Thread by @PeteApps

Update from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry:

Former council leader dismisses Grenfell resident concerns about social cleansing as 'ludicrous' and insists all residents were guaranteed to return to regenerated estates, before being shown his own council's policy contradicting this

Nicholas Paget Brown was asked about a meeting he held with Eddie Daffarn and other Grenfell Tower residents in September 2013. Mr Daffarn had raised several concerns - including about power surges and fears of 'social cleansing' on refurbished estates.

Mr Daffarn's concern over the latter was rooted in what he called the council's "fascist decant policy", which he said did not guarantee residents of estates demolished for regeneration would return (such regen was at that point loosely considered for Grenfell)

This morning Paget Brown calls that "ludicrous". "If we going to do refurbishments, which we were going to have to do, there must be a right for all tenants and leaseholders to return... otherwise there wouldn't be so much cleansing which we will be strongly opposed to."

He'd previously complained about how Mr Daffarn was "determined to misrepresent what we're doing" and how he would "rather be talking to people who actually know what the council is trying to do".

But right at the end of his evidence he was shown the council's actual decant policy which rather awkwardly specifically does not include a right to return for residents.

Flustered, he said: "Something appears to have been inserted to make this less robust than the politicians would have intended. I don't quite know how that got in there but it's certainly not our view, our view was that the right to return was unconditional"

He accepts therefore that Mr Daffarn "might have had a point" but still insists it was not a "fascist decant policy". On the power surges, he told the inquiry that it was found not be a fire risk and the damage was "very, very small beer", ie broken toasters and blown fuses.

But he was then shown a report from insurers, Zurich, which did suggest the power surges were a fire risk. "I don't think I have seen this report," he says.

For the record, this is how one resident (Shah Ahmed) described the 'small beer' damages:

He was also asked about a letter he received from the LFB in January 2015, which warned of the "risks associated with refurbishment projects" and listed several real world examples.

It suggested the use of an 'audit tool' to assess whether "policies and practices are sufficiently rigorous in considering fire safety". By this point, Grenfell Tower refurbishment was underway. Paget-Brown sent letter to planning department but not refurbishment team.

Why not? "Work was I think by now well underway, and Grenfell tower had hired fire safety consultants... so I didn't think we needed to worry about Grenfell, that was being taken care of," he says.

In fact by this point, the fire consultants had been dropped by contractor Rydon

He said it was better that planners had access to the document so they could factor it into decision making for future refurbishments. We know from previous witnesses this audit tool was never used for Grenfell.

At the conclusion of his evidence asked if he would change anything Mr Paget Brown says he does not believe tower blocks are the "happiest places to live" and he would favour "mansion blocks which exist in other parts of Kensington and Chelsea" for future development

He adds that he was very proud to be leader of RBKC and he is "desperately sorry" for everyone present in the tower on the morning of 14 June 2017. We're now hearing from Cllr Quentin Marshall, former chair of the housing scrutiny committee.

Typo in the quote here. Should say "would be social cleansing" not "wouldn't be so much cleansing"