Havering’s Air Quality and the Launders Lane Scandal (part two)

Between 2014 and 2022 Launders Lane was ignored.¹ A known disaster zone² that was dismissed by everyone. The toxic infill caused dozens of fires across the site. Also in 2022, grass fires devastated Wennington Village with 18 houses destroyed. Political panic stations!

Politicians either follow, or don’t, the CEO’s advice but they carry the can. Councillors shouldn’t defer to advice, they should critique it. That’s the theory.

Frankie Walker (1:06)³ asked about timescales for the Launders Lane action plan: the ultimate question. The CEO’s response was pure, Yes Minister.⁴

After some exchanges with Frankie, the CEO said timescales were out of the question! External factors like: Planning permission; the Environment Agency; Contracts and a Judicial Review stood in the way. The delay could be years.Negotiations with the landowner were ‘slow’. The CEO (1:10) feeds HRA’s culture of helplessness. Ray Morgon (1:16) said legislation was unhelpful but,

We’re absolutely committed to action but unfortunately we are prevented by factors beyond our control.

Frankie was unimpressed and councillors began their probing, forensic scrutiny.

Matt Stanton (1:16 and 2:11) was impressive. He asked whether officers had critiqued their performance from 2014. He worried how an escalating situation was unnoticed. His point became apposite when the director of planning (2:03) confirmed the emerging status of ‘Grey Belt’ land. Green Belt land could deteriorate into Grey Belt and become developable.

Judith Holt (1:20) drilled into asbestos related health risks. The asbestos on the land isn’t seen as a health risk. The Environmental Agency officer (1:24) tried, and failed, to calm her worries.

Jason Frost (1: 34) was very measured. He wondered if legislation could be changed. This remote possibility brought the CEO into soothing mode.

Christine Smith (1:38) built on Judith’s pointy by speculating on Zane’s Law.⁵

Ray Best (2:01) wondered whether brown belt land could be deliberately created as a strategy by landowners. The director was alive to this foreseeable problem.

Jacqueline Williams (2:08) worried about the legal status of the company. She was reassured by the CEO.

Throughout the meeting David Taylor was a model of chairmanship. He maintained the pace of the lengthy discussion drawing out points, which hadn’t had a good airing. He was inclusive. The meeting was a splendid advert for scrutiny by well informed councillors. There were probing forensic questions and answers were not always accepted as gospel.

Notes

1 Conservative-Resident Association (2014-18) and Conservatives (2018-22). Ray Morgon’s HRA (2022-present) inherited the scandal.

2 A court case resulted in imprisonment for the principals in 2014

3 (Public Pack)Agenda Document for People Overview & Scrutiny Sub Committee, 21/10/2025 19:00 The report is very detailed and lengthy. For the webcast see Annotator Player All times relate to this (1 hour 6 minutes becomes 1:06)

4 40 years ago there was a popular BBC series which satirised the relationship between ministers and advisors. Advisors were seen as manipulating and treating ministers with barely concealed contempt. It’s still available on iPlayer.

5 Please Havering Council Support Zane’s Law To Ensure Robust Regulation Of Contaminated Land. – The Havering Daily

Havering Cabinet Meeting, 3rd September: The Launders Lane Debate

The cabinet was instructed to report on 20+ years of the appalling situation in Launders Lane, Rainham.¹ HRA aren’t to blame.² They inherited this débâcle from Conservative administrations. But HRA’s three+ years of inertia is haunting them. They really, really want to be positive but lawyers, and legislation, are stifling their ambitions. The crushing defeat in the Judicial Review³on their decision-making about Launders Lane hasn’t taught them anything. Luckily for HRA, the opposition hasn’t learned anything from the Judicial Review either.

The cabinet meeting was a parallel monologue between the Chief Executive (CE) and Leader. It was tightly scripted. For example, between the 5^th and 9^th minute Ray and the CE echoed each other.⁴ They monotonously blamed lawyers. Firstly, the legislation was unclear and secondly, they were cautiously trying to get the ‘right decision’. The dynamic duo said the Judicial Review had castigated them for being too quick. (see addendum). This went unchallenged because opposition councillors hadn’t read the Judicial Review.

Gillian Ford chipped in. She said that the concept of smoke wasn’t legally clear-cut and this caused problems with attributing health risks to Launders Lane fires. A legal ruling might impact on bonfires, which would be a disaster. Later she said the Judicial Review had caused delays in the decision-making process. She implied it was a ‘Bad Thing’ and the people of Launders Lane only had themselves to blame for delays.

Keith Darvill worried, in his cautious, hesitant way, about the lack of urgency. He was told he knew about legal delays because he’s a solicitor, which I thought was cruel.

Mostly it was self-serving drivel but one gem made the torture of listening to speeches through a brick wall using a milk bottle worthwhile. The CE said that finance wasn’t a consideration in the decision-making.This was endorsed by Ray Morgon. Activists should be dancing in the streets.

Addendum: The Judicial Review, paragraph 105
“I [the judge]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.” (my emphasis)

Notes

1 FORM A These are the cabinet papers for the Launders Lane discussion. The webcast audio was abysmal Annotator Player
2 HRA is an umbrella organisation uniting Resident Associations. RAs worshipped ‘Letting sleeping dogs lie’.

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

4 Normally I’d cite times but the recording was so abysmal, I suffered on your behalf.

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