Brent Council Approves Planning Powers Reform Amidst Councillor Opposition

Brent councillors have clashed over significant reforms to the council's planning powers, ultimately voting to approve changes that transfer more decision-making authority to officers.

The extraordinary council meeting on Monday, October 12, 2026, saw heated debate as councillors from various parties voiced strong opposition to new national legislation that mandates a shift in how planning applications are determined. The rationale behind this national legislation is that the length of time taken to determine planning applications has long been recognised as a potential barrier to economic growth and the delivery of new homes by Central Government. The efficient operation of the planning system is essential to the prosperity of Brent residents and success of Brent businesses, third sector organisations and all others who undertake development. The Government has introduced the national rules to streamline the planning process and ensure that decisions are not unnecessarily delayed. ¹

Despite widespread concerns about the erosion of local democracy, the council was legally obliged to implement the changes by October 31, 2026, to avoid severe consequences. Chief Executive Kim Wright warned of potential repercussions for non-compliance, including the inability to determine applications set out within the current terms of reference for the planning committee that do not align with the national scheme of delegation. Additionally, there would be an increased likelihood of an increased number of planning appeals against non-determination of planning applications. The local planning authority could also potentially be subject to special measures by central national government because of applications not being determined within the minimum threshold on statutory timeframes or being overturned at appeal. Another consequence is the risk that a developer could then decide to submit certain applications, including major applications, to the planning inspectorate and bypass the Council, resulting in a loss of local control over the more strategic and significant applications, reputational damage to the Council and a significant reduction in planning fee income. Furthermore, there is a risk of having to issue refunds on planning fees if a non-major application is undetermined after 16 weeks and a major application is undetermined after 26 weeks when no extension of time has been secured, which could lead to a significant reduction in planning fee income and, in turn, could have budgetary implications on the ability to deliver planning and other services. ²

To mitigate some of these concerns, an amendment was introduced to reinstate a modified version of previous call-in rights, allowing three or more councillors to request that specific applications be considered by the Planning Committee. This new provision, set out in paragraph 5.12 of the report, allows three or more councillors to request that certain applications be considered for referral to the Planning Committee in accordance with the new gateway process. Specifically, for Schedule 2 applications, they are presumed to be delegated to officers unless the nominated member and nominated officer agree at least one of the criteria in regulation 5(3) is met or it is an own-interest application and the nominated member and nominated officer agree they should be referred to a planning committee. The criteria in regulation 5(3) are: The application raises a significant planning matter having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations or The application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area. ³

However, this concession did little to appease many councillors. Councillor Paul Lorber, speaking for the Liberal Democrat Group, attempted to introduce further amendments, arguing that the council had not been provided with adequate information in a timely manner. He expressed dismay at the perceived loss of democratic control and the potential for decisions to be made without sufficient scrutiny, stating that the correct advice had not been provided to them in a timely manner and that we missed the deadline of last Wednesday to move an amendment because the correct advice had not been provided to us. ⁴

Councillor Charlie Clinton echoed these sentiments, stating the changes would weaken scrutiny and reduce elected representatives' ability to challenge decisions. He noted his group would abstain but maintained their opposition.

The Green Party's Councillor Mary Mitchell argued that the reforms shifted power from elected councillors and residents to unelected planning officers. She suggested alternative models, such as those adopted by Lewisham Council, which she argued brought planning closer to local communities. She also mentioned the Green Party proposal by the supply that urges the Government to create a Treasury-backed fund to enable local councils to buy existing houses and turn them into Council homes. ⁵

Councillor Michael Maurice, representing the Conservative Group, expressed dismay that the new laws prevented councillors from performing their elected duties and allowed the Planning Department to operate without scrutiny. He proposed alternative committee compositions suggesting that one, ideally, we would like to see an odd number of members sitting on the Planning Committee. This would stop the Chair from having a casting vote, effectively giving, in this case, the Labour group five votes instead of four. If an odd number is not possible, he suggested we would like to see the make-up of the Committee changed, so that Labour have three members on the Committee, the Conservatives two, Lib Dems two, and Greens one. This would reflect the fact that Labour have a large number of seats, but is a minority administration, and that the Conservatives and Lib Dems hold an equal number of seats. Additionally, he proposed that the Chair of the Planning Committee should be a member of the Opposition, as it is effectively operating as a Scrutiny Committee, and the Scrutiny Committee should be chaired by the Opposition. ⁶

Councillor Jayanti Patel described the changes as an ambush on local democracy and a power grab by central government, asserting that the Planning Committee was being gutted and residents' voices would be silenced.

Despite the strong opposition and debate, the council voted 22 to 17 in favour of approving the recommended changes to the planning terms of reference, as detailed in the Public reports pack ⁷. The reforms are expected to lead to an increased likelihood of an increased number of planning appeals against non-determination of planning applications. ⁸ All decisions made, whether by the Planning Committee or by officers under delegated authority, may be subject to appeal, formal complaint, and Judicial Review. The report notes that The Council has a good track record of making sound decisions, both by the Planning Committee and under delegated authority.