Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held in the Great Hall, Town Hall, Hornton Street, , W8 7NX at 6.30pm on 18 July 2018

PRESENT Members of the Council

THE MAYOR: CLLR MARIE-THERESE ROSSI THE DEPUTY MAYOR: CLLR MOHAMMED BAKHTIAR

ADDENBROOKE, Sarah LARI, Sina ADOURIAN, Hamish LINDSAY, David ARETI, Aarien MARSHALL, Quentin ATKINSON, Robert MASON, Pat BENNETT, Tom McVEIGH, Sof BERRILL-COX, Adrian MILLS, Julie BLAKEMAN, Judith NAIL, Nadia CAMPBELL, Elizabeth O’CONNOR, Charles CHAUHAN, Dr Max PALMER, Matthew CYRON, Anne PASCALL, Will DENT COAD, Emma PRESS, Monica ELNAGHI, Marwan RENDALL, Josh EVANS, Janet SCHMETTERLING, Dori FAULKS, Catherine SPALDING, Malcolm FREEMAN, Robert TAYLOR-SMITH, Kim HAMMOND, Gregory THALASSITES, Johnny HARGREAVES, Gerard THAXTER, Portia HEALY, Pat WADE, Linda HENDERSON, Ian WASON, Ian HUSBAND, James WILLIAMS, Charles IDRIS, Walaa WOODGER, Maxwell KEMAHLI, Cem

1. MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Mayor said it would be appropriate for the meeting to start by standing in silence for 72 seconds to remember all those who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy.

Members of the Council, officers and guests stood to observe the 72 second silence.

The Mayor said that the Council meeting had moved into the Great Hall for this meeting as the Council would be discussing the governance review and wanted to make sure as many people as possible could be in the room.

2. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 20 JUNE 2018

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 June 2018 were confirmed as a correct record and were signed by the Mayor.

1

3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S COMMUNICATIONS

Apologies

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Cllrs Jackson, Round, Thompson Weale and Will.

Apologies for lateness were submitted on behalf of Cllr Freeman.

Declarations of interest

The Mayor and Cllr Freeman declared interests in Motion 1 as members of the Citizens’ Advice Board. Cllr Press declared an interest as a trustee of Citizens’ Advice. Cllr Healy declared an interest as a trustee of the Law Centre.

4. PUBLIC SPEAKING

The Mayor advised that the Council would be providing up to an hour at each meeting to allow residents to speak on any matter of local interest or concern and make their, or the views of those on behalf of whom they are speaking, known to the Council. Each person could speak for up to five minutes each. At the end of the session appropriate Lead Members and other Councillors may respond briefly.

The Mayor introduced Dr Catherine Howe from the Democratic Society who facilitated the session. She explained that a detailed note would be taken of the points made by each speaker and replies to all points raised would be put on the Council’s website. A summary of each speech is set out below:

Speaker 1 - David Trodden (Philbeach Gardens, Earl’s Court) Mr Trodden welcomed the fact that the Save The Earl’s Court campaigners and Save Earl’s Court Supporters Club now had a meeting with Deputy Leader to discuss the faltering Earl’s Court Masterplan. He said that the Council must not leave the remaining 22 acres in the Royal Borough as a wasteland with an uncertain future. The intention was for a more equitable masterplan to emerge, one that represented an opportunity to achieve a range of the social housing options that were needed. He called on the Council to work with such groups to achieve the vision. Speakers 2/3 - Yvette Williams (Justice for Grenfell) and Amanda Beckles (Grenfell Community Monitoring Project) Ms Williams spoke of scrutiny of the Council and its accountability to residents. She drew attention to the Council’s website which stated that the Council had a track record of being a well-run, high-performing authority which was committed to achieving continuous and measurable improvement in its service delivery. She suggested this should be removed. She considered that a change in behaviour and culture was needed. She spoke of complaints about how staff were delivering “high quality services” and that the Council needed to address how it treated its staff and what action it was taking.

2

Ms Beckles drew attention to Barry Quirk’s ‘Fit for New Purposes’ report and considered that poor implementation had contributed to the lack of continuity in service delivery and was the reason why residents had not seen the positive changes expected. She asked for the Council to capture in detail how services had failed and the type of culture that supported this failure. The Council should provide risk assessments and equality impact assessments for the recent restructure. She also asked for information about the number of exit interviews carried out with staff and any analysis completed, including the reasons for leaving and the protected characteristics of these employees. She asked for a report about how the Council had used this information to improve services across all departments. She contended that staff were being ‘micro-managed’ - a signal that managers did not trust them. This had had a detrimental effect on services. It was also clear to her that policy changes were not being effectively communicated to staff. The Council should provide the results of all customer satisfaction surveys for each department for the last 13 months. Since the fire the number of contractors had increased. Contractors should be monitored in terms of their ability to deliver a high-quality service and their ability to ensure that residents were not disadvantaged due to their protected characteristics. She said that addressing inequality in the workplace must be a priority for RBKC. Speaker 4 - Sonia Rai Ms Rai suggested that the RBKC Planning Department should attach a condition to control noise from the construction process. She proposed that all future planning consents where construction was to last for more than four weeks should only be granted with a condition covering noise and nuisance – a ‘construction noise reduction plan’. This would follow-up the welcome introduction of ‘construction traffic management plans’. She said that other councils had a noise condition and residents of RBKC should also benefit from such protection. Speaker 5 - Samia Badani (Notting Dale resident and member of Notting Dale Advisory Board) Ms Badani spoke of the Notting Dale Advisory Board, a network of a number of residents’ associations which represented over 1,100 households. Plans were in place to look at how unrepresented blocks could join. She asked why the Council was resisting residents’ efforts instead of fully embracing and empowering local people. She said that decisions continued to be made behind closed doors and without resident involvement. This was the very culture that needed to change. She added that residents associations were representative of local people and the Council should engage with them. By listening to local people the Authority could ensure that communities had genuine opportunities to engage and be involved in decisions that affected them. This was a legal requirement. Speaker 6 – Liz ( resident since mid-1970s) Liz spoke about changing how the Council interacted with residents to an asset-based, rather than a deficit-based approach. An asset-based approach looked at residents as an asset with intelligence, expertise and skills – whereas a deficit-based approach was one which saw residents as vulnerable and needing support.

3

There was a network of people trying to develop community-led housing options, but she had found it impossible to interact as an equal and an expert with councillors. Residents would be powerful if they were empowered. They needed ways that they could be paid to develop community projects, rather than being required to volunteer on panels. Speaker 7 - Isis Amlak (local resident) Ms Amlak spoke of the Housing Allocations Policy which remained unjust. She asked why wasn’t there a separate policy for the people that survived Grenfell and the people in the local area who had been evacuated? She asked about voluntary sector funding this year, in particular the small grants fund to support grass roots organisations. Funding of £1,500 was a very small amount and she considered that it should be at least doubled this year. She also spoke of inept delivery of services at The Curve and asked whether people were being bribed into using their services. Women wanting to attend training had been told they would get support at The Curve: they then turned up and were told they could not have any crèche services or be supported unless they attended activities. Ms Amlak spoke of the proliferation of prep. schools in the Borough. She asked how many received charitable business rates and whether a cap could be put on the number being built in the area. She was also concerned at reports that Thomas Jones Primary School, a state school, was charging £2,000 per term for nursery provision. She reiterated concerns about the policies in this Borough that reward the wealthy and penalised the poor, particularly in respect of discounts for the payment of Council Tax. Was there any data to show which households in the Borough paid Council Tax in full, particularly by Ward? And also, by offering this discount, how much of a reduction in RBKC’s income did that amount to annually? Speaker 8 – John Learmonth (Vice-Chair, Hillgate Village RA) Mr Learmonth spoke of the long-running battle over the Newcombe House site. In the past three years developers’ proposals had been rejected twice by the Council’s Planning Committee, once by the Planning Inspectorate and overwhelmingly by the local community. On the last application there were almost 1,000 public comments, of which 80% were objections. After being rejected for the second time by the Planning Committee in January, the application was called-in by the Mayor of London in March. On 14 July many had received a letter from the GLA which advised that the developers had submitted revised proposals and that the consultation period ran until 10 August. Residents had not yet had time to consider the revised proposals properly. Allowing fewer than four weeks to consider revised proposals for this important and highly contentious matter was not acceptable, especially as it came in the middle of the holiday period. He asked that the Council make urgent representations to the GLA to demand an extended deadline for the consultation period to the middle or even the end of September to allow the community and the Council sufficient time to respond properly. Speaker 9 – Moira Samuels (local resident, Justice for Grenfell) Ms Samuels asked that, given quite a number of health and safety deficits had been identified as part of the Pubic Inquiry, how the Borough was responding and what it was

4

doing to reassure the residents about their own health and safety. She spoke of a recent fire in Whitstable House and some concerns that came out of that. Speaker 10 – Jacqui Haynes () Ms Haynes spoke of issues with representation. Lancaster West residents found they were not getting information directly about meetings that were taking place. She said that the Council was accepting representations from all over on their behalf. Residents would like to know if there was going to be any strategy for ensuring that Lancaster West Estate received communications about these meetings and was given the opportunity to represent themselves. 5. STATEMENTS BY THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL AND THE LEADER OF THE MINORITY PARTY

The Leader spoke of the Council’s role to improve the lives of all its residents. The Council accepted that it was being scrutinised more than ever before. Much of society was in flux and the Council would do what it could to bring stability to people’s lives. It would maintain the best of the past but would change what needed to be changed. She welcomed immigration to the Borough and celebrated its cultural diversity. The Deputy Leader would report to Council meeting in October on housing.

Cllr Atkinson reiterated that the Council would be judged by its actions not words. He asked where was the Council’s commitment to stand up for EU residents. Housing was the most important issue and a national housing policy was needed. He commented that some progress was being made but regretted a return to old habits like the use of consultants; more use should be made of the Council’s own resources. He added that the NHS figure of 11,000 for the number of people affected by the Grenfell tragedy were right. The Council needed to look beyond the immediate area.

6. PETITIONS

No petitions were presented.

7. ORDER OF BUSINESS

The Mayor ruled that the order of the remainder of business would be as set out in the agenda.

8. REPORT OF THE LEADERSHIP TEAM – CHANGE AT THE COUNCIL

The reception of the report was moved by Cllr Hargreaves and seconded by Cllr Campbell.

RESOLVED (with the Labour Group and Cllr Wade abstaining) -

that the actions set out in the report be endorsed.

5

9. PROGRAMME OF MEETINGS

The reception of the report was moved by Cllr Campbell and seconded by Cllr Hargreaves.

RESOLVED - that the recommendation to adopt the schedule of meetings be adopted.

10. MATTERS REFERRED BY SCRUTINY COMMITTEES

No matters were referred by Scrutiny Committees.

11. QUESTIONS TO LEAD MEMBERS

(i) Cllr Blakeman asked the following question of Cllr Taylor-Smith:

“The funds available so far for the refurbishment of the Lancaster West Estate total £30 million, half from central government and half from RBKC, to be allocated over the next three years. The actual cost of the proposed refurbishment has so far estimated to be over £60 million. Can you please advise how the remaining £30 million will be obtained and over what timeframe, to ensure that the Estate is not left with an unfinished programme, as has happened in the past?”

Cllr Taylor-Smith replied that the Council was committed to the refurbishment of Lancaster West. There would be a report to the Leadership Team on 25 July about this. The entire approach would be resident-led. £60m was an estimate. The Council would work with partners about funding but more precise figures could not be known until after the final response to the consultation.

As a supplementary question, Cllr Blakeman said that she had heard that £10m had been promised to Silchester Estate. Cllr Taylor-Smith said that he was unaware where this figure had come from, but extra support was being sought.

(ii) Cllr Atkinson asked the following question of Cllr Will:

“What plans does the Council have to fund its remaining freestanding and excellent rated Nursery Schools in the event of the government failing to come up with extra funding in anticipation of the autumn spending review? Everyone recognises that specialist nursery education delivered outside the context of ordinary primary schools is by far the best form of Early Years Education. Does RBKC agree with this? And if so, will it put its money alongside its warm words? And in further difficulties caused unnecessarily and especially to Nursery Schools,is the Lead Member aware of the continued delays in getting EHC plans into place for the borough’s children which is delaying their vital Special Educational Needs placements? This is particularly difficult for nursery schools who then must hire support staff. In addition, these vulnerable children when they are offered a place are only given 15 hours instead of a fulltime place of 30 hours. Parents of children with serious special needs often cannot both be in work because of their children’s serious medical conditions so they do not quality for 30 hours early year funding. And finally when the EHC plan is finally put in place, the funding is not sufficient to cover the cost of the additional support required so nursery schools have to pay the balance from their own budgets. This has very damaging

6

impacts on both the development and educational achievements of the borough’s most vulnerable children as well as playing havoc with the budgeting and organisational plans of our schools and nurseries.”

In Cllr Will’s absence, Cllr Cyron replied that the Council was committed to supporting its four maintained nursery schools. National funding for nursery schools had changed over recent years, putting pressure on resources. The Council had worked closely with the nurseries to make sure they were sustainable. Transitional funding of £272k had been provided to the nurseries in response to the most recent national funding change, and the Council would be increasing the hourly rate for providers from next April.

The Council had supported the registration of parents for the 30 hour offer, and there had been an increase in the take up of this. It was also working with the nurseries on possible charging models, which could include the provision of before and after schools clubs.

The new national funding model for Early Years would come into effect in April 2019, and would mean all provision was funded at the same rate, be it Nursery, Primary, Private or Childminding. This would be a change from the current situation and was a condition of the Early Years funding element of the Dedicated Schools Grant, which was outside of the Council’s control. This would be an issue for the Council, as the cost of these different providers was not uniform as the funding model suggested. This was why transitional funding of 272K had been provided for each of the nursery schools.

Cllr Cyron added that the issue raised by Cllr Atkinson was a national one impacting potentially all of the 500 stand alone nursery schools. The Council was waiting for the DfE to issue the funding details for next year – in the meantime, it was working with them on sustainable funding models. One of the possible solutions was the allocation of a Lump Sum to Nursery schools.

The introduction of the New Children and Families Act and the overhaul of the system which created the new EHC plans, has lead to some inevitable delay. The system was working much better now and was back on track for the completion of the plans. Where new plans were needed, completion within 20 weeks had increased significantly over the last year.

Cllr Cyron recognised the unique challenges that nurseries had in supporting very young children, and the Council had therefore committed an additional £40,000 to each nursery, especially for those pupils who require additional support. This was in addition to the funding provided through individual pupils Education, Health and Care Plans.

This Borough, like many others, was seeing significant and increasing pressure on its High Needs spend. This year, the High Needs block had an overspend of £2.417m and a similar overspend was expected next year. A working group of officers and Headteachers has been established to review how funding can be used more efficiently, and how it can accurately reflect the cost of the provision. The first report would be presented at the next schools forum in October.

7

Cllr Cyron concluded that the Borough was fortunate to have such outstanding Nursery school provision and she thanked staff for the wonderful job they did for the youngest children.

10. MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN RAISED UNDER S.O. 11

Cllr Wade spoke of the lack of a dedicated officer dealing with ease of access issues for mobility-impaired people. She asked who could promote accessibility, ramps, entrances and advise on good practice? A specific officer should be nominated to promote good design, particularly as people were living longer in their own homes.

Cllr Atkinson spoke of the importance of trees in London. Mature trees were being cut down with little consideration of the impact. He gave examples at Royal Crescent and Methoist Church and considered that the problem lay with risk-averse insurance companies. The Council should demand more evidence of the need to remove trees.

The Council noted the matters raised.

11. MOTIONS FOR DEBATE

Following a suggestion by Cllr Atkinson, the Mayor requested a review of Standing Orders to look at the submission of motions and the extent to which amendments can be made that did not entirely negate the wording as submitted.

(i) Grenfell rehousing

It was moved by Cllr Blakeman and seconded by Cllr Elnaghi:

“Recognising the still unmet needs of many Survivors and Bereaved of the and many residents of the wider Grenfell community, this Council calls on the Leadership Team to:

1. reconsider its decision not to procure more housing units to rehouse those Grenfell Survivors who have not yet accepted permanent accommodation;

2. reconsider its decision not to procure any housing units for households from the wider Grenfell area that require rehousing, including those unable to continue living on the Lancaster West Estate;

3. if necessary, press central government to provide the resources to purchase the required additional housing units;

4. be honest with Grenfell Survivors that if more housing units are not procured, then it is likely their housing needs will continue to be unmet for an unclear, indefinite period of time;

5. ensure that proper, three-dimensional needs assessments are completed and regularly updated for all residents affected by Grenfell to inform and improve the

8

procurement process for those who have yet to accept permanent accommodation;

6. urgently fast-track the many outstanding repairs and adjustments required to make habitable the permanent accommodation for those households who have already accepted it but have so far been unable to move into it;

7. learn lessons regarding the type and quality of the purchased properties to improve the process for procuring further permanent housing for Grenfell Survivors and others displaced by the Grenfell Fire;

8. undertake an urgent skills audit to establish the gaps in the Council’s emotional and support training to establish ways in which the Council’s practices can be improved in this area;

9. include the value of establishing a constructive, positive working relationship with ward councillors, residents’ associations, local advice agencies, voluntary groups and the wider affected community as a core part of the training and support provided to all relevant front-line Council officers;

10. accelerate its internal information sharing protocol to ensure better holistic working across Council departments;

11. improve its working and liaison with ward councillors, residents’ associations, local advice agencies, voluntary groups and the wider affected community to improve the extent and quality of the Council’s relationships and communications with local residents; and

12. alongside central government, set and publish a new deadline by which all Grenfell Survivors will be settled into permanent accommodation.”

Debate ensued.

It was then moved by Cllr Taylor-Smith and seconded by Cllr Hargreaves:

To replace Motion 1 as printed with the following:

“Council reaffirms its commitment to work closely with the community in identifying, understanding and supporting the needs of the bereaved and survivors of the Grenfell Tower tragedy and members of the wider Grenfell community. Council acknowledges that:

1) 96 Grenfell Tower and Walkways households have moved into their permanent new and a further 92 households have chosen where they are giving to live. This leaves 16 households, 4 of which remain in a hotel yet to decide. 4 of these households have a specialist need and we supporting the others in making their final choice;

2) The Council has procured more than 300 properties in order to ensure that Grenfell Tower residents have the widest choice. 188 of these have been accepted, 165

9

are ready for occupation and the remaining properties are undergoing bespoke and fire safety improvement;

3) That the Council has quite rightly committed our reserves to address the tragedy of Grenfell and is obliged to take a prudent approach to its finances in the future in order to maintain services;

4) Those affected by the Grenfell Tower tragedy have a vast array of complex short and long-term needs, therefore the support services the Council provides will need to adapt to ensure it meets the needs of every family affected by the fire;

5) That there are always ways in which we can improve, and strive to improve to give residents affected by the Grenfell Tower tragedy the services they want, need and deserve.

Council resolves to:

1) Continue to fast-track the outstanding modifications and improvements required to make existing properties fit the specific needs of each household as an absolute priority.

2) Endeavour to work with as many residents’ associations, local advice agencies, voluntary groups and the wider affected community to ensure that Council services are centred around the needs of our residents.

3) Consult fully with residents and community groups on the Grenfell Recovery Strategy, identifying and addressing the long-term needs of the community.

4) Work closely with colleagues from the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties to successfully deliver the Grenfell Recovery Strategy by providing the necessary support our community needs.”

Further debate ensued during which Cllrs Elnaghi and Nail made their maiden speeches.

The amendment was then put to the vote, and was declared by the Mayor to be carried with the Labour Group and Cllr Wade voting against.

The Motion, as amended, was then put to the vote and was declared by the Mayor to be carried with the Labour Group and Cllr Wade abstaining.

The time being 9:20pm, it was moved by Cllr Hargreaves, seconded by Cllr Blakeman and

RESOLVED – that Standing Order 24.01 be suspended and that the meeting terminate at 10pm.

(ii) Internal procurement and contract management

10

It was moved by Cllr Press and seconded by Cllr Lari:

"The Leadership of this Council has committed itself to providing safe buildings and homes across the borough.

Following the Grenfell Fire and given our learning as to the importance of ensuring that building regulations, current fire-safety requirements and residents' knowledge and views are fully complied with when building or improving homes - and recognising the greatly increased need for social-rent housing across the Borough following the Grenfell disaster: this Council urges the Leadership to commit to actively increasing and strengthening our internal procurement and contract-management expertise and to bringing these key functions back in-house as a priority. This will allow the Council - as a first step - to directly procure and control building contractors to ensure compliance and provide a majority of social-housing units as we directly build our own new homes on Council owned land."

Cllr Lari then made his maiden speech.

It was then moved by Cllr Kemahli and seconded by Cllr Husband:

To replace motion 2 as printed with the following:

“This Council is committed to providing safe buildings and homes across the borough. This Council is committed to ensuring that resident engagement is the highest priority in enabling residents to make decisions about how their homes are managed. The Council recognises that sometimes this will be through internal housing management services, and sometimes through external housing management services, and Council policy will remain flexible to give residents genuine choice.

This Council is also committed to working with the Greater London Authority, residents and other partners to deliver an ambitious programme of social housing on Council land.

Therefore, this Council resolves to:

1) Give residents the ultimate say on how their housing management services are run. 2) Work with the GLA and other partners to deliver as much social housing as possible on Council land.”

Cllr Kemahli then made his maiden speech.

The amendment was then put to the vote, and was declared by the Mayor to be carried with the Labour Group and Cllr Wade voting against.

The Motion, as amended, was then put to the vote and was declared by the Mayor to be carried with the Labour Group and Cllr Wade abstaining.

11

(iii) Local jobseekers

It was moved by Cllr Bakhtiar and seconded by Cllr Wason:

“There exists a need to improve the lack of public engagement within RBKC. We must harness the talent of local youth and jobseekers and create opportunities and openings to attract them. This Council therefore recognises the need to:

1. Identify and attract the right local jobseekers and train them to fill the future jobs that may become available in the Council. 2. Understand the local youth and their skillsets to involve them in the implementation of training programmes and apprenticeships. This could bring forth ideas into potential skills reform programmes required. 3. Investigate ways in which we could have an apprenticeship programme for our local young people and job seekers whom are registered with the jobcentre plus. 4. Have a special training programme for our local jobseekers to fill the vacancies that may become available within the Council’s housing management department. 5. Encourage businesses operating within the RBKC to partner this programme for training and recruiting local jobseekers. 6. Develop programmes that enable progression and investigate frameworks to ensure sustainability through retention and training procedures.”

Cllr Wason then made his maiden speech.

Debate ensued during which Cllr Thaxter made her maiden speech.

The Motion was then put to the vote and was declared by the Mayor to be carried unanimously.

12. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES AND OUTSIDE ORGANISATIONS

The nomination standing in the name of Cllr Hargreaves and circulated at the meeting was before the Council.

RESOLVED -

(i) To note the resignations; and (ii) To agree the appointment.

OTHER URGENT MATTERS

No other matters were raised.

The meeting ended at 10pm.

12

Mayor

13