Guest blog from Pete Firmin, Chair, Alpha and
Gorefield Houses and Canterbury Court Tenants and residents association
Readers of
Wembley Matters may have noticed on many building sites around Brent posters showing
“this site is registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme” [CCS]. Very
impressive, and their website http://www.ccscheme.org.uk/
sounds good too: “Considerate constructors seek to improve the image of the
construction industry by striving to promote and achieve best practice under
the Code of Considerate Practice”. My understanding is that being registered
under this scheme is a requirement for getting contracts with Brent Council
(and many others).
Having had
problems with how (in)considerate Wilmott Dixon are towards those neighbouring
their site behind Kilburn Park station in South Kilburn, members of our Tenants
and Residents Association checked further.
The code of
practice has various sections “Care About Appearance”, “Respect the Community”,
“Protect the Environment”, “Secure Everyone’s Safety” and “Value their
Workforce”. It would be interesting to know to what extent Councils monitor any
of this, but our concern is with the “Respect the Community” section, where it
states “Constructors
should give utmost consideration to their impact on neighbours and the public; Informing, respecting and showing courtesy to those
affected by the work; minimising the impact of deliveries, parking and work on
the public highway; contributing to and supporting the local community and
economy; working to create a positive and enduring impression, and promoting
the Code.”
Having felt over
the 3 years in which Wilmott Dixon have been our neighbours that we have not
been treated with anything like the implied levels of consideration, we decided
to submit a complaint to the scheme. Easily done via the CSC website, which
also says
“When a complaint
is received that is relevant to the Scheme’s Code of Considerate Practice, the
site manager or company contact will be told what the complaint is about, and
given the name and contact details of the complainant (with the complainant’s
permission). Advice might also be offered as to how they might deal with the
complaint.
The Scheme will
stay in contact with the complainant until the site or company has investigated
and responded to the complaint and until the Scheme is satisfied that the site
is adhering to the Code of Considerate Practice, at which point the complaint
will be taken off the ‘active’ list.”
 |
| Inconsiderate vehicle movements endanger children in South Kilburn development |
We submitted a
lengthy complaint, covering a multitude of issues, such as frequent arrival of
delivery vehicles before the permitted time of 8 a.m., , frequent working
outside of permitted hours, building workers parking in residents’ spaces,
construction vehicles moved via a footpath which is supposed to be only used by
emergency vehicles, operations being carried out in a narrow street during
times when parents and children were passing on the way to the local primary
school, refusal to pay compensation to residents when cables have been cut.
That’s the shortened version.
To be absolutely
clear, all of these relate to issues (except not cutting cables) which Willmott
Dixon committed to even before they began work on the site. Breaches have been
complained about to Willmott Dixon, Catalyst Housing, Brent Council officers
and Councillors throughout (usually with photographic evidence where
appropriate). Very little has changed, even though occasional promises were
made that it would. Rather, we found that Council officers had sanctioned some
of these practices – they endorsed the idea that Wilmott Dixon did not need to
pay compensation to those whose utilities were cut off (we were told that WD
“didn’t mean to do it”). Council officers gave permission for WD to move
vehicles between site entrances along the footpath (this was eventually
reversed, but only after vehement complaints by residents).
We submitted that
catalogue of complaints to the Considerate Constructors Scheme in April. We
immediately got a response saying the registration of that site under the
scheme had lapsed! Interestingly, the first response of the senior Council
officer this was referred to was to suggest it be on the table for a future
meeting. It had to be pointed out to him that maybe Brent should enquire as to
why this had happened, which he subsequently did. The posters proclaiming the
site a registered one came down sharpish. The registration fee was later paid
retrospectively.
Early in May,
because of concerns about our complaints, a meeting was held with TRA
representatives, a senior Council Officer, local Councillors, a Brent Housing
Partnership representative and local and senior representatives of both
Catalyst Housing and Wilmott Dixon, at which we laid out our complaints fairly comprehensively.
During the course of this meeting it emerged that there had been several site
visits by the Considerate Constructors Scheme during the course of the work.
However, WD had not thought (!) to inform tenants and residents reps of this,
when we could have raised our complaints. They undertook, under pressure from
their more senior representatives present, to invite us to a future such site
visit (apparently they are known as ‘Open Days’).
Under the CCS, a
registered site is under obligation to log all complaints received about their
behaviour. At this meeting they undertook to provide us with a copy of this log
and a full response to our catalogue of complaints, both of which we duly
received. It should be noted that the log only contains those complaints sent
by email, not those made by phone or verbally, clearly a shortcoming.
Not long after,
there was indeed a visit by an investigator from the CSC. However, it turned
out that he did not know we would be present, had not seen our list of complaints,
and what’s more he had not known the size of the site he was visiting! We were
treated as unwelcome guests and shunted out after a brief exchange. We have yet
to hear anything further from CSC.
Just before this
site visit, Wilmott Dixon excelled themselves. At the meeting one of the issues
which came up was their poor communications, often informing residents late in
the day about progress in the work, changes to access etc.. Our TRA had its
Annual General Meeting coming up, and as ever, invited WD, Catalyst BHP etc. to
give reports. WD asked if we wanted them to distribute our notices, to which we
replied “no thank you”, we would distribute them ourselves to all residents as
usual. A few days later WD put out their occasional bulletin with an update through
residents doors, except that this time the second sheet was an adulterated
version of our AGM notice changed to appear as if it came from WD! When we
complained that, among other things, this made it appear we are somehow linked
to WD they just didn’t “get it”. In fact they claimed that they were “being
helpful”. How helpful is it when you are asked not to do it and go ahead
anyway?
Have things
improved since that meeting? Not really, we still have vehicles arriving early,
we still have building workers using residents’ parking spaces and we still
have work carried out outside ‘permitted’ hours, and cut cables again. What has changed is that the building work is
nearing completion (though it is still the case that every estimated completion
date we are given is overshot), so not so much heavy work is taking place.
Moreover, many of those who have complained have now given up because nothing
changes and are just hoping it is all over soon.
Brent Council?
There has never been any sign that Council officers monitor the performance of
the developers. If we are lucky they occasionally respond to our complaints,
encouraging WD to pull their socks up. If they are doing more, they certainly
don’t tell us.
Last year our
frustration was such that we passed a lengthy motion at our Annual General
meeting in July covering 3 aspects – regeneration as social cleansing; problems
with the proximity of new buildings to existing ones; and the attitude of the
developers to local residents. Readers may have seen the article in the Kilburn
Times about this. That resolution was sent to the lead member for regeneration,
Councillor Margaret McLennan. Despite promising a written response on several
occasions, we have yet to have one from her nearly one year on.
To be clear, our
Kilburn Councillors have taken up our complaints strongly and have got as frustrated as
us with the response from Council officers.
CCS? It is a
self-regulated scheme, so maybe we shouldn’t have expected anything anyway. And
WD sits on its board and has received awards under the scheme. But given that
Brent and other Councils expect builders to be members of the scheme, you might
expect (hope?) that they would pay some attention as to whether they fulfil
their commitments under the scheme. Rather, Brent turns a blind eye, if
anything siding with the builders in their inconsiderate behaviour.
To add insult to
injury, after 3 years of this, Brent is pushing for HS2 to build its vent shaft
next to our flats and the local primary school. So after 3 years of living on a
building site, we are expected to accept another 6 years of the same. Or,
rather, worse, given the vehicle movements predicted for the building of the
vent shaft.
One last point,
Brent like some other Councils, has taken a stand against blacklisting, saying
it will not award contracts to any company that blacklists. Excellent, but
maybe Councils should push for such a commitment against blacklisting to be
written into the CCS, especially as so many companies which are known to have
blacklisted in the past (including Willmott Dixon) are members.
