Will Ark get into the Secondary Modern business?

Guest blog by Ray Singh-Standids

In 2014 Copland School was taken out of local authority control and forced to become an academy.  The reason given was that Copland, (a school whose staff and students had suffered a unique period of  mismanagement and corruption which resulted in the sacking of the governing body and criminal charges against the headteacher and his management team), was judged to be a ‘failing school’.  The consequence of this judgement was forced academisation, a move which parents, staff and students voted against but which Cllrs Pavey and Butt publicly supported. 

In 2014, Copland’s last year, 46% of students obtained  5 GCSE subjects including English and Maths at grades A*-C . This followed improvements of 3 percentage points for each of the previous 2 years despite this  being a period in which senior management was helping the police with their enquiries and Ofsted inspectors and other nuisances constantly cluttered up the classrooms hampering  the continuity and flow of the educational experience of staff and students.

Copland was forced to become  Ark Elvin Academy  in September 2014. By the end of Ark Elvin’s  first year the headline 5 GCSE figure had dropped from 46% to 36%. For  2016 the figure is apparently  an even more dismal 31%. Those figures again:

2012  Copland School            5 A*-C  inc English and Maths       40%

2013  Copland School            5 A*-C  inc English and Maths       43%

2014  Copland School            5 A*-C  inc English and Maths       46%

2015  Ark Elvin Academy       5 A*-C   inc English and Maths       36%

2016  Ark Elvin Academy       5 A*-C   inc English and Maths       31%

If Copland was judged to be ‘failing’ at a 5 GCSE rate of 46%, what does that make Ark Academies’ effort of 31% only 2 years later? Ark would no doubt blame the 31% results on Copland’s teaching in earlier years. But that doesn’t stand up as Copland’s 46%  was achieved in those exact same  circumstances (arguably worse circumstances, in fact,  as Copland’s 46% students hadn’t had the benefit of Ark Academies’ claimed excellence at ‘driving up standards’).

So, what’s to be done, Cllrs Pavey and Butt must surely be asking themselves.   When comprehensives ‘fail’ they’re  forced  to become academies, (with your enthusiastic support, Cllrs Butt and Pavey). But Ark Elvin already is an academy. So when an academy ‘fails’  you’ve got a problem.  Do you turn it back into a local authority comprehensive? Not allowed, I’m afraid. But don’t worry, Cllrs,  the Tories  have come up with another wheeze to help you  out. Theresa May has said she’s going to bring back grammar schools (for the very small percentage who pass the 11 plus exam). But for every one grammar school she brings back, (though she hasn’t said this), she’ll have to bring back three  secondary modern schools  for the very large percentage who fail the 11 plus.  And that’s where Ark Elvin comes in. Those sharp hedge fund billionaires who run Ark Academies Inc  know a business opportunity when they see one  and are probably already making plans for this one.  Expect the Ark Secondary Moderns ‘charity’ to be announced within weeks with Ark Elvin as the flagship model (after due consultation, of course) . Problem solved. Tories to the rescue again, just like last time! And don’t worry,  Cllrs Butt and Pavey.  You liked forced academisation so you’re going to love forced secondary modernisation!   Magna Aude! (Or Big German Car  as we’ll probably have to change the motto to for the sake of  those secondary modern duffers).

Observer reopens the mystery of the Mary Fedden paintings, the deputy and the council

The Observer today  LINK asks some pertinent questions about  the paintings by Mary Fedden that were given to Copland High School (now Ark Elvin) and then, according to Brent Council, retrieved by them from the school, which was hit by a financial scandal, and 'returned to the Portland Gallery on Tuesday 13th May 2014.' The Council went on to say, 'It is a matter for the estate of the late Mrs Fedden to decide where the paintings are displayed, not the council.'

A former art teacher ar Copland, Jenny Williams, is reported by the Observer as commenting, 'If Mary Fedden wanted the children in Wembley to have these paintings, that is where they should be. It is very sad if after all that has happened at the school they are simply sold off to a private collector.'

The issue of whether Fedden wanted children to have the paintings is critical. Regular readers may recall previous coverage on Wembley Matters of this issue. I reprint some of comments below:

Seeing 'millions' and Copland School in the same article should ring a bell with Mr Butt and Mr Pavey and have them both sticking a post-it Note to Self on their fridges as follows:

'1. Find out progress of the 'pursuit of costs through the civil courts' which we promised when we told the gobsmacked judge in the dodgy headmaster Davies case that we weren't applying for costs.

2. Find out progress in the pursuit of the overpaid 'bonuses' to Davies and chums in same case.

3. Find out what really happened to the Mary Fedden paintings

4. Try really really really hard to tell Cara that we need to have a word today.
Or maybe leave it til Monday ..................or December .............'

Reply

Alison Hopkins24 October 2014 at 18:22

What were the Mary Fedden paintings? I mean, I know who she was, but were there some in Brent's possession?

Martin Francis24 October 2014 at 18:25
This appeared as a comment on WM in October 2013:
You refer to the tricking of the aged artist Mary Fedden into 'donating' expensive paintings supposedly for a 'gallery' at the school to inspire 'deprived' youngsters. Evans (deputy head)  paid a number of visits to her house taking young pupils with him as 'leverage'. These children were witnesses to his eagerness to get his hands on the artwork.. The paintings were then sold at Sothebys by Evans. Others have supplied the police with evidence corroborating this. Why no prosecution yet?

See http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/jun/07/tory-deputy-head-paintings-mary-fedden



Anonymous24 October 2014 at 19:42
Another comment somewhere 'had it on authority' that some of the paintings came into the possession of Brent Council. The assumption seemed to be that the paintings Evans hadn't yet managed to flog, he claimed were, of course, given to the school and, as he was by this time suspended or resigned, he handed them over to their 'rightful owner' (or the Council as Copland's ultimate authority). 

Given the Council's feeble efforts in the whole saga, they probably returned them to him!

Anonymous24 October 2014 at 19:47
I know for a fact that the police have been in contact with witnesses within the last 12 months. No action though.

Does Butt's interference with Ark Elvin application amount to improper conduct?

Wembley resident Jaine Lunn staged a one woman protest at Brent Planning Committee tonight against plans that residents think will affect their right to access the playing fields behind Copland  (now Ark Elvin) School in Wembley High Road.

The Committee voted unanimously to approve the school the Chair, Cllr Sarah Marquis, accepted legal advice that they could not consider the Right of Way issue. She noted that residents might want to take up the issue under the Highways Act.

Raphael Moss, headteacher of the newly expanded Elsley Primary School spoke in favour of the new build and changes to the playing fields and raised issues about the safeguarding of children under current public access conditions.

A speaker from the Education Funding Agency Priority Building Programme poo pooed residents claims that they had had access to the fields as public land for decades, asserting (without any factual evidence cited) that they were 'incorrect'. In a threatening tone he warned the councillors that if they did not approve the plans the £26.5m earmarked for the new build might be lost. Responding to Cllr Colacicco who asked why green measures were always the last thing to be considered in such projects he said that such measures would require funding in addition to the £26.5m and a planning officer said that there was future proofing in the plans that meant they might be added later.

Speaker as a Wembley Central ward councillor, Cllr Sam Stopp, said he wasn't against a new school build replacing the dilapidated building (altholugh against academies on principle) but expressed concern that Muhammed Butt, the Leader of Brent Council had been consulted but not residents.

He later tweeted 'Very concerning lack of public consultation re. Ark Elvin app in Wembley Central. Further investigation needed, regardless of decision.' and 'Suggest Brent Scrutiny Committee reviews how we consult communities on planning applications. Enough is enough. Need to put communities first.'

Cllr Mitchell Murray said that she was concerned about the lack of respect for local resients shown during the consultation and remarked that the Council had not made a good job of the consultation.

Cllr Stopp has blogged on the issue HERE

The comment on Butt reflects disquiet I have heard is prevalent among both officers and councillors about what could be construed as improper conduct. As the Planning Committee is statutorily independent the Cabinet, and even more importantly the Leader, is not supposed to try and influence its decisions.

Evidence of interference? From the Kilburn Times website

Butt not only went to the site (see above) and talked with residents after the Planning Committee was made its site visit last Saturday, but then misrepresented the residents' views in a widely distributed email. He clearly has an interest not only as a proponent of the scheme in the Cabinet, but also as a governor at Ark Elvin and parent of a pupil attending the school.

Councillors on the Planning Committee could have been left in no doubt about what the 'Leader' wanted. They even referred to the fact that he had promised to write to the residents about their concerns during the meeting.

Perhaps something for Standards Commitee as well as Scrutiny?

Readers may be interested in an earlier planning case involving Cllr Butt LINK

Reasons to vote aganst Ark Elvin Planning Application

These are Chetan Patel's notes for his speech at Brent Planning Committee tonight.
 

I kindly ask the Planning Committee to vote against the ARK’s submitted planning due to the below listed reasons:

1)    Proposed ‘Yellow Lines’ on Jesmond Avenue Without Consultations

Materials changes in Construction Methodology Access Statement, which did not feature the proposed of ‘Yellow Line’ controlled parking on Jesmond Avenue. Kiers have failed to consultant the residents of Jesmond Avenue on this key issue, which I believe is a ‘Material Change’, which displaces and affects approximate 80% the local residents parking.

2)    Lack of Staff Car Parking Spaces

The development only accommodates 47nr spaces and is derived from an survey of 100/111 staff which finds there are 24 cars parked at the existing school. I know as a matter of fact there are more than 24 cars parked at the school at present. The survey result conflicts with the actual number of cars parked. The Transport Assessment report should have physically counted the cars parked on the school for an accurate representation of the facts, rather than relying on an incomplete staff survey. I would also question if the cleaning, catering and maintenance staff were included in the survey?

Our fear is that the parking allocation will not meet the real world demand created by the development as suggested above.

There is a risk staff will park in the neighbouring residential streets causing further social problems.

In my opinion parts of Transport Assessment report as aforementioned are fundamentally flawed, and a new accurate report needs to be undertaken.

3)    Inaccurate Design Access Statement

The Design Access Statement doesn’t recognise local community pubic right of way by long usage (or “easement by prescription”).

Many hundreds and if not thousands of individuals in our community have been continually using Copland Park for the aforementioned reasons in excess 20 years. This use has occurred without protest from the property owners. As a result, there is a legal presumption that there is a right of way based on public use of Section 21 of the Highways Action 1980 Act.  This gives the local community pubic right of way by long usage (or “easement by prescription”).

We believed the existing playing fields were public land until we saw sight of the misinformed planning application submitted by ARK.

4)    Construction Methodology Statement

A)     Kier’s have stated ‘A Public Consultation has been held to present and answer any queries local residents and key stakeholders may have regarding the development’. We note Kier have failed to provide reasonable notice period for the Public Consultation. Kier notice of public hearing was posted at our address on the 2^nd July and the meeting was held on the 15^th July 2015.  I know many of the affected community could not re-schedule their commitments with only 14 days notice. Thankfully I managed to attend the consultation, and was surprised when Kier did not present their Construction Methodology Plans. In fact, Kier didn’t present any documentation related to their ‘Construction Methodology’ nor did they have their Construction Methodology documents to hand to distribute at the meeting. You couldn’t have even noticed Kier where at the Public Consultation. The meeting was more of a design exhibition lead by the Architect. Kier’s merely discussed their plans when asked about the construction methodology. Without any Construction Methodology drawings and distribution of any documentations, it was almost impossible to grasp the proposed site access and logistics. In summary, I would describe Kier’s ‘Public Consultation’ as a poor and a  misinformed event. I strongly recommend Kier should be forced to re-hold the event and provide a reasonable period of a minimum 30 days notice period prior to re-holding this meeting.

B)     Kier have failed to adequately demonstrate how they intend to manage construction personnel parking. Their reports indicate an approximate area of 45m x 20m. How many construction personal cars will this space accommodate? Is this allocated space enough? What happens if construction personal start parking on residential roads? Is parking on the residential road permitted by Kier or by Brent Council? 

C)     Brent should stipulate as an ‘Planning Condition’ Kier need to accommodate all necessary parking facilities within their site boundary, and restrict any of Kier’s staff from using any valuable residential parking spaces.

D)    Jesmond Avenue is a quiet residential cul-de-sac area which already has insufficient road car parking capacity. I would also like to record, residents on Clifton Avenue are already parking on Jesmond Avenue, who then use the various alleyways between the roads to return back to Clifton Road. I fear construction traffic personal parking on the community roads would further complicate and disrupt the community relations in the area.

E)     Kier’s Construction Methodology states ‘all deliveries will be directed to arrive at site by travelling along the North Circular Road, then along the Harrow Road (A404) then into Jesmond Avenue. We have reviewed the different site access options with LB Brent Highways Dept and Jesmond Avenue is the preferred option because it provides the safest and shortest route between the A404 and the site’.

We would highlight to Kier their conclusion that Jesmond Avenue is the shortest route from the A404 and proposed site is incorrect.  (See Appendix B attached Map). 

Option 1: 90m using Cecil Avenue.

Option 2: 278m using Jesmond Venue

Option 3: 424m using London Road via Cecil Avenue.

I would also question how Kier have concluded Jesmond Avenue is the safest route. I believe the below listed risks affecting Jesmond Aveue has not been addressed by Kier.

·     •                Jesmond Avenue is a strictly cul-de-sac residential area where up to 8-10 children regularly play on the road after school hours, especially between Stanley Road and the end of Jesmond Avenue. When driving my car down Jesmond Avenue on a number occasions I have been forced to apply my breaks in an emergency to avoid an accident with the kids playing on the road. I fear heavy goods vehicles will not be able stop in time in such emergency situations. How have Kier managed this risk?

·     Cars are parked on both sides of Jesmond Avenue, thus reducing the road traffic to only one narrow lane, whilst still accommodating two way traffic. In my opinion using Jesmond Avenue to access construction traffic particularly heavy goods vehicles is dangerous and an accident waiting to happen.

·     With respect to the safest route, when using Jesmond Avenue construction traffic passes 79nr residential properties, where if Cecil Avenue was adopted construction traffic passes only 3nr residential properties, and makes Cecil the safest route.

·     With respect to safest route, Jesmond Avenue has cars are parked on both sides of the road, thus reducing the width of the road to a single narrow lane. However, Cecil Avenue has cars parked on only side, and the other side is protected by double yellow lines preventing cars parking on one side. Therefore, Cecil Avenue a has greater clear width to accommodate heavy duty construction traffic than Jesmond Avenue.

Under the CDM Regulations, I believe Kier have failed to competently demonstrate Jesmond Avenue is the safest Construction Access Road for the development. 

5)    Safeguarding Risk

I’m horrified and deeply concerned Kier have not elected to perform Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks on all construction personal. The proposed works is surrounded by vulnerable children and young adults from Copland School High School, Elsely and St Josephs Primary School’s. Kier have a duty of care to ensure all personal working near and in the vicinity are screened to ensure illegible personal are not permitted to work on the construction works. This is even more prevalent as the construction industry is very fragmented using large numbers of self employed personal, appointed by specialist Sub-Contractors. It’s likely, Kier would only appoint Sub-Contractors and thus would not have a direct relationship with the operatives.   In my opinion, if Kier’s do not perform these high sensitive checks, they are not fit to undertake the construction works. CRB checks is standard practise on school works used by other top Main Contractors in the industry.

Secrecy and murk cloud Ark Elvin planning application

A resident asks on the Brent Planning Portal whether the frontage of the new Ark Elvin school building will be as in the artist's sketch above, which is on the documentation to be considered.

The short answer appears to be 'no' if one refers to the Wembley Area Action Plan:

W5 Copland School and Brent House

(4 hectares)

Mixed use development on the High Road frontage with new / rebuilt school to the rear.

The ground floor on the High Road frontage should be commercial retail development with associated car parking.  Residential development either above or adjacent to the retail should include a high proportion of family housing.

Development of the school to the rear of the site should accommodate, if possible, an additional form of entry on current capacity.

The scale of new development near to Cecil Avenue should respect the adjacent suburban character.

Car parking on the retail site should have shared use for town centre parking. There should be an active retail frontage with servicing off Wembley High Road. Access from Cecil Avenue will be limited to residential access only.

In the event of the school not coming forward as part of a joint scheme, proposals may be brought forward for the Brent House site as a standalone development.

This seems to be yet more misleading information.  The frontage is likely to be occupied by housing and shops. The reason why access  to the building site through the Brent House site (high rise on the High Road, top centre) is that the Council does not want to disrupt the disposal and regeneration of  its property.

Meanwhile it is worth looking back at the discussion atwhat  was then the Brent Executive when the proposals came up for discussion. Muhammed Butt declared an interest as the parent of a child at what was then Copland but soon to be Ark, and not as a governor which he is now.

Jean Roberts, speaking for teachers at Copland and local residents  opposed the land transfer: (Extract from Minutes)

With the consent of the Executive, Jean Roberts representing teachers of Copland Community School and residents, addressed the meeting and spoke against proposals to expand the school on to adjacent land involving a land transfer. She referred to the terms of title deeds, covenants and Rights of Way which could prohibit the scheme and also the intention to grant a 125 year lease on the final school site to ARK Schools (ARK) to whom the school was due to transfer as a sponsored academy on 1 September 2014. Seamus Sheridan also addressed the meeting and expressed concern over the lack of proper consultation over the proposals and restrictions on speaking rights at a public meeting. He stated that children and residents were against the expansion proposals which would result in a loss of land used for play.

Rights of Way was raised at this early stage and although Fiona Alderman has ruled the application can go ahead with the Rights of Way being dealt with separately it is mentioned in the Application.

Demolition of existing buildings on site and erection of replacement building to

accommodate a three storey 9FE secondary school for 1750 pupils (1350 11-16 year

old and 400 post 16) with associated car parking, servicing and circulation space, Multi

Use Games Area, All Weather Pitch, games areas and other hard and soft landscaping,

together with the diversion of Public Right of Way (PROW) No.87

 Public Right of Way to be realigned to border the eastern end of the MUGA and widened to 3.4m (currently it separates the school building from the playing fields)

It seems strange that the POW forms part of the application but cannot be admitted as a material planning consideration.

At the Executive Meeting many reports were withheld from public scrutiny and designated as 'restricted' LINK

Although Wembley Central and Tokyngton ward councillors made no comments at the consultation stage I understand that two Wembley Central councillors are down to speak tonight. Muhammed Butt (sorry that name keeps popping up) is a Tokyngton ward councillor.

Currently the land is on a short-term lease from Brent Council to Ark but on completion of the new build would be handed over to them on a 125 year agreement.

Ark Elvin 'land grab' to be decided at Planning Committee on Thursday

From the planning application

The redevelopment of the Ark Elvin school site (formerly Copland) is coming up at Brent Planning Committee on Thursday October 22nd (7pm Brent Civic Centre) LINK

Residents have been up in arms about what they see as a 'land grab' of the school playing fields to which they have had access for decades. The issue has been covered on Wembley Matters in the past LINK and there is an update on the Kilburn Times website LINK

Local resident Chetan Patel is claiming that the plans are a breach of the 'Public Right of Way':

With respect to planning application (ref 13/3161) for the redevelopment of ARK Elvin Academy formally known as Copland, I believe the proposal breaches the community's 'Public Right Of Way' to access the park in accordance to Highways Act 1980 Section 130A.

The proposed re-development removes all general public access to the park. The community has had access to the entire park without any objections from ARK or from the previous management of Copland Community School for many decades now. The Planning Application removes this general public access to the park.

The school have claimed anyone entering the park are trespassers, and the public don't have authorised access to park. However, the law assumes that if the public use a path/park without interference for some period of time set by statute at 20 years, then the owner (London Borough of Brent) had intended to dedicate it as a right of way. Therefore it is a 'Public Right of Way' by way of 'easement by prescription'.

 Residents appealed to Muhammed Butt, Brent Council leader when he visited the site on Saturday. However Butt is both a member of the governing body of Ark Elvin (representing the local authority), which put the proposal forward and a member of the Cabinet who gave the nod to the plans.

The Planning Committee is statutorily independent of the Council and under Sarah Marquis' has shown some independence.

The issue does of course raise the much wider issue of the handing over of public assets to academy chains.

At the same meeting the planning application for the Kensal Rise Library building is also under consideration. LINK

Ark Elvin accused of Wembley 'land grab'

The site (Chetan Patel)

Local resident Chetan Patel has launched a campaign on what he sees as a 'land grab' from local people of the playing fields behind Ark Elvin Academy  (formerly Copland High School) in Wembley.

The school is due to be part of a large redevelopment LINK.

In a letter to Annabel Bates, the Ark Elvin Headteacher, Chetan Patel said:

With respect to ARK's planning application (ref 15/3161) for the school redevelopment, I believe your proposal breaches the community's 'Public Right Of Way' onto the existing fields in accordance to Highways Act 1980 Section 130A.

The community has had access to the existing park without any objections from ARK or from the previous management of Copland Community School for many decades now. The law assumes that if the public uses a path without interference for some period of time – set by statute at 20 years - then the owner (ARK) had intended to dedicate it as a right of way.

ARK's proposed development of the school can only be described as 'land-grab' with no consideration for the community users and the Law.

I ask ARK to respectfully withdraw its poorly conceived planning application before a decision is made by Brent Council.

If ARK still wishes to pursue the development, which displaces community access to the existing parks (see Appendix A), I will be forced to pursuing legal advice on this matter, at further expense to the tax payer.

I believe the general public has right to know how many hundreds of thousands pounds if not millions have been wastefully spent to date on this poorly conceived project.  Under the Freedom of information Act can you please confirm how much money has been spent in relation to the proposed re-development works of the school.

I had hoped to communicate the aforementioned to you at the recent 'exhibition' meeting held at the school on the 15th July 2015, but you had failed attend this key meeting. It's very disappointing that the school's own head teacher, a key stakeholder, could not be bothered to attend this key meeting.

Annabel Bates replied:

Thank you for your letter, dated 22nd September 2015, about the planning permission that has been submitted by Kier Construction to rebuild our school.  I was present at the consultation on 15th July so I am sorry I did not manage to speak to you in person.  I am of course happy to meet with you to discuss your concerns.

The land shown in the appendix to your letter has always been occupied by Copland, and now Ark Elvin, as it is school playing fields rather than a public park.

As you may be aware, since Ark took over the school we have been making a concerted effort to keep the school playing fields secure and stop the unauthorised access to this private land.  We have repaired the fence a number of times (despite it being repeatedly cut through), moved on any rough sleepers, cleared up the rubbish at the London Road end of the playing fields, engaged a landscaper to cut the grass and carried out regular litter picks so it can be used by pupils for sports.  I cannot comment on how this area was managed by Copland Community School as neither I nor my senior management team worked at Copland.

I am unable to respond to your Freedom of Information Act request as we are not party to that information.  This project is being funded by the Education Funding Authority so you will need to contact them with your request.

Wembley Matters covered the initial plans when they were first published and the article elicited many comments LINK

Chetan Patel is campaigning on several fronts including an official complaint about what he alleges are the failures of Brent's Planning Enforcement Team in the matter as well as a referral to the Local Government Ombudsman,

Copland/Elvin: Onward and Upward?

Guest blog from  local school chaplain Elvin Bishop

The benefits of Tory education policy (ably assisted by Cllrs Pavey and Butt) are taking time to become apparent at one local school, as these figures appear to show:

2012: Copland 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths                 40%

2013: Copland 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths                  43%

2014: Copland 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths                  46%

September2014 and Forced Academisation takes place against the wishes of parents, students and staff but backed by Michaels Gove and Pavey and Leader Mo Butt. Copland becomes Ark Elvin Academy.

2015: Copland 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths                    34%*

*figure from Ark Elvin website

Still, as Jose Mourinho probably  said to Roman Abramovich on Sunday, ‘early days’.