What is the UK doing in the Yemen? Public meeting Monday December 11th

'The Silvertones' Sunday fundraiser for Preston Community Library at the Windermere

Brent Council take on the Coca Cola sugary drinks juggernaut amidst fear for children's health

The Coca Cola truck has become a regular feature of Christmas at the London Design Outlet in Wembley Park but concern has been voiced about the marketing of sugar drinks aimed at children in an era of rising rates of obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.  LINK

This year rather than joining in publicising the visit due on Friday,  Brent Council, in David and Goliath mode, have written to Coca Cola asking them to limit their giving out of free drinks to diet and zero sugar drinks instead of the usual Coke that has the equivalent of 9 teaspoonfuls of sugar in a 330ml can. 

In pleading for the multi-national company, who long ago incorporated Santa Claus into their advertising, to act responsibly for the benefit of children, Brent Council point to the fact that nearly half of children in the borough aged 11 are overweight or obese. Although tooth decay in the borough have been reduced recently there is still much to do to tackle the problem.

Coca Cola all part of consumerism for the LDO

Some councils and health authorities have called for the trucks to be banned completely.Accompanied by lights and music, in vivid red, they are clearly aimed at children who find their lure irresistible.


Cllr Krupesh Hirani, Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for Community Wellbeing said:

It’s great to see Coca-Cola getting into the festive spirit once again. However, in a borough where nearly half of 11-year-olds are overweight there is an obvious concern that there is this focus on encouraging children to consume what is a highly-sugary drink.

Mums and dads in Brent have enough of a challenge to keep their children healthy and we hope that with a little bit of responsible marketing and one small change, Coca-Cola can be a part of the solution to Brent’s obesity issues, rather than part of the problem.

With nine teaspoons of sugar in each 330ml can of Coca-Cola, their flagship product clearly has a negative impact on people’s health. With obesity and diabetes levels so high in the Borough, we are calling on Coca Cola to stop promoting their sugary drinks to our residents. They are entitled to market their products and we are calling on them to promote their diet and zero sugar drinks instead.

Sewer works likely to continue into the new year

Brent Council, answering a query from a local resident, have confirmed the revised end date for the Wembley High Road sewer works as December 22nd but added that it was likely that the works would continue into the new year.

Thames Water are currently excavating another shaft over the sewer and the lateral connection to the former Brent House which should be completed by Thursday of this week. Thames Water will then need to continue to tunnel towards Wembley Triangle to a point where there is no more concrete in the sewer.

When all concrete has been been removed the backfill and reinstatement process is expected to take up to three weeks to complete.

The Council added that they are working with Thames Water to ensure these works are completed as soon as possible. They assured the resident that Thames Water is working seven days a week but as the majority of the works are underground it may look as if there is not much activity on the surface. Thames Water have been instructed to update their Variable Message Signage to reflect the new revised date.

Responding to a question about the reinstatement of the traffic island and trees formerly on the site Brent said that the island, removed for these works, will not be replaced as there have been long term plans to remove it. It has been decided to take the opportunity to remove the island at no cost to the council. The trees that had to be removed can be replaced at the expense of Thames Water who will in turn recharge whoever is repsonsible for the concrete in the sewer.

Parking restrictions on Park Lane imposed because of the works and the traffic diversion have now been extendeduntil the sewer works are completed.

Cllr. Butt’s meetings with developer – was Brent’s FoI response True or False?

A guest post by Philip Grant

-->

A recent blog LINK  published the Council Leader’s reply to questions raised by Cllr. Warren about meetings Cllr. Butt had with a developer, as disclosed by a Brent Council Freedom of Information Act (FoI) response.

Cllr. Butt claimed that the FoI response about meetings in April and May 2017 was ‘an error’, and that these meetings took place ‘at least a year earlier’. If his claim is correct, one or more Council officers have been incompetent, at best, and the confidence that residents should be able to have in the reliability of Brent’s FoI system is undermined.

Carolyn Downs, as Brent’s Chief Executive, is responsible for ensuring that the Council delivers its services efficiently. She also has a responsibility to defend her staff, if they have been wrongly criticised. This is the text of an email I have sent to her, in order to establish the facts:

Leader's meetings FoI response - True or False?

Dear Ms Downs,

Further to our recent correspondence over the local newspaper article on 23 November, "Why did leader meet developers?" the text of Cllr. Warren's questions to Cllr. Butt arising from it, and the Council Leader's reply, are in the public domain - see LINK; I am writing to you to request your urgent action on, and reply to, the serious concern raised by this statement in his reply by Cllr. Butt:

 

'An error was made in responding to the FOI on which your questions are based. The meetings to which you refer occurred at least a year earlier than reported.'

The 'FOI' referred to was issued by Brent Council on 31 October 2017, with the reference: 8353800, and the copy of it which I have seen is embedded as a document in a blog article at LINK.

The reply from Cllr. Butt quoted above is scarcely credible, and I have said so publicly in a comment which explains why I believe that is the case. I attach a copy of the text of that comment, for your information, and that of Cllrs. Butt and Warren, and your Chief Legal Officer, Debra Norman, to whom I am copying this email.

Cllr. Butt has claimed that a Brent Council officer has issued an incorrect response to a Freedom of Information Act request. I am asking you, as Brent's Chief Executive, and Head of Paid Service, whether that claim is true or false.

The FoI letter of 31 October was quite clear. In response to the request:

'Please provide details including the date, time, location, attendees, and minutes (if taken) of any meetings between any Brent Councillor(s) and any representative(s) of the following organisations, between 2012 and now: A. R55 (Developers) B. Colliers International C. HKDD Properties Ltd. D. SF Planning Limited.'

 

the information given was:

'In terms of meetings between councillors and any of the organisations listed the only ones I am able to confirm as having taken place are as follows:

· Wednesday 5 April 2017 10:30-11:30am – Councillor Butt (Leader of the Council) met with representatives from Terrapin Communications and their client R55. This meeting was also attended by Amar Dave (Strategic Director – Environment & Regeneration) and Aktar Choudhury (Operational Director – Regeneration).

· Tuesday 23 May 2017 10:15-11:15am – Councillor Butt (Leader of the Council) and Councillor Tatler (Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills) met with representatives from Colliers International. This meeting was also attended by Amar Dave (Strategic Director – Environment & Regeneration).

No minutes were produced for either of these meetings.'

In view of the details given of dates, times and attendees, (and there being no record of any other such meetings with the organisations listed in the FoI request since 2012), this information must have been researched by reference to at least some of the people who attended the meetings detailed, and their diaries. Yet Cllr. Butt now claims that the meetings listed did not take place, or that if they did, they 'occurred at least a year earlier than reported' in the Council's FoI response.

I would ask that you, or a trusted colleague, should check personally:

  with the officer or officers responsible for issuing the FoI response (ref: 8353800) of 31 October 2017 as to the source(s) of the information which gave rise to that response, and whether you consider the information given in that response to be reliable and correct 

and,
 

·       with your senior officers, Amar Dave and Aktar Choudhury, and obtain from them details (including date, time and persons present) of any meetings which they have held with the developers R55, or any of their representatives, at which Cllr. Butt was also present, and for any notes made of discussions at those meetings.

I would then ask that you make those details publicly available, so that concerned local people, and the press and blog site which have reported this matter, can know what confidence they can have in the accuracy of Brent Council's handling of Freedom of Information Act requests. 

Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you at an early date. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

When I receive a reply, I will make it publicly available, as I believe it is important for this “True or False?” question to be resolved openly and transparently.

If you are wondering why it matters when the meetings took place, here is my answer. 

·      If the meetings ‘occurred at least a year earlier than reported’, that would be before the developer, R55, submitted its planning application for the Minavil House site. Cllr. Butt’s explanation that the ‘meetings were to discuss much needed inward investment and the building of essential new homes’ could be a reasonable one (even though notes should still have been taken of the points discussed, in line with the LGA guidelines).

·      If the meetings took place in April and May 2017, with the last of them the day before R55’s application was approved by Planning Committee, then Cllr. Butt may well have misled Cllr. Warren, the Council and the people of Brent. If that proves to be the case, the public can rightly be concerned that he may be trying to cover-up what happened at those meetings (at which notes should have been taken under the LGA’s guidance on “Probity in Planning for councillors and officers”).

Philip Grant

Concern over potential cover-up of Paddington Cemetery asbestos issue

When asbestos was discovered at Paddington Cemetery and Veolia workers were warned of the dangers of exposure Cllr John Duffy called for a public inquiry LINK rather than an investigation by Audit. Carolyn Downs responded LINK that Audit would be sufficient.

Duffy was concerned that cemetery workers and relatives with family graves on the site should be fully informed about the risks and the actions taken. Exposure to asbestos can result in illness decades after exposure. Relatives may well have disturbed the asbestos when tending the graves.

Tomorrow's Audit Advisory Committee seems to confirm Cllr Duffy's suspicion of a potential cover-up in what can be a life or death issue  LINK. The bulk of items have been restricted, which means that the public cannot see then. The only public report focuses more on processes rather than health issues, who was responsible for the asbestos dump, or the potential cost to council tax papers. The report is anodyne if not complacent.

Cllr Duffy said:

Senior officers have barred both the press and public from the meeting and rushed it on to the agenda as a late item, to avoid unhelpful questioning. In my opinion they are trying to avoid any independent scrutiny. This issue involves the health of the public and certainly  the health of the workforce. Officers seem to want to hide the details of how the contaminated waste got to Kilburn and who was responsible .

No term of reference have been given as we speak by the CEO  or head of legal and the meeting is tomorrow

This is the covering report which is all that the public will be able to see. It appears to have been hastily written:

This review was undertaken following concerns raised by a Councillor in an email dated 10^th November 2017. The email raised concerns about contaminated waste discovered in Paddington Cemetery. 


The Audit review report concludes that procurement procedures within the Cemeteries service were inadequate at the time that work was undertaken at the cemetery. The Audit report and recommends that management ensure that procedures within the Cemeteries team to procure contractors and approve goods/services are urgently reviewed to ensure they meet the Council’s expectations and that management consider the recommendations in from consultants’ to proportionately mitigate the soil contamination identified. 


The report and its findings have been welcomed by management whose response includes: 

 
“The report concludes that procurement procedures within the Cemeteries service were inadequate at the time that work was undertaken and recommends that management ensure that procedures within the Cemeteries team to procure contractors and approve goods/services are urgently reviewed to ensure they meet the Council’s expectations and that management consider the recommendations in from consultants’ to proportionately mitigate the soil contamination identified. 
The report and its findings have been welcomed by management who have agreed to work to ensure that any deficiencies in the council’s protocols or processes that may still apply are remedied as a matter of great urgency. The council cemetery operation is now much changed and is out-sourced. It is anticipated that any deficiencies that led to this contamination are now no longer relevant and/or could no longer happen. 
Most importantly, the council has an obligation to give customers complete reassurance that the site can continue to be visited without concern and that it is properly remediated. That is our commitment going forward. The advice to date is that the contamination is very low risk and can be properly contained. 
Work to make that happen is underway. A final report is due that will set out options for the council to cleanse the site. We have also appointed specialist contractors to undertake burials at graves that have previously been used. That satisfies a particular commitment to families wishing to have relatives buried together.” 


Spurs v West Ham moved to January 4th to maximise attendance at Wembley Stadium

The match between Spurs and West Ham has been moved from Sunday December 31st to Thursday Janiary 4th (K.O. 8pm) to allow maximum attendance at the match.

Spurs said:

The fixture had originally been provisionally scheduled for Sunday 31 December.
However, despite significant work by all stakeholders, the Safety Advisory Group could only recommend a maximum crowd of 43,000. This was due to transport issues, primarily at local tube stations whose resources were being deployed elsewhere across London on New Year’s Eve.

Following extensive discussions between all parties, a decision has been taken to move the fixture into the New Year so more supporters, home and away, can attend the game.

Council's update on Wembley High Road sewer works

Brent Council has posted the following update on the Wembley High Road sewer works on its website. It is rather hidden away so I am republishing here(I haven't corrected their spelling of metres!):

Concrete blocking the sewer

The view downstream

View from the surface into the shaft

 

The view upstream

The sewer works on High Road, Wembley, are progressing well and the proposed end date for these works is now 22^nd December.

To date Thames Water have:

• removed the traffic Island
• excavated a shaft onto the sewer over seven meters deep.
• tunnelled four meters downstream, towards Park Lane, to a point where there is no concrete in the sewer.
• tunnelled upstream, towards Wembley triangle, eight and a half meters to the lateral connection from the former Brent House site and have tunnelled a further five and a half meters but there is still concrete in the sewer. 

Next steps:

• Sink another shaft on the sewer, this will take up to a week to complete
• Continue to tunnel upstream to a point where there is no concrete in the sewer
• Replace the sewer
• Backfill the tunnels
• Backfill the shaft
• Permanent reinstatement of carriageway.

The end date for these works cannot be confirmed until the all concrete is removed from the sewer, having spoken to Thames Water and their contractor, Cappagh, we estimate that reinstatement works will take up to three weeks to complete from the point that all concrete is removed. It is possible that High Road will remain closed in one direction until 22 December.