Agenda item

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, in accordance with Standing Order 41(c).

 

·            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 attached motions on 29 June 2026 along with the amendments submitted by the Liberal Democrat Group and Green Group on the Conservative Group motion (attached as 9.2 a and b) and Labour Group on the Liberal Democrat motion (attached as 9.3a) on 6 July 2026)

Before moving on to consider the motions listed on the summons, the Mayor advised members that under the new arrangements agreed as part of the changes to Council Procedure Rules agreed earlier in the meeting a total of 60 minutes had now been set aside for consideration of motions submitted for debate.  Members were reminded that provision had now been made for the consideration of three Group motions at each Council meeting, based on an allocation across each meeting agreed between the respective Groups.  Under the allocation agreed, this had involved motions being submitted for debate at the meeting by the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats Groups, with a total of 20 minutes now provided for the debate on each one.

 

On the basis of the changes agreed, the Mayor then moved on to consider each motion in turn.

 

12.1  1st Motion (Labour Group) – Declaring a Gambling Harms Emergency in Brent

 

The Mayor invited Councillor Bajwa to move the first motion which had been submitted on behalf of the Labour Group.  Councillor Bajwa began by highlighting the importance of the motion in recognising the harm associated with gambling as not only a public health crisis but also a community safety issue and something that needed to be confronted working together.  In recognising the concerns raised by residents across Brent at the spread of betting shops and adult gaming centres on High Streets and in Town Centres including Wembley, Willesden, Kilburn and Harlesden, Councillor Bajwa also reflected on the impact of these gambling premises being located within communities experiencing some of the greatest need across the borough, with 81 licensed gambling premises currently located with Brent.

 

Referring to the impact of gambling harm in relation to not only health and wellbeing but also in terms of financial and family pressure, mental health and community safety, Councillor Bajwa advised the motion was seeking to move from campaigning alone to provide a co-ordinated council-wide response based around a Gambling Harms Strategy.  Members were advised the Strategy had been proposed as a means of increasing understanding about the scale of the problem in Brent and structuring resource to support prevention, advice and ensure licensing, planning, public health, schools, community safety, debt advice and resident services were all supporting each other under a co-ordinated approach.

 

In commending the former Deputy Leader of the Council (Mili Patel) for the work already undertaken in seeking to raise awareness and co-ordinate a response to address the issues identified, members were reminded that Brent had also sought to take a lead nationally working with residents, campaigners, MPs, charities, public health experts and more than 40 councils with Andy Burnham MP also an early backer of the campaign and the motion therefore focussed in pushing for change at a national as well as local level.  In commending the motion to Council, Councillor Bajwa ended by advising members that it was not intended to moralise and instead was focussed in seeking support for an approach that would provide the necessary powers locally to address the harms associated with gambling in a fair and open way.

 

The Mayor thanked Councillor Bajwa for moving the motion and then invited other members to speak, with the following contributions received.

 

In opening the debate Councillor Burn, speaking in support of the motion, began by reflecting on refusal of a recent gambling licensing application for premises on Walm Lane, Willesden highlighting the value of cross-party and community collaboration in securing that outcome and what could be achieved when political groups, residents, businesses and community organisations worked together to oppose these type of premises and applications.  Referring to the significant level of public opposition generated against the application, he felt this demonstrated the depth of concern within the local community and whilst recognising the requirement for applications to be determined in accordance with local Licensing objectives and the evidence presented, he encouraged continued engagement from all relevant stakeholder in seeking to respond to future applications.  In terms of the wider issues outlined within the motion, Councillor Burn supported the focus beyond individual licensing decisions on achieving national legislative reform and welcomed the action being taken by the current Labour Government and ongoing campaign being led by Brent East’s MP in seeking amendments to gambling legislation, which he hoped would be supported as a means of strengthening regulation and reducing gambling-related harm.

 

As a further contribution, Councillor Maurice (speaking on behalf of the Conservative Group) advised they would also be supporting the motion, recognising the significant harm that betting shops and adult gaming centres caused to individuals, families and communities.  Whilst supporting the motion, he felt it was also important to acknowledge the wider historical context pointing out that the expansion of gambling premises had been facilitated through changes introduced by a previous Labour Government and contrasted this with the approach of the last Conservative Government in introducing a requirement for planning permission to be obtained when seeking a change of use relating to the establishment of gambling premises.  Recognising the social harms arising from gambling, Councillor Maurice also supported the need for stronger national measures suggesting that gambling should be regulated in a similar way to smoking, including tighter restrictions on advertising and warnings regarding the associated risks. In summing up, he reiterated the Conservative Group’s support for the motion whilst urging the Government to bring forward more robust legislation to tackle gambling harm and protect vulnerable residents.

 

Speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group, Councillor Georgiou also confirmed his Groups support for the motion whilst also reflecting on the role previous Labour Governments had played in facilitating the growth of gambling premises through the Gambling Act 2005 and its "Aim to Permit" licensing framework, which he felt needed to be recognised when discussing the current challenges faced by councils in controlling the concentration of gambling premises on local high streets.  Despite these concerns, Councillor Georgiou advised that the Liberal Democrat Group fully recognised the significant harms associated with gambling and the disproportionate impact experienced by residents living in less affluent communities. Referring to town centres such as Willesden Green, Wembley and Kilburn, he highlighted the continuing concentration of betting shops and also welcomed the recent refusal of the licensing application for the gambling premises in Walm Lane, emphasising the importance of all stakeholders working collectively to address gambling harm within Brent.

 

Speaking next on behalf of the Green Group, Councillor Gallagher also welcomed the motion but felt that any declaration of a gambling harms emergency should only be seen as the first step in a wider programme of action.  Whilst recognising the efforts made locally, concern was expressed about the continued influence of the gambling industry at a national political level and need for strong leadership to achieve meaningful reform.  The opportunity was also taken to pay tribute to local campaigners whose personal experience had informed the ongoing campaign to recognise and tackle gambling-related harm.  As an example, of the concerns being highlighted reference was made to the operation of many gambling establishments, including cash-based operations, limited retention of CCTV footage and financial incentives provided to staff along with the estimates produced by GambleAware regarding the economic costs associated with gambling harm.  In support of the need for reform, Councillor Gallagher called for a revised Gambling Act providing greater powers to refuse new licensing applications for gambling premises, the ability to recover administrative and legal costs associated with licensing activity and the introduction of levies capable of funding prevention, support and treatment services as opposed to the costs falling on local authorities and public health services.  She also advocated for restrictions relating to machine speeds, stake levels and taxation arrangements designed to reduce the commercial viability of gambling premises, with members therefore urged to use the motion as a catalyst for broader change.

 

Councillor Dixon then spoke (as Cabinet Member for Community Safety & Public Health) to highlight her support for the motion and, in doing so, also took the opportunity to pay tribute to former Deputy Leader Milli Patel for her leadership in raising awareness of gambling harms and championing reform both locally and nationally.  Whilst recognising that the motion was focussed on a gambling harms emergency, she felt it also reflected a more fundamental and broader issue in relation to securing freedom from harm and the protection of vulnerable individuals from an industry which benefited from financial distress, isolation and often addiction.  Referring to Brent’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, Councillor Dixon highlighted evidence demonstrating the significant financial, health and social costs associated with gambling harm locally, noting that the prevalence and impact of gambling addiction had increased considerably during recent years with the impact often hidden from view and extending beyond individuals to affect entire families and communities.  In support of the wider approach outlined in the motion, members were advised of the active contribution being made by Brent’s Public Health team towards research and awareness-raising initiatives in relation to gambling harms, including funding provided towards the research and report produced by the Social Market Foundation.  This had been supported by communication campaigns across the borough encouraging people to stop and reflect before gambling., in an effort to prevent it becoming normalised by its visibility with further evidence highlighted at the inequality related to gambling harm and data suggesting residents from minority ethnic communities were being disproportionately affected. In concluding Councillor Dixon made reference to a quote from local a resident who had explained how financial desperation often drove individuals towards gambling in the hope of escaping poverty, despite frequently resulting in even greater hardship and urged all members to support the motion in seeking to deliver a Strategy that would provide a co-ordinated council-wide response whilst also supporting prevention and ensuring residents in crisis received the support needed.

 

As a further contribution, Councillor Dar also expressed his support for the motion, particularly welcoming proposals relating to Gambling Impact Assessments, which he felt would provide councils with the practical tools needed to support evidence-based decision-making and address concerns regarding the concentration of gambling premises within particular communities.  Recognising the strength of opposition within local communities to the proliferation of gambling premises, he pointed out the priorities expressed by residents in support of high streets that felt safe and welcoming and which supported a diverse range of local businesses, which the expansion of gambling premises was not felt to contribute towards. He therefore highlighted the importance of assessing cumulative impacts rather than viewing applications solely on an individual basis. In welcoming Brent’s role in seeking to secure national reform, he concluded by emphasising the need for Government to introduce the proposed powers swiftly, stating that local authorities and communities should be trusted to help shape the future character of their high streets.

 

Councillor Alexandre then spoke, also in support for the motion, to reflect on what she regarded as continuing stigma surrounding gambling addiction. Whilst acknowledging the significant progress made in improving public understanding of other addictions, she felt the harms associated with gambling remained hidden despite affecting many households across the borough with many residents likely to be experiencing serious gambling-related difficulties given the number of premises operating across the borough.  In support of the proposed Gambling Harm Strategy the need was highlighted for a focus on greater and long-term investment in prevention, education and support services designed to help residents affected by gambling addiction with particular emphasis on educating younger people regarding gambling-related risks and ensuring alternative opportunities and activities were available within local communities.  In support of the regulatory reforms also being sought, Councillor Alexandre was also keen to ensure that the gambling industry was required to contribute more directly towards funding the public health response with concerns (in this respect) highlighted regarding political donations being provided by the gambling industry, which it was felt also need to be addressed.

 

As a final contribution, Councillor Grahl, (as Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources) welcomed the debate and acknowledged the points raised regarding the need for national policy reform.  In commending the important role played by her predecessor (Milli Patel) in building support for reform across Councils and Members of Parliament it was felt this collaborative approach had been crucial in securing greater national attention on the issue.  Whilst recognising the broader impacts of gambling harm, Councillor Grahl was specifically keen to focus on the associated consequences for children and young people, expressing concern at the growing mental health challenges already faced by many young people with the exposure to gambling activity and gambling-related advertising having the potential to normalise harmful behaviours from an early age. which increased access to online technologies and screen-based activities were felt to have further exacerbated.  In concluding and commending the motion to members, Councillor Grahl welcomed the national campaign for reform and hoped all members would support the approach in seeking to advocate for a society in which the health and wellbeing of residents, particularly children and young people, were prioritised above the commercial interests of large gambling operators.

 

In drawing the debate to a close, the Mayor invited Councillor Bajwa (as mover of the original motion) to exercise their right of reply.  Given the support expressed Councillor Bajwa indicated she did not intend to exercise a right of reply, with the Mayor therefore moving to put the motion straight to the vote which was unanimously declared CARRIED.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED to approve the following motion:

 

“Declaring a Gambling Harms Emergency in Brent

 

This Council notes:

 

·            That gambling harm is a public health, community safety and issue of pride in Brent, with a visible concentration of betting shops and adult gaming centres in our most deprived communities.

 

·            That Brent’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment identified the financial, health and social costs of gambling harm locally, including its links to debt, poor mental health, family breakdown, crime and inequality.

 

·            That Brent has led a national campaign for gambling reform, working with over 40 councils, alongside Dawn Butler MP and Andy Burnham MP to call for a five-point plan for change, including stronger local licensing powers, the removal of the outdated “aim to permit” duty, greater public health oversight and tougher enforcement.

 

·            That Brent Council sponsored the Social Market Foundation report ‘High Streets at Stake’, which highlighted the growth of adult gaming centres and the weakness of the current licensing framework.

 

·            The impact of this campaigning in securing a change in the law, with the Government legislating for Gambling Impact Assessments, so that when enacted, councils can introduce presumption against new premises licences in vulnerable areas.

 

This Council believes that:

 

• Gambling harm should be treated as a serious public health emergency.

 

·            Residents should not have to watch their high streets permeated with gambling premises while councils are left with limited powers to act, and where residents and councils do not want gambling premises, they should have the power to say no.

 

·            Residents and community leaders in Wembley, Willesden and Kilburn should be thanked for speaking with one voice in opposition to the further spread of gambling premises.

 

·            With 81 licensed gambling premises in Brent, it is easier to find a betting shop or adult gaming centre than a supermarket. Any limited business activity these premises bring is far outweighed by the wider harm they cause.

 

·            The growth of the gambling industry should not be supported in our borough and that every lawful tool available should be used to create a hostile environment to its entrenchment.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

(1)    Declare a gambling harms emergency in Brent and launch a Gambling Harms Strategy, setting out a joined-up approach across licensing, planning, public health, community safety, schools, debt advice and resident support.

 

(2)    Welcome the new Gambling Impact Assessment powers and urge Government to set a commencement date as soon as possible, so the new provisions can be implemented without delay and operators cannot rush applications through under the old regime before councils are equipped to act.

 

(3)    Write to major landowners in Wembley reiterating the Council’s opposition to gambling advertising and the normalisation of gambling in public spaces.

 

(4)    Write to the Gambling Commission challenging its hands-off approach to local licensing, making clear that Brent believes communities and their elected representatives, not distant regulators or the courts, should have the strongest voice in deciding what venues are on their high streets.

 

(5)    Continue working with residents, MPs, councils and campaigners across the country to push for a new Gambling Act that puts public health first.”

 

12.2  2nd Motion (Conservative Group) – Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy: Transparency, Strategic Use and Scrutiny

 

The Mayor then invited Councillor Jayanti Patel to move the second motion, which had been submitted on behalf of the Conservative Group.  As context to the motion, Councillor Jayanti Patel began by highlighting the importance of Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (SCIL) funding as a significant public resource generated through development activity to support the provision of necessary associated infrastructure and growth across the borough. Whilst recognising the value of SIL as a funding mechanism, he advised the motion was seeking to highlight concerns at what was perceived to be a lack of transparency surrounding the way in which SCIL funding allocations were made and communicated, limiting opportunities for proper scrutiny and engagement.  This included what was felt to be a lack of clarity regarding the justification for the funding of specific schemes and how they related to development pressures alongside a perceived lack of visibility regarding expected outcomes and delivery timescales.

 

In order to maintain public confidence in the use of SCIL, Councillor Jayanti Patel advised the motion was seeking greater openness regarding how decisions were reached and funding priorities were established and to strengthen governance arrangements by requiring all significant SCIL funding reports to include a clear justification demonstrating how proposals related to growth-related infrastructure needs and to ensure Group Leaders were provided with advance briefings on major allocations prior to them being taken forward for consideration and approval.  In commending the motion to members, Councillor Jayanti Patel felt the measures outlined reflected a practical and reasonable approach designed to improve accountability, rebuild confidence and ensure that SCIL funding was managed in a transparent, strategic and collaborative manner.

 

Having thanked Councillor Jayanti Patel for moving the motion, the Mayor then drew members attention to two amendments submitted in relation to the motion.  Members were advised the first of these was from Councillor Clinton on behalf of the Liberal Democrats Group and the second from Councillor Mitchell on behalf of the Green Group, with both having been circulated in advance of the meeting.  He then invited each amendment to be moved in the order received.

 

In moving the first amendment, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats Group, Councillor Clinton began by thanking the Conservative Group for bringing forward the original motion which, in his view, reflected principles that all Groups should be able to support.  As such, he advised that the Liberal Democrat amendment had been designed to complement the original motion through the addition of two specific proposals. The first of these related to a review of SCIL funding that had been allocated but remained unspent, with concerns expressed that the allocation of that funding had been undertaken by a previous Administration without was felt to now be the level of consultation and transparency being advocated for within the motion.  Given the new political composition of the Council, it was therefore felt reasonable that Group Leaders should be briefed and consulted regarding the status and delivery of these outstanding projects.  The second proposal focused specifically on highways infrastructure, with Councillor Clinton highlighting the backlog of road and pavement repairs across Brent requiring high-priority intervention on which it was felt the level of major development across growth areas had inevitably increased pressure and SIL therefore represented an appropriate funding stream to address the impact.  Support was therefore expressed for the principle that a proportion of SCIL resources be directed towards planned investment in roads and pavements, with Councillor Clinton keen to highlight the wider benefits associated with such investment, including safer conditions for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians, reduced reliance on reactive maintenance programmes and improved resilience to the effects of extreme weather with proactive infrastructure investment felt to represent a more financially sustainable and environmentally responsible approach.  Whilst acknowledging that SIL alone would not be able to address all challenges relating to infrastructure investment it was felt residents would welcome a more proactive approach in relation to highways.  On this basis, the amendment moved by Councillor Clinton was as follows:

 

To add the wording underlined and delete the wording indicated:

 

“Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy: Transparency, Strategic Use and Scrutiny

 

This Council notes:

 

·            That Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy, known as SCIL, is a significant funding stream derived from development and is intended to support infrastructure needed to accommodate growth across Brent.

 

·            That recent debate in Brent has highlighted legitimate questions about how SCIL schemes are identified, prioritised and brought forward for decision, and whether members and residents are given sufficient clarity in advance.

 

·            That the Council has itself acknowledged the need for a more strategic approach to Community Infrastructure Levy funding, including clearer alignment with infrastructure planning and more robust scrutiny of proposed allocations.

 

·            That residents are entitled to confidence that SCIL is being used transparently, strategically and for infrastructure genuinely linked to growth and development pressures.

 

·       In February 2026 £80m of SCIL was allocated to projects not yet started, agreed by the previous administration.

 

·       In February 2026 the projected cost to repair the backlog of highest priority roads was £44.7m. The pavements backlog would cost £310.7m.

 

This Council believes:

 

·            That SCIL funding should be allocated based on clear evidence, transparency and demonstrable public value.

 

·            That all major proposed SCIL schemes should be accompanied by clear information on cost, rationale, delivery timetable and expected outcomes.

 

·            That the Council should show explicitly how each proposed SCIL allocation supports growth related infrastructure needs, rather than using SCIL to address long standing issues that ought to be funded through other means.

 

·            That in a Council with no overall control, all political groups should have a meaningful opportunity to scrutinise major SCIL proposals before final decisions are taken.

 

·       That we must prioritise a proportion of SCIL funding for repairs to roads and pavement to stop the backlog increasing further. This must be done in growth areas due to rules governing CIL but will benefit the whole borough by taking pressure off the reactive repairs team.

 

As a result, this Council resolves to:

 

(1)    Request that Cabinet publish an annual forward pipeline of proposed SCIL schemes, including indicative costings, intended timelines and the service area or location concerned.

 

(2)    Request that every future report seeking approval for major SCIL allocations includes a clear written statement explaining why the proposed scheme qualifies for SCIL support and how it relates to infrastructure needed to support development and growth.

 

(3)    Request that, before any major new SCIL allocation is considered by Cabinet, all Group Leaders or their nominees are offered a briefing on the proposed programme and the basis on which schemes have been selected.

 

(4)    Request a quarterly update to all councillors setting out the SCIL balance, new receipts, allocations, expenditure and remaining available funds.

 

(5)    Request the provision of an annual public report setting out SCIL allocations approved, expenditure committed, progress of delivery and outcomes achieved.

 

(6)    Ensure that planned SCIL projects not yet started are reviewed by the group leaders (or nominees) – and request cabinet have regard to their recommendations.

 

(7)    Request that a portion SCIL is invested in road/pavement resurfacing in growth areas.”

 

Councillor Mitchell was then invited to move the second amendment on behalf of the Green Group, who began by advising their amendment had also been prepared in support of the principles contained in the original motion and was intended to reinforce its emphasis on transparency, scrutiny and strategic planning.  Reference was made to figures contained within the Council's last Infrastructure Funding Statement, which indicated that a substantial level of SIL funding remained unspent, including a significant balance that had not been allocated to any specific projects. Whilst recognising that more recent discussions suggested elements of this funding had subsequently been earmarked for future schemes, concerns were raised that the most recent Infrastructure Funding Statement for 2024-25 had not yet been published, which it was felt had limited scrutiny and had a detrimental impact in being able to understand how decisions were being made. Concern was also expressed that no coherent framework appeared to exist demonstrating how competing schemes were prioritised.  Whilst acknowledging that individual projects were often accompanied by detailed business cases, the lack of an updated borough-wide assessment of infrastructure need or transparent ranking criteria through which schemes could be assessed was seen as impacting on the ability to hold decisions makers to account.  In response, Councillor Mitchell advised the amendment was therefore seeking to promote a more strategic and consistent decision-making framework designed to ensure future SIL allocations reflected clearly established priorities and were subject to meaningful scrutiny, which it was also hoped all members would support.

 

On this basis, the amendment moved by Councillor Mitchell was as follows:

 

To add the wording underlined and delete the wording indicated:

 

“Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy: Transparency, Strategic Use and Scrutiny

 

This Council notes:

 

·            That Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy, known as SCIL, is a significant funding stream derived from development and is intended to support infrastructure needed to accommodate growth across Brent.

 

·            That recent debate in Brent has highlighted legitimate questions about how SCIL schemes are identified, prioritised and brought forward for decision, and whether members and residents are given sufficient clarity in advance.

 

·            That the Council has itself acknowledged the need for a more strategic approach to Community Infrastructure Levy funding, including clearer alignment with infrastructure planning and more robust scrutiny of proposed allocations.

 

·            That residents are entitled to confidence that SCIL is being used transparently, strategically and for infrastructure genuinely linked to growth and development pressures.

 

·            That the Infrastructure Funding Statement for 2024-2025, providing a crucial view of SCIL allocation and spending, is delayed, and that Brent has not published an Infrastructure Development Plan since 2019.

 

This Council believes:

 

·            That SCIL funding should be allocated based on clear evidence, transparency and demonstrable public value.

 

·            That SCIL spending should be aligned to more a transparent, up-to-date and granular documentation of local needs, e.g. a refreshed Infrastructure Development Plan, or town plans.

 

·            That all major proposed SCIL schemes should be accompanied by clear information on cost, rationale, delivery timetable and expected outcomes.

 

·            That the Council should show explicitly how each proposed SCIL allocation supports growth related infrastructure needs, rather than using SCIL to address long standing issues that ought to be funded through other means.

 

·            That in a Council with no overall control, all political groups should have a meaningful opportunity to scrutinise major SCIL proposals before final decisions are taken.

 

As a result, this Council resolves to:

 

(1)       Request that Cabinet publish an annual forward pipeline of proposed SCIL schemes, including indicative costings, intended timelines and the service area or location concerned.

 

(2)       Request there is no further delay with the Infrastructure Funding Statement for 24-25, on the Cabinet agenda for 27^th July.

 

(3)       Request that decision-making for SCIL spending is based on an up-to-date, detailed documentation of local needs.

 

(2)(4)  Request that every future report seeking approval for major SCIL allocations includes a clear written statement explaining why the proposed scheme qualifies for SCIL support and how it relates to infrastructure needed to support development and growth.

 

(3) (5) Request that, before any major new SCIL allocation is considered by Cabinet, all Group Leaders or their nominees are offered a briefing on the proposed programme and the basis on which schemes have been selected.

 

(6)    Request that all Group Leaders or their nominees are briefed on allocated but not implemented SCIL funded projects.

 

(4) (7)Request a quarterly update to all councillors setting out the SCIL balance, new receipts, allocations, expenditure and remaining available funds.

 

(5) (8)Request the provision of an annual public report setting out SCIL allocations approved, expenditure committed, progress of delivery and outcomes achieved.”

 

Having or thanked Councillors Clinton and Mitchell for moving their respective amendments, the Mayor then invited other members to speak, with the following contributions received.

 

In opening the debate, Councillor Brown (speaking in support of the amendment moved by the Liberal Democrats Group) began by reflecting on the significant amount of SCIL funding accumulated by the Council over a number of years and querying whether available resources were being deployed effectively. He suggested that the existence of a substantial balance of unspent funding raised legitimate questions regarding delivery and prioritisation with support expressed for the principle that funding generated through development should primarily be invested in those communities most directly affected by that development and growth.  In this context, he highlighted the condition of local roads and pavements as examples of infrastructure requiring greater investment and on which he felt residents would reasonably expect development related contributions to be used.

 

As the next contribution, Councillor Ryan (speaking in support of the amendment moved on behalf of the Green Group) took the opportunity to reiterate the concerns highlighted regarding the lack of an overarching strategic framework for SCIL investment and need for greater transparency, oversight and accountability to allow effective scrutiny and ensure the funding and investment being delivered provided tangible benefits for resident aligned to wider borough objectives.  Noting the potential benefits which the use of SCIL funding had to make a difference and support investment in highways, community facilities, public spaces and environmental infrastructure the need was identified for a more proactive approach toward future investment decisions based around a longer term strategy, which also included consideration of associated social and community value in addition to financial metrics or growth projections.

 

Moving on, Councillor Kelcher (Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Planning) then spoke welcoming the opportunity to discuss the positive benefits available through the generation and use of SCIL more widely, highlighting the impact of numerous projects funded through SCIL including community facilities, libraries and youth services as tangible benefits arising from development and appropriate investment of these contributions.  Whilst recognising the need to ensure that investment decision were as transparent as possible, Councillor Kelcher also took the opportunity to remind members of the way in which the generation of SCIL funding was inherently linked to future development and regeneration activity cautioning members that the availability of this funding could not be taken for granted, with all members therefore encouraged to recognise the relationship between development and infrastructure investment when considering future planning decisions.

 

As a further contribution, Councillor Georgiou then spoke (in support of the amendment moved by the Liberal Democrats Group) to highlight the significant level of development that had taken place across his ward and corresponding amount of developer contributions generated within the area.  Reminding members that one of the principal purposes of SCIL was to mitigate the impacts of development on local communities, he was therefore keen to ensure that its use was focussed on those areas and residents most affected by the impact of those developments and in seeking to mitigate against the associated infrastructure pressure.  In welcoming the motion as an opportunity to begin wider discussion regarding how SCIL resources should be deployed and how benefits could be delivered more visibly to affected communities, Councillor Georgio hoped all members would support the principle that the communities most affected by development should receive proportionate SCIL investment to mitigate against its impact in terms of local infrastructure improvements.

 

Councillor Kansagra then spoke (in support of the original motion) highlighting what he felt was also the need to consider whether existing restrictions on the use of SCIL funding unnecessarily limited the Council's ability to utilise them more effectively. Whilst accepting the need for funding to be focussed on capital projects, it was suggested that greater flexibility could be explored to enable use of funding as a means of contributing directly towards service improvement as well as infrastructure improvement across the borough.

 

As a final contribution, Councillor Grahl (as Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources) whilst welcoming the debate felt it was important to challenge suggestions that existing SCIL governance arrangements lacked appropriate transparency or strategic focus.  Highlighting that many of the actions being sought within the motion were already part of the governance approach adopted, members were advised these would be further strengthened through a refresh of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan with information already published on an annual basis regarding allocations and expenditure and SCIL investment also identified within the Council’s annual budget alongside the Infrastructure Funding Statement. It was also felt important to recognise the significant level of SCIL receipts generated during recent years and wide range of infrastructure projects delivered using those resources, which it was felt demonstrated purpose and strategic direction alongside the more forward looking approach to identifying and prioritising future investment being developed was part of the updated Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

 

In terms of the wider use of SCIL, members were reminded that current regulations were clear with funding only available for use on infrastructure needed to support development.  Whilst this would include transport, schools, health, parks, open space, sport culture and community infrastructure facilities it was not possible to redirect as a means of addressing wider budget pressures with the Administration, she pointed out, committed to ensure that SCIL continued to be invested transparently and strategically on infrastructure that would support Brent’s growth and benefit communities across the whole borough.

 

In drawing the debate to a close, the Mayor invited Councillor Jayanti Patel (as mover of the original motion) followed by Councillors Clinton and Mitchell (as movers of the two subsequent amendments) to exercise their right of reply.

 

In closing and exercising his right of reply, Councillor Jayanti Patel reiterated that the original motion was not intended to oppose investment in any particular infrastructure category with the emphasis instead focussed on the need for transparency and accountability in terms of the allocation and use of SCIL resources with a clear framework required on the outcomes expected to be delivered.  On this basis, it was felt the motion represented a proportionate attempt to enhance trust whilst strengthening the associated governance arrangements around use of a significant source of public funding.

 

Speaking next, Councillor Clinton in exercising his right of reply on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group, clarified that their amendment did not seek to constrain future decisions by the Executive but rather to encourage more proactive consideration of roads and pavement investment through the SCIL programme. Given the scale of repair backlogs and public concern regarding highway conditions, he hoped members would therefore recognise and support the amendment as a practical measure capable of delivering visible benefits for residents.

 

As the final right of reply, Councillor Mitchell advised that whilst supportive of the original motion and recognising the aim behind the Liberal Democrats amendment the Green Group were keen to avoid distracting from their principal focus on governance, accountability and transparency as opposed to specific areas of investment.  On this basis, she advised the Green Group would not be able to support the amendment moved by the Liberal Democrats with concerns once again highlighted about the delayed publication of the latest Infrastructure Funding Statement and need to strengthen governance and accountability arrangements in order to provide a more robust strategic framework for future SCIL decision-making

 

Having thanked councillors for their contributions, the Mayor then moved to the vote on the motion starting with the amendments moved by firstly the Liberal Democrats and secondly the Green Groups.

 

The amendment from the Liberal Democrat Group, as set out above, was then put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

 

This was followed by the amendment from the Green Group, as set out above, being put to the vote which was unanimously declared CARRIED.

 

The Mayor then moved on to put the substantive motion, as amended, to a vote which was unanimously declared CARRIED.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED to approve the following motion:

 

“Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy: Transparency, Strategic Use and Scrutiny

 

This Council notes:

 

·            That Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy, known as SCIL, is a significant funding stream derived from development and is intended to support infrastructure needed to accommodate growth across Brent.

 

·            That recent debate in Brent has highlighted legitimate questions about how SCIL schemes are identified, prioritised and brought forward for decision, and whether members and residents are given sufficient clarity in advance.

 

·            That the Council has itself acknowledged the need for a more strategic approach to Community Infrastructure Levy funding, including clearer alignment with infrastructure planning and more robust scrutiny of proposed allocations.

 

·            That residents are entitled to confidence that SCIL is being used transparently, strategically and for infrastructure genuinely linked to growth and development pressures.

 

·            In February 2026 £80m of SCIL was allocated to projects not yet started, agreed by the previous administration.

 

·       In February 2026 the projected cost to repair the backlog of highest priority roads was £44.7m. The pavements backlog would cost £310.7m.

 

·            That the Infrastructure Funding Statement for 2024-2025, providing a crucial view of SCIL allocation and spending, is delayed, and that Brent has not published an Infrastructure Development Plan since 2019.

 

This Council believes:

 

·            That SCIL funding should be allocated based on clear evidence, transparency and demonstrable public value.

 

·            That SCIL spending should be aligned to more a transparent, up-to-date and granular documentation of local needs, e.g. a refreshed Infrastructure Development Plan, or town plans.

 

·            That all major proposed SCIL schemes should be accompanied by clear information on cost, rationale, delivery timetable and expected outcomes.

 

·            That the Council should show explicitly how each proposed SCIL allocation supports growth related infrastructure needs, rather than using SCIL to address long standing issues that ought to be funded through other means.

 

·            That in a Council with no overall control, all political groups should have a meaningful opportunity to scrutinise major SCIL proposals before final decisions are taken.

 

·       That we must prioritise a proportion of SCIL funding for repairs to roads and pavement to stop the backlog increasing further. This must be done in growth areas due to rules governing CIL but will benefit the whole borough by taking pressure off the reactive repairs team.

 

As a result, this Council resolves to:

 

(1)    Request that Cabinet publish an annual forward pipeline of proposed SCIL schemes, including indicative costings, intended timelines and the service area or location concerned.

 

(2)    Request there is no further delay with the Infrastructure Funding Statement for 24-25, on the Cabinet agenda for 27^th July.

 

(3)    Request that decision-making for SCIL spending is based on an up-to-date, detailed documentation of local needs.

 

(4)    Request that every future report seeking approval for major SCIL allocations includes a clear written statement explaining why the proposed scheme qualifies for SCIL support and how it relates to infrastructure needed to support development and growth.

 

(5)    Request that, before any major new SCIL allocation is considered by Cabinet, all Group Leaders or their nominees are offered a briefing on the proposed programme and the basis on which schemes have been selected.

 

(6)    Request that all Group Leaders or their nominees are briefed on allocated but not implemented SCIL funded projects to ensure that planned SCIL projects not yet started are reviewed by the group leaders (or nominees) – and request cabinet have regard to their recommendations.

 

(7)    Request a quarterly update to all councillors setting out the SCIL balance, new receipts, allocations, expenditure and remaining available funds.

 

(8)    Request the provision of an annual public report setting out SCIL allocations approved, expenditure committed, progress of delivery and outcomes achieved.

 

(9)    Request that a portion SCIL is invested in road/pavement resurfacing in growth areas.”

 

12.3  3rd Motion (Liberal Democrats Group) – Providing Choice to improve Recycling Rates across Brent

 

The Mayor then invited Councillor Chauhan to move the final motion submitted on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group.  In moving the motion, Councillor Chauhan began by explaining that since being elected as a councillor for Alperton, one of the issues most frequently raised by residents had been the desire to do more to support environmental sustainability through improved recycling and cleaner neighbourhoods.  Whilst highlighting that residents (based on his experience) were keen to recycle and reduce waste the Liberal Democrats had felt that the current collection arrangements did not always make participation easy or convenient with the motion therefore seeking to respond by recognising that a single collection model did not necessarily meet the needs of every household across the borough.

 

Highlighting Brent's recycling performance, Councillor Chauhan noted that recycling rates remained below the level the Council aspired to achieve.  In order to therefore reach the Council’s environmental ambitions, reduce waste and tackle climate change the need had therefore been identified to make recycling simpler, more accessible and more convenient for all residents, with the motion therefore calling for an evidence-led review of recycling collection methods, including consideration of alternatives such as wheelie bins where appropriate, improved facilities for flats and estates, and examination of best practice from other local authorities that had achieved stronger recycling outcomes.  In addition, Councillor Chauhan took the opportunity to emphasise the importance of education and community engagement, highlighting what he felt was the need for greater collaboration with schools, housing providers, community organisations and residents to improve understanding of what materials could be recycled and encourage wider participation.  In commending the motion to Council, he ended by outlining what he felt to be the resident-focused nature of the action being sought in an effort to offer greater choice, improve service delivery and help Brent achieve its environmental objectives.

 

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

 

In moving the amendment, Councillor Knight (as Cabinet Member for Cleaner Streets, Transport and Public Realm) began by acknowledging the broad agreement amongst all members of the Council on the importance of improving recycling rates, reducing waste and making it easier for residents to recycle.  As such she advised that the amendment was not seeking to alter the ambition within the original motion but to ensure that its focus remained on the need for future action to be guided by evidence, practicality and value for money.  In addressing specific concerns identified in relation to the blue recycling sack scheme, several benefits were highlighted relating to their ongoing use including lower contamination levels in paper and card recycling streams, improved quality of recyclable material and additional income generated through improved recycling quality, enabling further reinvested in frontline services.  At the same time, however, it was acknowledged that the current arrangements did not work equally well in all parts of the borough and that concerns raised by residents regarding storage, litter and practicality merited further consideration.  As a result, Councillor Knight highlighted that the amendment proposed a comprehensive evidence-led review to assess whether alternative collection models, including wheelie bins, could improve recycling performance and resident satisfaction in certain locations while recognising that existing arrangements may remain appropriate elsewhere. Reference was also made to forthcoming Government recycling reforms, creating an opportunity for Brent to review emerging best practice and develop a recycling approach tailored to local circumstances. In concluding it was therefore hoped members would recognise the way in which the amendment sought to reinforce the Council's commitment to making future changes based on robust evidence rather than a process of assumptions.

 

On this basis, the amendment moved by Councillor Knight was as follows:

 

To add the wording underlined and delete the wording indicated:

 

“Providing Choice to Improve Recycling Rates Across Brent

 

This Council notes:

 

•             Brent continues to lag behind many London boroughs on household recycling, although evidence shows Brent is the leading the way with food waste collection with the 6th highest figures in London. While residents overwhelmingly support recycling and want to help tackle climate change, the Council’s current system must continue to be made easier, clearer and more consistent for residents.does not make recycling easy enough.

 

•             Brent’s household recycling rate remains around 30%, with the Government’s Simpler Recycling reforms now requiring separation of waste streams, including paper and card by default, Brent has a responsibility and opportunity to improve its approach and deliver a recycling scheme that is legally compliant, environmentally effective and practical. well below the Mayor of London’s ambition of 50% municipal recycling by 2030 and behind several Liberal Democrat-run councils, including Kingston, Sutton and Richmond, which consistently exceed 45%. Their performance shows that better collection systems, clearer communication and stronger resident engagement can deliver higher recycling rates.

 

•             Brent’s blue recycling sacks have not on their own solved this problem. Residents continue to raise concerns about split or disintegrating sacks, litter, storage difficulties and confusion over what can be recycled. Three years after the Brent Liberal Democrats first called for the sacks to be scrapped, they the scheme has improved paper and card quality, but not yet delivered the step-change needed to meet Brent’s climate ambitions.failed to deliver the improvement promised.

 

•             As Brent seeks to cut carbon emissions, reduce waste disposal costs and create cleaner neighbourhoods, improving recycling must continues to be a key environmental priority.

 

This Council therefore believes that:

 

•             Brent’s recycling performance is not good enough and must improve.

 

•             Blue recycling sacks should not longer be treated as Brent’s default recycling model in every circumstance. Any Ccontinued use should be justified by clear evidence that sacks are wanted by residents in the relevant area, are practical for those households, and perform better than alternatives in increasing recycling, reducing contamination and keeping streets clean.

 

•             Residents deserve a recycling service that is simple, convenient and encourages maximum participation.

 

•             Targeted education and engagement are essential to improve recycling rates and reduce contamination.

 

•             Brent should will learn from the best-performing London boroughs and adopt approaches that work locally.

 

This Council therefore requests that Cabinet:

 

(1)    End Review the blanket current reliance use on of blue recycling sacks as Brent’s default collection model and carry out an urgent, evidence-led review of alternative Brent’s recycling arrangements, with a presumption in favour of replacing sacks with considering the case for wheelie bins where sacks are causing problems for residents, contributing to litter, reducing participation or failing to improve recycling.

 

(2)    Ensure any proposal to retain sacks in a particular area, housing type or circumstance is backed by published evidence, including resident feedback, recycling performance, contamination, street cleanliness, accessibility, storage and value for money.

 

(3)    Undertake a timely n urgent options appraisal of the most effective recycling collection models for Brent, including additional wheelie bins, segregated containers, improved communal recycling and other best-practice systems.

 

(4)    Offer households who want one the option of an additional wheelie bin for segregated paper and card recycling, as first proposed by the Brent Liberal Democrat Group in 2023.where practical, subject to cost.

 

(5)    Develop Continue strengthening targeted education and public awareness work with schools, community organisations, housing providers and residents’ associations.

 

(6)    Improve recycling in flats and estates, where participation remains lower than elsewhere.

 

(7)    Present the review and new recycling strategy to the a next future Full Council Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, including a timetable for a more effective,detailing Brent’s commitment to a resident-friendly collection model.”

 

Having or thanked Councillor Knight for moving the amendment, the Mayor then invited other members to speak, with the following contributions received.

 

In opening the debate and speaking in support of the original motion moved on behalf of the Liberal Democrats Group, Councillor Lorber began by focussing on concerns previously raised regarding the introduction of the blue recycling bag scheme and its suitability for all households, with introduction of the scheme not felt to have delivered the anticipated improvements in recycling rates and, in some cases, having even discouraged participation in recycling. Reference was made to previous recommendations from the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee calling for a wider review and consultation process, together with budget provision for wheelie bins to be provided as an alternative, with Councillor Lorber of the view that earlier implementation of these recommendations could have led to better recycling outcomes and prevented many of the concerns now being experienced by residents.

 

Speaking next, Councillor Donnelly-Jackson offered an alternative perspective.  Drawing on personal experience as the tenant in a housing block she felt the blue sacks provided greater flexibility and ease of use for households with limited storage space and also highlighted they would often be easier to manage for residents with mobility needs. The operational advantages associated with the system were also highlighted, with reference to significantly lower contamination levels and reduced costs when compared with wheelie bin provision. Whilst recognising the need for service improvement, Councillor Donnelly-Jackson felt that a single collection model would not be suitable for all household types and suggested that future efforts should infact be focussed on improving communal recycling arrangements including flats and estates, through targeted intervention and enhanced infrastructure.

 

Councillor Warsame spoke next to highlight the Green Groups support for the original motion as moved.  Highlighting that the blue bag system had failed to deliver the increase in recycling rates originally anticipated, Councillor Warsame also felt it important to recognise the concerns being raised by residents living in high-density developments and apartment blocks, many of whom relied on communal recycling facilities and often lacked adequate opportunities to separate recyclable materials effectively.  As such he advised the Green Group were keen to ensure that any future recycling strategy addressed infrastructure shortages, overflowing communal bins and improved resident education in order to support better recycling outcomes across the borough.

 

Moving on, Councillor Brown (speaking in support of the original motion) also expressed concern regarding the borough's long-term recycling performance. Referring to historical recycling rates, he felt that progress had been insufficient over a prolonged period with opportunities to improve recycling outcomes not having been fully realised which, in his view, supported the need for a different approach to recycling policy and service delivery as set out within the motion.

 

In continuing the debate, Councillor Chadha then spoke (on behalf of the Conservative Group) who, whilst recognising that recycling performance in Brent required improvement, also queried the approach set out within both the motion and amendment.  Although supportive of the need to increase recycling rates, Councillor Chadha emphasised the importance in seeking to identify the necessary approach to ensure this was based on a thorough review that considered issues such as costs, contamination rates, housing types, street cleanliness and value for money.  On this basis she advised that whilst the Conservative Group remained committed to recycling, they were not convinced that the proposals outlined within the motion or amendment provided sufficient clarity regarding implementation and expected outcomes and would therefore be abstaining from supporting either.

 

As a brief additional contribution, Councillor Clinton felt it was important to also remind members of the Liberal Democrats alternative budget proposals presented when setting the 2026-27 budget, which had set out how the funding commitments associated with the motion could be achieved.

 

As the next contribution, Councillor Blackman then spoke to outline what he felt was a need for greater analysis of recycling performance across the borough, including the mapping of recycling rates on a ward basis to support any wider review of performance.  The importance in raising awareness and education was also emphasised, noting that successful recycling depended not only on infrastructure but also in securing the necessary behavioural change.  The opportunity was also taken to express support for the development of a borough-wide community engagement initiative based on local volunteers, councillors and officers working together through a "Brent Green Champions" style campaign supported through the comprehensive evidence led review proposed within the amendment to the motion.

 

As a final contribution, Councillor Mulaisho (also speaking in support of the original Liberal Democrat motion) felt it was important to recognise the willingness consistently demonstrated, from her perspective, by residents in seeking to recycle and support environmental initiatives.  As such she felt the principal issue was not a lack of public commitment but challenges with how the current recycling arrangements were operating.  The emphasis within the motion of the need for evidence-led decision making and resident choice was therefore welcomed with the need for a more flexible approach identified and it recognised that different communities would require different types of solution. As such, Councillor Mulaisho ended by commending the motion for providing a practical opportunity to develop a more effective recycling system while remaining focused on residents' needs and the borough's environmental obligations.

 

In drawing the debate to a close, the Mayor then invited Councillor Chauhan (as mover of the original motion) followed by Councillor Knight (as mover of the subsequent amendment) to exercise their right of reply.

 

In closing and exercising his right of reply, Councillor Chauhan whilst acknowledging the reduction in contamination rates associated with introduction of the blue sack scheme also felt it important to recognise that overall recycling rates had not increased as expected following the original changes introduced. In clarifying that the motion was not seeking to impose a single recycling method, he highlighted the Liberal Democrats focus in providing residents with greater flexibility and choice through a range of recycling options tailored to different property types and individual circumstances in an effort to improve participation by ensuring residents could access the recycling arrangements most suitable for their needs and as such commended the motion for approval.

 

In exercising her right of reply, Councillor Knight reiterated that recycling was a complex issue requiring solutions based on evidence rather than assumptions and once again highlighted what were felt to be the operational benefits associated with the blue sack system, including flexibility and cost effectiveness, whilst also acknowledging the need for alternative approaches to be considered where evidence demonstrated they would improve performance.  On this basis, she commended the amendment to members also taking the opportunity to highlight the importance of education, engagement and ongoing review in supporting future recycling improvements across the borough.

 

Having thanked councillors for their contributions, the Mayor then moved to the vote on the motion starting with the amendment moved by Councillor Knight on behalf of the Labour Group.

 

The amendment from the Labour Group, as set out above, was then put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

 

The Mayor then moved on to put the substantive motion, as amended, to a vote which was declared CARRIED.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED to approve the following motion:

 

“Providing Choice to Improve Recycling Rates Across Brent

 

This Council notes:

 

•             Brent continues to lag behind many London boroughs on household recycling, although evidence shows Brent is the leading the way with food waste collection with the 6th highest figures in London. While residents overwhelmingly support recycling and want to help tackle climate change, the Council’s current system must continue to be made easier, clearer and more consistent for residents.

 

•             Brent’s household recycling rate remains around 30%, with the Government’s Simpler Recycling reforms now requiring separation of waste streams, including paper and card by default, Brent has a responsibility and opportunity to improve its approach and deliver a recycling scheme that is legally compliant, environmentally effective and practical.

 

•             Brent’s blue recycling sacks have not on their own solved this problem. Residents continue to raise concerns about split or disintegrating sacks, litter, storage difficulties and confusion over what can be recycled. Three years after the Brent Liberal Democrats first called for the sacks to be scrapped, they the scheme has improved paper and card quality, but not yet delivered the step-change needed to meet Brent’s climate ambitions.

 

•             As Brent seeks to cut carbon emissions, reduce waste disposal costs and create cleaner neighbourhoods, improving recycling continues to be a key environmental priority.

 

This Council therefore believes that:

 

•                Brent’s recycling performance is not good enough and must improve.

 

•             Blue recycling sacks should not be treated as Brent’s default recycling model in every circumstance. Continued use should be justified by clear evidence that sacks are increasing recycling, reducing contamination and keeping streets clean.

 

•             Residents deserve a recycling service that is simple, convenient and encourages maximum participation.

 

•             Targeted education and engagement are essential to improve recycling rates and reduce contamination.

 

•             Brent should will learn from the best-performing London boroughs and adopt approaches that work locally.

 

This Council therefore requests that Cabinet:

 

(1)    Review the current use of blue recycling sacks as Brent’s default collection model and carry out an evidence-led review of Brent’s recycling arrangements, considering the case for wheelie bins where sacks are causing problems for residents, contributing to litter, reducing participation or failing to improve recycling.

 

(2)    Ensure any proposal to retain sacks in a particular area, housing type or circumstance is backed by published evidence, including resident feedback, recycling performance, contamination, street cleanliness, accessibility, storage and value for money.

 

(3)    Undertake a timely options appraisal of the most effective recycling collection models for Brent, including additional wheelie bins, segregated containers, improved communal recycling and other best-practice systems.

 

(4)    Offer households who want one the option of an additional wheelie bin for paper and card recycling, where practical, subject to cost.

 

(5)    Continue strengthening targeted education and public awareness work with schools, community organisations, housing providers and residents’ associations.

 

(6)    Improve recycling in flats and estates, where participation remains lower than elsewhere.

 

(7)    Present the review to a future Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, detailing Brent’s commitment to a resident-friendly collection model.”