High Court challenge on PEEPs (Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans) gets the go ahead

 From Disability News Service

Two campaigners have won permission from the high court to challenge the government’s refusal to ensure that all disabled people can safely evacuate from high-rise blocks of flats in emergencies.

Georgie Hulme and Sarah Rennie, co-founders of the disabled-led leaseholder action group Claddag and both of them wheelchair-users who live in high-rise buildings, have been told they can apply for a judicial review of the decision made by former home secretary Priti Patel.

Patel rejected the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s recommendation that all owners and managers of high-rise residential buildings should be forced to prepare a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) for all residents who might find it difficult to “self-evacuate”.

That rejection – on the grounds of “practicality”, “proportionality” and “safety” – came despite a promise from prime minister Boris Johnson that he would implement all the recommendations from the inquiry’s first phase.

Hulme and Rennie have now been granted permission to seek a judicial review of the decision and have been told they have an “arguable” case.

It is hoped the court will hear their legal challenge by the end of the year.

The judge who heard their application has also agreed to cap their costs, so if they lose their case they will have to pay a maximum of £20,000 towards Home Office costs, as well as court fees that are likely to be no more than £1,500.

Claddag has so far raised nearly £16,000 through a crowdfunding appeal, but still needs to raise about another £5,500 to continue with the case.

Claddag’s solicitors, Bhatt Murphy, are working on a “no win no fee” basis, and if Rennie and Hulme are successful with their case, all the unused donations will be returned.

Hulme told Disability News Service: 

“Whilst the permission for a hearing is great news, the fact that the government needs to be held to account in this way is sadly another example of how it considers disabled, deaf and older people’s lives as less worthy.

“We appreciate the devastating impacts of both the cost of living and the building safety crises, but any small donation will help us, as a community, to get our day in court.”

The government’s rejection of the PEEPs recommendation came even though those who responded to a consultation on the proposal overwhelmingly supported their introduction.

Six week window opens for any applications for a Judicial Review of the adoption of Brent's Local Plan

 The recent Full Brent Council Meeting formally adopted the new Local Plan which provides a framework for developments in the borough until 2041. The Local Plan contains many elements that have have been controversial including the projected population increase and amount of housing, density of housing, tall building policy and so-called intensification corridors which allow new build on roads that currently are low rise.

Now that the Plan has been adopted  residents' groups will find it much harder to challenge specific developments at the Planning Committee stage and committee members will find their hands tied to a large extent.

The grounds for a Judicial Review are narrowly defined:

This extract from the Adopted Local Plan sums up some of the issues that concern residents.

This is the announcement on the Brent Council website. To assess the overall policies click on 'Adopted Local Plan (basic version):

The Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 was adopted by Full Council on 24 February 2022.  

This replaced the Brent Core Strategy 2010, Brent Site Allocations Plan 2011, Wembley Area Action Plan 2015 and Development Management Policies Plan 2016 which have been formally revoked.  

We will however retain these documents on the website until the 6-week period for applications for judicial review of the adoption decision has passed, or if such requests have been made, they are resolved.   

In advance of a final ‘glossy’ version of the plan being available, we have produced a basic version of the Local Plan incorporating all modifications.  This will be subject to further minor modifications. These will address things such as page numbering, the insertion of figures and infographics identified in the text similar to those in the submitted plan, as well as appropriate photographs.

• Adopted Local Plan (basic version)
• Local Plan Adoption Statement
• Local Plan Integrated Impact Assessment Adoption Report.

The interactive Local Plan Policies Map that accompanies the Local Plan 2019-2041 is not yet ready to view.  PDFs of the submitted Policies Map are available to view on the links below.

The policies map that accompanies the revoked Local Plan has been retained on the website as an aid in the meantime, as a number of the policy designation boundaries remain the same.

• Revoked Local Plan policies map
• Draft Local Plan policy map (all layers)
• Draft Local Plan policy map (development areas)
• Draft Local Plan policy map (environmental protection, heritage, employment, and article 4)
• Draft Local Plan policy map (open space, flood zones and shopping)
• Schedule of policies map modifications

If you need further help in identifying the policy designations related to a particular site, please contact us by emailing planningstrategy@brent.gov.uk setting out the address, or a redline map boundary of the site.

BREAKING NEWS: JUDICIAL REVIEW LODGED AGAINST DPP RE INACTION OVER DOMINIC CUMMINGS

From Martin Redston (See LINK )

My lawyers have today lodged proceedings in the High Court to seek an urgent judicial review of the Director of Public Prosecution’s inaction over the alleged breaches of the Coronavirus Regulations by Dominic Cummings. One particular concern is the so-called ‘Cummings effect’ or ‘Cummings defence’ which has meant that people who previously were complying with the Regulations have sought not to adhere to them fully. 

The grounds filed with the High Court include the following complaints:

There is a lack of an appearance of independence to the decision-making of the DPP which arises from (a) the scheme of subordination of the DPP to the Attorney-General – a politician who has tweeted support for the claimed legality of Cummings’ actions without allowing due process to take place, and 

(b) the failure to engage meaningfully with the question over Mr. Cummings’ actions and stance taken. In addition, my lawyers have previously sought disclosure of "all communications that (the DPP or his office) had received from any minister, departmental official, or mandarin or person associated with the Cabinet, Prime Minister, or affiliates or agents or representatives of the same, referring to the question of Mr Cummings in any way”.

The CPS/ DPP did not respond to this request in their reply to my representatives. The question as to the manoeuvres of the government and use of its powers behind the scenes is of obvious concern given the history of this high-profile case.

As a state authority the DPP has failed to comply with the duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure public safety to the greatest extent practicable – he would do so in this case by taking active steps to ensure the maintenance of public confidence in accountability to, and enforcement of, the law that is designed to protect the public from the ongoing threat of Covid-19. In short, he should not wash his hands of the issue but should refer it to the police and thereafter consider the issue himself.

A failure to safeguard citizens from the risk of Covid 19 risks a real breach of Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, namely degrading or inhumane treatment or the loss of life. It is in any event unreasonable not to inquire into the actions of Mr. Cummings to determine whether or not to prosecute him for potential breaches of coronavirus regulations, or a common law criminal offence of public nuisance – given the potential to infect others by travelling across the country from London to Durham, and relocating to a new area when infected.

The DPP has failed to exercise his discretion to refer the matter to the police on our request. Consequently there has been a failure to engage with the need for public confidence to be restored: the law applies to everyone. Public compliance with the regulations is vitally important: they were put in place to protect the public from a virus pandemic. A failure to act soon means that evidence relevant to the investigation into Mr. Cummings’ actions may well be lost.

My action seeks the restoration of public confidence in the office of the DPP as an independent body uninfluenced by and not capable of influence by No.10 and politicians including the Attorney-General. The rule of law applies to all and due process should be followed before any decision is made as to the lawfulness or otherwise of any person’s actions, no matter how close to the centre of power that person sits.

Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.  Please contribute and spread the word.

Many thanks

Martin Redston

STOP THE HDV: High Court, Oct 25/26 Public vs privatisers of public property

From Stop HDV

The Judicial Review on the Haringey Development Vehicle takes place in the High Court , Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London WC2A 2LL on 25 and 26 October, we hope supporters can come and join us in demonstrating support from 9 to 10 am particularly on the first day 25 October.

There will also be some public seating from 10 am.

The challenge is to Haringey Council setting up a supposedly 50/50 partnership with the Australian multi-national corporation, Lendlease, to take over land and property belonging to the Council, involving demolition and regeneration of estates as well as business premises and private houses in 'red-lined areas’. If it goes ahead it will be the biggest such transfer of local authority resources to a private entity in UK history. Lendlease have now joined Haringey as a defendant of the HDV in court.

 And all this
 without consulting the public on the HDV

• or taking it to a full Council meeting
• or sharing any of the financial risks to the public purse and assessment of viability
• or considering the consequences for the very diverse population and for vulnerable people through equalities impact
• or due consideration of partnership or company status.

Just ten years after the sell off of Alexandra Palace in Haringey was averted in court, with David Wolfe, QC acting for the claimants in that case, he will lead the legal team in court on 25 October in the attempt to stop the HDV.

None of this would have been possible without the amazing support from the several hundred people who have contributed through our crowdfunding to raise £25,000. £20,000 of this is required for our community cap on any awards which will be requested of the judge. The solicitors for the case, Leigh Day, and the barristers have put a great deal of work in to it, and as a result We are now asking for another £5,000 to make up the fees and costs accruing.

We hope you will make another donation, small or large, if you possibly can. You can donate to the crowdfunder at https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-hdv/

This case has implications for the future of social housing in London and beyond, and at a time of acute crisis in that and the need for alternatives to corporate control of housing, for the creation of a fairer system and an end to decanting poorer people, it could be a landmark in helping local authorities change course.

No to privatisation of public assets - StopHDV latest

From StopHDV

A Judicial Review of the Haringey Development (Demolition) Vehicle  is being filed in the High Court this week on the grounds of it not having been consulted on, never having gone to a full Council, equalities impact not having been adequately considered, and on the risk to public finances not being made transparent or explained. There was a successful crowdfunding campaign which along with local collections and donations has raised  £25,000 towards legal costs. The last update on this is HERE

The campaign is a broad coalition of forces including both constituency Labour parties, LibDems, Greens, trades unions, community organisations, residents and leaseholders associations. Despite this the ‘red Tory’ Labour Cabinet led by Claire Kober, who also is chair of London Councils, are determined to go ahead with the £2 Billion transfer of the local authority’s Council estates, land and property including over 500 business units to a partnership with Lendlease. We believe however they cannot sign any contracts while this in legal dispute and a hearing could be any time through the autumn.

September is a critical month in linking this — the biggest attempted privatisation of local authority assets in UK history — with the various similar attempts at social cleansing and depriving ordinary people of their rights to housing across London in favour of corporate developer-led ‘’regeneration’’. We are aware particularly of what Lendlease has done in Southwark, of the Cressingham Gardens campaign in Lambeth, and of new developments in Tower Hamlets, and possibly Camden, and in most cases in Labour-controlled authorities. We wish to mobilise with groups such as the Radical Housing Network, ASH, Defend Council Housing, those demanding justice for Grenfell in K and C, and others to build a fightback across London sufficient to turn the tide against these ‘’regenerations’’ which are attacking the very lives of our communities.
StopHDV is calling a march on Saturday 23 September in Haringey which will have key speakers from elsewhere as well as local and we want as many as possible from across the capital to join. First details below:

The plan so far is to assemble on Saturday 23rd September at around noon at Tottenham Green (150 yards up the hill from Seven Sisters Tube station), then march from 1pm to assemble around 2.30 - 3  at Finsbury Park.  The route should take us past Seven Sisters up West Green Road along Green Lanes to Finsbury Park. Depending on consent from the authorities, we may have to reverse the route and start at Finsbury Park.

Finsbury Park is close to two tube stations (Manor House and Finsbury Park.). It is also where Haringey, Hackney and Islington meet and not far from the Camden borders. No local Spurs match that day  (they'll be playing at Wembley) and no Arsenal one either, so no congestion on transport from football crowds.  

The start and end points should make it fairly easy for most of London to get to and from. It just needs building across London. Please tell your contacts!
More information HERE

Brent Council may join Judicial Review bid on Shaping a Healthier Future

I thought this posting on the Brent Council website LINK by Cllr Kruoesh Hiran, Cabinet member for Adults, Health and Wellbeing,  deserved a wider audience. It sets out Brent Council's response to the Mansfield report.

Following a year long investigation into health service changes across five London boroughs the Independent Healthcare Commission for North West London reported its findings earlier this month.
The Commission, which was chaired by one of the UK’s leading lawyers Mr Michael Mansfield QC, was jointly commissioned by the boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow and Hounslow. Naturally, as the democratically elected representatives of local people, we shared serious concerns about how A&E and other health services were changed across our boroughs.

However, it is important to also note that our concerns are not solely focused on A&E. One of the main issues here in Brent is the outdated population estimates underpinning the original plans. Yes A&E is a barometer of how the NHS is performing but it is clear that there is a wider system problem.

The Mansfield report highlights social care funding cuts and the significant cuts to local government. A good NHS needs a properly funded social care system. But the funding cuts to councils have reduced local authorities’ ability to provide more preventative services. It is the same problem emerging with Public Health funding.

Naturally when you are looking at a report, which affects two million people across North West London, there will be some issues more relevant than others to Brent’s 320,000 population.
First let’s turn to the main findings in the report:

• there is still no completed, up to date business plan in place that sets out the case for delivering the Shaping a Healthier Future programme (SaHF), demonstrating that the programme is affordable and deliverable
• there was limited and inadequate public consultation on the original SaHF proposals and those proposals themselves did not provide an accurate view of the final costs and risks to the people affected
• the escalating costs of the programme do not represent value for money and is a waste of precious public resources
• NHS facilities, delivering important public healthcare services, have been closed without adequate alternative provision being put in place
• the original business case seriously underestimates the increasing size of the population in North West London and fails to address the increasing need for services.

The report also makes it clear that we are now looking at a £1.3 billion project while the original proposals were predicating a saving of over £200 million a year. A continued lack of investment in the out of hospitals strategy, while still implementing the A&E closures programme has led to unacceptable standards and low performance within A&E.

We are supportive of a good out of hospital strategy. It is in all our interests as it is generally better to have good health services closer to home. However, those services need to be in place before hospitals are reconfigured.

This is combined with a lack of bed capacity at Northwick Park and the delays in resolving this situation have been ongoing for the past year. Residents still consistently report problems with accessing GP appointments in a timely way and this inevitably leads to people presenting at A&E, while the use of urgent care centres is below capacity.

What was truly shocking to me in the report was the statistics on Northwick Park hospital where performance has been consistently poor since September 2014. A key graph in the report shows London Ambulance Service ‘black breaches’. These are where an ambulance has taken more than an hour to take a patient to A&E. In Northwick Park there were 633 such breaches compared to 106 at Hillingdon. Especially relevant is the fact that the London Ambulance Service has just been placed into special measures as, if you close A&Es, you are clearly more reliant on this service.

In summary, the SaHF plans really need to go back to the drawing board. We want greater local authority involvement in the actual decision making process and designing of services. While it is clear that mistakes have been made Brent Council wants to take this forward in a positive way.
Co-production is a good example where there is potential. There has been a recent decision to involve a Health and Wellbeing Board representative in local primary care. I am now Brent’s representative and although it has been a slow process to get here, I think we are now moving in the right direction.

In the meantime, we will thoroughly explore all of the recommendations in the Mansfield report
including the possibility of joining a Judicial Review after careful consideration and assessing the impact on Brent residents.

Finally, it does not give me any pleasure to write about the findings in this report but please do be reassured that Brent Council will continue to do our very best to help support our local NHS partners to learn the lessons from it and ultimately to deliver a good and more fully integrated NHS for all Brent residents.

• Read the Mansfield Health Commission Report (.pdf)

Brent Council Risk Register reveals potential impact of the cuts

The Corporate Risk Register is an important document that highlights the risks of Council services not being delivered effectively and the actions taken to overcome that risk.

As the budget is reduced and cuts in staffing take place, as well as out-sourcing of services, it is important to keep an eye on the Register which flags up potential issues.

The full document is available HERE but below I have set out some of the main areas. The wording is from the original, except for the correction of some typos and spelling mistakes, with my comments in red.

Under each heading the risk is set out, the impact, and (in italics)  the most recent action undertaken to reduce the risk:

Ealing a step nearer Judicial Review on hospital downgrading

Ealing Council has secured an oral hearing at the High Court on Wednesday, 9 October as it presses for a judicial review (JR) of plans to downgrade four local hospitals.

The council initially applied for a JR in March after the NHS approved plans to shut A&E departments and downgrade other services at Ealing, Central Middlesex, Hammersmith and Charing Cross hospitals despite increasing demand for emergency services.

This application was turned down so the council sought the oral hearing to press its case. If it is successful at the oral hearing, the council will be able to pursue a full JR.

Councillor Julian Bell, leader of the council, said: "The fight to ensure local people have the health services they deserve goes on. We will present our case forcibly at the oral hearing and pursue all other opportunities to ensure there is proper consideration of our serious concerns about what amounts to the largest experiment in NHS history.”

Concerns about the safety of the NHS plans and the ability of remaining services to cope have been raised by local campaigners as well as the council. The NHS has itself admitted that 'blue light' journeys to hospital will be longer for one in three patients if the plans go ahead.

The council has also referred the issue to the secretary of state for health, Jeremy Hunt MP, who responded by ordering an independent panel to review the NHS plans. The panel’s report will be presented to Mr Hunt by 13 September and his decision is expected around 40 days later.

Round 1 allotments victory: that's the way the Pickles squirt!

The Farm Terrace allotment campaign was celebrating this weekend after Eric Pickles was forced to admit his department had made a legal error when approving Watford town council's plans to build on the site. His department failed to explain why it had approved the decision despite the allotments still being in heavy demand.

The decision will now have to be reconsidered and although this may still eventually result in approval of the plans, the campaign to save the allotments is celebrating a 'Round 1' victory. Allotment holders had applied for a judicial review and raised more than £6,000 for a fighting fund through the GoFundMe LINK crwod funding site.

The news brought congratulatory messages from a wide spectrum of supporters with some hailing a victory for 'people power' and making connections with the Lewisham A&E Campaign and the campaign against the Bedroom Tax.

This is good news ahead of next week's National Allotments Week but a government report in 2011 revealed that 50,000 allotments had been lost in the previous 15 years.  Allotees will have to remain vigilant. Some councils have provided additional allotments in the face of growing demand recently and there have been schemes to provide temporary alloments on land awaiting development as well as in 'common areas' of  social housing estates. However pressures on sites will continue as developers seek new land for housing and retail development and hard-pressed councils look for a cash boost.

Brent Council recently advertised vacant plots at seven allotment sites but there are significant waiting lists at others.

Although I have not heard of any sites under threat currently, the new tenancy  agreement circulated to allotment tenants last week does include clauses giving Brent Council the right to terminate the tenancy at a minimum of 12 month's notice 'where the Council requires the Allotment for any purpose for which it was acquired by the Council...or has appropriated them to another purpose under any statutory provision, or if the Council requires the Allotment for building, mining or any other industrial purpose, or for roads or sewers necessary in connection with any of the aforementioned purposes...'

Spare a tenner for crucial challenge to government on allotments sell-off

I donated this morning to the Farm Terrace Allotments Fighting Fund. Here's why in the Campaign's own words:

Farm Terrace Allotment site Watford has existed since 1896. It stands in the centre of the hugely urbanized town of Watford. An oasis in an Urban Jungle. However we are in the middle of a bitter war with our council and central government who want to build housing on our site. This is becoming an epidemic, as more and more councils see selling off precious allotment sites as a way of generating cash. Since 2007 there have been 132 separate applications to close down allotments under section 8 of the 1925 Allotments Act. Out of these 132 applications 97% were approved (128 cases) and only 4 cases refused. Plot holders feel powerless to protest about these closures because the government have such power – until now.

Our case shows that the Secretary of State has not applied his policy lawfully and we are going to take legal action to prove it! If we win, not only will we save farm terrace but we will strike a blow for the protection of allotments all over England as it will make it much harder for them to be developed on! As far as we are aware no decision to close an allotment site has been legally challenged before and if won would be referred to in future allotment closure applications.

Leading counsel who specialises in public law has advised that the Secretary of State’s decision is unlawful! Following this advice we have decided to challenge his disturbing decision in court but to do this we desperately need your help.

We need to raise money quickly to prove that we can fund our case. The British Government knows this and as they have shown this by agreeing to the change of use of the land even though we met all the criteria to keep it as an allotment. They didn’t take us seriously then so let’s make them take notice of us now!

Please donate as much as you can, we believe that if all our supporters gave only £10.00 each we could reach our goal very quickly. We need to do this very soon or our window of opportunity to bring it to Judicial Review will close.

If we do not raise enough money to go ahead, or if we raise more money than we need, all donations will be divided between various charities and other environmental and allotment campaigns - which have yet to be decided, unless you indicate that you would prefer your donation to be returned to you when you donate. If you do ask for this, we will be in touch to return your donation should we not use it in pursuing this legal challenge.

The allotment movement came out of a belief that everyone should have the possibility to grow their own produce near to their homes. Historically allotments are intrinsically part of the British landscape and British tradition. We believe in democratic decisions, and allotments are still needed now, more than ever. If all allotment holders keep quiet and do not stand up and be counted alongside us it is our very real fear that allotments will, in the very near future, be assigned to the history books.

Please help Save Farm Terrace. Please help save ALL allotments.

DONATE HERE

We are being denied 'rightful access' to funding for day-to-day living - Disabled People Against Cuts

Report from Kate Belgrave.com

I Went down to the Royal Courts of Justice this morning, where an application had been made by members of the Mental Health Resistance Network for permission for a judicial review of the work capability assessment process. A judge was deciding whether or not people with mental health issues should be able to apply for a judicial review of the WCA process. 

Adam Lotun, press spokesperson for Disabled People Against The Cuts, said that Employment and Support Allowance work capability assessments had developed “into a vehicle that is being used to deny people [with disabilities] their rightful access to funding and resources to assist them in their day-to-day living.” 

He said that the other reason for seeking the review was to stop the same damaging process being used to assess people on disability living allowance as DLA is phased out and replaced with the personal independence payment – “we want to stop the killing of the disability living allowance.” 

“These (benefits) were brought in to ensure that people of all different levels would be able to get access to funding, or resources, to enable them to cope and exist with the rest of society. Well, now that’s being taken away from us.”

 Claimants argue that the work capability assessment process discriminates against people with mental health issues.

 Result from the end of the day: Adam Lotun texted to say that: “The judge will give a decision early next week. In closing remarks, the judge said that this is something that involves hundreds and thousands of people,” and that there was concern that people would ultimately fill the court system with individual claims.

Libraries Judicial Review on July 19th and 20th

The date for the Judicial Review of Brent Council's decision to close six of our 12 libraries has been fixed for July 19th and 20th at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand. When times are available for the hearings I will publish them on Wembley Matters so that as many people as possible can attend to show their support.

The Brent SOS Libraries case can be read HERE
and Brent Council's case is HERE

The Brent SOS Libraries Campaign is continuing to hold events to fund-raise for their legal costs:

Wed 13 July - An Evening with the famous actress Harriet Walter and author Deborah Moggach at the North London Tavern, Kilburn 

Wed 20 July - An evening with Philip Pullman, best-selling writer of His Dark Materials - Oueen's Park Community School 

Sat 30 July - The Preston Old Skool Dance 

All details available here: http://brentlibraries.wordpress.com/events/

Brent SOS T-shirts are also available as is signed merchandise by the likes of JLS, Nick Cave and Erasure at the Kensal Rise Library Campaign Shop