Letter: Brent Council is using heavily biased language in its Paddington Old Cemetery dog PSPO consultation - what are their real plans?

 Dear Editor,

The leader of Brent Council Muhammed Butt and his Cabinet have been accused of “treating voters with contempt” and “turning neighbours against each other” in Kilburn, with a completely farcical ‘consultation’ aimed at banning dogs being walked off leash in one of the few green spaces in that part of Brent. 

Paddington Old Cemetery – a Grade II listed historic green space and graveyard - which was landscaped by Westminster Council in the 1980s – has been an increasingly popular location for dog owners (who make up nearly half of the local population based on London dog ownership figures) in recent years. The cemetery is a wonderful open space for local residents walking their dogs. There are large spaces with no graves where dogs can exercise without troubling anyone.

It is also a vital source of bio-diversity, with many rare species living there as well as thriving bee hives. Growing visitor numbers have driven away the drug dealers who used to plague the cemetery, and residents living nearby say that dog walkers have made their homes safer.  

Things changed when management of the cemetery passed from Brent’s Parks Department to the Cemeteries team, who seem determined to extract as much money from the site as they can, regardless of the consequences to the community. Getting rid of dogs completely is being seen as the first step in that process. 

Brent has amended its borough-wide Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) to force dogs to be on the leash in the cemetery without discussing it with community groups, and without telling anyone until two weeks before it was due to take effect on 1 October. Following a strong push-back from local residents, Cllr Butt announced an eleventh-hour u-turn and paused the implementation of the new regulations pending a consultation. Nearly 450 residents have signed an ePetition calling on Brent to ensure that this consultation is “fair, open, transparent and balanced”.

However, those hopes were dashed when the Brent Council’s survey went live last Friday. Marketing expert, dog owner and founder of the group Dogs of Paddington Old Cemetery (DoPOC) Eleni Chalmers described it as “one of the worst surveys I have ever seen in my life”. 

Chalmers said: “The questions are leading and designed to gather evidence to support removing the freedom of off-lead dog walking in the cemetery, rather than being an authentic request for community input. The survey options are unbalanced and the language is loaded, such as options to ‘agree' with ‘dogs urinating and defecating on graves’. Most questions have a simple default option of ‘I don’t agree with dogs in the cemetery’. Further outrage has been caused by Brent’s edict that only one person in a household can fill in the survey and barring anyone who responded to the first after it was amended in the middle of the consultation. It simply breaks all rules of effective research.  It’s clearly designed to get the outcome Brent wants - which is to remove all access to this rare community green space to dog owners.” 

Brent has now taken the unprecedented step of sending letters by first-class post to residents in Kilburn and Queen’s Park to publicise the survey. This letter again uses loaded, heavily biased language, talking about increasing complaints about dogs “causing distress to visitors” and “causing disturbance to burial services” without providing any evidence to support this. 

Residents have been left wondering what the cost of this exercise has been to a borough that consistently pleads poverty and has cut street cleaning in Kilburn to the minimum.

“This was a missed opportunity to have a genuine dialogue with all cemetery users about how to manage the increasing popularity of the cemetery,” said Cordelia Uys, a local dog owner and DPOC member. 

“Responsible dog owners recognise that there are things we need to do to ensure that dogs and people visiting graves can co-exist, like reducing the number of dogs professional walkers can bring in and stopping people driving long distances to the cemetery to exercise dogs. This is what the consultation should have explored. Instead, they are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”

Chris Maggs walks her dog daily in the cemetery and also visits the graves of her great-grandparents there.

Maggs said: “It’s also important to remember that nearly half of the people who visit graves own dogs themselves and they often want to bring their pets with them. It’s simply false to try to pretend that dog owners and grave visitors are two completely different sets of people”

Brent’s Cemeteries team hit the headlines a few years ago when they dumped asbestos-ridden waste in the cemetery in a bid to create an artificial-raised section in which to dig new graves. [Editor: See LINK] As a result of the delays to that project they allowed the use of destroyed historic paths, and other unused areas in the cemetery, for burials. Michael Bond, the creator of Paddington Bear, is buried in one such pathway area and his tombstone is already leaning. After heavy rainfall his grave is often left temporarily underwater. 

Why are Brent pursuing this path for a green space that is full to capacity with an estimated 200,000 bodies in marked and unmarked graves? Residents and visitors to the cemetery strongly suspect that once dogs are banned, the Council’s next step will be to investigate whether it can dig-up old graves and re-sell the plots. 

Local residents including the Friends of Paddington Old Cemetery (FoPOC) and its dog loving counterpart DoPOC, want a permanent joint consultation committee with Brent on the future of POC in order to save it - for all members of the community.

 

Brent resident and dog owner

 

 

Brent Council consultation on varying the PSPO regarding dogs in Paddingon Old Cemetery following complaints

 

From Brent Council

Dogs in Paddington Old Cemetery Consultation

Have your say – dogs in Paddington Old Cemetery

The Consultation

Brent Council has received complaints relating to dog behaviour in Paddington Old Cemetery, located in Willesden Lane NW6 and we are seeking your views on the rules that currently apply under our Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO).

Paddington Old Cemetery is one of four Brent cemeteries and the only one that allows dogs. The cemetery itself is a working cemetery with a number of burials taking place every year.

What is a PSPO

Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPOs) are a legal measure aimed at preventing nuisance in public areas, with the aim of maintaining public safety and improving the quality of life for residents and visitors. They work by imposing conditions on the use of that area that apply to everyone.

Have your say

We are now consulting on varying the PSPO to address the complaints we are receiving about the behaviour of dogs in Paddington Old Cemetery. We are keen to hear from the local community to help us understand what rules should apply.

Please submit one questionnaire per household. If more than one response is received from the same household, only the first response will be considered as part of the consultation.

This consultation will open from Friday 18th October 2024 to Tuesday 10th December.

For further information on the consultation and FAQs please click here

You can email the Cemeteries team for more information cemeteries@brent.gov.uk

 

The consultation opened onf Friday 18th October and closes on Tursday 10th December 2024. Link to consultation survey  HERE

Uncovering Kilburn's History - Part 4

Welcome back to this fourth article in the Kilburn local history series. If you missed Part 3, you will find it here.

 

Railway lines began crossing Kilburn’s land in 1837, with the coming of the London and Birmingham Railway. Kilburn (now High Road) station opened in 1851. In the 1860s Edgware Road (later Brondesbury) station came on the Hampstead Junction Railway, and Kilburn and Brondesbury (Kilburn today) station was opened on the Metropolitan Railway in 1879.

 

1. Metropolitan Railway Station and Bridge, Kilburn High Road, c.1910. ( www.images-of-london.co.uk )

 

The earlier railways, however, did not stimulate a large growth in Kilburn. The main developments were still along the Edgware Road, which was served by horse buses and later trams. In 1856 22 omnibuses a day ran to London Bridge and by 1896 south Kilburn was served by over 45 buses an hour. The start of the 20^th century brought a motorbus service to Oxford Circus, and in 1915 Kilburn Park station on the Electric Railway line was the first underground railway in Kilburn.

 

2. Kilburn Park Underground Station, October 2020. (Photo by Irina Porter)

 

In Charles Dicken’s Dictionary of London, published in 1879, Kilburn was described as ‘a newly built district at the far end of the Edgware Road’. Its development, beyond a few large houses, had begun in the south, after Lady Salusbury sold her properties to the Church Commissioners in 1856. The following year the Commissioners made a series of agreements with James Bailey, a builder from Maida Vale, who later moved to Brondesbury Lodge. 

 

In 1859 Bailey had built Brondesbury Terrace and started work in Canterbury Road. By 1867, he had put up about 550 houses, including Cambridge and Oxford Roads, using architectural pattern books, and marketing his development as Kilburn Park. A number of houses he built, along with the Duke of Cambridge and The Brondesbury public houses (both now converted for residential use), are now locally listed buildings within the South Kilburn Conservation Area.

 

3. Cambridge Road, c.1910. (Image from the internet: www.images-of-london.co.uk )

4. Cambridge Gardens, October 2020. (Photo by Irina Porter)

 

Other speculative builders followed Bailey to the area. Speculative building – when houses were built before a buyer or a tenant was found – put developers at risk if they over extended themselves, so many went bust. Through the rest of the 19^th century, local house building expanded northwards. You can see the extent of development in 1875 (when Willesden Local Board was established, with a population of 18,559), and again by 1895 (when it had become Willesden Urban District, with 79,260 people) on this map.

 

5. Development in the east of Willesden parish as at 1875 and 1895. (From “The Willesden Survey, 1949”)

 

By the 1880s, businesses like the United Land Company would purchase plots of land, subdivide them into smaller plots and sell those at auctions, resulting in smaller developers doing the actual building. The names of the roads would often come from old estates in the area (Mapesbury, Brondesbury), or places connected with former landowners. The Salusbury name lives on today, in a road and the school situated on it, as well as a pub, wine store and other local amenities. In another example, the Powell Cottons owned the land on the Shoot Up Hill estate, and the names of the roads there reflected their Kent connections (Fordwych, Minster, and Westbere Roads, etc).

 

One famous resident of Kilburn was the artist Louis Wain (1860 – 1939), who lived at 41 Brondesbury Road. Louis Wain was famous for the drawings of anthropomorphized (with human features) cats. Born in Clerkenwell, Wain studied at the West London School of Art, where he was also assistant master. In 1882 he joined the staff of the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News and four years later that of the Illustrated London News. 

 

When Wain was 20, his father died, and Louis became the main supporter of his mother and five sisters. At 23 he married the family governess, Emily Richardson, who died of cancer within 3 years of their marriage. During her illness the family took in a stray kitten, named Peter, who cheered her up during her illness and gave Louis a direction for his art, which became his passion. From the 1880s onwards Wain’s cats walked upright in human clothing of the highest fashion, came with all sorts of facial expressions, enjoyed smoking, played musical instruments, hosted tea parties, played games, went fishing and to the theatre. These parodies of human behaviour became immensely popular. 

 

6. Louis Wain, and two of his cat paintings. (Images from the internet – photo by Lascelles & Co.)

 

Despite his popularity and huge output (he could produce up to 600 drawings a year), Wain was not good with money and during the First World War he sank into poverty. He lived with his sisters in Brondesbury Road. Having developed a mental illness, he died at Napsbury Hospital, near St Albans. He is buried in his father's grave at St. Mary's Roman Catholic Cemetery, Kensal Green.

 

At the start of Kilburn’s development, land owners or builders were responsible for the infrastructure of their own developments, including roads and sewers. Gas street lighting was first introduced in Kilburn near the bridge in 1849, and extended in 1861. Kilburn used the Metropolitan Board of Work’s sewers, although Willesden fell outside its area. 

 

So many houses had been built in Kilburn that many could not be sold or let as family homes. It was common to find rooms let out to several families. The poorer areas of Kilburn became overcrowded, in 1894 with 11 persons per house, compared with 6 in the rest of the parish. The death rate for children under 5 in Willesden in 1875 was 45 per 1,000, with Kilburn the worst area, where diarrhoea, tuberculosis and respiratory diseases were prevalent. Healthcare, if you could afford it, was provided by local clinics, but for hospital residents went to St. Mary’s Paddington or New End in Hampstead. 

 

7. Paddington Old Cemetery, Willesden Lane, and its war graves, 2018. (Photos by John & Anne Hill)

 

The large estates’ lands still had some farms, which mainly produced hay for London horses, as well as providing grazing for cattle, and there were also several nurseries. But each successive decade saw less farmland. In 1855 Paddington Burial Board bought 22 acres of a farm off Willesden Lane and set up a civic cemetery. Today it is run by Brent and is Grade II listed. The cemetery includes 213 graves for casualties of the First and Second World Wars.

 

8. Willesden Town Hall, Dyne Road, in the 1920s. (Brent Archives online image 657)

 

Local government only developed gradually. The local authority for Kilburn was originally the Willesden Parish vestry (and Hampstead vestry, respectively east of the High Road). This organised a vote in 1875, that set up the Willesden Local Board, which in turn was succeed by Willesden Urban District Council in 1894. Willesden Town Hall was built in Dyne Road, on the site of Waterloo Farm, and opened in 1891. (The building was demolished in 1970, after the newly formed Brent Council had chosen Wembley’s more modern Town Hall as its headquarters.)

 

9. Willesden Volunteer Fire Brigade, 1874. (Brent Archives online image 732)

 

A volunteer fire service was formed after the fire at Mapesbury Mill on Shoot Up Hill in 1863, with headquarters in Bridge Street, near the tollgate. A new station, under the control of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade was opened in Salusbury Road in 1884, which covered the Kilburn area until the Second World War. The fire station was next to Kilburn Library, the first public library to be opened in Willesden in January 1894, which was enlarged in 1908.

 

10. Kilburn Library (right) and Fire Station (centre), c.1910. (Brent Archives online image 10773)

 

11. Salusbury Road and the Police Station, c.1900. (From the internet: www.images-of-london.co.uk )

 

The police station, as shown on the photo above, is on the corner of Salusbury Road and Harvist Road, - still a police station today, although the building has been completely re-built in the 1970s.

 

12. High Road, Kilburn, in 1886, by local photographer A. Mackie. (Brent Archives online image 226)

 

Kilburn became a thriving commercial centre, with the Edgware Road through it, featuring a continuous line of shops by the 1860s. It gained the name Kilburn High Road in the 1880s. Foyle's bookshop started in Kilburn, moving to Charing Cross Road in 1926. By 1909 there were 300 shops here, many owned by foreigners, some of them Jewish immigrants.

 

13. Kilburn High Road, 1905. (From the internet: www.images-of-london.co.uk )

 

Industry was here, too. There was tile making in Kilburn as early as the 16th century. In 1862 a railway signal factory was built in Kilburn Lane (later called Canterbury Road). The Saxby & Farmer works became the largest employer in Kilburn, although it moved to a larger site in Chippenham, Wiltshire, around 1906, after taking over a similar business there. 

 

14. Kelly & Craven's works in Willesden Lane, 1884, and Kelly's tombstone. (Images from John Hill)

 

By 1890 there were coachbuilders, bicycle manufacturers, and monumental masons (for Paddington Cemetery). Kelly & Craven’s Cemetery Stone Works in Willesden Lane did plenty of business, as most people were buried (cremation did not become common until the 20^th century). Unfortunately for Mr Kelly, the stone dust from his work was a health hazard, and he was just 51 years old when he was laid to rest.  Light engineering and printing were also established by 1914.

 

With the rapid increase in population came a rise in the number of churches. We’ve already seen St Paul’s Church in Part 3, and non-conformist ministries were quick to follow the housing developments such as those by James Bailey. St James’s Episcopalian Church was built in Cambridge Avenue in 1863, using a prefabricated corrugated iron system. Commonly known as ‘the tin tabernacle’, it is surprisingly still there today, and although no longer a church, and officially called Cambridge Hall, it is a Grade II listed building. In 1865 the Reverend Thomas Hall had West Kilburn Baptist Church built, to designs by his brother, who was an architect. After more than 150 years, that is still in use, and a locally listed building.

 

15. Cambridge Hall (Kilburn's "tin tabernacle") and West Kilburn Baptist Church. (Images from the internet)

 

Next week we will continue to look at local churches, schools and much more, as Kilburn’s story continues into the 20^th century.

 

Irina Porter,
Willesden Local History Society.

 

A special thank you to local historian Dick Weindling, co-author of 'Kilburn and West Hampstead Past' and History of Kilburn and West Hampstead blog .

Asbestos row: Duffy accuses Brent Council of sanctioning personal attacks on him

Cllr John Duffy has returned to the issue of asebstos contamination in Paddington old Cemetery with an email to councillors and others accusing the council of sanctioning personal attacks on him in the face of his attempts to unearth the facts over the issue.

Duffy wrote:

Brent Council has taken the extraordinary step of sanctioning personal attacks on me, These attacks  are a complete distortion of the facts and many are  plainly untrue. The Officers of Brent council have published what they call a fact sheet on there Web-site and handed out a similar document at a public meeting, which names me.. 

The officers are suggesting I am the cause of unhelpful rumours, which have left people feeling scared and uneasy instead of responding to the needs of my residents.

This is of course nonsense many of the facts stated are commonly agreed However the document seeks to mislead Brent residents by mixing -up facts to negate the real issues. All the issues I have revealed are all supported by evidence, unlike the officers facts which are based on the their views and have no evidence then other than "The Audit review report concluded that procurement procedures within the Cemeteries Service were inadequate at the time that work was undertaken at the cemetery and that management consider the recommendations from consultants to proportionately mitigate the soil contamination identified" Basically saying they had no control systems at the time  and in layman's terms the contaminated waste that was sent to Paddington Cemetery was not screened. I have been in the waste management business for over 40 years , I can tell you  that the idea that officers cannot not tell the difference between soil ( which would be usual for a graveyard  ) and builders rubble  ( which ended up in Paddington Cemetery) is frankly staggering.

FACT 1

I believe the import of builders rubble including Asbestos  ,instead of  soil has been going on for a number of years ,in fact since 2010/11  and the audit report confirms  that fact.In 2010/ 11 we paid £21K for  work including the supplying and laying of top Soil. The officer who was in charge went of sick  and the  person who took charge queried the quality of the  work and soil. He instructed that the contractor who carried out the work was not to be used for future work". 

FACT 2 

If we move forward to  August 2015 , we sees avery similar scenario another assignment of soil/Clay  which was bound for the section 3D on the mound in Paddington Cemetery.However this time the soil  to back fill a hole following the removal of a tree roots .The  assignment was found to have asbestos within it .The Brent Officers believed  it to be asbestos  and double bagged it and sent it West London Waste Authority for disposal  , the consignment note confirms that fact said it was classified as Hazardous waste and weighted 60 KGs.  

FACT 3

The  scenario continued and further shipments of waste was sent to section 3D in Paddington Cemetery to backfill the hole .During a excavation of 3D  for a burial on the 9th May ( 20 months after delivery of the shipment took place ) and on the 18th May 2017 , asbestos was  discovered and a sample was  sent to Tersus Asbestos specialists for examination and they conclude on the 17th May  that  it was asbestos cement (Chrysotile) the remaining( hundreds of pieces )  weighting 30Kgs was sent to Brentwood Essex .The consignment note confirms that fact saying it was Asbestos cement ( Chrysotile ) .

FACT 4

Every since the area (3D ) was used  for burials the gravediggers have excavated large amounts of builders rubble .However on May 9th Asbestos was found.Brent council     instead of stoping all new work  still instructed the contractor to continue to  excavate for new burials . The test result came back from Tersus Asbestos Specialists confirming Asbestos Cement ( Chrysotile) on the  17th May 2017. A further find of Asbestos took place on the 18th May by the contractor. Brent officers still instructed  the contractor to continued to  carry out burials until May 30th some 21 days after the initial find of asbestos and 13th days after confirmation that the find of up to a hundred pieces was  indeed asbestos cement. The  officers assertion that the gravediggers wore disposable coveralls for these burial is untrue  neither were they informed of the Tersus results  or given any specialised training. Work continued on the mound throughout out the summer and operatives were not given  any protective clothing or breathing equipment. I am sure now that the Brent Council have reluctantly agreed to interview staff, they will confirm the facts.

FACT 5

I produced photographic evidence that operatives were working on the mound .I supplied pictures given to me by a resident which  were taken Monday June 26th *2017 The resident was concerned  that the work-force / public were  not protected from hazardous dust on Mound arising from works that were taking place. Brent council in their attempt to smear me and distortions the facts  they took  the absurd   positions of saying the "Photographs (are) not conclusive. Works and precise location not identified". They are pictures of a graveyard , with gravestones .Its a fact we have  been using stones as historical marker since Stonehenge . How Brent Officers can say gravestones do not a portray a precise location beggars belief.  As for the date of the work you would only need to interview the workforce who were bussed in to do the work and see if they were informed that Asbestos had been confirmed on the mound and were they issued with protective clothing and was  the area sealed off to protect the public. I believe the photographs confirm the fact  that work continue on the mound and residents band the workforce was put at unnecessary risk.

FACT 6

The two specialist reports by Eton Environment ( Sept 2017) and Delta -Simon (Jan 2018)  took place well after the ( around a hundred  pieces of )  asbestos had been removed following their discovery in  May 2017 .The Eton Environment survey  found 28% of their samples were positive for asbestos  including  several large chunks of Asbestos cement which had high content. Whereas both the surveys point to a low risk situation now, the surveys was taken following the removal of around a hundred pieces of the Asbestos found  on the 9th and 18th May 2017 .Furthermore the reports do not comment on the level of contamination/ risk that was present when the  Asbestos was discovered and the risk associated with it removal undertaken by Brent Council. However the reports confirm the fact "No asbestos sampling was undertaken in association with this (those) reports" the only asbestos sampling report was Tersus  and the consignment notes which  confirm the fact that  asbestos was cement (Chysotile) " and the  consignment notes confirm the amount of Hazardous waste found so far has been 90 KGS 

FACT  7

The issue about the council being open is not sustainable. The facts confirm they have been forced to publish the internal Audit report, it is clear they tried to ensure the press and the public were excluded from all meetings . They were forced  to interview staff who were present  at the discovery of the contaminated waste in Carpenders Park. They were forced  to interview the gravediggers who carried out the burials. They also never published documentation from Tersus Asbestos specialists which showed they were aware it was Asbestos Cement ( Chrysotile) on the  17th May 2017. They have been forced to publish  relevant  (not all as at least two consignment notes are missing) documentation. They did not inform the school that work was being carried out  to remove asbestos .The idea they did not contact the school/residents not to raise alarm is nonsense. The councils Audit Report did not mention the School or the affect on residents while the removal of asbestos was taking place. The council had no intention of informing the school or indeed the residents.  They reluctantly called a public meeting where  they ensured no one  but themselves were given platform , instead allowing a panel of four council officers (accompanied by a further eight in the audience)  to put the council view  ensuring only they could be heard.

At the meeting council officers tried to avoid the real issue the which is how consignments of clay changed to builders rubble (with Asbestos)  and did they recklessly put people at risk by continuing  to carry-out works after the Asbestos was found on May 9th and were they right to store the contaminated  waste by the Green Space.

The Audit  report the council relies on, do not address the issues. I  believe that the  evidence bears our the fact that the council instead of preparing soil  that had ben screened for the burial of residents , they knowingly transferred to Paddington Cemetery sub standard soil /rubble including Asbestos. I believe we need an independent Health and Safety investigation (why did the council chose an audit report?), which looks at the facts outlined above and believe the council should be forced to implement that impartial investigation , including the issue of compensation for resident who bought burial plots in 3D section of the mound.

* Not the  24th as originally state 

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.