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