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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A good question, deserving of an answer.

'Significant risks' attached to academy accounts warns National Audit Office

From the Local Schools Network LINK by Janet Downs

The National Audit Office has warned of ‘significant’ risks attached to academy accounts in a letter to auditors LINK. These include:

CAPITAL RISKS

1    The expansion of the capital programme in 2014/15 involves different ways of acquiring land such as buying freeholds or leasing.

2    There’s a risk these ‘ownership arrangements’ aren’t identified correctly and are included in the wrong accounts.

OTHER MATTERS

There is an ‘inherent risk’ of ‘material or systematic irregularity’ across the whole academies sector because of the ‘number and variety of providers’. The NAO is particularly concerned that:

1    Academy trusts don’t always seek approval from the Education Secretary for transactions which trusts aren’t delegated to make.

2    Related-party transactions might not be ‘arms-length’ or ‘at cost’.

3    Fraud or misuse of funds, especially at ‘trust level’ in Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs), could take place.

4    Academies with long-standing deficits could become insolvent.

The NAO has listed factors which it wants academy auditors to consider when identifying whether there is a ‘risk of irregularity’. These include:

1    Heads ‘using academy funds for personal gain’.

2    ‘Inappropriate expense claims’ for staff or trustees.

3    ‘Unjustified salary increases’.

4    Weak controls at trust level over activities of individual academies within MATs.

5    Transactions which breach the Academies Financial Handbook.

6    Weaknesses in procurement (including employment or related-party transactions).

The letter to auditors asks them to notify the NAO if they identify ‘significant risks of material misstatement’ in academy accounts.

AUTHOR’S COMMENTS

The number of academy trusts, MATs and sponsors is continues to rise. And Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has pleaded with businesses to run academies. But the NAO already has significant concerns about risks linked to the present ‘number and variety’ of providers.

It appears these serious misgivings are not enough to prompt a rethink. On the contrary, the Education and Adoption Bill will make it easier for the Government to push forward academy conversion. This is despite an earlier NAO report finding formal methods such as academy conversion were less effective in improving struggling schools than informal methods such as local support. And an even earlier NAO report (2010) which warned about potential conflicts of interests between sponsors and their academies.

Michaela Free School 'putting pupils lives at risk' claim teacher unions

Hank Roberts, Union representative on  on Brent Schools Health and Safety Committee has riased serious questions about safety at the Michaela Academy Free School in Wembley Park which opened in September 2014 but is still undertaking building works on the building while it is occupied by the Year 7 children.  This is his letter to Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council containing the draft report:

Dear Muhammed.

Please find enclosed a revised (2^nd draft) copy of our document concerning Michaela Community (Free) school. This is just to clarify particular action points that we are calling for you and the Authority to take up arising from the potentially dangerous situation we uncovered and, we believe, aspects of which are still extant.

1)   For the Authority to write to the Secretary of State for Education and Michaela Community school seeking their response to the specific actions I believe should be undertaken in the section of the document on Page 7 headed “Urgent actions that need to be undertaken”.

2)   That the request in the last paragraph on Page 8 from “We call on the local authority” down to “other Brent LA schools” and further to raise with the Secretary of State both the exact present legal position of the LA in regard to potential hazards facing the health and safety of Brent pupils in free schools (and academies) and the unsatisfactory nature of the present anomalous position.

Yours sincerely,

Hank Roberts

Union Representative on Brent Schools H&S Committee

PS: I am also sending this draft document to the Fire Brigade, H&S Executive, ATL, NASUWT and NUT Teacher Unions, Brent school H&S Reps and the media requesting their observations, comments and actions as appropriate.

Below you can find the full draft document which Mr Roberts has circulated:

 

Greens should get behind Project Wild Thing

This evening, along with other members of LEEF I viewed the film Project Wild Thing that was released today. The film sets out to do for children enjoying nature and the outdoors, what Jamie Oliver did for healthy school meals.

David Bond, concerned that his children are glued to their screens and seldom venture out of the house and the impact that this will have on their future health, decides to market 'nature' in the same way that big corporations market their consumer products.

Getting past this initial irony it soon becomes apparent, despite free advertising space and marketing help, that he cannot possibly hope to match the spending of multimillion multinationals. He sets off on a sticker campaign, slapping a 'WARNING: Material goods may make you fat and depressed' on consumer posters. At Speakers' Corner, heckled by a socialist speaker about the irrelevance of what he is saying to the fight against capitalism, he retorts, getting kids outside and outdoors is one of the best ways of avoiding capitalism.

A range of experts including Susan Greenfield, George Monbiot, Chris Packham and Chris Rose give their views; the latter arguing that it is not enough to take kids out to nature: you have to enable them to engage with it.

There are several poignant moments. In one a 10 year old boy takes Bond to the only tiny patch of green grass on his estate, and to the site of another larger patch which is now being built on. He says that if you play ball games where there they are forbidden 'you will get an ASBO'.

Visit the island of Eigg he finds that children there are still influenced by advertising and fixated on the screen, but the difference is that outside play is much more accessible. One Eigg Primary School school child remarks that with outdoor play 'the risk is part of the fun'.

However 'risk' , or rather adult fear of risk, seems from the interviews with adults to be the main reason why children aren't allowed out. Apart from the usual 'stranger danger' fear of cars and traffic is the main reason chidlren are kept in.  As Anna Porch from LEEF said in the discussion 'the freedom that cars have givenm to adults has been taken from their kids'.

The film is well worth seeing but most usefully used as  a discussion starting point in community organisations, parent evenings at school, or campaign meetings. The Wild Network LINK of organisations supporting the campaign have issued the following manifesto:

The Wild Network exists to champion and support connection with nature and wildness in children and young people.

The Wild Network mission is to support children, parents and guardians of children to roam free, play wild and connect with nature.

We believe all children should have the right to access the outdoors for play, learning, expression and development of healthy mind and body.

We encourage, provoke, nudge, support, innovate and campaign for children, kids and young folk to get up and outside.

• To wander freely
• To look up and around
• To find wonder, awe and empathy in all life
• To nurture, steward and protect
• To run, jump, climb, crawl and explore the world on our doorsteps
• To seek imagination in wildness
• To find inventiveness in the woods.
• To grow happy healthy minds and bodies.
• To find comfort in solitude.
• To become truly connected.

 Roam Free. Play Wild

You can sign up to the manifesto as an organisation or an individual on the website.

Risky times ahead for Muhammed Butt

Brent Council records the level of  corporate strategic risk on a 1-6 scale for impact and likelihood. It's latest assessment  records the political and reputational risk of  the move to the Civic Centre at 6 ('very serious') for impact and 5 ('probably' a 61-80% likelihood).

The risk relates to the combined risks of multiple service changes including the move to the Civic Centre on April 1st 2013 and new ways of working for staff (these include hot-desking); self-service help for residents and the impact of  new legislation such bas the benefit caps and local council tax rebate changes. The major impact could be major IT and customer service failure.

The possibility that the Civic Centre completion timetable will over run or that the move from other buildings will result in a systems failure is rated at 6 for impact and 5 ('probably') for likelihood which would result in damage to the council's reputation, delays in expected savings and disruption where building leases have already been terminated.  One issue that is not mentioned in the report but has been by officers and councillors is the lack of car parking at the Civic Centre. With workers from the Town Hall, Chesterfield House, Mahatma Gandhi House, Brent House and the Centre for Staff Development, to name just some of the buildings to be vacated, all converging on the Civic Centre there is an expectation that nearby roads and some of the event day private parking places will be used by Brent workers, resulting in congestion and punctuality problems. Of course they may all arrive by bus and tube as we Greens would like them to - let's wait and see...

The Town Hall car park this morning

Even worse though is the assessment of the economic risk factors including budget reductions, recession, demographic change and local benefit changes which will bring increased demand for services. This risk is assessed at 6 for impact and 6 for likelihood ('almost certain') with increased demand for council accommodation, increased crime and antisocial behaviour along with the possibility that the council will not meet its statutory service demand or its objectives.

An insight into the role of regeneration in Brent Council's thinking is provided by the risk represented by lack of external investment in the borough which reduces income from business rates and increases unemployment and poverty. Scored 6/6 this is 'de-risked' by 'assisting with planning permissions etc on behalf of developers' and 'maintaining dialogue with investors/developers'. This is clearly an area in which a conflict may develop between the council-developer alliance and local residents.

The risk that the council will fail to comply with legislative obligations, including consultation and equality duties, when it makes policy changes is rated at 6 for impact and 4 ('Likely') for likelihood with the possibility of legal challenges and Judicial Review.

At an individual level 'very serious' risks are recorded for both child and adult safeguarding. Both could impact through 'abuse, injury or death of vulnerable persons. Reputational damage to council'  After taking into account extensive council actions the probability is only reduced to 4 ('likely' 41-60%% likelihood) for children. This must be a cause for great concern. Adult risk is reduced to 3 'possible'.

Recruitment and retention of staff, with  'fewer people having to work harder and do more', with resulting stress and absences is given a 6/4 rating but this is reduced to 5/3 with controls around human resources issues including flexible working.

Of course the purpose of  the risk register is to take action to reduce the risk but all in all it looks as if Muhammed Butt, his officers and of course we, the residents,  have a tough and possibly dangerous time ahead.The register provides stark evidence of the impact of the Coalition cuts in local government funding and the damage they are causing.