Showing posts with label Martin Francis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martin Francis. Show all posts

Friday 15 September 2023

Post-Grenfell crucial information for Brent Council tenants in buildings higher than 18 metres

In my capacity as a Brent resident I asked Brent Council a written question for Monday's meeting on the actions they have taken to comply with the Building Safety Act. This followed concerns expressed by tenants who suggested that Brent was lagging behind other London boroughs. It would be interesting to hear from tenants whether the answers allay their fears.

The questions and responses are below.

 

Question from Martin Francis to Councillor Promise Knight (Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness & Renters Security)

 

The following list of questions pertain to the Building Safety Act that received Royal Assent in April 2022 and the requirements for landlords, including local councils, therein. ‘Buildings in Scope’ refers to those buildings under the Building Safety Act, that are high-rise residential buildings that are 18 metres tall or higher, or at least seven storeys, with two or more residential units that are defined as ‘higher-risk’.

 

Across England there are approximately 12,500 of these buildings and the new regulator required all of them to be registered from April 2023, with a named person responsible for maintaining their safety. The registration process is a crucial stage in setting up the new building safety regime.  Registering buildings in scope will be a legal requirement and owners and managers who fail to comply by October 2023 will be investigated and may face prosecution.

 

On this basis, could the Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security address the following questions in relation to the Council responsibilities:

 

1.     Does the council know the details of the residents who cannot evacuate without help, or those whose first language is not English as part of any emergency arrangements in each of the 40 buildings in scope?

The council has previously undertaken work to proactively identify tenants living in our high-rise blocks who cannot evacuate without assistance in event of an emergency. The information the council received as part of this work is currently being reviewed. When tenants whose first language is not English are identified, the council records this and will make reasonable adjustments.

 

 

2.     Can you describe the details of the construction methods in each of the buildings in scope?

The construction method for each of the High Rise blocks is in the Fire Risks Assessment (FRA) for the property and is included in the Building Registration information provided to London Fire Brigade (LFB) and the Building Regulators. Furthermore, this information is contained in our asset database.

 

3.     Can you provide the access and means of escape, including travel distances, in all the buildings in scope?

The access points and means of escape are clearly set out in all of the buildings. Travel distances in the buildings complied with the Building Regulations current at the time the building was constructed. We also have wayfinding information conspicuously displayed in all our blocks that provide access and means of escape information as well as direction/fire escape routes out of the property.

 

4.     Can you identify all the Building Safety risks in each of the buildings in scope?

The Fire Risk Assessments for each building identifies all safety risks which are being actioned in the required timescales.

 

5.     Can you provide the maintenance and inspection schedules for every building in scope using The Golden Thread of information? LINK

All maintenance and inspection schedules/records are on our New Compliance asset compliance management database. All new build blocks in scope are following the Gateway process.

 

6.     Can you set out the emergency plan for each building in scope, including their evacuation strategy?

 All information in regard to emergency plan and strategy are provided as part of the building registration with LFB and the fire strategy for each block is displayed in the lobby area in each block.

 

 

7.     Please set out your complaints system and that how you will operate an effective mandatory occurrence reporting system?

The Council’s principal accountable person for our occupied higher-risk buildings is working on establishing and operating a suitable system for the investigation of relevant complaints. Mandatory occurrence reporting is designed to help report structural flaws and fire risks that might arise at any point throughout the life cycle of a building and can cause catastrophes.

 

We are working to develop a suitable system(s) that will cover the following requirements:

·             Introducing a more reliable reporting system that complements RIDDOR and voluntary occurrence reporting regimes.

·             Strengthening the golden thread (or the digitally stored collection of information about a building and its safety).

·             Boosting residents’ engagement to improve the accuracy and frequency of fire and structural risks.

 

 

 

8.     Are you now able to publish a risk assessment for each of the buildings in scope?

All our Fire Risks Assessments are available for each resident upon request

 

9.     Do all fire doors in every building in scope meet the full standard of fire prevention?

 We carry out quarterly inspections of all the communal doors as well as service cupboard doors in each block, and a yearly inspection of the flat entrance doors to ensure all doors meet the full standard of fire prevention. 

 

10.   Do you know if any of the buildings in scope have any structural issues and can you provide full details of the utilities they use and if any of them impact on common parts of the building, or evacuation plans? Does fire stopping meets the appropriate standard so that compartmentation is not compromised?

We have carried out FRA4 inspections on all of our buildings in scope and we have identified any structural defect or issue in our buildings and we are confident that the fire stoppings in all our High-Rise properties meet appropriate standards of compartmentation.

 

11.   Have you identified the 'responsible person' for each block? 

All our FRAs has the detail of the responsible person for each block.

 

 

 


Tuesday 23 November 2021

Brent lead members to supply written answers on key questions on council homes and flood risk


Parody Brent publicity photograph for the Council's Wembley Housing Zone development at Cecil Avenue.


Cllr Shama Tatler, lead member for Regeneration, Property and Planning was unable to attend last night's Council Meeting as she had been close to Brent Council Leader, Muhammed Butt, who had to self-isolate after a positive LFT Covid test.

This meant that she was unable to answer Philip Grant's Supplementary Question on the planned hosuing on the former Copland Hugh School site LINK.

For the record this is the question that should now be answered in written form:

Brent urgently needs more affordable Council homes, and it could be building 250 of these at Cecil Avenue now.

But only 37 of the 250 in your plans will be for affordable rent, while 152 will be for private sale by a developer.

Some of the £111million GLA grant could be used to provide social rent housing there. 

Instead, you plan to use it for infill schemes on existing Council estates, which may be years away.

What justification will you give for these plans, when asked by families who’ll have to wait much longer for a decent home, and existing residents who’ll lose the green spaces on their estates?

 

Cllr Krupa Sheth, lead member for Environment, was present but was unable to answer my supplementary question on the spot and will supply a written answer in due course:

My question on a review has not been directly answered, fortunately a council officer told Scrutiny on November 10th said that a review of the 2015 Flood Risk Management Strategy is required and context should include real focus around climate change (for example the forecast 59% increase in winter rainfall) as well as the necessary local mitigation.

 

1.    Can you give us the timetable for the review and the partnership members who will be involved?

 

 

2.   Will, as the West London Flood Risk Management Strategic Partnership has recommended, the accumulative impact of developments on flooding and drainage infrastructure systems, be assessed?

Friday 16 March 2018

Leopold Primary School

I will not be reporting on this issue because I have an interest in the matter. I am Chair of Governors at Chalkhill Primary School and in that role have approved the appointment of our headteacher as Executive Headteacher of Chalkhill and Leopold starting after the Easter Holiday for one year in the first instance.

For the same reason I will not be publishing any comments on this issue.

Martin Francis

Saturday 21 November 2015

Brent’s Coat of Arms – some thoughts on history, and on justice

Guest bog by Philip Grant
The Coat of Arms which used to grace the front of Brent Town Hall in Forty Lane has been preserved, and will shortly be on display in the Civic Centre. A few weeks ago, I was contacted by Brent’s Regeneration Department, and asked if I would ‘review for accuracy’ the proposed text of the sign which would be displayed alongside it. As a keen local historian, I was happy to assist them, and was able to correct several minor errors and suggest some improvements. The resulting text and artwork for the sign can be seen below.



This coat of arms used to appear on Brent Council’s letterhead, and on various Council publications, but in recent years has been replaced by a modern branding logo. Looking at the coat of arms again, and the civic messages it conveys, has given me some thoughts which I will share with you here. Please feel free to add your own thoughts as “comments” below.

The designers could not use all of the information which I supplied. One of the details left out, about the banner held by the lion (taken from Wembley’s coat of arms), was that it shows the scales of justice, and commemorates the Saxon moot court held at a site near the present-day Kingsbury Circle. There was a form of local government here a thousand years ago, when Wembley was part of an area of Middlesex known as the Hundred of Gore. The name had nothing to do with blood, but with the triangular spear-head shape of the small field where the Hundred’s inhabitants used to meet.

The Moot (or meeting) for each Hundred was held in the open air on a regular basis, to discuss any problems, disputes or petty crimes which had arisen in the Hundred since the last meeting. The parties to an issue raised would put their case, anyone else who had a point to make could do so, and the matter would then be decided by a vote. The majority view decided the issue, and everyone was expected to accept it.

Illustration of a Saxon Moot, from “Wembley through the Ages” by the Rev. H.W.R. Elsley

I do not know how well this early system of local government worked in practice, but both Wembley (in the 1930’s) and Brent (when it was formed in 1965) were keen to use the symbol of the scales of justice, to show their commitment to fairness for all, which is what the Moot was meant to deliver. 
 
With over 300,000 inhabitants, it is not possible for the people of our borough to meet together in a field for an open discussion of issues which are then decided by a majority vote. Once every four years, we elect 63 councillors to represent us, in the expectation that they will hear the facts and evidence on matters of local concern, debate them and reach decisions democratically. Like the Saxon villagers of old, we have the right to attend Council meetings, and for several years we have been able to watch and listen to Full Council meetings online. In June 2014, we were given the hope that we could participate in our modern version of the Moot, when “Deputations” were introduced. The Council Leader explained the purpose of these in the “Brent & Kilburn Times” (12 June 2014) as follows:

‘Cllr Butt said, “New proposals allow the public to speak in council meetings for the first time ever is aimed at bettering how the community engages with the council and allows residents to hold us to account.” ‘

So far, in my experience, this measure to bring more openness into Brent’s local democracy has not lived up to its original promise.

Martin Francis made the first request to present a Deputation in September 2014, on the (overdue) appointment of a permanent Chief Executive. He was denied the chance to speak, on the grounds that he had not given sufficient notice (even though he did so within the time set out in a “tweeted” invitation issued by Brent Council itself) LINK 

I have given valid notice to make Deputations a number of times, but have never been allowed to present them. I asked Scrutiny Committee, in November 2014, to allow me to make a Deputation seeking scrutiny of Brent’s decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in the Rosemarie Clarke case. They were persuaded not to hear me, by misleading advice from Brent’s then Legal Director (who had a clear conflict of interests in the matter). LINK 

At the end of April 2015, I gave notice to make a Deputation about the Equalities and HR Policies and Practices Review, which was on the Scrutiny Committee agenda. I was told that I could do so, but only if I did not refer to the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case, which the review had been set up to learn the lessons from. Although I explained why it would be both relevant and reasonable to refer to that case, the committee accepted the advice of Council lawyers that I should not be allowed to speak on those terms. LINK
 

A year after Martin’s first attempt, I asked to present a Deputation to Full Council, to welcome the new Chief Executive, and to emphasise the importance of high standards of conduct in carrying out Council business. On this occasion, I was prevented from speaking only by the personal discretion of the Chief Legal Officer, who wrongly claimed that my proposed subject was ‘inappropriate’, and ‘in reality, a complaint about how the Council has handled your request for greater transparency.’ LINK
 

Does Brent Council still uphold the spirit of fairness that its use of the scales of justice in its Coat of Arms was meant to show? You can add your answers, whether “yes” or “no”, as comments below. Personally, I hope that the presence of the Coat of Arms, on display in the Civic Centre, will be a reminder to councillors and Council Officers of the standards that, historically, Brent should be aspiring to.

Philip Grant

  Text and artwork for the proposed sign at Brent Civic Centre

 

Saturday 18 July 2015

Brent Equalities Committee: Michael Pavey responds to Philip Grant's Open Letter


Last week, Martin published as a “guest blog” an open letter which I had sent to the members of Brent Council’s new Equalities Committee, ahead of their meeting on 13 July. LINK  
The day after their meeting, the chair of that committee, Cllr. Michael Pavey, wrote to me in reply to my open letter. With his permission, I am setting out the main text of his reply, so that “Wembley Matters” readers can consider the points he has made, as part of a balanced discussion:-
‘The Committee met for the first time last night and as part of our discussions on the implementation of my Review, we decided to remove the "success criteria" relating to successfully defended ETs. We opted to remove the clause entirely, rather than to replace it. This was a unanimous decision. 

Your suggestion that the Council withdraw from the Race for Opportunity awards was not raised. 

My understanding is that this particular award relates to the collection of equalities data. Whatever your view of the Council's current performance, the Committee will only be able to drive up standards by referring to reliable and challenging data. 

The Council Equalities Team have put a tremendous amount of work into improving internal data collection and analysis. I have no problem with this work being recognised through nomination for an award. 

I don't feel that objecting to Council Officers receiving legitimate praise for their hard work is the right way to address ongoing grievances about an Employment Tribunal. The Officers who put in the hard work to collect this data had nothing at all to do with that Tribunal. 

I think it would be far more constructive for us to acknowledge the good work of those particular Officers and focus on using this data to improve the Council's performance on Equalities issues, as per my Review. The new Committee has an important role to play in this and we made an encouraging start last night, challenging Officers in a constructive but robust way.’ 

I believe I am on record as saying this before, but it is worth repeating, that I welcome Michael Pavey’s openness in actually replying to serious points put to him (unlike his colleague, the Leader of the Council). We do not agree on everything, but I have confirmed to Cllr. Pavey that I know there are many officers at the Council who do an excellent job (even though they have been let down by some very senior ones!). My open letter was not all criticism, but in reply to Cllr. Pavey’s response above, I have reminded him that its key message was that the Equalites Committee (and Brent Council generally) needs to acknowledge and deal with the “negatives”, as well as celebrating the “positives”.

Philip Grant

Saturday 2 May 2015

Parents and politicians support fight against forced academisation of St Andrew and St Francis CofE Primary


 Compiled from a press release from Brent ATL and NUT
Mr Gorsia, a parent, addressing the meeting
Staff at St Andrew and St Francis CofE Primary in Belton Rd, Willesden, Brent took their fifth day of strike action  on Thursday in protest at their school being forced to become an academy. The theme on the picket line was ‘Democracy denied: IEB refuses parents’ ballot’. After the picket line staff and parents went along the Willesden High Rd asking shopkeepers to display no academy notices which they were very happy to do. These notices are also being displayed in parents’ front windows and some are putting them in their cars to make sure the message is spread – no academy.

At the meeting yesterday evening in St Andrew’s Church attended by staff and parents Bridget Chapman, a speaker from the Anti Academies Alliance, said she had seen all the notices in the shops as she came from the tube station. It made a real impact. She fully supported the parents’ ballot. She said, “What are they so afraid of? She praised staff and parents for their stand against the privatisation of our education. “This is just giving away land and buildings to businesses,” she expalined.

Dawn Butler, Labour candidate for Brent Central, told parents that if Labour won the general election then she would do her utmost to get the decision to force the school into an academy reversal. She said that whatever happens on Thursday she would give full support to the campaign to have a parents’ ballot. “I say this because I believe in it. You are pushing at an open door”, she said.

Irene Scorer, parent, then handed over a petition against the academy to Dawn signed by 200 parents accounting for 290 children out of the 400 at the school. This is clearly a large majority and outstrips the 32 who said they supported the academy in the sham consultation. Many of these parents have since learning about academies changed their minds and signed the petition.

Three parents gave their views.  

Hamid El Hadi said:
I support everyone who is against this academy. This is affecting our children and the teachers are stressed. All we want is a ballot. We’re not asking for the earth.
 Bharat Gorsia said: 
We are being lied to by the school. We are told nothing will change. If it isn’t broken why fix it.
Syed Karrar told the audience that his daughter has had five teachers since Easter and that all this move to an academy had unsettled everyone. 

Hank Roberts, Brent ATL secretary also spoke and praised the commitment of staff and parents and said there was still all to win. Others who spoke from the audience agreed and there was an overall enthusiasm to continue the fight until justice prevails. Parents were informed that there would be two further days of strike action on Tuesday 12th May and Thursday 14th May. The unions had called off one of the strike days this week in an act of goodwill to try and reach agreement with the IEB on a ballot and TUPE negotiations. They heard on Wednesday that nothing had been agreed on any of the issues. Parents agreed that two days had to go ahead as the pressure needed to be kept up.

The unions, staff and parents have been trying to meet with key people from Brent and the LDBS to discuss things. The Bishop of Willesden declined a meeting but did say that the HMI inspection last Thursday and Friday, “they [the school] received a very favourable outcome indeed”. So, as the parents and staff say, why change the school into an academy if it has made significant improvements and likely to come out of special measures?

Messages of support from around the country were relayed to the meeting including this statement from Martin Francis, Brent Green party spokesperson on children and families.
Please convey the support of Brent Green Party for the staff and parents in their fight against forced academisation. We see academies and free schools as a form of privatisation that removes democratic accountability and prepares the way for profit making from education. Green Party policy is to integrate academies and free schools into the local authority school system.
Muhammed Butt did not attend and did not send any statement about his position with regards a ballot as he had been asked to, much to everyone’s disapproval.

Wednesday 29 April 2015

'Cease and Desist' UKIP threat against Wembley Matters

The UKIP Election Agent for Brent Central, Heino Vockrodt, with jabbing finger, came up to me last night at the Mapesbury Hustings, to threaten action against Wembley Matters.

Vockrodt, glass of wine in hand, said that he would serve a 'cease and desist' order on Wembley Matters if I continued to 'misrepresent' UKIP candidate Stephen Priestley.

Disliking his aggression I told him to go away (in rather more colourful language, I confess) and he turned his attention to a local non-party activist standing nearby, telling her with more threatening body language, "And you! Don't heckle my man!"

Vockrodt stood in Dudden Hill in the May 2014 local elections and hit the headlines over his attitude to Muslims and his suggestion that a Willesden street resembled Helmand Province. LINK


UKIP celebrated its attack on Wembley Matters with a posting on its Brent and Camden Facebook page:


Heino Vockrodt's attack follows a comment submitted to Wembley Matters which I did not publish. It was posted under the name 'TheHV24'.   This is part of what it said:
Martin Francis - the guy who runs Wembley Matters - is a far left extremist activist!
He is Shahrar Ali's electoral agent and supports Mr Ali's fascist "we know better what's good for you so shut up" policies.

This blog is against Electoral Commission rules and I will have it shut down!

Martin Francis & Shahrar Ali are deeply anti-democratic. They're cultural Marxists which can be easily spotted the moment there are a few Black people in the audience: Ali says things like "Black people being brutally arrested by white policemen on Willesden High Road" and other racist remarks.
'TheHV24' also posted my home address on YouTube which I removed.

UKIP's mask of respectability appears to have slipped.

Wembley Matters will continue to cover the election campaign including the statements of UKIP and other candidates.




Tuesday 25 November 2014

Do Brent Council websites and Twitter accounts have minds of their own?


Philip Grant, an occasional contributor to this blog, posted a comment on the Brent and Kilburn Times website about the above story. As, for some reason yet to be explained, it has not been published I print it below.


This is not the first time that Cllr. Butt has had difficulties because of ‘website blunders’ by Brent Council, which expose that he can say one thing publicly, but mean something else in practice.

When changes were made to Brent’s Constitution last June, he told the Brent & Kilburn Times what a good idea the new “Deputations” were (on page 2 of the 12 June 2014 edition):


'Cllr Butt said, "New proposals allow the public to speak in council meetings for the first time ever is aimed at bettering how the community engages with the council and allows residents to hold us to account." '



In advance of the next Full Council meeting on 8 September, Brent Council “tweeted” an invitation to more than 8,000 “followers” on 29 August, saying (see image):


'Speak out to the whole council. Ask for a five-min slot (a deputation) @ full council. For 8 Sept. email committee@brent.gov.uk by noon Mon.'


At least one person, Martin Francis (a Brent resident and an active member of its community), did respond to this invitation, and sent a request on Monday morning, 1 September, to speak on the subject of the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive. However, he was told by Brent’s Legal Director that his request had been made after the “five day” time limit, which she calculated meant by midday on Friday 29 August, and that the “tweeted” invitation had been issued in error.

I do not know what Mr Francis intended to say in his five minute Deputation, but as Christine Gilbert was appointed as interim Chief Executive in the autumn of 2012, initially for six months, there was a valid point of concern. Her interim appointment was only extended until the May 2014 local elections because, it was claimed, she had to oversee the Council’s move into the new Civic Centre in 2013, and act as Returning Officer for those elections. Surely it was time for a permanent Chief Executive to be appointed, under the Council’s proper recruitment procedures?

I was one of several people who expressed concern over what appeared to be an unreasonable attempt to stop Mr Francis from speaking to the Full Council under a process which was meant to help residents to “hold the council to account”. I wrote to the Mayor, who as “Chair” of Council meetings has powers over how they are handled, asking him to allow Mr Francis to speak, as he had requested to do so in line with the Council’s own published invitation. He replied that he had to leave the matter in the hands of the Legal Director. At the meeting itself he simply told the councillors that ‘there are no deputations’, even though Mr Francis was there, ready to speak, and there was up to twenty minutes set aside on the agenda for hearing deputations.

I had copied my emails to Cllr. Butt, the Council Leader, and on the day after the Full Council meeting, 9 September, I sent him an email setting out details of what had happened, and saying:

‘I am writing to ask you to explain why you, either individually or in concert with the Council's Director of Legal and Procurement, did not allow Martin Francis to present his Deputation on the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive to the Full Council meeting on 8 September.’

Despite several reminders, I have not received a reply. It seems that he, or Brent’s over-staffed Public Relations team, will reply when they can put a positive “spin” on a story, but when events show that they have acted wrongly, they will either keep quiet or seek to excuse what has happened as an ‘error’, as if websites or tweets have minds of their own.