Issue - meetings

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)

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