PFD report

Malika HIBU · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 7 Aug 2024•Inner North London

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
4

Named on the report

Responses found
4

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
13

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Concerns raised6

  1. Failure to make an identified unsafe barrier safer or secure its remediation
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas
  2. Failure to risk assess the canal barrier
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas
  3. Failure to consider barrier safety during housing development planning
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.11

  1. Action

    Update the National Planning Policy Framework to require consideration of vulnerable users’ safety near open water, railways and other hazards.

    Stated by Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 August 2024.
  2. Action

    Submit a consultation response addressing the strategic aspects of the National Planning Policy Framework consultation.

    Stated by Greater London AuthorityStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 August 2024.
  3. Action

    Review the London Plan and consider the safety concerns raised in the PFD report through that review.

    Stated by Greater London AuthorityStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 August 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.8

  1. Position

    The Regulator of Social Housing assessed Peabody against regulatory standards and concluded that no further regulatory action was required.

    Stated by Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local GovernmentRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to make an identified unsafe barrier safer or secure its remediation

Wider context from the report

“The railing next to the canal afforded no protection against the water for a small child. In fact, an adult could easily fit through it. 1. Peabody Housing Association owned the development where Malika lived. However, I heard evidence that Peabody: - did not know where its ownership boundary finished; - did not risk assess the barrier to the canal; - did not act on complaints made by residents about the barrier; - having noticed in October 2023 that the barrier was unsafe, did not attempt to make it safer and did not make any significant attempt to ask anyone else to make it safer. 2. I also heard that when the planning application for the 2015 housing development was considered in the first place, no consideration was given to the safety of the barrier as part of the development. I have been told that the government has announced a consultation on the national planning policy framework (NPPF). I have also been given to understand that section 12 sets out policies relating to the achievement of safe, inclusive and accessible spaces. It has been put to me that paragraph 135(f) could include a requirement that when development takes place in proximity to open water, railways and other hazards, special regard should be paid to ensuring the safety of children, young people and vulnerable adults. There will of course be many planning applications considered before any changes can be made to the NPPF. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to risk assess the canal barrier

Wider context from the report

“The railing next to the canal afforded no protection against the water for a small child. In fact, an adult could easily fit through it. 1. Peabody Housing Association owned the development where Malika lived. However, I heard evidence that Peabody: - did not know where its ownership boundary finished; - did not risk assess the barrier to the canal; - did not act on complaints made by residents about the barrier; - having noticed in October 2023 that the barrier was unsafe, did not attempt to make it safer and did not make any significant attempt to ask anyone else to make it safer. 2. I also heard that when the planning application for the 2015 housing development was considered in the first place, no consideration was given to the safety of the barrier as part of the development. I have been told that the government has announced a consultation on the national planning policy framework (NPPF). I have also been given to understand that section 12 sets out policies relating to the achievement of safe, inclusive and accessible spaces. It has been put to me that paragraph 135(f) could include a requirement that when development takes place in proximity to open water, railways and other hazards, special regard should be paid to ensuring the safety of children, young people and vulnerable adults. There will of course be many planning applications considered before any changes can be made to the NPPF. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to consider barrier safety during housing development planning

Wider context from the report

“The railing next to the canal afforded no protection against the water for a small child. In fact, an adult could easily fit through it. 1. Peabody Housing Association owned the development where Malika lived. However, I heard evidence that Peabody: - did not know where its ownership boundary finished; - did not risk assess the barrier to the canal; - did not act on complaints made by residents about the barrier; - having noticed in October 2023 that the barrier was unsafe, did not attempt to make it safer and did not make any significant attempt to ask anyone else to make it safer. 2. I also heard that when the planning application for the 2015 housing development was considered in the first place, no consideration was given to the safety of the barrier as part of the development. I have been told that the government has announced a consultation on the national planning policy framework (NPPF). I have also been given to understand that section 12 sets out policies relating to the achievement of safe, inclusive and accessible spaces. It has been put to me that paragraph 135(f) could include a requirement that when development takes place in proximity to open water, railways and other hazards, special regard should be paid to ensuring the safety of children, young people and vulnerable adults. There will of course be many planning applications considered before any changes can be made to the NPPF. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to act on resident complaints about the barrier

Wider context from the report

“The railing next to the canal afforded no protection against the water for a small child. In fact, an adult could easily fit through it. 1. Peabody Housing Association owned the development where Malika lived. However, I heard evidence that Peabody: - did not know where its ownership boundary finished; - did not risk assess the barrier to the canal; - did not act on complaints made by residents about the barrier; - having noticed in October 2023 that the barrier was unsafe, did not attempt to make it safer and did not make any significant attempt to ask anyone else to make it safer. 2. I also heard that when the planning application for the 2015 housing development was considered in the first place, no consideration was given to the safety of the barrier as part of the development. I have been told that the government has announced a consultation on the national planning policy framework (NPPF). I have also been given to understand that section 12 sets out policies relating to the achievement of safe, inclusive and accessible spaces. It has been put to me that paragraph 135(f) could include a requirement that when development takes place in proximity to open water, railways and other hazards, special regard should be paid to ensuring the safety of children, young people and vulnerable adults. There will of course be many planning applications considered before any changes can be made to the NPPF. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable handling of safety-related complaints.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of knowledge of the ownership boundary

Wider context from the report

“The railing next to the canal afforded no protection against the water for a small child. In fact, an adult could easily fit through it. 1. Peabody Housing Association owned the development where Malika lived. However, I heard evidence that Peabody: - did not know where its ownership boundary finished; - did not risk assess the barrier to the canal; - did not act on complaints made by residents about the barrier; - having noticed in October 2023 that the barrier was unsafe, did not attempt to make it safer and did not make any significant attempt to ask anyone else to make it safer. 2. I also heard that when the planning application for the 2015 housing development was considered in the first place, no consideration was given to the safety of the barrier as part of the development. I have been told that the government has announced a consultation on the national planning policy framework (NPPF). I have also been given to understand that section 12 sets out policies relating to the achievement of safe, inclusive and accessible spaces. It has been put to me that paragraph 135(f) could include a requirement that when development takes place in proximity to open water, railways and other hazards, special regard should be paid to ensuring the safety of children, young people and vulnerable adults. There will of course be many planning applications considered before any changes can be made to the NPPF. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable land-ownership determination for safety responsibilities.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Inadequate canal-side railing protection for children and adults

Wider context from the report

“The railing next to the canal afforded no protection against the water for a small child. In fact, an adult could easily fit through it. 1. Peabody Housing Association owned the development where Malika lived. However, I heard evidence that Peabody: - did not know where its ownership boundary finished; - did not risk assess the barrier to the canal; - did not act on complaints made by residents about the barrier; - having noticed in October 2023 that the barrier was unsafe, did not attempt to make it safer and did not make any significant attempt to ask anyone else to make it safer. 2. I also heard that when the planning application for the 2015 housing development was considered in the first place, no consideration was given to the safety of the barrier as part of the development. I have been told that the government has announced a consultation on the national planning policy framework (NPPF). I have also been given to understand that section 12 sets out policies relating to the achievement of safe, inclusive and accessible spaces. It has been put to me that paragraph 135(f) could include a requirement that when development takes place in proximity to open water, railways and other hazards, special regard should be paid to ensuring the safety of children, young people and vulnerable adults. There will of course be many planning applications considered before any changes can be made to the NPPF. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Update the National Planning Policy Framework to require consideration of vulnerable users’ safety near open water, railways and other hazards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On 12 December 2024, the Government published an updated NPPF in response to the ‘Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system’ consultation. As part of this update, and in direct response to findings set out in the Coroner’s report, additional policy has been added to paragraph 102 a) setting out that the safety of children and other vulnerable users in proximity to open water, railways and other potential hazards should be considered in planning and assessing proposals for development.”

Source location

Response from MHCLG
Page 2 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Submit a consultation response addressing the strategic aspects of the National Planning Policy Framework consultation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It would be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to consider any proposed changes to the NPPF. The PFD report refers to a consultation on the NPPF. This consultation opened on 30 July 2024 and closed on 24 September 2024 and was in relation to some very specific questions. The Mayor submitted a response to the consultation which focused on the strategic aspects of the consultation.”

Source location

Response from Mayor of London - Greater London Authority
Page 3 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Review the London Plan and consider the safety concerns raised in the PFD report through that review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The GLA is currently in the early stages of reviewing the London Plan. The current timescales for this include a consultation on a revised London Plan in the second half of 2025, followed by examination in public of the revised version in 2026-27, followed by the adoption of the revised London Plan in 2027.”

Source location

Response from Mayor of London - Greater London Authority
Page 3 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Require project-specific waterfront water-safety reviews using the RoSPA risk-rating tool in new-property procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(iii) A Design Governance Panel reviews whether proposed schemes meet five Design Priorities. Safety is one of those five priorities. Proximity to open water was previously assessed as part of that priority where relevant. Since the inquest, proximity to open water and risk mitigation is now explicitly referenced. Accordingly, risk assessment of new waterfront properties on a project-by-project basis included specific review of water safety and, since the inquest, this has now been specifically codified in our procedures to require a water safety review applying the RoSPA risk rating tool. Such reviews consider, for example, the installation of railings, use of boundary markers and lighting, incorporation of signage, water safety education, and systems for site monitoring, as appropriate.”

Source location

Response from Peabody Trust
Page 6 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Install and maintain temporary canal-side fencing inspected by RoSPA.

Verbatim wording from the response

“11. Since the tragic incident on 17 February 2024, Peabody has also taken prompt action to work together with all relevant parties to put in place temporary fencing at the canal side which has been inspected by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), and has prepared proposals to install a new, permanent barrier. We note that we are instructed by CRT that any activity involving the Dock Walls or the current barrier requires the consent of the CRT which must take into consideration the requirements of water users and the rights of the CRT over the Dock Walls and surrounding land. We continue to work with them and all other affected parties, including working closely with our residents, to implement a mutually agreed solution promptly and on a permanent basis.”

Source location

Response from Peabody Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Conduct an estates audit and develop a group Water Safety Policy with RoSPA to tailor water-risk assessment guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“16. In addition, in accordance with advice from RoSPA, an audit is being conducted across Peabody estates to inform the formation of a Water Safety Policy across the group to ensure that water risk assessment guidance is properly tailored to the needs of our organisational context. Work on this document is already under way in co-operation with the RoSPA, and we plan to finalise this policy following completion of work on the Employer’s Requirements.”

Source location

Response from Peabody Trust
Page 8 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Require explicit water-adjacency and similar-hazard risk assessments, design reviews, mitigation planning and post-installation inspections in design guidance and contractor requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“15. While robust risk assessment and management procedures identified above are already in place within Peabody, we keep our practices under regular review and have considered further insight from the tragic incident in February 2024. We are therefore updating our Design Guide and our Standard Employer’s Requirements for contractors to include, as a check-list item, an explicit requirement to conduct risk assessments of adjacency to water and similar hazard types from the design stage onwards. This will reference a requirement for both a design review of proposals and planned risk mitigation, and also a post-installation inspection. We plan to finalise and embed these changes within the Employer’s Requirements by 31 January 2025.”

Source location

Response from Peabody Trust
Page 8 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Work with relevant parties to approve, design, construct and implement a permanent canal-edge protective barrier.

Verbatim wording from the response

“11. Since the tragic incident on 17 February 2024, Peabody has also taken prompt action to work together with all relevant parties to put in place temporary fencing at the canal side which has been inspected by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), and has prepared proposals to install a new, permanent barrier. We note that we are instructed by CRT that any activity involving the Dock Walls or the current barrier requires the consent of the CRT which must take into consideration the requirements of water users and the rights of the CRT over the Dock Walls and surrounding land. We continue to work with them and all other affected parties, including working closely with our residents, to implement a mutually agreed solution promptly and on a permanent basis.”

Source location

Response from Peabody Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Share urban design lessons from the incident with all Development Management Officers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Finally, the urban design lessons learned from this incident have been shared with all Development Management Officers at Islington Council. We have also checked that a planning application for another canal side residential development includes fencing and have confirmation that this is the case.”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 1 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Check that another canal-side residential development application includes fencing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Finally, the urban design lessons learned from this incident have been shared with all Development Management Officers at Islington Council. We have also checked that a planning application for another canal side residential development includes fencing and have confirmation that this is the case.”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 1 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Work with Peabody to progress a planning application for safety fencing around the canal-side area of the Crest Buildings Estate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of the Crest Buildings housing development, the Council is working proactively and positively with Peabody to bring forward a planning application for safety fencing around the canal side area of the Estate. The Council has held two senior level meetings with Peabody to discuss their planning application and to encourage them to submit the application in the most expedient manner possible. Once the application is submitted, we will deal with it promptly. We have also met with the residents of the Estate to explain the planning process and to encourage them to engage in that process.”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 1 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The Regulator of Social Housing assessed Peabody against regulatory standards and concluded that no further regulatory action was required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Regulator of Social Housing has engaged directly with Peabody in relation to this tragic case and having assessed all relevant information against regulatory standards, has now concluded no further regulatory action will be taken. However, the Regulator will continue its regular engagement with Peabody and note the steps that Peabody is taking in response including working with other parties to address issues raised in the Prevention of Future Deaths notice.”

Source location

Response from MHCLG
Page 1 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The Mayor cannot comment on or intervene in planning applications that do not meet the criteria for potential strategic importance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have looked at the original planning application for the development where Malika lived and we do not believe it would have been referable to the Mayor as it would not have met any of the criteria for a PSI application. The Mayor does not have any powers to comment or intervene on proposals that do not meet the criteria set out within the 2008 Order. Those proposals are the responsibility of the local planning authority who will assess the application against the Development Plan.”

Source location

Response from Mayor of London - Greater London Authority
Page 3 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The London Plan addresses strategic planning matters and does not prescribe detailed safety measures for particular locations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The London Plan, together with each borough’s own Local Plan (and any made Neighbourhood Plans covering the area) form the statutory development plan against which planning applications are assessed in London. The Mayor’s policies within his London Plan are required by the Act to only deal with matters which are of strategic importance to Greater London, leaving the detail and specific content to the Local Plans for each respective borough in London which must be in ‘general conformity’ with the London Plan.”

Source location

Response from Mayor of London - Greater London Authority
Page 2 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Local planning authorities are responsible for assessing non-strategic planning applications against the Development Plan.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have looked at the original planning application for the development where Malika lived and we do not believe it would have been referable to the Mayor as it would not have met any of the criteria for a PSI application. The Mayor does not have any powers to comment or intervene on proposals that do not meet the criteria set out within the 2008 Order. Those proposals are the responsibility of the local planning authority who will assess the application against the Development Plan.”

Source location

Response from Mayor of London - Greater London Authority
Page 3 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Existing improvements to complaints systems, processes and culture mean no additional changes to the complaints system and processes are currently required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“21. In this case, therefore, there was a formal complaints processing system in place, but this issue was not further actioned for the reasons stated above. We are satisfied that the various improvements we have made to our complaints systems, processes and culture since 2019 (both to comply with the Housing Ombudsman Code and to reflect our own learning) mean that no additional changes are required to our complaints system and processes at this point. However, we are strengthening our processes for near miss/hazard reporting (see below).”

Source location

Response from Peabody Trust
Page 9 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Installing new protective railings requires approval and changes to legal agreements involving the London Borough of Islington and CRT/CIC.

Verbatim wording from the response

“11. Since the tragic incident on 17 February 2024, Peabody has also taken prompt action to work together with all relevant parties to put in place temporary fencing at the canal side which has been inspected by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), and has prepared proposals to install a new, permanent barrier. We note that we are instructed by CRT that any activity involving the Dock Walls or the current barrier requires the consent of the CRT which must take into consideration the requirements of water users and the rights of the CRT over the Dock Walls and surrounding land. We continue to work with them and all other affected parties, including working closely with our residents, to implement a mutually agreed solution promptly and on a permanent basis.”

Source location

Response from Peabody Trust
Page 5 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Peabody sought the Council’s assistance because it understood the Council or CRT/CIC held responsibility for the barrier and Dock Wall.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(iii) The walls bounding the water along this part of the Basin had been leased to the Council and the Council was required to keep all of the walls, without any division of particular parts, in good repair. We understand that this suggests ownership of those walls was retained by CIC under the 2015 Transfer.”

Source location

Response from Peabody Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Peabody considered it unable to block or alter the barrier because it lacked ownership rights and understood planning conditions prohibited obstructing waterfront access.

Verbatim wording from the response

“20. No formal enquiries or complaints were submitted by residents in relation to the safety of the canal side barrier at Crest Buildings. We understand however that, in 2019, an informal concern was raised about the barrier to the then Neighbourhood Manager on a routine site visit. The then Neighbourhood Manager considered that it was not possible to block off the canal side barrier in view of what was understood about the planning conditions, the policy of the Council to maintain open access to the waterfront, and Peabody’s lack of ownership rights over the barrier. We understand that it is because she considered no action was possible and the concern was raised informally in the course of a site visit when various other enquiries and issues will also have been raised, that the issue as to the barrier was not formally logged for processing on the CRM system.”

Source location

Response from Peabody Trust
Page 9 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. 1

    Raise staff awareness and provide guidance requiring safety observations to be formally logged under existing policies, procedures and systems.

    Stated by Peabody TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 August 2024.
  2. 2

    Explain the planning process to Crest Buildings residents and encourage their engagement.

    Stated by London Borough of IslingtonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 August 2024.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The Secretary of State is responsible for considering proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.

    Stated by Greater London AuthorityRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Raise staff awareness and provide guidance requiring safety observations to be formally logged under existing policies, procedures and systems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Nevertheless, we plan to raise awareness with our staff members and provide additional guidance that safety observations such as those identified in this case should be formally logged under our existing policies, procedures and systems. We plan to do this by 31 October 2024. As noted, we are also taking steps in coordination with the RoSPA to ensure that waterfront risks are appropriately identified and actioned across our estates with a further Water Safety Policy.”

Source location

Response from Peabody Trust
Page 10 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Explain the planning process to Crest Buildings residents and encourage their engagement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of the Crest Buildings housing development, the Council is working proactively and positively with Peabody to bring forward a planning application for safety fencing around the canal side area of the Estate. The Council has held two senior level meetings with Peabody to discuss their planning application and to encourage them to submit the application in the most expedient manner possible. Once the application is submitted, we will deal with it promptly. We have also met with the residents of the Estate to explain the planning process and to encourage them to engage in that process.”

Source location

Response from Islington Council
Page 1 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The Secretary of State is responsible for considering proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It would be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to consider any proposed changes to the NPPF. The PFD report refers to a consultation on the NPPF. This consultation opened on 30 July 2024 and closed on 24 September 2024 and was in relation to some very specific questions. The Mayor submitted a response to the consultation which focused on the strategic aspects of the consultation.”

Source location

Response from Mayor of London - Greater London Authority
Page 3 · response
Published 9 August 2024

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026