Concern over potential cover-up of Paddington Cemetery asbestos issue

When asbestos was discovered at Paddington Cemetery and Veolia workers were warned of the dangers of exposure Cllr John Duffy called for a public inquiry LINK rather than an investigation by Audit. Carolyn Downs responded LINK that Audit would be sufficient.

Duffy was concerned that cemetery workers and relatives with family graves on the site should be fully informed about the risks and the actions taken. Exposure to asbestos can result in illness decades after exposure. Relatives may well have disturbed the asbestos when tending the graves.

Tomorrow's Audit Advisory Committee seems to confirm Cllr Duffy's suspicion of a potential cover-up in what can be a life or death issue  LINK. The bulk of items have been restricted, which means that the public cannot see then. The only public report focuses more on processes rather than health issues, who was responsible for the asbestos dump, or the potential cost to council tax papers. The report is anodyne if not complacent.

Cllr Duffy said:

Senior officers have barred both the press and public from the meeting and rushed it on to the agenda as a late item, to avoid unhelpful questioning. In my opinion they are trying to avoid any independent scrutiny. This issue involves the health of the public and certainly  the health of the workforce. Officers seem to want to hide the details of how the contaminated waste got to Kilburn and who was responsible .

No term of reference have been given as we speak by the CEO  or head of legal and the meeting is tomorrow

This is the covering report which is all that the public will be able to see. It appears to have been hastily written:

This review was undertaken following concerns raised by a Councillor in an email dated 10^th November 2017. The email raised concerns about contaminated waste discovered in Paddington Cemetery. 


The Audit review report concludes that procurement procedures within the Cemeteries service were inadequate at the time that work was undertaken at the cemetery. The Audit report and recommends that management ensure that procedures within the Cemeteries team to procure contractors and approve goods/services are urgently reviewed to ensure they meet the Council’s expectations and that management consider the recommendations in from consultants’ to proportionately mitigate the soil contamination identified. 


The report and its findings have been welcomed by management whose response includes: 

 
“The report concludes that procurement procedures within the Cemeteries service were inadequate at the time that work was undertaken and recommends that management ensure that procedures within the Cemeteries team to procure contractors and approve goods/services are urgently reviewed to ensure they meet the Council’s expectations and that management consider the recommendations in from consultants’ to proportionately mitigate the soil contamination identified. 
The report and its findings have been welcomed by management who have agreed to work to ensure that any deficiencies in the council’s protocols or processes that may still apply are remedied as a matter of great urgency. The council cemetery operation is now much changed and is out-sourced. It is anticipated that any deficiencies that led to this contamination are now no longer relevant and/or could no longer happen. 
Most importantly, the council has an obligation to give customers complete reassurance that the site can continue to be visited without concern and that it is properly remediated. That is our commitment going forward. The advice to date is that the contamination is very low risk and can be properly contained. 
Work to make that happen is underway. A final report is due that will set out options for the council to cleanse the site. We have also appointed specialist contractors to undertake burials at graves that have previously been used. That satisfies a particular commitment to families wishing to have relatives buried together.” 


Spurs v West Ham moved to January 4th to maximise attendance at Wembley Stadium

The match between Spurs and West Ham has been moved from Sunday December 31st to Thursday Janiary 4th (K.O. 8pm) to allow maximum attendance at the match.

Spurs said:

The fixture had originally been provisionally scheduled for Sunday 31 December.
However, despite significant work by all stakeholders, the Safety Advisory Group could only recommend a maximum crowd of 43,000. This was due to transport issues, primarily at local tube stations whose resources were being deployed elsewhere across London on New Year’s Eve.

Following extensive discussions between all parties, a decision has been taken to move the fixture into the New Year so more supporters, home and away, can attend the game.

Council's update on Wembley High Road sewer works

Brent Council has posted the following update on the Wembley High Road sewer works on its website. It is rather hidden away so I am republishing here(I haven't corrected their spelling of metres!):

Concrete blocking the sewer

The view downstream

View from the surface into the shaft

 

The view upstream

The sewer works on High Road, Wembley, are progressing well and the proposed end date for these works is now 22^nd December.

To date Thames Water have:

• removed the traffic Island
• excavated a shaft onto the sewer over seven meters deep.
• tunnelled four meters downstream, towards Park Lane, to a point where there is no concrete in the sewer.
• tunnelled upstream, towards Wembley triangle, eight and a half meters to the lateral connection from the former Brent House site and have tunnelled a further five and a half meters but there is still concrete in the sewer. 

Next steps:

• Sink another shaft on the sewer, this will take up to a week to complete
• Continue to tunnel upstream to a point where there is no concrete in the sewer
• Replace the sewer
• Backfill the tunnels
• Backfill the shaft
• Permanent reinstatement of carriageway.

The end date for these works cannot be confirmed until the all concrete is removed from the sewer, having spoken to Thames Water and their contractor, Cappagh, we estimate that reinstatement works will take up to three weeks to complete from the point that all concrete is removed. It is possible that High Road will remain closed in one direction until 22 December.

Extra consultation event on Brent Local Plan - Tuesday December 5th

-->

 Brent Council is putting on extra consultation events to discuss the new Local Plan. Opinion will differ on how much notice will be taken of contributions but here are the details of the Willesden Green Library event for those readers who are interested:

You are invited to help shape Brent's future  Brent Council is starting work on a new Local Plan which will shape how the borough is developed over the next 20 years. Thank you to everyone who attended the workshops and drop in sessions held in September and October 2017. For those who were unable to make these sessions we’re holding two additional workshop which will cover the borough as a whole. Why get involved? Have your say on the issues that affect how you live, work and socialise in Brent.   Interactive workshop sessions will cover: What the Local Plan is and how it will affect key issues like housing, employment, town centres and community spaces; ·       Different growth options as we start to think about where housing, employment and other forms of development will be built; Explore what’s important about your local area and opportunities for it to improve; What you want your area to be like in the future. Register for a workshop below Light refreshments will be served Tuesday 5 December Willesden Green Library 7-9pm Register here   For more information and full details visit www.brent.gov.uk/shapebrent

Moving video: The impact of support offered by Brent Carers Centre

I think this video of carers talking about how they have been helped by Brent Carers Centre deserves wider circulation.

More information about the services offered by Brent Carers:

http://www.brentcarerscentre.org.uk/

Neasden protest against Universal Credit

Photo: Aisha Maniar

Despite the cold Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group took part today in the nationwide demonstration 'Stop and Fix Universal Credit.'


 

Brent Council's projected financial position worsens. Another 3.99% rise in Council Tax next year.

Brent Council expects its financial position to be worse than expected in 2019/21 as a result of the borough's  tax base slowing from an expected growth of 4.4% to 2.5%.  Although finance officers describe the financial situation for local government as 'inherently uncertain'  at +/-20% due to a lack of clear national direction, this would mean cuts/increase in charges increase of  £19m rather than the previously expected £13m in 2019/20 and 11m in 2020/21.

The incoming administration after the May2018 elections would need to start working on the 2019/20 budget in Autumn 2018.

The 2018-19 budget will be as consulted on as part of the 2017 process with cuts and service price increases of £12.9m already published. (Details HERE)

The Council proposes a further 3.99% increase in Council Tax bringing the total for Band D to  £1470.87

Butt attempts to answer questions about his meetings with developers and ex Council leader poses some of his own

Kilburn Times front page last week

Cllr John Warren has received answers to the questions he sent to Cllr Butt, Leader of Brent Council, over Butt's meetings with developers. This is what Butt had to say about the issues raised on Wembley Matters and in the Kilburn Times. Note the claim that the FoI response was erroneous:

I’m sure you’ve already seen Debra Norman’s response to Phillip Grant. Please find a copy attached, just in case.

As suggested therein, if you have a complaint you should contact the borough’s chief legal officer immediately. If that is not the case then I’ll kindly ask for confirmation at your earliest convenience that you do not in fact endorse these baseless accusations. Until then, answers to your questions are as follows:

1. What was the purpose of these three meetings,and in broad terms what was discussed?

•    An error was made in responding to the FOI on which your questions are based. The meetings to which you refer occurred at least a year earlier than reported. Clarification and an apology is in the process of being issued. Nevertheless, those meetings were to discuss much needed inward investment and the building of essential new homes.

2. Why were no minutes of these meetings taken - so as to follow LGA guidance?

•    I have attached the relevant information so you can read for yourself what is recommended for which type of meeting.

3.What meetings have you held with other developers in Brent -particularly Quintain- since 2014?

•    With regard to Quintain, we meet and correspond at a range of levels on a number of issues on a regular basis. More generally, I along with officers, meet and communicate with numerous active and potential developers on a regular basis regarding, as above, inward investment and the building of new homes.

4. Please confirm , for the record, that you have not attempted to influence the votes of any member of the planning committee ?

•    Whether as a member of cabinet, or as a local councillor, joint working, both formal and informal, and dialogue with members of the planning committee is recognised as a legitimate reality of local government life. For the avoidance of doubt I can confirm that I have done just that as both leader of the council and ward councillor.

With regard to the final question, are you suggesting that it’s not a part of our role to comment on, support, or oppose relevant applications? Either way, are you saying that you’ve never sought to influence a planning decision?

I have also asked Debra Norman the chief legal officer to make some additions to the planning code of practice to reflect current guidance and practice in respect of s not on the planning committee which will help clear up any confusion ,  a copy of which is attached.

Muhammed Butt

Former Liberal Democrat and Brent Council leader Paul Lorber has also waded into the issue in a letter sent to Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive:

 Dear Ms Downs

I am extremely concerned at the front page story about the unminuted Meetings between the Leader of a Brent Council and a large developer who was in the process of having their Planning application considered.

Were you aware of these meetings, did you attend and did you authorise them?

You will be aware that the Alperton Masterplan was subject to public consultation, including with residents, and that the height of the buildings in the area were restricted "to up to 17 storeys".

When did the Council change the Masterplan or its policies to breach this commitment to local people and allow buildings of 26 storeys?

What exactly was the purpose of the meetings with the developer, who initiated them and was the height of the buildings they propose and any financial contributions discussed?

You will be aware that Brent Council subscribes to Open Government and that involvement of the Leader of the Council with Developers at a time when their Planning application, in breach of the Masterplan height limits, is being considered is of justified public interest.

What discussions about this Developers Plans took place in the regular Leadership/Officer meetings and how did any of these influence the planning process? Did any officers from Planning or any Councillors on the Planning Committee attend any of these meetings?

Please set out the protocol dealing with the issue of the Leader or any Councillors meeting Developers at a time when their major Planning applications are under consideration.

There is now a new Planning application for a 28 storey building on the site of the Boat pub in Bridgewater Road/Ealing Road. Can you advise what meetings involving Councillors or Officers took place discussing a proposal over 50% taller than the 17 storey Alperton Master Plan limit?

I would appreciate a full and early reply hopefully without the need to invoke a Freedom of Information.

Yours sincerely

Paul Lorber