Posts

Asbestos in Waltham Forest Town Hall: LBWF CEO Martin Esom answers the criticisms…sort of

On 1 July just passed, LBWF CEO Martin Esom e-mailed his response to the various points that I recently raised with him about asbestos in the Town Hall and the Assembly Hall (see his e-mail pasted below, and links to my correspondence at the bottom of the page). Mr. Esom is extravagantly paid and also on the government’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Board, and so it is a reasonable expectation that he will answer residents’ inquiries about asbestos in full and definitively. However, here, he disappoints, favouring bland generalisations while disregarding specific issues. LBWF has been following ‘a management plan for asbestos’, he advises. And when removal of asbestos has occurred, it’s... »

Asbestos in Waltham Forest Town Hall: a new LBWF disgrace? Part Two

I have sent the letter pasted below to LBWF Chief Executive, Martin Esom, and will post his response when received. 24 June 2022 Dear Mr. Esom, I note that in a submission about an ex-employee’s asbestosis that was part of legal proceedings in 2019, LBWF’s defence team ‘specifically denied that members of the public who visited Walthamstow Town Hall for ordinary civic functions were inevitably (or at all) exposed to the risk of fatal asbestos injury’, and later in the same document asserted ‘The Defendant believes that the facts in this defence are true’. However, having looked at the available evidence, I am unclear as to how LBWF can be so certain of these propositions. Please note the fol... »

Asbestos in Waltham Forest Town Hall: a new LBWF disgrace? Part One

I have sent the letter pasted below to LBWF Chief Executive, Martin Esom, and will post his response when received. 10 June 2022 Dear Mr. Esom, Asbestos in the Town Hall Prompted by recent media coverage, I have been looking again at how asbestos was managed in the Town Hall from around 2013 to June 2020, when of course the whole building was closed. I note the following: 1. At various times during the period referred to, you made statements reassuring council staff and the public at large that the asbestos problem in the Town Hall was under control, with the material either being carefully enclosed or removed. 2. For example, in you court statement prior to the HSE’s successful prosecution ... »

Property giant Long Harbour buys up the c.500 ‘build to rent flats’ in the redeveloped Walthamstow Mall, but will leaseholders be adequately protected? UPDATED

In late 2017, LBWF granted developers Capital & Regional (hereafter C&R) and Mount Anvil planning permission to redevelop the Mall site in Walthamstow, that is, extend the existing retail space, add two new tower blocks with c.500 ‘build to rent’ flats, one third ‘affordable’, and re-model the surrounding public realm. The objective was to transform and so revive what the senior officers and politicians in the Town Hall liked to claim constituted a longstanding ‘focal point for the community’. Subsequently, the Mall scheme (now badged as ‘17&Central’) has steadily proceeded, though not without controversy. In November 2018, Mount Anvil severed ties with C&R and withdrew,... »

Despite being berated by the Information Commissioner’s Office in 2020, LBWF failings over the Freedom of Information Act continue

Over recent years, there has been growing unease about the way that LBWF responds to Freedom of Information Act requests from the public. Indeed, in July 2020, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) took the almost unprecedented step of issuing LBWF with a Practice Recommendation, which itemised in detail what it had been doing wrong, and what it must put right. However, a recent case suggests that not only is LBWF still failing, but that, more alarmingly, the same mistakes are being repeated. The detail is as follows. In 2021, Charles Edwards, a long-time campaigner for more transparency in relation to Mini-Holland and its offshoots, asked for ‘email and WhatsApp group correspondence’ ... »

Page 22 of 89«2021222324»