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.

Cllr Tatler on Alperton development: 'Whilst some policies are not met, many are...'

Readers will recall the uproar over Brent Council's approval of a development at 245-253 Ealing Road despite it not meeting many planning guidelines. LINK

A local resident has submitted a question about this to Cllr Shama Tatler at Monday's Council Meeting. This is her anodyne response:
 

-->

Question from Hiran Patel to Councillor Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills: 

How were the proposals for development of the old HSBC bank and pub at 245- 245 and 253 Ealing Road approved, even though in my view they appear to break a number of safety regulations?

Response:

Planning applications of this size raise a number of complex, and often competing issues; in this case, involving the redevelopment of the site to provide two buildings, 9 and 10 storeys, for 92 new flats, a pub and a community use, it raised many issues – the appearance and build of the new buildings, the amount of residential provided, the mix of units, parking arrangements, etc. Officers and Committee members balance all of the different issues, including the planning objections, and make their decision against national, regional and local policies. These issues are often finely balanced, and opinions will often differ as to the merits of a particular case. 

Sometimes, one policy objective, (e.g. securing additional housing, or maintaining a public house on the site) might be given more weight than, for example, a reduced level of parking. In this case, the planning merits of the proposal were carefully considered. Officers made some pragmatic judgments around the proposal to achieve, on this allocated site in a housing zone, some 92 new units – a quarter of which are affordable – that works on the site. The committee report makes it clear that whilst some policies are not met, many are, and taking the scheme in its entirety, members felt that the benefits outweighed any harm. 

The question does not mention what safety regulations are broken here. However, it is a long established – and correct – principle, that planning does not duplicate requirements set out in other regulations and laws; these will be assessed by other bodies at the appropriate time, whether that be under Building Regulations or Health and Safety rules

Now Duffy asks about missing councillor and 'jollies' from developers

This is part 2 of Cllr Duffy's correspondence with Cllr James Allie who will be chairing the Standards Committee tonight:

Dear James , 

Here is part two of my concerns please ensure the co-opted member are given a copy. Also if you are not the person or committee who deals with these issues please pass them on to the CEO with the questions as a FOI .

(A) Committee attendance 

James as a member of  the Labour group you are  probably aware that I have been left off committees for the past two years. You maybe also be aware that I won an election to be on scrutiny committee but was then removed and was not placed on any committee whatsoever this year. This is in-spite of the fact that attendance at committee meetings is very  low and the recommendation from the Penn report concerning the death of CIIr Oladapo (Tayo) said under 2.

What, if any, improvements the Council should implement"

(i)consideration should be given as to whether every member of the Council should sit on a sub- committee or committee as well as Full Council to improve the potential for attendance and thereby avoid the possibility of breaching the six months rule. This could also obviate the current practice of using the substitution arrangements to enable members to avoid breaching the six months rule". 

I know you have witnessed the exchange of emails between the Labour Party chief whip Cllr Kabir and myself about this issue of me being removed from all committees. Therefore you can imagine my surprise when just before full council meeting on  last Monday! Cllr  Kabir told me that she had put me on the Licensing committee replacing another councillor, without asking my permission or my availability .I informed Cllr Kabir that I would not stand as I believe it was just cover-up to hide the fact a councillor had moved out of Brent sometime previous  and she was not willing to attend any more meetings than the bare minimum. I also told Cllr Kabir I was not good enough  for the leadership to nominate me for any committee meetings in May,  therefore what had changed by September.

I was at the time and subsequently concerned that the Labour leadership are not being transparent to residents  that  I am being brought into a deception without my knowledge. Also in the Penn report it said "consideration should be given to the way in which ‘apologies for absence’ are managed. Currently there is no requirement for the member concerned to tender their apologies directly or personally as these can be tendered on their behalf by another member or an officer". 
I am concerned that the apologies are being managed by the Chief whip in a blanket fashion and do not relate absences due to illness or any other reason , just the unwillingness of a councillor  to travel to Brent.I  wonder if under standards you would be willing to start an investigation into 

(1) When did the councillor leave Brent?

(2) Was the CEO and the Head of Legal informed ?

(3) If not why not ?

(4) Did the CEO and HOL give any advice?

(B) Hospitality 

As you know there has been a  successful planning application for Tottenham Hotspurs to play at Wembley , many people suggested Tottenham got a good deal  and many local Cllrs objected to the conditions. I have been informed by  a member of the public  both the Leader of the council Cllr Butt and lead member for Regeneration and planning Cllr Tatler have received hospitality from Tottenham since the planning permission was granted. Whereas I have some understanding that we need to keep relations open with the Wembley and their tenant Tottenham,  However I  do not understand why the lead member for planning should participate in hospitality as this could seemingly bring  the planning system into disrepute , therefore I ask you to ensure both these councillors  and any others who have participated in Hospitality declare  the reasons why they were offered hospitality and did they check it with the CEO,before excepting also if you could enquire 

(1) How many tickets were received and value.

(2) Who attended the matches with them.

(3) Reason  for the hospitality ( sometimes its OK to look at an issue of say crowd control ,traffic management, or a new street cleansing practise. However  receiving hospitality should not just be for a "Jolly Boys outing@ for them and their family that is not acceptable)

(4) Can you also enquire whether any other Councillors , Officers or relative have received hospitally from Tottenham or Wembley stadium.

In my experience its best to keep clear of hospitality from developers as ' When you dance with a developer, its always to their tune". I hope you see that a declaration alone without reason is not enough, what we must consider is what the average man /women in the street would think, that is why I ask you to look at the issue.

Cllr Tatler challenged on Wembley Regeneration's alleged benefits

 

Brent Council 2002

I have received the following Anonymous guest blog in reaction to the lead members' Q&As published earlier LINK:

I read your blog about the forthcoming Full Council Meeting with intrigue, particularly the question  “1. Question from Mr Wadhwani to Councillor Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills:”  and the fantastical answer given by Councillor Tatler. I have added a few follow up questions that should now be asked. 

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “The Council takes a plan-led approach to the regeneration of the borough, in order to prevent development schemes coming forward in an ad hoc, unplanned fashion.”

Additional Questions:  The public consensus is that they have failed miserably in their task, even the Daily Mail agree.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Wembley has a comprehensive planning framework, including the dedicated Wembley Area Action Plan (adopted 2015), which sets out how development of the area will progress”.

Additional Questions: That may be true, but it is a shame it has produced such an unqualified mess, just ask residents and the Daily Mail. The planning process has created a shambolic development becoming know as Rent City where there is no community, just a never ending churn of unknowns.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “The ongoing regeneration provides and plans for infrastructure and facilities to support current and future residents across the Wembley area, including:  A 7 hectare public park”.

Additional Questions: Where is this then? Not another paved concourse with token raised planters and a few sapling trees, I hope.

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “New 3 form entry primary school, including a 2 form entry nursery school, plus 2 additional forms of nursery provision”.

Additional Questions: Where abouts are these then?

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “Primary health care facility (1500m minimum)”.

Additional Questions:  According to the Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) at a recent meeting in public, this facility was turned down by the Council and is now used as a Gym.  If untrue, where is the Primary Health Care Facility?

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “ Contributions towards secondary education in the wider area”.

Additional Questions:  Details please?  How much?  Aren’t all Brent Secondary Schools academies? Aren’t academies funded directly by the DoE!!!

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “6-lane 25m swimming pool available at local authority facility rates”.

Additional Questions: Where is this located then??

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “Significant investment in and improvement to the main rail and underground - stations to improve capacity and the environment”.

Additional Questions:  Details please? or is this the £17million of CIL the Council are going to spend to improve the Quintain Development Area? This includes Olympic Way? where the Stadium ramps will be replaced by stairs (no doubt to fit another tower block or two? 

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Community facility fund of £1.4m plus to spend on community projects”.

Additional Questions:  Isn’t this money being spent across the Borough so has nothing to do with the question asked?

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Physical transport improvements e.g. the Triangle, Wembley High Road”.

Additional Questions:  Example please? The roads around the Triangle are normally at a standstill which delays the buses and other vehicles alike. Queues regularly form all the way back to Forty Lane.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “and elsewhere, together with significant developer contributions to Transport for London (TfL) for public transport, including buses”.

Additional Questions:  What are these?

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Developers have additionally contributed a significant cash sum of Community Infrastructure Levy”.

Additional Questions:  What are the council spending this money on? How much money excluding the CIL spent on items above?  How much is in this cash pot? 

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “part of which will be spent on neighbourhood projects”

Additional Questions:  This money is not being spent in the Regeneration/Development areas, it is being spread across the Borough so has nothing to do with the question asked.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “and the remainder on strategic infrastructure needs to support growth in the immediate Wembley area and wider Brent Borough”.

Additional Questions:  What is it going to be? Does the Council have any idea?

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “The Local Plan and in particular the Wembley Area Action Plan sets out the regeneration and development strategy for the Wembley area”.

Additional Questions:  You wouldn’t have known it, is the current public consensus.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “The Local Plan is now to be refreshed and to examine how the whole Borough will develop over the next 15-20 years” .

Additional Questions:  15-20 years? The powers that be cannot construct reliable plans for the short

term, so what hope have they in planning for the next 15-20 years? Is this new plan as advised by officers implying Metroland developments with their large gardens are being targeted for redeveloped into high density housing?

Cllr. Tatler Response:  "Everyone is invited to get involved in this exercise and various public sessions are being held across the Borough throughout September for people to come along and contribute" .

Additional Questions:  The Council CONSULT but do not LISTEN , and they certainly DON'T consider the views of residents or any criticism from these groups. How will this be different?