UPDATED WITH COUNCIL STATEMENT: Disabled South Kilburn pensioner still has no PEEP despite applying to Brent Council 6 months ago

John Healy, a disabled pensioner on the South Kilburn Estate has been given the run-around by Brent Council in his attempts to get them to issue a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP) to safeguard his life in the event of a fire. He contacted me in desperation after getting nowehere with councillors, housing officers and his MP:

I am grateful for anything that you might be able to help me with, including contacting the council on my behalf.   I sent my completed PEEP to the council last September but they have not contacted me about it.  Since them my mobility has got much worse and I am now housebound.

I keep ringing them and emailing the council and also my Kilburn Ward councillors  but no one replies. I escalated it by contacting my MP but she has not replied either, although she did sent me an automated email saying she had received my email and would get back to me sometime.

Inside Housing had a story last Friday, on how several disabled people died trapped in their homes in Grenfell tower and I could be facing the same situation in my block as no one can ever predict when a fire may break out.

 

I offered John Healy a chance to tell his own story on Wembley Matters. Here it is:

GUEST POST BY JOHN HEALY

I am a 70 year old male, living on my own in a South Kilburn high-rise, with a mobility issue and a hearing impairment (in both ears) I am registered with Brent Council as a disabled person but unfortunately I also caught the Covid  back in early March 2020 which has worsened my mobility issues and at the end of Feb. 2021 my legs felt they like they had lead attached to them and the result was I was unable to walk at all. I had been asking the council for a PEEP (Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan) for over 6 months but they will not issue me with one.

 

I need a PEEP urgently in case my high-rise needs an emergency evacuation e.g a severe fire and I would need the assistance of someone to help me evacuate my flat but without having a PEEP no one will be aware of my situation. I assume there will be many more disabled people in Brent needing a PEEP which the council needs to respond to immediately, as it could be a matter of life and death.

 

 

Currently Parliament is set to make it a legal requirement (Ref: The Fire Safety Bill) for all councils in England to issue a PEEP to all disabled people living in high rises who need one.  They will use a 'traffic light system' that will identify the risk level of every disabled person living in a high rise flat e.g. red for people with mobility issues and green for people with hearing impairments.

 

Although I am not a leaseholder myself, I am a member of the disabled leaseholders group who have been campaigning to get the government to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their own high rises but some of them also need a PEEP,  I have submitted a question to the panel at next week's cladding meeting on Zoom (see WM post below for details) where I have asked the panel, "Why does Brent Council refuse to issue me with a PEEP?" and hopefully both my MP's might give me a response.  I have previously sent three emails to my MP but she has not replied yet. That is ok as I know she is very busy dealing with other serious issues all of the time.

 

It appears that my high -rise has even fewer Fire Prevention measures than were in situ at Grenfell e.g we do not even have any fire alarms that could alert all our residents if a fire was to break out and help them to evacuate more quickly.  The council have also said it would be a waste of money to install sprinklers in my high-rise, as it is due to be demolished in 2026/27 as part of the South Kilburn Regeneration programme.

 

At Larkanal in 2009 everyone who died were not disabled but were families with children and they were told to remain in their 4th floor flats and wait for the fire service to come & rescue them - they were burnt alive. Some people might not think being on the 5th floor is high enough to be a threat but the Grenfell fire started on the 4th floor. But for me it is about evacuating myself down our only fire escape, unable to see in the smoke and with everyone non-disabled in a hurry to get out and I might be in their way due to my slow pace.

 

Several disabled people at Grenfell had this experience for real and they described being knocked over by others trying to escape

 

When I first moved into the block in 1993 the council had a policy saying no one with a disability should be housed above the 4th floor but they said 4^th  or 5^th - what's the difference?  But it could be difficult to escape if you cannot walk even if you are only one floor up.

 

Brent Council has not implemented any of the Fire Safety Risks – Means of Escape for Disabled People (2007) LINK  measures in my tower block and I assume in the other 37 high rises in Brent.  e.g. my block does not even have a Fire Alarm.

 

Finally, The London Fire Brigade believes that everyone will be safe if sprinklers are installed in every high rise across London and that every council should install them without delay.  But it seems the council do not consider that my life and my fellow residents are worth saving, as they have decided we are expendable.  But if the council were to issue me with a PEEP, at least it would increase my chances of surviving, unlike all the disabled residents who tragically lost their lives at The Grenfell Tower in 2017…

 

Disability Rights UK has  insisted that disabled people in high rise flats should have a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan. LINK  

 

Time for some action.

 

Today (March 17th) Brent Council responded to Wembley Matters with the statement below. Kilburn ward councillors have not  yet  reacted to an offer to publish their response:

 

A Brent Council spokesperson said: "Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEP) are essential for anyone who may need assistance in the unlikely event of being advised to leave a building because of fire. We're concerned that something seems to have gone wrong here and have contacted Mr Healy to put it right.

"Last year, we proactively reached out to all tenants, asking anyone who needed assistance to complete a PEEP. We don't seem to have received a PEEP from Mr Healy and will be investigating what has gone wrong here, along with Mr Healy's comments about not being able to reach us.

"If any Brent Council tenant, who does not already have a PEEP, and would require assistance in a fire evacuation, we urge them to contact HousingManagement@brent.gov.uk or call 020 8937 1234."

How many disabled people are living in fear in Brent's high rises after Grenfell?

As the number of high rises proliferate throughout Brent and the cladding issue in many tower blocks unresolved, even as the horrors of Grenfell are relived through the current Inquiry, it is worth thinking about the situation of people with a disability in such buildings.

The London Fire Brigade has said that disabled people should not be placed in any accommodation above the 4th floor. One of the fatalities at Grenfell was a woman who had been told by Kensington and Chelsea Council that she would not be housed above the 4th floor, but tragically, she was.

A disabled pensioner in a Brent Council block has approached Wembley Matters to tell us about his situation. 

Since Grenfell he has asked the council to rehouse him on a lower floor and in response they have asked him why he accepted a flat in a South Kilburn high rise above the 4th floor way back in April, 1993.

They have also lost the record of the PEEP (Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan) that he had sent them and demanded proof that he was disabled despite the council's own OT team assessing him last year and installing a wet room and sit down shower as a result. He thinks that this action, in itself, is proof of his mobility needs.

He remarked that the council had found homes for nearly 900 students but had told him that they had no spare home to offer him. A different case of course, and a private provider,  but it clearly rankles.

The resident could see Grenfell from his tower block his tower block as he wrote his email to Wembley Matters and reflected that there had been two fires in his block during his tenancy and he had not known about them until he smelt the smoke. His neighbours and fire officers had shouted warnings to leave the building but he had not heard them because of the hearing impairment he has on top of his mobility problem.

He asks how many other disabled people are living in fear of fire in Brent's high rises in the shadow of the Grenfell disaster?

A good question, deserving of an answer.

Novotel, Olympic Way, mentioned in review of post-Grenfell cladding concerns

Novotel Olympic Way

The online magazine Inside Housing LINK mentioned the Novotel in Olympic Way, Wembley Park, as one of the buildings that still has aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding in a review of the issue on Friday.

Harvey Facades. the specialist cladding sub-contractor that installed cladding on Grenfell Tower also worked on the Novotel building which contains residences as well as hotel rooms.

The product used on the hotel cladding was Alcubond consisting of a Polyethylene and Aluminium construction. This is an extract from the Material Safety Data Sheet LINK:

From alcubond/com

Wembley Matters has contacted the Press Office at Accor, the parent company for the Novotel chain wrting:

Cladding on Novotel, Wembley Park, England

This is a sensitive issue as we are approaching the third anniversary of the Grenfell fire and attention is focused on the number of buildings that still contain similar material.

Could you let me know of your current assessment of any danger/risk posed by the ACM and measures taken to mitigate the risk as well as any plans to remove and replace the cladding.

No response has been received as yet.

Cladding on the adjacent Unite Student Accommmodation has been removed and replaced.

Residents must not pay for Grenfell-style cladding removal, FBU union says

From the Fire Brigades Union

The cost of removing dangerous flammable must not fall onto building residents, the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) has said. The government must fund residents’ removal costs until those responsible can be held accountable.

Nearly two years on from the Grenfell Tower fire, the same flammable cladding covers a total of 434 residential buildings. Dangerous cladding has been removed from just 29% of social housing blocks and 6% of private residential blocks.[1]

Combustible cladding has been removed from just 10 of the 176 private blocks found to be at risk., with  The FBU is backing the #EndOurCladdingScandal campaign, launched today by Inside Housing and UK Cladding Action Group, to address an overlooked risk to residents.
Across local authority and private housing, the government should take a risk-based approach to removing cladding and improving fire safety, rather than waiting for blame to be attributed, the FBU believes.

Andy Dark, FBU assistant general secretary, said:

It’s a scandal that residents who are living in tower blocks covered in flammable cladding and where basic fire safety is substandard have no certainty whatsoever that their homes will be made safe.

Whether publicly or privately owned the remedial work needs to be completed quickly and the government must take responsibility for getting the job done.

Grenfell Tower’s flammable Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding was one of the key factors that caused the fire to spread so rapidly, alongside the failure of “compartmentalisation”, where each flat is built as a fireproof unit.

The next phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry will focus on conditions that led to the fire, including those in business and government who did not act on warnings about unsafe building practices
The FBU is a core participant in the ongoing inquiry and has been a strong advocate for improving tenants’ rights. The union has repeatedly criticised the government for its complacency on Grenfell, cladding, and wider fire safety issues.

[1]Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government, 31 March 2019, Building Safety Programme: Monthly Data Release. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/793799/Building_Safety_Data_Release_March_2019.pdf

Catalyst statement: All Merle Court residents will be rehoused over next 12-18 months, looking at possible financial payments

Merle Court, named after local activist and Granville Kitchen cook Merle Barriteau, was opened with great fanfare in 2012. LINK The block was built via a Catalyst Housing, Brent Council and Willmott Dixon partnership.  The block was used to decant residents from Brent Council properties that were being demolished. Tenancies were transferred from the council to Catalyst Housing.

After the Grenfell fire concerns were raised over the cladding of the block. The BBC reported the fears of resident Issa Kaingu whose flat in Merle Court os enclosed in a polyethylene-based shell. LINK

He said,

I am really worried. I have no idea what I'm going to do. I am at the top and if there's a fire it would be difficult to get down. I am really shaken and feel like I can't even stay here.

At the time Catalyst was advised that additional safety measures, including 24 hour wardens, would ensure it was safe for residents to continue living there until cladding was removed.

When fears were at their height post-Grenfell, a special meeting was convened in South Kilburn that included residents, councillors, the fire brigade and various housing associations. The absence of Catalyst Housing was noted at the time.

In December 2018 building regulations changed for walled systems over 18 metres high and were applied retrospectively. These applied to Merle Court but investigations by Catalyst Housing found other faults in the 7 year old building which will involve removal of brick work as well as cladding.

Now a considerable amount of work needs to be done which will involve Catalyst rehousing the residents and buying back leasehold properties in the block.

UPDATE:

A spokeperson for Catalyst Housing supplied the following statement to Wembley Matters:

We are unable to say what we expect the repairs to cost at the moment.

All Merle Court residents will need to be re-housed and Catalyst will support everyone throughout this process. We expect this will take between 12 and 18 months to complete. 

Outline of Residents’ Offer (April 2019)

Catalyst’s offer to residents is currently being developed for approval by Catalyst’s Board in May. Once it has been approved we’ll be able to share the full residents’ offer with those living at Merle Court. In the meantime, we felt it was important to let residents know that they will need to move out of Merle Court and share what we can with them now, in terms of the likely timescales and the support and financial payments they will receive. 

An outline of the offer is summarised below:

Assessing residents’ needs and developing individual packages of support

Catalyst will arrange one to one meetings with every household to discuss their individual circumstances and support needs, and where needed, develop individual packages of support. We want to understand each household’s needs and establish how we can help.

Our offer to tenants

Catalyst will offer tenants assistance and support throughout the re-housing process by providing a dedicated member of staff for Merle Court. We will spend time talking to every tenant to understand their housing needs and their preferences for a move. We will also offer additional support to older and vulnerable residents, and signpost to other support services, where needed.

Catalyst will make direct offers to tenants where we can, of properties that meet their housing need and take into account their preferences as far as possible (about location, type of property and so on).

If possible, Catalyst will give tenants the right to return to Merle Court, once the major works have been completed. This will be considered as part of the residents’ offer which we will share with them at the end of May.

We are looking at what financial payments we can give residents as well as covering reasonable “disturbance” costs for moving home.

Our offer to shared owners’ and home owners

Catalyst will meet all home owners to discuss their individual circumstances and the options available. We will have a dedicated member of staff for home owners to speak to throughout the process. 

Catalyst will offer to buy back of all the shared/home owners’ homes. This will include the option to buy another Catalyst property (with an equity loan depending on financial circumstances). 

We will buy back properties at the current market value and residents may also qualify for additional financial payments and a disturbance allowance. More information will be available towards the end of May, once our Board approves the residents’ offer for Merle Court. In the meantime, we would like to meet everyone to understand their individual circumstances and discuss options and next steps.

Unite to replace cladding on Olympic Way student building

Following local rumours concerning the cladding on the huge Unite student building on Wembley's Olympic Way, Unite have issued the following statement to Wembley Matters:

In line with the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government’s (MHCLG) high-rise building cladding testing regime conducted with the Building Research Establishment (BRE), Unite Students has been working closely with independent fire safety and engineering experts to ensure our buildings are as safe as possible for our students and employees.

Following extensive investigations by these experts, we have taken the decision to replace the exterior cladding on our Olympic Way property in Wembley, London. The building will be closed over the summer holidays while this work takes place, limiting the impact on our students, and the building will reopen in time for the start of the 2018/19 academic year.

Given the numerous fire safety systems and comprehensive fire strategy we have in place for this building, as with all of our properties nationwide, independent fire safety experts have confirmed that Olympic Way continues to be safe for occupation until the works are complete.

The safety of our students and our properties is of the utmost importance to us and we take our responsibilities very seriously. We have closely followed MHCLG advice, and believe replacing the cladding on Olympic Way is the most responsible thing to do for our customers in the long term.

In August last year, in the wake of the Grenfell fire, the Kilburn Times LINK reported a Brent Council letter to councillors in which they said that wall system of the building  in BRE tests was shown as inadequate to resist the spread of fire.

Unite say that they have moved many of their summer bookings to other properties and have been working closely with their university partners on the issue. They were unable to comment on who would be responsible for paying for the cladding removal. In July last year Unite said the cost of replacing cladding on six of its building could be £2m plus up to £1.5m in lost revenue. LINK

The 475 bed building cost £47m in a venture funded by the London Student Accommodation Vehicle, 50% owned by Unite and 50% by the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation.

A spokesperson for Middlesex University, whose students use the accommodation, echoed Unite's statement and said, “The safety of our students is of the utmost importance to us and we take our responsibilities very seriously. We are fully supportive of Unite Students’ decision to replace the cladding on Olympic Way.”

Elsewhere on the Wembley regeneration site Forum House is having cladding replaced LINK. It is clearly a matter of concern that at least two buildings in the extensive new build have issues over cladding.

Brent Council to proceed with fire safety measures for all its blocks over 12 storeys high

The Brent Cabinet will be asked to approve a fire safety strategy LINK  for its housing stock at its next meeting which will centre on a five year programme of fire safety measures, with a particular emphasis on sprinkers, for all its blocks that are 12 storeys or higher. Standard 4 Fire Risk Assessments would be carried out as part of the programme.

These are the blocks (click on image to enlarge or see LINK):

The programme will be at a rate of 3 per year to be completed in 5 years and will be done alongside other improvement works.

The Council is faced with some uncertainty over financing of such improvements as well as what will eventually be recommended by the post-Grenfell Public Inquiry.

The report states:
 

The Chief Executive wrote to Department for Communities and Local government (DCLG) to request Government provide direct financial support to meet the costs that will be incurred. The current position in response to that request is that government will neither fund the additional works, nor change the policy on 1% decrease in rents up to 2020, nor increase the HRA borrowing cap as alternative ways to fund these additional works. However, there have been suggestions that there may be further announcements in the November 2017 Budget. 


This means that the £10m costs will need to be financed from the Housing Revenue Account which will  entail cuts in the  Capital Programme of at least £4.5m in 2018-19 and £3.9m in 2019-20 - unless the Chancellor comes up with some proposals in his budget.

As can be seen from the table above leaseholders in the blocks will be expected to contribute towards the costs of the improvement measures. This would raise £0.8m for the 14 blocks of over 12 storeys and £2.8m for all 37 Brent blocks. Average cost per leaseholder would be approximately £6,000.

Wembley Park: The Money Under Our Feet

There have been many postings on this website about Quintain's Wembley Park 'regeneration' and even more comments, particularly as the development has accelerated recently eating up warehouse and industrial units and apparently squeezing tower blocks into any spare space. In this guest posting Dilan Tulsiani stands back and considers the implications for local people as well as the locality itself.
 

On the 29^th of August 2017, Quintain, a property investment and development business, announced via its website that it was ‘spending £1m a day on construction making Wembley Park one of the UK’s biggest construction sites’. According to Quintain, there will be over 8,500 jobs created, with a further 3,000 homes under construction ‘delivered at a pace not seen at any other London development site’. The construction framework consists of six contractors, the notables being: McLaren, Wates, Sisk and Carillion. Quintain have recently shifted their construction policy from ‘build to buy’ to ‘build to rent’. They aim to build over 7,000 new homes, with 5,000 labelled as ‘build to rent’, and a further 2,300 as “affordable”.

 

Quintain and Brent Council have both resisted using the term ‘gentrification’ to describe their partnership in transforming the area. Instead, you’ll see ‘regeneration’ on practically every website or poster promoting the ongoing process. This is understandable, as the critics of any form of gentrification, are quick to label the selective description by property developers as deceptive and dishonest. Technically speaking, regeneration is embedded within the process of gentrification. The Cambridge Dictionary defines regeneration: ‘to improve a place or system, especially by making it more active or successful’. Gentrification is defined as: ‘the process by which a place, especially part of a city, changes from a being poor to being a richer one, where people from a higher social class live’. Wembley Park’s ‘regeneration’ process factually falls under both definitions (for the remainder of this article I will use the term ‘gentrification’ instead of ‘regeneration’, as it is more accurate to my subject matter). Although, to prevent an ethical breakdown, new tenants would probably cling to ‘regeneration’ as an ontological justification for staying in Wembley.

 

Residents who have lived in Brent for more than a decade will remember the industrial abyss that used to exist just a short walk from the station. In this sense, the gleaming metallic towers, illusory designer outlet and newly placed pavement are well relished. However, there are a few fundamental concerns that have simply been swept aside. Firstly, the effect on the surrounding areas. There is no surprise, that most, if not all the flats in Wembley are not “affordable”. In fact, that term is usually used to provoke a narrative of relativity concerning financial status. Quintain has invested £900 million into Wembley Park, without careful consideration and evaluation from the residents of Brent, this could lead to some serious socio-economic disparities. David Fell, a research analyst at Hamptons International states that property prices in HA9 “have risen by 14% in the last year [2016], compared to a London average of 10%.” Just down the road from Wembley Park, a two-bedroom flat is valued around £335,000. A flat of the same size, less than 10 minutes’ walk away, is valued at £450,000 - £500,000. Recently, Alto has sold two-bedroom flats in Wembley Park for £800,000.

 

A similar problem was highlighted in 2014 during gentrification processes in South Kilburn, where a member of the Residents’ Association claimed: “Those who have been living in the area are essentially being driven out. This all amounts to a social cleansing of South Kilburn.” Moreover, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations emphasised that the residents who have lived in South Kilburn for generations could no longer afford to live in their homes. These are not trivial or isolated matters. They’re simply the effects of gentrification. Wealth concentrated in one single area in this manner, will have drastic consequences. The surrounding populations will be allowed to use facilities, shops and walk the newly paved streets, but there is a cap on their indulgence of this ideology. Consider what the residents of Chalkhill think when their homes are (literally and metaphorically) overshadowed by the new apartment towers. When they, like so many other communities, have a lack of funding within their own neighbourhoods, along with other serious social issues. To name one, in Brent and Hounslow 34 high-rise buildings failed fire cladding tests issued after the horrendous disaster at Grenfell Tower. In contrast, I think it would be perfectly safe to assume that the newly built apartments in Wembley Park have some of the best fire safety systems available.

 

 Attached to this disparity of wealth is the subsequent problem of crime. There is no doubt that the new properties will have a well-maintained police presence, due to the proximity of the stadium, along with security guards for each building. Due to the disparity, crimes in the surrounding areas may increase. Let’s take some of surrounding areas as examples (take these as approximate averages): From January - August 2017, Alperton has had the average total crime rate of 118/month, Dollis Hill’s average total crime rate was 137/month, and Tokyngton stands at an average of 188/month. Tokyngton is the closest of the three areas to Wembley Park, and in recent years it has had a subsequent increase in total crimes committed. If the investment in selective industries and areas remains or increases in the next decade, there should be no surprise at the increase in crime. This correlation was well represented in gentrification processes in New York, especially Harlem. As living standards get higher, the price of property increases, more people will forcibly turn to crime – both petty and serious. The socio-cultural divide will only widen.

 

One last fundamental issue is an assessment by The FA (for those like myself who are not sport literate: The Football Association). In May 2016, The FA complained that Brent Council was considering those who visit the stadium “an afterthought”. The recent constructions sites, which appear directly outside the stadium, could present potential hazards to fans, according to the FA. In fact, these new apartments would present the highest, and thus the most expensive flats, with their own personalised view of the games below them. Wembley is already set to be overcrowded, yet with ongoing construction, and busy venues/rush hour, there should be an effective policy by the council to counter this.

 

Ultimately, I see no realistic counter-movement to what seems to be an unchecked gentrification process at Wembley. In the next decade, Wembley, just as many other towns in Greater London, will be injected with huge sums of money, none of which will aid ingrained social issues, but will make these issues less noticeable for those living in the newly ‘regenerated’ areas. In the meanwhile, surrounding populations will attempt to readjust and comfort themselves from their high price of living with the luxurious shopping outlets built on the borders between their areas and the ‘newly regenerated Wembley Park’.

 

Waiting for action after South Kilburn meeting on fire safety

Tuesday's meeting in fire safety held in South Kilburn was well attended by residents despite the awkward time of 4pm. One attendee described it as understandably emotional at times. Phil Porter, Brent Council lead officer, said that every block on the estate would have their own meeting (although some blocks don't have a meeting room of their own) within the next 6 - 8 weeks.

The panel chaired by Tulip Siddiq consisted of Brent Council officers and representatives from BHP, housing associations and the London Fire Brigade. Councillors sat in the audience  with one attendee remarking that this seemed to absolve them from direct democratic accountability. Catalyst Housing had been invited but sent apologies.

Brent Housing Partnership were asked to change policy on any bicycles and push-chairs etc that blocked stairwells. Rather than give 7 days notice of their removal they should be removed immediately as they constitute a fire risk.

Cllr Duffy has been chasing up the issue of large bins filled with combustible material (see above) stored beneath balconies and netting used to keep out pigeons fixed along balconies which could act as a fire bridge. This is of particular concern as a tenant was found yesterday to be trying to store tyres on his balcony.

Duffy  told other councillors about the issues today as the CEO, Carolyn Downs, had failed to reply:

-->

The council looks neglectful  having a public fire -risk meeting in a block that is in the opinion of the LFB  has unsafe aspects.

The problem is the same old problem with Brent, do a lot of good work but fall at the last hurdle. One resident has agreed to help me move the bins  from under the balcony this afternoon into a safer location.

Duffy lambasts Brent Council for not holding a special democratic meeting on fire safety in the borough

This is an email sent to Brent councilors today by Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn)

-->

Dear All,

As you know the tragic events that took place on 14th June at Grenfell Tower has cost over a hundred lives has left a mark on our city. Over the years we have seen many similar tragic events, but normally they are in factories (sweat shops) in Bangladesh or a collapse of building on the outskirts (shanty -town) of a South American city. The only difference between this the others tragic events is the fact it happen only a few miles in a neighbouring borough right on our doorsteps do we are one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

In the early hours of 14th June I received two phone calls one from a women who was going down to the fire area to look for friends and offer them a place to stay, and another from a women crying who just wanted to talk about the tragic events she had witnessed on TV. The following day (15th) a friend of nearly 50 years call in on me and told me about his son and family, who live in one of the other twin blocks of Grenfell tower estate and who had witnessed the fire throughout the night, and how his partner was talking to her son on the  phone as the horror unfolded in that long night .

As the days passed it became clear they the fire did not only wreak death and destruction it also exposed inequalities.. Kensington and Chelsea is the wealthiest  area in London (and maybe the world) and has many high rise expensive hotels and private apartment blocks. These high rise hotels have the maximum fire protection  and have been erected using non-toxic building material etc. I do not object these people having the maximum fire protection. What I object to is the different way society treats the so called "Creators of Wealth" who stay in the big hotels and are pampered in comparative way that same society threat the "Orphans of Wealth" who they hide in Tower blocks with insufficient fire protection and there needs are ignored .

John McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor, said that politicians are guilty of murder. I am not sure if he said that just for affect. However it did highlight the fact that politicians are responsible for decisions and I have always believed apathy is not a political decision - its a cop-out. That is why I called for special full council meeting on 3th July .The meeting would have endorse a strategy for officers to follow and the officers in turn would been up-to date with local information from Councillors. Officers would have been able to explain what we're been doing , and the resource implications .This would have ensured councillors were not just observers waiting for the next bulletin, but were local representatives , representing local people. The CEO, Head of Legal, the Leader and the Mayor decided to limit discussion and to kick it to the 11th July. The decision was wrong, anti-democratic and not transparent.

Since the disaster , I have exchanged numerous emails mostly private with Officers and the CEO, here are some of them.

Time line

14th June at 09:22, I wrote  about  the visible deterioration of some of the new blocks in South Kilburn  and tried to identify short -life up  property we  could get up and running . I understand Cllr  Kalwala was doing the same thing  in Stonebridge looking for voids to be ready to help K+C . I am proud of what others and myself did to ensure Brent was ready to support the residents of Grenfell Tower if needs be.

15th June at 4-30PM, I went down to South Kilburn  to have a look  the blocks and ensure the area was cleared of any fire hazard. I understand Cllr Shazard and Cllr Colacicco were doing something similar in Mapesbury. I looked at all the blocks including George and Swift house (which are owned by a housing association) that had been of concern to residents for some time, including  issues about the failing exterior. I informed the CEO of my concerns .The CEO instructed officers to investigate  my concerns about George House.

24th June  at 11-16 AM, I requested an emergency full council  meeting ( which I later changed  to a special meeting ) the requisite number of councillors agreed to call the meeting and the CEO asked The Leader and another officer to discuss with the Mayor.

26th June at 3pm. The CEO wrote to all councillors, misleading all councillors saying that I had not got the 5 councillors you need to requisiteion a meeting naming myself , Cllr Pavey , Stopp , Warren . However the CEO, the Mayors office and the The Leader of the council were well aware that Cllr Chan  and Cllr Hector had also supported the request for a meeting by email to the Mayor, the Leader of the Council and Labour group leadership on the 24th June . 

The CEO then advise the Mayor  that he should not use his powers to call a special meeting , instead we should have a drop-in section, which would not be open to the press or public and would not be minuted, replacing a democratically called meeting. The CEO also promised time to ask questions at the drop -in , but  the Head of Legal said half an hours of questions is enough for councillors to ask questions and she would not agree to officers staying on after the 7pm deadline. 

28TH June at 11-15 am. My fears were confirmed,  just as I had alerted the CEO on the 15th June the cladding at George house failed the fire test. However the FB did not recommend immediate evacuation of the block and 24 hrs wardens are now in place to walk the scheme. 

Now because of the CEO intervention we have not got a Full Council meeting tonight, where we could publicly support and reassure residents in South Kilburn and support officers action. We have a drop-in for councillors and they are only allowed half an hour  to ask questions about the fabric and material, the short term safety,  and medium and long term solutions- while the public are banned. 

This lack of transparency shown by senior officers and the attempt to highjack the democratic process and limit debate is why I will not be turning-up tonight. I have instead arrange a meeting for 2pm tomorrow Tuesday) with the housing association who manage George House which I invite all councillors to. I am also inviting Peter Gadsdon  or one of his colleagues (he and his officers are doing a good job) if he or one of his colleagues is available to attend. I will inform the public meeting tomorrow (Tuesday)  evening (see notice above) about the outcome of the meeting and hopefully will be able to give residents an update.

There are obvious lessons to learn about fire protection, which will emerge, but there are other issues  about  how council meetings and decisions  are conducted and implemented. Over the next few months  the council will have to be more transparent and the CEO and Cabinet will have to start to listen to local councillors. There can be no more mistakes like trying to close the Granville Community Centre without understanding the consequences of regeneration on an area like Kilburn. Poorer areas also need a guarantee that they will retain all the funds they are due from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) from the related 106 income and it will not passed onto wealthier areas, who have not suffered the from the consequences of the redevelopment/ regeneration programme.

Fairness and transparency is needed if we are going to avoid creating more Orphans Of Wealth .

EDITOR'S NOTE

The Council has tabled an item on the agenda of the next Full Council meeting on July 10th (7pm Civic Centre). There are 17 items on the agenda -Fire Safety in High Rise Towe Blocks is number 15. LINK

Grenfell: Greens say Paget-Brown and Feilding-Mellen must go as they lock the doors on Press and Public

The Green Party has sent a letter to the prime minister urging her to remove the leader and deputy leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council from their posts.

Their intervention follows the news that it is unlikely the final death toll from the fire that engulfed Grenfell tower will be known until the end of the year and that survivors and press will be banned from tonight’s council meeting in which an update on the fire will be given. The update will be given orally without any written record.

Green Party politicians including Sian Berry and Caroline Russell, both members of the London Assembly, Amelia Womack, Deputy Leader, and Jennifer Nadel, the party’s candidate for Kensington in the recent election, have been providing support to victims of the fire. As well as raising questions from survivors with the government and local council, the Green Party has already called for an amnesty for victims - allowing them to share personal information without fear of reprisal - and pressed the prime minister to clarify how much will be given in legal aid to help survivors.

In its letter to the prime minister, the party said it is “unconscionable” that the leader and deputy leader of Kensington and Chelsea council could continue in their post when it is roundly recognised that they failed to deliver an adequate response to the fire and to heed warnings from residents about safety in the tower before the incident. The party urges May to take “strong leadership” and reassure survivors that they are being listened to and that those who presided over this tragedy aren’t allowed to carry on with business as usual. and the public that actions are being taken to ensure this “never happens again.”

The letter, signed by Jennifer Nadel, and Amelia Womack, says:

It is insulting to the residents of this community to see Paget-Brown and Feilding-Mellen remain in post. Surviving residents and members of the public need to know that strong leadership is being taken to ensure this kind of disaster never happens again. That includes ensuring that those responsible for guaranteeing the safety of residents at Grenfell before and after the fire are held to account and do not remain in post. Paget-Brown and Fielding-Mellen could themselves be subject to criminal investigations. It is unconscionable given the scale of the tragedy and the multiple failings of the council before and after that its Leader and Deputy Leader should remain as Leader and Deputy Leader of the council.

The families of those who died at Hillsborough have had to wait almost three decades for justice to be done. We cannot let the survivors of Grenfell wait that long. So I urge you: please take action, show that you are listening to the concerns of residents and survivors of Grenfell, and remove from post the council leader and deputy leader who have overseen this terrible episode in British history.

Joe Delaney, who was a resident of the tower, said:

We are extremely disappointed that neither Paget-Brown or Fielding-Mellen have shown the courage and humility to resign in the wake of this unprecedented disaster that occurred on their watch and was a direct result of policies they are responsible for. Once again, they hide behind platitudes and false assertions that they are somehow victims because of the justifiable anger and resentment being directed towards them by victims in particular and the community as a whole. Neither is forced to stay in post, so even if their colleagues in the Conservative group have allegedly refused their resignations they should still do the right thing and leave these positions of responsibility immediately. Not only would that demonstrate their regret and satisfy local wishes, but also ensure that there can be no question of using their positions to influence the inquiry and police investigation.

Piers Thompson, member of the Save our Silchester campaigning aiming to protect the neighbouring Silchester Estate, said:

It beggars belief that that Council leader Paget-Brown and his Deputy, Feilding-Mellen are clinging onto power behind locked doors at the Town Hall. This tragedy is a result of their incompetence and contempt for the ordinary people in their care. For decency's sake, go now.