Mary Macleod Takes Up Mogden Complaints

Residents suffering the effects of the ongoing odour problem at Thames Water's Mogden Sewage Treatment Works have been given some hope of respite following the intervention of Brentford & Isleworth Conservative MP Mary Macleod.

Mary has already raised the matter in the House of Commons and has met with the Environment Minister alongside members of the community-led Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG). She has also established a line of contact with the Environment Department at the London Borough of Hounslow, where planning permission was granted to Thames to expand the plant when it was patently obvious to all but a handful of dopey politicians that Thames had lied about its capacity to minimise odour once the proposed works had been completed.

It is worth noting here that Ed Mayne, one of the three Labour ward councillors for Isleworth, has also written to Thames in the strongest possible terms calling for action over the smell.

Campaigning residents are hopeful that these latest high-profile interventions will impress upon the Mogden management at last that the present situation in which odour is simply allowed to escape at will and impinge upon the quality of life of tens of thousands of neighbouring residents is unsustainable.

Will the Real Hounslow Labour Party Please Stand Up (and other associated questions)?

“To get the message across that Hounslow falls too far short of what we all expect as councillors and residents the whole organisation is being reshaped from the top downwards - slimming down the lardy top tiers and testing Directors and Assistant Directors against their peers through competitive interviews with external as well as internal candidates. There's a new Chief Executive, one Department and three chief officers have already gone and the rest including the much mentioned Director of Environment will be leaving within a couple of months. Understanding that Hounslow has to listen to local residents, respond to the needs of the community and pull its proverbial socks up is a key requirement in every one of those interviews - hence the changing personnel…

“None of the above should dissuade residents from continuing to press for change and faster improvement - external pressure is essential. Just don't assume Hounslow is inert and unredeemable. I don't think anyone has a lower opinion of what Hounslow became, but that doesn't mean it can't be fixed…

“I think the overwhelming majority of councillors and residents are now agreed that Hounslow needed fixing and are keen to support meaningful steps to open up the council - the days for one party states and arrogant bureaucracies are gone.

“Being beaten in 2006 helped remind Labour members that most of them came into politics to make their communities stronger and better - hence a little more modesty, the willingness to work a little harder, focus on a limited number of practical priorities and to slim down, open up and transform the council. Self interest will continue to help – because doing nothing promises to see 2006 repeated.

“I recognise that Labour were appalling (it kept me out of local politics for two decades) and we are yet to be coherent on community engagement, but I don't think a bold new statement would be worth anything at the moment because there’s nothing for anyone to trust yet until we see something tangible delivered – I think Labour and the Council need to pay a lot more forward not make promises. And at the moment let's be frank, it is a struggle every day to get good stuff delivered by the Council – but perhaps surprisingly it is a challenge Labour members are now very much up for.”

These words from Theo Dennison, Labour ward councillor for Syon and former London Borough of Hounslow Cabinet member, certainly leave no room for charges of ambiguity. Even if, taking the unkindest and most cynical view, one was to dismiss his words as lacking sincerity, they still tell us that at least one person within the local Labour camp recognises the concerns felt by large sections of the community and understands that ignoring them is the surest and fastest route back to political Boot Hill.

This in itself, small and inconsequential though it may appear in isolation, is the local community equivalent of One Giant Step for Mankind. Councillor Dennison has already gone where no Labour councillor, in these parts at least, has gone before.

Difficult decision

I keep being asked whether or not the Independent Community Group (ICG) will be fielding candidates again at the local elections in 2014. The honest truth is that this will not be my decision to make, and to be equally honest I am really pleased that that is the case. It truly is an extremely difficult decision to make, and there are so many imponderables involved that those who will be entrusted with making it will not be able to do right for doing wrong.

Of course, as the party in power, the attitude of the local Labour Party is always a massive consideration. Councillor Dennison’s comments are very much noted. So too is the fact that none of his colleagues seem in any rush to endorse them, as indeed is that, coincidentally or otherwise, they would appear to have coincided with his demotion from the Council’s Cabinet.

It is difficult to see certain long-standing councillors not a million miles from Syon embracing the idea of the primacy of community, primacy that is over the diktats of a political party to which blind and unquestioning allegiance is for some almost a religious matter.

There are also pernicious outside influences that need to be factored into the equation. Perusing his Facebook page, far too much influence would still appear to be wielded over the politics of the Hounslow party by the peculiar and obsessive man-child of Southall. I’ll not massage his ego by mentioning his name – it is not him that is important, but the way in which others relate to him and, more significantly still, to his method. His ethics are the antithesis of everything Councillor Dennison would appear to stand for, and a cursory stroll around the Web would seem to indicate that his gutter politics approach is still very much more widely favoured by Labour decision-makers in Hounslow than that of the Syon councillor.

The old ways have in any event continued to manifest themselves on occasions. Just recently the Lead Member for Environment declined to meet the Mogden Residents’ Action Group (MRAG), a community group representing many thousands of victims of Thames Water’s neglect of its legal and moral obligations over the odour emanating from its Mogden plant, unless the residents agree to meet on his terms (that is in the presence of officers who have long demonstrated their lack of support for the community’s aspirations). This “we are in charge, not you” message is wholly inconsistent and incompatible with the resident-driven model that we desire to see.

Dichotomy

One thing the ICG needs to accept is that if it abstains from the fray in 2014, it will find it much harder to come back in 2018 if that is what needs to be done. The effective Lab/ICG dichotomy which exists at present in both Isleworth and Syon wards will have been replaced once again by a Lab/Con dichotomy, and the organised community will have an uphill struggle trying to re-establish itself as the natural opposition to Labour. New residents will have moved in, old supporters will have moved out or passed away, and we will be back to where we were prior to 1998.

Thus if we are to place our trust in Labour we would need very good reason – with all due respect, far more than just Councillor Dennison’s rather optimistic word – to believe that the local party had taken real community empowerment to the heart of its politics rather than appending it to its schedule as some reluctant afterthought which itself would appear to be hotly disputed. To put it quite simply, if they are not going for it with enthusiasm now when the spectre of the ICG returning to the electoral fold is looming, why should they do so four years hence when that “threat” is less pressing?

I find myself wondering just to what extent Councillor Dennison actually believes that his local party is embracing the spirit of community empowerment. He must, after all, know his colleagues better than I do, and I know them well enough to know just how affronted some of them will be by the very thought of being led, as opposed to followed, by the massed ranks of the unenlightened.

His protestations could be indicative of his fierce loyalty to his colleagues. My feeling is that he is in fact, rather cleverly, leading them to a place where they will be left with no option other than to declare either for or against this new and, perhaps unsurprisingly in my view, better approach to engagement. Quite where he proposes to go should they cling obstinately to type remains anyone’s guess.

Of course it is not just Labour’s position that will inform the ICG’s decision. The Community Group needs to understand just what it is that it would be returning to. For councillors who have only experienced power and not opposition a rude awakening could be in store.

The fact is that even with six ICG councillors returned in Syon and Isleworth it is highly likely that Labour will hold an overall majority at the London Borough of Hounslow post-2014. With the coalition government out of favour and the local Conservative Party showing no obvious signs of ever being capable of differentiating between wishful thinking and cold reality it is easy to see several Tory seats in the west of the borough falling to Labour. Even traditional “strongholds” such as Hounslow South and Osterley & Spring Grove do not look particularly safe. A couple of bad weeks in the opinion polls and an unspectacular local election campaign could conceivably see them eliminated outside of their W4 comfort zone. Perhaps only then will the consequences of their idiotic behaviour during the later months of the Conservative/ICG coalition become fully apparent to all their own members and supporters.

Opposition

Opposition is a place that bears no comparison with office, especially when you are a community councillor. It means going through the motions at Council meetings before inevitably being voted down. It means chief executives cutting you off after three minutes of your allotted five minute speech in the Chamber. It means officers passing you in the corridors of the Civic Centre and not daring to venture a smile or often even so much as an acknowledgement lest it be spotted by an eagle-eyed politico and held against them when the next round of redundancies comes around. It means any committees or panels that by accident of circumstance your group may dominate being closed down or “reorganised” in such a way that your influence is removed. I had eight years of it before 2006, I’m not persuaded that I would want to put myself through it again.

And then of course there is the question of our relationship with other opposition parties and groups. When I was first elected as an independent in 1998 I rather enjoyed my status as a lone wolf, loathed equally by both the major parties which competed with one another to be seen as the ones who could shun me the most publicly. Politically it couldn’t have worked better if I had written the script myself – voters everywhere were able to contrast the essential sameness of both sides of the political establishment with the new, fresh and vibrant approach to local politics that the ICG represented.

Then of course came 2006, and the discovery when totting up the scores on the doors following the local election of that year that we were really not so bad after all. We entered into coalition eager to run our programme for community empowerment alongside the political programme of our Conservative partners, believing them to be at least neutral if not particularly sympathetic towards the things we wished to achieve.

Later of course we were to be disappointed, finding ourselves frustrated by chief officers while our partners either stood back and watched or actively collaborated with them behind the scenes (perm one from two), with both establishment parties meanwhile openly making common cause against us at Area Committee meetings. Then followed the debilitating news that our partners were hoping to divide the Community Group following the local elections of 2010 in the event of the numbers making it feasible to offer coalition terms only to certain of our councillors (variously considered – wrongly in my view - to be either mercenary, or easy to flatter or manipulate), and all remaining trust was lost.

Pincer movement

Ultimately we were to be fatally caught in a pincer movement between the two major parties at those elections and none of us were returned to office in any case.

In the unlikely event of any community councillors from Isleworth and Syon holding the balance of power again following the 2014 elections we would of course find ourselves in a wholly different position to that of 2006. In such circumstances we may be reduced to playing the role of an outspoken but very small opposition to an effective two party dictatorship, just as was the case in fact on the Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee between 2002 and 2005.

When one considers the complexity of the decisions that we will be faced with in the very near future it is hopefully easy to understand why I am relieved that these decisions will be for others to take. What the ICG should be doing right now is canvassing the views of the active community and finding out precisely what it is that they want us to do.

I Won't Say I Told You So

That's how the song goes anyway.

It could, of course, have been written by the ICG for those mugs who voted in support of an application by Thames Water to expand its stinky Mogden operation back in 2009 on the grounds that (a) it would "reduce smell" and that (b) the London Borough of Hounslow would be able to exercise "more control" over the selfish, relentlessly profit-driven activities of the water utlity through the watered-down and thoroughly useless Section 106 agreement that Thames condescended to sign as part of the approval process.

The ICG told the sorry shower that comprised the Sustainable Development Committee that the grounds were flawed on two counts. Namely (a) it wouldn't reduce the smell but would increase it, and (b) the London Borough of Hounslow has never had any intention of exercising any kind of control or restraint whatsoever over Thames Water, which imposes its odours on the surrounding community with absolute impunity.

Guess what happened?

The following is an excerpt from a letter written by the resident-led Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG) to Isleworth councillor Ed Mayne on June 10th:

"Residents are thus astounded to learn that, without any consultation with MRAG or community groups, the Council elected of its own volition, to remove the out of hours call centre for victims to ring so that Environment Officers can take 24/7 H2S readings and thus build a case to enforce Abatement Notices. Residents were led to believe that this call centre and the associated costs for Council Officers to investigate complaints is funded 100% by Thames Water as a pre-condition of the S106 agreement and it was agreed that this would remain in place until 2013 when the upgrade of Mogden is completed. Why then, and on whose authority was this vital function removed just before the summer months when odour escaping the Mogden premises is at its most severe?

"You will also be aware that residents requested, and were granted GBP 150,000, within the S106 agreement to enhance and beautify the environment around Mogden in residential areas most affected by Mogden's mismanagement and negligence over the last 14 years. We have repeatedly requested information on when consultation with residents will commence in order to define how the £150K will be spent, but we have received no response."

So there you have it, so supportive is the Head of Environment at LBH of the residents who pay his not unsubstantial salary that he has withdrawn an important facility that was provided as a condition of acceptance for the expansion project at no cost at all to the borough!

And what have the elected members, who are supposed to be running the council, done about it?

Well, Councillor Mayne has offered to facilitate a meeting between residents and the new Lead Member for Environment, Councillor Colin Ellar, and this offer is in the process of being responded to.

We can only hope that Councillor Ellar and his administration will take the necessary measures that we would have taken had our coalition partners backed us post-2009 to sort out the utter disgrace that is Hounslow's Environment department for once and for all.

The Big Society or No Such Thing as Society?

I’m still trying to get my head around “The Big Society”, what the Prime Minister David Cameron describes as his “vision and passion”. I am particularly keen to understand how it is to be reconciled with the view that “there is no such thing as society”, articulated by Margaret Thatcher, now Baroness Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister back in the 1980s.

On the surface of it it would seem to be something of an oxymoron. If society doesn’t exist then it cannot be big. Or, conversely, if it is indeed big then the view that it does not exist has to be wrong.

So what exactly is society? What is this thing that is simultaneously big and yet not really there?

Society in its most basic form must be that state in which we live beyond our own selfish existence. It is that common experience that we share whenever we interact, be it socially, in the supermarket, at the bingo hall, down at the local pub, even indeed passing each other in the street and acknowledging the fact that the other person is there.

It may also be, if you prefer, the way in which we support each other by using the skills each of us possess to benefit others, whether we do so for a wage or out of purest altruism. It could be the shopkeeper taking our order, the postman bring our mail, the doctor making us better, the bus driver getting us to where we want to be. We cannot do all these things for ourselves, but by plying our particular trade in the service of others we all manage to muddle along somehow.

The voluntary aspect of being a society is altogether more special. After all it is something from which we derive no personal gain, and which we really don’t have to do. Running a scout group, giving advice, helping out at the local school, organising a residents’ or tenants’ association or an action group – all of these things serve to make life more enjoyable and the environment in which we live more pleasant.

So when Mrs. Thatcher told us there was no such thing as society was she denying that the altruism of what is admittedly an active minority actually existed, that there was behind all of it an ulterior, selfish motive? Or was it just an expression of wishful thinking?

To say there is no such thing as society suggests that people in general are concerned only with Number One, with the furtherance of their own careers and the unrelenting accumulation of personal wealth. It is a call to those who give of their free time to call it a day and to return home to the counting table. It envisions the whole of life as a metaphorical ladder upon which the objective is to climb whilst if necessary treading on the head of the person below.

If this is indeed what Mrs. Thatcher meant then why is it that a quarter of a century on another Conservative Prime Minister sees fit to champion what he calls The Big Society? He after all has never, as far as I am aware, denounced nor even distanced himself from the shocking opinions of his distant predecessor.

In the light of the commonality that exists between the Thatcherites of old and adherents of modern Conservatism it is reasonable to look upon Cameron’s Big Society with a certain degree of scepticism. What is it about the society that the Prime Minister envisages that would find favour amongst those who continue to venerate the undisputed champion of the culture of self?

The answer must logically be found in the fact that the voluntary sector offers something that professionals employed in the public sector per se cannot – work done for free. Why pay a librarian when a retired person looking to get out and meet people or a student in need of work experience and a reference can manage the local library on a day to day basis for nothing?

This cheapskate cynicism is rightly condemned by the Conservatives’ traditional opponents in the Labour Party. Sadly though the criticism focuses usually not upon the exploitative instincts that underpin the Tories’ new-found commitment to a society the very existence of which they were denying not so long ago, but upon the very rationale of volunteering and community self-help.

“Ordinary” people, we are told, are too busy scratching a living to be much bothered about putting anything into the community of which they are a part. All the average (acknowledgements Neil Peart) are concerned about is putting food on the table and clothes on their children’s backs.

Fortunately, so the argument continues, there exists an expert political class (them) whose calling is to manage all our society’s affairs for us. That political class comprises a social elite (whether by education or birthright is unclear) that is specially and uniquely trained to understand all our needs and to deliver them to us in the way that only it knows best.

VICTORY!

Residents win epic court battle against Thames Water over Mogden

ICG leads protest against Mogden expansion in 2009

Thousands of residents are celebrating after the High Court today ruled in their favour at the culmination of their epic battle against the water giant and the odour nuisance that it has continued to inflict upon our community with the timid, indeed sometimes willing, acquiescence of the London Borough of Hounslow.

Mr Justice Ramsay upheld the claim by 1,350 litigants from Isleworth, Hounslow, Whitton, St. Margaret's and Twickenham that Thames Water was liable for breach of duty in relation to odour nuisance from its Isleworth-based Mogden plant.

The judge also found that Thames had breached claimants' human rights under the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 of the Convention which protects the enjoyment of home and family life.

Scandalously, legislation due to be introduced by the government will prevent communities from instigating actions such as this one in the future without accepting prohibitive financial risk.

Nevertheless right now is a time for rejoicing, and for expressing my sincere thanks to all those residents who have worked painstakingly through the Mogden Residents' Action Group over many years to bring this about, often in the face of infuriating obstruction, procrastination and betrayal from those upon whose support we should have been entitled to rely.

MRAG and the ICG will consider the full implications of the Council's handling of the Mogden issue and of its attitude towards campaigning residents during the coming weeks.

The full Press Statement released today by Steve Taylor of MRAG is as follows:


VICTORY FOR RESIDENTS AGAINST THAMES WATER
Residents successful in ‘David & Goliath’ battle

After a long and arduous fight, 1,350 residents living near Mogden Sewage Treatment Works in Isleworth, Middlesex have won their mammoth battle against Thames Water Utilities Limited in relation to odour nuisance. The residents live in an area which comprises Hounslow, Whitton, Twickenham and St Margarets as well as Isleworth.

At the High Court today (8 December), Judge Mr Justice Ramsay handed down the judgment which holds Thames Water liable for breach of duty in relation to nuisance caused by odour from the Mogden plant. In relation to allegations of negligence surrounding their management and operation at the Works, Mr Justice Ramsey significantly found that Thames Water had, since 1990, failed to have a long term odour management and investment strategy to deal with odour from the site.

Mr Steve Taylor, one of the lead claimants, says: “I hope this case shows that David can take on Goliath in our legal system and win. The case was never about money; it was about holding Thames Water to account for the problems that it has caused us over the last 10 years. The huge impact on ordinary people's lives and on the environment cannot be underestimated. I am extremely grateful to Neil Stockdale and the Environment team at Hugh James as well as our Counsel, Stephen Hockman QC and John Bates, for relentlessly pursuing this case on our behalf. I believe this case is the first of its kind in the UK and the judgment in our favour will have a major influence on the way the managers and owners of sewage treatment works in England and Wales run their businesses"

Although this is a significant victory for the residents, the stark warning is that happy endings like this one might not be possible in the future. The Government plans to change legislation, effectively ending the current ‘no win no fee’ system, exposing claimants to huge upfront financial risks rather than being allowed to recover fees at the end if successful. This will lead to claimants having to take responsibility for both their own expenses and the other side’s costs.

Mr Taylor continues: “I’m shocked and very disappointed about the Government’s plans to change this legislation. The stature and financial clout of Thames Water meant we were only able to take this case forward because of the current ‘no win no fee’ system. Changing this system will deter others in similar situations to ours from bringing cases against big companies and will be a real obstacle for ordinary people to access justice. I would ask the government to think very carefully about the effect that this might have on people’s lives.”

Neil Stockdale, the partner at Hugh James who led the team dealing with the case said, “This result is a vindication of the residents’ genuine desire to protect their environment from blight. Unfortunately however, cases like this will no longer be possible in the future if the Government’s proposed reforms to the funding of litigation are enacted next year.

“The Government is proposing that individuals take cases like this at their own risk; people just can’t afford to take such risks, particularly when they are up against the likes of Thames Water. If people don’t stand up now and oppose the Government's bill they will forever be powerless to take action to protect their legal rights in all sorts of cases. What the Government is suggesting is a real scandal and the biggest threat to access to justice we have ever witnessed in the UK.”

Damages were sought against Thames Water for nuisance caused by odour and mosquitoes but claimants also sought for an injunction to prevent continuing nuisance. Today, the Judge has accepted 18 of the 30 allegations of negligence that were made in addition to finding that Thames Water had breached the claimants’ rights under the Human Rights Act, specifically Article 8 of the convention which protects the enjoyment of home and family life.

The Judge said that the claimants had been caused to suffer significant inconvenience and annoyance from odour over and above that which was inevitable.

In relation to Human Rights, High Court Judge Mr Justice Ramsay says of his decision: "Because I have held that Thames Water failed to carry out the work and conduct the operation at Mogden Sewage Treatment Works with all reasonable regard and care for the interests of other persons, including the claimants, it follows in my view that Thames Water failed properly to respect the rights of claimants and did not do all they reasonably could to prevent odour from migrating from the Mogden Sewage Treatment Works. They did not do what they should have done as a public authority in relation to the rights of the claimants".

ENDS

Entec report into Mogden odour now available

Please e-mail me at phil@communitygroup.org.uk if you would like a free copy of this 48-page PDF document.

Thames Water's and LBH's faecal attraction

The consultant Entec has been commissioned to hold a public consultation tonight on the odour nuisance created by the activities of Thames Water at the Mogden Sewage Treatment Works in Isleworth.

Although residents suffering the Mogden Pong for the most part reside in Isleworth, Whitton or Twickenham the meeting is being held at the Civic Centre in Hounslow, at least two miles away from most of Mogden's victims.

It begins at 7.00pm - not that most residents will know that, as the start time was accidentally omitted from the mailout that was allegedly delivered to 10,000 households in the area.

Most of the people within the claimed distribution area that MRAG (Mogden Residents' Action Group) have spoken to have not received a newsletter.

Questions sent by MRAG to Entec have not been responded to. We were told yesterday that Entec had taken a "policy decision" not to respond to individual questions. Apparently a question from a residents' group demonstrably representing thousands of households still constitutes an "individual question".

A cynic would suspect that tonight's meeting will be nothing but a stage-managed public relations exercise. A cynic would expect that the inevitably low turnout will lead the organisers to publicly aver that Mogden is not an issue for most residents.

And what, I wonder, would the same cynic make of the fact that Entec and Thames Water have chosen the Civic Centre as a "home" venue, when so much hot air has been expended over many years by successive administrations about the local authority being on the side of the residents?

Keeping on the scent at Mogden

Last night (Wednesday) I spent a useful couple of hours at Mogden Sewage Works attending the quarterly(ish) meeting of the Mogden Residents' Liaison Committee (MRLC), an ad hoc body set up by Thames Water as a means of maintaining a regular dialogue with councillors and officers from both Hounslow and Richmond and with local residents, the majority of whom are organised around the Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG).

I attended in my capacity as an MRAG official.

Thames as always provided an update of what they claim to have been doing to help alleviate the ongoing problems of odour and mosquito blight that their operation inflicts upon the surrounding community.

There seems to be a widespread if not unanimous agreement that liaison between the water giant and residents' representatives seems to be being conducted in a more cordial atmosphere than has hitherto been the case, which of course is a very good thing, but Thames do in my view remain slippery at times and their dealings still do need to be monitored at close quarters.

The duty to involve residents in one particularly important project was considered by Thames to have been discharged by its willingness to brief the Environment Department at the London Borough of Hounslow. But despite the expertise and professionalism of the Environmental Health officers on the frontline Thames managers must be aware of the almost pathological unco-operativeness that was demonstrated by chief officers towards councillors involved with Mogden under the previous administration and which, I imagine, will be continued under this one. If Thames really does want to demonstrate goodwill towards its neighbours it will involve them at source rather than bypassing them in this manner.

In fairness I did pick up some genuinely positive vibes from the Thames management. Some questions submitted by e-mail from MRAG's Steve Taylor, who was unable to make the meeting, were read out and addressed by Thames, interestingly to the annoyance of a Hounslow Conservative councillor who protested loudly and angrily.

After the meeting I took the brief opportunity available to me to speak to Councillor Ed Mayne, one of the new elected members for Isleworth ward. I asked him how he was getting along in his Executive post as Lead Member for Community Safety, a post I myself held for the first three years of the previous administration. The officer team that works in and around Community Safety in Hounslow is truly fantastic and I told Ed that he was privileged to have been given such an exciting role. I am sure he will build well upon the fine work that I hope I did between 2006 and 2009, and the excellent work that I know Paul Fisher did after that.

I believe the four MRAG delegates did themselves and our community proud with their polite but relentless questioning at the meeting, sometimes on matters which were highly technical and requiring of considerable attention to detail. They are possibly the greatest local example of all of why, whilst councillors and officers play an important role, community is and always will be king.

Syon flood victims may be entitled to compensation for disruption and inconvenience

Hugh James Solicitors have been acting for residents of Richmond and Hounslow in relation to claims against Thames Water concerning the Mogden Sewage Treatment Works. Residents who are victims of the recent Hounslow floods who are seeking advice* should visit

http://www.hughjames.com/news_centre/news_library/2010/august/flooding_damage.aspx

Even if residents are insured, there may be some expenses that won’t be recovered from the insurance company. There will also be a significant level of disruption and inconvenience caused over the next few weeks and months whilst repairs are carried out and residents may be entitled to compensation for this.


* Information provided courtesy of Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG).

Mogden Litigation goes to the High Court

The Mogden Residents' Litigation against Thames Water is finally being heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in Central London, in a case which has been scheduled to take place over several weeks.

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the court proceedings on this blog whilst the case is still live, but we are hopeful that local residents will emerge vindicated.

Pictured right are Liberal Democrat councillor and Prospective Parliamentary Candidate Andrew Dakers, who has publicly called upon Thames to cover the storm tanks which are responsible for most of the odour generated by the plant, and ICG councillor for Isleworth ward Paul Fisher, who gave evidence to the court last week along with Councillor Shirley Fisher, who represents the neighbouring Syon ward.

Thames Water to fight Mogden abatement notices

Reproduced from his blog with acknowledgements to Councillor Andrew Dakers.


Just before Christmas the battle for a fair deal for residents over Mogden entered its latest phase as three Abatement notices were finally issued. This was a key milestone in the battle for better treatment of local residents by Thames Water. MRAG and Cllr Jon Hardy are to be congratulated in their persistence. It was good to see Jon get the recognition he deserves in the Hounslow & Brentford Times as Thames Water, unsurprisingly announce they will be appealing against the Abatement notices. In my view the Leader of the Council was unduly credited for Jon's work in the local media before Christmas.

Along with my colleague Vince Cable MP I have argued that alongside the expansion of the plant approved last year it is essential the six storm water tanks are covered.

For residents that witnessed the Mogden expansion S106 agreement coming back to the Sustainable Development Committee it would have been a depressing experience. Some days after the meeting I am pleased to say that one of the concerns that Cllr Hardy and I pressed on was addressed with the agreement text being revised to read: "......which will be undertaken by an external INDEPENDENT specialist consultancy TO BE JOINTLY AGREED BETWEEN THAMES WATER AND THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW."

This revised text seems like a good step forward. In implementing this clause though it is vital is that the procurement process is open and transparent and that a cross section of local councillors are involved. I wonder how quickly the Terms of Reference will be drafted?

Cllr Hardy is rightly - at times against the odds - trying to get the different stakeholders to work together to control the blight that is the Mogden stench. It is tough, but thank goodness someone with his tenacity is ensuring residents concerns are heard within the council.

Once more into the breach

I'm genuinely very proud of the way the Independent Community Group's six councillors have performed over the past three and a half years, both as ward councillors and as a small but essential partner in the coalition which has managed the London Borough of Hounslow.

Like every other organisation we have our moments of introspection. We have our tactical disagreements. We have times when one member believes that another member is not pulling his or her weight, or that a colleague hasn't kept us properly informed of something that he or she has done. We are only human.

However - and I've said it before - when I think back to the humble roots of the ICG, and indeed the humble objectives that it set out to achieve, I find myself actually shaking with awe and even a little apprehension as to how far it can all go.

What began as a cry in the wilderness over the sheer unfairness of the way in which the residents' movement in our little Isleworth backwater had been stitched up by a very small but ruthless and unscrupulous political clique has developed over the space of a decade and a half into a huge, sophisticated and omnipotent community campaigning machine, practically guaranteeing that the voice of the people is heard whenever news of any local development, real or metaphorical, breaks out into the ether.

On Tuesday, when I visit the ROWE Community Centre for our monthly Worton surgery, I will be greeted by residents' leaders who have overseen the first estate-based Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme in the UK, who have successfully applied for local authority funding to extend their community centre and develop it into an educational resource, and who run a successful young people's project which is the envy of the borough. On Ivybridge I am still reeling from the Anuual General Meeting, held in July, where over 100 people crammed into the hall and at least a third of them volunteered for committee duty.

I and my ward colleagues liaise with The Isleworth Society (TIS) on an almost daily basis about local issues and problems that they have identified. Where their observations are met with negativity or indifference we are usually able to grind out a result by working together and battling away until the residents' concerns are addressed. The tenacity and expertise of groups like the Four Roads Residents' Association (in Isleworth) and the St. John's Residents' Association (almost wholly in Syon), which often include people who themselves serve or have served as officers on other local authorities, ensures that the community is not short-changed.

The Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG), despite the fact that its concerns remain unresolved, can at least instruct elected members in the knowledge that it is our master rather than our servant, a relationship which most certainly did not exist with our predecessors. And it does so safe in the knowledge that as councillors we fight their corner every inch of the way.

In just over seven months the good people of Isleworth and Syon wards will have the opportunity to decide whether they wish this relationship to continue, or whether they aspire once again to be "represented" by people whose first loyalty is to a large political organisation whose policy programme is decided at a national level, and defined by a rigid and inflexible dogma. Aware as we are of the complications which the likely occurance of a general election on the same day will undoubtedly bring about, we will stand proudly on our record and take on all comers.

Last night several of us met at the Inverness Club in Brentford for our monthly social gathering. From the political conversation that developed over a few pints against some agreeable background music it was clear that next May will open up some very interesting and potentially exciting opportunities to advance our position and to shape a local authority which will help to develop further our community agenda. Mindful of events and developments in and around our wards, we will enter the fray better organised, better supported and with far more experience and knowledge than we have ever done previously.

This will be the fifth local election campaign to be contested by the ICG. As Shakespeare's King Henry V put it, it's once more into the breach dear friends. This coming contest should hold no fears for us in the ICG. Let battle commence.

Thames Water tells councillors: "We won't speak to residents until we get our way over Section 106!"

Wednesday, 23rd September 2009 is a date that will be remembered for a long time to come in Isleworth activist circles. It was the date on which local politicians of varying hues, as well as not a few officers from the London Borough of Hounslow, were finally able to see for themselves what we in Isleworth have had to put up with for years in our dealings with the unrepentant pollutant that is Thames Water. Those who may have laboured under the polite misapprehension that we are perhaps a tad too militant, and distrusting, in our dealings with our neighbour from hell were at last given cause to understand it is why we and our residents adopt the stance we do.

Councillors Andrew Dakers, Ruth Cadbury, Barbara Reid and Brad Fisher joined their ICG counterparts Jon Hardy, Paul Fisher and myself at a meeting of the Thames-led Mogden Residents' Liaison Committee (the holding of which is a legal requirement under the terms of the Legal Agreement between Thames and the local authority following earlier court action) and witnessed for themselves the spin, the persistent sleight of hand manoeuvring and obfuscation of this wealthy public utility which prefers to fight its neighbours in court than dip even furtively into its own rather vast pockets to honour its legal and moral obligations.

Sadly Ruth and Andrew had moved on to other engagements before the piece de la resistance was delivered shortly before the close of the meeting. The Section 106 terms which were laid out by the council's Sustainable Development Committee on that night of shame in March have yet to be agreed to by Thames, and yet astounded members and officers heard Thames deliver its ultimatum - that until we signed off the agreement, on its terms rather than the ones approved by SDC, they would not send out any information to residents about what was happening at the site.

Meanwhile members of the press who had been asked by the Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG) to attend the meeting and witness events were refused entrance at the gate.

Despite the tight grip which Thames maintained over the conduct of the meeting, the councillors and members of MRAG were able to ask probing questions about the management of the site. As is so often the case, "new guy" was in the hot seat and his response to most questions, as was doubtless his brief, was that he couldn't answer them because they referred to matters and incidents which predated his arrival at the plant.

One could be ungracious and point out, as is certainly true, that some of the councillors who quite clearly took the residents' part at the MRLC meeting would have served those residents a whole lot better by not having capitulated to Thames at SDC in the first place. Nonetheless there was a definite sense about the place that the game was finally up. No amount of private briefing of senior figures on the council, as one member of the Thames party let slip at the meeting had taken place very recently, will change the fact that the residents are increasingly in control of the situation, and that in the long term resistance is futile.

Mogden - at last a politician speaks out!

Liberal Democrat councillor and Prospective Parliamentary Candidate Andrew Dakers (left), backed by the respected Liberal Democrat MP for Twickenham Dr. Vince Cable, has come out openly in support of local residents suffering the blight of Mogden Sewage Treatment Works.

Acknowledging the misery that has been ignored by politicians of many political persuasions and timeserving chief officers at the local authority, Andrew has called publicly for the covering by Thames Water of the six remaining storm tanks at Mogden by the end of 2010 irrespective of whether the wealthy utility company is permitted by OFWAT to raise the money from its own long-suffering victims as opposed to committing a tiny proportion of its vast profits towards discharging its legal responsibilities to its neighbours.

Presently Thames Water is quite brazen about its unwillingness to honour its obligations either to the surrounding community or to the environment in general by dipping into its own resources to enable it to function responsibly and within the law. Sadly it has fallen upon residents themselves to bring them to book, and at present 1,400 local people are party to a Group Litigation which seeks to compel Thames to comply with environmental legislation.

Andrew announced last week: “I welcome the initiative led by Cllr Jon Hardy to establish a 24hr telephone line and mobile odour recording facility in the past few weeks.

“If the Council is to take further action to halt the odour problem it is now vitally important that residents report instances of odour to the hotline: 020 8583 5555 during office hours (Monday – Friday 8.45am to 5pm) and 020 8583 2222 out of hours (5pm – 8.45am Weekdays / all weekend).

“Residents should also ensure that all complaints are emailed to MRAG (mrag27@aol.com) for logging and investigation.

“Given the continued impact of Mogden odour on the local community, I support (ICG) Cllr Hardy’s endeavour to serve an abatement notice on Thames Water.

“It would be great to see Thames Water take the lead in ending the odour blighting residents lives and bring this costly debate to an end, rather than leaving residents suffering for what could be at least five years.

“Only two of eight storm tanks are currently covered. Waiting another four or five years until the current expansion programme is completed to discover whether use of the storm tanks has lessened and the odour abated is not good enough. If your child can not concentrate on their homework because of the odour, as many residents have complained to me, then you have good reason for continued concern.

“Thames Water management should begin planning the investment immediately to cover the remaining storm tanks. This should no longer be considered dependent on a contribution by OFWAT but good management of the plant.

“My suggestion is that Thames Water focus on covering an additional three storm tanks by the end of March 2010 and, if the odour has not reduced substantially during next summer, the final three by the end of next year.

“We must not lose sight of the fact that relative to expanding the sewage works, covering the storm tanks should neither be considered prohibitively expensive nor a particularly lengthy build.”

Hopefully other politicians will now finally realise that there is a huge constituency of residents living around the Mogden plant who have been sold short and will be forthcoming with their own offers of support. Thames Water has lived for too long off the passivity and lack of respect for our community that has been demonstrated hitherto by so many who ought to know better. Let's hope Andrew's support will turn the tide in our community's favour.

Persisting to apply common sense

Although I am no longer a member of the London Borough of Hounslow's Executive, as Leader of the Community Group I naturally keep a keen eye on the recommendations that come forward for approval. One which caught my eye prior to last night's meeting was proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Council and Executive Member for Complaints Mark Bowen and was entitled Dealing with Abusive, Vexatious or Persistent Complainants.

Now it hopefully goes without saying that if a member of the public is abusive towards officers of the local authority, or makes complaints which are clearly vexatious, there must be a point at which we can reasonably terminate our dealings with such a complainant. Our officers should not be expected to put up with abuse, insults or obscenities, and we make no apology for protecting them from such. Most large organisations have a policy of this kind, and much of the report which was brought to Executive concentrated on ratifying what was essentially the obvious and the indisputable.

However my attention was drawn to the reference to "Persistent Complainants", as this as a concept is not so easy to define. A complainant might, for instance, make the same complaint repeatedly despite it being self-evidently unreasonable or not upheld following a proper investigation. It is right that at some point we as organisation need to be able to say that enough is enough and discontinue a conversation that has clearly run its course.

On the other hand a persistent complainant could of course be someone who makes a series of different but nonetheless valid complaints, possibly acting on behalf of a residents' group or civic society. Or a person who, having not received a proper answer to a first complaint, pursues the matter in the hope of achieving appropriate closure.

One fairly recent example of the latter was a correspondent from the Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG), who had to ask a question of a senior officer thirteen times before he would provide a substantive answer. Even after councillor intervention the officer continued either to evade the question or, on other occasions, to ignore it completely. Under such circumstances the MRAG representative could not in all good sense be labelled a persistent complainant and cut adrift from the process - indeed the officer should have been disciplined by his seniors, who had been copied in to most of the correspondence.

Councillor Bowen, probably more than any other elected member, is a tenacious advocate of the member-led council. Nevertheless even the most competent batsman can be bowled out as a result of a momentary lapse in concentration, and so my ICG colleague Councillor Jon Hardy proposed an amendment to the recommendation which ensured that the relevant ward councillors, together with the Lead Member himself, would be given prior notice before the extreme and, I would hope, exceptional step of discontinuing communication with a complainant would be taken. The amendment was accepted.

To make doubly sure - and I hope I am not breaching any confidences by sharing this - I contacted Councillor Bowen this afternoon and he agreed with me that this power would not be allowed to be misused to silence genuine complainants, even those whose correspondence is frequent or challenging.

So, anybody within the organisation who might have had ideas about using the approval of this report against community activists and representatives of such groups as MRAG or The Isleworth Society (TIS) would do well to disavow themselves of them right now. To do so would effectively be a declaration of non co-operation with the Community Group and as such an unacceptable challenge to the authority of the coalition administration.

This recommendation was a sensible one, but requires sensible implementation. My colleagues in the community can be assured that for at least as long as we have anything to do with it this principle will be applied at all times.

Groundhog Day

On March 4th Hounslow Council's Sustainable Development Committee infamously gave planning permission to the water giant Thames Water to expand its foul-smelling Mogden sewage plant, allowing for a massive increase in capacity.

At that meeting, officers of the London Borough of Hounslow recommended approval of the application on the grounds that to so do would give the local authority more "control" over Thames Water's operation and in particular would enable us to challenge the company's notoriously dismissive attitude towards the protests of long-suffering local residents. Whilst doing so they omitted to explain to Committee members that the local authority already had all the power it needed to exercise such control as a result of Abatement Notices which it had secured previously, but lacked the will or desire to enforce.

There followed a presentation by the officers and some slick patter from Thames, who misled the Committee by quite falsely claiming that it could not agree to residents' requests to cover its storm tanks - a necessary precondition of meaningful odour reduction - because it required permission to do so from the water regulator OfWAT. Despite knowing this to be completely untrue, officers at the meeting chose not to point out to members that Thames was not telling them the truth.

When the officers and Thames were done a well-briefed duo of New Labour councillors rushed forward to respectively propose and second approval of the officer recommendation. At first other councillors resisted, even at one stage voting for refusal, but after being subjected to a relentless and unprecedented barrage from Thames, the Labour duo and council officers the majority, with the honourable exception of ICG councillor Jon Hardy, cravenly relented and gave the Thames Water bullies everything they had asked for.

Reassured by Hounslow's moral cowardice Thames' next move, rather than thanking their luck and getting on with the job, was typically to stall for even further concessions. But, having procrastinated over even the useless conditions attached to the permission given to them on March 4th, they created a problem for themselves by so doing because they had effectively talked themselves out of the deal, and consequently the whole application came back to SDC yesterday evening.

During the intervening period we in the ICG have done much to try to raise the profile of this whole disgraceful episode. Following idiotic comments to the effect that as the Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG) had only send one speaker to SDC on March 4th the wider public were therefore not bothered by the proposed expansion, MRAG and the ICG called a Day of Action on April 1st during which thousands of leaflets were distributed in Isleworth, Hounslow South and Whitton and close to 100 protestors came out at a few hours' notice to demonstrate the public's disgust over the conduct of the SDC.

Perhaps more significantly, we forced the appointment of Councillor Jon Hardy to the specific portfolio area of liaison with Thames Water.

Traditionally, dealings with Thames Water had fallen within the general remit of Environment. Aware that we had been getting nowhere back in 2008, we informed the Leader of the Council at the time that we would like Mogden to become a specific responsibility under the leadership of an ICG councillor, and Councillor Paul Fisher was duly appointed to the role. Within hours of hearing the news, officers had lobbied the Borough Solicitor who pointed out, perhaps not unreasonably, that as a participant in the residents' litigation against Thames Water Paul could be perceived to have a conflict of interest, and was thus effectively neutered. The indecent haste with which Paul's appointment was scuppered however gives some indication as to how relatively protected senior officers had felt under the previous set-up.

This year things were different. Jon is not a litigant and as such his appointment to the portfolio cannot be challenged. Nevertheless, there was the small matter of the planning application which was now being brought back to SDC, giving those who had been played for mugs at the previous meeting an unusual second opportunity to get up off their knees and strike a blow for the residents of Isleworth and neighbouring areas.

Sadly it was not to be. Deja vu all over again - officers recommending approval, New Labour members of the Committee proposing it and the Muppet Show giving a virtuoso repeat performance after a few worthless token words of disapproval about the excesses of the plant's operation. Thames Water must be laughing hysterically, but the residents are unlikely to see the funny side.

Residents of Isleworth, and their delegates in the form of the ICG, have once again been served notice that we stand alone. Increasingly cocky officers who think they only have a few months longer to put up with us find common cause with "allies" whose interest in Isleworth wanes with every day closer we get to the end of our term of office and opponents who, just as they did when they held sway in Isleworth, simply seem to derive some kind of perverted pleasure from making our residents suffer.

Councillor Hardy, who has already proved to be a fearsome campaigner for the rights of the Mogden residents, takes a very gentlemanly approach to fighting these battles. At the end of yesterday's meeting he even thanked the Chair of the Committee for giving him a fair hearing. Our civility and manners cannot be held against us, and our response now and in the future to the hammering that we continue to receive from friend and foe alike over Mogden should not be taken personally by anybody concerned.

But anybody who doubts that that response will be a very, very vigorous one indeed had better open their coffee jar and take a deep, deep sniff sometime extremely soon.


LATEST - Today's Hounslow Chronicle (12th June 2009) has wrongly reported Councillor Paul Fisher as having voted in support of the expansion of Mogden. This is completely untrue. Paul is no longer even a member of the SDC, and has made it clear he would have supported the residents by opposing the recommendation had he been in a position to do so.

The Chronicle has agreed to print a retraction in its next issue.

Just like the old days?

On Wednesday morning, when ICG and MRAG members ventured forth to distribute over 6,000 leaflets announcing that evening's well-attended Mogden demo, I made the conscious decision to volunteer to leaflet the Ivybridge estate by myself. I always feel it is a bit of a cheek to ask our usual leafleting teams to commit when the notice is so short, and that to annoy them by so doing might put their long-term commitment at risk.

With around 110 individual four-storey blocks of maisonettes and four eighteen-storey tower blocks, and with me being a tad overweight, out of shape and - erm - thirty something the prospect was a daunting one. Did I also mention that I suffer from a foot condition which makes even walking painful?

Well, I set off on my expedition after breakfast and laboured around the first fifty or so maisonette blocks before deciding to call upon a member on the estate for a drink of water (typically I had forgotten to take any with me). Also at her home was another former activist from the estate who had fallen out with us over a local matter. Over a fifteen minute chat we were able to resolve most of his issues and he pledged his restored support for the cause (later that day he was to turn up at the demo). During that time we were also visited by another member, who volunteered to distribute leaflets to two of the four tower blocks, an offer which wasn't refused.

When I left the member's flat I happened across one member or supporter after another. Two took small quantities of leaflets for their own blocks - every little helps. A third contacted me by telephone after having received the leaflet, and a fourth by e-mail. All four promised to turn up at the gates of Mogden later that evening, promises which all four of them were to honour. A resident who stopped me to report some outstanding, unperformed repairs did likewise. I also had the opportunity of a long chat with some of the girls from Hounslow Homes at the Langdale Centre - a really great team of officers of whom I am intensely proud, met one of the caretakers with whom I regularly exchange news and, a little later, was able to touch base with Councillor Paul Fisher, who had himself been leafleting elsewhere, over a coffee at the Bridge Link Centre.

By the time I had completed my assignment and hobbled home along the Twickenham Road the pain of my immediate predicament was more than offset by a feeling of elation from the sense that, just like before when I spent less of my time at the Civic Centre and probably more of it pounding the streets of my ward, there was a feeling of warmth and affection towards the Community Group and the cause it represents. On top of all that, the relationship we enjoy with the Hounslow Homes officers on Ivybridge is now a good and positive one, and they liaise constructively with us and with the one, united residents' group without fear of reproach. The spirit, as one of the members I spoke to that afternoon, was "just like the old days", but with new opportunities which simply weren't around when we seemed to be fighting the whole world.

The superb turnout at the demo itself was simply the icing on the cake. After that highly successful event I enjoyed a drink with one of those old members who had become a little disengaged but who was now once more raring to go and was volunteering for canvassing duty, a role for which he has an obvious talent.

Last night our monthly "Roadshow" social drink at the Isleworth Royal British Legion was quite well supported. There was a really good "feel" amongst those present, who included former active Labour Party members and Conservatives who support the ICG at a local level. We are recruiting not only numbers, but people of real quality and experience. As for the Legion itself, other than dispensing free beers for the duration of the evening it would be difficult to imagine what the people running the operation on both sides of the bar could have done to make us feel more welcome.

There is high morale amongst members of the ICG and a sense that we are ready to get out there and do a job. Just like the old days, in fact.

Thames Water conned LBH's planning committee - but WE'RE no April Fools!

April Fools' Day in Isleworth saw nearly 100 local residents come out at short notice to register their disgust at the decision by Hounslow's Sustainable Development Committee to approve an application by Thames Water to expand capacity at its Mogden plant by over 50%.

The demonstration, organised the same morning, took Thames bosses completely by surprise as they hosted a meeting of the "Mogden Residents' Liaison Committee", a talking shop organised by the water company at which council officers from Hounslow and Richmond along with a small, select group of actual residents are given the opportunity to marvel at Thames' commitment to eradicating the odour and mosquito nuisance that it has inflicted upon the neighbouring community for decades and to watch slick slideshow presentations over sandwiches and fruit juice.

Richard Aylard, Thames' Environment and External Affairs Director, left the meeting to come to the gates and engage residents. During our brief conversation he invited me to walk around the site with him (something I've already done countless times before) and see for myself the good work the company is doing. If I did so, I asked him, would he try to tell me that OFWAT would not permit Thames to cover the storm tanks, which are the source of most of the odour, using its own funds?


"Of course I wouldn't," he responded indignantly, "that would be completely untrue".

Why then, I asked him, did he make this same claim to members of the Sustainable Devlopment Committee at the meeting at which this application was approved?

Earlier in the day volunteers from the Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG) and the ICG had leafleted 6,000 local properties alerting them to the decision and its consequences.

When engaged by angry residents, Mr. Aylard gave them the "official line" - that the increase in capacity was to treat existing sewage flows which would result in a reduction in the use of the storm tanks and hence less odour. As he knows, as the residents know, and as the majority on SDC will know when they finally catch up with the rest of us, a few months along the line there will be "unforeseen circumstances" which will necessitate the importation of sewage from outside the current catchment area and odour levels, along with Thames Water's profits, will be up. Thames bosses will already have figured, probably correctly, that on the evidence of past performance no action is likely to be forthcoming from officers at the London Borough of Hounslow's Environment Department to prevent this from happening. Remember - you read it hear first!

There will be more activities by Isleworth residents and their Hounslow and Twickenham neighbours over coming months to draw attention to the scandal that is the expansion of Mogden. We will leave no stone unturned in our fight to protect the rights of our local residents. Isleworth will NOT be the sacrifice!

Vince Cable MP demands talks with Thames Water over Mogden expansion plans

Dr. Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Twickenham, has asked for talks with Thames Water amid claims that residents of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames were not consulted over the planning application to expand the plant, humiliatingly approved by Hounslow's Sustainable Development Committee recently after vital information about funding options was withheld by officers.

Dr. Cable told the Hounslow Chronicle: "After the big environmental improvements at Mogden we have been less seriously affected in the last year or so.

"I am now concerned that the good work could be undone by a massive expansion programme on which there has been minimal consultation with local residents. This is a predominantly a Hounslow issue as it is Isleworth residents which are worst affected, but there is nonetheless some anxiety in our borough."

Marianne Welsh, a resident of Whitton and a member of the Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG), added: "I can't understand why they want to forge ahead with this expansion without finishing what they were suppose to do, such as covering the storm tanks.

"Thames Water say there will be an odour, but it will be odourless. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous?"

Meanwhile ICG and MRAG activists are preparing for a major campaign on the Mogden issue in the very near future. Contacts are advised to keep their eyes on their mobile and e-mail Inboxes for imminent further information.

An engaging day at the office

One meeting either side of lunch had me effectively marooned at the Civic Centre for most of the working day today, and both of them impacted greatly on the Community Group's drive to engage the communities we serve.

Before lunch I accompanied the indefatigable Christine Diwell, Secretary of The Isleworth Society (TIS), at a lengthy meeting with a senior officer of the council to discuss a matter of serious import to the Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee (IBAC), of which she is a co-opted member.

It is by no means unknown to me that there are still officers who resent having to interact with and explain themselves to "ordinary" members of the community - be it TIS, MRAG or whoever - but at a council which takes Community Empowerment seriously this mindset is shortly to change, drastically and for the better. Following a long discussion Christine and I were able to gain a better understanding of the issue at hand, and at the same time were able to express some valid concerns about process.

Then after lunch I had the pleasure of a frank hour-long discussion with two ladies who were part of a team provided by the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) to help assess our approach to Community Engagement as a local authority. The team will be interviewing councillors from across the political spectrum who volunteer to take part in the project, and its findings will be published in a few weeks' time.

It will be interesting to have an outside perspective on what we already do to consult and include the people who elected us to office in the process of local government, and how we can improve things in this respect. Any advice received will be fed into what already looks to be shaping up as an exciting and innovative programme under the portfolio of my Community Group colleague Councillor Paul Fisher.

I am very much looking forward to the year ahead and to the opportunities which at last seem to be falling into place to change the culture of our local authority and engage with our communities in a way that we've never done before.