Harrow Council has authorised senior officers to amend and submit a major statutory planning document to the Government without requiring the final version or the results of the current public consultation to return to Full Council.
The issue is not whether the West London Waste Plan is right or wrong, or whether Harrow’s approach is unlawful. It is whether residents can be confident that their elected representatives will take public responsibility for the final version of a plan intended to shape waste-related development across West London until 2041, including safeguarding two identified sites in Harrow.
At Full Council on 2 July, councillors approved publication of the plan for its final Regulation 19 consultation. They also authorised officers to consider representations, modify the documents and submit the plan to the Secretary of State.
The plan only has to return to Full Council if officers conclude that consultation produces “significant changes to the overall approach to the plan and policies”. Yet the resolution does not define what constitutes a significant change or expressly require the reasoning behind that judgement to be published.
That matters because Regulation 19, running from 4 August to 28 September, is the public’s final statutory opportunity to make representations before submission and independent examination.
The previous consultation produced just 77 responses across all participating authorities and, Harrow’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee was told on 9 June, no Harrow-specific comments. Low public participation arguably makes visible political scrutiny more important, not less.
There is also an unusual sequence in Harrow’s decision-making. Overview and Scrutiny considered the plan on 9 June, Cabinet on 11 June and Full Council on 2 July. Yet the specialist Planning Policy Advisory Panel did not examine it until 15 July, almost two weeks after Full Council had approved publication and pre-authorised its eventual submission.
The comparison with Brent is striking. Brent’s Cabinet approved the same Regulation 19 process on 27 July but recommended that the plan return to Full Council after consultation, with the representations and suggested amendments, before councillors authorise submission to the Secretary of State.
Both councils are dealing with the same joint statutory plan, yet Brent has retained a clear final political checkpoint while Harrow has delegated the route to submission unless officers decide that changes are sufficiently significant.
Delegation to officers is a normal and often necessary part of local government and Harrow’s approach is not necessarily unlawful. But legality and democratic accountability are different tests.
Harrow could resolve the concern simply by publishing the consultation responses, proposed changes and assessment of their significance, and bringing the final submission version back before elected members.
A statutory plan extending to 2041 deserves that level of public accountability. Brent has retained the final democratic checkpoint. Harrow residents are entitled to ask why their council has not.
The issue is not whether the West London Waste Plan is right or wrong, or whether Harrow’s approach is unlawful. It is whether residents can be confident that their elected representatives will take public responsibility for the final version of a plan intended to shape waste-related development across West London until 2041, including safeguarding two identified sites in Harrow.
At Full Council on 2 July, councillors approved publication of the plan for its final Regulation 19 consultation. They also authorised officers to consider representations, modify the documents and submit the plan to the Secretary of State.
The plan only has to return to Full Council if officers conclude that consultation produces “significant changes to the overall approach to the plan and policies”. Yet the resolution does not define what constitutes a significant change or expressly require the reasoning behind that judgement to be published.
That matters because Regulation 19, running from 4 August to 28 September, is the public’s final statutory opportunity to make representations before submission and independent examination.
The previous consultation produced just 77 responses across all participating authorities and, Harrow’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee was told on 9 June, no Harrow-specific comments. Low public participation arguably makes visible political scrutiny more important, not less.
There is also an unusual sequence in Harrow’s decision-making. Overview and Scrutiny considered the plan on 9 June, Cabinet on 11 June and Full Council on 2 July. Yet the specialist Planning Policy Advisory Panel did not examine it until 15 July, almost two weeks after Full Council had approved publication and pre-authorised its eventual submission.
The comparison with Brent is striking. Brent’s Cabinet approved the same Regulation 19 process on 27 July but recommended that the plan return to Full Council after consultation, with the representations and suggested amendments, before councillors authorise submission to the Secretary of State.
Both councils are dealing with the same joint statutory plan, yet Brent has retained a clear final political checkpoint while Harrow has delegated the route to submission unless officers decide that changes are sufficiently significant.
Delegation to officers is a normal and often necessary part of local government and Harrow’s approach is not necessarily unlawful. But legality and democratic accountability are different tests.
Harrow could resolve the concern simply by publishing the consultation responses, proposed changes and assessment of their significance, and bringing the final submission version back before elected members.
A statutory plan extending to 2041 deserves that level of public accountability. Brent has retained the final democratic checkpoint. Harrow residents are entitled to ask why their council has not.
Harrow Council should deal robustly with Rogue & Cowboy Builders who are blatantly using the back gardens to dump Building Rubbish so as not having to pay at Designated Council Sites thereby causing Environmental & Health Issues for Neighbours & Residents ! This has to be Stopped together with the other Illegal activities involving Deliberate Building Irregularities , Health & Hygiene issues in which these Builders are involved in on a regular basis!