Another dispute over public access to footpaths on Harrow School grounds - Harrow Greens speak out

 

Residents on the north Brent borders with Harrow will not be surprised that another dispute has broken out with Harrow School wanting to close a footpath used by the public on grounds of anti-social behaviour. This is the latest enclosure move by the private school.

 

A discussion is underway on the website Next Door LINK. This is a quote from the initial post:

To summarise: there is a path going through one of Harrow School's many fields, just off the West St in Harrow. It leads through a road between two of the John Lyon's buildings and then comes up towards the Byron Hill Road. This path is taken every day, pretty much exclusively by the students of the local Roxeth Primary School and their parents. Not once did I see any of the children or their parents damage property or behave in a disruptive manner.

After speaking to some local people, it turns out this path had been in use by the public for over 25 years. It's the shortest way up the hill, and in a borough where most of the green spaces seem to be fenced off by the Harrow School, it's a pleasant walk, much more so than walking around on some of the extremely narrow paths up the hill.  However, Harrow School informed me that it's private property and in a couple weeks they will be installing a coded gate between the cricket field and the road passing through John Lyon's so that parents like me will no longer be able to walk through. 

Considering Harrow School (and John Lyon) both enjoy the financial benefits of being registered charities, it seems obscene to block people's right of way in such a manner, for reasons which on inspection appear both flimsy and petty.

Gareth Thomas MP has got involved and has organised a zoom meeting for Tuesday at noon LINK

Speaking on behalf of Harrow Green Party, Emma Wallace said:

It is concerning to hear of Harrow Schools latest plans to block a footpath that has been in use by the public for decades.  There appears to be little to no evidence of anti-social behaviour along this path, with pupils & parents of Roxeth Primary School using it on a daily basis to get to and from school. The path provides them with the shortest route up the hill and ensures children don't have to walk along the extremely narrow footpaths and roads that can be found going up the hill. This seems to be more about the school blocking a historic right of way for the local community use, rather than about safety concerns for their students. 

This situation is not without precedent - in 2017, footpath campaigners won a 14 year victory against Harrow school who had been trying to divert two historic, public rights of way that cross its playing fields LINK. 

 

In 2020, Harrow School appealed and won against Sadiq Khan's refusal of planning permission for a large sports hall to be built on Metropolitan Open Land. The Mayor had cited in 2018 that the proposed sports building was an "inappropriate development within Metropolitan Open Land and causes substantial harm to the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land by reason of its excessive footprint and its location."  LINK

 

And in 2021, John Lyon failed in its latest bid to remove planning restrictions to expand the school LINK. 

 

Harrow School must respect the rights of public access on the Hill, ensuring that the local community can continue to enjoy this historic part of Harrow, rather than just a small, privileged elite.

 A clear route out of the problem for a footpath that has been used for more than 20 years  is available to campaigners on the Open Spaces Society website HERE

Harrow School Planning Appeal starts Tuesday April 30th

The battle over Harrow School's building application enters a new round next week when the Planning Inspectorate hears the school's appeal against the refusal of planning permission. The London Mayor opposed the new sports hall development on the basis that it was not compatible with protecting the surrounding Metropolitan Open Land.

The Inspector instructed by the Secretary of State is Mr C Parker. If you wish to express a view on the appeal, you may attend the Public Inquiry and at the discretion of the Inspector, state your views in person or through a representative.

For information remember to add the last 4 numbers to the old planning reference number in order to see the appeal documents on the Harrow Council website LBH Appeal No: P/1940/16/5397    www.harrow.gov.uk

An alternative source is at https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk   PINS Ref: App/M5450/W/18/3208434  Put in the last 7 numbers and you can make comments there. 

 Hearing details

Venue Harrow Council, Civil Centre, Station Road, HA1 2XY
Starts at 10am

Day 1 Tuesday 30th April 2019 Committee Room 1 & 2
Day 2 Wednesday 1st May 2019 Council Chambers
Day 3 Thursday 2nd May 2019 Council Chambers
Day 4 Friday 3rd May 2019 Council Chambers
Day 5 Wednesday 8th May 2019 Council Chambers
Day 6 Thursday 9th May 2019 Council Chambers
Day 7 Friday 10th May 2019 Council Chambers
Day 8 Tuesday 14th May 2019 Council Chambers

Public Inquiry to be held after Harrow School appeal planning refusal for new sports building

Image from Harrow Hill Trust

The Planning Inspectorate today announced that following an appeal by Harrow School a three day Inquiry will be held into the school's plans for demolition of some existing buildings and the building of new sports and science buildings in the school grounds.

The plans were contested by the public and turned down by Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor using his powers under the Town and Country Planning Act to direct Harrow Council to refuse planning permission.

Mayor Khan said that the proposed footprint and location of the proposed sports building would result in unacceptable sprawl of inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land.

Those  contesting the appeal have until October 1st to make a submission to the Planning Inspectorate but are currently handicapped because Harrow School's grounds for appeal have not yet been published on the Harrow Council website.

Planning Inspectorate letter below. Click bottom right for full size version.

OK, it's August -Silly Season - time to see what Brent Council's Cabinet is tabling for their get together on the 13th

Guest post by Gaynor Lloyd
 

If you live in Northwick Park area - or South Kilburn for that matter - it’s worth having a quick look at the  Cabinet papers  about Brent’s  “Regeneration Zones”. LINK 

Yes, some of us lucky residents of leafy Northwick Park were just a bit startled to see ourselves in a “Regeneration Zone”. Some of us weren’t  too shocked, however - though still very , very upset. This is just the latest stage in the story of the plans for what we residents call “the Park”. A fantastic piece of Brent open space, including formal much used sports and  playing fields, a nature conservation area and a golf course. 

And it seems  the Leader of the Council is in charge of this; South Kilburn get the Cabinet Member for Regeneration. I expect we should be flattered. 

This is all about one element of the One Public Estate (OPE)  scheme which has come home to roost in Northwick Park. [More about OPE for those interested at the bottom of this piece **- and see also the linked news stories in Brent & Kilburn Times LINK  

and my letter on Page 13 on the earlier story LINK 

The scheme involves Network Housing, Northwick Park Hospital, Brent Council, University of Westminster and potentially TfL. It’s quite hard to get the detail  but the idea is that there will be 3700 homes  by 2035 somewhere on the margins of the Park. Tower blocks will be built on the land near to the Tube station - a “landmark residential development”.

Sure, as some  papers have emerged, there have been references to key worker housing, and affordable homes  - gosh, do we need key worker housing, and social housing - truly affordable homes - but these proposals  are all very vague. I’ve been trying for more transparency - a couple of Freedom of Information (FOI)  requests over the last 2 years - but not much joy. 

Even though  Brent got a grant of  £530k to do viability research on all this. Including transport research, my current  huge concern - and the reason for asking Martin to post this blog. 

My latest FOI request of Brent  from last December has been so sat on for a very long time -  despite  numerous charming assurances that the sifting process of 100’s of emails was being done  and that the release of  all or some would be opined on “soon” by Brent’s Legal Team . Well, after a last chance given to Brent by the Information Commissioner just to reply at all,  it’s now been accepted by her  as a complaint . I await hearing if the Information Commissioner accepts my argument that the plans should be out in the public domain. 

I was particularly incensed by  the secrecy for the transportation reports/ surveys, and the plans being hatched for  “infrastructure works”  . Principally an access road for this huge re-development. Our very own Regeneration Zone.

Clearly the access road can’t  go across the railway/Tube lines. OK, University of Westminster might be decamping for pastures new; maybe it could go that way. But the University’s plans  seem to be a more recent possible development. 

So where could this road  possibly go? And where might it be considered for going - a location of such commercial confidentiality and sensitivity that Brent can’t possibly release any professional transport reports or plans on it into the public domain? 

Oh, let me think...

Could it be an access road across our Park - designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) - put simplistically, the London equivalent of Green Belt? (The Mayor recently refused an application by Harrow School for a major long planned sports centre on its MOL  land just cross the road from Northwick Park - because it was inappropriate development on MOL) 

It’s not “just” the effect on the environment, or the open air sports facilities; it’s the madness of adding to the roads here, which also serve Northwick Park hospital - a major hospital with (as we all know) a busy A&E. 

But hang on - to finance all this - Brent has a £9.9 million grant from HM Government from the Marginal Viability  Fund bit of its  Housing Infrastructure Fund. To get  this “marginal viability funding”, according to the HMG website , there is supposed to be “market failure”, and  “extensive local consultation” and      “alignment with the Local plan”. Well, these are  a bit news to me but obviously I don’t know everything.

So another reason for my FOI request - which sought evidence of  any of those factors. So far all I have got is a bit of alleged consultation.  Sudbury Court Residents’ Association AGM in April 2017, to which Brent officers did come after a bit of persuading. They brought  a very rum set of slides, including one of rather a scruffy park bench by Northwick Park Tube station, mentioning   litter. The officers did do a bit of question answering by local residents - and promised to revert on some stuff (but didn’t).

If that was consultation, it seems odd  the FOI officer says they have to ask the Chair of the SCRA for her notes of the meeting! Anyway, it wasn’t “consultation” in any normal sense of the word.(NO comments please on Brent’s consultations)

Oh -  and that aligning with Local Plan point. Well, maybe that can be retrospective. The Cabinet paper says “ members may be aware that Brent’s planning department is engaged in consultation on the local plan for which Northwick Park has an allocation “. I’d hope all members (especially on the Cabinet) would be aware we’ve had a bit of Local plan consultation in Brent. 

However, speaking as a local resident (and married to a Ward Councillor) and  having gone to a local meeting  on this Local Plan business   - though I admit I am getting on a bit , so I might have forgotten  - I was completely unaware of any Planning Officer referring to Northwick Park at all. Let alone in terms of revising Northwick Park’s  Local Plan “allocation” or Northwick Park becoming a “Regeneration Zone”.

It seems that the Local Plan “Preferred Options” will be out in November - when “it is proposed to run public consultation specific to Northwick Park in parallel”.

I hope we residents will be having a little pre-consultation consultation amongst ourselves rather more quickly than that. I also hope others in the Borough interested in open space, the environment,  good use of NHS land, pollution, key worker housing and good social housing provision will join us. WATCH THIS SPACE.

[**NOTE on OPE if you’ve got this far!

HM Government OPE is a plan to dispose of “surplus public land”. A particularly infamous issue is the disposal of NHS land in London - based on a couple of reports by Sir Robert Naylor. Generally Sir Robert in his openly available  Report says  to NHS bodies “Identify your surplus land” (that can include unused/empty space like corridors and open walkways, by the way). If your percentages of unused/empty or underused space to your overall site are too high, oh dear, inefficiency - using a carrot & stick approach - the message  is “sell, sell, sell”. Sir Robert’s second, confidential report -  “Naylor 2” - identifies some prime value London NHS sites for disposal  and  is so sensitive NHS England has been fighting a Freedom of Information request I have in on it for around 2 years. 

So clearly a sensitive area generally. Naylor’s reports IS useful in one respect though; Deloittes accountants did a background research report for him - which said sensibly that we ought to be looking strategically at the need for land for NHS use, in light of London’s growing population - and reminding of high land values here if we need to reprovide. Gosh how sensible - how ignored! ]

Harrow School defeated for second time by protectors of open green space

Illustration: Harrow Hill Trust

Following their defeat over proposed public footpath changes LINK Harrow School yesterday received a second blow when London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has rejected plans for a new school sports facility which would have been built on protected green space.

Sadiq Khan made it clear he supports the expansion of Harrow School’s sporting facilities and would welcome the greater access offered to the local community – but that it should not come at the expense of protecting open, green spaces, particularly when alternative options are available.

The plans included construction of a 7,300 sq m sports block – of which 4,600 sq m would have built on designated Metropolitan Open Land, which is largely undeveloped.

The Mayor's new London Plan, which was published for consultation at the end of last year, affords the same protection to Metropolitan Open Land as that given to the Green Belt.

In rejecting the application, the Mayor invited Harrow School to work with his planning team to develop a new application for a sports hall on the footprint of its existing site.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said:

Since becoming Mayor I have been clear that protecting London’s precious green spaces is one of my top priorities.

I absolutely support the school’s ambitions to expand its sporting facilities, and their plans to open them up to the local community for the benefit of people of all ages are to be commended.

However, I’m clear that expansion of this kind must not encroach on open green space, which is one of the capital’s most important and cherished assets. Nor, in this case, is it necessary to do so, as other options are available.

I hope the school will rethink its plans and come up with a scheme which allows them to provide a new facility for their pupils and the community without harming the area’s precious green spaces.

Direct action at Arms Fair: No faith in war

-->

Local activists joined Day three of the #StopDSEI week of action: Waves of action blocked both roads into the arms fair for hours at a time as activists gathered to oppose nuclear weapons and call for the government to shift from arms production to renewable energy.

Campaigner Gaynor Lloyd appears in the video along with Jonathan Bartley, Green Party co-leader. Gaynor remarked today, in a reference to the battle over the Harrow School public footpath:

 It is ironic that the Open Spaces Society were diffident about serving a notice under the Highways Act on Harrow School that would have led the school to be up in the Magistrates Court for a breach of Section 137 of the aforementioned Highways Act - after 9 years of  blocking Footpath 57. It took 11 minutes for me to get nicked for self- same offence on Wednesday.... Food for thought, eh?  

Harrow School planning application-Trust asks, 'What is really going on?'

A post on the Harrow Hill Trust website devoted to resisting Harrow School's plan to build on Metropolitan Open Land LINK suggests it is not only the Brent Planning Department which has issues around due process.

The Harrow Planning Committeee hearing of the school's application had been deferred when a report was withdrawn  LINK  

Harrow School recently lost at a Planning Inspectorate hearing over plans to re-route two footpaths. LINK

This is the Trust's post: 

CONSULTATION – GENUINE OR JUST A TICK BOX EXERCISE?

A letter dated 27 April 2017, after the recent planning meeting and newly posted on the planning portal under application P/1940/16, is from Matthew Paterson planning adviser to Harrow School, which states the following.

We are pleased to note that the re-consultation period proposed by the Council will not impact upon our application being determined at the May Planning Committee.

 It is reasonable to assume that Mr Patterson is accurate and knows the timetable for procedures for planning meetings. This is due to the fact that for over 5 years until October 2014 he was Head of Planning Policy for Harrow Borough and at the recent meeting he and his client met with the Chair of the Planning Committee.

 The consultation period runs for 21 days from 28th April which is until 19th May 2017. The May Planning Committee is set for 24th May 2017 and the planning officer’s report has to be circulated and published 7 days earlier, i.e. on Wednesday 17th May. This is of course 2 days before the consultation period has even ended, let alone allowing for the planning officer’s report to incorporate all possible responses from the consultation.

There have been numerous and consistent complaints about the ‘consultation’ provided for this planning application, including poor notification, no sysem of recording of verbal feedfack, no open floor two way question and answer sessions, misrepresentation of feedback provided, missing and misleading information provided, in fact too many to go into in this short post. Perhaps this is another clear indication of what is really going on?

Residents and allies win public footpath fight with Harrow School

From the Open Spaces Society
 

Local residents, backed by the Open Spaces Society,the Ramblers and the Harrow Hill Trust, have defeated plans by élite Harrow School to move two public footpaths across its sports pitches and tennis courts.  The objectors fought the plans at a six-day public inquiry earlier this year.  The government inspector, Ms Alison Lea, has now rejected the proposals.

Harrow School which spreads over 300 acres, is one of Britain’s most élite institutions.  The annual fees are £37,350 (the average UK annual wage is £26,500).  The school wanted to move two public footpaths, officially known as numbers 57 and 58 in the London Borough of Harrow, which have for centuries run in direct lines across the land now forming part of its grounds.

Footpath 57 follows a north-south route between Football Lane and Pebworth Road.  The school obstructed the footpath with tennis courts surrounded by fencing in 2003.  For nine years, the school even padlocked the gates across another section of the path but reopened them following pressure from the objectors.

The objectors had argued that Harrow Council should make the school reopen the path, as required by law,but instead the council agreed with the school to move the path around the obstructions.  

Footpath 58 runs in a direct line between the bottom of Football Lane and Watford Road, and the school applied to move it to a zigzag route to avoid the current configuration of its sports pitches.

Alison Lea refused the proposals principally because of the impact of the changes on public enjoyment, in particular the loss of views which the Harrow West MP, Gareth Thomas, called ‘spectacular’ in his evidence to the inquiry.  The paths provide direct walking routes to Harrow-on-the-Hill with its impressive church-spire, whereas the views from the diverted routes were, the inspector said, ‘unexceptional’.

She also considered that the school had exaggerated the benefits of the proposed diversions. 

At the public inquiry, the school was represented by a QC, assisted by a junior barrister; the council was also legally represented, but the objectors represented themselves.

Appearing as objectors at the inquiry were Kate Ashbrook of the Open Spaces Society and Ramblers, Gareth Thomas MP, Harrow Councillor Sue Anderson, Paul Catherall of the Harrow Hill Trust, Brent Councillor Keith Perrin, and local residents Gaynor Lloyd, Christopher Eley, John Parker and Margaret Roake.  Others submitted written objections.

Says Kate Ashbrook, general secretary of the Open Spaces Society and footpath secretary of the Ramblers Buckinghamshire, Milton Keynes and West Middlesex Area: ‘It has taken local people 14 years of strenuous campaigning against the might of Harrow School to save these footpaths, with their splendid views and sense of purpose.

‘Now we shall press the council again to ensure that Harrow School reopens the blocked footpath 57.  We shall be fortified by the inspector’s decision—the council can no longer avoid taking action to resolve this mess.’

Sisters Margaret and Dorothy Roake add: ‘As residents of almost eighty years standing we can testify that the footpaths pre-date much of the local built environment.  They have been actively used by local people to reach St Mary’s church or the many hostelries and other interesting buildings that make up the village on the hill.  It is natural to set one’s eye on a destination and walk straight towards it.  The proposed diversions are inconvenient and considerably longer.’

Decision deferred (again): Harrow Council debacle over Harrow School planning application

There will be red faces at Harrow Council over a mess up that means that Wednesday's planning application by Harrow school has been deferred.
The application involving building on Metropolitan Open Land had already been deferred last November.

  Manize Talukdar, Democratic & Electoral Services Officer at Harrow Council informed Harrow Hill Trust, who have campaigned against the proposals:

Please note that officers will be asking Members to defer this application as an incorrect version of the report was published in the agenda, in error.

Harrow Hill Trust notified supporters of the deferral on its Change Petition website LINK and commented:

So although it [the planning application]  will be raised at the meeting it will be deferred. Unfortunately as it is being raised, the constitution does not allow us to raise a question even though it is not going to be discussed! 

We have clearly shown many mistakes in the applicant's documentation and the subsequent Case Officer's report, as set out in our letters of 11th June 2016 and 27 February 2017, we noted that the latest Officer's Report published unilaterally scrapped the MOL swap in favour of building on MOL and having an MOL extension. This being in conflict with the application as published and the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). 

This is all very worrying when we are relying on our Council's planning department to serve the residents.

It seems that Brent is not the only council having problems with its planning department!

For the record these are the recommendations as currently posted on the Harrow Council Planning Committee agenda page:

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Committee is asked to:
·      agree the reasons for approval and the conditions as set out in this report in appendix 1; and 

·      refer this application to the Mayor of London (the GLA) as a Stage 2 referral; and 

·      subject to the Mayor of London (or delegated authorised officer) advising that he is content to allow the Council to determine the application and does not wish to issue a direction under Article 7 that he does not wish to direct refusal, or to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purposes of determining the application, delegate authority to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the continued negotiation and completion of the Section 106 legal agreement and other enabling legislation and issue of the planning permission and subject to minor amendments to the conditions (set out in Appendix 1 of this report) or the legal agreement. The Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms would cover the following matters:
.        a)  The area to the west of the application site shown on Plan P.05.12 delineated in black and coloured light green (referred to below as “the MOL extension land”) shall remain permanently open and not be developed at any time in the future except for landscaping purposes approved by the authority or in accordance with policy relating to MOL as set out in London Plan Policy 17.7 or a revision thereof. 

.        b)  The existing buildings which are within the MOL extension land and also those within the area delineated in blue on Plan P.05.12 shall be demolished no later than 15 months after first occupation of the proposed new Sports facility building the subject of planning application P/1940/16. 

.        c)  The area of land delineated in blue on Plan P.05.12 shall thereafter not be developed at any time in the future except for landscaping purposes approved by the authority or in accordance with the policy relating to MOL as set out in London Plan Policy 17.7 or a revision thereof. 

.        d)  Community Use Agreement to be implemented; 

.        e)  Implementation of the Sustainable Travel Plan; 

.        f)  Undertaking that the applicant will work with Harrow Council on Employment and 
Training Initiatives including apprenticeships associated with the proposed 
construction;
g)  Additional Tree Planting; 

.        h)  Local goods and services; and 

.        i)  Monitoring fee - £5,000.00 


RECOMMENDATION B

Appendix 1 - Plan P.05.12

That if the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 14^th June 2017, or as such extended period as may be agreed by the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee, then it is recommended to delegate the decision to REFUSE planning permission to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning on the grounds that:
The proposed development, in the absence of a Planning Obligation to secure necessary agreements and commitments in relation to the development, would fail to mitigate the impact of the development upon infrastructure and the wider area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies 3.19, 6.3, 7.14 and 8.2 of the London Plan (2016), Policies CS 1 G and Z of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policies DM 43, DM 46 and DM 50 of the Local Plan (2013), and the provisions of the Harrow Planning Obligations supplementary planning document.

REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Whilst noting the harmful impact on the Conservation Area, the wider benefits to both Harrow School and the wider community are considered to override these concerns in this instance. Notwithstanding this, there are improvements to the Conservation Area and the setting of Listed Buildings, notably:
·      The implementation of high quality landscaping within the area to the south of Football Lane both within the application site and the areas adjacent the subject of the s106 obligation. 

·      The enhancements to the setting of listed buildings including in particular the Head Master’s, Vaughan Library, the Chapel, New Schools and Butler building by reason of creation of openness adjacent to them and by reason of the landscaping proposed, in accordance with covenants in the s106 obligation 
Furthermore the application has demonstrated very special circumstances in accordance with policies relating to development within Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), notably: 

·      The site circumstances, including the significant planning constraints experienced across the School’s estate and the lack of alternative suitable land; 

·      The pressing academic curriculum needs for sports and science; 

·      The very significant sports benefits of the proposal, providing sports facilities in a sustainable location which are of very high quality and sports training facilities for 
young persons in particular; 

·      The provision of significant shared access to very high quality sports and leisure 
facilities for the local community and local schools at no charge to the public purse in an area of high deprivation and need for sports facilities, where there are no comparable sports facilities in the area of such quality. 
 


Pubic Inquiry Into Diversion Of Harrow School Footpaths Finishes

From the Open Spaces Society

The public inquiry, which opened in January, into the diversion of two footpaths across Harrow School grounds, ended this week.  It lasted for nearly six days instead of the scheduled three.  The inquiry was prolonged partly because of the number of objectors to the scheme.  These included the Open Spaces Society, Ramblers, Harrow Hill Trust and many local people.

Harrow School wished to move public footpaths 57 and 58 which have for centuries run in a direct line across its grounds.  Footpath 57 follows a north-south route between Football Lane and Pebworth Road.  Unfortunately, the school built tennis courts across the path in 2003, instead of first moving the footpath.  Local people wanted the path to be reopened but instead the school sought to move the path around the obstructions.

Footpath 58 runs in a direct line between the bottom of Football Lane and Watford Road, and the school has applied to move it to a zigzag route to avoid the current configuration of its sports pitches.

Harrow Council, instead of requiring the school to remove the obstructions in accordance with its duty under section 130 of the Highways Act 1980, agreed to move the paths, but because there were objections the matter was referred to the Planning Inspectorate.

At the public inquiry, the council and the school had legal representation, but the objectors represented themselves.  Appearing as objectors at the inquiry were Kate Ashbrook of the Open Spaces Society and Ramblers, Gareth Thomas MP, Harrow Councillor Sue Anderson, Brent Councillor Keith Perrin, Paul Catherall of the Harrow Hill Trust and local residents Christopher Eley, Gaynor Lloyd, John Parker and Margaret Roake.  Others had submitted written objections.

Says Kate Ashbrook, general secretary of the Open Spaces Society and footpath secretary of the Ramblers Buckinghamshire, Milton Keynes and West Middlesex Area:

We are united in our wish to prevent the school from moving these popular footpaths from their ancient direct routes to suit its own convenience.  The old routes have better views of Harrow-on-the-Hill one way and of the City of London the other.

They are shorter and have a sense of purpose, for those enjoying informal recreation and those using the paths to go to work or the shops.

We believe that, since the problems on these paths are of the school’s own making, it should resolve them by removing the obstructions rather than moving the paths.

We strongly hope that the inspector, Alison Lea, will find in our favour and that the paths will remain on their current routes.

Harrow Hill Trust's case against Harrow School development published at last

From Harrow Hill Trust:

22 Jan 2017 — Harrow Hill Trust undertook a detailed assessment of the hundreds of pages of application documents submitted to seek planning permission. (Harrow School's development on Metropolitan Open Land) This assessment included many pictures and constructive ideas and was dated 11 June 2016 and was hand delivered. Despite being hand delivered, two phone calls in the summer, which included the case officer, a further hard copy and a letter of complaint it finally appears 7 months late on the Harrow.gov.uk website. This is of course now after the first public planning meeting of 16 November. The assessment can be seen at the Harrow by searching for application P/1940/16 . Your support is appreciated. Thanks

The Harrow Council Planning Website is not exactly user friendly so I have reproduced the full submission below. Click on bottom right corner for a full page.

Another battle between Harrow School and locals comes to a head next month

I have reported the battle between local people in Harrow and Harrow School over the school's plans to build on Metropolitan Open Land and spoil views of the Hill LINK but the school and locals are enaged in another battle, which started in 2003, and is due to come to a head next month.

There is to be three day Harrow School Footpaths Diversion Inquiry at Harrow Civic Centre from January 17th to January 19th 2016 by the Planning Inspectorate where evidence from the public and the school will be heard.

The conflict was reported by The Guardian in 2011 LINK and this extract summarises the issue quite well:

The extraordinary row, which threatens to end in court, stems from a multimillion-pound development of the school's facilities eight years ago when, next to a running track and an extended sports centre, two all-weather pitches were built. At the time, it was agreed by the Ramblers Association – erroneously, it now claims – that the pitches could be put on top of the old pathway as long as an alternative route was created.

But the alternative path, known as a permissive path because its continued existence is at the whim of the school, has now been deemed unacceptable by local walkers. Legally, because it does not follow the route of the old path, the right for people to walk on the new path could be summarily removed with six months' notice, it says.

And because the path circumvents the school's pitches, it has extended what was a gentle stroll across the grounds into a trek. "The permissive path probably pretty well doubles the distance of when you enter the playing fields to when you leave the playing fields," said Graham Wright, the Ramblers Association's local footpath secretary. "These people actually want to get to Harrow, they don't want to walk that extra bit and in some ways they are not having the beauty of Harrow Hill.

"The proper path has the views of St Mary's church and Harrow Hill as you walk, whereas when you do the permissive path you are looking towards Northwick Park hospital and Watford Road. It's not quite the same."

The Ramblers Association says that a small path between the two all-weather pitches should be opened up to the public to resurrect the old path. But the school, which charges up to £30,000 a year per pupil in fees, is not budging, prompting accusations of "arrogance" from some quarters.

The school's application, which includes allegations of dog excrement on the fields and the public wandering off the path can be found HERE

Let your Harrow councillor know your views on Harrow School's development proposal

This is an update from Harrow Hill Trust who are opposing Harrow School's bid to build on Metropolitan Open Land and have put forward alternative proposals. I have added links to email addresses for your convenience:

 11 Dec 2016 — At the Harrow planning meeting there was a motion to refuse the planning permission. The minutes don't tell you how your Councillors voted. However, so that you know how your particular local Councillor voted it was as follows.

Councillor Keith Ferry, Labour for the ward of GreenHill voted against the motion to refuse it, and as Chair used his casting vote to defeat it. Also he was the only Councillor to vote against the deferral.

Councillor Simon Brown, Labour for Headstone South, (was standing in as a reserve for Councillor Anne Whitehead, Labour for Wealdstone) voted against the motion to refuse.

Councillor Barry Kendler, Labour for Edgware voted against the motion to refuse, but tabled the motion for deferral which was supported by all except the Chair, Councillor Keith Ferry.

Councillor Mrs Christine Robson, Labour for West Harrow abstained from voting.
Councillor June Baxter, Conservative for Harrow on the Hill voted for refusal
Councillor Stephen Greek, Conservative for Harrow Weald voted for refusal
Councillor Pritesh Patel, Conservative for Harrow Weald voted for refusal.

So if you are in the wards of the Labour Councillors mentioned above please do let them know your views and the strength of local feeling. The brownfield option is what residents want and it is a much better site for many reasons and a much better fit for London Plan policy 7.17. There is even non-metropolitan land on the existing Northern boundary to allow an expanded footprint. We will be launching a call to action in the next update. Thanks again for your support, it is appreciated, and will be appreciated by our children.

The petition needs just 7 more signatories to reach 1,500 LINK

Last minute deferral of Harrow School's application to build on Metropolitan Open Land

At yesterday's Harrow Planning Committee it at first appeared that the Harrow School's Planning Application to build on Metropolitan Open Land had been successful.

The Committee was tied 3-3 on a motion refusing the planning application and then the Chair, Keith Ferry, used his casting vote against the motion.  The Committee had received a petition from Harrow Hill Trust of 1,500 signatories against the proposal and a letter from Gareth Thomas MP.

Then in a surprise move Labour councillor Barry Kendler, who had opposed aspects of this particular build but was not against building on Metropolitan Open Land as such, moved a motion to defer.

Kendler had not liked the design and raised issues including the colour scheme of bricks, style, position (ie red brick, not grey slabs, on to brown site or slightly moved to see more of skyline views, etc).  The chair had indicated that would be a matter of negotiation later and not part of this decision.  Cllr Kendler said that if resolution of these planning aspects were not included in the planning decision he was not certain he could rely on Harrow School's goodwill.  He moved the motion to defer and all six councillors voted for it with the Chair against.

The Harrow School representatives, who were by far the biggest group at the meeting, conferred outside and were described by one onlooker as 'looking very serious'.

An opponent of the scheme said after the meeting:

So we live to partly fight another day, especially if Sadiq Khan makes more of the fact that Metropolitan Open Land (ie like green belt) is still allowed to be exchanged for a piece of school land they don't want to use!  The large new build will certainly make a major difference to the historic view of Harrow Church/School. 

A spokesperson for Harrow Hill Trust said:

The Harrow Hill Trust was not happy with the content of the planning officer's report on the scheme and they will continue to fight the case and to promote a brownfield option instead. Interested parties can go to www.harrowhilltrust.org.uk and click through to the petition where a wealth of information is provided including contact emails and phone numbers for the Labour Councillors who are all that is stopping this application from being refused. Lobbying would be appreciated.

STOP PRESS: Harrow School Sports Hall Planning Application deferred tonight

WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 16TH I UNDERSTAND VIA TWITTER THAT THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED THIS EVENING


From Harrow Hill Trust

11 Nov 2016 — The planning meeting is set for 6.30pm Wednesday 16th and the planning officer is recommending approval. Please contact the Councillors below, especially those of you who live in a Ward represented by them and especially the Labour Councillors as they hold the vote via the Chairman. Please remember they only hold their position of representing you by a few hundred votes. We just want the Sports Hall built approximately 60 metres to the North using a brownfield option which has never been shown or debated with residents. It is a clear fudge of planning policy and the Metropolitan Open Land ‘openness being maintained’ is pure spin. Please ask them to listen to 1,450 voices and come along to the Harrow Civic Centre to show your concern. Many thanks.

Click on image to enlarge

Background:

Quality open Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) will be lost if the Harrow School replacement Sports Hall is relocated, and enlarged to include a conference suite, as proposed.  Residents and visitors access to appreciate the current wonderful views is restricted to footpaths and London's Capital Ring walking route and they will be blocked or blighted by the proposed positioning. This includes the views of our only Grade II Listed Park which was set out by Capability Brown in 1768.
The solution is to redevelop the existing brown field site, use more subterranean construction and a green roof/ walls. Also to use a temporary sports 'Bubble' and the nearby John Lyon swimming pool, during construction.
The conditions for developing on MOL have not been met and the public have not been consulted on the MOL aspects. If we can’t protect a site which is MOL, in a Conservation Area, an Area of Special Character and alongside a Grade II listed Park then what can we protect?

Comment on Harrow School planning application and sign petition before Monday

From Harrow Hill Trust

Click on image to enlarge

 See LINK for previous coverage


 It is clear that the public want a brownfield option. As such, in our reply to the Council we have evaluated the arguments set out against this option and we set out the pros and cons. There are very few compromises required to make this work and there are very many more advantages.
Please try to find one more supporter, the consultation period closes on Monday. Thanks again for your support which is appreciated.

Submit your comment HERE Paste this reference into the search box:  P/1940/16

Don't let Harrow School steal glorious local views and Metropolitan Open Land

From the Harrow Hill Trust

Quality open Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) will be lost if the Harrow School replacement Sports Hall is relocated, and enlarged to include a conference suite, as proposed.  Residents and visitors access to appreciate the current wonderful views is restricted to footpaths and London's Capital Ring walking route and they will be blocked or blighted by the proposed positioning. This includes the views of our only Grade II Listed Park which was set out by Capability Brown in 1768.

The solution is to redevelop the existing brown field site, use more subterranean construction and a green roof/ walls. Also to use a temporary sports 'Bubble' and the nearby John Lyon swimming pool, during construction.

The conditions for developing on MOL have not been met and the public have not been consulted on the MOL aspects. If we can’t protect a site which is MOL, in a Conservation Area, an Area of Special Character and alongside a Grade II listed Park then what can we protect?  Please also help us to reject application P/1940/16 on the Harrow Council planning portal http://www.harrow.gov.uk There is a better location and design. 

Urgent - Please help the closing date is now 20 June but best to get your comments in earlier so that there is time to include them. Thank you.
 
Sign the petition HERE