Asbestos Meeting Tonight: Duffy asks for public to a have a vote on whether a public inquiry is necessary

The waste transfer note from Carpender's Park 17.08.15

Cllr John Duffy has written to Carolyn Downs, Chief Executive of Brent Council asking that residents attending tonight's public meeting in Kilburn Square be given  an opprtunity to vote on whether there should be an independent inquiry into the asbestos waste issue:

As you know there is a meeting tonight and its very important the two undisclosed consignment notes for the asbestos found on the mound are available. 

Hopefully they will go some way to establishing how much asbestos was delivered to Paddington Cemetery from Carpender's Park in August 2015. That will also go some way to answering the question of how much contamination was present before the two discoveries on May 9th and 18th*  and since the asbestos transported in August 2015.

I believe the council is being disingenuous by mixing up the Eton report, and then the Delta Simons specialist  reports, with the initial test notes. Both the Eaton and Delta Simons report  were taken after the Asbestos was removed, therefore thankfully they only show a trace in most parts of the mound. I  do welcome their  finding  that the level of asbestos risk is now  low since  the Asbestos has been removed. However  because they engaged after the Asbestos was removed, they do not answer the three most important  questions of how the Asbestos got there, how much Asbestos was found in May 2017 and did the council put anyone at risk by the way the council handle the first  discovery of  asbestos bound for Section 3D in Paddington Cemetery from August 2015?

I am therefore suggesting  the Agenda for tonight's meeting is in three parts. One being the present situation, which will reassure residents that the mound and the cemetery in generally free of asbestos and safe to use. The second being  the past situation of how the asbestos got to Paddington Cemetery and did the actions of the council put anyone at risk. This part could also involve discussion on why the council took such extreme measures to ensure the residents (meeting where the press and public were excluded) were kept in the dark about how the  the asbestos arrived at Paddington Cemetery? Thirdly after  the residents have heard from both Delta Simons ( Part 1)  and the council (Part 2).  The third part should be a vote by residents on if they believe a independent investigation  is necessary to find out all circumstances around the discovery of the asbestos in Paddington Cemetery and whether the council put residents and the workforce at risk.

CEO Will  you  please confirm the agenda will be in the three parts and  you will personally  ensure officers take a democratic vote of the residents.The vote will see if  they believe an independent open investigation by health and safety expert which ail explore all the facts .If you are unwilling for the  vote to take place ,can we have a statement from you explaining why , you do not think it is unnecessary .

Regards 

* I mistakenly said the 19th of May in previous emails, i have now checked the email from the CEO and it was on on the 18th May the second "find " on the mound took place

Carolyn Downs replied that Amar Dave, who had been copied into Duffy's email, would be running tonight's meeting.

 7pm at Kilburn Housing Co-operative, Kilburn Square,

 Victoria Road, Kilburn, NW6 6PT

Cllr Duffy returns with further comments on the Cemetery asbestos issue

Ahead of tomorrow's meeting about the Paddington Cemetery asbestos issue (7pm at Kilburn Housing Co-operative, Kilburn Square, Victoria Road, Kilburn, NW6 6PT.) there has been further correspondence between Cllr John Duffy and Brent Council.

John Duffy's email is published below:

Thank you for  your email, however I have some serious concerns about  some of its content.. 

 Firstly you say in your email the council has been open, transparent and public and worker safety focussed throughout this matter. Any examination of the fact show the opposite is true. The council decision to take the  report to an audit committee , where the public and press were banned  cannot be considered  public , open or  transparent . To stop  a democratically elected councillor from having a copy of  the  Audit Advisory committee Report (AAC)  before the meeting  and only  allowing  him  to view  the report in front of two bodyguards cannot by any stretch of the imagination be consider open, transparent and public.

Neither does the decision of the council Audit Investigator not to interview the workforce  who were mostly exposed to the asbestos suggest to me you were focus on worker safety. The neglect of the workforce is also borne out  by the council  decision not  to suspend all work  on the mound while awaiting asbestos analyst .

The decision to bus in workers to carry out work on the mound , without protective clothing  on June 24th 2017 was reckless. The council must be aware  the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012  set minimum standards for the protection of employees from risks related to exposure to asbestos. Employers should also take account of people not directly employed by them but who could be affected by the work being done on asbestos including employees of other employers, people occupying buildings, members of the public etc.

The main issue has always been how did the asbestos get to Paddington Cemetery .We known there were three " finds "of Asbestos one in August  2015 in Carpenders Park. This was found while preparing a load  to infill section 3D which  is an area on the mound  in Paddington Cemetery .The Asbestos was separately bagged and sent to West London waste Authority.(WLWA) .The waste was classified as Hazardous waste and weighted 60 kgs .The council officer ,who had attend asbestos awareness courses confirmed in the AAC report that  he believe the" find " was  asbestos cement.. However you in your latest email have  change that account. You are now saying that it  just was a (one) small plate  made of asbestos in among the 60 kgs. As you kno  I used to be Head of Environmental Enforcement for Westminster City council  and I have always found a change in narrative concerning. However Iam  hoping you will explain  how bags filled with Asbestos cement , can suddenly become a  small asbestos  plate ? In my role Head of Enforcement I have  always believe  that  stories can change  but the facts remain the same. The fact is on the 15th August 2015  the council sent 60 kgs of  waste  which found in a load bound for Section 3D in Paddington Cemetery  to WLWA for deposal and it was all classified as "hazardous Waste" with or without the "small asbestos plate".

The next position of the council is in my mind completely untenable,  Your  email says the council removed the original 60 kgs of contaminated soil in 2015 . The council sent completely different waste to Paddington cemetery shortly after  from a random spoil from previous dug graves within Carpenders Park. The load was sent to  backfill 3D in Paddington Cemetery .The chances of two  random unrelated loads both being contaminated ,can mean one of two things  either Carpenders Park is contaminated throughout  which is very serious or the council failed to screen the 2nd  load properly believing they had  remove  all the Asbestos  before sending it to Paddington Cemetery.

The second "Find” of Asbestos was located  in section 3D on the May 9th 2017 .The find was made after grave diggers were preparing  for a burial .I understand well over a hundred pieces of asbestos were found  and these were found all the way down the dig .The pieces of asbestos  were not as you suggested just at the level of 6 or 7 feet some of it was near or on the surface .The spoil transported to Paddington cemetery in 2015 was used to backfill a hole that had appear after the removal of a very large tree and its roots. The pour of the waste did go to 6 or 7 ft  as the level of the  removed roots were that deep. Your assertion that  because the level where some the asbestos was found , makes the asbestos pre-2010  has no evidence to support that view.

On the 19th May  the third "find "was also found in section 3D again on or just below the surface. Nothing concerning this find  or the find that took place previously was mentioned or highlighted in the councils AAC.

On July17 2017 you sent me an email (see below) ) following an enquiry I made on behalf of a residents  it said.

Dear Cllr Duffy,

I understand a small number of pieces of asbestos have been dug up alongside bricks and other building materials during  a grave excavation in the mounded area at the rear of Paddington Cemetery.

These are small items, and tests have shown them to be a low-risk type asbestos. Also, of course, they’ve been buried and are therefore damp so pose no risk of particles being released. 

They will be disposed of in the appropriate manner

We’re working with Veolia and our in-house H&S team to establish the extent of the problem and, while we do that, we’re not burying there. As far as I’m aware though, there is absolutely no risk to the public here.

This email is misleading there was not a small number of pieces as you described, there were over a hundred pieces of  asbestos found and many of them were large ,will you confirm the number as I believe your reply to me underplayed the size of the asbestos find. Also the  test  you mentioned that you say "showed  low risk type  asbestos", has never  been published .Just to clarify  I am requesting the release of the test results that were carried out  on the asbestos found on the 9th May mentioned in your email along with the consignment notes for the asbestos found on 9th May and 19th May 2017, and the size of both those finds.....Hopefully the quick release of this information will lead to Brent residents having a complete picture. 

As you are aware Eaton Environmental group showed of the 60 pilot holds drilled (after the removal of the over one hundred pieces of asbestos) 28%  were still found to have  asbestos trace and  just under 25% of them including one sample which states " several large chunks of cement "were of "high content". i believe this is being underplayed by officers. Also neither the Eaton or Deltasimmon report consider the tests results  you mention in your email , therefore both the consultants conclusions are flawed as they do not consider the asbestos  from "finds" two and three in their overall results. I believe without those test results , Grave-owners , residents and parents will be unable to make up there own mind on past and future risk.

The other point of most  concern is the  storage of the contaminated waste on the footpath outside  the Green-space .I witnessed over many weeks that the asbestos was clearly visible. I wrote to you in early in December 2017 that were not following the basic Health and safety regulations  on the removal of Asbestos. Most importantly, the Council  did not  carry out the basic courtesy of  alerting  the school whose garden is immediately adjacent to ensure that no children went out  into the Green-space during the operation.  Nor did the Council cordon off the surrounding area to ensure members of the public did not enter.The use of the giant mechanical shovel on a open back lorry  was completely inappropriate and bound to create plumes of hazardous airborne dust. The waste was then placed in an open lorry rather than a locked skip (which is required under COSHH )  which would  ensure  the journey of the hazardous waste would be registered and the load could not be neither tampered  with or mixed with other waste. No protective sheeting was placed on the lorry as it drove off, leaving several pieces of asbestos (see photos on the Perfect storm email) scattered along the path. 

Albeit you were sent photographic evidence  of the waste being loaded into a open back lorry, you seemingly just ignored this  and on the 9th December you sent me another email.

Dear Cllr Duffy,

The contractors have advised the sealed container is still in the depot awaiting a date and time slot for it to be taken for final disposal/treatment in Swindon.

Apparently, there is a booking system rather than a ‘just turn up’ system.

We will advise as soon as we have further information.

Kind regards,

There was no sealed container as the photographs in the perfect storm email confirms. The lorry when to yard and  was off-loaded onto the floor. It is because of Brent  Council’s unwillingness to follow COSHH guidelines and ensure the waste was collect in  locked skip  no one will be able to guarantee the integrity of the load collected from outside the green-space for testing.

I understand from the Head of Finance  that the councils Audit officer  ,who  himself recognises he is not an H+S expert. He will now interview the staff. This again is just an attempt  to ensure the investigation is not open or transparent .It was only a few months ago the audit officer believed these people who were most exposed to asbestos were not  worth talking  to ,he also did not seek out important consignment notes to ensure the committee had all the facts  and the public have all the facts. Of course once he has investigate the decision will go back to the Audit Advisory Committee  and the press and public will once again be excluded  from the meeting .It will be the same result. Brent council will mark it own homework without any scrutiny from the public.

I believe the council lack of openness has caused considerable anxiety to many local residents not just about their health and well-being, it also brings alarm that a big juggernaut like Brent Council can continue to ignore them and hide behind locked doors in the Civic Centre and they are helpless to do anything about it. I am still hoping  the council will announce an independent investigation today (Monday ) prior to Tuesday meeting , which I believe the local residents will welcome and  will lead to a calm and sensible conclusion  that will be in the public interest ..

You mention the affect on some staff which are employed by Brent, which I really do consider. You can rest assured I am not motivated to get anyone disciplined. I believe you can see from my defence of the workers in the graveyard rights to be heard, because  that  I am not that kind of person . However I believe there are lessons to be learn be it extra  H+ S  and  COSHH training , changes in protocol , better contract management , better reporting systems or other solutions…...Mistakes can be made but they  can  be rectified , but they should'nt be hidden  behind secret meetings that excluded the press and public.

As I say I will be at the Civil Centre today ( Monday approx. 1pm), where hopefully  you will be able to give me the test results you mentioned  in your email and the consignment notes, which were all missing from the AAC report, so they can be studied  before Tuesday’s meeting .

Cemetery asbestos latest: Veolia workers to be interviewed and 'hazardous waste-asbestos' classification confirmed

In recent correspondence Cllr Duffy had pressed Brent Council on why Veolia cemetery workers who had witnessed events  had not been interviewed over the dumping of contaminated soil. In a letter today Conrad Hall, Chief Finance Officer and s151 Officer LINK, while doubting that it would yield anything useful has agreed to extend the investigation:

The likelihood of eye-witness accounts from 2010 ands 2014 being able to provide useable evidence is low given the standards of evidence that would be required for the purposes of any criminal investigation. However, given the need now to provide further public assurance we will extend the investigation to speak to Veolia staff who were employed at these times.

In another significant email Brent Council confirmed that a consignment note for a shipment of material from Carpenders Park Cemetery to the West London Waste Authority on 17th August 2015 (12.13pm) was classified as 'hazardous waste - asbestos'. The total weight of the mixed waste delivered for disposal 'including the piece of asbestos' was 60kg.

Duffy asks, 'Why didn't Brent Council interview key witnesses over transportation of asbestos contaminated waste?'

Councillor Duffy has responded to Brent Council's replies to his questions about the asbestos contamination at Paddington Cemetery with this email to Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive:

Thank you for letter you asked Mr Whyte to send on your behalf. I will study it and deal with the questions around the events of 24th June and 30th November and contamination in general in a second reply as I need to get more information. However this reply will focus on how the waste got to Paddington Cemetery, which is the most crucial issue. Firstly I am delighted you have said "I can confirm that the AAC report was initially restricted for its consideration by the Committee in December. it has been publicly available on the council’s website since the last Audit Advisory Committee on the 10^th January. I believe your decision to lift the restriction is a good decision for democracy and will allow an open debate around the report

As you know, until you published it, I was bound by the council standing orders not to reveal what was in the report. This was most frustrating as the report is flawed and omits crucial evidence. Only in Brent would a report that does not interview witnesses be acceptable. The report not only fails to interview anybody who witnessed the transportation from Carpenter Park to Paddington Cemetery (as they may tell a different story), it relies completely on what Senior Brent council officers say is true and does not seek relevant documentation.

As you know my allegations have always been the same since November 2017:

(1) The council knowingly/deliberate transported contaminated waste from Carpenters Park, putting the workforce and the public at unnecessary risk.

The report points out there were two known incidences of contamination in Paddington Cemetery. 

The first one took place in 2011, where the council received supposedly top-soil from a waste contractor. A council officer called Mr A dealt directly with the contractor named as company XX. He did not seek additional quotations as the contractor XX (this is normal for Brent not to seek best value) had previously carried out work in Willesden New Cemetery. Instead, Mr A met the contractor on site and agreed a price and raised a work order from the contractor to supply" Clean Top soil." 

While Mr A was off sick a Senior manager Mr F (rightly) challenged the workmanship of company XX and informed Mr A on his return to work that the company should not be used again. Mr F is now retired. Mr A however said the clay/soil was, he understood, to have been tested and no contamination was found. Bizarrely the investigating officer did not ask the name of the company who tested it or ask see a copy of the test results.

The second incident took place in Carpenders Park in August 2015, The work was being carried out by different contractor YY to carry out levelling work in section 3d in Paddington cemetery. Mr A was alerted to contaminated soil again .Mr A believed it to be (guessed it to be) "Asbestos cement", which he described as low risk. He removed some of the "Asbestos Cement"  and double bagged it and disposed of it to landfill and obtained a waste transfer certificate and the  remaining waste still contaminated  with asbestos fibres was transported to Paddington Old cemetery without a test being carried out to assert the level of contamination still within the soil this confirms the council knowingly transferred  waste to Paddington Cemetery knowing it to be contaminated. This is all confirmed at the bottom of page 6 and top of page 7 of the AAC report.

I assume the waste was then taken to the West London Waste Authority (WLWA) Site on Abbey road NW10 as we are a member of that waste authority. WLWA are required to keep Waste Transfer notes for a minimum of 2 years. So it is very likely they will still have copies and that information would be a basic requirement to any investigation Date, Weight, description but this obvious avenue was yet again not pursued by the investigator.

However the most bizarre thing I have ever seen in a report and after nearly forty years experience, I am still not sure I believe what i read. It was the statement from the investigating officer saying "Although dealing with contaminated land falls within the remit of the ( the council's) environment monitoring team they stated they would NOT pursue a criminal investigation against the the contractor should evidence of an offence under the Environmental Protection Act come to light." This is the Environmental team telling the investigator and the committee, whatever he then finds, it does not matter because environmental officers will not pursue it.

As I say, I welcome your decision to remove the restriction on the ACC Report and i hope it get a full airing at the public meeting, however I believe the publishing of the AAC report makes an Independent public investigation carried out by a Health and Safety expert( to reassure the public) inevitable. I believe the idea that issues in the public interest can be dealt with by a restricted special committee where the council mark their own homework and give themselves an A+  has to be challenged 

I have only one question: Are you happy that the investigating officer did not seek relevant available documents and failed to interview key witness involved in the transportation of the asbestos contaminated waste to Paddington cemetery 

An early reply will be much appreciated. I will also get back to you on the other two points later in the week. Namely, 

(2) That the council knowingly instructed the workforce to work in the contaminated ground in full knowledge that it was contaminated with Asbestos 

(3)  That the council knowingly did not follow proper H+S regulations on the 24th of June and 30th of November.

Duffy probes further on hazardous asbestos dump at Paddington Cemetery

Cllr John Duffy has submitted further evidence to all Brent councillors and Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive Officer in support of his call for an independent investigation.
 

Dear CEO,

It appears there has been a misrepresentation of facts by Council Officers and leading Councillors concerning the Audit Advisory Committee (AAC) report into the discovery of Asbestos found within Paddington Old Cemetery and the Deltasimon report . The AAC report is a completely different report  which should have investigate how the Asbestos arrived at the cemetery and the report is a restricted report ,which the public are not allowed access to. The Deltasimon report is - an independent report to assess the level of contamination and  this report neither sought or commented on the legality of  council actions to transport contaminated to the cemetery, or the council actions following the discovery of the Asbestos in 2015.

The AAC (in-house ) report, is in my opinion, poor and largely irrelevant because of its failure to interview the work-force (gravediggers /gardeners) most at risk in the situation. The report also failed to seek important relevant documents that are clearly available. However the most glaring deficiency is the fact that the report ends in August 2015 - when the deliberate transportation of the asbestos to Paddington Cemetery by the council took place.  Most of the major issues raised by the Friends of Paddington Old Cemetery (FPC) relate to the contravention of health and safety regulations after the concluding date of the AAC report .  These contraventions took place between 9th May 2017 and 30th November 2017.They were not addressed in the AAC report and have since been ignored by officers and senior councillors since.

The issue the AAC report ignores is, I believe, the most important and fundamental. Namely - did the council put the workforce and residents at unnecessary risk by not implementing basic Health and Safety regulations concerning the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health regulation (COSHH) following its discovery in Carpenders Park and subsequent transfer to Paddington Old Cemetery.  It is accepted that the Council officers knowingly delivered contaminated waste and instructed the workforce  to undertake over 90 burials in the contaminated  ground. The Deltasimon report contained within it a quote  stating that the contamination was therefore "deemed to pose a significant risk to the Brent council contracted grave diggers". Yet not one Gravediggers /Gardeners who handle the asbestos in Carpenters Park Depot  and worked on the contaminated mound ,were interviewed in the AAC report.

The fact is the AAC report missed information than it gathered,  because it ended in August 2015 and ignores the two incidents most concerning local residents ,FPC and some parents .The incidents I refer to  took place on the 24th June 2017*  and  the 30th November 2017*, after the Asbestos  was discovered on May 9th 2017.

The Perfect Storm

The Council say continually that the Asbestos was low-risk (albeit they did not know that when they delivered it to the cemetery) and assert that the simple presence of asbestos does not represent a risk.  They go on to say a risk is only present if the asbestos is disturbed, at which point fibres become air-borne and can be inhaled.  They also say that the ground is damp and this hinders the process of fibres becoming airborne. This statement is generally true. However, the question at hand concerns the way in which the asbestos was handled/disturbed by the council and the question of whether government COSHH regulations were followed to safeguard the workforce, residents and local school. 

After the discovery of the asbestos on May 9th 2017 the council initially took appropriate steps.  They employed Eton Environmental Group asbestos specialists and a specialist sub contractor to undertake all the reopening burials. They carried out their task in a professional fashion, ensuring the area they were working in was protected from the public and the workforce dressed in protective face masks and disposable overalls. 

However, on June 24th 2017 (6 weeks after the asbestos was discovered) the council again instructed work on the mound and bussed workers in from outside of the cemetery (after - as I understand it - other workers refused to work on the mound).  The new workforce had no knowledge of the asbestos contamination. They also had no training or protective equipment, masks, overalls etc, but were instructed to work at the site. The area was not taped off to prevent members of the public visiting graves there. The workforce set about their tasks, as instructed, raising potentially hazardous dust which put themselves and the public at unnecessary risk.  I attach a photo below taken by a resident on the day which I believe illustrates plumes of hazardous dust and the danger that represents.

The suggestion that the ground was damp enough to hinder the asbestos fibres becoming air-borne is complete nonsense. On June 24th 2017, the temperature was between 30 to 32 °C. Three days earlier, Greater London recorded 34.5 °C - the UK's highest June temperature since 1976. The ground was completely dry. I believe both the workforce and public were put at unnecessary risk by the failure of the council to protect them from the airborne dust created by this work, in what can only be described as the Perfect (Asbestos) Storm. 

Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH)

I fully supported the council in employing the specialist contractors, who are both well known asbestos specialists and understand the COSHH regulations in regard to asbestos. They professionally re-opened the graves for burials on the mound and removed the contaminated waste by wheelbarrow from the mound and placed it to the side of the road by the school garden, where green sheeting was place on it to remove the risk of any asbestos dust being blown into the air. Taping was place around the waste to stop people walking on it.  Which would seem reasonably good practice.

However the employment of the company who removed the contaminated waste was neither efficient or as safe.  It would seem this company was not on the approved list of Brent Contractors; they are not asbestos specialists, just a standard waste management /skip hire company. The operation they undertook certainly does not appear to follow COSHH regulations.  Most importantly, they did not contact the school whose garden is immediately adjacent to ensure that no children went out during the operation.  Nor did they cordon off the surrounding area to ensure members of the public did not enter.

The operation failed to meet even basic standards when dealing with Hazardous/Contaminated waste. The use of the giant mechanical shovel (see attached photo) was completely inappropriate and bound to create plumes of hazardous airborne dust. The area was fully open to public throughout the operation, the waste was then placed in an open lorry rather than a locked skip (which is required in COSHH guidelines), and no protective sheeting was placed on the lorry as it drove off, leaving several pieces of asbestos (see attached photo) scattered along the path.

No new evidence?

At Monday's full council meeting The Mayor refused my request for a debate to appoint an independent investigation.  His decision was supported by Cllr Southwood and Cllr Choudry stating there was no new evidence for any further investigation. This position is untenable. There is ample new evidence that was over looked by the AAC report.  

Since that report, officers have received.

(A) The dates of the incidents on 24th June* and the 30th November* and the location of the incidents.  

(B) evidence that Workers were bussed in and instructed to work and they had no protective clothing. 

(C) photographic evidence of airborne dust plumes and that the fact the area was not taped off from the public. 

(D) photographic evidence showing that the removal of the waste was not carried out within Health and Safety regulations.  

(E) The temperature on that day - showing that there was an increased risk contamination because of the dryness of the ground.  None of this issues were even mentioned in the AAC report.

In light of this, could you please confirm three points:

(1) Could you confirm that the AAC report is a internal restricted report and the public will never be allowed to view or reference that report?

(2) Can you confirm that you are aware the DeltaSimons report states "The Client (Brent Council) as landowner (and potentially as employer) has a duty to manage to ensure exposure is 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"?

(3) Can you confirm that since new evidence has now been made known to you - in paragraphs  titled "Perfect Storm" and "Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH)” above - you will commission an Independent Investigation into the manner in which the council handled issues following the delivery of the contaminated waste in August 2015 - The independent investigator should have knowledge of Health and Safety regulations (COSHH) and a remit to interview all witnesses. The investigator should be agreed by the leader of the Council  (Cllr Butt ) and  the leader of the opposition(Cllr Warren) and a rep from FPC. 

Finally If you, Cllr Southwood and Cllr Butt continue to impede /refuse an independent investigation, will you please pass on the attached photos to  the Asbestos  consultants Deltasimons and ask them if they believe the actions taken by Brent council on the 24thJune and November 30^th 2017 are compatible with the statement in their report highlighted in bold in Question 2. 

Cllr Duffy resigns from Brent Labour Group in protest over asbestos issue

Cllr Duffy's new seating position between Tory front bench and Cllr Carr

Cllr Duffy (Kilburn) resigned from Brent Labour Group  at the beginning of tonight's Full Council Meeting over the lack of support from the Group over the Paddington Cemetery asbestos issue (covered below).

Despite support for Duffy from Cllr John Warren (Conservative Group leader) the Mayor refused to allow discussion of the issue.

Cllr Tom Miller, a member of the Labour Group, tweeted:  'Frustrating at #BrentLive to have people trying to wedge in serious issue of asbestos without sorting out an agenda item or using the correct process generally. Gah.'

Later in the evening the Chair of the Audit Committee appeared to believe that a lengthy private discussion of a report on the asbestos dump and the participation of two independent members of the committee, made an independent inquiry unnecessary as they were satisfied  with the officer's report.

Brent Council to instigate recording of legal advice & (some) meetings with developers in response to criticism

The Audit Advisory Committee is not the most high profile of Brent Council committees but is has an important role, not least in these times of controversy.  The Committee has a fairly independent membership so it is to be hoped they give matters a good airing.

Next Wednesday's meeting has three items relating to stories published on Wembley Matters where officers seek, in two of them, to respond to some of the criticisms.

Firstly there are recommendations made by the auditor following his consideration of the objections to Brent Council accounts regarding the payment made to Cara Davani, former Head of Human Resources LINK. Despite not finding for the objectors he did suggest some actions in areas highlighted in their evidence.

Click to enlarge

The report puts on record Brent Council's  view of the initial case in which Cara Davani was found guily by a Watford Employment Tribunal of racial dscrimination and bullying of Rosemarie Clarke:

It remains the Council’s position that the sequence of events resulting in the unfair dismissal of Rosemarie Clarke reflect poorly on the organisation as it then was, and caused harm to the Council’s former employee. Lessons have been learned and new procedures have been implemented and the Council hopes that with this report the long-standing matter may now be brought to a close.

Another controversial issue has been Cllr Butt's meetings with developers, the lack of a note of what took place at the meetings and absence of any officers at these meetings LINK.

The Committee will consider proposed changes to the Brent Planning Code of Practice and will need to ensure that the changes are sufficiently robust as to restore public confidence in the planning process before they go to the Cabinet for approval.

The report states: 

There is a new section on ‘Discussions between members and meetings with developers or their representatives’. This in part incorporates into the code ad hoc advice issued by the Monitoring Officer to Members in the recent past and in part strengthens the Council’s commitment to being seen to be promoting good practice. The requirements aim to strike a proper balance between promoting public confidence in the integrity of the planning process and the legitimate reality of local government life. Of particular note is the requirement that pre-application discussions or discussions about undecided applications between Members and developers (or their representatives), are arranged, attended and documented by an officer.

This is the full section:*

Provided Members comply with the practical requirements  if this code and the Members Code of Conduct, there is no legal rule against Members, whether of the same group or not, discussing strategic planning issues, general policy issues or even future decisions.

Similarly, joint working, both formal and infornal, and dialogue between members of the Planning Commitee and members of the Cabinet is recognised as a legitinate reality of local government life. Members of the Planning Commitee need to ensure that when making planning decisions, they make up their own mind and on the planning merits.

Relevant members of the Cabinet are entitled to meet with developers or their representatives and other relevant stakeholders as part of their role to promote Brent and the regeneration, development and other commercial opportunities available in the borough.  In doing so Members of the Cabinet must always act in the best interests of the council and ultimately in the public interest, and in accordance with the high standards of conduct expected of Members, to ensure that the integrity of the planning process is not undermined and the council is not brought into disrepute.

Reasonable care and judgement should be exercised in relation to such meetings, taking into account the purpose of the meeting, the nature of the issues to be discussed and the timing.  In appropriate circumstances, exercising proper judgement may include ensuring a record is kept of the meeting. Cabinet members should make sure it is understood that their participation in marketing events or commercial discussions is separate from the adminstrative and regulaltory role of Members of the Planning Committee.

Although members of the Cabinet are entitled to express support or opposition to development proposed in the borough, they cannot use their position as a Member improperly to confer on or secure for any person an advantage or disadvantage.

As pre-application discussions or discussions about undecided applications require particular care, the following additional rules apply. An officer must make the arrangements for such meetings, attend and write notes. The meeting arrangements must include agreeing an agenda in advance. (my emphasis)

* The report on the Committee Agenda is a 'tracked changes' Word document converted into a PDF and very hard to read, particularly for anyone not versed in Word. Without a 'clean copy' I find it hard to see how it could receive proper scrutiny. See it HERE  It's ironic that a document trying to increase accountability and transparency is itself not readily accessible.

The last item is controversial and will remain so as Brent Council has restricted public access to the information. There is an update on the issues surrounding the asbestos contamination in Paddington Cemetery, first raised by Cllr John Duffy on this blog LINK but the update is not publicly available and the public will be excluded from the discussion about it.   No glimmer of light here.

Cemetery asbestos exposure being dealt with 'seriously and properly' by Brent Council

Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive, has responded to Clrr Duffy's call for an independent investigation into the asbestos waste exposure at Paddington Cemetery. LINK

Ms Downs wrote:

The letter to you from Chris Whyte intended to make clear that we will ask internal audit to undertake an initial investigation and that dependent upon their findings we will consider whether to pass the matter to an independent investigator, the police or any other relevant body or whether there is no evidence to support a claim of wrong doing. Pre-judging the outcome of this initial investigation, or any speculation at this stage about who is to blame, is not appropriate or helpful in my view. Internal audit will be able to pull together the relevant documentation, take a view on the matter and make recommendations. If we do proceed to an external review or some other action then this work will be very helpful to the third party involved at that point.

It is unfortunate that you believe residents will take the view that our colleagues in internal audit, who bring to bear their experience and specialist skills to investigate serious internal and external allegations all the time, which in appropriate cases have resulted in many successful prosecutions, would engage themselves in a “cover up”. I disagree. I am very clear that they will investigate this matter properly and thoroughly and this is entirely the right way for the Council to proceed. Even though any proposed follow [up] action which is an executive function will need to be formally reported to Cabinet, reports from internal audit are within the remit of the Audit Advisory Committee which reports to the Council and not the Cabinet. I do hope that you will feel reassured and able to make clear to any residents that the matter is being dealt with seriously and properly by the Council.

Please also note that the attached report is in the public domain already which covers the health risks related to this serious matter. LINK

Rest assured that the council already has been and will continue to be open and transparent about this matter and is mindful of the need to ensure appropriate scrutiny and accountability.

Cllr Duffy calls on Brent to remove 'insensitive' littering posters from Kilburn

Cllr John Duffy (Labour, Kilburn) has written the following letter to Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive,after a resident complained about the above poster displayed on Kilburn High Road:

Please find attached sign that has been place on Kilburn High Road.

A resident approached me claiming, in her view, that the sign was racist.

Whereas I would not go that far, until I hear the full motive behind the cabinet agreeing the signs, I would say I agree with her general concerns. 

I believe the signs are inappropriate and could be seen as an attempt to stereotype persons of colour as the culprits of crime and it is also conceivable that used a mug shot of a young black man against a background commonly used by LAPD ( who are widely believe to be the most racist American police-force) as offensive to many people. 

I am asking you to remove these signs forthwith from Kilburn - other councillors can make their own minds up. I do not wish to see rows of these along Kilburn High Road as I believe they give the wrong impression to the public about how to care for the environment and who is responsible for environmental crime.  

I am concerned this is another display of the Cabinet devotion to the failed Zero Tolerance policy, which is in fact is a reactionary policy. This policy has stigmatised many innocent residents, because of the bounty hunting approach of issuing tickets and now this dubious awareness campaign.

Bearing in mind you as the CEO accept that the Kingdom Securities contract had no negotiations, equalities training or monitoring concerning the issuing of the 6000 Fixed Penalty Notices. I again ask you to independently audit the FPNs to ensure they were issued fairly and were not issued using the person’s colour or mental health conditions as the main factor.

Ms Downs, I am sure you read the Prime Minster’s race audit, which pointed out "Black people are more than six times more likely to be stopped and searched by police than White people". I cannot help thinking this type of subliminal stereotyping being produced by Brent is not helpful to those who wish to see this figures reduced.

I hope you will confirm ASAP:

(1) Removal of these signs from Kilburn forthwith.

(2) How many of these signs went up and where they went -up.

(3) How much the signs cost.

(2) Could you furnish me with the reason behind these signs, as they make no sense to me as they do even mention the fine.

(3) Confirm you will haves an independent audit of the 6000 FPNs issued

Councillor claims residents will flytip and report via Cleaner Brent App to avoid £35 bulk collection charge

Councillor John Duffy (Labour, Kilburn) has returned to the theme of alleged waste in Brent Council's waste policy. He has sent the email below to all councillors:

Dear Councillors,

It is obvious to anyone who understand data there is a direct correlation between the failure of the Cabinet to monitor the bulky waste service and ensure the contractor perform to contract specifications and the increase in fly-tipping.

It is unacceptable that the cabinet were aware of the both the rising fly-tipping figures and the rising delays in the bulky waste collection Times and chose to do nothing. It is clear  to me the longer the waiting time for the bulky waste service the more likely the waste is to be dumped on the Street. It is also clear residents are resourceful and using the Cleaner Brent  App to report their own dumped furniture/waste (therefore the rise in reported dumping) therefore getting the waste taken away for nothing in 24 Hrs rather than wait the 8 weeks for a collection.

The likelihood of thing improving once the £35 charge has been introduced is remote and clutching at straws, especially  as residents will soon realise they have already paid for the collection service once in their Council Tax.

It beggars belief that  the cabinet are offering our residents the choice of paying £35 for  bulky collection that will take  up to 5 days too collect or to take the items  outside and use the Brent Appto report the dumping and get it picked up in 24 hrs  for Free. I think many will chose the second option especially when they realise  they have already paid for the service in their council tax.

I believe the service will yield little income and will increase fly-tipping, I have asked the CEO on Monday to suspend the charge and asked for a full evaluation.The CEO has not got back to me, but I understand her and the leader will not suspend the £35 charge and stand by it.

I am having further conversations with residents groups to put together a package of improvements based on environmental needs. Which I will hopefully update you with on Monday.

One of the guiding philosophies in the environment is the polluter pays, however what the cabinet are suggesting is the polluter pays twice.

I still hope the cabinet will see reason and enter into dialogue to improve the environment and suspend the £35 charge, however based on my previous experience that will not happen. 

See below email

Dear CEO and All Councillors ,

I am very concerned about the £35 charge for Bulky Waste as I believe the decision is double charging residents for a service they already pay for and has no financially modelling and is environmentally damaging and is not also sustainable,

The reason I believe this is the case because the charge is being brought in to hide the failings by the cabinet to improve services. The service has gone from a 5 day pick-up in 2014 when I (most of us) was elected to an 8 week delay today. The delay is wholly at the doorstep of the cabinet for believing in the supposed Zero Tolerance policy with Kingdom Security , which squandered resources, while misunderstanding the issues around contract compliance and sustainability.

As well as the wasting of resources on the KS contract one of the only environmentally revenue (we lost over £100k) from the government, that was available to us. The contract had no controls on what services were needed by the council. This allowed the contractor to chose the most lucrative areas for themselves , while avoided the areas of most need like street dumping .This lack of controls and other decisions taken by the cabinet has seen the number of case of fly tipping go up by over 32% from10,000 reported cases  to 17,000 reported cases in the last year alone.

I am therefore amazed with Fly-tipping rising at constant rate over the last 3 years ,the cabinet have decided  the best way to reduce fly-tipping is to introduce a £35 charge for the bulky waste service.

The Service

The truth about the existing service is the Street Cleansing contract is clear . The contract makes the contractor ( Veolia) liable to pick up 17500 bulky waste collections PA 70 pick-ups X 5 Days X 50 Weeks. This year we picked up 17485 collections. Albeit the service clearly running at near capacity, it should not have lead to an eight weeks delay….. It would seem that the residents have already paid for this service via the council Tax for the street cleansing contract and the disposal contract, but the cabinet failure to ensure contract compliance and Fly-tipping as their priorities have let the service fail.

Financial Modelling.

Albeit the service has been paid for once. I believe there is a case for more investment in the environmental services. However I believe the £35 charge will be the highest charge by any licensed waste carrier in Brent and is not competitive and the charge will have a negative affect on the environment .Those who will not pay the £35 will do one of the following.

(i)        Some will taken Civic Amenity centre , some residents will still have a problem transporting larger item,settee,mattresses.

(ii)       Some will use licensed private collectors.

(iii)      Some will use the grey bin ( breaking-up smaller items)

(iv)      Some will use Street dumping

(v)       Some will  use Street Dumping and use the Brent Cleansing Apt to report it.  

(vI)     Some will use unlicensed (White Van Man) waste carriers , much of which will end -up dumped on the street.

Model A 

I understand officers have based their modelling on a take-up from 11000 to 17000 collections and income between 25k to £250 , this seemingly is only based on a £35 per collections price. Their model excludes the collection of bags of rubble and some other items and the figures are very broad.

Whereas it is always hard to a financial breakdown  on what is a new charge, but there are obvious facts ,the service will still operate a substantial discount for residents in receipt of benefits  which can be as high as 20% so allowing for a 15% against what is in the contract 17500- 15% = 14875  paid collection. we also know the higher the cost the bigger the lose of customers.

I believe that a nominal fee of £10 should have little affect on paying on the people who pay now but the £35 will deter many my analyses is based on work I did some years ago on increasing costs for commercial Waste.

£10 cost Customers  lose 10% of customers   =  14131 X   £10 = £141000  (90% of customers including discounted residents)  

£20 cost Customers  lose 45% of customers   =    8181 X   £20 = £164000  (70% of customers including discounted residents)  

£35 cost Customers  lose 75% of customers   =    4462  X  £35 = £156180  (45% of customers including discounted residents)  

You can see from this model the £20 would bring in the most. The £35 is unsustainable because its more expensive that other options, however the £10 is more fair as the residents have already paid for collections in the Veolia contract and already paid for the deposal in the West -Waste levy. I also have more confident in the take -up of the £10 cost as its affordability for most residents.

There also other issues, why are we using 5 items as the cut of point , it is more logical to me to cut it to £10 for 4 items this is based on the bulky collection usually being one or two items (bed and mattress or a fridge-freezer) we could then charge a progression cost for £5 per item after that , believe this would also bring in more income.

Officers and the Cabinet say they oppose a progressive charge because they wish to keep the costing simple. I completely disagree there is nothing simple about doubling the price once you have past a threshold. A progressive charge is both fairer and reflects the true cost.

The Way forward

As you know I am trying to get the support of a number of councillors (hopefully in late November) to call a full council meeting  to discuss sustainable Environment policies around enforcement , recycling and  street cleansing. I will get back to you on those proposal shortly.

In the meantime I am asking the CEO and the Leader of the Council to consider

(1)      Freezing the introduction of the scheme until a full evaluation of the increase in fly-tipping is assessed.

If however you are not willing to freeze the introduction of the charge please answer the questions below as an FOI if you like.

(2)      Explain the price modelling. 

(3)      Explain why,now that we are charging, why are certain wastes prohibited 

(4)      Did  officers explore progressive pricing. 

(5)      How much increased revenue do you expect to received from the the new charge of £35 

(6)      What impact do you think the Charge will have on Fly-tipping. 

I understand under this scheme Brent are going to takeaway old Christmas Trees.I buy my Tree at Ikea for £16 , I feel hearten to know the council will take it away for just…...£35.

I think the cabinet have missed the point.