QPCS 3G pitch agreed despite residents' opposition. Danger of crime and gangs cited by headteacher as reasons for after school provision on school premises

 

 I have just caught up with the Planning Committee Meeting that considered and approved plans for a 3G all-weather pitch at Queens Park Community School (QPCS).

It was a controversial application where both sides, Brondesbury Park Residents Association (BPRA)  and QPCS, brought in some big gun experts to advise on their case,  which must have been at considerable financial costs. It was a very lengthy meeting with public representations made on both sides and Cllr Gbajumo speaking on behalf of the 3 ward councillors in support of the school's application.

BPRA had submitted a petition of c300 signatures opposing the application. They pointed out that most objections were from nearby homes whilst supporters were mainly well outside the area. They expressed the view that the views of those that lived nearby should be given more weight but were told that this was not within planning guidance. They noted that only 20% of the 1200 pupils had written in support of the application. 

The speaker on behalf of the BPRA claimed that they had been lied to by the school  throughout their dealings and questioned their integrity.  He asked if the appplication was for the benefit of the school and the local community or mainly for commercial reasons. Out of school hours use would be for 67% of the time.  The headteacher had said the school was cash rich but to make it commercially viable they would have to have the commercial usage applied for.

Cllr Kelcher asked about the potential benefits of the pitch. The BPRA speaker replied that at first they did not want the pitch at all but wanted to negotiate but could not do so because the lines of communication were severed. They felt that other pitches were available in the area and these were more appropriate as not near people's homes. The fact that the pitch would be open until 9pm. Monday to Friday, 6 or 7pm at the weekends, would be harmful to the community and its way of life. BPRA suggested a weekday cut-off of 6pm for both school and community use. Questioned by a councillor he said that if the finish time was 6pm he would probably write a letter of support for the application himself, probably with conditions such as a more enviromentally suitable pitch surface.

There was some discussion about alternative sites with some dispute about how long it would take pupils and residents to walk to Capital City Academy. 

Another local resident addressing the committe said, 'We would like to keep our evenings. Our children's bedrooms will overlook the pitch.' She said that her 5 and 6 year old went to bed at 7.30pm. The school had acknowledged there would be increased noise. She did not have an objection to children, it was adults yelling  from the pitch that concerned her.

A local resident, who said he was a member of the BPRA but had not attended any of their meetings because as far as he knew none had been called, spoke in favour of the application. He lived 250 metres way from the site and loved to hear people playing. He said there was a shortage of pitches in Brent and Kilburn based on his personal knowledge as a football player.  QPCS and Brent had a proud record of providing top players. He had played on the current grass pitch. It was water-logged in the winter and rock-hard in the summer. He spoke of the importance of sport and exercise for people's well-being and physical health.

The headteacher of QPCS, speaking  for the application, said that an all-weather 3G pitch was needed to enable her pupils to access the full physical education curriculum. At present pupils were unable to choose to do A Level PE because the necessary  facilities were not available.  Pupils from poor housing where there was not safe access to outdoors, needed the proposal facility that they could use after school. Brent Council was contributing £95,000 Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levey monies to the pitch deveopment. It would promote health and wellbeing and contribute to pandemic recovery. The school would balance community and commercial interests. 14 community organisations were supporting the provision including Brent Sports, QPR Hub and Brent Centre for Young People. The latter used football to help teenagers express their emotions in life-changing work. She concluded on the public good of the application, 'We all want a better society where young people are no longer at the mercy of local gangs or crime.'

Questioned by councillors the headteacher said Claremont and Capital City had received no complaints about their pitches, despite them having been opposed. Capital was open until 10pm.  Both had been fully booked.

Responding to a question about the need for commercial revenue from after hours lettings she said that the overall  capital cost would be £300,000 with £95,000 of that provided by the council.  The school would be committing £200,000 of its reserves  that trustees/governors would seek to recoup from commercial lettings over the next 3-5 years. This would replenish their reserves for other earmarked uses including school boilers.

The QPCS headteacher outlined to the committee the context of children travelling outside their postcode. Children's safety could be a deal-breaker with parents relecutant to let their children travel outside the area. There was a significant risk for young males from gangs, there were muggings and females risked sexual assault. This meant that provision at school, at the end of the school day was safer and would reassure parents.

There was a limited discussion about environmental concerns regarding the 3G surface of rubber crumb. BPRA had wanted a more envirommentally friendly surface The head said that staff had been concerned about this and were satisfied that the material would have a minimal impact on the environment.

Cllr Erica Gbajumo, speaking on behalf of all three Brondesbury Park Labour councillors said that they supported the proposal. Later opening was necessary because of people's working hours. She invited the committee to agree that some of the BPRA's claims were 'over-the-top'.

Cllr Kelcher, suggested that the councillors were taking a risk, ahead of the May local elections, in supporting the application despite residents opposition. Cllr Gbajumo responded that there were residents in favour but in any case it was not about the election but doing the right thing.

After further discussion the committee agreed suggested amendments to the conditions and voted unanimously in favour of the application.

From Brent Council website:

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions (as amended below) and informatives set out in the report and supplementary agenda:

 

Condition 7 – Community User Agreement to include clarification on the definition of Community Use, the availability of the facility for community use and the cost

 

Condition 9 – Tree report/planting schedule to be amended to allow flexibility in the location of new trees, to allow additional planting between the pitch and Aylestone Avenue and to provide for an increase in the number of new trees to be planted.

 

Officers' Report to Committee LINK

Statement on behalf of Brondesbury Park Residents Association LINK

A video of the Planning Committee discussion on this item (c90 minutes) can be see HERE

 

Queens Park Community School 3G pitch at Planning Committee on Janary 26th - chief planner recommends approval

 BRENT COUNCIL NOTICE

Re: Queens Park Community School, Aylestone Avenue, London, NW6 7BQ 

 

I refer to the planning application for the above site which proposes:- 

 

Construction of an artificial turf pitch, ball stop fencing with access gates, acoustic all weather timber fence, flood lighting units 2 x double floodlights on the half way masts and single floodlights at each of the 4 corner masts (mounted onto 6 steel columns) and a dry pond detention basin and earth bund in a designated area within the school grounds 

 

The application will be formally considered at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 26 January, 2022 starting at 6pm. 

 

As a result of the current regulations allowing the Council to hold meetings of the Planning Committee remotely coming to an end, the Council is now required to hold this as a socially distanced physical (face to face) meeting. 

 

This meeting of the Committee has therefore been arranged to take place in the Conference Hall, at the Civic Centre. 

 

As we are still operating under existing Covid restrictions, capacity within the meeting venue has been strictly limited to ensure compliance with the necessary social distancing guidelines. 

 

We are therefore encouraging those who wish to observe proceedings to continue doing so via the live webstream which we will continue to make available on the Council’s website: 

 

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/democracy-in-brent/local-democracy/live-streaming/ 

 

It is possible to speak at the Committee Meeting, which (in advance of the current restrictions coming to an end) can continue to be undertaken online (including via the telephone) or now, as an alternative, in person at the meeting, subject to the restrictions set out in the Council's Standing Order. These provide for one objector and/or one supporter of the application to speak. The Chair has the discretion to increase this to two people from each side. In doing this, the Chair will give priority to occupiers nearest to the application site or representing a group of people. 

 

To address the committee you must notify Executive and Member Services by 5 pm on the working day before the committee meeting. Please email committee@brent.gov.uk or telephone the Executive and Member Services Officer, Mrs Dev Bhanji, on 07786 681276 during office hours. If you would prefer to attend the physical meeting to speak in person then please could you indicate this when notifying us of your request, as attendance will need to be strictly managed on the night. This may involve you having to wait in a separate area outside of the meeting room until you are called to speak.

The Chief Planner's recommendation for this application is to Grant Consent

 

LETTER: Natural Grass Playing Field Conversions to 3G

 This is the first Letter to the Editor to be published. Send your letters to wembleymatters@virginmedia.com with your name (tell me if you do not want you name  published). Maximum 1000 words - shorter preferred). I reserve the right to edit the letter and not to publish if I deem it unsuitable for publication.

Dear Editor,

This month Brent Council is again tasked with considering a planning application for a commercial 3G artificial grass floodlit football pitch development. But will this finally be the last of its kind?

We have seen these applications several times before, and they almost read the same. This time it is by Queens Park Community School (QPCS) in Brondesbury (Ref 20/1411) [1]. Like its predecessors, QPCS wants to replace its natural grass playing fields with artificial 3G rubber surfaces, complete with state-of-the-art floodlights and commercial football hiring until 9 pm. As is the case with many other schools in London, QPCS is located in the midst of a quiet residential area.

The arguments remain the same. 3G rubber crumbs are invariably bad for the environment and players' health. 3G pitches are banned in parts of the EU as a result. These operations tend to be very noisy. And, the commercial hiring aspect routinely draws in large numbers of visitors from further afield that will be using private transport because the site is not well connected to the public transport network.

On the other end, the school is citing the desperate need for an all-year football pitch because the grass surface becomes difficult to play on during the winter months.

The Head of QPCS recently took her cause to the Brent & Kilburn Times stating that 'QPCS has produced "outstanding top-flight footballers"' before naming a few [2]. This is, undoubtedly, a remarkable record, but it also begs the question that if QPCS can 'produce outstanding top-flight footballers' on its natural grass playing fields, then why does it even need to replace Nature with artificial grass with all the dire consequences this development would bring?

But there is another question. How much should we be focussing on producing more professional football players? Only a tiny fraction of players will ever make it to a level where they can support themselves following this elusive dream. And, it is often a rather short dream due to the immense physical strain players are under. For some, it is over as quickly as a flight into suborbital space.

As a nation, we are under immense pressure to solve the many complex problems we are faced with today. We are battling a global pandemic. We are battling Climate Change. We are battling social injustice, an ageing community and a looming care crisis.

 
We are in desperate need of healthcare professionals, doctors, engineers, scientists and leaders that can help us get through these challenges. Our Government has failed to attract a single applicant to its fast track Global Talent visa scheme.
Therefore, should our schools in Brent not be focussing on producing the skills and expertise that we so desperately need? Should our role models not include Sir David Attenborough, Jane Goodall, or the many unsung heroes of our time who develop vaccines against Covid or work to solve our growing need for renewable energies?

This particular planning application is additionally facing serious ecological challenges. There is anecdotal evidence of there being colonies of bats at the site which is adjacent to Tiverton Green. Yet, when QPCS presented its initial plans in 2020 and when it resubmitted these plans in 2021 it did not commission or present a single bat survey as would be customary in these situations. This has taken many observers by surprise. However, due to the efforts of the Brondesbury Park Residents Association who privately commissioned a professional 'Bat Activity Survey', we finally have clarity on this point. There are indeed two species of roosting and foraging bats in the immediate vicinity of the site.

 
This 'Bat Activity Survey' was uploaded to the Brent Planning Portal only hours before the end of the consultation. Unfortunately, this has meant that the public, including pupils, their parents, neighbours, and everyone who has commented on this application, did not have the benefit of this important evidence and information.

 
I suspect that further bat surveys will now be required covering all of the proposed site and its surroundings. This would need to be done before this application could possibly be resubmitted in the form of a revised application if this should even still be deemed viable.

 
I feel that QPCS and its management has let down the public and its supporters by resisting to undertake professional bat surveys right from the start. It would also seem inconceivable that anyone would be tempted to continue pursuing a planning application when it stands to contravene the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017).

Moreover, there appears to be an important lesson for all when it comes to schools wanting to replace their natural grass playing fields with artificial materials such as 3G rubber surfaces.

As the many detailed responses to these planning applications repeatedly show, the impacts these have on the natural environment stand in no comparison to the perceived incremental benefits these might offer.

If we are to learn from past mistakes, we need to change how we go about our natural resources. If COP26 in Glasgow has taught us anything then we need to change now. We cannot afford to further destroy our local natural habitats and let a commercial undertaking benefit from its demise.

If Brent Council and its Members are serious about the Climate and Ecology Emergency it had called in 2019, and if they are serious about the Brent Climate & Ecological Emergency Strategy 2021-2030, they must act firmly and call time on these ill-conceived developments that harm our fragile biodiversity.

Brent Council should also make it clear that these types of developments will no longer be considered in future.

Daniel Hulsmann
Brent Resident

[1] https://pa.brent.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=DCAPR_149939

[2] https://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/queens-park-community-school-3g-pitch-8472588

Another Brent school 3G pitch application meets opposition

View of the Claremont site - the proposed 3G pitch will be on the grassed area lower centre

Kingsbury High School, Queens Park Community School and Claremont High School have all had plans to install floodlit artificial grass 3G pitches on their sites. The Powerleague proposal for Kingsbury High was withdrawn after a local campaign that cited environmental and social harm.  The interests of the local residents compete with those of the school. The Claremont Planning Application is HERE .

19/1388 | Construction of an additional floodlit artificial grass sports pitch and cricket practice facility with incorporated batting cages, installation of 12 floodlights, erection of high boundary fences with associated gates, formation of pedestrian access stairs and ramp. | Claremont High School, Claremont Avenue, Harrow, HA3 0UH

Roe Green Residents' Association have written to a senior Brent planning officer and councillors drawing attention to some of the issues.

The Roe Green Village Residents' Association in North West Brent (RGVRA) may not be directly impacted by what is going on at Claremont High School but RGVRA nevertheless has an important contribution to make to the planning process concerning this particular application.

We have great concerns over the impact this application represents to residents and the environment. We are also concerned that this application is being assessed prematurely and without all necessary facts being available.

RGVRA has been faced with an almost identical application by an Academy school in recent months. In assessing the application RGVRA and its consultants have learned a significant amount of information about the development and operation of installations of this type which applies to the application described in 19/1388 as well.

The overall impact such installation has on its surrounding area makes this application at Claremont High School entirely unsuitable for this site. Installations like these belong far away from any residential dwellings due to their significant environmental impacts such as noise and light pollution affecting neighbours 365 days of the year until late at night. This also concerns the transport impact these facilities generate on what are typically quiet residential streets.

Scrupulous developers and agents appear to have devised schemes to provide cash-seeking academies with free ‘upgrades' to their perfectly usable natural grass playing fields through funds such as the Condition Improvement Fund (CIF) and the prospect of new revenue streams by hiring these out as entertainment venues to the public. 

Pupils tend to only have use of these new sports facilities for 35% of the time whereas the vast majority of the time these facilities get hired out for profit is to a narrow target audience of 18-25 year old male adults.

This is a recurring scenario running throughout the country. In Brent alone we have seen several of these applications in recent years. 
Brent Council needs to recognise that these facilities are not sustainable for the long term future of Brent and its residents. In fact these schemes are detrimental to community cohesion.

This particular application at Claremont High School appears to represent an intense over-development of the site.

Residents will not be able to defend themselves against the new and constant noise, light and traffic impact this scheme will create.

Brent Council needs to listen carefully to the concerns of the residents affected by this application. Brent Council also needs to ensure that both residents and the Planning Committee have access to all the facts that govern the impact of this application based on professional evidence.

This application comes without a noise assessment and without a transport assessment. These types of facilities are well-known for their excessive noise and traffic generation. It thus seems evident that this application is lacking crucial information. Without this crucial information it would seem impossible for anyone to assess the true impact of this application.

We also feel concerned that the ecological evidence available may not be receiving sufficient consideration.

Alison Fure, the author of the 'Ecology and Bat Survey Report' to this application, is a highly-respected ecologist and bat expert with a specialisation in light impact on bat behaviour.    Her findings and recommendations seem clear when her report states that ‘light curfews should be operated throughout the summer’ and that in fact ‘the new pitch should be used by the students from the school only’ which appears to suggest not to operate the facility past 4pm, i.e. school time.

Given Alison Fure's experience and expertise, we cannot think of any reason to question the ecology report’s findings or not take its recommendations seriously.

Furthermore, there are significant environmental impacts that do not appear to have been considered at all.

Within the Borough of Brent there are at least 150 artificial football pitches made of hazardous 3G rubber compounds. According to manufacturers' guidance, each of these pitches requires topping up with 2-3 tonnes of rubber infill throughout the year. This infill and its dust is toxic to humans and the Environment and, according to manufacturers’ guidance, may only be applied whilst wearing personal protection equipment.

Within the Borough of Brent alone, we thus have 300 - 450 tonnes of toxic material being released into the Environment every single year where it degrades further into ever finer micro-plastics that pollute our rivers and water supplies and enter residents’ lungs and our food chain.

Has anyone at Brent Council calculated the impacts this has?     Is there an impact assessment available of how many 3G pitches there are and the health and environmental impacts these represent?

The site of the proposed new pitch is directly adjacent to the Wealdstone Brook. The applicant has neither accounted for nor mitigated against the micro-plastics pollution this development will cause.

Brent has declared a Climate and Ecological Emergency in recognition of our seas choking with plastic. Brent has committed itself to making Brent the cleanest, greenest borough in London.

As servants of the public and stewards of public resources Brent, therefore, has an obligation to ensure that these aims and commitments are upheld.

The Planning Committee and the residents affected by the sports pitches at Claremont High School must be given access to all the facts pertaining to the impacts of this planning application before this could possibly be considered,

We further request that Brent immediately puts on hold all planning applications involving 3G pitches until it has fully established the impact these have on our Environment and until it has completed an impact assessment on the current use of all 3G pitches in Brent and can assure the public that 3G pitches are compatible with Brent’s stated aims and objectives for making Brent the cleanest, greenest borough in London.

In the interim, Brent Council should instead focus on making more effective use of existing resources and help academies such as Claremont High School benefit from the 150 plus existing 3G pitches in the borough.