Has Cllr Butt put himself in situations where his integrity can be questioned?

Philip Grant submitted a comment on the 'Dinners with Developers' story posted earlier but I think the comment deserves a post in its own right:

 It is not so much "dinners with developers" that is the issue here.

It has been confirmed that an hour-long meeting took place on the morning of 6 April 2016 IN THE LEADER'S OFFICE between Cllr. Butt, Aktar Choudhury (Operational Director, Regeneration), Terrapin Communications and their client R55.

Debra Norman has told John Duffy: 'There are no minutes of this meeting, but I am informed by Aktar that the meeting was informal and the developers spoke about their Minavel House site in general and the good progress they were making in bringing forward their proposals.'

She later added, in response to a further question from Cllr. Duffy: 'You have asked below whether it is usual that there were no minutes were taken. Yes, given the nature of the meeting it is usual that no minutes were taken.' But as has been set out previously on "Wembley Matters", there has been specific guidance in place from the Local Government Association for the past few years that a Council Officer should attend any such meeting with a developer, and make a written minute of the discussions, a document which the public should be able to read.

Terrapin Communications was also representing Hub, and although Hub were not present at that meeting, it would have been possible for Terrapin to mention something encouraging support for Hub's Chesterfield House planning application, which (by coincidence?) was being considered by Brent's Planning Committee that evening. In the absence of minutes prepared by a Council Officer, there is no evidence as to whether, or not, that matter was raised.

An FoI last autumn revealed that Terrapin Communications also had a meeting with Cllr. Butt on the eve of the Minavil House planning application being approved by Brent's Planning Committee (another coincidence?). Again, no minutes were taken by a Council Officer of those discussions.

The issue here is whether Cllr. Butt may have interfered with Brent's proper Planning process, which he is specifically not allowed to do.

There is a "hearsay" allegation (from an unnamed Brent Labour backbencher - NOT Cllr. Duffy) that several Labour councillors on the Planning Committee have admitted privately that Cllr. Butt had instructed them how to vote on particular planning applications. Ms Norman was not able to take any action over these allegations, as none of the Labour councillors allegedly involved was willing to go "on record" over this.

Nothing has (yet) been proved against Cllr. Butt, but one of the requirements under the Code of Conduct for people in public life (including councillors and Council Officers) is that you should not put yourself in situations where your integrity could be called into question.

By holding meetings with developers or their representatives (such as Terrapin Communications), close to major planning decisions with which they are involved, and not ensuring that proper minutes are kept of those discussions, Cllr. Butt HAS put himself in a position where his integrity could be called into question.

New cemetery asbestos public meeting

The Friends of Paddington Cemetery have arranged a new public meeting on Wednesday evening (March 15th)  at the Kilburn Housing Co-op, Kilburn Square, NW6 at 6.45pm.

The meeting will  deal with issues around the discovery of asbestos in the cemetery, how it arrived there and whether Brent Council responded in a transparent way.

Unlike the last meeting, where the chair was Amar Dave, head of Brent Regeneration, this meeting will have an independent chair.

Cllr Duffy, who has been pursuing the issue for months,  has requested that at least one of the panel from the previous meeting takes part, and is also asking for a trade union representative to be present.

Duffy calls for statement on Paddington cemetery asbestos at tonight's Full Council meeting

Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn, Labour) has written to the Mayor of Brent requesting that Carolyn Downs (Brent CEO) or Cllr Tatler (Lead Member for Regeneration) make a statement on the Paddington Cemetery asbestos issue at the begining of tonight's Full Council meeting.  The meeting will be live streamed HERE.

This is Cllr Duffy's letter to Cllr Chohan:

-->

 As you aware the issues of Paddington Cemetery has been highlighted by officers in this weeks Kilburn Times, saying the results of test for Asbestos is at a low level which is true, albeit he samples were taken after the Asbestos was removed and now only a trace of the Asbestos can be found. 

Whereas it true that tests now show a low level of Asbestos now, however the main issue has always been did the council knowingly dumped builders rubble in Paddington Cemetery. The truth remains the same once they found the 60 kgs of Asbestos in Carpenders Park, all consignment to section 3D in Paddington Cemetery should have been halted immediately .It was reckless for the council to continue to delivery waste without a full screening process being carried out to ensure no Asbestos or indeed builders rubble remained in the loads.

It is clear the council is fully responsible and the council in-house Audit Advisory Committee (AAC) Report clearly confirms this (now that it has been reluctantly released) when it states:

  "The Audit review report concluded that procurement procedures within the Cemeteries Service were inadequate at the time that work was undertaken at the cemetery ".

 In layman's terms this means the council had no procedures to ensure the so called London Clay (rubble), which was to be delivered to Paddington Cemetery, was screened and was safe to used for burials plots.

Mr Mayor, you may not be aware that at the moment residents pay approx. £3k for a burial plot, which is describe as being buried in Earth on the councils web-site. However what residents did not pay for or expect was their loved ones to be buried in builders’ rubble. Neither did they expect, that when a re-opening of a grave takes place the excavation has to be carried out by a specialist team in masks and protective clothing. This is clearly the legacy of the reckless mistake by Brent council of failing to   implemented adequate screening processes.

Mr Mayor I am the first to recognise and I am grateful that officers / Senior Councillors accept their past mistakes and have subsequently decided to publish the AAC report. I am also grateful to the officers for agreeing to interview all staff (which I assume is underway) that were present when the incidences took place in August 2015 and May 2017. This was a glaring omission from the AAC report and is ultimately the only way we can confirm how much Asbestos was discovered and indeed indicate how much asbestos remains. Hopefully this will also expose whether the workforce were instructed to work on the mound after the discovery of Asbestos on May 9th 2017 without protection. I furthermore believe the change in the council position to ensure that the council will now liaise with the school and local residents, before the removal of the rest of the contaminated waste takes place is welcomed by everybody concerned. This should ensure adequate safety measures are in place. However I believe it is important that the council continues to be transparent and does not revert to secret meetings where residents are banned from attending or even reading the report.

Therefore Mr Mayor I am hoping for the sake of clarity and transparency, you will grant time at the beginning of tonight’s Full Council meeting, to allow either the CEO or the Lead Member for the Environment to make a statement addressing the issues mentioned above concerning Paddington Cemetery. I am sure the statement will take less take less than 5 minutes and reassure residents/ grave owners of the transparency of the council. The statement should also include plans for compensation to the grave -owners who have buried love ones in section 3D who paid for soil /earth interment and ended -up with builders' rubble. I believe that head of finance should also give an estimate on the total cost to the council, which I believe will be somewhere around the 1 million pound mark.

Mr Mayor please replies to all people who have been copied in, as they have all indicated they are interested parties.

Brent Council on asbestos - We have been 'measured, proportionate and at no time irresponsible'

Dear Cllr Duffy,

I attach the initial test note from May 2017 that first confirmed the presence of asbestos. This test was commissioned by Veolia and you will note the detail is very limited.

This led to the further investigations that are available on the council’s website. First the Eton report, and then the Delta Simons specialist survey and risk assessment.

On the other matters raised in your email, I refer you again to the very many previous responses, not least with respect to the independence of the audit investigation, the work to remove some soil from the site, the overall level of risk, the circumstances around the hazardous waste that was removed from Carpender’s Park and your allegation that contaminated soil was somehow knowingly and illegally moved to Paddington.

There are a number of further inaccuracies in your email, not least your suggestion that hundreds of pieces of asbestos have been discovered. I refer you again to the report – 

It is important to highlight that there have now been at 34 exploratory holes advanced within the Site / materials, this is considered to be a very high density of investigation and it is highlighted that none of the investigations have identified any evidence of gross asbestos (e.g. large pieces of asbestos cement or asbestos lagging). Rather, the investigations have highlighted the asbestos contamination to be limited and diffuse with Eton reporting concentrations as being ‘Trace’ and the quantification testing by Delta-Simons not finding asbestos above the <0 .001="" limit.="" quantification="" span="">

I really must reiterate the need for responsible reporting of this matter. We have received a query today from a local resident asking whether her tap water is fit to drink. That is extremely regrettable.

The specialist’s report is clear –

It is recommended that the council gives careful consideration as to how the issue is communicated to the various stakeholders due to the perceptions and misunderstanding of the risks associated with asbestos, particularly within soil. Asbestos is a common contaminant in soils in the urban environment and the identification of it at this Site is not unique as it is frequently found in imported soil materials.

The council’s position is known and has been made clear many times. Our communications and reporting have been measured, proportionate and at no time irresponsible.

Green peer adds her voice to calls for independent investigation into Paddington Cemetery asbestos dump

Dust at Paddington Cemetery (FPC)

Jenny Jones (Baroness Jones of Moulsecoom) the Green Party member of the House of Lords, has written to Brent Council supporting  the call for an independent investigation into the asbestos contamination in Paddington Cemetery LINK.

Jones writes:

Cllr Duffy has written to me on behalf of a the Friends Of Paddington Cemetery (FPC), a local residents group. The group have concerns around the issue of the inappropriate use of asbestos contaminated soil to create additional burial sites in the Cemetery. Having read their concerns I am troubled by the lack of transparency being shown by the council and by the secretive way senior officers and leadership of the council are conducting themselves.

Can you tell me how the waste arrived on site and did the council knowingly deliver contaminated (with asbestos) waste to Paddington Cemetery in August 2015?

I am further troubled by the failure of your in-house audit team to interview any residents or member of the workforce who may have been exposed  to the asbestos. NHS guidelines say "While asbestos can be dangerous, it does not present a health risk if left undisturbed, but if material containing asbestos is damaged, it can release a fine dust that contains asbestos fibres. When the dust is breathed in, the asbestos fibres enter the lungs and can gradually damage them over time.” 

The pictures provided by FPC  (above) clearly show a considerable amount of dust being raised by the workman on the mound after the asbestos was discovered. If the council allows those workmen to work on the mound without protective overalls and masks and training, it's a very serious matter that puts both the workmen and public at risk.

Based on the evidence I have seen I should like to add my support to FPC efforts to have an independent investigation. Cllr Duffy has suggested an expert on Health and Safety should oversee this which seems appropriate to me. I hope you agree to an independent investigation.

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.” 


Cllr Duffy calls for Special Council Meeting on waste strategy waste

Cllr Duffy (Labour, Kilburn) has sent the following email to all Brent Councillors:

Dear Councillor

Firstly I am sorry for the length of this email , but I believe it deals with important issues.

I am asking for your support to call a special Council meeting to discuss the issues concerning  the waste of resources  around fly-tipping , enforcement and bulky waste collections, together with the cabinets failure to maximise income on the green bin service  and their failure to improve our recycling levels.

FLY-TIPPING

To get to the issue why I am sending this email  and to put it into respective. In Nov 2015 a scrutiny task group reported into fly –tipping which was plaguing Brent ( and other boroughs) and made up more than 90% of Street Environment complaints. The Task group review was concerned with "reducing the levels of fly tipping in Brent and ensuring clean and safe environments for Brent resident’s; and as a result, a reduction in cleanup and enforcement costs".

The committee looked at 14 different types of fly-tipping , which were causing problems in Brent. Dog-ends was not among them and did not figure in any charts made known to the committee. The task group was informed of 2013/14  fly-tipping incidents and costs. There were 7001 incidents of reported fly-tipping. 

The  Lead member for the environment advocated employing Kingdom Securities  to deal with the problem of Fly-tipping. Kingdom Securities are a well known low-wage , non-union company.. The cabinet and later the Scrutiny Committee agreed (against my advice) to award the contract to Kingdom Securities without going out to tender or looking at an In-House option. You may remember the details of that contract  that the private contractor was to get £46 per Fixed penalty notice (PFN) issued ,the council would get £34 for every PFN paid  and the council would  paid all legal fees and that Kingdom securities would not search or investigate fly-tipping instead they would concentrate on Cigarette dog -ends even though they were not named as a problem. Altogether approximately 6000 were issued ( many to vulnerable people ) therefore Kingdom securities received  £246k and the leadership and Lead member used the soundbite "Zero Tolerance"  to explain the policy.

How wrong they were!

Granville & Carlton Centre users assured that they will be included in plans for the future of site

I was unable to make tonight's Cabinet meeting where the Granville and Carlton Centre plans  were on the agenda.  However an observer tells me that Cllrs Conneely, Duffy, Jones and Warren spoke for the occupants of the buildings. Lesley Benson, head of Granville Nursery Plus amd Momata from Granville Kitchen also spoke.

Several contributors said that it has been the worse decision making process that they had every seen.

Apparently the Cabinet was contrite and Cllr Butt and Cllr Mashari said that they wanted to reassure the Granville and Carlton users that they would be included as contributers in the future, rather than just consulted.

The Cabinet approved the report. LINK

Who was really responsible for the Granville Centre debacle?

Last week I published Cllr Duffy's interchange with Cllr Mashari in which he called for her resignation over the Granville and Carlton Centres in South Kilburn. LINK

Cllr Mashari claimed that the proposals for regeneration  of the sites came under the Property portfolio which Cllr Butt, leader of the council, holds, rather than Regeneration. Property covers council ownership of buildings and sites and Brent Council has a policy to realise the value of these assets to address their financial plight.

The Granville proposal was put to the Cabinet by Margaret McLennan, deputy leader, rather than Butt who chairs the Cabinet.  Other South Kilburn proposals on the agenda at that meeting, Phase 3a and Site 18,  were put by Cllr Mashari.

It has not been possible to find the full list of responsibilities of each portfolio holder including the leader and deputy, as up to date details do not appear to be available on the Council website.

The report about Granville was written jointly by the Strategic Directors for Resources, and Regeneration and Environment.

Philip Grant points out in a comment on the earlier post:

However, both of those Directors, Althea Loderick (Resources) and Amar Dave (Regeneration and Environment) were new to Brent, having taken up their posts in June 2016, having previously been in Waltham Forest and Essex respectively. So they probably knew very little about Kilburn, and may not even have visited the area from their new offices in the Civic Centre before they put their names to the report.

The contact officers for the report were:

Althea Loderick
 Strategic Director of Resources

Sarah Chaudhry
 Head of Property

Tanveer Ghani
 Project Manager

Dale Thomson
 Regeneration Manager

There is only a cursory reference to the Granville Nursery Plus (and not by name) in the report and none to the Granville Kitchen.

 Given the economic deprivation found on the South Kilburn Estate  and the presence of many protected groups the Equality Analysis attached to the report is clearly deficient - particularly the last sentence:

Appendix 4: Equality Analysis Stage 1 Screening Data

What are the objectives and expected outcomes of your proposal? Why is it needed?

The proposal covers the phased redevelopment the Carlton & Granville Centres, Granville Road, London, NW6 5RA to deliver new homes, an Enterprise Hub and additional community use space.

Who is affected by the proposal?

The proposal is relevant to residents in South Kilburn, small businesses in the area and the South Kilburn Trust. As the premises proposed for re- development are largely unoccupied and will shortly be vacated by the remaining users, there is no impact for existing users.

Could the proposal impact on people in different ways because of their equality characteristics?

The proposal will deliver new workspace accommodation for up to 30 small businesses as well as new housing for households in housing need. To the extent that some protected groups are over-represented among households in housing need or seeking employment opportunities, the positive impacts of the proposal may offer particular benefits to these groups.

Could the proposal have a disproportionate impact on some equality groups?
If yes, indicate which equality characteristic(s) are impacted

No, other than as noted above.

Would the proposal change or remove services used by vulnerable groups of people?

The proposal will provide new or improved services that may be used by vulnerable groups.

Does the proposal relate to an area with known inequalities?

Yes.

Is the proposal likely to be sensitive or important for some people because of their equality characteristics?

Yes – although the proposal is not seen as sensitive, it may offer important new opportunities for some protected groups and more generally.

Does the proposal relate to one of Brent's equality objectives?

The proposal relates to the following objectives:

            To know and understand all our communities 


            To ensure that local public services are responsive to different needs 
and treat users with dignity and respect 


Recommend this EA for Full Analysis?

No.

Although according to Cllr Duffy, recently  Cllr Butt and Cllr McLennan have met up with him, Kilburn councillors and  Granville and Carlton users, to discuss the situation,  some of the responsibility may rest with them for the original failure to recognise the needs of the community. The potential confusion between the Property and Regeneration roles of Cllr Butt and Mashari, and the involvement of recent Strategic Director appointees, may mean that the resulting consultation failure and furore, may have been more cock-up than conspiracy.

For reference here are the Minutes of the July 25th Cabinet Meeting: