The Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee met to discuss the establishment of a budget scrutiny task group, and to review the Brent local plan. The committee agreed to establish a budget scrutiny task force, and discussed the scope, approach, and governance of the local plan review, including housing targets, climate change, and community engagement.

Brent Local Plan Review

The committee undertook a review of the Brent Local Plan, which was adopted in 2022, to assess its performance and to inform the preparation of the next plan. Councillor Teo Banea, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Property, introduced the item, noting that the plan supports the government's ambitions for growth while also helping deliver the council's priorities, balancing social, economic, and environmental challenges.

Alice Lester, Corporate Director for Neighbourhoods and Regeneration, added that the review was taking place amidst challenges in getting anything built, and that the council was trying to balance those challenges to get a framework in place to get things delivered on site.

Key discussion points included:

• Housing targets and affordability: The committee discussed the challenges of meeting the London Plan's target of 2,325 dwellings per year, and the need to ensure that new housing is genuinely affordable for Brent residents. Councillor Banea stated that the biggest goal was to ensure that the council was delivering the affordable homes that residents need, with a mix of tenures and family homes. Councillor Liz Dixon raised concerns that the council was not meeting its own target of 50% affordable housing, and that the actual delivery was only 17%.

• Viability and build costs: The committee explored the impact of rising build costs and new regulations, such as fire safety regulations, on the viability of development. David, a corporate director, noted that the new fire safety regulations requiring two staircases in buildings over 18 metres had a huge impact on viability, as they reduced the sellable or rentable space. He added that even smaller developments were currently unviable.

• Renovation vs new build: The committee considered the potential for renovation of existing buildings to contribute to housing supply. Councillor Mary Mitchell asked if the council had any thoughts on renovation, such as taking disused shop fronts and renovating them to make properties. David said that the policies cover any development, including renovation, extending existing properties, and changing the use of properties.

• Infrastructure: The committee emphasised the importance of ensuring that infrastructure keeps pace with development. Councillor Sonia Shah asked whether the local plan would strike a balance between driving new builds and investing in existing stock and infrastructure. Paul, a corporate director, responded that an infrastructure delivery plan would be produced as part of the local plan, to ensure that growth in the number of homes is supported by appropriate facilities.

• Localism: The committee discussed the importance of local input into the plan. Councillor Anthony Molloy raised the issue of neighbourhood plans, and asked whether evidence from those groups would be integrated into the local plan. Paul responded that the council had very close involvement with all the neighbourhood groups, particularly in Kilburn, and that they saw their plan as complementary to the council's plan.

• Climate change: The committee discussed how the local plan could address climate change mitigation and resilience. Councillor Mitchell asked about the extent of the council's ambition with regard to climate change and building standards, and whether the local plan policy would include conversations about that. Gerry responded that it was one of the main reasons why the council was looking to do a review, and that they needed to move forward on those things.

• Gambling: The committee discussed how the local plan could manage the over-concentration of gambling establishments in town centres. Councillor Dixon said that she felt that the council needed to be a lot more imaginative, rather than saying that an application fits the policies and granting it.

• Community Engagement: The committee discussed how to capture the objections from the community and from the residents and to listen about those community concerns. Councillor Dixon asked what the mechanism was whereby the council could listen to their objections. Paul responded that the council would look to roll out something similar to the engagement undertaken for the current local plan, but would try to improve it where possible.

Budget Scrutiny Task Group

The committee agreed to establish a Budget Scrutiny Task Group to consider the Cabinet's budget proposals for 2026/27. The task group will have three members of this committee and three members of the Community and Wellbeing Committee. Councillor Paul Lorber raised concerns about the way the council approaches the budget, saying that the information presented to councillors is not adequate for proper scrutiny, and that the finance department needs to produce information in a meaningful way so that councillors can see what money is being spent on. Councillor Rita Conneely, Chair of the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, said that she would get further feedback from Councillor Lorber about what particular information he thinks there are gaps in, and that she is meeting with the corporate director for finance later this month to talk about how the quarterly finance reports are presented to the committee and how they could be done better.

Scrutiny Recommendations Tracker

The committee reviewed the scrutiny recommendations tracker, which provides a summary of any scrutiny recommendations made to Cabinet/Full Council/external stakeholders and implementation progress.