“5A. It is admitted that, with the agreement of the First Defendant on behalf of the Claimant, between about January and March 2006 the Third Defendant constructed a compound at Honor Oak Cemetery and that the First Defendant, on behalf of the Claimant, allowed the Third Defendant to store an excavator (used only for the purposes of the cemetery), bins and other equipment in return for constructing the compound free of charge and continuing to supply the cemetery with topsoil and crushed concrete. The Third Defendant did not install the gate to the compound and the only key was held in the Claimant’s cemetery office. 5B. It is denied that the compound was used by the Third Defendant to store its building waste. The origin of the contents of the compound was (a) material on the site of the compound at the end of 2005, (b) material excavated from the large mound to the north of the compound in 2007 and (c) material flytipped by other persons. It was stored in the compound on the direction of the First Defendant and/or Anthony Black. 5C. It is admitted that for a few days in 2007 the Third Defendant installed and used a crusher to crush concrete for use in the cemetery. Its use was stopped due to complaints from local residents about the noise. 5E. Further or alternatively, if and to the extent that the Second and/or Third Defendants brought soil, concrete, bricks, road scalpings or breeze blocks into the area of the compound at Honor Oak cemetery as alleged by the First Defendant in paragraph 10 of his Defence and in his Witness Statement, they did so at the request of or with the consent of the First Defendant as set out in paragraphs 70 and 71 of the First Defendant’s witness statement and/or paragraph 10 of his Defence. The First Defendant had actual and/or ostensible authority to issue the said request or consent on behalf of the Claimant. It is denied (if it be alleged) that such importation of material was illegal or, if it was illegal, that these Defendants knew or ought to have known that it was.”
“Following consultation and the consideration of a wide range of options, management recommend the implementation of a policy that ensures the best use of the land already at its disposal. This includes the reuse of public grave areas, the digging of deeper graves, a reduction in the length of burial rights and the development of a woodland burial site. Once these options are exhausted, however, the need for additional land is unavoidable in order to ensure burial provision for the next 25 to 50 years.”
“Three public grave areas have been located for development into new burial plots – one in Camberwell New Cemetery and two in Camberwell Old Cemetery. Most of the existing public graves are unmarked, untended and are without burial rights. It is intended to cover these areas with soil, over time in order to reduce development costs, building retaining walls if necessary and promote the land for burial purposes. One of the areas in Camberwell Old Cemetery will be promoted as a Woodland burial site in keeping with its location. It is expected that that the Woodland site will provide 1350 plots. However, as this is a new enterprise it is not known what the take up will be and consequently what time period for burial provision this would represent. This area is shown as Area 1 on Appendix 2. The other two areas (2 & 3) will provide 2700 plots which would extend burial provision by 8 to 10 years. These areas are shown in Appendices 2 & 3. ”
“That existing public grave areas be developed for new burial plots. That part of the public grave areas be developed as a woodland plot subject to consultation as to the precise location. That it be agreed that graves should in future be dug to 10 feet or more. That a further report be produced on the implications of reducing the length of the current burial rights period to 25 years especially in relation to the death of younger people and purchase of sites for relatives. That three acres of Honor Oak Recreation Ground be used for burial purposes, but only after alternative recreation provision of at least this area is provided at the old nursery site and the London Planning Advisory Committee (LPAC) report is received and considered by the Committee.”
“One of the original recommendations by the Regeneration & Environment Committee was to make up ground on two areas in Camberwell Old Cemetery, previously used for public burials (unpurchased graves). AREA ONE This task has been undertaken using spoil from the grave digging operation, unfortunately this is an ongoing and time consuming process. This area will not be available until at least the year 2005, this is due to the spoil of the grave digging operation being used as land fill which has to be periodically bulldozed, levelled off, allowed to settle and dry before being used in grave digging operations. Currently the area being used is only 30% completed. Although only 30% of the landfill is completed, this operation can be speeded up, by purchasing soil from an outside source. AREA TWO This area is approximately 1 acre; no work has been undertaken on this area. ”
“Before any internments can be carried out there was and still is remedial works to be undertaken. Three piles of brick rubble had to be removed. This rubble is the result of the old greenhouses being demolished. I still cannot believe that part of the contract of the demolition of these buildings must have included taking away of all rubbish. Consequently this department had to pay£5,800 to have this rubbish removed. The extraordinary thing this is, all the red roof tiles were removed, without damage and the tiles removed from the site.”
“The tidying consisted of the removal of three large mounds of bricks and rubble left when the greenhouses were demolished.”
“A. … That rubble was not removed. That rubble was pushed down to the end. Q. I know you say that, Mr Black, but it seems rather odd that Mr Connor would be reporting that the rubble had been removed if it hadn’t been, wouldn’t it? A. I can only report on what I saw and that rubble was not removed. It was pushed, it was bulldozed, to the end. Q. But obviously you can’t explain why Mr Connor seems to be saying it was removed. A. No, of course I can’t. Q. If you look a bit further on – A. I can only report on what I witnessed myself. Q. Yes, that’s true. MR JUSTICE McCOMBE: (Inaudible) fair that the witness knows that. MR HOWE: Yes. Mr Connor, when asked about this part of his report said that he was using the word “removed” to mean moved around the site. Do you understand? You are saying that’s what happened, are you? A. I’m saying – you might want to play with words, “removed”, but what I witnessed was that all of that rubble – and there was hundreds and hundreds of tonnes – and it wasn’t just greenhouses, it was the training centre, it was garages, it was two houses there. It was vast. There were massive amounts of rubble. They were bulldozed to the end because no budgets, no monies, were made available to remove this.”
“A. No, it is not correct. It is not correct. Mr Lett bulldozed those materials to one end.”
“Hi Jon This is the ground that we are making up, as per the Burial Report to Councillors in 1994. It was agreed then by the Committee to make up ground on two sites with Camberwell Old Cemetery. The cemetery department has been depositing spoil from graves on this site since then, but the work has not been moving along very quickly. As we discussed briefly at our Finance meeting a couple of weeks ago, to bring in material and get the works completed as soon as possible. My Supervisor and myself along with Stavros have been monitoring the progress, I or my Supervisor have not seen asbestos amongst the spoil. We did spot a few pieces of large concrete, but these have been removed.”
“Terry – one final point. Where is this material coming from and can we be certain that it is free of contamination?”
“Jon, This is a project which started two weeks ago which Terry mentioned at the last financial meeting at Chumleigh Gardens. Terry’s request was to backfill a waste land with soil, levelled the area and top it with top soil in order following by seeding with wild flower seeds to develop the area for future burials as required. We arranged a site visit with Terry, myself and the contractor and agreed the project and the exact position of vehicles entering into the cemetery in order to avoid any damage to the grounds etc. I do understand that the contractor had an angry reception from Mr Penfold who from past experiences he complains for any thing in this site. The comments at the E-Mail below of Flytip are confused with this project. I just had a call from Terry who confirmed that he send you an E-Mail explaining the situation. Stavros.”
“After the waste was discovered in 2008, and having looked at the emails from 2003, I spoke with Stavros about this. He told me that he had spoken to Terry at the end of one of the monthly finance meetings and that it was during this discussion that Terry mentioned works at COC and that it was being done in order to extend the ground for further burials. Stavros told me that Terry had told him that I was aware of this. I do not recall speaking to Terry about works at COC in 2003. I believe I would remember this if Terry had raised it with me.”
“As I explained over the telephone, this ground is being made up to allow more burials to take place. This practice is used by many London Authorities where ground is reclaimed by covering with two or three metres of topsoil. Normally the soil used is not screened topsoil. However, my Supervisor, the Parks Monitoring officer and myself are closely monitoring the situation and we have not seen asbestos on the site, we have seen pieces of small broken glass, but then you always get that amongst topsoil.”
“Dear Sir/Madam I am writing to you to inform you of the works going on within Camberwell Old Cemetery adjacent to your property. The works form part of a Committee decision taken in 1994, which was to look at the whole of the Councils burial policy for the next 50 years. Part of this strategy was to reuse land in Camberwell Old Cemetery, this particular area was chosen because it contained graves previously used over 100 years ago. These graves have no rights of burial and have always belonged to the Council. The works consist of making up the ground to enable future burials. The ground is a natural dip and we are levelling off the dip by adding approximately 2 metres of soil, this work commenced over [six years ago], but because it was progressing slow a decision was taken to have the complete task undertaken in one operation. The spoil has been removed from a building site and may contain small pieces of glass, but the majority of the spoil is “London Blue Clay” from deep excavations, it is clean uncontaminated soil, any contaminated soil would not be allowed to leave the site by the Health & Safety Officers.”
“We apologise for the delay in sending out letters to residents who have properties adjacent to the site, and for any disruption caused. We are confident that Health and Safety regulations are being rigorously followed to ensure that any soil used at the site is clean and uncontaminated. The graves being covered are public graves where Southwark hold the burial rights. The majority have been there over [100] years.”
“… What we infer from this, my Lord, is it appears that the statement about health and safety regulations may have been Ms Lynn’s interpretation of what she was being told by Mr Connor. In other words, it was not Mr Connor’s own suggestion, it was the press office putting a flourish or an interpretation on what they had been told.”
“I mentioned this to the Acting Services Manager and the Parks Manager and that this particular ground in Camberwell Old Cemetery was intended to be used as a woodland site in the future. The Monitoring Officer and myself then had an on site meeting with a company who were interested in making up the ground. The material used was from footings being excavated and would consist of clay, subsoil and brick rubble, which was as far as we in the cemetery are concerned, is ideal, we do not need good quality topsoil for making up ground that we are going to put graves. Actually using subsoil and smashed bricks enhances the drainage. There was no payment made by the Council for these materials and the contractor never made any payment to the Council. Originally when this piece of ground was selected for making up, it was suggested to the Committee that a sum of 100K be used to buy in material and use the spoil from the existing grave digging spoil. We have managed to get the job done for free and will now allow us grave space for over 400 woodland type graves.”
“This scheme has been ongoing for a number of years and work commenced very soon after the Committee decision. I am not aware of any decision to countermand this decision nor of any time limit placed on these works within the decision itself or in standing orders generally. The Committee items at issue relate to decisions of16 January 1996 and9 October 1996 . As a result of these decisions, a consultation paper was prepared and a public consultation meeting held in Rotherhithe to discuss the issue of the future shortage of burial plots in the Borough. There has not been any ‘element of opportunism’ involved in the deposition of this material. The material, consisting of topsoil, subsoil and crushed brick, was selected for its good drainage properties that are beneficial to the creation of new grave plots. The Council did not pay for any of this material, nor was the Council paid any sum to receive the material. Thus this aspect of the scheme has been completed at no cost to the Council allowing us to create up to 400 new woodland grave plots for residents of the Borough. The area has now been graded and planted to mitigate against any short term effect on the landscape quality of the cemetery. In the longer term, it will blend in totally. I would take issue with any inference that might be made in the context of your assertion that this operation constituted ‘dumping of waste’ in terms of this material being in any way contaminated. A similar assertion made by a local resident and was proved to be completely groundless. We are continuing to develop this site in a planned way to improve cemetery facilities within the Borough. I trust that this response provides you with the information that you require, but please come back to me should you need further discussion.”
“A. Yes, I said earlier on, I don’t see all the – in fact, I hardly see any of the responses to councillors or complaints. As I said, I would get – that would mean I would be checking 7,000 of these a year. What I do monitor is that they have been responded to in accordance with the timescale set. Mr JUSTICE McCOMBE: So you are a statistical officer, rather than a decision-maker; is that right? A. My HQ analyses the complaints in general so that I can see what the overall pattern of complaints is, and whether or not one service versus another is causing a problem. So I look at it from a strategic point of view, rather than from a matter of individual detail in relation to each single complaint.”
“Q. I’ll ask you the question again; I would be grateful if you would listen to it carefully and answer it. By the end of this process and your briefing or briefings from Jay Yeats, do you accept that you were aware that Mr Connor was making up ground in Camberwell Old by bringing in unsegregated building waste? A. No, I would not have absorbed that level of detail.”
“A. … Probably at any one time we must have 30 or 40 projects on site which include earthworks. I would not ask my staff what the earth comprised of. I employ officers with the relevant skills or managerial experience. We also provide managerial support and/or training, and I expect my officers to comply with those regulations. I do not expect on every single project to be asking people whether they have complied with every part of contract law, for example, every piece of waste law, every piece of health and safety law. That would be completely impractical. My managers are expected to have these skills, and I look at things from a strategic point of view. So I might at the moment have: how many of our projects on site are running to the right completion date? That is the sort of thing that I would be looking at. How many of those projects are behind the timescale and why they might be behind the timescale? Is it a planning matter? Is it anything that I can help with. Those are the sorts of issues that I would look at. I would never interrogate any officer about what material. Also you said to me that I knew that tonnes of material were going. There were allegations in letters that came in which, as I have just said, were one of many thousands of complaints and members’ enquiries that crossed my desk, and I was given assurance by Terry and by his manager that this was okay. In retrospect, it is unfortunate that Terry was lying to me.”
“Q. Right. Are you saying that you didn’t know that Eddie Lett had built up the railway mound to 7 to 8 feet at least in 2002/2003? A. When are you asking me when I knew that? Q. When do you say you first came to know about that? A. This year. Q. This year? A. Yes. Q. Right. When do you say you first came to know that there was a mound built up by somebody along the line of the railway? A. It would have been -- I don’t remember, but Mr Connor explained to me that he had – I don’t know when he explained this to me – I don’t know when he explained it to me, but he explained that he had scraped all the material that had been previously deposited around the old Honor Oak nursery site into a mound, in order to create more space for more burials. So he basically moved all the stuff on the site over to one side on the railway side. MR JUSTICE McCOMBE: I’m sorry, did you say a date when you were told that? Are you able to say? A. I really don’t know, my Lord, I’m afraid… [Q]: In fact, you knew, Mr Sheaff, didn’t you, certainly by the middle of 2003, that Eddie Lett had brought material on to the cemetery, and used it to build up that land? A. No.”
“MR JUSTICE McCOMBE: It’s been put to you that you didn’t ask for approval at Camberwell Old in relation to this tipping from any senior officer or any independent analysis of the materials. A. I can’t say -- find any record of this on the evidence. I would agree with that, but I would reiterate that I placed – trusted Mr Connor in this instance. MR PAGE: Why were you prepared to trust Mr Connor in this instance if you wouldn’t have been prepared to trust him in relation to Honor Oak? A. I’m not quite clear what the question is. Q. When I asked you whether at Honor Oak you would have been prepared to approve the bringing in of material from a building site to make up land over the old fireworks factory to increase the area available for burials, you said that you would have to get approval from senior managers to make sure that it was legal. A. Is that what I said? I can’t remember. Q. I believe you did say that. A. Okay, right. Q. But it looks as though you are not doing that here? A. That’s what it appears to say, yes, to show. Q. What about the fact that a landfill operation like this needs to be licensed under the Environment Protection Act? A. Sorry, is that a question? Q. Yes. Why didn’t you ask anybody whether there was a licence? A. I don’t know.”
“It also involved clearing the site marked C on Plan NAC1, pulling back the rubble and muck and putting the muck at the bank and the rubble inside the compound where I had my machine and bins.”
“When I arrived, the compound area was a mound of muck, concrete, hardcore, timber, plastic, flowers, weeds, bricks, metal sheds buried in the ground, tarmac lumps and boulders and with these it formed the compound’s berms. The tarmac shavings were outside the compound area (before it was formed) and I used them to build the compound’s floor. David Williams also helped pulling back the mound from the railway line.”
“I cleared the area with a 360 Excavator machine and stacked the rubbish in an orderly way as requested by Anthony Black (Tony). He asked me to make it look cleaner and more presentable because funerals were taking place nearby and they wanted the area to look good. With the materials I built the berms at the nursery site. The yard was then used for some storage by BTS. They stored steel containers in one corner. The area that I cleared was about 50 metres by 20 metres.”
“Q. And there is a very big bank of earth that we can see and we know that that big bank ran all the way round the compound. Do you understand? A. I do, sir. Q. Now, that is an awful lot of material, Mr Black, isn’t it? A. It is, sir. There was an awful lot actually put there as well. Q. The simply truth of the matter is that you know perfectly well that Mr Campbell brought on the majority of that material and tipped it there to make the walls, don’t you? A. Sir, I never saw Mr Campbell bring any material of that sort on to that site. Q. So you keep saying, but it is not true, is it? You did see him bringing lots of-- A. No. I never saw him.”
“Q. Did you ask Mr Connor for permission to keep your dustcart? A. I asked Mr Connor, could I store the building material which was acrows, strong backs. I asked him could I have my bins. I was going to park me lorries in there but the insurance company wouldn’t be covered because it wasn’t secure enough. Q. I am going to ask you the question again. Did you ask Mr Connor permission to store this dustcart somewhere? A. Yes, I did. Q. When? A. Before I brought it up there. Q. Did you explain that you planning to keep an acquaintance’s dustcart in the compound of the cemetery and carry out repairs on it? A. I told him I was repairing the dustcart, yes. Q. And Mr Connor let you do this, did he? A. Yes. He didn’t say no. Q. Did he say yes? A. He said – well, he didn’t say no and he didn’t say yes. ”
“I never asked Terry to store materials into the compound apart from the portacabin, scaffoldings, strong backs, acrows, railway sleepers, one or two small sheds and some mesh, i.e. I never asked Terry Connor or Anthony Black or anyone to store concrete, scalpings, bricks or breeze blocks. The only deliveries I made were with the express consent and actually at the request of Terry or Anthony Black.”
“In the compound there were stuff from site clearance and fly-tipping. I put the crushed concrete on one side, along the bank and the hardcore and muck in the other side of the compound. The concrete came from fly tipping, from the demolition of the nursery, from the site clearance and from the mound on the railway line as it was hidden under the muck. The muck came from fly tipping and from the graves dug by the grave diggers. There were also breeze blocks that were fly tipped. The cemetery was not locked at night and the management had a constant problem with fly tipping with 20 or 30 loads often tipped straight into the car park, beside the graves or next to the compound. I would help Terry move these into the compound where I had my bins and machinery. Tony Black would occasionally ask me to remove the fly tipping as well. I would sometimes tell Terry or Tony when there was any fly tipping to remove and he would tell me to put it in the compound. Sometimes the entrance to the storage would be blocked by the tipping overnight and so I would have to move it anyway. Nothing was ever moved off site. The tipping consisted of hardcore, concrete, muck, breeze blocks and tarmac shavings. Occasionally there were also burnt out cars dumped in the cemetery which I would get my son to remove free of charge as a favour to Terry because they were blocking the entrance to the cemetery.”
“Q. So what was it about? A. It could be about burials. It could be about anything. Q. Why were you discussing burials with Mr Black? A. It could be anything. It could be burials or noise from taking the bins out or anything. It could be anything. MR JUSTICE McCOMBE: Anything but what went on in the yard; is that right? A. yes. MR JUSTICE McCOMBE: Anything but that? A. Yes, sir.”
“Henry, Andy and I drove into the car park adjacent to the old nursery site at the rear of Honor Oak and walked down the path into the old nursery site. As I walked down the path towards the old nursery site I could see big gates, which were padlocked next to what I believed to be Gristwood and Toms depot. I also saw an earth bank behind the new graves area on either side of the green gates. I had not seen the gates or the earth bank before and so I went up the bank to investigate. At the top of the bank I saw a 12 foot high, flat, massive pile of what appeared to be breeze blocks and concrete behind the gates. It was a massive pile of material that looked like rubbish, crushed breeze blocks and black road scalpings. I saw big bins, machinery, roll off containers and plant in the same area. It looked like someone was using the area to crush breeze blocks and was operating a waste processing plant. I was horrified and amazed about how such an operation like this had been allowed to happen, particularly as it was so close to where graves were being interred. More importantly I was concerned that I had not been informed of what was taking place.”
“A couple of questions 1). Do we have to leave the gate open from Honor Oak Park 2). Why is there not a bollard or gate at the entrance to Brenchley gardens from Honor Oak car park. Unless there is a pressing need for this not to be in place, I’d like one pls. 3). What is the extent of the G & T lease – whose agreement do they have for the big silos outside their yard area. Are they paying for this space? 4). What are the huge piles of earth at the back of the Honor Oak burial ground? Who has put them there and what are the plans for them?”
“Terry A large mound has been raised on the south side of the cemetery extension site (between the burial ground and Honor Oak Park, behind which are huge piles of breeze blocks and hard core and several large machines which appear to be crushing it. Who is operating this site and who gave them permission to operate? What agreements are in place? Thanks Jon.”
“Jon These are not works. A few weeks ago I invited three contractors to give me costings to prepare this ground for future burials. One of these contractors suggested a small area be cleared so he could properly ascertain what had to be moved and if anything could be salvaged. After clearing a large section he discovered concrete, bricks timber and if separated top soil, which we could use. These trial sections are now completed and I am awaiting the adjusted costs. I will contact the contractor on Tuesday to find out when the machinery and rubble will be moved. Thanks Terry”
“Terry I’d like to meet on site to discuss as soon as possible please. This concerns the area on the south side of the site that used to contain houses as well as nursery buildings. A larger embankment has been raised and sets of gates installed behind which these works are being carried out. Behind this, there is a large pile of breeze blocks and pieces of concrete. This is clearly not material that was on the site already, unless somebody has dumped hundreds of tons of this material without our knowledge. We have had reports of lorries bringing material into this site. This appears to be a commercial activity and I need to be fully briefed on it. I do not recall being asked to make decisions about the future of this part of the site or about these operations. Jon”
“Jon Just let me know when you want to meet with me. I have just been up on site with Tony, my Supervisor, nearly all of the concrete has been excavated from the ground we intend for future burials. While we was in the nursery site there was a very big lorry loading with Gristwood & Toms, this lorry I’ve been told visits the site maybe three or four times a week along with Green teams mulch lorry, every fortnight. I can assure you there is no commercial activity going on, all work carried out up there is with my knowledge. There has been fly tipping, we normally clear up the dumping and put into this area and have the lot cleared in one go, but that was a while ago and the rubbish is still there. The reason for the fly tipping is that the gate [sic] were constantly open, this has now been rectified since we installed the temporary gates. I was offered the breeze blocks a while ago, mainly because they were free and would [sic] can have them crushed and used for temporary pathways and roads in the winter months. Thanks Terry ”
“At this meeting I asked Terry who was responsible for the pile of waste material behind the gates. Terry told me that a man whose son was buried in the cemetery had wanted to do him a favour and so had offered to deliver material to Honor Oak for Terry to use for roadways or footpaths in the winter months. Terry described it as a gesture from a member of the public who was happy with the service provided by the cemetery. Although I doubted the truth of this explanation, I did not rule it out as out of the question. I wondered how the amount of material could possibly be useful for the cemeteries and my main concern was that it was on site. Therefore I instructed terry to remove all of the waste material from Area 2 as soon as possible.”
“The following day Jon Sheaff and Henry Thompson, Mr Sheaff’s assistant, came to the site. The gates to the compound were locked. I unlocked the gates and we went inside. I then realised what Jon Sheaff was talking about because there were a lot of concrete and a large number of breeze blocks had been brought onto the site. This would be far more than we needed for our own purposes. I said to Jon Sheaff, “I think he (referring to Mr Campbell) has demolished an army barracks”
“Hi Des I’ve spoken to Terry about the business in hand and am convinced that the materials were deposited on site without Terry’s knowledge or agreement. I am also convinced that there is no fraud issue here. I think that Terry foolishly trusted somebody with criminal intentions on the back of a number of favours rendered to the cemetery (a load of top soil here and a bit of crushed stone there) and that he was taken advantage of. I feel that it’s the dumper that we should be going after. Simon is obviously only able to see this in black and white terms. I see from his e-mail that he doesn’t think that I should attend the interview, but I will make sure that I do. Incidentally Terry told me that he had considered resigning at our meeting this morning but he doesn’t want to go. I feel that if there was the slightest suspicion of anything untoward on his part, he would have gone already. Jon”
“The stuff is being moved out (by Brixton Waste). Hurrah!”
“Something is not right here…it seems to me that someone does not want this investigation to move forward…”
“A council spokesperson said: “The council has been made aware that waste was deposited at the cemetery. We are currently looking into this matter. In accordance with council policy, we will not comment about details of individual staff members” ”
“To clarify the point 1 in my email. You are indeed correct, that I was referring to those (company or companies) responsible for the actual deposit on the land, to which the Agency could have pursued the investigation, and not to those who have knowingly permitted this to take place with which your internal investigation is ongoing. …”
“Dear Des No the agreed line was not to interview Terry Connor or Tony until we had the results of the soil samples. There was no mention of not obtaining witness statements from anyone else. We are the investigating team and are duty bound to investigate this criminal matter and provide such findings to legal services for a decision on whom and what we prosecute for. I do not think that it is your decision on how this investigation is conducted. As Head of Service you are entitled to carryout a management investigation if you so desire. This matter should be treated as any other previous investigation into corrupt/unlawful activities. We cannot treat this matter any differently just because a Council Officer is involved. ”
“The agreement is as follows. The boreholes will then be taken and an assessment of any contamination will be made. A senior officers meeting will take place to assess the impact and this will lead our decisions on the next stage of the investigation. In the meantime officers should gather the necessary evidence on both the criminal and management investigation. It is important that as much evidence is gathered in order that the council can proceed with its action as quickly as possible. Please ensure that all the officers involved in gathering the evidence are aware that this is an agreed management position. Based on the risks highlighted by the Police I do not want any waste disposal contractors to be interviewed at this stage. This decision should be made at the next senior management meeting. … You have my full support on this matter”
“… I did have a long conversation with Des and he regretted his action. I also offered a conciliatory lunch for you both in order to help resolve this. I fully understand you [sic] frustrations and concerns. I have never questioned your approach to this investigation and you have my full support and backing in making sure that the investigation is carried out in a professional manner that minimises the risk to the councils reputation. There are two things that I personally hold as core values. One is that my division is seen in the most professional light by other departments services, members and the community. We strive to be the very best and we are professional in the way we do it. It is our role to ensure thy [sic] even if others don’t act in a professional manner we maintain our own high standards and ethics. The second is the loyalty that I have to my division, the officers, senior managers our department and most importantly to Gill. Simon you are my deputy. You are the person that I put my most trust in and the person who leads the division and maintains those core values both of which I know you hold dear. That means however that although you may have serious concerns over an issue, we deal with them in a way that doesn’t indicate internal disagreement to other departments. You can call me any time and we can discuss any issue, we can deal with any matter and you have my respect and support. We use our high standards, our reputation and professionalism to our benefit and that of Gills and to be able to wal [sic] with or [sic] heads held high that we do the best job for the division and the council.”
“Took a call from Mike Dando this afternoon. He and Simon were at Camberwell Old Cemetery and had found some human remains on the surface. I went over and removed them and they will be properly disposed of tomorrow. I have no idea how they got there. There is no evidence of any recent excavation work in the area or of vehicles accessing the site where they were found. I don’t know if they were connected with the recent bores piled on the spoil heap. Simon told me that he had been tipped off that that an area of the old cemetery had had material tipped on it. He wouldn’t tell me who told him this. I told him that I found his obsessive secrecy unhelpful (actually I find it pathetic). Terry made up an area of the old cemetery a few years ago for use as a woodland burial site – I’d have to go back into my e-mail trail to find out when. I don’t recall whether or not he asked my permission to do this in advance but I do recall a discussion about it because there was a complaint about traffic coming in and out and the quality of the material being used. I recall asking him to assure me in terms of the quality of the material being brought in – ie that it was topsoil (again I have to go back to my e-mail trail to find out what he said and when). The area is now completely grassed over and vegetated but there are a few pieces of concrete in a ditch and stuck into the side of an entirely level area. Woodland burials and scattering of remains have been undertaken in the squares concerned since the area was made up. Simon has asked me for the name of the contractor who did the work – I do not know this because I did not commission the work. Terry did. I haven’t replied to this. Do you think I should? I really don’t know what the point of this but it is really getting on my nerves. Is nobody going to tell Simon to get on with something else or has he actually not got anything better to do than this.”
“I do not think it appropriate [for] Simon to be digging where woodland burials have taken place and cremated remains scattered.”
“… I learnt that the site where the rubble we found has nothing to do with the Woodland burial site. That site is in a completely different part of the cemetery. The waste we are looking at is just a fly-tip. And according to the records there are going to be graves under it. … Jonathan to be honest I think that you really need to see these sites to put them into context. What has been going on is unbelieveable.”
“This area has been made up for and has been used for woodland burials and for the scattering of cremated remains. I think it entirely inappropriate for Simon to be digging around in this area and e-mailing all and sundry in his usual pumped up fashion. Is nobody going to rein him in? I am also becoming concerned about Doreen’s contribution. Seems that everybody has a roving brief when it comes to this issue.”
“Activities include -. the dumping/storage and treatment of controlled waste at Honor Oak Cemetery -. The use of waste material to make up areas within Camberwell Old and Nunhead cemeteries -. All activity constitutes breaches of EPA 1990. … -. Some evidence also that the “Authority” was corporately aware of the issue, leaving LBS open to a strict liability prosecution. -. Service under severe cost pressure leading to cutting corners. -. Management seemingly unaware of the requirements of current waste management legislation. -. Possible fraud and criminal intent by one or more Council officers. ”
“The Environment Agency were concerned not only about the activities of Mr Terry Connor, but also about possible links higher in the Council, and wanted to ensure that I would have the possibility of such links investigated. The issue was clear: could other more senior staff or elected members be involved? The Environment Agency asked me to inform the police at a senior level and ask them to take over the investigation into what appeared to them to be systematic criminal activity. They also asked me not to involve any Council officers within the service or those who had already started the investigation. They were critical of the way a clumsy investigation by Mr Simon Baxter was being conducted and was possibly putting important information and evidence at risk.”
“A. What I was trying to explain, and if I have not been clear, I will say it again, is that Mr Connor’s admission that there was a man involved with the dumping clearly relates to Honor Oak, you are absolutely right about that, it doesn’t specifically relate to Camberwell Old and Nunhead, and you are right about that, but I had inferred that because this was such an unusual course of events, and such a large pile of dumping happening at the same time, that it was the same people involved, and I put what evidence I had in front of the court for it to reach a judgment. Q. But you accept that the admission didn’t concern Camberwell Old or Nunhead? A. Yes, I do. ”
“My understanding of the position is that the work authorised by the Decision is completely different to the dumping of waste of the type and scale that has in fact occurred, and that the draft response which TC prepared seems therefore to have been another of his successful attempts to conceal what was in fact happening at the cemeteries from his immediate and senior managers. The Decision contemplated some filling of land to prepare burial plots in certain areas, but using only suitable filling materials. Mixed and partly toxic building waste is completely unsuitable for such a purpose, for obvious reasons. I note that TC’s letter to residents dated19 September 2003 refers to building waste being used to as the filling in material. I assume that this was an error and that JS did not check the letter before it went out. Moreover, nothing in the Decision authorised, or could conceivably have been thought to authorise, systematic dumping of unsegregated building waste on an industrial scale, as has occurred at the cemeteries. I confirm that the Applicant did not approve of this dumping and that the decision does not and cannot authorise the dumping.”
“I confirm that the Applicant did not approve of this dumping and that the Decision does not and cannot authorise the dumping”
“At pages 129 to 123 of “DC1” are aerial pictures of the woodland area of Nunhead Cemetery upon which waste material has been dumped. At page 129 of “DC1” is a picture of the cemetery in 2003 prior to the dumping. The site is marked by a box outlined in black. It should be noted that, in this photo, the site is a woodland area covered with trees. At page 131 of “DC1” is a picture of the same area in 2006. the trees have gone and waste can be seen in the area. A digger can be seen operating at the site. At page 132 of “DC1” are pictures of the same area in 2007. The waste is clearly visible, although it appears that some vegetation is beginning to grow back. At pages 133 to 158 of “DC1” are pictures of the type of waste found at Nunhead Cemetery.”
“Long term development of Honor Oak Cemetery Options are currently being worked up for the longer term use of the site at Honor Oak, which will secure the medium/long term provision of additional burial space, together with the capping of the majority of waste material, without need to remove to land fill.”
“It is proposed that the following works take place: •. The areas of known asbestos contaminated material be excavated and disposed of; •. The construction and demolition waste in the southern mound be removed to a waste recycling facility; •. An Environmental Permit or exemption is being sought from the Environment Agency (EA) to enable the remaining nonhazardous material to remain on site; •. All works to be approved and monitored by Environmental Health Officer.”
“This investigation has been lengthy and complex, and the difficulties have been compounded by the involvement of the Environment Agency – which, after originally indicating that it would not be launching an investigation, changed its mind and has also started its own investigations with a view possibly to bringing criminal charges. In order to get to the bottom of the matter, it has been necessary to interview a large number of council employees, local residents and others; to carry out detailed inspections and investigations of what has been dumped and where at the three Cemeteries; and to carry out an extensive review of the Council’s files (physical and electronic) in order to try to ascertain how this illegal dumping came about, and who within the council’s employment might have known about it or been involved in it.”
“D1’s contention therefore appears to be that the Council, which was in May 2008 in the very early stages of investigating a large unauthorised waste dump on its land and apparent associated fraud, should have allowed the very persons whom the Council was investigating, to arrange for the removal of the waste, without any paperwork whatsoever, on the strength of an oral assurance from an acquaintance of D2, communicated via a telephone call from D1, that the waste would be taken by D2/3 to a legitimate disposal centre. The contention only needs to be stated to be rejected.”