The Contaminated Land at Launders Lane, Rainham

“…..I am concerned that the LA [local authority] appear to have been very confused about the correct legal approach to this site through the decision-making process.”¹

Background

Havering Residents’ Association (HRA) aren’t leaders. Dithering and avoiding decision-making is a toxic legacy from their petty-minded Residents’ Associations days. Prior to this judgement they were tested by the Institutional Racism report and ULEZ. They failed on both occasions.

Havering’s Institutional Racism report was suppressed until the campaigning Romford Recorder emerged triumphant in court. Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ propositions were mocked in a campaign tinged with racism. No-one in the HRA leadership team understood that ULEZ was a public healthpolicy.

HRA never apologised for suppressing the Institutional Racism report or opposing ULEZ.²

Arnold’s Field, Launders Lane

Deputy-Leader Gillian Ford is HRA’s spokesperson. She said, “…the site belongs to them [the landowner] and it is their responsibility to make it safe – the ball is in their court and as they well know, we are ready to work with them to solve the problem.”³

Designating land as contaminated means the council controls the situation. Landowners of contaminated land are instructed to remediate their land.⁴ Gillian doesn’t understand that the council can turbo-charge action. The landowner wouldn’t be remediating the land voluntarily; they’d be under a legal obligation.

It is impossible to believe that anyone could look at a site which had 64 fires in a few months,⁵ and not think it was contaminated.

The council decided that the land was the lesser category ‘statutory nuisance’.⁶ This was refuted by the campaigners’ legal team, “The fires arising on this [sic] are clearly caused by the land being in a contaminated state, so it is not accepted that this is a nuisance under the EPA.⁷

The judge was forensically precise in her determination. “…. the LA [local authority] appear to have been very confused about the correct legal approach to this site….”⁸ This is a damning judicial rebuke. Continuous spontaneous combustion couldn’t be anything other than a consequence of toxic contamination.

The designation of Arnold’s Field as a contaminated site should be urgently expedited after years of procrastination.

Notes

1 Clear the Air in Havering, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Havering [2025] EWHC 1492 (Admin) (17 June 2025) para 105

2 See Havering’s Institutional Racism Report – Politics in Havering and also Anti-ULEZ Conservative councillor David Taylor was gracious in his mea culpa Havering’s ULEZ Data (davidtaylor.online)

3 Havering Council’s response to Arnolds Field judicial review | London Borough of Havering

4 Can I Be Prosecuted For The Contamination Of Land? – Stephensons Solicitors LLP

5 Arnolds Field: Illegal dump owners say clean-up plan blocked – BBC News

6 The council continued avoiding any responsibility. The judge noted, “….but also no action is being taken in respect of statutory nuisance.” Clear the Air in Havering, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Havering [2025] EWHC 1492 (Admin) (17 June 2025) para 31

7 loc.cit para 29

8 loc.cit para 105

Havering’s Council Tax 2025-6

Havering Council is bankrupt. The usual explanation is the cost of Adult Services and Homelessness. That’s glib. Council Tax was introduced in 1991 by a panic-stricken Conservative government reeling from the Poll Tax riots. They planned valuation reviews every five years, after which council tax would be recalibrated reflecting property price inflation. No reviews have taken place. Areas with massive property price inflation, like Havering, haven’t had council tax adjustments.

Havering’s Council Tax 2025

In 1991 a £320,000+ band ‘H’ house¹ in Havering had a council tax of £1070. This equates to 0.33% of its minimum value.

In 2025 a band ‘H’ property is worth about £2m.³ Council tax for band ‘H’ is £4,627, which is 0.23%. This doesn’t look much but it is a 30% difference.

Council tax has significantly reduced for band ‘H’’ property owners since 1991.

Inflation since 1991

Band ‘H’ houses were valued at £320,000+ in 1991. Using standard inflation, that increased to £733,720 in 2025.⁴ House price inflation is a multiple of standard inflation. A 1991 £320,000+ house is now £2,157,601,⁵ an inflation rate of 574%.

Council Tax is a failure

Political cowardice by governments has bankrupted Havering.⁶ Council tax is a failed mechanism for funding council services.⁷ Continuing to use 1991 valuations is ludicrous.

Correcting 34 years of inertia will take political courage………I’m not holding my breath.

Notes

1 Council Tax bands and bills | London Borough of Havering

2 Properties For Sale in Emerson Park | Rightmove

4 Inflation calculator | Bank of England

5 House price index | Nationwide

6 Havering Council Tax: Is It Too Low? – Politics in Havering This was written in 2020 but the analysis is still valid though the examples are historic.

7 George Osborne’s Age of Austerity programme, 2010-16, put the knife to the throat of Havering’s finances and matters more than sub-optimal increases in council tax.

Havering’s Annual Council, 21st May 2025

The meeting saw the election of the mayor for 2025-6.¹ Even though Havering’s mayoralty is non-executive, it has significant powers. Havering’s multi-party council means the mayor’s casting vote is decisive whenever there’s a tied vote. The principal duty of the mayor is as an ambassador for the council.

The meeting itself was riveting for political geeks. Speeches of congratulation to the out-going mayor, Gerry O’Sullivan, were gushing. Dilip Patel’s “amazing work”, Gillian Ford’s “incredible year” and Christine Vickery’s, “a lot of fun” give a flavour of the contributions. Gerry himself said it had been “wonderful”.

The meeting continued with Ray Morgon’s tour d’horizon, which stressed HRA’s achievements.

His devotion to lobbying is undiminished. Ray is lobbying for Fairer Funding for local authorities. He made a throwaway remark about the government loan, £100m+, which glossed over Havering’s financial disaster. The chances of a Conservative outer-London borough successfully lobbying for additional funding in the current economic situation is nil. Ray has a cast-iron case but that isn’t enough politically speaking.² Ray remains a True Believer in lobbying.

Ray identified his transport successes achieved in the last year. Of especial note was the Gallows Corner renewal programme, the SuperLoop bus service and possibly Beam Park station. Interestingly the East Havering Data Centre isn’t a done deal but the reason why not wasn’t even hinted at.

His laboured references to Crystal Palace’s success didn’t entertain or inform. It was a relief, even for geeks, when the meeting ended after an hour or so.

Notes

1 The new mayor is Sue Ospreay, her deputy is Barry Mugglestone.

2 Havering’s Election: An Undemocratic Democracy? – Politics in Havering The political consequences of Austerity were felt by Havering’s two Conservative MPs who nearly lost their seats last year.

Andrew Rosindell: Parliamentary Speech, 7th May 2025

Andrew’s lengthy speech discussed Havering and Greater London. His speech was autobiographical and historical. He began with a long list of Havering’s Essex roots.

Havering is an Essex region with long historic connexions. He cited his home address, St Edward’s church, Essex county cricket club, and the water supply from Essex and Suffolk amongst many other examples.

Andrew outlined the baleful impact of Greater London, which has led to, “60 years of muddle, confusion and constant debate about whether Romford and Havering remain part of Essex or not.”²

Andrew says Havering is paying too much for too little because it’s a London borough. He airily remarked it cost, “…tens of millions of pounds per year.” Andrew didn’t say how much Havering pays, though the data is readily available. Assertions should be supported with facts.

Andrew claimed ULEZ should have been avoided.He believes ULEZ is a ‘Bad Thing’- people with respiratory illnesses probably disagree. Andrew added that his constituents disapproved of Greater London but provided no polling data.

Policing is a major issue. Andrew says Havering suffers as a London borough. He said, “….if you speak to my constituents, they will tell you that they believe Havering residents are in effect subsidising inner London areas…” Amazingly Andrew didn’t remark that Havering, who are bankrupt, pays an additional £1 million to the MetPolice to guarantee local policing.

Leaving London would mean Havering losing the beloved Freedom Pass. Pensioners adore it and they are reliable voters. Andrew wants the Freedom Pass extended to contiguous counties. This means TfL would take control of links into London. TfL will become far larger if Andrew’s proposition is supported, which implies a ‘levy’ on the new areas.Will they be pleased to pay the price?³

Andrew’s heart-felt sincerity came through loud and clear and was praised by the minister, Jim McMahan. He said, “I pay tribute to the hon. Member for championing his area and for the very clear passion that he has for the place he represents.”

Notes

1 Bing Videos and Havering Borough and Essex Devolution – Hansard – UK Parliament

2 All quotes are from the Hansard report of the speech

3 The Freedom Pass isn’t free. Havering pays £8m p.a. for access to the system.

Back to the Future: learning from history

One proposed approach presented to Cabinet is the development of 18 fully equipped modular home units within the area allocated for the final phase of the Waterloo & Queen Street regeneration scheme, in Romford.¹

The Blitz left thousands of people homeless. In 1942² Churchill’s government began planning for housing the homeless post-war. He chose prefabricated houses because they were quick to erect. They were kitted out with equipment considered luxurious,

For a country used to the rigours of the outside lavatory and tin bath, the bathroom included a flushing toilet and man-sized bath with hot running water. In the kitchen were housed such modern luxuries as a built-in oven, refrigerator and Baxi water heater, which only later became commonplace in all residential accommodating.³

Post-war prefab housing, which was intended to be ‘temporary’.

The war bankrupted Britain and the American Marshall Plan⁴ hadn’t begun.There was a shortfall in building materials making the job harder. Prefab houses were an act of genius. They were built on vacant land. With the destruction of London, there were many sites and further east in Romford.⁵ Notwithstanding the challenges, they pushed forward immediately in 1945-6.

They planned for 300,000 homes with a life expectancy of 10 years but many lasted far longer. Post-war families were given stability for their families.

Havering in 2025 isn’t recovering from war but has a housing crisis. Because of their statutory duty,

“…..the Council was forced to overspend its temporary accommodation budget by £6 million.⁶

In 1942 Churchill decided housing was too important to leave to market forces. The Attlee Labour government fulfilled his programme by building hundreds of thousands of houses. 40 years later Maggie Thatcher destroyed public housing, unleashing a crisis.

Will modular houses begin a new era of social housing?

Notes

1 Cabinet approve temporary homes solutions to help tackle housing crisis | London Borough of Havering

2 Prefabs in the United Kingdom – Wikipedia

3 loc.cit. See this site for wonderful insights into prefab houses Prefabs – Palaces for the People

4 Marshall Plan | Summary & Significance | Britannica

5 prefab houses in romford – Search Images

6 Cabinet approve temporary homes solutions to help tackle housing crisis | London Borough of Havering

I’m giving a talk: Are Havering’s secondary schools fit for purpose?

22^nd April 2025 at 8pm at Fairkytes Hall, Hornchurch for the Fabian Society

There will be a Q&A session afterwards

Havering Council Meeting, 26th March 2025 (part two)

“This Council recognising the importance of volunteers in supporting local people and organisations calls on the Administration to evaluate its arrangements and policies supporting the Havering Volunteer Centre…” Havering Volunteer Centre¹

The principal purpose of council meetings is debating motions. The council allocates 75 minutes for debate. Any councillor can contribute.

The opportunity to hold the Administration to account escaped the cold dead hands of opposition councillors at this meeting.

One Motion Only

Allocated Time ~ 75 minutes: Time used in debate ~ 26 minutes

Jane Keane (1 hour 10)² began the debate with a thorough analysis of the role of volunteers. She highlighted the necessity of the Havering Volunteer Centre. This is a council owned property and rent could triple to £36,000 p.a. Jane emphasised the Centre’s location on Romford high street. The building is shared with three other volunteer groups.

David Taylor (1:15) discussed the added value of the voluntary sector, which is calculated at £20bn nationally. Viddy Persaud (1:18) said the Havering sector is valued at £1.2m. The human importance was movingly spoken of by Tim Ryan (1:28). Tim described the support his family received for his very ill father. Joshua Chapman (1:19) spoke of “social infrastructure” and its incalculable value.

Matt Stanton (1:26) named names. He described the work of one volunteer. By drilling down into specifics he made the debate concrete just like Tim.

Gillian Ford (1:20) discussed the alternative accommodation which had been offered but had been deemed unsuitable by the Volunteer Centre. Keith Prince (1:24) paraphrased Oscar Wilde³ by saying the Administration knew the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

Ray Morgon (1:31) supported the motion. Unfortunately, he also employed the term ‘reckless’ three times, alongside “have to evaluate”, “funding streams” and “fear-mongering”. Presumably this means ‘hard choices’ will be made.

Council Meeting

Allocated Time ~ Two hours 45 minutes: Time Used ~ One hour 36 minutes

Addendum: Questions and Debate Topics

As councillors are struggling to find questions and debate topics perhaps they should ask their constituents?

Notes

1 Motions.pdf

2 Annotator Player All times relate to the webcast

3 Oscar Wilde: ‘What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.’ — The Socratic Method

Havering Council Meeting, 26th March 2025 (part one)

Question Time¹

Question time (QT) is a regulated activity. A maximum of 15 questions to be answered in 45 minutes. Any question can be asked of any cabinet member and councillors are permitted a supplementary question. Supplementary questions are difficult for cabinet members because they are unprotected by officers.

QT is perfect for scrutiny. Unfortunately, it relies on councillors doing their homework before the meeting. Even worse, it relies on councillors asking questions.

The Conservatives asked five questions. Four were posed by David Taylor. None were asked by *superstar* Keith Prince or the Conservative Leader Michael White. This contrasted with five questions posed by Labour. Four Labour councillors asked questions. East Havering RAs have three members and they asked two questions. Cranham RAs didn’t ask a question.²

There were supposed to be 55 councillors at this meeting.³ Seven asked questions but King Lethargy triumphed. 48 councillors didn’t ask a question. The allocated 15 questions weren’t utilised and the cabinet jog-trotted through their answers.

QT is pitiful.⁴ Councillors are semi-professional and don’t understand their role in the council chamber. There aren’t any *new* members now. They’ve all been in office for three years. Havering’s councillors are semi-detached.

15 questions allocated ~ 13 questions asked.

45 minutes allocated ~ 33 minutes used.

Addendum: Former Councillor John Mylod

John Mylod died recently and, as usual, councillors offered eulogies. Also, as usual, they spoke at length. The eulogies lasted 18 minutes.⁵ They were in the comfort zone of heart-warming remarks about a former councillor. Meanwhile 33 minutes was spent discussing the performance of the council, which is in crisis.

Notes

1 Council Questions 26 March 2025.pdf

2 They only have two members and I don’t know if they are entitled to ask questions.

3 Six offered apologies but I didn’t see Damian White so it may be that there were 7 absences. 12.7%.

4 Annotator Player From 36 minutes onwards

5 Annotator Player From 10 minutes onwards

The Consequences of Conservative Extremism, 2010-24

Havering is bankrupt.

Ray Morgon, HRA Leader of Council, is outraged because Havering is a victim. The Conservatives destroyed local government between 2010 and 2024. Ray Morgon and the new Labour government are victims. They’re making decisions they hate and despise.

There has been 51.4% of inflation since 2010.¹ In 2010, Band D Council Tax was £1505.²This increased to £2208 in 2024,³ up 46.7%. Council tax has therefore, more-or-less, increased with general inflation.

Bankruptcy is a direct result of government policy.

In 2010, Havering was centrally funded with £70m annually. In 2024, this had fallen to less than £2m. A 97% decrease. Conservative governments introduced funding based on specific criteria. The baseline for grants was 2010. The world changed but the baseline remained inflexible.

The demography of Havering shows startling changes.⁴ Havering has more young and old people than in 2010. Both groups are heavy consumers of council services. The inflexible baseline has damaging outcomes with Adult and Children’s Services budgets out of control. There isn’t any *control* because they’re demand led and can increase in a moment.

Havering isn’t alone. The spectre of bankruptcy is haunting local authorities. The consequences of Conservative government policies are lethal.⁵ Ray Morgon has an £88m problem. Rachel Reeves’s problem is a gigantic £7.8bn. She has to fill the national funding gap. Her challenges are dominated by the NHS, Education and Defence. The Conservative legacy is catastrophic.

Ray Morgon’s decision to borrow £88m to meet current revenue expenditure was the result of force majeure. Both he and Rachel Reeves are victims of chronic economic mismanagement.

Notes

1 Inflation calculator | Bank of England

2 110209agenda_feb.pdf

3 Council Tax bands and bills | London Borough of Havering

4 JSNA Demography Chapter 2023 v0.3A.pdf esp. pp6-7

5 Fair funding review modelling tools | Local Government Association

HRA Teeter On The Brink, 26th February 2025

The budget debate concluded dramatically as HRA were punished for poor political judgement. The Maggie Thatcher approach, ‘There is no alternative,’ nearly cost them power.

Ray Morgon has inherited the wreckage of George Osborne’s Austerity programme. Havering’s borrowing might increase by £88m to pay for adult and children’s social care along with the homelessness crisis. Everyone knows that’s expensive but no-one knows how much because it’s demand led.

The discussion about Havering’s £200m budget pivoted around food waste and libraries. David Taylor (1 hour 47)¹ said HRA made political choices. The choices are to close three libraries or introduce the food waste collection six months earlier than required.

The Conservatives demanded that food waste collection begins on 1^st April 2026. This saves £1.27m.² By not supplying bin liners a further £270,000 is saved. (See addendum) Three libraries could have their closure paused for a year.³

HRA went to public consultation on closure. 83% voted against but HRA’s ‘Maggie Thatcher Tendency’ led them to ignore the consultation. HRA have forgotten they’re in a minority. The vote on Labour’s amendment was a sharp reminder. The vote tied at 24:24 and HRA won on the casting vote of the Mayor.

Seven councillors were absent, including former Conservative Leader Damian White. If he’d turned up HRA would have faced a vote of confidence and possibly lost power.

Philip Ruck (1:08)⁴ taunted HRA with being in the pocket of the officers. And the papers confirm he has a point. The Labour amendment led to this comment from the principal officer,

“Although the saving is financially viable, as the Council’s S151 Officer, I am unable to recommend this.”

Amazing!

S151 officers only advise whether amendments make financial sense. Philip said, “Officers advise and politicians decide.” HRA have neither the confidence or ability to reject officer advice. They tried to defend the politically indefensible.

Addendum: Labour’s amendment (edited)

Proposal. The Labour Group proposes the following budget amendments: That the saving closing South Hornchurch Library is reversed

That the saving closing Harold Wood Library is reversed

To reduce the Capitalisation Direction

That Gidea Park Library is re-purposed for alternative use

Total costs. This would be financed by: Removal of costs of bin liners from the Food Waste collection £0.270m

Source (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Council, 26/02/2025 19:30 p983

Best Speech: David Taylor

Notes

1 Annotator Player All times relate to this webcast

2 (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Council, 26/02/2025 19:30 p981

3 Martin Goode Havering’s Council Tax Meeting, 26th February 2025 (part one) – Politics in Havering At 58 minutes said that these were headline savings and didn’t include decommissioning costs.

4 Annotator Player

Havering’s Council Tax Meeting, 26th February 2025 (part two)

Background

Political groups nominated speakers to set out their propositions¹ and general debate followed. There were 12 speeches² and this gives a flavour of the debate.

General Debate

Michael White (Con) began (1hour 05) with, “He didn’t want to bring politics into the debate.” Michael believes everything is political. He said a pause in introducing the Food Waste collection would save the libraries. This is irrefutable.

Philip Ruck (Cranham RA) said HRA don’t understand their budget as it’s set by officers. He said borrowing £88m to put £5m into reserves is ludicrous. (£1m costs £50K p.a. in interest.)

Keith Prince (Con) said, “Politics don’t matter’. Councillors panicked, wondering who this imposter was. Keith, if it was him, identified savings which earn money like increasing the number of planning officers. He’s a fan of Harold Wood library and likes the police and CCTV.

Ray Morgon (HRA) Defended his budget quite well. He favours lobbying. A triumph of hope over experience.

Barry Mugglestone (HRA) He loves ‘law and order’ policies and liners for caddy bins. His argument for bin liners was feeble.

Gillian Ford (HRA) She got dewy eyed about libraries she’d visited 35 years ago with her children. Everyone wondered if she’d been in one since the 1990s. Apart from saying Gidea Park library was poor in the 1990s, that was it.

Graham Williamson (HRA) He should write his speeches to prevent confusion to himself and his audience. He tried, and failed, to trash Opposition amendments by saying the Finance Director was against them. He was, of course, wrong.

(Four HRA cabinet members spoke consecutively.)

Martin Goode (East Havering RAs) As soon as he spoke about Harold Wood library he was interrupted by Gillian. He failed to make a good point.

Brian Eagling (East Havering RAs) He denounced increased charges on football pitches. He was shouted down by Gillian and Barry. His good point wasn’t made.

(HRA really, really don’t like East Havering RAs and don’t conceal it.)

Robert Benham (Con) denounced the lack of ambition in the budget. He found it unbelievable HRA were borrowing their way ‘out’ of debt with £200m by 2026.

Jane Keane (Labour) Agreed with Keith Darvill’s tour d’horizon, which was compelling and depressing in equal measure.

Judith Holt (Con) She dislikes misery and feels councillors should recognise that Havering is attractive for people from other parts of London.

James Glass (HRA) He made an honest assessment of the budget. He showed how HRA councillors are tortured by decisions like closing libraries.

Best Speech: James Glass

Best Havering patriot: Judith Holt

Notes

1 Havering’s Council Tax Meeting, 26th February 2025 (part one) – Politics in Havering

2 Annotator Player This is in speech order beginning with White and ending with Glass.