Petition launched calling on Brent Council to protect our parks and green spaces from development

 

After the very unpopular decision of Brent Planning Committee to allow the building of 4 bulky houses in Barham Park, residents have been concerned that a precedent has been set which could threaten our other parks and public spaces. This is particularly the case where there are existing buildings in the park or green space that could be declared redundant or poorly maintained and the site redeveloped.

We learnt how important green spaces are during the pandemic and open access is important. Access has already been lost to the Copland Fields and green space is likely to be lost in South Kilburn. The St Raphael's green space may be eaten into in future redevelopment.   At the same time Brent's tower block building boom means that the population has increased and the new residents have no gardens, just access to a balcony or a small shared space consisting mainly of concrete. An exception will be the new Union Park near the stadium.

Barham Park is supposedly protected by covenant, a fact that the Planning Committee discounted as not a planning consideration, but unfortunately even that is not the case with other parks.

In Brent only King Edward VII Park, Wembley; Roe Green Walled Garden in Kingsbury and Mapesbury Dell in Cricklewood are protected by Fields in Trust. Their mission is to protect parks and green  spaces.  Owners can apply to Fields in Trust whether private, community or local authority for a potection agreement. Brent Council is of course the owner of our parks and public spaces apart from Queens Park which is owned by the Corporation of London.

 

Brent Council as the landowner would have to apply for a protection agreement and that will need pressure from residents to persuade them that such action is vital.

Meanwhile a petition has been launched in the wake of the Barham Park decision calling on Brent Council to uphold its Strategic Plan commitment to protecting parks and open spaces.

The petition is on Brent Council's website HERE

 

Save Brent Parks from house building & development

 

We the undersigned petition the council to uphold its long standing Strategic Policy of protecting Brent Parks and Open Spaces at all cost.

 

We are concerned that Brent Council's Planning Committee has ignored Strategic Core Policy of protecting Parks and Open Spaces and also the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan, which designated Barham Park as a Local Green Space and developed a specific Planning Policy BP1 which stated that any housing building or redevelopment in Barham Park should be refused. That decision has effectively undermined Neighbourhood Planning, ignored the views of local people and put at risk other Parks and Open Spaces across Brent.

 

Council must tackle the neglect of King Eddie's Park and make us proud to love where we live!

Jaine Lunn wrote to Brent Council along the following lines:

The state of Edward VII Park ('King Eddies' to locals)  is no longer a joke.

It is evident it is only going to get worse now the summer has kicked in.  The level of anti-social behaviour is off the scale.  We need some serious intervention now.  Signs informing users of the by-laws in the park, no BBQ's, no fires, Single men exercising in the children's playground make families uneasy.  Scooters, cars, and ice-cream vans driving around like it's normal.  Drug dealing and drinking.   We all have photographic evidence.  Everyone knows why our only green open space municipal park is like this: lack of enforcement and shit maintenance by Veolia.  Whoever signed the contract should be fired.  

 

How dare the council have such contempt for residents who pay for public services via their Council Tax.

No doubt King Edward V11 and his wife Queen Alexander must be turning in the graves, after all this was bought by the council back in 1913 for approx £8,000 to compensate the residents for the loss of green space in Wembley NoPark when they commenced development for the Stadium and subsequent Empire Exhibition.   The fact that Brent Council signed an agreement to protect the park with "Fields in Trust in 2012 as the plaque on Collins Lodge states and has won "Borough of Culture for 2020" makes a mockery of the whole thing unless you stop this now.  I will make it my personal mission to embarrass the Council every opportunity I can find if this is not resolved asap.

Might I also add, all Brent parks had Green Flags awarded 10 years ago, now the fact that we are at no. 14 out of 20 on the 20 London Borough Park List, is shameful.  The NHS state that parks and green open spaces save them millions of ££££££££££££s in benefit to general public.  Cleaner Brent, Cleaner Air, you are having a laugh?  Practice what you preach.

We have enough CIL money in Wembley to do the job, create legacy, and make us proud to "LOVE WHERE WE LIVE".

The London Welsh School's official status and questions that remain over Brent Council policy

This Guest Blog by Denise Cheong looks at issues about the exact status of the London Welsh School, the loss of trees in King Edward VII Park, and some key questions that remain to be answered.

For the avoidance of doubt these screenshots and web link show the Registered Business and Fee Paying Status of the London Welsh School:

This web article on www.Wales.gov.uk titled:"Funding for Ysgol Gymraeg Llundain" further proves their actual status: LINK

Brent Council likely to to pay the Big Lottery to close Stonebridge Adventure Playground!

Brent Council is at present wanting to turn  number of its services over to voluntary groups and charities, even to the extent in its Equalities Policy of asking council staff to volunteer.  So staff will be expected to volunteer, in their spare time, to run services where their colleagues were made redundant.

However, at the same time its treatment of voluntary organisations, such as Brent Play Association, and facilities bequeathed by local philanthropists such as Titus Barham, and agreements reached with organisations such as Fields in Trust, has been cavalier to say the least Now in the 21st century it is the Big Lottery that Brent is disrespecting.

The Big Lottery financed Stonebridge Adventure Playground, through Brent Play Association, which itself raised funds for many other businesses. Ironically the fact that it was  part-funded by an annual Council grant, limited how much the BPA could raise for itself.

Now, the Coucil is adamant that it will cut playground funding at the end of the financial year, and apprently, even while the BPA is finalising redundancy terms for its employees, has had the gall to ask if it would be possible for workers to carry on as volunteers, to cover the Easter and Summer holidays.

The closure is going to be expensive for the BPA but may also be so for Brent Council as they will be breaking an agreement made with the Big Lottery - that is if the Big Lottery decide to play ball with the Council.  My reading is that this may cost the Council up to £250,000 which they appear willing to pay.

Potential penalties are set out below:

Meanwhile Philip Grant has pointed out that:

-->

At item 9 on tonight's Cabinet agenda is a report from Andy Donald, Brent's Regeneration Director on how he proposes to spend S.106 (planning) funds for 2015/16 (the Development Funds Programme). One of the items is: 

Title: King Edward VII park landscaping bowling green. Purpose: Landscape the disused bowling green to increase informal recreation area. Ward: Wembley Central Details: There are no legal impediments to using this funding for this project. Given the importance of King Edward VII park to providing amenity space for the future occupants of the borough's largest growth area, this park is considered a priority. Proposed spending for 2015/16: £152,044.

Is it coincidence that the bowling green is adjacent to the proposed London Welsh School to be housed in the Bowling Green Pavilion, with an additional classroom to be built on the site?  The possible use of the bowling green as a play area for the 30 or so children at the school was mentioned at the beginning of the planning process but did not form part of the planning application. It was subsequently denied that it would be used as a regular part of the school's amenities. However, there seems to be little reason for it not to be used by the school as parks are public spaces.

As Jaine Lunn  has pointed out LINK this land is subject to a trust agreement between the Council and Fields in  Trust. This raises a question over 'no legal impediment' above as the Trust told Jaine re the Welsh School development:

I can confirm that Brent Council did submit a formal request to Fields in Trust with regards to granting a lease on the disused bowls pavilion area to the London Welsh Language primary school on a 15 year term, and in addition to erect a single storey classroom block and convert the paved hard landscape area to an all weather playground.   We were advised that the bowling green and Pavilion are unused and the area fenced off, furthermore there was no bowls interest. 

I can confirm that the Council’s request was rejected by our Trustees in January 2015 because the site is protected for recreational purposes and the proposed new use would be outside the objects of the Deed of Dedication.  In order for the matter to even be reconsidered by our Trustees the Council would need to offer up for protection a replacement site of at least the size of the land being lost or provide a payment which is to be made available for investment in the facilities within the remainder of the site.  To date we have not received a revised application, which I believe would only be forthcoming should planning consent be granted.

Neither the Fields in Trust Agreement, nor Regeneration's proposal feature in the Welsh School Planning application, although surely both are relevant to the application.

So the Council will pay money to get rid of the Stonebridge Adventure Playground and will spend money on landscaping a bowling green in Wembley. They help the Welsh School displaced from Stonebridge through the same school expansion process which requires building on the adventure playground, but cut the playground's funding and pay compensation to the Big Lottery.

Who said politics is about priorities?

Is Brent Council in breach of Trust Agreement over King Edward VII Park Welsh School proposal?

 

Collins Lodge

Guest blogger Jaine Lunn raises a vital issue that puts a big qustion mark over the London Welsh School's bid to open a school in King Edward VII Park, Wembley.
 

Collins Lodge in King Edward VII Park has a plaque that reads "Queen Elizabeth II Award Jubilee year 2012 by Fields in Trust LINK for Sport and Recreational use in perpetuity.”

Having contacted this organisation they responded I quote:-

"Brent Council entered into a deed of dedication with Fields in Trust in 2012.  The deed is registered at the Land Registry and states that King Edward VII Park is held as a “public playing field and recreation ground, inclusive of a bowling club and sports pavilion” in perpetuity.   I have attached our guidance document on how we protect recreational land which may be of interest.

If the landowner of a protected site wants to make a change that is outside of the permitted use then they will need to formally seek the consent of Fields in Trust.  We have a process in place for that and I attach that information for your reference.   This guidance outlines what our responsibilities are with regards to assessing such matters.   All decision are taken by our Trustees.

Fields in Trust do not get involved in the local management of sites as this very much stays in local hands.  So any changes to a site which fit within the agreed user clause do not require our consent.   There is some flexibility built into the deed of dedication, for example our Trustees may at their discretion consent to the disposal of land provided that betterment for local communities in terms of outdoor sport, recreation and/or play can be demonstrated. 

I can confirm that Brent Council did submit a formal request to Fields in Trust with regards to granting a lease on the disused bowls pavilion area to the London Welsh Language primary school on a 15 year term, and in addition to erect a single storey classroom block and convert the paved hard landscape area to an all weather playground.   We were advised that the bowling green and Pavilion are unused and the area fenced off, furthermore there was no bowls interest. 

I can confirm that the Council’s request was rejected by our Trustees in January 2015 because the site is protected for recreational purposes and the proposed new use would be outside the objects of the Deed of Dedication.  In order for the matter to even be reconsidered by our Trustees the Council would need to offer up for protection a replacement site of at least the size of the land being lost or provide a payment which is to be made available for investment in the facilities within the remainder of the site.  To date we have not received a revised application, which I believe would only be forthcoming should planning consent be granted."

As we have all seen on the site visit It is not a fair and equitable swap as it neither matches the size of the land proposed to be built on neither is it comparable to be used for sports. In the additional documents that have been submitted in the interim period the idea that residents should be able to sit on this land and be able to access a view comparable to the view from Primrose Hill over Central London is laughable and whoever cited this as acceptable "should have gone to SpecSavers" about covers it, or suggests they are taking some form of  medication to enhance their  very vivid imagination.  

Knowing all of the above, what really baffles me and to which I seek answers to the following questions.

1)  Who originally suggested/proposed the idea to the London Welsh School that this was a suitable location for their school?  

(After all they had investigated 98 other locations, 65 of which was outside of the London Borough of Brent.)

2.  Why did the Brent Planners not reject this immediately knowing that the land was protected?

3.  Having ignored the fact, made an application, which had they thoroughly read and understood the deeds of  dedication they had signed would have realised that it would be rejected?

4.  Why are they still supporting this application to grant permission, knowing that they must make another application to Fields in Trust for approval when the suggested land swap is also unlikely to be approved by the trust.

5.  How are they justifiying a complete and utter waste of time, money and resources of all concerned?

I would appreciate any answers to the above, from anyone!

To Brent Planners I say stop this nonsense and reject now.

This land is public owned Land and should remain so for the people of Wembley to enjoy as was originally decided when bought by the local Council back in 1913 to compensate for loss of Parkland at Wembley Park.  

MF A further question would be to ask why Brent Council have not informed the public about this agreement as part of the documentaion on the planning application. It is clearly a 'material consideration' for the Planning Committeee to take into account.