The Planning Application for the London Welsh School was deferred tonight in order to have a wider consultation with the community local to King Edward VII Park. Officers were also asked to look again at the land swap as it was felt that the land next to Collins Lodge, which slopes up to Park Lane, wasn't equivalent to the land that was being lost.
The issue has been extensively covered on Wembley Matters with many comments. Here are links to previous articles:
London Welsh School seeks new home in King Edward VII Park
Planning Officers recommend granting of planning permisison for Welsh School in King Edward VII Park
Comments in support of Welsh School application to be verified by officers
Stand up for King Eddie's Park
Update on Welsh School Planning Application
Parkland and open space belong to the people
Campaigners against the use of land in King Edward VII Park for a school have started a blog called Wembley Champions HERE
Cllr Sam Stopp has posted his presentation to the Planning Committee HERE
This is what Paolo Di Paolo told the Planning Committee:
The issue has been extensively covered on Wembley Matters with many comments. Here are links to previous articles:
London Welsh School seeks new home in King Edward VII Park
Planning Officers recommend granting of planning permisison for Welsh School in King Edward VII Park
Comments in support of Welsh School application to be verified by officers
Stand up for King Eddie's Park
Update on Welsh School Planning Application
Parkland and open space belong to the people
Campaigners against the use of land in King Edward VII Park for a school have started a blog called Wembley Champions HERE
Cllr Sam Stopp has posted his presentation to the Planning Committee HERE
This is what Paolo Di Paolo told the Planning Committee:
This proposal in effect takes away a community sporting
facility from local residents and replaces it with a private business
operating as the London Welsh School. Their Registered Company Number is
3952000. This sets a dangerous precedent.
At the site visit, Mr Richards said that they will require
parking for 9 vehicles daily and will have keyholder access to the park
car park. This car park has been closed to the public for many years
with access only granted for sporting events, for example, weekly
football, park bowls club use or special Council events.
The idea of compensating for the loss of the open space
adjacent to the pavilion with the steeply sloping bank next to Colin's
Lodge is not comparable and unusable. In fact this will make Colin's
Lodge vulnerable to vandalisation and arson. As an attractive notable
architectural feature of the park and the wider Wembley area this would
be tragic.
The Tree Officer's report has not been available within the
submitted documents. As no tree survey was submitted with the
application there is a real need for formal proof before this category B
Monterey Cypress tree can be removed. Category B trees have the ability
to contribute to the quality of an area for up to 20 years. Granting
permission without such proof would be a travesty.
Child protection is important. The location is too exposed
to the public being in the middle of the park. This would not be a
secure site for children. The rear elevations of several Princes Court
properties face the bowling green. The proposed site would be a very
vulnerable location for the children. e.g. Dunblane shooting occurred
because the site was open and therefore vulnerable.
I stop here. Where will the planning department stop at
permitting the taking of open space from the people of Wembley and
Brent? We urge our elected planning committee members to look at the
limited evidence base, lack of transparency in the planning department's
provision of supporting statements and timeline of supplementary
document submission for this application, alongside the case officer
committee report, to ultimately refuse this flawed proposal.
This is the text of Denise Cheong's speech to the Planning Committee:
King Edward VII Park was bought by the council in 1913 (and opened in 1914) to compensate the residents of Wembley for the loss of Parkland at Wembley Park, which was being developed as a high class residential garden suburb.
2/3 of the alternative sites considered by the London Welsh School are not in Brent. They include Orpington Kent. Only 16% were considered too far for parents. These figures strongly support the viability of the school relocating outside of Brent.
The consulting of only 11-18 Keswick Gardens, 21-32 Princes Court and Park Lane Primary School, (plus councillors and officers) prevented wider park users their right to be consulted for this council owned, but ultimately public sporting space.
The change of use of the bowling pavilion would prejudice use of the bowling green. This application does not include the bowling green, yet there is clear intent to use and restrict access to this public green space. The use of the word “exploit” in supporting documents, mention of “appropriate groups” and exclusion of dog walkers is further evidence of this. The park is a resource for the whole community, not just half of two streets, and should not be exploited by any group.
There are 202 bowls clubs in Greater London and West Ealing juniors start from 7yrs old.
Former Wembley Bowls chairman, Ron Ferrari, informed me no adverts were placed by Brent Council indicating possible demise and urgent need for members.
The western half of King Eddie's Park is the only tranquil and quiet open space for local Wembley residents. Many of whom now and will live in high rise flats, with Quintain's proposals, with no open space close by.
Fundamental changes to the scheme were made, concerning removal of trees, after the consultation period. Application procedure was flawed and may give rise for an application for judicial review.
Parkland and open space belongs to everyone, me, you, you and you. Based on the facts, taking all material planning considerations into account NPPF 74, NPPF 123, CP18, ALGG alongside any doubt as to the transparency of this planning application, there is a case for deferral as supported by Sport England, if not refusal
This is the text of Denise Cheong's speech to the Planning Committee:
King Edward VII Park was bought by the council in 1913 (and opened in 1914) to compensate the residents of Wembley for the loss of Parkland at Wembley Park, which was being developed as a high class residential garden suburb.
2/3 of the alternative sites considered by the London Welsh School are not in Brent. They include Orpington Kent. Only 16% were considered too far for parents. These figures strongly support the viability of the school relocating outside of Brent.
The consulting of only 11-18 Keswick Gardens, 21-32 Princes Court and Park Lane Primary School, (plus councillors and officers) prevented wider park users their right to be consulted for this council owned, but ultimately public sporting space.
The change of use of the bowling pavilion would prejudice use of the bowling green. This application does not include the bowling green, yet there is clear intent to use and restrict access to this public green space. The use of the word “exploit” in supporting documents, mention of “appropriate groups” and exclusion of dog walkers is further evidence of this. The park is a resource for the whole community, not just half of two streets, and should not be exploited by any group.
There are 202 bowls clubs in Greater London and West Ealing juniors start from 7yrs old.
Former Wembley Bowls chairman, Ron Ferrari, informed me no adverts were placed by Brent Council indicating possible demise and urgent need for members.
The western half of King Eddie's Park is the only tranquil and quiet open space for local Wembley residents. Many of whom now and will live in high rise flats, with Quintain's proposals, with no open space close by.
Fundamental changes to the scheme were made, concerning removal of trees, after the consultation period. Application procedure was flawed and may give rise for an application for judicial review.
Parkland and open space belongs to everyone, me, you, you and you. Based on the facts, taking all material planning considerations into account NPPF 74, NPPF 123, CP18, ALGG alongside any doubt as to the transparency of this planning application, there is a case for deferral as supported by Sport England, if not refusal
Well we won the battle but not the war, we need to rally the troops and ensure that no development is allowed on public owned green space. Whilst I sympathise will the London Welsh School that they should retain the school and wish to remain in the London Borough of Brent, King Edward VII Park is not ideal and should not be considered. I am sure with future investigation a more suitable solution can be found.
ReplyDeleteExcellent news.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant News and well done to all those who have played a role in helping this happen.
ReplyDeleteSam Stopp also appears to have updated his website - http://www.samstopp.co.uk/king-eddies-safe-now/
ReplyDeleteThere's defo still a long way to go on this one but the school faces an uphill struggle to get this through now...
It is unfortunate for the school hopefully they are able to secure a location else where within the borough, that is not at the expense of the local community.
ReplyDeleteHopefully they will secure a home in Brent or neighbouring borough.
Absolutely amazed that this wasn't approved last night. It's very unusual for the planning committee to go against officers' advice in Brent. I think this deferral is as good as a rejection.
ReplyDeleteA lot of credit should go to the residents who helped to make this happen and to Sam Stopp and Krupa Sheth for supporting them. I hear Sam Stopp and Denise Cheong both spoke eloquently.
Thanks for the credit. Very kind of you.
DeleteDenise
Paolo was good to point out (and re-focus everyone on the bigger picture) that he lived across the street beside a railway line and that this was not NotInMyBackYard ness.
DeleteWell done to all.And its great the committee listened to the locals.
ReplyDeleteThings like this certainly help to restore a bit of faith in the council!
DeleteGood news but I find the argument about the child protection because its in a park very odd. Warning of another Dunblane? Really? Just bizarre.
ReplyDeleteWhen Park Lane Primary, after a long campaign, was given approval to build a nursery we did loom at the possibility of a site on the old tennis courts at the foot of the playground. The space is between the school grounds perimeter and the bowling green. We rejected the site because it was some distance from the main school and would be isolated in the event of any incident.
DeleteDunblane is relevant because the Cullen Inquiry put the onus on schools to have a preventative strategy against intruders:
"The risks against which staff and pupils at school are to be safeguarded includes the possibility of attack by an intruder, and the existence of that risk calls for the working out of a preventive strategy with an action plan appropriate to the particular features of each school" Cullen 1996
Following Dunblane schools installed high perimeter fencing, electronic gates, CCTV, internal electronic fob entry systems etc. Unfortunately these often serve to make schools less welcoming and parent/community friendly but are seen as essential to manage the risk.
With only a few adults and 35 children the Welsh School governors would need to ensure that they have taken measures to manage the risk - not impossible but needs to be included in the planning.
On the more general issue of child protection in the park itself when children play there again the school has a duty to safeguard the chidlren. This means adequate supervision when the childreen mix with the public. When I was at Park Lane we used to take all the children into the park to play on fine Friday afternoons but had to ensure that they were supervised by a large number of adults so that the school carried out its duty of care to the pupils
There are a number of risks to be managed ranging from 'flashers' (there was an incident earlier this week), dogs off leads, discarded condoms and needles (I had to deal with both the latter) and drunks. There were also a couple of occasions when there was an after school 'rumble' between rival secondary schools. Of course the park is perfectly safe most of the time but the risk needs to be assessed and measures taken to reduce it.
Lastly, the relative isolation of the pavilion bulding has led to it being vandalised and it has been burnt down at least twice in the past. The school would need to have an Emergency Continuation Plan for such an eventuality.
Well explained Martin
DeleteOne correction: the school has two teachers who use cars. Those are the two only cars which would need to park when the school operates between 8 and 4. The figure for children being dropped off and collected by car was 9, I think.
ReplyDeleteI doubt the school will find an alternative in time for them to plan for September. They're being evicted in July and have already looked at 100 or so sites. The deferement means the committee won't look at it again until March.
I wonder whether the London Welsh School will even bother trying to get this through again. They would be sensible to search for alternatives, perhaps outside of Brent. It's an expensive process and the tight turnaround before the next school year means this deferral is almost as good as a refusal.
Delete2/3 of the sites the school looked at are outside Brent, as far away as Orpington Kent
DeleteMr Richards could not (or would not) answer how many pupils live in Brent. When pressed by the chair for an answer, and prompted by a councillor less than 50%, more than 25%, he agreed. That's only about 7 - 15 of the 28 Mr Richards told Residents were currently at the school. At the committee meeting yesterday, it was noted a resident had visited the school and found 35 pupils there and 6 teachers.
DeleteMaybe they just wanted to remain in Brent and have not looked at the sites full possibilities. With such a beautiful location of the park they maybe felt it was a done deal. Wish them the best for their future and hopefully secure a site somewhere within London.
DeleteThe major point is that the DfE could claim the land if they were to obtain free school status is a major implication for the park, and therefore it would be in their best interest to find an alternative location. I can't imagine the council allowing this to go through ever.
ReplyDeleteThey can't get free school status. The forecast is for numbers to drop to about 27 over the next decade. The reason their applications were bounced was that the DfE found there was no "business case".
ReplyDeleteI'd love to know the cite for the claim that the land could be siezed.
So unfortunately, they will be faced with a decline in numbers and may therefore no longer be vialable. That is maybe an explanation as to why Brent has not catered for them within all the development that is taking place in Stonebridge or other areas within the borough.
ReplyDeleteThey said they hold parents evenings in a house when questioned by a committee member. So why can't they have a school within that same house? Loads of schools are based in houses in Wembley like Buxlow prep & St Christopher's.
ReplyDeleteNot the only curious and faintly dubious claim made by that particular speaker...
DeleteDon't be daft. Having the odd parents' evening in an occupied residential house isn't a school. Buxlow own two linked houses whose sole use is a school. And it's a lot bigger.
ReplyDeleteBrent don't give a damn for anything that doesn't fit their model of social cleansing. Hence the playground and school being evicted.
Ha ... what a middle class response in the face of middle class disappointment. "Social cleansing" is where poorer, often ethnic minority, people are willfully pushed out of an area in order to gentrify it.
DeleteI don't think that applies to a niche, fee-paying school failing to get planning permission to build on a park...
I think you need to actually meet the pupils and parents. They most certainly not middle class or wealthy and very mixed ethnically. Why unacceptable for a particular threatened language culture to have its own school? OK to insult Welsh? I don't think so! Would you do that to others?
DeleteThis whole thing has deteriorated to baying mob of prejudice and assumptions, supported by people who just want votes. The rights/wrongs of application have been lost in irrationality. I suspect school wouldn't want their children anywhere near some objectors now, given how nasty they've been - that's not pleasant for them, is it.
Thanks for your comment. As moderator I would not publish any comment that insulted the Welsh as an ethnic group and have looked back for any evidence that this has been published. Please let me know where you think any such comment appears.
DeleteI have visited the Welsh School and met pupils and teachers. I think it is a lovely school and I am an advocate of 'small is beautiful' as regards education. The discussion I have tried to air on this blog is not for or against the Welsh School, but whether this is an appropriate site for any school.
Yet again, need we remind everyone that judging a person and accusing them without knowing them, is a poor reflection of the character of the person doing so
DeleteLet's not forget that this is a planning application for development on public parkland. There is rightly concern that it was even considered a viable option by the council and the school to build on parkland. There's really not enough parkland in Wembley.
DeleteThe objection is not race related as a sginificant number of objector are from the ethnic minorities. It is about the rightful use of land for the community and the park to remain a green space for all to use and not carved up and lost. So lets be keeping in the spirit and and not make this into something ugly
DeleteIt doesn't seem entirely likely that a white councillor, a councillor of Gujurati descent and residents from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds would embark on a xenophobic campaign against Welsh speakers.
DeleteI wonder if they actually have genuine concerns about the quality of the application...
I think that if LWS had been properly advised, they wouldn't have selected the site in the first place. But because they're a small school with "limited funds", I doubt they could have afforded a planning consultant...
ReplyDeleteLets hope they get better guidance and are able to secure a site to continue
DeleteWell it's at least a little bit obvious not to try occupying a public park. It's taking the application to a whole next level and opening up a whole can of worms when you do that. If it was just a house or a community or school hire out building, that's different. Those aren't public and open space.
DeleteBut I wouldn't want them to be made homeless though.
DeleteNo one involved in the campaign to have the park remain in public hands wants the school to be homeless.
DeleteHopefully they have alternatives.maybe the house that is sometimes used for parents evenings could be a consideration.
Still not sure why only Krupa Sheth and Sam Stopp have picked this up. Where is the elusive third Wembley Central councillor?
ReplyDeleteThe Welsh School needs to be relocated. The King Edward Park site was identified by Council Officers and was endorsed by the Labour Leadership. Without either of this and a clear hint that the Council would lease the building to them the school would not have bothered to submit a planning application. The final outcome to the planning process may well be influenced by how desparate the Council Leadership are to get their way on this issue.
ReplyDeletePaul Lorber
Don't the people get a say? Isn't it a democracy? We voted them in.
DeleteWho is Paul Lorber?
DeleteOh, that's right. A former Lib Dem councillor who knows nothing about the internal dynamics of Brent Labour.
Zzzzzzzzzz
Paul Lorber why are you stirring!!! As a former Councilor should your interest not be to support the local community and draw awareness to the cause to keep King Eddy's park a park.
DeleteIt seems your more interested in playing the political game as oppose to dealing with the issue in hand. Is that why you lost your seat after three decades?
No one wants to see the independent London Welsh School homeless but it has no place in the park. The space is for the community.
Are you interested in the cause to keep the park a public space or just using the issue as an opportunity to get off your soap box.
We need positivity!!!
Let's all try to play nice
DeleteYour kidding!!!! Could they not have found a more appropriate location for the school. Surely they would be aware there would be uproar within ward for such an outragous planning application.
ReplyDeleteThe Planning Committee have apparently hardened their stance since the last meeting. This has got personal.
ReplyDeleteI can't see them refusing this application now...
How exactly has this got personal??!
DeleteThe planning committee are elected members. They are independent of the leadership, so we are told. They make decisions based on the facts put in front of them, no on what any particular party or leader wants - or are we wrong?
DeleteThis is not a dictatorship!
Deleteeach planning application is decided by the planning committee on it's own merits. Independent of politics
DeleteI am interested in what your evidence is of 'hardening of attitude' and how this has taken place without a meeting. 'Pre-determination' before the result of the new new consultation have been written up and alternatives sites explored and reported to the Committee would be unlawful. As she is a lawyer I am sure Sarah Marquis would ensure this does not happen.
DeleteMost of the London Welsh School (registered business) pupils live across the border in other boroughs. Why would the council or 'the leadership' want to relocate them in Brent? What reason are we missing? What's the real agenda with this planning application if there is one? Why Brent? Why a public park? Why is there a change of stance? What's really going on?
ReplyDeleteReal Wembley residents, real Brent voters, real people, real lives, real neighbourhoods, real community, real families...
Regular King Eddie's park goers are not happy with this proposal. The first thing they say on the whole is "What? In the park? Why?" Then comes "you're joking", followed by "but this park is so nice", plus " there's already a school in the park" and "that school's already taken that bit on the side"...
Without respect it is difficult to trust, without trust a disconnect can arise, whether that disconnect can ever be repaired depends on the actions of those in question. Actions do speak louder than words. Now is not the time for the stirring of any sized pot. Now is the time for local people to stand up and be heard, to make formal note of their voices on the council website when consulted. Now is the time for Brent Council to listen to the Brent people and act accordingly.
ReplyDeleteThe letters have come in the post against about the proposed planning permission for the school to be in the middle of the park again. The fact the council is still contemplating this proposal is concerning considering the all the concerns raised. I have been told that the school has a 25 year lease from Brent so maybe this is a reason Brent is still pushing for the planning permission to go through.
ReplyDeleteIt is important that the local community voice their opinion on this. Has anyone thought of potential crime with having a school in the park and the potential risk that are placed on the adjacent properties. Have the police been consulted as they will no doubt have security concerns