Highlighting the findings of the Equality Impact Assessment that had been conducted ahead of the Nablus twinning decision, Councillor Kansagra felt it had raised legitimate concerns that the partnership had the potential to cause emotional harm to some Brent communities, may risk compounding antisemitism and could be viewed as favouring one group over another. He also felt that it was not clear what steps would be taken to mitigate the identified risks, with residents in Brent raising questions around why the Council was committing time and resource to a town that Foreign Office guidance had currently placed a travel advisory against travelling to.  In view of concerns relating to the consultation and engagement process, Councillor Kansagra in concluding his remarks, commended the motion as a way forward to ensure a consistent, transparent and inclusive framework for all future twinning subject to consultation and community engagement.

The Mayor thanked Councillor Kansagra for moving the motion and then drew members attention to an amendment submitted by Councillor Muhammed Butt on behalf of the Labour Group, which had been circulated in advance of the meeting.

In moving the amendment, Councillor Muhammed Butt began by advising that the response he had provided to the petition regarding twinning with Nablus had been intended to provide clarity on the Council’s approach and once again reassured the chamber that all twinning arrangements the Council approved would be subject to a live, continuous equalities impact assessment, as outlined in the original report approved by Council.  In addressing the proposed motion, he highlighted that community cohesion and values were at the forefront of the twinning approach with relationships built to foster understanding, and not to divide.  Councillor Muhammed Butt also highlighted his pride at Brent being one of the most diverse boroughs in the country where people came to build a life and were able to live in peace alongside each other. Whilst acknowledging the complexity associated with any partnering arrangements he felt the amendment, as moved, would help to clarify the Council’s position in terms  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10

Following the change in procedure for dealing with Motions agreed as part of the changes to the Constitution at the Annual Council Meeting in May 2024, the debate on motions submitted to Full Council, in accordance with Standing Order 30(k) and 41 will now be undertaken at this stage of the meeting.

Members are asked to note:

·            The motions submitted for debate have been attached.

·            Where a motion concerns an executive function, nothing passed can be actioned until approved by the Executive or an officer with the relevant delegated power.

(Agenda republished to include the motions submitted for debate on 12 November 2024 along an amendment submitted by the Conservative Group on the 1^ST Labour Group motion - Item 9.3 on 16 November 2024)

Before moving on to consider the motions listed on the summons, the Mayor advised members that a total of 40 minutes had been set aside for consideration of the four motions submitted for debate, based on an initial allocation of 10 minutes per motion. Should the time taken to consider the first motion be less than 10 minutes he advised that the remaining time available would be rolled forward for consideration of the remaining motions.

10.1    1^st Motion (Conservative Group) – Effect of Labour Government budget on residents in Brent

The Mayor then invited Councillor Mistry to move the first motion which had been submitted on behalf of the Conservative Group.  Councillor Mistry began by highlighting concerns at what she felt to be the broken promises by the Labour Government in relation to the impact of their most recent budget on working people, pensioners and students.  This included increases in National Insurance, Inheritance Tax and removal of Winter Fuel Allowance payments based on what were felt to unsubstantiated claims regarding the £22 fiscal billion black hole the Chancellor had claimed to have inherited.  Despite the time available for them to plan when in Opposition, it was felt the budget had exposed traditional Labour rhetoric in seeking to increase public spending and taxes impacting on economic growth, families, business and those more vulnerable such as the elderly.  Particular concerns were highlighted in relation to the impact of the increase in National Insurance contributions across sectors such as social care and also in relation to the impact on the farming sector and food production as a result of the change in Inheritance Tax rules and anti-business regulation affecting the flexible labour market.

Asa result of the concerns expressed and outlined within the motion, Councillor Mistry ended by calling on the Leader of the Council to write to Sir Keir Starmer in seeking restoration of the Winter fuel supplement and reverse of the NI increases in recognition of the impact on Brent residents.

The Mayor thanked Councillor Mistry for moving the motion before inviting other members to speak, with the following contributions received.

Councillor Maurice, speaking in support of the motion, also highlighted how he felt the Labour Government had ignored the wishes of the electorate and broken their manifesto promises given the way in which the recent budget had impacted on families and working people and was anti-business.  Concern was also expressed regarding the imposition of VAT on private school fees and impact this would have on those from less wealthy backgrounds in seeking to access the sector.  Given the impacts outlined in relation to the budget, he felt these demonstrated the reality of a Labour Government and price that would be paid by residents across Brent as a result.

Speaking in opposition to the motion, Councillor Kelcher felt there was a need to recognise the difficult nature of the decisions faced by Labour in seeking to balance the financial position inherited from the previous Conservative Government.  Highlighting what he felt  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10

Following the change in procedure for dealing with Motions agreed as part of the changes to the Constitution at the Annual Council Meeting in May 2024, the debate on motions submitted to Full Council, in accordance with Standing Order 30(k) and 41 will now be undertaken at this stage of the meeting.

Members are asked to note:

·             The motions submitted for debate have been attached.

·             Where a motion concerns an executive function, nothing passed can be actioned until approved by the Executive or an officer with the relevant delegated power.

(Agenda republished to include the motions submitted for debate on 13 September 2024)

Before moving on to consider the motions listed on the summons, the Mayor advised members that a total of 40 minutes had been set aside for consideration of the four motions submitted for debate, based on an initial allocation of 10 minutes per motion. Should the time taken to consider the first motion be less than 10 minutes he advised that the remaining time available would be rolled forward for consideration of the remaining motions.

10.1    1^st Motion (Conservative Group) – Council’s participation in the Brent River Catchment Area

The Mayor invited Councillor Hirani to move the first motion, which had been submitted on behalf of the Conservative Group.  Councillor Hirani began by referring to several documents dating back a number of years documenting the management of flood risks impacting on a range of locations across Brent, with the Council’s Flood Risk Management Strategy making a clear case for the need to prioritise flood alleviation measures.  Highlighting similar documents and strategies developed by both the London Boroughs of Harrow and Barnet, Councillor Hirani outlined how this had led to all three boroughs to come together and create the Brent River Catchment Partnership to support the joint development of schemes designed to alleviate and protect against potential flood risks, recognising benefits given the interconnectivity of waterways across all three boroughs.  With this as background, she advised the motion was seeking to clarify why it appeared the decision had been taken within Brent to withdraw from the Partnership given the nature of works that continued to be developed in Harrow and Barnet that would directly benefit the residents of Brent and loss of access to associated funding for schemes.

Highlighting reference made within the motion to the types of specific schemes being developed, including flood attenuation works in Byron Recreation ground in Harrow designed to alleviate flooding risks in Wealdstone Brook and surrounding streams, river works in Chandos Park involving the restructuring of the Edgware Brook that fed into the River Brent alongside work in partnership with Thames 21 to undertake river restoration work in Watling Park to address flood alleviation in the Edgware/Burnt Oak area, Councillor Hirani criticised what she felt to be Brent’s distancing from these projects not only terms of flood alleviation measures but also in contributing towards the Council’s climate ambitions and improved biodiversity.  As a result, Councillor Hirani ended by advising that the motion was not only seeking an explanation for the approach adopted within Brent but also calling for the Council to re-engage with the Partnership for the benefit of all those impacted by potential flood risks across the borough.

The Mayor thanked Councillor Hirani for moving the motion before inviting other members to speak, with the following contributions received.

In responding to the motion, Councillor Krupa Sheth began by querying the basis on which the motion had been presented given that officers had confirmed Brent had not withdrawn from the Partnership agreement and, infact, was continuing to work with both Barnet and Harrow  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10

Following the change in procedure for dealing with Motions agreed as part of the changes to the Constitution at the Annual Council Meeting in May 2024, the debate on motions submitted to Full Council, in accordance with Standing Order 30(k) and 41 will now be undertaken at this stage of the meeting.

Members are asked to note:

·            The motions submitted for debate have been attached.

·            Where a motion concerns an executive function, nothing passed can be actioned until approved by the Executive or an officer with the relevant delegated power.

(Agenda republished to include the motions submitted for debate on 3 July 2024 and a Labour Group amendment to the Conservative Group Motion on 5 July 2024)

Before moving on to consider the motions listed on the summons, the Mayor advised members that a total of 40 minutes had been set aside for consideration of the four motions submitted for debate, based on an initial allocation of 10 minutes per motion. Should the time taken to consider the first motion be less than 10 minutes he advised that the remaining time available would be rolled forward for consideration of the remaining motions.

10.1    1^st Motion (Conservative Group) – Action to address dockless e-bike parking within Brent.

The Mayor invited Councillor Mistry to move the first motion which had been submitted on behalf of the Conservative Group.  Councillor Mistry began by providing context to the motion and thanking Councillor Long for her support in relation to the amendment submitted, on the basis it was seeking to highlight many of the same concerns.  In highlighting the increase in number of dockless e-bikes being abandoned in parks and streets across the borough, Councillor Mistry (as ward councillor) highlighted specific issues being experienced within Queensbury with the Conservative Group motion (supported by the amendment) seeking stronger action in relation to management of the scheme by the bike operator given the problems and safety issues being experienced.  In acknowledging the support within the amendment to the five actions which had been identified within the Conservative Group motion and discussions which had now commenced between the Council and operator to address concerns regarding management of the current scheme across the borough, Councillor Mistry advised that the Conservative Group would also be willing to support the amendment moved.

The Mayor thanked Councillor Mistry for moving the motion and then drew members’ attention to an amendment submitted by Councillor Long on behalf of the Labour Group, which had been circulated in advance of the meeting.

In moving the amendment, Councillor Long thanked Councillor Mistry for highlighting the issues raised within her motion.  Whilst acknowledging the popularity of the dockless e-bike scheme across the borough and supporting the efforts being made to reduce pollution and encourage more active modes of travel, there was, she felt, a need to address the current management and operation of the scheme recognising the problems being created by those not using it as they should and abandoning or dangerously parking bikes in parks and streets across the borough negatively impacting on pedestrians.  As such, it was felt better regulation and management of the scheme was required, including a review and update of the Memorandum of Understanding and Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) governing operation of the scheme in Brent, which it was pointed had been agreed prior to the pandemic and was subject to regular and ongoing breaches.  As an example, reference was made to the need, if parking was to be allowed on pavements, for the impact on pedestrians to be reflected within the EIA which currently only included reference to cyclists.  In terms of improvements being sought, the amendment had also been designed to seek the necessary protection  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10