Agenda and minutes

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, the nature and existence of any relevant disclosable pecuniary, personal or prejudicial interests in the items on this agenda and to specify the item(s) to which they relate.

None.

To hear any deputations received from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 67.

None.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on Monday 18 January 2022 as a correct record.

It was RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 January 2022 be approved as a correct record.

To consider any matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting.

None.

Chris Whyte (Operational Director, Environmental and Employment Services) opened the item. The Committee were asked to note that this report was an extension of the item heard at the November meeting of the Committee, and related to the responsibilities that the Council and its partners held in regard to managing flood risk in the borough. The update was presented in conjunction with Thames Water, as per the request of the Committee at a previous meeting. The Chair invited Alex Nickson (Thames Water Lead- Live Flooding) to provide an update. It was noted that Thames Water as a body were responsible for the effects of sewer flooding, with the Council responsible for the effects of surface water flooding. It was clarified that the Environment Agency was responsible for larger rivers.

Moving on to the impact of the July flooding on the borough, it was explained that on the 12^th July London experienced a convective storm, which was a large amount of rainfall in a short period of time. This led to water overwhelming sewers as well as flooding homes overnight. As a result, an Independent Review had been commissioned in order to establish what happened, as well as to what degree, if any, systems failed to provide the expected level of protection. This review would produce a set of recommendations about how flood risk could be better managed in the future. These recommendations would be provided to other agencies, such as the Highways Agency and the London Fire Brigade. When these recommendations were published, it was explained that Thames Water would work with Local Authorities to ensure that the recommendations were actioned. This would result in properties being better equipped to deal with sewer flooding in future.

The Committee was then invited to raise questions on the information provided, which focussed on a number of key areas, as highlighted below:

·                Clarification was sought by the Committee as to what changes had been made since last year in terms of flooding, it was answered that tangible changes would be able to be made once the Independent Review had been published, though work was currently underway to prevent sewer flooding in the most high risk properties. It was also updated that resources had been increased in the call centre and more staff were trained to respond in a crisis in order to reduce waiting times.

·                With regards to the drainage programme statement, it was asked when this would be extended to Kilburn, an area which had previously been flooded, as well as the wider Brent area. It was updated that a major drainage upgrade had been implemented in 2015 in the Maida Vale intersection, however it was acknowledged that Thames Water would have to work with the borough, as sewers did not have an unlimited capacity. It was explained that the Independent Review would provide information on which areas required more resilience and how to better protect properties.

·                In regards to new properties being built in the borough, the Committee asked how  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

This report updates the committee on the implications for the building control service of the Fire Safety Act 2021 and Building Safety Bill.  

Councillor Shama Tatler (Lead Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning) introduced the item. Following the tragedy that took place at Grenfell Tower in 2017, there had been extensive coverage around fire safety in buildings, particularly in high- rise buildings. Councillor Tatler outlined how the new fire safety bill would impact on the building control service in Brent.

The Committee was then invited to raise questions on the update provided, which focussed on a number of key areas as highlighted below:  

·                Detail was sought as to how the due diligence process had changed since the events at Grenfell Tower, to which it was answered that there had been more onus on Councils to provide building control support, as well as the fire safety regulator. There were also more rigorous checks and fire risk assessments required in buildings, throughout the construction process.

·                The Committee asked what implications the legislation would have on new builds, and what impact this would have on leaseholders; it was clarified that there was a new regulatory regime in place that would have checks in place in three stages, namely the planning, construction and pre-occupation stages of buildings.

·                Clarification was sought as how this would affect residents in housing, to which it was clarified that the legislation currently covered buildings above 18 metres high, though this may be coming down to buildings of 11 metres high. It was also noted that the legislation is not final, and that the Council would wait for the final legislation before being able to enforce any powers. 

·                It was asked what measures had been taken to improve fire safety in Brent housing stock, to which it was responded that this query would be best directed to Housing and the portfolio held by Councillor Southwood (Lead Member for Housing and Welfare Reform).

·                Regarding Brent’s private Housing Stock, it was asked what role the Building Control Team played in the enforcement of regulations in private housing blocks, to which it was clarified that in existing private blocks the team did not have a role as they were not the designated building control authority. However, for future blocks, the Council could play a role as the service was deregulated, meaning that the Council could be appointed as an accredited regulator for buildings in the future.

·                The Committee asked what role the Brent Planning Committee would have in implementing the fire safety regulations, to which it was answered that as part of the new legislation fire safety would be considered throughout a planning application, and  would form part of assessment of applications by the Committee. 

·                It was asked what mechanisms would be in place to ensure clear lines of communication between Building Safety Regulator (BSR) and council building control services with the fire service, to which it as clarified that this would be covered as part of the secondary legislation of the bill, though it was expected that the building control services at the council would work with the fire safety regulator and the fire  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To receive a report on consultation and community engagement across the council.  

Councillor Mohammed Butt (Leader, Brent Council) introduced the report, outlining the key themes and issues. In terms of consultation and engagement, it was noted as being vital for the Council to effectively work with partner organisations in order to establish tangible outcomes. This could be seen from the Council’s response to Covid-19, working with the NHS and community groups as well as Councillors to ensure that effective messaging was being conveyed to residents. A tangible positive outcome was cited as being the purchase of the Picture Palace building in Harlesden, to be used as a community asset and for the benefit of the community. This was assisted by engagement and consultation over a number of years. Additionally, there had been youth engagement events in the Borough which had taken place in Brent Civic Centre.

The Committee was then invited to raise questions on the update provided, which focussed on a number of key areas as highlighted below:

·         In relation to public engagement, it was queried if the Council could do more public engagement in terms of decisions, to which it was answered that there had been engagement with the council’s budget proposals, as well as holding webinars and social media sessions regarding Covid-19 updates. The new online portal, Citizens Lab, was also referenced as a tool to engage residents. It was noted that alongside more traditional approach, the council had also moved to a community asset based approach in terms of communications and engagement. 

·         Further to this point, it was asked what more the council could do to engage residents, to which it was answered that data analytics played a key role, and that it was key to understand what issues mattered to residents in order to maximise engagement. It was also updated that there was an emphasis on ‘hyperlocal’ work and the co-production of council policy.

·         In relation to the data analytics and visits to the Council’s website, it was asked whether an age breakdown of those visiting the site was provided, to which it was clarified that due to anonymity this data was not provided.

·         The Committee asked for clarification on the roles that Councillors could play in communication and engagement in the Borough, to which it was clarified that Councillor expertise had been utilised in council webinars as well as publicity campaigns and as part of the response to Covid-19 in order to reach different communities.

·         It was asked whether there was enough resource for the council to carry out its full scope of communication and engagement, to which it was responded that a sensible approach was required, with the approach being for communities to be empowered, with the council working as a facilitator.

·         In terms of residents who did not have access to technology, it was asked how messaging would be relayed. It was updated that skills training had been administered through Brent Hubs, as well as recognising the importance of returning to face to face services and ensuring that accessibility requirements were met.

·         It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To receive a report providing a brief summary update on issues previously considered by the committee, including responses to information requests made, updates on reports and recommendations to the Executive and the Executive response and Executive decision made in respect of scrutiny reports and recommendations.

Craig Player (Scrutiny Officer, Brent Council) introduced the Scrutiny Progress report, which outlined the issues previously considered at the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee. The Committee noted the report and no further issues were raised.

To review the Forward Plan of Key Decisions for any issues that the

Committee may wish to consider.

The Forward Plan of Key Decisions was noted

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Head of Executive and Member Services or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 60.

None.