GLA statement regarding fire safety and tall buildings - second staircases

 This statement will have an impact on high-rise developments in the pipeline across London.

You will no doubt be aware that the government have published their consultation document shortly before the Christmas holiday on proposed changes to the Building Regulations, which includes mandatory second staircases in buildings over 30 metres in height. LINK

The Mayor has consistently expressed concerns that the fire safety requirements in the national Building Regulations are not fit for purpose, so the proposed strengthened requirements and clear direction at the national level are strongly supported. This consultation envisages a very short transition period with new developments being encouraged to prepare for this change now. In light of this – and given the requirements of London Plan policy D12 that all developments should achieve the highest standards of fire safety – we are clear that, with immediate effect, all planning applications which involve residential buildings over 30 metres in height will need to be designed to provide two staircases before they are referred to us at Stage 2 for the Mayor’s decision. We recognise that the earlier statement by the NFCC referenced over 18 metres but, to be clear, our requirement for two staircases applies to residential buildings over 30m in line with the national position.

 

The GLA’s Planning team is working with the Boroughs to progress schemes which are currently in the pipeline to ensure they include two staircases where necessary before any Stage 2 referral. We are all working hard to look at feasible options to secure this and try to meet key timescales, particularly given the impact planning delays may have on affordable housing grant funding. The GLA Housing and Land team are working alongside us with applicants and providers to achieve delivery of the current 16-23 Affordable Housing Programme. Investment partners should contact their Head of Area within Housing and Land to discuss the impact on AHP projects. The position of our Housing and Land colleagues is that any projects which were eligible for their funding, taking account of all criteria, and had full planning consents at all stages prior to the 23rd of December 2022 (when the government consultation was released) would remain eligible for funding subject to all other eligibility criteria still being met; but as mentioned, we still urge you to contact your relevant Heads of Area.

 

The Planning team would be happy to discuss specific applications you have that are affected by this so please get in touch via the relevant case officer. We are keen to work with you and partners to look at how we can progress these cases through to decision in a co-ordinated and pragmatic way.

 

Jules Pipe

Deputy Mayor, Planning, Regeneration and Skills

 

Tom Copley

Deputy Mayor, Housing and Residential Development

 

LETTER: Windmill Court residents join others in pinpointing flaws in Brent Council's infill proposals

 

The site in context. Red rectangles are the development areas

 Brent Council's Key Plan

Dear Editor,

In your earlier article on controversies over Brent Council infill proposals, Common threads emerging as council tenants rebel over Brent's infill plans, you missed out Windmill Court on Shoot-Up Hill which is close to Watling Gardens.  We are one of the three in the Cooperation Agreement with Network Homes alongside Watling Gardens and Kilburn Square.

The Windmill Court application went before the planning committee on the same night as Watling Gardens.

One councillor objected to the application and one, Cllr Kennelly abstained on fire safety grounds (he’s no longer on the committee).

The head of planning, Mr Ansell, chose to ignore the legislative requirements under land use planning for fire safety and even directed the committee members that it was not a matter for them and could be dealt with at building control.(See video  below)

This is against the current fire safety requirements and a breach of the legislation on fire safety in high rise buildings that came into force on 1st August 2021. 

The legislation, Planning Gateway One, came from the Dame Judith Hackett recommendations to ensure that fire safety and access is dealt with at the earliest possible stage. 

Under Planning Gateway One Windmill Court tower block at 17 storeys with 120 households is a relevant building. The legislation requires a change in culture in that the existing building and the land around it has to be part of the planning process and taken into proper consideration regarding fire safety and access. This should be done at planning committee but Brent have clearly not incorporated the necessary change in culture to take proper account of the legislative requirements. 

You would be aware that planning would usually have been concerned only with what was being proposed and not the existing buildings and residents. I am unsure whether they deliberately chose to overlook the legislation on a proposal where the design concept being put forward is fundamentally flawed.

I noticed you picked up on the sale of some of the properties at Watling Gardens. Under the Mayor’s affordable housing this does allow for shared ownership to be included under the banner of affordable housing.

Windmill Court is financially unviable to the tune of millions and we did notice in an early Cabinet document where they included us along with Watling Gardens in a mention about increasing sales!

Whilst this is all being done under the banner of new council homes the chance is that they will be offloaded onto another housing organisation and a large number will be sold.

As for the affordable rent and local lettings policy. This is problematic for existing residents wanting to downsize or requiring a larger property. The council quite recently produced a document showing council rent’s for all sizes of homes with regards this year’s increase of 4.1%. 

 

When you compare this to the Mayors affordable housing rent benchmarks and include the service charge the differences are quite stark. Someone downsizing from a two bedroom property to a one bedroom property would be paying an extra £60 per week. Someone here at Windmill Court in a one bedroom flat with a child or children requiring a two bedroom flat would have an increase above an extra £60 a week and would lose having a separate kitchen and lounge. The option to consider staying in their one bedroom property with a kitchen that is large enough for a table and chairs and utilising the lounge as the parental bedroom would save them over £60 per week.

This is creating a two tier system on Brent estates where existing residents are having amenities removed to allow for new residents at higher rents being given what was previously shared communal space as private outdoor space as per GLA requirements.

We have had the same shoddy work with misrepresentations and misinformation and lack of communication. The submitted documents for planning also have misrepresentations and misinformation.

 

The submitted fire statement contains erroneous information and this has to be the most concerning. 

Our committee members have been researching every area including the council submitting the Lambeth Methodology Survey on available alternative parking spaces which includes 37 spaces on the A5 Shoot Up Hill that have 0% stress! That’s because they don’t exist! And listing CPZ’s in Camden as being available to Brent residents!

An anonymous consultant appears to have been paid  £43,340:00, mostly in £1,750:00 amounts, according to the Windmill Court submitted invoices.

I am attaching the video from the planning committee where fire safety is discussed. The first part with Mr Ansell explaining the change in legislation and stating this is a genuine serious concern then proceeding to direct members that it’s not a matter for them which is advice that is against the law. The second is Clr Kennelly expressing dissatisfaction with the reply and suggesting deferral of the application.

Yours sincerely,

A Concerned Windmill Court Resident

(Name supplied)

Fire Safety concerns and a consultation opportunity for public, councillors & planning officers

 

The review of Fire Safety was the second item on the recent Brent Scrutiny Commitete agenda and was not as comprehensive as the Flood item.

 

A Brent council tenant who listened carefully to the discussion said:

 

The scrutiny committee did not seem to know much about the subject they were discussing with the biggest fault being they made no mention as to how residents will be involved, which was the main focus of the Building Safety bill and they failed to even mention Dame Judith Hackitt's three reports on Building Safety and the Fire Safety Act which updated the Fire Safety Order (2005.

 

Their 'experts' seemed to believe that it is only new buildings that the Building Safety bill applies to but that is not the case, as it also applies to current buildings.

 

Although they mentioned cladding, no one mentioned fire doors but to be generous the absentee technical officer might have brought them into the discussion and Cllr. Conneely tried to raise issues like fire doors but was told it was a 'housing issue'.

 

They were also vague about the training competences required but if they had read the Health & Safety reports on Building Safety led by Mr. Baker, the Regulator, they would understand that any new Inspectors would need to start from level 7 (Honours Degree) and have post grad qualifications in Fire Safety and related areas.  That is why it is so hard to find suitable candidates, as most surveyors only have an honours degree but nothing higher.

 

I could go on, but I suppose it was a start, but I would give it a 3 rating (out of 10) as the council needs to start reading all the material that has already been published, although they seem to be waiting for someone to guide them to it.

 

As Dame Hackitt said only 10% of councils are 'on the ball' e.g. Camden but unfortunately Brent is within the remaining 90%.

 Details of the proposed legislation  HERE

 

Meanwhile planning applicants, Brent Council planning officers and members of the Planning Committee as well as the public may wish to take part in this series of meetings organised by the GLA (My hgihlighting):

Consultation Opportunity – Fire Safety London Plan Guidance We are consulting on a new Fire Safety London Plan Guidance (LPG) covering London Plan Policies D12 Fire safety and D5 Inclusive design (specifically on evacuation lifts). The Fire safety LPG sets out how planning applicants should demonstrate their developments can achieve the highest standards in fire safety.  The Fire Safety LPG reiterates that the fire safety of developments needs to be considered from the outset. It is essential that fire safety measures and the evacuation strategy are integral to the overall layout and design of a development, rather than considered for the first time at the Building Control stage.  The guidance confirms that planning officers are not experts in fire safety, and therefore places the onus is on the applicant and the fire safety expert to demonstrate compliance with the London Plan fire safety policies. The consultation closes on 20 June 2022.  Online Events We’re running the following events (all online):  Wednesday 9 March – 6pm – 7pm This event is a general briefing for the general public to find out more about the new London Plan Guidance document that relate to fire safety. It is open to all and is suitable for interest groups, public campaign groups and Londoners to ask questions and find out more about the guidance.  Tuesday 15 March – 10.00am – 11.00am This session introduces the guidance document to borough planning and building officers in London. Thursday 17 March – 10.00am – 11.00am This session introduces the guidance document to fire engineers, planning consultants and building control officers in London. Tuesday 17 May – 6pm – 7pm This session is open to all to revisit the guidance and for attendees to ask any questions of the team.  Useful Links View details on the consultation and submit your response: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london-plan/london-plan-guidance/fire-safety-lpg Sign up to attend our online events: http://londonplanguidance.eventbrite.com The London Plan 2021 can be viewed on our website: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/london-plan-2021 Any queries can be emailed to FireSafetyLPG@london.gov.uk. You can post responses to: The Planning Team, Greater London Authority, City Hall, Kamal Chunchie Way, LONDON, E16 1ZE.  Kind regards  The London Plan and Growth Strategies Team

 

 

No 'peace of mind' regarding high rise fire safety for disabled resident as Brent Council lights up for International Day of Persons with Disabilities

Brent Civic Centre lit up  for International Day of Persons with Disabilities 2020 (Kilburn Times)

Brent's symbolic gesture for International Day Day of Persons with Disabilities 2020 LINK has left a local resident with disabilities feeling jaundiced as his repeated efforts to persuade housing officers and councillors that he needs rehousing because of his mobility and hearing disabililities, have failed to elicit positive action.

He feels trapped and fearful.

The resident is currently housed on an upper floor of a South Kilburn estate tower block that is scheduled for demolition. This means that fire safety measures such as sprinklers have not been installed. He has requested rehousing at a lower level.

The resident, whose case has been covered before on Wembley Matters LINK, said:

In yesterday's Cabinet Agenda papers on Council assets  they said "All our high-rises are safe and we are bringing in additional measures to reassure our vulnerable tenants".

 

But I do not feel safe, or reassured as there is still only one escape route in my block and if a fire was to start on this escape routebelow me. I feel I could be trapped, or my mobility issues may affect other residents who would also be in a hurry to escape the building.

 

The Cabinet paper said "Our Fire Safety works provide peace of mind for all our resident's" but I do not have any 'peace of mind because of my mobility issues if I need to evacuate my tower block by the only escape route which my building has.

 

Could you through Wembley Matters ask the Council what  I  and possibly other disabled residents in a similar situation  can do to get 'the peace of mind' that they refer to?

 

Just to add, a disabled resident at Grenfell was told before the fire, that she had nothing to worry about, as the building was safe and this is what Brent Council are saying about all their own high-rises -they are completely safe.

 

The resident pointed out that the latest Brent Council Fire Safety Policy document LINK   had nothing to say about evacuating from a high rise block in the event of a fire or how disabled people would evacuate in an emergency. Although at Cabinet they used the term 'vulnerable' to describe people eligible for additional safety measures there is no detail about what measures are available or planned.

Brent Council to proceed with fire safety measures for all its blocks over 12 storeys high

The Brent Cabinet will be asked to approve a fire safety strategy LINK  for its housing stock at its next meeting which will centre on a five year programme of fire safety measures, with a particular emphasis on sprinkers, for all its blocks that are 12 storeys or higher. Standard 4 Fire Risk Assessments would be carried out as part of the programme.

These are the blocks (click on image to enlarge or see LINK):

The programme will be at a rate of 3 per year to be completed in 5 years and will be done alongside other improvement works.

The Council is faced with some uncertainty over financing of such improvements as well as what will eventually be recommended by the post-Grenfell Public Inquiry.

The report states:
 

The Chief Executive wrote to Department for Communities and Local government (DCLG) to request Government provide direct financial support to meet the costs that will be incurred. The current position in response to that request is that government will neither fund the additional works, nor change the policy on 1% decrease in rents up to 2020, nor increase the HRA borrowing cap as alternative ways to fund these additional works. However, there have been suggestions that there may be further announcements in the November 2017 Budget. 


This means that the £10m costs will need to be financed from the Housing Revenue Account which will  entail cuts in the  Capital Programme of at least £4.5m in 2018-19 and £3.9m in 2019-20 - unless the Chancellor comes up with some proposals in his budget.

As can be seen from the table above leaseholders in the blocks will be expected to contribute towards the costs of the improvement measures. This would raise £0.8m for the 14 blocks of over 12 storeys and £2.8m for all 37 Brent blocks. Average cost per leaseholder would be approximately £6,000.

Specialist to visit each Brent tower block between now and September to establish fire safety works needed

Monday's July 24th Cabinet Meeting will set things moving on the £10m extra agreed to enhance fire safety measures in Brent's high rise blocks.

The report states:

Council agreed that the Chief Executive should write to the Government as a matter of urgency to request that the Government provide direct financial support to meet the costs that will be incurred. The letter has been sent to the Government requesting financial support, as well as requesting that the Government urgently consider revocation of the permitted development rights for office to residential conversions; that the Government review the building control laws which allow the use of building control teams from both the private sector and other local authorities to inspect buildings which can mean a total lack of oversight by local authority inspectors of the fire risk level in some privately owned high rise blocks and that the Government address whether licensing laws for landlords in the private sector are stringent enough to ensure that all dwellings are fit for human habitation. 


Actions to develop the detailed work programme for enhanced fire measures in High-rise blocks 


A specification is in the process of being developed, which will outline the enhanced fire detection equipment that could be installed, over and above the required standard. In order to establish the exact works required, a suitably qualified specialist will carry out a survey of each building, and specify the schedule of works. This will be specific to each block, but may include detection systems localised alarms in communal areas and/or dwellings, fire suppression systems such as sprinklers, or smoke extraction systems. 


The appropriate procurement framework will be accessed in order to appoint the relevant specialists required in order to complete this preparatory work. 


Surveyors will visit all blocks between now and September in order to carry out these surveys, which will inform the detailed plan which will be brought back for consideration by Cabinet in October 2017. 


It will be important to keep residents informed and reassured throughout this process. A letter has been sent to all tenants and leaseholders to advise them of the outcome of the Full Council discussion, attached at Annex 3, and a programme of communication will continue throughout this process. 


Carolyn Downs intervenes on request for special post-Grenfell Brent Council meeting.

In the wake of the Grenfell Tower disaster one of the major lessons must surely be that councils should listen to their residents and their actions should be transparent.

The Council's Chief Executive Officer, Carolyn Downs,  has intervened in Cllr Duffy's attempt to have a Special Full Council Meeting on July 3rd on  the issue of fire safety in Brent's high-rise blocks.

She has written to the Mayor, who makes decisions on Special Meetings, to give her advice:

-->

Dear Mr Mayor

I am writing to give you my advice regarding the request for an extraordinary/special council meeting.

Firstly the request was made last night by Cllr Duffy and to date I and other officers have seen confirmation by email from Councillors Warren, Stopp and Pavey. This as it stands is not enough. 

According to the legal and constitutional rules, a special meeting can be called by the Mayor.  Alternatively, a requisition signed by 5 councillors can be presented to the Mayor. If a special meeting is not called by the Mayor within 7 days, the requisition itself will trigger a extraordinary meeting. A requisition need not be sent to the mayor personally. It can be sent to Tom Cattermole, the Head of Executive and Member Services. 

The constitution further requires that any requisition must be accompanied by notice of the motion or motions to be debated at the meeting. We have received a motion from Cllr Duffy. 

This means that even if a valid requisition is received today then the mayor has 7 days to decide whether to call the meeting. If you took seven days then the earliest possible date for a special meeting of the council would be 13/7/17.

If you were to agree today then 5 clear working days will be needed before the meeting can be held and so the earliest it could be held is 4/7/17. Our next scheduled Council meeting is 10/7/17.

The reason we held a member drop in session last week was to enable members to answer road by road and block by block questions with the relevant officers present as this is a very technical matter. 11 members attended of which 2 were Cabinet members. Cabinet were briefed additionally and Cllr Shahzad arranged a separate briefing for himself. 

We will need to ensure that a discussion at a full council meeting is managed to ensure that it does not cause additional anxiety for residents in the Borough. We need to ensure that we retain the calm and professional environment in which the council, the fire brigade and other registered providers are managing this situation. We also need to ensure that information is shared in a way in which the public can understand it. Last week's member briefing and our web site give relevant information.   I believe that our council has responded well locally alongside putting c30 officers into the response to Grenfell Tower.

This is a very important topic and all members will no doubt wish to be present at the Council meeting that discusses it and for the sake of 3 working days it is surely appropriate to have the discussion on a date that has been in all members‘ diaries for some time.

My suggestion to you is that we hold another drop in session for councillors followed by a collective discussion of a less technical and more tactical and policy nature. I also suggest that officers write all of this up and make it publicly available as a part of the papers for the full council meeting. We can do this later this week or on 3/7/17 when I know a lot of Councillors have a group meeting arranged anyway. 

We can then have a major discussion at our programmed full council meeting based on the facts and a report circulated in advance.  We have, in the past, had back bench sponsored debates and we could, with the agreement of members, suspend the rules around those to enable a fuller and longer discussion, have a panel of technical officers available for any questions and also ensure that Councillors are able to take a full part in the discussion for as long as is necessary. I would ensure relevant officer and also seek Fire Brigade attendance. 

Clearly the decision to have the meeting before the 10/07/17  is your decision but I thought it transparent to share with all Councillors my advice to you.  I hope no-one will see this advice as being unhelpful and obstructive. It is intended to be quite the opposite. 

If you do agree to an earlier and special council meeting with the revised motion proposed by Cllr Duffy I still think it important that officers prepare a full report in advance, that we invite the fire brigade and technical officers and that we hold another drop in session to give members the opportunity to ask detailed and technical questions in advance. 

Yours ever

Carolyn