WHAT’S GOING ON….

The Grenfell Action Group is proud to be able to reproduce some beautiful and heartfelt comments on the current lamentable state of North Kensington penned by local resident, long time social campaigner and ex-Chair of the Kensington and Chelsea Social Council, Mary Gardiner:

“North Kensington has been and is losing public spaces, services and facilities at a rapid rate.
The latest under threat are North Kensington Library, Kensington College and Canalside House.
Add this to recent losses, Lighthouse, Isaac Newton Centre, 140 Ladbroke Grove (Advice and Information Centre), Inn on the Green, Flyover, lots of under fives services, charges for playcentres, EPIC swallowing up Adventure Playgrounds and pubs being turned into flats and you get a dismal picture.
The rate and type of gentrification locally is disgusting, and based on a council that values money and land values more than it’s amazingly vibrant and diverse local community
We stand to lose so much more just at the moment, there will be no place for our sons, daughters and grandchildren to live in this bowl that is being constructed.
I have always loved living and working round here, and was proud to call it my home.
I now feel like a scrounger because I was fortunate enough to get social housing when there was more of it.
I feel as if I have helped North Ken to become a better, richer (culturally) and more diverse place, now I feel, as many locals do, as if I am being wiped off the map.
Westway23, Grenfell Action Group and Kill the Housing Bill are leading on bringing us together as much as possible.
Join or follow to keep up, go to as many Kill the Housing Bill meetings as you can, attend meetings at the Town Hall (June 29th) where the petition against the library change of use will be heard.
We need local people who love this area for it’s quirkiness, it’s vitality, it’s diversity, it’s history and it’s mix of housing to stand up and be counted.
Let’s see what we can preserve of our heritage before it is too late!”

The Grenfell Action Group applauds the above sentiments and we promise that we will do all we can to continue to fight against the heartless, fascist neo-con asset strippers at RBKC. We encourage all our supporters to sign the ‘Save the North Kensington Library’ petition, join the Facebook group, attend the next protest meeting outside the library at 6.30pm on Monday 23rd May and join us at the Town Hall on Wednesday 29th June when we will be letting the Council know that our community is not for sale:

www.change.org/p/royal-borough-of-kensington-and-chelsea-council-save-north-kensington-library-for-public-use?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1133476120030611/

North Kensington Library – Dictat Versus Scrutiny

We were recently copied in to the formal complaint reproduced below which was emailed by Councillor Robert Atkinson, leader of the Opposition Labour Group on the Council, to the Town Clerk, Nicholas Holgate, on 11 April 2016.

Dear Mr Holgate,

I am writing to you with a formal complaint as regards the lack of due process and recognition of scrutiny committee concerns in the Cabinet’s key decision regarding the pre-lease of the current North Kensington Library building to Notting Hill Preparatory School (NHPS).

The Housing and Property Scrutiny Committee (H&PSC) at its meeting on 6 January 2016 was alerted to the Cabinet’s approval of Corporate Property awarding a pre-lease to NHPS on a non-competitive basis and with no open tender process. Cllr Marshall, as Chairman, and other members questioned if Corporate Property were certain it had provided best value and the Committee expressed concerns that an open, competitive process had not been followed in this case. Cllr Mackover also stated that when looking at the process through the eyes of a tax payer the test for best value would hinge on an open tender process. Given that the Committee expressed dissatisfaction with the process that had been followed the Chairman asked that the KD be investigated and called the decision in. (Ref: minutes of this meeting a published with papers for H&PSC 9 March 2016).

In Mid-March when we saw that the KD on this had been agreed, Cllr Blakeman as our housing spokesperson, wrote to Cllr Marshall as to when this decision would be presented again for scrutiny at the H&PSC and was informed on 17th March “It transpired when we discussed it that the decision had already been taken so there was no opportunity for us to call it in”.

Not only is this a flagrant disregard of the scrutiny process by the Cabinet and the key role scrutiny committees have in the process of ensuring good governance and governance that is supported by local residents and tax payers, but a very unwise approach to a highly sensitive decision being keenly observed by the local community.

Labour Group members of the H&PSC and PRSC, as local councillors, have made relevant Cabinet Members very aware over the last two years of the importance of the fate and future of the North Kensington Library and the historic building it occupies, and that local residents and users of the building are strongly against any lease to a private prep-school and if the building is no longer suitable for a modern library – which they question and has yet to be demonstrated – then it should be maintained as a public building offering direct services to the public either through council social services or a lease to voluntary sector organisations.

The approval of a pre-lease to the NHPS with no transparency or open tender process will just add oil to the fire and confirm in local tax payers’ eyes the view that, not only are their concerns not valued but that even the concerns of the SC overseeing these decisions – and the concerns of Councillors from both the majority and minority party – have been ignored.

Sincerely

Cllr. Robert Atkinson
Leader Labour Group

We were struck by the very strong wording of Cllr Atkinson’s complaint which we absolutely welcome and applaud. He received a longwinded and almost entirely dismissive reply from the Town Clerk which was an almost exact duplicate of the reply sent to us when we made a similar complaint on 7th March. We decided not to dignify this insulting reply by reproducing it on this blog, but we did upload it here for the benefit of any of our readers who might wish to read the full text. Regular readers won’t need reminding that we have been working hard over recent weeks to raise the profile of this issue, starting with our blog on 27th February entitled “What Future For North Kensington Library?”

We feel we would be remiss in our duty if we didn’t comment on the breathtaking arrogance of the Tory Cabinet as illustrated by this affair. We weren’t the least bit surprised when the Town Clerk adopted a superior and dismissive attitude toward us – we already knew that we are despised by the Tory leadership and by the officers who serve them – but we were somewhat surprised, and more than a little dismayed, to see the same arrogant and dismissive attitude used with such impunity towards the leader of the Opposition Group and even towards their own Scrutiny Committee.

However, there is nothing new in this attitude of casual disregard of the scrutiny system by the Hornton Street cabal which routinely displays a similar disdain for Public Consultation that has been particularly marked in the Lancaster Road area in recent years. When the Isaac Newton lease was awarded in 2014 local councillors complained that neither they nor local residents had been consulted and the Chair of the Housing and Property Scrutiny Committee criticised the failure of Cabinet to allow any public consultation. Cabinet dismissed these criticisms out of hand, but one has to wonder why everyone except the Cabinet seems to think there should be wider consultation on these major changes to the Lancaster Road area, starting with the loss of the Isaac Newton Centre and continuing recently with the loss of the Westway Information Centre and the North Kensington Library and the plans for major redevelopment of the Lancaster Youth Centre site.

Perhaps Cabinet needs reminding that Public Consultation in general, and Scrutiny Committees in particular, exist to perform a vital function, to guard against autocratic abuse of power and to encourage and facilitate transparency and inclusiveness. However it would appear that this Cabinet holds itself accountable to no-one for its autocratic, partisan and self serving actions and leadership style. This needs to change.

Will RBKC Investigate Rock Feilding-Mellen?

It is the belief of many in our community that Cllr Rock Feilding-Mellen may be inappropriately using his position of power on the Council for his personal benefit. In the Grenfell Action Group we share those concerns. We believe that Cllr Feilding-Mellen had prior knowledge of the detail of the Council’s forward planning for the regeneration of the Latimer area, and we believe his decision to purchase his current residence in Bramley Road may have been made in anticipation of the likely increase in the value of that property as a direct consequence of the Council’s regeneration policy, over which he now exercises considerable power and influence as Cabinet Member for Housing, Property and Regeneration.

We believe that the the purchase price of the property bought by Cllr Feilding-Mellen would have reflected the fact that this area of North Kensington has long suffered from under-investment and, as a result, house prices at the time of his decision to buy would have been considerably lower than in other more affluent areas of the borough. We therefore believe that Cllr Feilding-Mellen has a strong personal motive to push forward with plans for the regeneration of the social housing estates that surround his property, as the ‘gentrification’ of the area will inevitably lead to a steep rise in property prices, and a significant increase in the value of his own property.

We do not believe that Cllr Feilding-Mellen will be incentivised to properly consider the objections of local residents of social housing estates who oppose plans to demolish their homes and we believe that he has a direct and significant conflict of interest as he seeks to apply RBKC legislation that would see the destruction of the social housing estates surrounding his property, the displacement of working class communities resulting from the increased ‘gentrification’ of the area, and a consequent significant increase in the value of his own property in Bramley Road.

We also have concerns about the several small companies declared by Cllr Feilding-Mellen on the RBKC register of members interests. Two of these companies are registered at his address in Bramley Road. Neither appears to be profitable or to be engaged in any actual business worthy of note. One of the companies in question, VIMV2 LLP, has existed as a small company  for several years but appears never to have declared a profit, and despite having assets of nearly £6million, it appears currently to be £122,000 in the red. The very existence of these companies therefore raises questions as to their possible purpose. Might they exist primarily in anticipation of emerging opportunities for property speculation in the Latimer area, or perhaps in other parts of the borough, the redevelopment of which Cllr Feilding-Mellen will oversee as Cabinet Member for Housing Property and Regeneration? We simply don’t know, but we believe we have a right to be concerned, and to raise those concerns with the Council.

We believe that residents are entitled to be reassured by RBKC that Cllr Feilding-Mellen will be recused from any decision making process involving housing regeneration from which he stands to profit personally. We are also seeking reassurances that neither he nor the companies in which he has an interest will be permitted to buy or sell property in areas of the Royal Borough subject to regeneration or likely to become so.

On 23rd March we made a formal complaint to the RBKC Chief Solicitor and Monitoring Officer, LeVerne Parker, requesting that the issues detailed above be investigated as a matter of urgency and seeking reassurances that Cllr Feilding-Mellen’s personal and business interests would not be allowed to influence decisions concerning plans to ‘regenerate’ RBKC social housing estates. We received the following initial response from Ms Parker;

“I acknowledge receipt of your complaint of today’s date.

Although your complaint does not expressly refer to it being a complaint alleging that Cllr Feilding-Mellen has breached the Members’ Code of Conduct, as your complaint is about an elected councillor, I will deal with it as such and I attach a copy of the Council’s procedures for dealing with code of conduct complaints.

As the first step I am required to consider whether your complaint merits formal investigation and the attached document sets out the criteria I will take into account in coming to my decision. I will also consult the Independent Person and the Chairman of the Audit and Transparency Committee.

I will advise you of my decision on or before 3 May 2016 but, if you have any queries in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely…”

As soon as we have further news to report we will do so without delay, but we aren’t holding our breaths in expectation of a satisfactory outcome. We have learned from bitter previous experience that persuading the RBKC Standards Committee to criticise or sanction an RBKC councilor is a lot like trying to get a proverbial camel through the eye of a proverbial needle.

National Demonstration For Health, Homes, Jobs, Education

There are strong indications that the Housing Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, may be facing a series of profound defeats in the Lords and that the Government may be defeated on a dozen amendments which punch holes in the Bill. They would then face the choice in the Commons of accepting the amendments or sending the Bill back to the Lords, delaying it further. Neither option is appealing to David Cameron.

Meanwhile, the latest of many demonstrations against the Bill is scheduled for this Saturday – we need to keep up the pressure in the Lords, in the Commons, on our estates and on the streets.

The ‘Kill The Bill’ Campaign wants particularly to highlight the fact that, if passed, the Housing Bill will lead to increased homelessness. A National Sleepout has been called  and local groups have been asked to organise sleepouts at Town Halls, in solidarity with London’s homeless, on the night of Friday 15th April – the night before the National Demonstration publicised above.

There will be a protest at Hammersmith Town Hall at 8pm on Friday evening, and the plan is to move on from there to join the Southwark Sleepout outside Southwark Town Hall, 160 Tooley Street, SE1 2QH. Please come prepared to camp: bring tents, sleeping bags, food, donations & shopping trolleys for those who are currently homeless.

THE HOUSING BILL WILL LEAD TO MORE HOMELESSNESS, NOT LESS.

RBKC Claims North Ken Library Deal Fully Transparent

Ten days after we submitted our complaint regarding the privatisation of the Grade II listed North Kensington Library building, and the secretive and unaccountable manner in which this was done, we received a response from the Town Clerk, Nicholas Holgate.

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2016/03/25/complaint-to-rbkc-north-kensington-library/

He acknowledged that, under the Local Government Act 1972, the Council is  required to secure ‘best value’ in the disposal of any such public asset. He then stated that the Council had been advised by their agent that Notting Hill Prep School (NHP) should be regarded as a ‘special purchaser’ because they were the adjoining tenants. He argued that the rental the Council could expect from them would, therefore, be significantly higher than the market valuation as NHP had a pressing need for additional space and the aquisition of the library building would be greatly to their advantage. There were no other ‘special purchasers’, he claimed, who might have offered more, and so the Council agreed privately with NHP to lease the property to them at a substantial premium, and was content that ‘best value’ had been achieved.

He went on to challenge our claim that there had been a lack of transparency in the deal, claiming that the Council’s intentions had been made clear in various way and that it had been transparent throughout. As evidence of this he drew our attention to the following:

• a paper to the Housing and Property Scrutiny Committee in May 2015 on its intention to lease the old library;
• a decision on 14 May 2015 entered onto the Forward Plan under reference 04552/15/K/AB: Provision of New North Kensington Library and Youth Centre Redevelopment at Lancaster Road Youth Centre and Isaac Newton Centre Site 128A and 108 Lancaster Road W11
• a report to Cabinet on 11 June 2915: Provision of New North Kensington Library and Youth Centre Redevelopment at Lancaster Road Youth Centre and Isaac Newton Centre Site 128A and 108 Lancaster Road W11
• a decision on on 22 September 2015 entered on the Forward Plan under reference 04651/15/K/AB: Approval to Enter into Agreement to Lease and Lease for WIC and North Kensington Library
• Cabinet Approval on 19 Novembert 2015 to Enter into Agreement to Lease and Lease for WIC and North Kensington Library.

It almost goes without saying that we were decidedly underwhelmed by this response to our complaint. Our readers will not be surprised by this, given our reputation for cynical distrust of much that the Council does and our predilection for challenging what we invariably see as their self-serving statements and self-justifications when faced with criticism of any kind. We therefore drew up the following rebuttal of the Town Clerk’s response which we will be sending back to the him requesting that he escalate our complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure:

• The Town Clerk’s reply refers to ‘a paper’ to the Housing and Property Scrutiny Committee in May 2015 on its intention to lease the old library. This is factually incorrect and therefore misleading. The ‘paper’ referred to was a in fact no more than a short passage in a much longer Cabinet Member’s report to the Committee and it provided only a very brief outline of what was planned.
• The Scrutiny committee subsequently (6 January 2016) expressed serious concerns about the lack of competitive tendering in the deal and questioned whether ‘best value’ had been obtained as claimed. The Committee expressed dissatisfaction with the process that had been followed and asked that the Key Decision stage be investigated and called-in (if possible). This is recorded in the minutes of the Scrutiny committee.
• In the Scrutiny Committee report the Library project is described as the ‘third and final phase of the Westway Strategy’ but it is not mentioned in the Westway Supplementary Planning Document and was therefore not included in any associated public consultation. On studying the Westway SPD we noted also that both the North Kensington Library and the site proposed for the new Library/Youth Centre complex in Lancaster Road are outside the redline area marking the boundary of the proposed Westway regeneration. We would have to question therefore how and why the proposed new Library/Youth Centre development, and the disposal of the old Library building by leasing it to the private sector, came to be included in the Westway Project but were excluded from the public consultation associated with that Project.
• The Cabinet Decision Report referenced by the Town Clerk is listed in the documentation of the Cabinet meeting in November 2015 only as ‘WIC NKL’. It would therefore have been difficult for anyone to find and recognise this report unless they were already aware of its location and/or the date of the meeting. We were only able to find it because the Town Clerk’s reply to our complaint provided us with this information – this is indicatative of a lack of transparency in the process as we had alleged in our complaint.
• According to the Cabinet Decision Report crucial parts of the decison were made in Part B of the meeting. The detail of the decision, and the negotiations that led to it, were therefore kept confidential and there are no publicly available minutes – this also indicates a lack of transparency in the process as we had alleged in our complaint.
• The Town Clerk insisted in his reply that the process had been fully transparent, but all the examples he provided as evidence of that transparency were internal RBKC reports to Cabinet or committees. The Council publishes a massive amount of documentation on its website, but the website itself is massive, complex and opaque and cannot reasonably be described as user-friendly. It is difficult for the public to find any such information unless they are familiar with the website and have prior knowledge of the existence of a particular report and the name and date of the committee involved – this also is indicative of a lack of transparency as we had alleged in our complaint.

The Grenfell Action Group is opposed to this whole business in principle,  firstly to the manner in which the Grade II listed library building was lost to the private sector, but also to the enforced billeting of the replacement library in a newbuild multiplex. Furthermore, we do not accept the Council’s defense of their handling of this affair and, whatever claims the Town Clerk may have made on their behalf, we will continue to robustly and forensically challenge any assertion that the process followed by the Council was competent, appropriate, transparent, and in the best interests of RBKC residents.

Watch this space for further blogs on this subject!

GAG Petitions RBKC for New KCTMO Investigation

In November last year we posted a blog calling for a new open and fully independent investigation of the Kensington and Chelsea TMO. We did so because we believe this is the only way that the negligence, incompetence and systemic failings of the KCTMO can be exposed and meaningful change brought about.

Many local residents believe that the TMO is little better than a mini-mafia which treats its residents with contempt and never misses an opportunity to bully, intimidate, disrespect and belittle them. Complaining or mounting resistance to this dysfunctional organisation is futile as the TMO seems completely unable or unwilling to respond sympathetically to the legitimate concerns of residents.

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/grenfell-action-group-demands-new-kctmo-investigation/

Our blog was immediately picked up and fully supported by the highly respected and popular Hornet’s Nest blog where it attracted no less than 189 comments from the Hornet’s readers. Some of those comments advised us to launch a petition, and we decided to follow that advice.

http://fromthehornetsnest.blogspot.ie/2015/11/grenfell-action-group-calls-for.html

We planned to submit a draft petition for publication on the Council website in the new year, believing that this would be the most direct route to the RBKC Cabinet and would also serve as a guarantee that all the petition signatories were residents of the Royal Borough. Unfortunately our initial attempts at launching this petition fell foul of the RBKC bureaucracy and ultimately failed, so we tried again recently and this time our efforts were successful. This week our petition went live on the Council website:

Call for Independent Investigation of KCTMO

We, the undersigned, petition the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to commission a thorough and independent investigation of the management culture of the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation to determine whether KCTMO is fit for purpose and whether negligence, incompetence or malpractice exists at any level of the organisation. We further petition the Council to publish the investigator’s report in full and to implement any remedial actions recommended in that report.

https://www.consultation.rbkc.gov.uk/KMS/EPetitionHome.aspx?strTab=EPetitions&NoIP=1

We urge all our readers and all right minded residents of RBKC who have witnessed or experienced the endemic negligence, incompetence and systemic failings of the KCTMO to sign our petition via the link above. We know that the Council does not want another investigation of the TMO, so we need as many signatures as we can get to put enough pressure on Cabinet to force them to finally take notice of the concerns of the many residents who have suffered under, and are hugely dissatisfied with the TMO.

Please join us in this important campaign!