Brent CEO's advice to Mayor over John Duffy Special Council Meeting request published

A supplementary report has been published for Thursday's Standards Committee meeting which contains the correspondence between the Mayor and Carolyn Downs (Brent CEO) about John Duffy's request for a Special Council Meeting about fire risk in Brent buildings post Grenfell:

It could only happen in Brent! John Duffy on the Corrib

Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn) has intervened in the controversy over the planning application for the Corrib Rest in Queen's Park which is being discussed at Brent Planning Committee tomorrow. He has written the following to members of the Planning Committee and requested that it be read out in his absence. (Note the original has been lightly edited)

Dear Cllr Agha,

Following a meeting  a number of residents raised some concerns about the report concerning the lost of a community  asset to build private housing at the Corrıb Rest.

Let me clarify somethıng whıch offıcer seem to continually mentıon and to make everything as clear as possible. I have no complaints about the initial consultation. Officers continue to answer this question that was never asked , to add unrelated information as a smoke screen. 

Our concerns are pure and sımply about the report and the recommendations within the report to cut the community/provision by over 70%. Officers are well aware that 140 residents objected to the lost of community space and a request to defer the report to the July meetıng  so a meeting could be called to discuss the recommendations. This was ın my opınıon not unreasonable, however thıs was denied by the offıcers. I asked them were there any  financial, staffing or legal reasons why the officers could not defer  the report to the July meeting. Offıcers faıled to give a reason why they are being so difficult on a issue of local democracy. The officers answer merely said officers have the legal power to ignore requests from the public. The issue I asked the commıttee, was do you believe they are acting reasonably.

The report itself is I believe being sugar-coated in favour of the developer,  officers have left out the ( no mention whatsoever ) the loss of 70% of the  community space available or the 50% cut in hours of its use. If a committee member were to read the report it would suggest the developer is offering an increase of community use not a massive cut.  Also I raised the issue of the use of the words “40HR minimum hours community use” by officers. The report is actually saying  is 40hr will be the maximum  amount of hours in the 106 agreement and any other hrs over the forty would be unenforceable. Again I am sorry to say officers deferred to legal-speak instead of answering my question saying “there is no obligation on the developer to allocate more than the minimum hours. I think that’s clear and the reference to minimum is accurate and not misleading – more hours may be allocated, but are not required to be.” It is clear the developer has said NO to any additional hours.

However the most puzzling answer to my questions to officers was in answer to thıs  question 

“Will you confirm that I as a elected representative in the Area and an objector was not sent notification of the meeting.

Legal offıcer’s answer  

“In relation to your email of today, I have been informed that there were indeed two people that did not receive a copy of the details for the Committee, and accordingly they will be provided with the relevant information by post today.

Frankly that answer would be better suited to a Kafka novel than a planning commıttee. I finally received notice today, Tuesday (48hrs) that they did not send me notifıcation of the meetıng 5 days before.

Would it not have been easier and save time, for the legal officer to have apologised  and told me last Thursday instead of going into legal speak. However the legal offıcer said it does not matter  that they did  not send me notifıcation as an elected councillor  and an objector , as a member of the public told me anyway. It’s for you to decided whether you think that is also reasonable.

The truth is if I had been informed at the right time, I would not have committed to a work related trip abroad and I would have been there on Wednesday nıght.

The other ıssue I have concerns about is the way officers have sought to divide opinion on the merits of the plannıng application. Whereas I believe the residents of QPRA have a rıght to have the major say in the planning application the size, structure, parking and opening hours. However the disposal of 70% of a community asset is not for only for QPRA  and QPRA alone , its for the users and residents whether it be a Salsa dance class or a food bank to have their say , these people come from the greater Kilburn  area and other parts of Brent. The entrance will be via the pub which will rule out religous groups (particularly Muslims), Mothers and Baboes groups and other children's groups. A further issues is that there is only one WC.

Finally and most importantly, I believe officers are bringing the council into disrepute, by their approach . It’s just over a year ago that the Cabinet tried to shut down the Granvılle community centre  wıthout even a cursory attempt at consultatıon. The cabinet apologised  and the lead member resigned. Sınce then the new lead member for planning and regeneration Cllr Tatler has said community use in Kilburn is a priority and wishes to see it expanded .

Cllr Tatler and the cabinet have now committed themselves to expansıon of community provision.

To confırm this Cllr Tatler  last week place a large ad in the Brent Magazine( page 45) saying one of the priority for bids for using the CIL is community activity in Kilburn and askıng for bıds to come forward. It beggars belief that officers are choosing to ignore a clear policy and are recommending a 70% cut in community space and 50% cut in hours at a time when we are askıng for more ......... If policy can be changed or ignored by officers to cut communıty services, it makes it look like the administration  are in power, but not in control wıthout a clear vision or strategy.

It could only happen ın Brent!!!!!

Thıs report is wrong and goes against council policy of expanding community provisıon in Kilburn. Therefore ı urge you to reject the plannıng applıcatıon. 

Carolyn Downs intervenes on request for special post-Grenfell Brent Council meeting.

In the wake of the Grenfell Tower disaster one of the major lessons must surely be that councils should listen to their residents and their actions should be transparent.

The Council's Chief Executive Officer, Carolyn Downs,  has intervened in Cllr Duffy's attempt to have a Special Full Council Meeting on July 3rd on  the issue of fire safety in Brent's high-rise blocks.

She has written to the Mayor, who makes decisions on Special Meetings, to give her advice:

-->

Dear Mr Mayor

I am writing to give you my advice regarding the request for an extraordinary/special council meeting.

Firstly the request was made last night by Cllr Duffy and to date I and other officers have seen confirmation by email from Councillors Warren, Stopp and Pavey. This as it stands is not enough. 

According to the legal and constitutional rules, a special meeting can be called by the Mayor.  Alternatively, a requisition signed by 5 councillors can be presented to the Mayor. If a special meeting is not called by the Mayor within 7 days, the requisition itself will trigger a extraordinary meeting. A requisition need not be sent to the mayor personally. It can be sent to Tom Cattermole, the Head of Executive and Member Services. 

The constitution further requires that any requisition must be accompanied by notice of the motion or motions to be debated at the meeting. We have received a motion from Cllr Duffy. 

This means that even if a valid requisition is received today then the mayor has 7 days to decide whether to call the meeting. If you took seven days then the earliest possible date for a special meeting of the council would be 13/7/17.

If you were to agree today then 5 clear working days will be needed before the meeting can be held and so the earliest it could be held is 4/7/17. Our next scheduled Council meeting is 10/7/17.

The reason we held a member drop in session last week was to enable members to answer road by road and block by block questions with the relevant officers present as this is a very technical matter. 11 members attended of which 2 were Cabinet members. Cabinet were briefed additionally and Cllr Shahzad arranged a separate briefing for himself. 

We will need to ensure that a discussion at a full council meeting is managed to ensure that it does not cause additional anxiety for residents in the Borough. We need to ensure that we retain the calm and professional environment in which the council, the fire brigade and other registered providers are managing this situation. We also need to ensure that information is shared in a way in which the public can understand it. Last week's member briefing and our web site give relevant information.   I believe that our council has responded well locally alongside putting c30 officers into the response to Grenfell Tower.

This is a very important topic and all members will no doubt wish to be present at the Council meeting that discusses it and for the sake of 3 working days it is surely appropriate to have the discussion on a date that has been in all members‘ diaries for some time.

My suggestion to you is that we hold another drop in session for councillors followed by a collective discussion of a less technical and more tactical and policy nature. I also suggest that officers write all of this up and make it publicly available as a part of the papers for the full council meeting. We can do this later this week or on 3/7/17 when I know a lot of Councillors have a group meeting arranged anyway. 

We can then have a major discussion at our programmed full council meeting based on the facts and a report circulated in advance.  We have, in the past, had back bench sponsored debates and we could, with the agreement of members, suspend the rules around those to enable a fuller and longer discussion, have a panel of technical officers available for any questions and also ensure that Councillors are able to take a full part in the discussion for as long as is necessary. I would ensure relevant officer and also seek Fire Brigade attendance. 

Clearly the decision to have the meeting before the 10/07/17  is your decision but I thought it transparent to share with all Councillors my advice to you.  I hope no-one will see this advice as being unhelpful and obstructive. It is intended to be quite the opposite. 

If you do agree to an earlier and special council meeting with the revised motion proposed by Cllr Duffy I still think it important that officers prepare a full report in advance, that we invite the fire brigade and technical officers and that we hold another drop in session to give members the opportunity to ask detailed and technical questions in advance. 

Yours ever

Carolyn

Brent Fire Safety Update and latest on Special Meeting

--> Fire Safety Update for Councillors(Peter Gadsdon, Brent Council Director Policy, Performance and Partnerships)

Thank you to all members who attended the briefings during the week on the council’s response following the Grenfell Tower fire. Slides from the presentation are available for any members who would like them.

Brent Council has 37 high-rise blocks with only Watling Gardens cladded. The cladding at Watling Gardens is made of a non-combustible mineral wool material – completely different to that used on Grenfell Tower. Residents from Watling Gardens had a demonstration from Rockwool, the manufacturers of the cladding, at a public meeting on Tuesday to show the impressive fire resistance of the material.

An interactive map, including more information about the council’s high rise blocks and fire risk assessments, is available from the link at the top of this page:www.brent.gov.uk/grenfelltower.

In addition to the extensive double checks carried out on council blocks, the council has also asked all registered social and private housing providers in Brent to share details of any cladding used on their high rise buildings.

So far, only Octavia has told us that there are concerns with one of their properties. Octavia reports that there are concerns about two products used on their Elizabeth House development on Wembley following the Government’s testing of their samples.

Elizabeth House is a 13 storey new build block which was completed in July 2013 and comprises 115 flats mainly for affordable rent and private sale. The council has 23 families in the block.

The exterior of Elizabeth House is made up of a mixture of Alucobond, Vitrabond and Terracotta Ceremic. All of the products used have appropriate certifications. However, Octavia sent samples of the two Aluminium Composite Material products for testing (Alucoband and Vitrabond) and was notified today (23.6.17) that the DCLG has concerns.

Octavia is working with the DCLG and council to ensure that the building is safe and moved quickly to communicate with residents. Octavia has told us that the Fire Brigade has double checked their plans of the building and is confident that any fire risk is being appropriately managed. Unlike Grenfell or old blocks that have been refurbished, Elizabeth House is a modern purpose built block with a comprehensive fire strategy and a range of 21^st century fire safety features in place including:

•           Sprinklers in all flats
- Automatic smoke ventilation systems in common areas to ensure they remain smoke free in the event of fire
- Smoke and heat detectors in all flats as well as fire entrance doors
- Smoke detectors in common areas linked to a central control panel
- A design that includes fire stopping and compartmentalisation

Octavia has arranged for people to make patrols 24/7throughout the day and night at Elizabeth House for added safety and reassurance. A site visit with the Fire Brigade has also been arranged where the Fire Brigade will be advising Octavia on next steps.

Hope this clarifies the situation.

Thanks

Cllr Shama Tatler
Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills

Meanwhile Cllr John Duffy is in correspondence regarding a Special Council Meeting about the issue on July 3^rd.  This could be at 6pm ahead of a Labour Group Meeting at 7.30pm.  

Responding to Cllr Dixon's suggestion and request for questions, Cllr Duffy said:

How on earth can you have questions until you have a full explanation from officer with clear options and a strategy?

Liz it's not a show  with premeditated questions this has major implications for the re-gen and repairs programme. We have to set up a safety audit on some of the tower  block we need to look at our landlord certificates . We need to see if we have up to date RCDs and our maintenance/repairs programme is of a high standard.we have high rises that are due to decanted and demolished next year and I feel these blocks may have let Standards slip  because of changes  to the management 
I think your decision not to change the Labour group meeting to Tuesday  means that the council meeting will be shortened.This sends out a bad message  to residents about our priorities.

I have no question because I have not seen the officers report or recommendations and I will certainly not conform to your one question 3 minute  clock watching meeting as this is far to serious. This should be a examination of the proposal and Cllrs should be able to raise as many questions as they think are relevant.John McDonnell has just said these unfortunate council tenants were murdered by political decisions or in my opinion lack  of political decisions and it’s our duty to ensure we robustly question officers, how ever long it takes.

When you all troop of to your group meeting, I am requesting the CEO and officers stay behind to answer further questions even if it’s block by block, road by road until councillors are satisfied.

DAWN BUTLER URGES INSTALLATION OF SPRINKLERS IN ALL BRENT'S HIGH RISE BLOCKS LINK

Duffy calls for special Full Brent Council meeting on post-Grenfell action

-->

Cllr John Duffy has written to all Brent councillors seeking support for his call for a special Council meeting to review the situation in Brent following the Grenfell tragedy:

We are all aware of the fall out of the disaster of Grenfell Tower and the knock-on affect in Camden. Swiss Cottage is  not far from Kilburn and the issue is tangible on Kilburn High Road and is concerning residents.

I have spoken to officers who seem to be doing a reasonable job, however Brent have some decision we need to make particularly in South Kilburn and Stonebridge. 

I was shocked  when I saw the state of the internal repairs in the blocks in Camden, no fire protection on gas pipes and lack of maintenance on fire doors. Camden have questions to ask themselves who was doing the installation and who was signing it off.

Camden problems of poor maintenance maybe be reflected in our own maintenance programme. Therefore we need to take action, we also have to look at our regeneration programme and our housing stock to see if we can retro-fit sprinkler systems. I have heard on Sky News that Brent may be affected, but I have not heard anything from officers to confirm this.

We as a council need to meet to discuss options, like do we wish to ensure all new blocks in the regeneration areas are fitted with sprinklers, do we retro fit older blocks, the logistics of doing so, the cost  and the timetable. We also need to discuss our emergency planning operation to ensure we are able to decant residents ( we recently used in the evacuation plan around Brondesbury Park) and  do we have short and medium term accommodation available.

I am writing to the Mayor, Leader and CEO asking them to call an urgent meeting meeting for Monday 3^rd July , this will allow officers to prepare an options report  to update councillors and allow councillors to ask  relevent questions and to look at options.

I am aware we are having a calendered meeting on the 11^th of July, but I believe we need a dedicated meeting , without the usual political divisions. Janice Long sent us something recently about Social Housing in the aftermath, which highlight a lot of the problems we are about to face.

Could Peel Precinct provide temporary home for Grenfell Tower homeless?

Cllr John Duffy, (Labour Kilburn) wrote to Carolyn Downs, Brent Council CEO, yesterday proposing that Brent Council could offer short-term accommodation to those made homeless by the Grenfell Tower fire:

I am sure Brent officers are doing their best to help Kensington and Chelsea officers to deal with the dreadful situation that happened this morning in Grenfell Tower.

I am sure in the short term accommodation (over the next couple of weeks) can be found for the residents of Grenfell Tower. This will probably be a combination of  b+bs  and friends putting them up. I have already been informed from one Kilburn resident they are taking in residents from the block on a short-term arrangement.

However I believe we could and should do more for our fellow Londoners. I am suggesting we offer K+C to short-life Peel Precinct (PP). As you know PP has only just been decanted a few months ago and therefore  all the services are available. I believe short-lifing it for 9 months to K+C, while they sort out their the permanent re-housing of the Grenfell Tower residents would be a worthy offer from a neighbour. I believe that PP could be ready for short life in a reasonably amount of time.

Since this morning I have been moved by the strong support for the victims, by residents of South Kilburn and the links between both the communities.

I am sure the government will fund this short -life project and the costs in the delay in the regeneration around PP. However i believe this is important to show solidarity with those who have lost all their belongings and in some cases loved ones. I believe that offering a temporary home close to their original home will hopefully help them re-build their lives and their community.

Duffy will consider going to the police if no independent inquiry into Kingdom contract

 

Incentive: 'If you work for Kingdom the more you fine, the more yu earn'

Following the BBC Panorama report on the 'litter police' (view the programme HERE) Cllr John Duffy (Labour Kilburn) has called for a public inquiry into Brent Council's awarding of a contract to Kingdom Ltd, the firm featured in the programme. He will consider challenging the accounts and going to the police if there is no independent investigation.

Duffy wrote yesterday afternoon to Brent Council CEO Carolyn Downs:

It is clear the way Kingdom operate is of some concern. I believe the word of mouth contract was let without due process and was pushed through by officers and the Lead member without market testing was a mistake and  has wasted the council over £100k in income. The initial report itself was heavily biased towards the contractor, the fact that the lead member and cabinet  chose to ignore advice from me and preserve without challenging the report, does not legitimise the lack of due process that took place.

I am urging you to have a full independent investigation into the how the contract was let and how it was monitored, I believe there was no meaningful monitoring by our officers. It is clear this contract was a bounty hunting contract and often picked on the most vulnerable residents  and had nothing to do with street cleansing standards and was about securing a profit for the contractor.

Officers and lead member seemed happy to allow that situation as long as they could announce the number of prosecutions and number of litter tickets issue at full council, without any concern about the methods being used by the company. Our legal department did no monitoring on litter tickets issued and only monitored tickets being prepared for prosecution , leaving the contractor to self-monitor the issuing process.

I remain concerned that Kingdom were allowed to bid for other contracts based on recommendations of Brent officers without referral back to either Scrunity or cabinet. I believe we have been negligent and the cabinet were misled in both the letting and monitoring of the contract .

I hope you will reconsider your position not to have an independent investigation in light of the evidence about how Kingdom operate.I f however you chose not to have a independent investigation I intend to challenge the accounts ( I have copied Conrad [Hall, Brent Finance Officer] in so he can advise me of how to challenge the accounts) and will also consider going to the police. I find the loss of the £100k on the contract because of the lack of due process, the lack of documentation to ensure best value and continual word of mouth recommendation is unacceptable.

I do not need an explanation from officers, about what they did or did not do, that should be left to an independent investigator to judge whether the process of letting the contract and subsequent monitoring was adequate. However I do need confirmation that the investigation will take place. 

Clearly at the moment we are in the run -up to the national elections. However I still seek your commitment to a independent  investigation as soon as the  election has taken place.

It will not surprise regular readers to hear that Cllr Duffy was removed from the Scrutiny Committee at the recent Labour Group AGM.

Kingdom 'litter police' under scrutiny on Panorama tonight

Readers who have followed Cllr John Duffy's attempts to get the Kingdom Ltd contract with Brent Council properly scrutinised LINK  LINK will be interested in tonight's Panorama (8.30pm BBC1 and then iplayer) which focuses on the company's operations.

Pre-broadcast publicity from the BBC  LINK states:

A private company acting as the "litter police" for dozens of councils pays officers a bonus for issuing fines, an undercover Panorama report has found.

One officer from Kingdom Services, a leading enforcement company, claimed that his bonus one month was £987.

Other officers were filmed handing out £75 fines for tiny pieces of dropped orange peel and poured-away coffee.

Kingdom told Panorama that its competency allowance was not a paid incentive for officers to issue fines. 

Littering is a crime, but if you pay the fine you can avoid a criminal record.

Councils are increasingly using private companies such as Kingdom, based in Cheshire, to enforce the Environmental Protection Act. 

Kingdom currently has about 28 contracts with local authorities and last year saw its profits jump 30% to £9m. 

The company frequently splits the proceeds of the fines with the councils.