Police officers who shared pictures of the bodies of murdered sisters to be sentenced on Monday

 Metropolitan Police Statement regarding the police officers who shared pictures of the bodies of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman taken at the murder scene in Fryent Country Park.

A police constable has been dismissed without notice and another would have been dismissed had he still been a serving officer for taking inappropriate photographs at the scene of a double murder in Wembley.

An accelerated misconduct hearing was held for PC Jamie Lewis and former PC Deniz Jaffer, who has resigned, following their guilty pleas at the Old Bailey on Tuesday, 2 November to misconduct in public office.

The hearing was to determine allegations their actions breached the standards of professional behaviour in relation to discreditable conduct, honesty and integrity, equality and diversity, authority, respect and courtesy, duties and responsibilities, confidentiality and challenging and reporting improper conduct.

The allegations were all found proven.

Both officers, who were based at the North East Command Unit, will be added to the Barred List held by the College of Policing. Those appearing on the list cannot be employed by police, local policing bodies (PCCs), the Independent Office for Police Conduct or Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services.

The hearing was chaired by Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball on Wednesday, 24 November.

AC Ball said: “The behaviour of PCs Lewis and Jaffer that day was shameful and fell very far below the standards we expect of all our officers. We do not want officers who act in such an unprofessional and disrespectful manner to be part of the Metropolitan Police Service.

“Our thoughts are with the family and friends of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman and we deeply regret the additional distress this matter has caused them. I am profoundly sorry, both personally and on behalf of the Met.

“The behaviour of PCs Lewis and Jaffer initially came to light because someone had concerns and anonymously reported them. I thank them for doing the right thing; we encourage all our officers and staff, and indeed members of the public, to report wrong-doing and we will act on those reports.”

On Wednesday, 17 June 2020 the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards was informed of allegations that non-official and inappropriate photographs had been taken by police at the crime scene in Fryent Country Park, Wembley, in relation to the murders of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman. The sisters were killed in the early hours of Saturday, 6 June 2020 with their bodies found the following day.

During the early hours of 8 June 2020, PC Jaffer and PC Lewis were placed on the cordon to protect the crime scene. They left their posts to take pictures on their mobile phones of the victims and the crime scene. They shared the images with other officers and, in PC Jaffer’s case, with members of the public via WhatsApp.

Both officers used the disrespectful and derogatory term “dead birds” to describe the victims while sharing the images.

In an unconnected matter PC Jaffer used a racially derogatory term in a message to members of the public about a policing activity. PC Lewis responded with approval to another officer who used the same term and did not challenge or report it. That other officer will also face a gross misconduct hearing in due course.

Following the allegation about the photos taken in Wembley, the MPS made a referral to the IOPC, which launched an independent investigation. PC Jaffer and PC Lewis were arrested on Monday, 22 June 2020 by the IOPC on suspicion of misconduct in public office and subsequently released under investigation.

A file was referred by the IOPC to the CPS and both officers were charged on Wednesday, 28 April 2021. They will be sentenced on Monday, 6 December at the Old Bailey.

Following their arrest, the officers were suspended from duty. Former PC Jaffer resigned and left the Met on Wednesday, 18 August. Under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, serving officers are able to resign or retire without requiring permission but can still face misconduct proceedings. This ensures that if allegations are proven and they are dismissed, their names are added to the Barred List.

+ We're working hard to raise standards in the Met and have commissioned an independent review by Baroness Louise Casey to examine our culture and standards of behaviour. 

Every Met employee is being spoken to about adhering to professional boundaries, their use of social media and their responsibility to challenge inappropriate behaviour. 

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Wembley Matters launches a new forum for Brent residents

Local newspapers can provide a lively forum for residents to express their views and contribute to local democracy.  Unfortunately the Kilburn Times with its diminishing number of pages carries only two or three letters a week, in stark contrast to the Camden New Journal that has 4 or 5 pages of letters.

Brent has at least as many local issues as Camden so I will be welcoming Letters to the Editor from  residents who would like to air their views.

 In a mainly one party borough we need to increase the number and variety  of voices. I recognise that WM can in no way replace a good local newspaper letters page but perhaps, in a very modest way, can contribute to a livelier public discourse.

Letters will reflect the writer's view and not that of Wembley Matters and should be accompanied by the name of the writer which they can withold if they wish. I will reserve the right to edit as appropriate and recommend a word limit of 1,000 words but shorter will be appreciated.

Send letters to wembleymatters@virginmedia.com 

Cllr Krupa Sheth promises a response from Brent Planning regarding the GLA investigation into housing typologies, focussing on housing density and the development of tall buildings for residential use in London

 

Planned and in progress tall buildings in Alperton with number of storeys (Alperton station and school bottom right)

 The Committee does not believe that tall buildings are the answer to London’s housing needs and should not be encouraged outside of a few designated and carefully managed areas.

 Letter to councillors from Chair of the  GLA Planning nd Regeneration Committee

 

Cllr Anton Georgiou (Alperton), frustrated by the failure of Cllr Shama Tatler to deliver a response to his question at Full Council in September on the Council's response to the  GLA Planning and Regeneration Committee's report on tall buildings, instead addressed his question to Cllr Krupa Sheth (lead member on environment) at Monday's Full Council.

Citing the Council's declaration of a climate emergency and claiming that studies showed that the Council's 'obsession' with tall buildings was detrimental to the environment he asked:

What steps will be taken to acknowledge and act on the warning  outlined in the report into tall buildings that we all received from the GLA Planning and Regeneration Committee? Does this Council plan to continue ignoring local residents' views, and will the adminstration commit to undertake a full environmental assessment by an independent party of each planning application for a tall building before steam-rolling through approval?

Responding, Cllr Krupa Sheth claimed that more than a thousand resident signing up to the Brent Environmental Network showed they were doing a 'great job' in listening to residents. She went on regarding the main question:

'I will ensure someone from Planning Department will respond back to you.'

It is likely that the Planning Department it its reply will cite the independence of the Planning Committee from the political process. The chair at each meeting reminds the Committee that it is a non-political quasi-judicial committee bound by the national policy framework, the London Plan, Brent's Core Strategy, the emerging Local Plan, development management policies and other planning guidance. They are also reminded that there is a national housing shortage and targets have been set for the borough.

 Occasionally they are reminded that if they go against officers' recommendations on a particular application, developers may make a legal challenge at great cost to the Council.  In addition we know that at least one Labour councillor who has exercised independence on the planning committee has been removed subsequently. LINK

There is more on probity in planning decisons from the Local Government Association HERE

All this means that the Committee operates within narrow official and unofficial limits and it is the above-mentioned policies that need to be considered when challenging officers'  recommendations, particularly when they recommend approval even when the application does not comply with guidance on issues such as amount of amenity space, access to daylight, density etc. In the final analysis it may be that the policy needs to be changed - particularly in the Local Plan that, after consultation, is on the brink of final approval.

Another approach would be Scrutiny Committee considering the issue of tall buildings in the context of the Report and inviting the Chair of the GLA Committee to attend, give evidence and answer questions. 

 This is the GLA Planning and Regeneration Chair's letter sent to all councillors and referenced by Cllr Georgiou. Click bottom right for full page version.

 

What do you and your children think of the options for Roundwood Park children's play area? Have your say.

OPTION 1

OPTION 2

OPTION 3

Brent Parks service are currently looking at a number of options to improve the playground within the park. Three companies have been approached to develop plans for what they would do with the space, all working to a similar budget. 

Please take a look at the three options and let us know your preferred option and any comments you may have.  

The deadline for comments is Sunday 12 December 2021.

 You can express your preference and make a comment HERE

UPDATE: Barn Hill gets new slab paving rather than asphalt - Brent Council explains

 

Barn Hill today

Wembley Matters has been covering the so-called 'pavement wars' for sometime with various community groups opposing Brent Council's replacement of paving stones by asphalt on aesthetic and environmental grounds, while others feel asphalt presents less of a tripping hazard.

Residents have been puzzled over the policy of replacing paving with asphalt as it does not seem to be applied uniformly across the borough.  Indeed the redesign of Wembley High Road includes some quite expensive and painstaking paving work.

 

 

 Old paving discarded

 

Today I saw 'three men and a wheel barrow' team installing new paving along the length of Barn Hill. Is it the steep gradient that makes paving slabs the preferred option, conservation area status, or something else?

Brent Council responded with an explanation:

Barn Hill is in a conservation area and was one of the roads we changed to reactive repairs only rather than a full re-lay. 

Through reactive works we have only replaced investigation level defects like for like i.e. paving slabs. Not all cracked slabs have been replaced if they do not meet criteria. Also, we have not reconstructed the vehicle crossings or junctions with blocks or provided resin for the tree pits, as would have been done through planned footway maintenance.

In other words, basic repairs only.

As it happens Cllr Kansagra asked about the paving policy at the recent Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny;

Network Homes claim 100% affordable housing for its Wembley Job Centre development

 

Job Centre Plus site  in St Johns Road, Wembley Central

Network Home's CGI of proposal

Network Homes issued a press release yesterday on its planned development of the Job Centre Plus site in St Johns Road, off the High Road, Wembley Central:

We're really pleased to have put in a planning application for 79 new homes in Wembley High Road.

Located on the site of a former office block, the development will be 100% affordable with 49 homes for social rent, 39 for shared ownership and the remaining eight for London Living Rent, a scheme which offers Londoners the chance to save for a deposit to buy shares in their home.

The development would form part of the Wembley Housing Zone which is part of the Mayor of London’s plan help unlock new development opportunities and accelerate the delivery of affordable housing in Brent.

Brent Council will consider the application in spring 2022 and if granted residents could be moving in from summer 2024.

Readers will not need reminding of current concerns over the viability of  shared ownership.  The CGIs only show the lower floors of the tallest block but a tall building on what amounts to a side road (the main building is not actually on Wembley High Road as the PR claims but along St Johns Road and the corner of Elm Road)  will be a concern. It is likely that the proximity  of the  'Twin Towers, the Uncle building, on Park Lane, will be cited as a precedent.

 A pre-application presentation was made to Brent Planning Committee in 2017 LINK and the housing breakdown then included private housing.

Private Market Housing (68% of total):
9x studio
12x 1 bed
19x 2 bed
10x 3 bed

Affordable Housing (32% of total):
8x 1 bed (5x Affordable Rent and 3x Shared Ownership)
8x 2 bed (5x Affordable Rent and 3x Shared Ownership)
8x 3 bed (6x Affordable Rent and 2x Shared Ownership)

Overall Tenure Split on Affordable Housing = 67:33 (Affordable Rent: Shared
Ownership)

 So the proposed mix will be seen as an improvement.

The planning officers' report of the time said:

In seeking to justify the height, the applicant points to local precedents including King Edward Court (03/3727) which forms a similar bookend at the opposite end of Elm Road. The difference with this site is that it fronts a principal movement corridor in the area and the application site does not. It is recognised that the corner location of the site does help support a taller building but it is considered that the height as proposed is too high. The development is not considered to not reflect lower order role of St John’s Road and existing 2 storey housing in the immediate locality. It also noted that there has been no character and context analysis performed in line with the GLA’s SPD and London Plan Policy.

Now of course the Uncle building is part of the landscape.

 

The 2017 pre-application map (note the proposal then was to preserve the Boots frontage on the High Road)

UPDATE: APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMITTEE: Car parts warehouse to be replaced by 759 housing units in 5 residential tower blocks with work space in Wembley Park - meagre provision of truly affordable housing

 

The Euro House site (before development)

Euro House site (after development)

 UPDATE: The applciation was approved by Brent Planning Committee with one vote against. Cllr Kennelly objected on concerns over the flood danger and the distribution of affordable housing.

 Tomorrow's Planning Committee will consider a huge development on the site of Euro House Car Parts  in Fulton Road, Wembley Park. A former 2 storey building will be replaced by five tower blocks of up to 23 storeys. The site if of particular interest due to its proximity to the Wealdstone Brook and as usual issues around the amount of truly affordable housing. It has beenre-named 'Waterside'.

Development summary:

Demolition and redevelopment of the site to provide erection of five buildings ranging from ground plus 14 to 23 storeys; comprising up to 759 residential units, retail floorspace and workspace / storage floorspace, private and communal amenity space, car parking, cycle parking, ancillary space, mechanical plant, landscaping and other associated works.

The image below puts the site (outlined in red) in the context of the high rise developments in the area - built, near completion and planned. The proposal marks a further extension of the replacement of light industrial buildings by high rise residential.

The proportion of proposed housing that is truly affordable remains an issue for many memberts of the Planning Committee. Officers continue to include Shared Ownership under affordable although this is disputed by many regarding its affordability for the average Brent resident looking for housing. Removing Shared Ownership would make only 142 of the 759 units affordable.

*Affordable rents secured with a cap at the lower of (a) 65% of the open market rent and (b) the LocalHousing Allowance. This is significantly more affordable than the base definition of the product, which caps rents at up to 80% of the open market rent.

 

Details from the  officers' report:

80 units for affordable rent (at London Affordable Rent levels, in accordance with the Mayor of London's Affordable Housing Programme 2016-2021 Funding Guidance (dated November 2016) and subject to an appropriate Affordable Rent nominations agreement with the Council, securing 100% nomination rights on first lets and 75% nomination rights on subsequent lets for the Council)

62 units for affordable rent (at no more than 65% of open market rents, inclusive of service charges, and capped at Local Housing Allowance rates), disposed on a freehold / minimum 125 year leasehold to a Registered Provider and subject to an appropriate Affordable Rent nominations agreement with the Council, securing 100% nomination rights for the Council on initial lets and 75% nomination rights for the Council on subsequent lets)

76 units for Shared Ownership (as defined under section 70(6) of the Housing & Regeneration Act 2008,subject to London Plan policy affordability stipulations that target a gross household income of up to £90,000 per annum, where net annual household income should not exceed 70% of gross income, and where total housing costs should not exceed 40% of net annual household income, disposed on a freehold / minimum 125 year leasehold to a Registered Provider

We should add for comparison:

 541 units at market rates.

 Officers note:

The scheme would provide a total of 218 affordable units (29 % by units and 35% by Habitable room), of which 80 would be low-cost homes provided at a London Affordable Rent. Although this is below both Brent and London Plan threshold targets, it has been demonstrated by a financial viability appraisal to exceed the maximum amount of affordable housing which can viably be provided on site, and therefore is policy compliant.

 Officers support the number of units proposed despite it being  higher than that recommended for the site:

However, it should be noted that the site capacities within policies are only indicative and the scheme would deliver a significant number of homes which would make a significant contribution towards identified housing needfor both private and affordable homes. The increase in the number of new homes, above the indicative capacity within the allocation is therefore considered to be a benefit of the scheme and supported in principle subject to the consideration of the remainder of the material planning considerations.

Officers also support replacement of employment space (research & development, light industrial) on the site at only 50% of that which  it displaces.

The site is next to a bend in the Wealdstone Brook and so both fluvial (river based) and surface water flooding are relant. The proposed development is kept 10 metres from the brook. The officers' report outlines the SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Strategy for the site):

At present the site discharges unrestricted into Wealdstone Brook. The proposed development will also discharge to this same location via the existing outlet. The proposal is to provide attenuation totalling 1000m3, designed to a 1:100-year storm event + 40% for climate change, and the discharge into Wealdstone Brook would be restricted to 6 litres per second, similar to greenfield runoff rates. The site has been assessed for sustainability based on the Drainage Hierarchy.

The SuDS strategy is as follows:

  All of the buildings to discharge to a single below ground attenuation crate tank system located to the east of Block E.
· The podium decking above the parking will be planted out with a dense green/blue roof providing further attenuation storage in these zones.
· All buildings will incorporate rainwater harvesting as much as possible.
· Wherever possible hard surface areas will be formed using permeable paving and voided aggregate subbase.
· All tree pits and planting will be directly linked to the voided aggregate subbase to provide irrigation forthe planting.
· The landscaping scheme includes rain gardens/swales along the northern boundary adjacent to the watercourse.

The planning application contains pretty illustrations of how the brook and a footpath alongside will be incorporated into the scheme. Experience demonstrates these often do not match the post-development reality but let us hope that the developers are held to their promise. The bank of ther brook is quite steep and this presents a challenge. On other developments promised public access has not materialised. However, it should not be hard to improve on the present:

The River Westbourne flood defences, the tale of two boroughs

 An update post by David Walton of FLASK

  

Brent used to have more River Westbourne flood defences but still has some, publicly owned natural parkland flood defences throughout South Kilburn Vale, that were built in the 1950's and 1960's. These flood defences have been incrementally built on since 2000 and the impacts are already being felt.  The new intention is to establish this as a tall building zone as set out in the Brent Local Plan to 2041 which awaits final approval.  Population growth is planned to rise from 6,000 in 2000 to 36,000 by 2041. Brent has no plan to mitigate growing flood risk which is exacerbated yet further by excavating giant underground car parks. A mainline electrified railway luckily severs South Kilburn Vale from the rest of Brent.

 

For its River Westbourne flood defences, the City of Westminster uses complex and expensively engineered solutions built inside its borough boundary, but it also ( cf July 2021 major Incident) clearly relies on Brent playing its full part in the  flood defence of the City of Westminster upstream of the River Westbourne.

 

Westminster has the Carlton Hill natural hill (pending new developments area) which drains down onto the Brent floodplain vale, with Kilburn Park Road on the east bank of the River Westbourne (Westminster) relying on Brent's depleting natural parkland flood defences for safety. Then at the main borough boundary at Shirland Road, Westminster engineered flood defences start and which though of considerable scale failed in July 2021 and will with certainty fail again unless Westminster and agencies look at the bigger River Westbourne flood attenuation cross borough boundary picture. (See key Kilburn Park Road flood defences already removed like the 40 veteran trees roundabout flood defence or the Granville Road park flood defence three-quarters removed).

 

New map fragments recently obtained from Thames Water show how the culvert straightened high speed River Westbourne takes a dramatic giant sweeping curve from Kilburn Park Road into Shirland Road, and at this point (underneath the zebra crossing) also connects to the North West Storm Relief Sewer which heads west down to the River Thames at Hammersmith, while the Mid Level 2 Interceptor Sewer which heads east to Beckon Sewage Works connects to the River Westbourne nearby at the south east end of Shirland Road. Flood protection support is also supplied by two new large flood storage reservoirs underneath Tiverton Gardens and Westbourne Green. Both are rivers connected and were built in 2016 at a cost of £22 million. To quote from this new project’s 2012 description:

 

"The Sewer Flooding History Database (SFHD) lists 105 properties that have a flooding category of either AI or BI; however, it is known that the flooding issues affect many more properties in the area. Optimise (the contractor) are targeted with removing 177 properties from the SFHD flooding register and contracted to remove a minimum of 147 properties.

 

Primarily, the identified flooding areas are located around Formosa Street and Shirland Road. Prior to 2005 the problem was much smaller with far fewer properties affected; however there have been severe flooding events in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. In both areas the flooding occurs incommercial and residential property basements.

 

Having considered a number of options, the preferred option proposed by Optimise is to construct a 20m dia, 20m deep storage shaft in Westbourne Green. From this a 3m dia tunnel will be driven to a 7.5m dia reception shaft in Formosa Street. In conjunction with managing flows at the Kings Scholar’s Pond and at a number of bifurcations in the Formosa Street area this will effectively resolve the flooding issues at Formosa Street. Flows from the shaft in Westbourne Green will be returned to the Ranelagh sewer (River Westbourne) by means of a pumping station with a return pump rate of 400 l/s. The Shirland Road flooding will be resolved by diverting more flow to the Mid-Level 2 sewer and constructing a 20m dia, 20m deep storage shaft in Chippenham Gardens.

 

In order to remove properties from the SFHD it has also to be proven thatthe properties flood due sewer surcharge / local incapacity. This information was collated through existing databases already connected to the properties, and via interviews with current residents in the area. There was an initial reluctance to complete the survey by residents and this was for a number of reasons, including many residents were not living at the properties at the time of the flooding events and property owners do not want their property on a flooding register.  As such, the verified model has and will continue to be used to validate the number of properties that suffer from flooding".

 

The sheer scale of the City of Westminster's engineered flood defences that are place and   being rapidly extended  indicate that the wild River Westbourne is a major environmental risk to lives and property for this entire area of London. Yet this river is deregulated from Environment Agency responsibility and often commercially driven boroughs so Thames Water must work out what to do in an ad hoc and uncoordinated way instead. 

 

The City of Westminster does seem at least to be trying seriously to take mitigating actions to protect its own residents and businesses on a borough boundary frontline siege basis, but these actions have clearly failed to accept this area’s wider geography and factor in the housing infrastructure in Brent’s urban growth zone.  Brent seems to think that leaseholders and tenants in Brent and City of Westminster should 'learn to live with' traumatic flood risk escalation  and then pay the costs created by its tall buildings growth area, built on a flood plain.

 

Liability is being cleverly being passed entirely to leaseholders and tenants for the moment, as this area’s big freeholder housing block owners will just make sure that flood repairs are actioned in a timely manner and that costs are then fully recovered from block leaseholders and tenants. They will be  paying literally forever for the extreme over development of this floodplain. This, when natural parkland flood defences (that Brent is destroying) had proved excellent in protecting South Kilburn and North Westminster for decades.

 

 

David Walton

FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn)