Harlesden Says No to Waymo - read and sign the petition if you agree with the reasoned argument put forward

 

We petition the Mayor of London to:

• Implement an immediate moratorium on the expansion of the Waymo pilot until a transparent safety audit is completed.

• Publish a full log of all safety breaches, "near misses", and traffic violations involving autonomous vehicles in London to date.

Why is this important?

Over the last few weeks, American company WAYMO has been testing autonomous vehicles in Harlesden and across London. On 22 April, a WAYMO vehicle drove through a live police cordon on Harlesden High Street while officers were investigating a double stabbing.


We, the undersigned, call on the Mayor of London and Transport for London (TfL) to immediately suspend the trial and roll out of Waymo autonomous vehicles on London’s streets. We further request a police investigation into near misses and other incidents where public safety was at risk. 

REASONS FOR THIS PETITION

The current rollout of Waymo autonomous vehicles (AVs) across London, and specifically within the Harlesden area, is proceeding without adequate democratic oversight or proven safety protocols for complex urban environments. Our concerns are based on the following:

1. Breach of Police Cordons: Footage has emerged of a Waymo vehicle in Harlesden breaching a live police line. Such actions constitute "wilful obstruction" of the police. If a driver of a regular vehicle had committed this act, they would likely be under investigation and could face criminal prosecution. We cannot allow a "two-tier" justice system where corporate AI is exempt from the laws that govern Londoners.

2. Unresolved Safety Risks: Autonomous vehicles are struggling to navigate the "edge cases" of London’s busy streets, including responding to emergency sirens, physical police barriers, and the unpredictable movements of pedestrians and cyclists in high-density areas like Harlesden.

3. Lack of Community Consent: Residents in Brent have not been adequately consulted on this trial. Public streets are being treated as a laboratory for unproven technology without a clear framework for liability when things go wrong.

4. Extra traffic on our roads: if Waymo or any other autonomous vehicles are allowed on the streets of London, that will lead to extra traffic on our roads. It will further compromise the Mayor of London's traffic reduction aims, led by Sadiq Khan, focus on reducing overall traffic volumes by 10-15% by 2041 and cutting car kilometres by 27% by 2030 to meet Net Zero and health targets. We need more accessible and affordable public transport, instead of more cars on our roads.

5. Vision Zero Compromise : The Mayor’s "Vision Zero" strategy aims to eliminate road danger. Introducing vehicles that fail to recognise and respect police cordons is a direct contradiction of this safety goal.

 

IF YOU AGREE SIGN HERE 

London Mayor's Inquiry into Robotaxis - Call for evidence. Deadline June 26th 2026

 

Discussing the Waymo issues in Harlesden Town Centre

 

The London Mayor's Office has launched a short investigation (one month) on the issue of autonomous vehicles in London. These have been in the news recently with a demonstration in Harlesden over Waymo vehicles supported by Brent Green Party, the App Drivers and Couriers Union and Pull the Plug.

 The campaign is being spearheaded by Councillor Amandine Alexandre, who represents Harlesden, alongside Councillor Suzanne Gallagher, who represents Kilburn. 

They were joined byby Councillor Stephen Malonga from Kilburn and Ahmed Ahmed, who recently stood for election in Harlesden.
 

The campaign is growing rapidly across the capital. From safety incidents to the massive threat that unregulated corporate automation poses to the livelihoods of London’s 105,000 private hire drivers, they are  refusing to accept a tech first, people last experiment.

They are demanding that the Mayor of London puts a pause on the rollout until transparent safety standards and strict protections for workers are guaranteed.

SIGN THE PETITION 'SAY NO TO WAYMO' HERE

 

THE MAYOR'S INVESTIGATION

 

Investigation aims and objectives (Terms of Reference)

Several trials of autonomous passenger vehicles (more commonly known as driverless taxis or robotaxis) are underway in London in 2026, with operators aiming to launch commercial services by the end of the year. In this investigation, the Committee will: 

• Explore whether and how autonomous passenger vehicles could be licenced for commercial operations in London, and what role the Mayor and TfL should play in this.
• Understand the impact of autonomous passenger vehicles, particularly in regard to employment in the taxi and wider private hire vehicle sectors, interactions with other road users and the ambitions in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, including ‘Vision Zero’, a traffic reduction of between 10 to 15 per cent, and the target for 80 per cent of all trips to be made by active modes or public transport.

Key issues

• In June 2025, the Department for Transport (DfT) announced that it would fast-track “small scale ‘taxi- and bus-like’ services without a safety driver” to take place in spring 2026 before a wider potential roll out in 2027. Several companies, including Uber and UK company Wayve, are seeking to obtain regulatory approval to transport passengers in automated vehicles in London as soon as this year.
• Waymo, an Alphabet-owned company, which is also seeking approval for passenger trials, began testing on London roads without passengers and with a driver at the wheel this year. Its current fleet comprises 24 vehicles. Other operators have not confirmed how many vehicles they are planning to deploy.
• Autonomous passenger vehicles are a common sight in some US cities. Waymo has reported that it is currently providing approximately 500,000 paid rides every week, using over 3,000 vehicles deployed across ten US cities. The company’s average weekly trips have grown tenfold over the last two years. Estimates from 2025 suggest that Waymo accounts for around one in four ride-hailing trips in San Francisco, surpassing the market share of Uber and Lyft.
• Research carried out by automotive data firm HPI found that while Londoners were the most trusting of self-driving technology of respondents from all UK regions, its survey of over 2,000 UK adults found that 79 per cent of Londoners would not trust a driverless car or feel comfortable about travelling in one, while only 21 per cent of Londoners would. The results also showed that 35 per cent of all those surveyed had concerns about the reliability of the technology.
• Some experts have also raised concerns around entrusting key elements of London’s transport system to private companies, resulting ‘proprietary lock-in’, whereby transport in a city could become overly dependent on (in some cases foreign) private companies. The Government in 2022 found that CAVs are attractive targets for cyber attacks and that ensuring cyber security is essential when developing them. There is a risk of terrorist attacks causing large-scale chaos across the transport network and cyber attacks targeting a vehicle’s hardware with the aim of disabling it until a ransom is paid.

Key questions

• Who is responsible for licensing autonomous passenger vehicles in London and what role do the Mayor and TfL play in this?
• How close are commercial operators to deploying autonomous passenger vehicles for hire in London?
• Are autonomous passenger vehicles compatible with London’s strategic transport goals in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy?
• What are the principal risks associated with autonomous passenger vehicles in London, and can they be mitigated?
• To what extent are autonomous passenger vehicles accessible to all Londoners?
• Are there any benefits that autonomous passenger vehicles could offer in London, and how likely are those benefits to be realised in London?
• What lessons can London learn from trials and deployments elsewhere?
• What role should TfL and the Mayor play in the development and oversight of autonomous passenger vehicles?
• What do Londoners think about autonomous passenger vehicles?

1. Call for Evidence

As part of this investigation, the Committee has launched a Call for Evidence, inviting those with knowledge of this topic to respond. 

If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, in a professional capacity, or have knowledge of this topic, please send your submissions to scrutiny@london.gov.uk. Please use ‘Transport Committee call for evidence’ as the subject title.

The deadline for submission is 26 June 2026.

Abbey Wood, Bexley Council, tall building lesson for Brent?

News from Bdonline is of interest. Major planning applications go to the London Mayor consideration.  The project below was turned down by the local council but their decision was overturned by the London deputy mayor. It is similar to many applications in Brent but contained a higher proportion of affordable accommodation, at 17.5% London Living Rent, than we often see. It did not comply with local plan and London Plan criteria re tall buildings but the design was considered acceptable.

 

The deputy mayor of London has overturned a council’s rejection of plans for a 228-home build-to-rent tower in Abbey Wood.

Bexley Council had previously refused permission for Abbey Wood Sedgemere Limited’s plans to demolish existing commercial buildings and build a 25-storey tower next to the Elizabeth Line.

The council rejected the plan, designed by architect GRID, for several reasons, including the height of the building, harm to the nearby Lesnes Abbey and increased flood risks.

The scheme was called in by the Greater London Authority and Jules Pipe, has now said in a decision notice: “Considerable weight and importance has been attached to the harm caused by the proposals to Lesnes Abbey. However, it is concluded that the public benefits delivered by the scheme, improved over the course of the application, would clearly and convincingly outweigh the heritage harm.”

Pipe added that the scheme would “make a positive contribution” towards achieving housing targets in alignment with the National Planning Policy Framework, London plan and Bexley’s local plan.

The developer made several changes to the scheme since it was called in. The scheme will include 35% affordable housing, and the proportion of these homes that are London Living Rent was increased from 30% to 51%. The flood risk assessment and drainage strategy was also altered. It proposes to discharge surface water into the sewer within Harrow Manorway.

The notice said the development is considered to be largely in accordance with relevant design policy requirements. It said that while there are partial conflicts with London plan and local plan policies relating to tall building criteria, “the overall design is considered to be acceptable in response to the surrounding context and emerging character.”

Pipe said: “The proposed development would deliver new homes and affordable homes, along with non-residential town centre floorspace, public realm and landscape improvements within a highly accessible location. It would bring forward an underutilised brownfield site in close proximity to Abbey Wood Station.”

Sadiq Khan: I remain opposed to a new runway at Heathrow airport

 

Does London Mayor's new guidance on purpose built student accommodation address recent concerns in Brent?

 Marketing  video for purpose built student accommodation in Wembley Park

 

There has recently been discussion about the amount of purpose built student accommodation in Brent, with some disquiet even in the Brent Planning Committee. (See LINK) Rather than reflecting an anti-student prejudice it is often about the loss of sites that could otherwise be used for family housing and questions about balancing local communities.

Brent planners have insisted that the need for student accommodation both in Brent and London as whole has been established and contributes to housing targets,

The London Mayor has recently published London Plans guidance for London local planning authorities which reviews some of the issues. The full document can be found HERE and key extracts follow (my highlighting):

 

The Purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) London Plan Guidance (LPG) provides advice on how to apply London Plan Policy H15 to best meet London’s needs. This guidance applies to a specialist form of housing designed and managed for students. This typically comprises a mixture of flats for 6-8 students with shared living spaces, and larger studio flats, plus additional communal social spaces and other facilities.

As well as providing students with a place to live, PBSA can play an important role in alleviating pressures on the wider private rental sector. Indirectly its provision also helps underpin London’s higher education sector as a global player, and the wider knowledge economy of the city.

The LPG sets out detailed advice on siting, designing and developing such housing, including balancing it with other housing types. It aims to ensure that these developments are designed and managed to be of good quality, safe and inclusive and integrated into their neighbourhood. The guidance is aimed at those designing PBSA schemes and decision-makers assessing them as part of the planning application process.

 

London’s universities are disproportionately concentrated in a few areas, including within the CAZ (Central Activity Zone) . PBSA (Purpose Built Student Accommodation) has clustered in similar areas, particularly in inner London. This has diversified the student accommodation offer from the traditional, university-built PBSA, and private rented homes. Several boroughs where this is the case have sought to limit further growth in such (purpose built) student accommodation, as well as in some cases, HMOs Homes of Multiple Occupation). This reflects their concerns about housing mix in their neighbourhoods and the potential ‘crowding out’ of conventional housing, given other types of housing need amongst their population. However, in turn, other boroughs (including within outer London, some distance from where London’s universities are concentrated) have since seen a particularly high influx of PBSA schemes, giving rise to similar concerns.

 

PBSA in relation to neighbourhood housing mix can be considered in two ways:

 

• In support of PBSA proposals that help disperse from traditional concentrations to alternative, suitable locations – perhaps adding an element of student housing to existing residential stock that is primarily conventional housing. This may be particularly relevant where there is a shortage of family homes, which students are currently occupying as HMOs or which they could be in future, in light of PBSA shortages.

 

• As a more negative consideration, where there are long-standing or more recent concentrations of PBSA, or similar, non-self-contained accommodation, relative to conventional housing. This may be spatial (in particular neighbourhoods) or as a proportion of housing delivery, where PBSA may be considered to be ‘crowding out’ conventional housing schemes. Such dominance may be particularly acute under certain market conditions; and where development sites are limited (which would ordinarily be equally attractive for conventional residential use).

 

PBSA should form part of a wider positive strategy in delivering mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods in most Local Plans. It should be acknowledged that what is considered an appropriate balance of PBSA and conventional housing will differ across London, and within boroughs. Local Plans should identify if and where spatial concentration of PBSA, or proliferation of PBSA delivery compared to conventional housing delivery, is impacting the ability to ensure mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods. They should also identify more positive opportunities for PBSA to help contribute to local and strategic objectives.

This could be used to develop spatial policies; or to indicate the significance of neighbourhood or pipeline housing mix in decision-making.

 

Hope for London's public toilet deserts as TfL announces toilet expansion and improvement plan following Green Party pressure

 

Green Assembly member Caroline Russell is able to make fun at herself over a seeming obsession with toilets but in truth it is her campaigning  success that will have an impact on the lives of many Londoners and visitors to London. 

She deserves congratulations because her persistence has paid off with  the London Mayor announcing plans to expand and improve toilet provision. We know that many people are put off using public transport for longer journeys because they fear that they will not find a toilet when needed.  As an ex-teacher who has taken hundreds of primary age children on trips into London I also know how important it is to be able to find a toilet at short notice for a desperate child!

In it Press Release announcing a programme of expansion and improve TfL said:

Transport for London (TfL) has announced its ambitious programme to increase and improve toilet provision on London's transport network, in support of TfL's Equity in Motion plan to make London's transport network more accessible, fair and inclusive. The plan will see new accessible toilets delivered across the network, and improvements made to many existing facilities.

Earlier this year, the Mayor announced the biggest dedicated investment in toilet provision that London's transport network has seen, totalling £3million per year over five years. This will be invested in improving and increasing the number of accessible toilets on the network.

TfL is committed to making toilets more accessible for everyone and closing the gap in existing toilet provision so that Tube, Overground and Elizabeth line customers are always within 20 minutes of a toilet without having to change train. Following engagement with customers, campaigners and staff, a new programme has been developed to ensure new toilets benefit customers who need them most. Stations were then chosen according to a number of factors, including whether the location is a terminus station, operates night services, has step-free access, high passenger footfall, proximity to other toilets on the network, and onward connections. 

TfL is committed to creating new facilities and enhancing existing facilities, including reopening closed facilities, and improving the cleaning of facilities. Following the study, TfL has shortlisted a number of locations for new toilet provision in the first round of works:

• Camden Road Overground station
• Clapton Overground station
• New Cross Gate London Overground station
• South Tottenham London Overground station
• White Hart Lane Overground station
• Morden Underground station
• Hammersmith Underground station

TfL and the Mayor recognise that the provision of toilets is critical to many customers, sometimes determining whether a customer can travel by public transport at all. This is why TfL is also looking to convert a further four existing non-accessible toilets to accessible facilities within this first phase of the project at Amersham, Green Park and Sudbury Hill Underground stations and Seven Sisters Overground station, improving availability at other busy toilets that are currently misused or vandalised. TfL has also made improvements to more than one-third of London Underground stations with toilet provision in recent years, including repairing faults and re-painting areas.

Construction work to deliver new and accessible toilets at these stations is expected to start at several locations within the next year, following detailed assessments to determine viability.

TfL have a map of existing toilet facilities HERE although I would treat with caution as they may not be available due to vandalism or  misuse, particularly in the evening. This is an extract for our area. The Bakerloo/Overground is particularly poorly served:

 

There is also a searchable site for the whole of the UK which is very much a work in progress with users able to add toilets in their area. LINK

The Brent Council website has a short list of public toilets in the borough LINK:

Public toilet - Brent Civic Centre

Address: Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ  

Public toilet - Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre

Address: Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre, Brentfield, Harrow Road, London NW10 0RG  

Public toilet - Douglas Avenue

Address: Douglas Avenue junction with Ealing Road, Alperton, Middlesex, HA0 4PY HA0 4PY  

Public toilet - Empire Way

Address: Empire Way Toilets, Empire Way, Wembley  

Public toilet - Oakington Manor Drive / Harrow Road

Address: Junction of Harrow Road and Oakington Manor Drive, Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 6QU HA9 6QU  

Public toilet - Roundwood Park

Address: Roundwood Park, Harlesden Road, London, NW10 3SH  

Public toilet - St John's Road

Address: St John's Road (junction with Elm Road), Wembley, HA9 7HU  

Public toilet - Sudbury and Harrow Road Station

Address: Outside Sudbury and Harrow Road Station, Harrow Road, Wembley  

Public toilet - Tavistock Road

Address: Car park, Tavistock Road, Harlesden, London, NW10 4ND  

Public toilet - Vale Farm Sports Centre

Address: Vale Farm Sports Centre, Watford Road, North Wembley, Middlesex, HA0 3HG  

Queens Park and  Roundwood Park have toilets connected with their cafes and Barham Park has limited access via the Community Library. King Edward VII toilets near the Park Lane entrance were demolished years ago due to drug misuse  but publicly accessible toilets are planned for the Stonebridge Boxing Club facility if it gets off the ground.

Brent Green Party has previously argued for a Brent Toilet Scheme that would incentivise cafes and retail premises to allow public access to toilets, perhaps through a reduction in business rates.

Camden are advertising for more businesses to join their Community Toilet Scheme:

Join our Community Toilet Scheme

We are looking to expand our Community Toilet Scheme, and work with more local businesses that would allow the public to use their facilities during normal opening hours (without the need to buy goods or services).

We’d welcome interest from anywhere in the borough, but especially from businesses in Kilburn, Camden Town and Bloomsbury.

We would pay an annual fee to members of up to £750 (including VAT).

Email street.environment@camden.gov.uk to find our more and apply.

Brent and Harrow GLA Election 2024 COMPREHENSIVE RESULTS

Source: London Elects

Do you have views on the provision of student accommodation in Wembley/Brent? Contribute to the London Mayor's consultation.

 

 At a recent Planning Committee meeting where an application for new student accommodation in Wembley Park was made, existing residents spoke against on the grounds that it created would imbalance and undermine community cohesion because students were short-term residents not committed to the area. There were also concerns about anti-social behaviour. Countering this officers argued that students contributed to the local financial and cultural economy.

Now the London Mayor is undertaking a consultation on provision of student accommodation to which residents might want to conribute. Details below:

The Mayor of London is consulting on new London Plan Guidance (LPG) relating to student housing, otherwise known as purpose-built student accommodation or PBSA.

The guidance supports London Plan policy H15 to best meet student housing needs as part of a wider approach to housing delivery and regeneration. It aims to unlock PBSA delivery and also address imbalances to help achieve a more mixed and inclusive London.

This event is a Q&A session for stakeholders to bring any queries they have about the document or the consultation. It assumes that attendees have watched the two minute introductory video or read the draft document, both available on our consultation site.

Questions can be submitted in advance by email to studenthousingLPG@london.gov.uk or you are welcome to just turn up on the day and ask them and listen to our responses to other people's questions.

[Images courtesy of Unite and Affordable Accommodation for Students Ltd]

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the event free? Yes.

Who is this event for? The event is open to all and is suitable for interest groups, public campaign groups, developers, landowners, agents and Londoners to ask questions and find out more.

How will the session take place and how can I join? The session will take place online. Once you have registered via Eventbrite, you will be emailed a link to join the event 24 hours before the event takes place.

Will I be able to ask questions during the event? Yes the whole event is structured around Q&As.

Do I have to submit questions in advance? You are welcome to send questions through in advance by email to studenthousingLPG@london.gov.uk which will help us prepare, but you can also just turn up and ask them and we will do our best to answer them on the spot.

Is this a repeat of the event on the 3rd November? Yes, there is no need to attend both events.

What if I have accessibility requirements? Please let us know when booking your ticket on Eventbrite. Please let us know as soon as possible. We will endeavour to meet any requests made within two weeks of the event, however these cannot be guaranteed.

Where can I find out more and share my views? To watch the introductory video, read the guidance and share your views, visit the consultation page. Consultation on the LPG closes on 11 January 2024

How can I find out more about this event? Please contact studenthousinglpg@london.gov.uk if you have any further questions about the event.

We hope you can join us. RESERVE PLACE HERE

 

The consultation, including the survey (below) will be open until 11th January 2024.

We have 2 open-to-all Q&A events in October and November, and further engagement events are also planned with specific stakeholder groups, notably the cross-sectoral Mayor’s Academic Forum and boroughs. More information on the public events can be found on the 'events' section on this page.

All feedback will be reviewed and a consultation summary document will be published alongside the final guidance.

Register to be notified of planning policy consultations(External link) or sign up for GLA Planning News(External link).

You can email the team on: studenthousinglpg@london.gov.uk(External link)(External link).

 

SURVEY

 

 

Millions unspent on retrofitting London’s homes

 This story from Green Party Asssemby Member Zack Polanski, puts today's retrofit announcement from Brent Council in perspective. Brent was awarded the second lowest amount of the successsful London boroughs:

Green London Assembly Member Zack Polanski today revealed to the Mayor that just 45 homes had been retrofitted across London under the Government’s Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund, despite £18 million being made available to London councils over a year ago.

The measures to improve the energy efficiency of London’s homes were supposed to be completed by the end of March 2023, but a shortage of skilled workers has delayed delivery.

Green London Assembly Member Zack Polanski said:

The Mayor is still sitting on his hands despite declaring a ‘retrofit revolution’ two years ago.

His failure to get a handle on the retrofit skills gap is preventing London benefitting from available Government funds.

The Mayor needs to get his retrofit revolution on the right track, support the upgrading of homes and protect Londoners from sky-high energy bills.

Nine of the 11 London boroughs awarded funds have failed to deliver any retrofitting works at all. This represents over £13 million of available government funding not being put to use.

 
Across the country, just 14% of the planned 20,000 homes expected to be upgraded have had works completed. As a result, the deadline for local authorities to spend the first wave of funding has been extended to June.

Housing experts, including representatives from the Chartered Institute of Housing, say the slow rollout of retrofit upgrades stems from a national skills shortage in the retrofit sector.[5] London Councils have said that London needs 110,000 people working in retrofit by 2030. Currently, there are only 4,000

The publication of this data comes after the Mayor of London showed hesitance to ramp-up his retrofit skills training offer using his £320 million Adult Education Budget. Speaking to the London Assembly in November, the Mayor said, “what we need is some certainty there are [retrofit] jobs to go to.”

With Londoners facing rising bills during the cost of living crisis, retrofitting homes to improve their energy efficiency is a way to reduce energy bills and household costs – while reducing emissions.

 
The second wave of funding, being made available to local authorities and housing associations later this year, is around four times the budget of the first wave, at almost £800 million.

 

Delivering City Hall's universal primary school free school meals is 'going to be a challenge'

 The weekend announcement

 

Brent Schools Forum this week was over-shadowed by budget concerns. Schools have been hit by high energy costs, inflation, falling pupil numbers, delays in awarding funding for EHCPs  (Education Health and Care Plans for pupils with special needs) which means that schools fund extra support from their own budgets. There is now the prospect that any staff salary increases will have to be funded from the individual school budgets rather than be  fully funded by the government.

A significant number of Brent schools will have an in-year deficit in 2023-24, relying on the use of their reserves or a contribution from the Council via the Direct Schools Grant.

Against this background, although the Mayor's one year (and one-off) provision of universal free school meals was welcomed by Forum members, they also noted that there were issues around implementation.

Officers are still trying to ascertain details from City Hall but if the GLA financial contribution is just for meal ingredients, and perhaps energy costs, there are other costs involved.

One headteacher pointed out that in his school, if those children currently bringing in packed lunches, switched to hot meals, it would double the number having school meals. This would mean investing in the kitchen capacity (equipment and staffing) but as a 'windfall' provision,  without further funding in the future, this expansion would end after a year. In his school there would be double the number of pupils for whom food would have to be  prepared, served, supervised and cleared.

The impatct will vary between schools depending on how many children bring in a packed lunch at present.

Getting the expanded provision up and running by September 2023 would be a further challenge, especially if kitchen infrastructure work was needed, given current rising building costs and unreliable supply chains.

At a practical level the switch from children sitting down to their own packed lunches, basically serving themselves, and instead joining the lunchtime queue at the servery would present logistical problems that would extend the lunch break and require additional supervision.

An unintended consequence might be that because at present parents of junior aged children have to register for free school meals, and this is used as a base for pupil premium funds, universality would mean parents would no longer bother to register - reducing the amount of pupil premium allocated to the school.

Gwen Grahl, Cabinet member for  Children, Young People and Schools, responding to the discussion said:

There are definitely legitimate concerns about how this will be implemented. We have recognised for a while now that there is a need for better measures to tackle food poverty. We hear that, not only from teachers, but also from foodbanks that we visit. It (universal free primary school meals) is a positive measure in that regard and we think that the amount of money (£170m)  is something we want to use, but we have been in touch with City Hall and have raised some of the concerns.

We have made it clear that there wil be challenges with implementation. We want to have the confidence that we can implement by September and we would need support from City Hall in doing so. We would also need the confidence that the projected amount it will cost is accurate as I think that City Hall has done its own research and what they think it will cost in every borough. I think the amount is £2.71 per meal, so it is going to be a stretch. We also raised the issue of whether it would affect the pupil premium.

I am sure you will appreciate none of the details have come out yet. We want to reassure you that we have raised raised these issues with City Hall and we are looking for a lot of detail and support from them in implementation.

We will be able to disucss this with headteachers as soon as broader details have been refined for Brent.

Mayor of London criticises Government's 'watered down' post-Grenfell building evacuation plans and says PEEPs is the only way to ensure comprehensive & consistent implementation

Sadiq Khan has responded to the Government's post-Grenfell consultation on Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing which they undertook after rejecting the Grenfell Inquiry's recommendation on Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs).

It would be useful to know if Brent Council agrees with the London Mayor's  response.

 

Response to Emergency Evacuation Sharing Information Consultation
17 August 2022

Summary

 
The Mayor of London reiterates his view that legislating for Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) in all buildings of any height covered by the Fire Safety Order, and providing central funding, is the only way to ensure there is comprehensive and consistent implementation across the entire country.

The proposals set out in this consultation on Emergency Evacuation Sharing Information (EEIS) amount to little more than a watered-down version of PEEPs. The Mayor has identified several of limitations to the EEIS proposals and has detailed them below.

Government’s ongoing failure to implement this recommendation from Grenfell Tower Inquiry is disappointing and concerning. Government must ensure that the recommendations from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry do not become a missed opportunity for change, as was the case after the Lakanal House fire.

Five years on from the Grenfell fire, the Mayor pays tribute to the bereaved and survivors who are campaigning for change so that a disaster like Grenfell never happens again.

Response to consultation

Following the tragic loss of life in the fire at Grenfell Tower, in which 41 per cent of residents with disabilities died, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommended that owners and managers of every high-rise residential building be required by law to prepare PEEPs for all residents whose ability toself-evacuate may be compromised (such as persons with reduced mobility or cognition).

Given that 83 per cent of respondents to the original PEEPs consultation in 2021 supported the proposal, it is clear that there is significant demand for this recommendation to be implemented in full.

The Mayor is pleased to read that a working group of disabled groups and housing providers is being set up by government and would stress that the group membership must be diverse and reflect all views, including those who would benefit from PEEPs. It is vital that the working group considers and establishes the best way to implement PEEPs in practice.

While the call for evidence on PEEPs is welcome, government should also be conducting pilot schemes and undertaking research to make a more informed assessment of PEEPs in residential housing. The Mayor hopes that this would lead government to reconsider its latest position.

Following a commitment to implement PEEPS fully, the evidence collected from this process could then inform a nationwide protocol, guidance and training on how the housing and development sector could implement the requirements of any legislation on PEEPs.

The Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing (EEIS) consultation released on 18 May 2022 proposes alternative measures to protect the fire safety of residents who would need support to evacuate in an emergency. This proposal differs from PEEPs in a number of key ways. First, it only focuses on residents who are mobility impaired as opposed to those with other physical or cognitive impairments. Second, it only applies to buildings with a simultaneous evacuation strategy and not buildings with a stay put strategy. Third, it proposes five steps that involve conducting a Person Centred Fire Risk Assessment (PCFRA) as opposed to a PEEP, and then sharing information with the local Fire and Rescue Service (FRS). Fourth, it relies on the FRS to conduct rescues of those who would be unable to self-evacuate.

1. Scope

 
The Mayor is concerned that EEIS only focuses on residents that are mobility impaired and urges government to take a more inclusive approach. People who may be unable to self-evacuate include those with mobility issues but also those with other physical and cognitive impairments which may be permanent or temporary.

2. Building fire strategy

 
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommended PEEPs for all high-rise residential buildings and government consulted on that proposal on 8 June 2021. Government is now proposing to introduce EEIS – a watered down version of PEEPs – only for buildings with a simultaneous evacuation strategy in place. Under these proposals, those buildings with a stay put policy in place would not be required to provide EEISs for relevant residents. It is welcomed that government has moved away from using height as a distinguishing factor, but the new categorisation of fire strategy cannot be the correct approach either. A resident affected by smoke or fire must have a plan and means to get to a place of safety, regardless of whether the building has a stay put or simultaneous evacuation policy. Grenfell Tower was a building with a stay put policy and 72 people lost their lives. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 report recommended government develop national guidelines for evacuation of high-rise buildings as a result. It is clear that stay put cannot be the only strategy and all buildings must have a Plan B so that residents can evacuate to a place of safety if stay put is no longer viable.

Since Grenfell, countless buildings have been found to have fire safety defects and have therefore been forced to change their fire strategy to simultaneous evacuation until remediation is complete.

Linking EEIS to buildings with simultaneous evacuation risks suggesting building owners can retire EEISs once the building has been remediated. That was never the intention of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendation around PEEPs.

3. Person Centred Fire Risk Assessments (PCFRAs)

 
A PCFRA is a risk assessment that helps identify residents who are at higher risk from fire in their own flat. It differs from a PEEP in that it is not a bespoke escape plan to assist residents who may have difficulties in evacuating a building unaided during an emergency.

The EEIS consultation proposes a process whereby the Responsible Person (RP) offers a PCFRA to residents who self-identify as requiring assistance to self-evacuate and then connects them with the local FRS to arrange a home fire safety visit.

The Mayor is content with the proposed reliance on self-identification but notes that its success relies on proactive communications from the RP. These communications should encourage residents to consider whether they need support and inform them of their rights.

PCFRAs will help identify residents who are at higher risk from fire in their own accommodation and measures such as fire-retardant bedding and fire safe ashtrays can be put in place for them in their homes. While PCFRAs are welcome and indeed already being undertaken now by some RPs, they focus on reducing the probability of fire inside someone’s flat and, unlike a PEEP, they do not incorporate an evacuation plan.

4. Reliance on FRS conducted rescue

 
The consultation makes the following argument against PEEPs: ‘the time between a fire being reported and the FRS mounting their operational response at the scene is the period in which a PEEP would be enacted. In a residential setting, there will inevitably be a limit as to what could be safely achieved by a single staff member or even a small team regarding support to mobility impaired residents in advance of the FRS attending with a greater number of competent, trained personnel.’ In other words, government is claiming there is insufficient time for a PEEP to add value and that FRS conducted rescue is always preferable.

The Mayor does not agree with this view for two reasons. First, the time that FRS takes to arrive at an emergency may be quick, but the time taken to actually set up a bridgehead, hoses and get into a position to fight fire and rescue residents in tall buildings is far greater. In reality there is more time for a PEEP to be effective than government is suggesting.

Second, expert evidence in the Inquiry has underscored the importance of timely evacuation to avoid serious and potentially fatal smoke inhalation. This highlights the risk inherent in the EEIS approach which relies solely on FRS conducted rescue instead of supporting self-evacuation.

 I asked the Green Party Disability Group for a comment on the issue. They said:

 

Personal emergency evacuation plans are critical to sustain human life in this climate crises-ridden world of today. For disabled people to be valued equally as human beings by those in power then society and safe & sustainable environments must be designed for everyone.

 

We are also living through a mass disabling event with an estimated 2 million people in the UK suffering from Long Covid. Tories view disabled people as having no value & as ‘other’. If those in power designed for us all equally & inclusively we would no longer be disabled.

 

We would be what we really are - people with impairments. And living equally with everyone else. Against the horrific backdrop of Grenfell & needless loss of life and great suffering each and every Tory voter must hang their heads in shame. Peeps are humane, this Govt isn’t.