Agenda item

7.1   To receive questions submitted by the public to Cabinet Members, in accordance with Standing Order 33.

Members are asked to note that three public question have been received, which have been attached along with their written response.

7.2   To receive questions submitted from Brent Youth Parliament to Cabinet Members, in accordance with Standing Order 33(c).

One question has been received under this item, which has been attached along with the written response provided.

NOTED

1.          The written and supplementary verbal response provided by the Cabinet Member for Environment, Infrastructure & Climate Action to a public question submitted by Nichola Rogers regarding the implementation of a plant based food policy within schools and at Council and Civic events.

2.          The written and supplementary verbal response provided by the Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security to a public question submitted by Jeanette Audrey about the impact of the Windmill Court Infill housing development on local residents, the surrounding local environment and adjacent properties.

3.          The written and supplementary verbal response provided by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Planning to a public question submitted by Siobhan Culhane regarding the Transport Planning Assessment relating to the Windmill Court Infill housing development and its impact, from a fire safety perspective.

4.          The written response provided by the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Schools to a question submitted by Brent Youth Parliament regarding support for the Education for Life Campaign.  No supplementary question was received.

8.1      Questions from the Public

The Mayor advised that the following three questions had been received from members of the public:

Question 1 from Nichola Rogers to Councillor Krupa Sheth, Cabinet Member for Environment, Infrastructure and Climate Action regarding the introduction of a plant-based food policy where catering was provided at Council and Civic events and also within schools.

Question 2 from Jeanette Audrey to Councillor Knight, Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security, regarding the impact of current housing infill development proposals on local residents at Windmill Court

Question 3 from Siobhan Culhane to Councillor Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Planning, regarding the transport assessment undertaken as part of the infill development proposals at Windmill Court.

Members noted the written responses provided on each of the questions, which had been circulated with the agenda.  The Mayor advised that each member of the public had been invited to attend the meeting and all three were present in order to ask a supplementary question following the written responses provided.

Having been welcomed to the meeting, the following supplementary questions were asked of the relevant Cabinet Member(s).

Question 1: Supplementary question from Nichola Rogers to Councillor Krupa Sheth, Cabinet Member for Environment, Infrastructure and Climate Action

Having noted and thanked Councillor Krupa Sheth for the written response provided, Nichola Rogers advised she was pleased for the acknowledgement regarding the impact that consuming less meat and reducing food waste would have as part of Council’s Climate Emergency Strategy and in reducing the effects of the climate crisis.  Whilst welcoming the efforts being made, however, she felt that the Council could take an even more proactive approach and as a supplementary question therefore asked if the Council would consider introducing a plant based food policy at all future Council and Civic catered events, as had been the case in other local authorities.

In thanking Nichola Rogers for her question, Councillor Krupa Sheth advised that whilst willing to work with the Mayor in terms of future Civic events, the Council already ensured plant-based options were available at the limited range of events where catering was now provided, in support of the theme relating to consumption, resources and waste within the Climate Emergency Strategy.

Question 2: Supplementary Question from Jeanette Audrey to Councillor Knight, Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security.

Having noted the written response provided, Jeanette Audrey highlighted concern at what she felt had been the lack of consultation and engagement with local residents regarding development of the infill proposals.  In expressing specific concerns at what was felt to be an unacceptable loss of daylight and sunlight amenity to surrounding properties and overall negative impact of the development, she again asked the Cabinet Member to justify the basis on which such an excessive development had been able to proceed given what local residents felt to be its adverse and overbearing effect on the amenity of the surrounding area and overall financially viability in terms of the provision of genuinely affordable housing.

In thanking Jeanette Audrey for her question, Councillor Knight began by assuring residents that development of the scheme had been subject to careful consideration and detailed assessment, which included the impact in relation to daylight and sunlight amenity on surrounding properties.  This assessment had identified that the proposed development was in line with local, regional and national planning policy and had been the basis on which the planning application had been progressed.  Whilst understanding and appreciating the concerns expressed and acknowledging that the development would have some impact on local residents, the associated improvements being delivered in relation to security and the communal green space were also outlined.  Councillor Knight also felt it important to highlight the wider context in which the proposals had been brought forward as part of a programme to address the shortage of genuinely affordable housing in Brent with 24,000 households on the housing waiting list, over 1,700 families currently living in temporary accommodation and a further 240 families in priority need of transfer due to issues such as overcrowding.  Whilst the building of new homes was a priority she advised of the efforts also being made to ensure these developments worked for people living in the area.  Although recognising the concerns raised, Councillor Knight ended by highlighting the level of engagement undertaken with residents to seek their views and create proposals which had been designed to balance the provision of new affordable housing with improvements that would also benefit and seek to mitigate any potential impact on them arising from the development.

Question 3 from Siobhan Culhane to Councillor Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Planning

In noting and thanking the Cabinet Member for her written response, Siobhan Culhane as a supplementary question sought further details on the assessment undertaken by the Transport Consultant in relation to vehicle access to Windmill Court as part of the Infill development planning application process, especially in relation to access by large high reach fire appliances.  As a result of a recent Freedom of Information request it appeared an assessment had been completed which had identified that large sized appliances would not be able to negotiate the site layout but details had not been provided on the assessment in relation to access by smaller sized first line ariel appliances, which had previously needed to be deployed in Windmill Court.  Post Grenfell, Councillor Tatler was therefore asked if, as Cabinet Member, she was satisfied the Council had demonstrated its commitment to incorporating the highest standards of fire safety in development of the scheme proposals.

In thanking Siobhan Culhane for her question Councillor Tatler took the opportunity to assure local residents of the seriousness in which fire safety was treated in relation to all planning applications and development proposals.  In highlighting that the main regulatory framework for fire safety measures was focussed around Building Regulations she advised it was the Council’s Building Control team who were responsible for considering detailed fire safety provision within scheme proposals to ensure the necessary conditions were placed on any development, working in conjunction with the Fire Brigade.  Referring to her written response, Councillor Tatler felt it important to recognise that the assessment of vehicular access for fire safety as part of the Windmill Court development had therefore been based on the likely vehicles that the Fire Service would deploy to attend a fire at the site.

Having noted the responses provided, the Mayor thanked the members of the public in attendance for their supplementary questions and Cabinet Members for their response and then moved on to deal with the question submitted by Brent Youth Parliament.

8.2   Questions from Brent Youth Parliament

The Mayor advised that the following question had been received from Brent Youth Parliament:

Question 1 from Brent Youth Parliament to Councillor Grahl, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools regarding support for the Youth Parliament’s “Education for Life” campaign aimed at improving how life skills were taught in schools and to involve young people in decision making relating to local education matters.

The Mayor thanked Brent Youth Parliament for their question, with members noting the written response provided.  As representatives from the Youth Parliament had unfortunately been unable to attend the meeting members were advised there would be no supplementary question.

With no further questions to be considered, the Mayor advised that this now concluded the public question session and moved on to the next item.