Has Duffy been vindicated on Paddington Cemetery asbestos?

Regular readers will know of the dogged campaign by ex Cllr John Duffy on the issue of asbestos at Paddington Cemetery. A search on this blog (right hand column) will bring up many articles including this.

Duffy eventually resigned the Labour whip in frustration at his efforts to reveal the true facts being rebuffed, undermined and ridiculed by the Labour leadership and officers who minimised any risk from asbestos contamination. Duffy stood as an independent in the council election in May but was not elected.

Now it has been revealed that in addition to Brent Council back-filling the ex-mound that contained asbestos they are installing concrete 'coffin liners' in the ground to facilitate burials. Apparently each liner will take two coffins and there are estimates that between 100 and 200 liners will be installed.

Clearly all this is very expensive and will not have been ordered unless there was a very real issue to be dealt with.

Meanwhile I understand that John Duffy has approached the District Auditor requesting an investigation of the illegal dumping of asbestos.

Astonishing revelation as Duffy names his political hero - and it's a scream!

Cllr Duffy has written to Brent councillors about his candidacy in the Council election...

 

Dear All , 

I understand the Kilburn Labour Party are very upset that I am standing for election in Kilburn.

In fact they are doing intensive canvassing and leafleting according to a mate of mine calling me an independent candidate. This is not true I am "Standing (Up) for Kilburn" candidate  but the returning officer would not let me put that on my nomination forms.  

As everyone knows Politics is in the life- blood of everybody in Kilburn. In fact one of the main national political parties was founded by a Kilburnite and I have always secretly supported that party, albeit I was a member of the Labour Party from 1983 -2018 ( briefly leaving because of the Iraq war) .

In June 1982 this Kilburn man who was already a mega rockstar who had many hit records like "All Back and hairy" , "Monster in Black Tights"  or his sensitive love poem " I am a Hog for you"  decided to form a political party. This party went on to change the face of politics in the UK. He introduce new and exciting policies and became a national hero adored by millions ( and his mum) , but he never forgot his humble roots and beginnings in Kilburn.

This Kilburn legend came close to changing the country if not the world for good. He entered the political fray to ensure his type of  policies were implemented. Unfortunately he failed to get elected in the famous 1983  Bermondsey By - election. Albeit he manage to gather an astonishing 97 votes, alas he was pipped at the post by the winning Candidate by a meagre 17,000 votes .  Of course he asked for a recount but the returning officer (a stooge for the powers that be) refused it then became clear that he was a victim of voter fraud on a massive scale,the likes of which had never been seem in British politics. He was not put off and stood in other 33 by-election gaining nearly 17000 votes .A reported once ask him why he believe he lost so many times .He said  his policy were popular  as he had accrued 17,000 votes in the 33 by-elections  .However he said" the trick was to move all those people into one constituency and  then he would win". Wise words indeed.

I am sure you now realise the Kilburn legend is Screaming Lord Sutch  who grew up in Charteris Road ,Kilburn just a few streets from St Julians Road where I was born .The Party of course is the Monster Raving Looney Party , which he co -founded.I have had a recent conversations with the Leader of the Monster Raving Looney party Alan "Howling Laud " Hope and we agreed we will have an accreditation meeting after I win the election on May 3th . Once my accreditation has been agreed , I intend to resign immediately   unless I am given a role in the provision Monster Raving Looney Party Government as the "Shadow Minister for Beer" as I believe I have all the right political attributes including the belly.

Now that its been explained to the Kilburn Labour Party , I hope they will stop calling me an independent candidate and  bad mouthing me at the door and concentrate on what the  Labour Party will do for Kilburn around the lost of up a million pound worth of  Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), the state of the pavements and potholes which they are silent about.

The Labour party should pay me the respect and call me The Stand (up) for Kilburn candidate sponsored by the Monster Raving Looney Party.

-->

UPDATE: Don't trash the Trike! Petition set up following name change.

I have reported on the social media backlash over the rebranding of The Tricycle Theatre as The Kiln although the rebrand does have its supporters. For a full account of the change see LINK

Now John Duffy fighting Kilburn as an independent in the local election, has thrown his weight behind a petition calling for the retraction of the name change.

Duffy said:

I urge everybody from Kilburn and Brent to sign the petition below to ensure the Tricycle Theatre retains its name.

I have lived in Kilburn all my life and during that time the Tricycle Theatre has played a major role in the lives of  many Kilburn Residents.

I was on the board of the Tricycle in 1987 to help rebuild the theatre  following the fire in  1987 , which burn a large part of the Theatre to the ground. At the time it seemed like it  we would be unable to rebuilt the theatre, because of the lacking of funding. However with the help of the Arts Council and local residents we did. At the time I remember the fund raising slogan was the “ Tricycle has Risen from the Ashes'.

The name the Tricycle is important as a landmark for Kilburn, everybody knows “The Trike” I think the brand name of the Tricycle is a good brand  and the Theatre will always be known as “The trike” whatever whatever  the ad-men say.

The idea that marketing men , Brent Council and the board, can change tradition and history without any consultation with the residents is fundamentally wrong. Local residents pay for The Tricycle via Brent Council grants and should have a say in any name change.

The petition set up by the Brondesbury Next Door group can be signed HERE. As yet there is no rival petition supporting the name change.

The petition blurb says:

The name of the theatre and cinema that the local community has loyally supported for many years has been changed, without consultation, from ‘The Tricycle’ to ‘The Kiln’. The attempt at re-branding is unnecessary, costly and squanders the established reputation of The Tricycle. The loss of loyalty may lead to the theatre closing - already many local people have declared their intention to boycott it when it reopens. In addition the name ‘The Kiln’ has unfortunate associations to a fire in the eighties, when the theatre burned to the ground. Please support us by signing the petition for the name to be changed back to The Tricycle - It only takes a moment...

Whichever side of the debate is correct I can't help but think the name change has garnered much more publicity than a simple re-opening after refurbishment would have done. 

Clever?

-->  
A FACEBOOK GROUP HAS NOW BEEN SET 'OUR TRICYCLE, NOT YOUR KILN' LINK

Duffy: It's a long way from the Civic Centre in Wembley to Kilburn

Regeneration: The Peel Project on South Kilburn Estate

John Duffy is standing against Labour and the other parties in Kilburn. On his blog Kilburn Calling he explains why. I reproduce what he has to say here. Publication on Wembley Matters does not imply agreement with what he says or endorsement by Brent Green Party.
 

Many Kilburn residents will never go the Civil Centre, They just pay their rents and council tax and get ignored by an out of touch administration who are seemingly unaware of the problems deprived areas like Kilburn face. Like every other part of Brent, Kilburn is affected by the failure of the council to develop and improve basic services.

However I will not stand back and say that Brent do everything wrong as that is not the truth. I believe the council performs well in many difficult areas like Adult Care, Housing Allocation and other stress areas but over the last few years we have failed miserably in Environment and Regeneration policy.

For some reason Environmental Improvements are not a high priority and are never co-ordinated. Brent is second from bottom in West London on recycling. The Labour cabinet wasted the last four years, failing to introduce any School Environmental Education programme for schools concerning littering /dumping rubbish/ recycling or other anti social behaviour. The cabinet preferred to squander valuable resource on a private company who took them to the cleaners.

They continue to increase environmental taxes on green bins and bulky waste collections. Recently the Lead Member put up the cost of the permits for NHS Health visitors from £140 PA to £330 PA, which is a staggering increase of 137 % ,when inflation is 3% (The NHS has enough financial problems without the Brent Labour Group putting the boot-in) at the same time they allowed contractors a Brent style diplomatic immunity parking permit allowing them to park on any road in Brent for £8 per week.

The cabinet are also planning to put up daily visitors permits from £1-50 to £3 per visit knowing this will isolate many vulnerable people particularly the elderly. I often feel because of bad policy making by the Cabinet Kilburn is the pothole and uneven pavement centre of London. On Friday I saw Brent were putting speed bumps on Willesden Lane next to potholes as big as footballs , without any attempt to repair them at the same time…… that’s what I mean by no co-ordination.

However as much as I have concerns about environmental policy, by far the worst policy being promote by the Labour Party is the regeneration of South Kilburn. The Labour Party have used every piece of land (some of it sold on the cheap) in South Kilburn, to build houses many for the private sector, which are worth up to £1million pound each. Local residents have given up green space, had to withstand thousands of lorries careering up and down their roads with the obvious air and noise pollution, while they got on with lives. The reward for putting up with these hardships was the promised a Health Centre that has not appeared and community investment. Instead the Labour Party in the Civic Centre tried to close the Granville and Carlton Centre together with Granville Plus Nursery  School to build more private housing without any local consultation.

The residents have now been told that £1.2 million Pounds the residents were promised from developers Via the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), will not be ringed fenced for Kilburn Ward instead will be used outside of Kilburn. The money from the levy is legitimately owed to Kilburn for the hardship they endured and should be ringed fenced for Kilburn. It is illegitimate for the Labour Party to try and take it away from a deprived area to spend on less deprived areas who have not suffer the hardship of Kilburn.

At the same time the local Kilburn Labour Party (at nearly every meeting) are completely disconnected to residents everyday concerns. They are busy either passing resolutions about expelling Israeli diplomats, homeopathic medicine being on the NHS or paying women for housework. Many of these issues can be important, but NOT at the cost of ignoring the residents of Kilburn. That should have stood -up to the council.

Those who know Kilburn, know the legend that the famous highwayman Dick Turpin used to drink in a local pub after robbing stagecoaches. So Kilburn is well used of dealing with robbers. Of course the different between “ Dick “ and Brent Council is at least “Dick” wore a mask.

I am standing (up) for Kilburn and hope people will support me. I will be updating during the campaign on Kilburn -Calling web-site.

-->

John Duffy stands in Kilburn against Labour & Polish Pride stand in Dollis Hill and Dudden Hill

Cllr John Duffy, who resigned the Labour whip earlier this year and was not selected to fight the May Council election for Labour is standing for election in Kilburn ward.

There is no party or independent description on his nomination and he is clearly relying on his name being known locally and his record of holding the Council to account over issues such as asbestos in Paddington Cemetery, the Kingdom Securities contract, and failures in Brent Council's waste strategy.

Neither the Liberal Democrats nor the Green Party are standing in every ward while UKIP is standing one candidate in Kensal Green and three in the Welsh Harp ward. The Women's Equality Party has a candidate in Queens Park.  Duma Polska (Polish Pride) are standing full slates in Dollis Hill and Dudden Hill. Apart from Duffy there are independents in Barnhill, Dudden Hill and Preston wards. FULL DETAILS

Duma Polska's website states:

Duma Polska aims to strengthen the position of the Polish community in Great Britain and to make its voice count. Poles are the largest national minority in London, and yet they do not have representatives in the local authorities. It is time to change this and appoint Polish councillors. All the more so because these are the last elections before Brexit and may affect how the further negotiations will take place regarding our status after the exit of Great Britain from the European Union.  Therefore, vote for our candidates, successful people, successful in business, who not only deal in the UK, but share their experience and help others. Others are born social workers, and still others are experts in many areas of everyday life. It is a symbol of our Polish solidity, reliability and credibility that we have been building on the Islands for over 70 years.

Duma Polska was founded by Jan (Prince) Zylinski, Ealing based Polish aristocrat and millionaire, who challenged Nigel Farage to a sword fight over Farage's stereotyping of Polish workers as benefit scroungers.

Where the parties are standing:

Ward	Lab	Con	Green	Lib Dem	W Eq	Polish Pr	Ukip	Ind
Alperton	3	3	1	3
Barnhill	3	3		3				1
Brondesbury Park	3	3		3
Dollis Hill	3	3		3		3
Dudden Hill	3	3	1	3		3		1
Fryent	3	3
Harlesden	3	3		2
Kensal Green	3	3	1	3			1
Kenton	3	3	1	3
Kilburn	3	3		3				1
Mapesbury	3	3	3	3
Northwick Park	3	3	1
Preston	3	3		3				1
Queensbury	3	3	1	3
Queeens Park	3	3	3	3	1
Stonebridge	3	3
Sudbury	3	3	1	3
Tokyngton	3	3	1	2
Welsh Harp	3	3		3			3
Wembley Central	3	3	1	3
Willesden Green	3	3	3	3

Why were Brent workers allowed to work in Paddington Cemetery without protective clothing when specialists deem it necessary?

Photographs taken at Paddington Cemetery on Wednesday April 4th

Councillor John Duffy has returned to the controversial issue of asbestos at Paddington Cemetery. He has written to Brent Council enclosing the above photographic evidence.

In an email to Brent Council officers and members he states:

You can see from the photo the contractors are working in the area Brent Council officers were conveniently unable to identify from the original photo (albeit the area was signed posted). Again i think this highlights the cover -up that has been taking place by Brent officers to extent of the contamination by builders' rubble containing asbestos and the cost to Brent residents to clear or remediate the site.

I hope your reply will concentrate on why members of the workforce (gravediggers , gardeners) were instructed to work on section 3D without protective clothing  following the discovery of the Asbestos on May 7th (including Monday 26th June 2017).Will you please ensure officers explain why specialists still believe  they should wear protective clothing  to work on the site, when the local workforce were not provide protective clothing or training.

I also hope you will ensure officers give a full explanation of why officers deliberately mislead members of the public at a public meeting, saying  that they were unable to identify the location  "Photographs were not conclusive works and precise location not identified " when they were fully aware of both the location and work that was carried out.

Borough Solicitor attempts to put block on Duffy's questions

The Brent Senior Solicitor has written to Cllr John Duffy regarding Duffy's attempts to ask further questions where he feels officers' answers are deficient. Looqman Desai, the Senior Solicitor has told the councillor that officers will not deal with any further questions on issues that they consider dealt with and that any new questions must be dealt with via the Members Enquiries system.

Cllr Duffy has responded that this is disingenous and a way of ensuring his questions are not answered despite the Mayor's promise that officers would answer his questions. He has written to the Mayor, Cllr Chohan, with further questions:

Mr Mayor it is important you stand by what you told the full council and public at the full meeting and do not renege on it  and ensure the officers answer the  following questions or  instigate an independent  investigation by someone with Health and +Safety  experience to answer them.

(1) Will officers confirm that the soil / rubble was stored in a safe lockable area within Carpenders park  prior to its transfer to Paddington Cemetery and explain how the soil/rubble   was delivered into the lockable area and was the rubble purchased as top soil.

(2)  Will the officers confirm the Soil/Rubble transferred to Paddington Cemetery was the same as the Soil/Rubble that the 60 Kgs of waste was sent for disposal under a consignment note as Hazardous waste. If not where did the original contaminated load go?

(3) Will officers confirm that 60 Samples taken by Eton' Environmental Specialists on behalf of the council showed that17(27%) were contaminated by Asbestos and 57 (95%) were contaminated with builders rubble and do officers believe that the level of rubble is appropriate  for the burial of residents.If officers do not believe its appropriate  for burials  of residents why will the CEO and Lead Member of the Environment not consider compensating the relatives of the deceased for the inconvenience , anguish and uncertainty  they have been put through by Brent Council?

(4) Will officers confirm the last burial which took place on the mount by graveyard employees after the 30 KGS of asbestos was discovered. Will they also confirm that graveyard employees  were not given protective equipment the same as the private contractor. I understand the contractors workforce were instructed by Brent Council to continue to bury people without protection up to 21 days after the asbestos was found.

(5) Will officers confirm that workers were bused in on the 26th June to carry out work on the mound and those workers were given no protective clothing or special instructions. Will Officers also confirm the pictures I presented to officers depict workers raising dust on the mound without any protection for the workforce or any attempt to cordon the area from public access.

(6) Will the Head of Finance confirm the failure of senior officers to control the transportation of Hazardous waste to the Paddington Cemetery cost Brent Council over one million pound and provide a full break-down of costs including loss of revenue , cost so far and expected removal costs.

Mr Mayor I met a relative of one of the deceased buried on the mound, who wrongly believe I was a council official.He was upset and wanted to know how could the council allow people to be buried in builders' rubble. I could not answer him. I have attached a picture of the rubble that is thrown around the mound and a picture of Michael Bond's grave on the footpath to show the affect of the council's policy to use builders' rubble. (Above)

Mr Mayor what we are witnessing is abuse of procedures,where powerful officers are using a timetable to keep information from the  public. I  ask you  to stand up to officer and stop this deliberate abuse of  the Purdah period and ensure ALL  relevant staff  are interviewed ASAP and the results of those interviews are published  along with answers to the six questions  asked above before the 19th March, to ensure they are  not caught up in the Purdah period.

Mr Mayor it is important the concerns of the residents, parents and grave-owners are treated with the respect they deserve and dealt with ASAP.

Dogged Duffy pursues Brent Council on asbestos contamination

Not satisfied with the Mayor's statement on the Paddington Cemetery asbestos issue at Full Council on Monday, Cllr John Duffy, who relinquishes his councillor role in May, has returned with further questions to Chris Whyte of Brent Council:

I wrote to the Mayor and he informed me my questions would be answered. I had hope that Brent council would be more transparent and rely on evidence not hear say. To me its important that any investigation is fact based so residents, the school and grave-owners would be satisfied that the council are transparent and has not reverted to their original position of deny everything , just ignore the evidence and rely on secret internal meetings to keep information from the public.

Mr Whyte you were not at either Carpender Park or Paddington Cemetery when the asbestos was discovered. The only witnesses at Carpenders Park are the operatives who discovered the Asbestos who have not been interviewed, the only evidence is the waste transfer certificate which confirms the fact  that 60kgs of hazardous waste was sent for disposal. The only witnesses at the discovery of the Asbestos found in Paddington Cemetery have not been interview, the only evidence is the asbestos discovered on May 9th was sent for analysts to Tersus Asbestos specialist and they confirmed  it was Asbestos Cement(Cyrysotile)  the remaining Asbestos was sent to Brentwood Essex and weighted 30kgs and the waste consignment note further confirms the fact that is was Asbestos cement (Chrysolite).Just to put the amount of asbestos in prospective 90Kgs is the equivalent of 90 plaster boards (2m x sq) broken up. So Mr Wythe as you were not present at either find , I suggest we concentrate on the evidence which speaks for itself.

I understand all operatives will now be interviewed 10 months after the discovery of the Asbestos. I Have told Brent legal department I am happy to wait until all the operatives have been interviewed to  determine what were  the operational failings with respect to the transfer of the soil/ rubble from Carpender’s Park in 2015 . I believe the evidence will supports me that  the soil/ rubble was knowingly transported  to Paddington Cemetery. It beggars belief that  you are suggesting officers cannot not tell the different between soil and rubble. However we must agree to wait until after all the witnesses have been interviewed.

Mr Whyte I asked the Mayor for the CEO or the Lead Member for the Environment to make a statement. I asked that" the statement should also include plans for compensation to the grave -owners who have buried love ones in section 3D who have 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 ". You have not answered those questions. Instead you inferred I am  misleading grave -owners  with a hurtful suggestion .This is nonsense and is yet another attempt to undermine me and stop any questioning of  how the councils managed to deliver the  rubble ( including Asbestos) instead of the soil / earth  which is normal for  graveyards to Paddington Cemetery.

I assume Brent council officers have read  the reports concerning  the description of there soil / rubble on the mound. If not I suggest you look at the evidence. We known there was three finds of Asbestos one in August 2015 ( Carpenders Park ) and two in Paddington Cemetery in May 2017. We known the soil / rubble for Paddington Cemetery came from Carpenders Park after the original 60 KGs of Asbestos was discovered. We know that 30 Kgs of Asbestos was found in May 2017.  In August 2017 Eton Environmental took 60 sample (appendix 3 of their report ) and they give the exact location and description of the samples taken .Of the 60 sample taken 17  were found to have asbestos this confirms 28% of the sample had Asbestos including one sample that had several large chunks of asbestos cement. We also know that of the 60 samples 57 contained rubble ,that is 95% of samples contained rubble, some called cement  or bitumen ,but all identified as rubble. Officers can also visible verify  the present of rubble by inspecting the  residue from the graves, where they will witness boulders as big as footballs which are clearly visible.

I would suggest officers stop making smears against me and concentrate on the facts. I ask again now that I have pointed out the evidence that 95% of samples contain  (you would be hard put to get that level on a bomb site ) rubble will the CEO or Lead member for the Environment  now confirm that  they will compensated the grave -owners who have buried love ones on the mound and who paid for soil /earth interment (as per their contract)  and ended -up with builders rubble (Q1)? The council position that the mound is not heavily contaminated with builders rubble is unsustainable and the longer the council  remain  in a state of denial, the more I believe it undermines their credibility with the public .If the Mayor, CEO and Lead member  for Environment believe that is OK to buried people in ground , which sample show is  95% of rubble instead of soil is acceptable they should confirm that to the residents of Brent. I would also like confirmation on the full cost to  the council of this fiasco  and hope the Head of Finance will confirm the  cost the council tax-payer, which I believe is around the million pound mark (Q2)?

Mr Whyte as well as the financial cost and the health and safety aspects of the officers reckless decision not to halt the transfer of  soil/ rubble to Paddington cemetery after the discovery of asbestos. The council have destroyed pathway to bury people and have buried people in areas with no proper drainage. All this because of the failure of officers to condemn the waste at Carpenders Park and halt the transfer. Yet I see no humility from officers concerning  the actions  undertaken by officers which have led to the Council turning  parts of a  beautiful  Victorian listed graveyard into a brown field site full of rubble.

Please ensure you answer the 2 questions mentioned above concerning compensation and the full cost.

Mr Whyte I have copied in the CEO, as I am not sure she was aware of the high level of rubble present in the sampling

Brent Council answers Cllr Duffy's asbestos queries

Brent Council has responded further to Cllr Duffy's queries about the Paddington asbestos issue following the statement made at Monday's Full Council meeting:

The independent testing that was done confirmed that the level of asbestos at the site is below the scientific detection level at 0.001%. This is consistent with background levels for this substance in soil in urban areas. The asbestos that you refer to as having been removed in May was found in a total of 30kg of mixed soil that was taken for testing. This subsequently confirmed the presence of asbestos at that time. It would be very inaccurate and misleading to suggest the low levels that were subsequently recorded over the wider site had been engineered as a consequence of the removal of this 30kg of mixed soil in May.

The extended audit investigation that is underway is seeking to establish the pathway, if any, of the asbestos that has been detected in the soil at trace levels at Paddington Old Cemetery. This will also determine whether there were any operational failings with respect to the transfer of the soil from Carpender’s Park in 2015 and whether that is actually relevant.

Your reference to 60kg of asbestos having been found at Carpender’s Park must again be challenged. A total of 60kg of mixed soil was removed at that time. It was thought the soil might contain a piece of asbestos.

It would also be misleading and potentially very hurtful to suggest that customers have paid £3k to have their relatives buried in builders’ rubble at Paddington Old Cemetery. The re-opening of graves has been undertaken by specialist teams as a precaution until the facts of this matter have been firmly established. We are now clear that the level of asbestos in the soil at the graves is at background levels, similar to that likely to be found in any garden in Brent.

The council has committed to consulting with the school and the workers at the site and to concluding this matter in a measured and transparent way. Further decision making will be based on the facts that have been established and we will seek to implement pragmatic solutions that are agreed with the various stakeholders.

The council has no plans for compensating grave owners. Asbestos is a naturally-occurring substance which has been detected at the cemetery at levels that are below 0.001%, and which would not draw regulatory sanction or be of any interest to the HSE. Given the concentrations encountered are typical of urban background levels, the council will carefully consider what action is merited in this case and any other cases where the contamination is present at such low concentrations. This will be considered in the context of previous decisions where Local Authorities have, under their statutory powers (Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) determined that other sites including those with much higher concentrations of asbestos do not meet the threshold for definition as Contaminated Land.

Mayor of Brent to make statement on cemetery asbestos tonight

In response to Cllr Duffy's request Cllr Bhagwani Chohan, the Mayor of Brent, will make a statement on the Paddington Cemetery issue at tonight's Full Council Meeting. The statement will be made under Matters Arising from the Minutes and is expected early in the meeting around 7.10-7.15pm.

Cllr Chohan has asked officers to update him on any issues raised by Duffy's request.

Brent CEO apologises to Salusbury Primary School over asbestos

Salusbury Primary and Paddington Old Cemetery

Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive, publicly apologised yesterday evening for the Council's failure to contact the headteacher of Salusbury Primary School over the possible asbestos contamination at Paddington Cemetery, which borders the school.

Ms Downs was moved to apologise after parents  had told the meeting about their fears for their children's health when they heard about the issue earlier this year. Several parents pointed out that the children grow vegetables in the school garden adjacent to the cemetery, The area has been closed off to pupils pending investigation of the soil. Parents said that even if they had not been told it was incumbent on the Council to inform the headteacher so that she could decide what action to take.

The Chair of Governors of Salusbury Primary requested a clear timeline of Council action to reiterate their commitment to making the area safe. She asked for the school to be consulted over the timing of the proposed removal of soil from the cemetery mound. She asked for much better communication and transparency.

Council Officers had argued  earlier that they had received advice that there was more public risk in raising parental anxiety by publicising the issue than the low risk posed by the asbestos contamination itself.

The CEO had earlier told the meeting that the full report into the asbestos had only been withheld from the public in case there was enough evidence to press criminal charges against those who had dumped the asbestos.When it was clear that there was insufficient evidence the report had been published on the council website. LINK

During the meeting the tension between Cllr John Duffy, who has pursued the issue relentlessly, was palpable. Duffy was confined to making interventions from the audience and his contributions were frequently curtailed or interrupted by Amar Dave, Head of Regeneration who was conducting the meeting. I think it would have been better if Duffy had been invited to join the panel and make his contribution alongside Chris Whyte (Operational Director of Environmental Services), Michael Bradley (Head of Audit and Investigations) and Simon Clennel-Jones (of Delta Simons who prepared the investigation of asbestos at the cemetery). That would have enabled him to make a clear presentation of his own investigations and answer questions from the audience.

Duffy contested whether Michael Bradley's report had been truly independent, he wanted an external investigation, and pointed out that the Delta Simons investigation had analysed soil samples after soil had been removed to the West London Waste Authority facility.

Cllr Duffy protested that the Bradley investigation had not interviewed gravediggers at the site, the people most at risk because their daily work disturbed the contaminated soil, and had spoken to managers instead. He was told that workers would now be interviewed.

The Simon Delta report had emphasised the low risk posed by the incidence of asbestos found which they said was normal for an urban environment but a member of the audience pointed out the section in their report that stated:

Nevertheless, the Client as landowner (and potentially as employer) has a duty to manage to ensure exposuresis kept as low as reasonably practicable; further, the assessment has identified the potential for exposures to exceed a level at which has been considered in civil litigation as being a material contributor to a case of mesothelioma. (Para 8.1)

Officers said that Veolia had advised their workers to contact their GPs over possible exposure which raised for me what appeared during the meeting to be a grey area of responsibility between Brent Council, as a public body, and Veolia, a multi-national company.

This was evident when Friends of Old Paddington Cemetery LINK raised issues about works, other than asbestos related, at the Cemetery which was listed on the National Register of Parks and Gardens and where English Heritage should be consulted about any changes.  The Friends had been distressed about the destruction of footpaths to accommodate new graves without any consultation. It was unclear from responses whether the council had been fully informed of works Veolia had carried out.

Officers said they were going to remove all the soil from the 'mound', the area where the suspect soild had been dumped as a way to reassure residents.

After the meeting it was clear that some residents still did not feel they had the full pictures and there was particular confusion over key dates and what took place on them. The timeline promised by the council may address this or it may raise further questions.

Other Brent councillors were present at the meeting, including Muhammed Butt, leader of the Council,  but none spoke except for Cllr Duffy.