LETTER: We have not been told the whole story about the Gladstone Park Health Hub

 

Details: https://www.willesdengreensurgery.nhs.uk/new-hub

 

Letter to The Editor regarding the proposed Health Hub in Gladstone Park, Willesden Green

We are a group of concerned residents living close to Gladstone Park.

In March some (not all) of the residents in the neighbourhood were informed of plans to demolish an existing building and build a new integrated GP practice called the Health Hub inside the boundaries of the park, next to the new children’s playground. The developer’s plans also provide for a community hall, wellbeing studios, a pharmacy, a cafe, toilets, a food truck and even a padel court. 

As you can imagine, people jumped at the idea of having these new facilities in the park. The developers got the endorsement of the Friends of Gladstone Park group by promising them a communal space to be included in the scheme.

However… As is often the case with private enterprises, we have not been told the whole story, but rather only what we wanted to hear. 

If we remove our rose-tinted glasses and look at the proposal in detail, it becomes abundantly clear that this new complex is in the wrong place, will not serve the people that it claims to serve, and will have devastating consequences for our beautiful park and the quiet character of our neighbourhood. 

We were told this new building would be a GP practice built to serve the local community within 10 minutes walk from the site. But in reality the catchment area will be much larger and the scope considerably more ambitious:

 

 

• The practice is to meet the needs of major planned developments as far as Church End, Neasden and Staples Corner. Not so local anymore!
• The number of patients is currently planned to be 20,000 but it can grow exponentially (the GP practice which is to be housed there grew from 3,800 patients in 2018 to 15,000 today).
• It will not only be a GP practice, but also 'co-locate GP services with neighbourhood health, mental health, housing, and social care teams'.

Why are they placing all these facilities inside a park? 

 

 

The park is for recreational activities and quiet enjoyment of nature. This development will increase the footfall tenfold, when the park is already plagued by constant littering, anti-social behaviour and the danger of speeding electric bikes.

 

 

And how will people in need of health or social services be able to easily reach it from Church End, Neasden and Staples Corner? The developers propose the 226 bus. Whoever has used that line can attest it is unreliable and highly susceptible to local traffic congestion. 

Gladstone Park is designated Metropolitan Open Land, which affords the highest level of protection from development. But the developers have told us there is no other viable site in the surgery’s catchment area to fulfil their needs, therefore an exception is to be made. They say that the site has to be owned, as well as partially funded, by the council and then leased for a peppercorn because of ‘the unaffordable cost of private land’.  

 

 

If the council makes this concession for one particular GP surgery, why shouldn’t other GP practices also demand more protected land and £2.97m CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) money for their own ambitions? 

 

 

It is, surely, a dangerous precedent.

There is a similar project, the GP Super Surgery in Wembley, run by Wembley Park Medical Centre and serving around 25,000 patients. It was recently built by Quintain real estate in their new Repton Gardens building development, placing health services inside the new growth areas. 

With the flurry of new developments happening or going to happen in the neighbourhood (10,500 new homes according to the Brent Cabinet Report) and property developers maximising their profits by building new luxurious flats without supplying the minimum amount of social housing, why is the council not securing a more suitable location for the surgery in one of those developments? Or nearer to the patients who need these services most!

Why are Brent Labour cabinet members and the Leader so casually willing to sacrifice a chunk of our beautiful, protected local park? 

 

 

Brent Council can and should do better.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

A group of concerned residents

 

Barnet Council turn down another planning application for Woodfield Nursery at the Welsh Harp

 

The site (outlined in red) in context

The plans

Street elevation

The latest planning application for the redevelopment of the Woodfield Nursery site in Cool Oak Lane, near the Welsh Harp, fronted by Taylor Wimpey has been turned down by Barnet Council.  LINK There have been other applications for this site which at present is occupied by greenhouses and polytunnels in poor condition and some brickbuilt offices, alongside a landscaping business.  It is close to the Brent border and not far from the huge controversial private development, formerly West Hendon social housing,  on the other bank across Cool Oak Bridge.

Some years ago there were applications by the owner of this site and the then Greenhouse Garden Centre in Birchen Grove for housing estates at both locations.  Brent Council turned down the application. LINK  It is now Birchen Grove Garden Centre under new management - I do not have details of the freehold ownership.

Barnet Council found that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on Metropolitan Open Land and rejected the developer's claim that the greenhouses and polytunnels were permanent structures allowing development. The planners ruled that it did not meet the exemptions test for such developments.

In addition officers said that the proposal did not secure the affordable housing, delivery of employment skills and enterprise, or carbon off-setting required. It was a long way from public transport which would increase car ownership.

There were 139 comments on the Barnet planning portal of which 137 were against, one in support and one a general comment. Preservation of the Metropolitan Open Land and the Site of Special Scientific Interest, the importance of a 'green lung' in an over-crowded city, and defence of nature were all prominent. Among the objectors were Hendon Rifle Club, Silver Jubilee Residents Association, the RSPB and Brent Parks Forum. Brent Council also made a submission but it was not available on the portal.

It is unlikely that this is the end of the story!

GLA say Woodfield Nursery development at Welsh Harp does not conform with the London Plan

The GLA have raised objections to the controversial plan LINK to build on the Woodfield Nursery site, Cool Oak Lane, Barnet, near the Welsh Harp Metropolitan Open Land. This means that if Barnet Council make a draft decision in favour of the planning application they have to give 14 days to allow the Deputy Mayor for Planning, Jules Pipe, to decide whether to allow the application to proceed unchanged, direct the Council to refuse the application, or to take over as planning authority himself.

The conclusions of a much longer report (available BELOW) are:
 

London Plan and the Mayor’s Intend to Publish London Plan policies on Metropolitan Open Land is the key strategic issue relevant to this planning application. The development constitutes inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land and very special circumstances have not been demonstrated in this case. The application therefore does not comply with the London Plan as set out below:

• Principle of development: The proposed residential development in an inaccessible location constitutes unsustainable development contrary to London Plan and intend to publish London Plan
  
• Metropolitan Open Land: The development would have a substantial impact on the openness of the MOL and would be inappropriate development; the development does not therefore meet the NPPF exceptions tests and no very special circumstances have been demonstrated. The proposals thus fail the requirements of Policy 7.17 of the London Plan, Policy G3 of the Intend to Publish London Plan and the NPPF.
  
• Housing and affordable housing: 41 units proposed. Notwithstanding the objection to the unsustainable location of the housing proposals, the principle of 35% affordable housing is supported, but this provision does not constitute ‘very special circumstances’ that would justify the development with substantial impact on MOL. The application currently does not fully comply with Policy H5 to be eligible for a Fast Track Route. The applicant should clarify the affordable housing offer by habitable room, and appropriate tenure split in favour of affordable rent. The on-site playspace provision should be appropriately demonstrated and secured by condition.
  
• Urban design: The development would significantly reduce the openness of MOL and is thus inappropriate in principle. Notwithstanding this, the applicant should provide information on equal distribution of affordable and market units within the site to avoid segregation. The application should re-consider the positioning of single aspect north facing units.
  
• Climate change: Further information has been requested on the energy strategy, urban greening and air quality.
  
• Transport: An entirely car dependent development in a PTAL 0 area is unsustainable and contrary to London Plan and Intend to Publish London Plan policy. 

Click on bottom right corner to enlarge document

10 years on a planning application for Welsh Harp site returns

Existing

Planned

Ten years ago both Barnet Council and Brent Council turned down applications to build housing on respectively the Woodfield Nursery site on Cool Oak Lane and the Greenhouse Garden Centre in Birchen Grove. Both sites have the same owner.

Now a planning application has been lodged by Taylor Wimpey to demolish the greenhouses at Woodfield Nursery and build 41 houses and flats plus a reprovided landscape contractor premises.

The new plans are for 27 houses at market rates (including 11 four bedrooms), 2 houses 2 bedrooms) and 8 flats at social rent, and 2 houses and 2 flats at intermediate rates.

Barnet Council turned down the last application on the following grounds:

 1. Inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land with no special circumstances cited for development.
2. Loss of existing employment on the site.
3. Non-compliant flood risk assessment.
4. Insufficient information on the impact of the proposed development on biodiversity and nature conservation.
5. Insufficient information on whether the development would provide future occupiers with adequate levels of amenity, particularly with regard to the proximity of the Hendon Rifle Club.
6. Insufficient information of the development's impact on the amenity value of trees, including those protected by Tree Preservation Orders.
7. No energy strategy or assessment of the energy demands and carbon dioxide emissions of the development submitted with the application.
8. No formal undertaking in the application to enter into a travel and traffic management plan.

Some of those issues remain although employment is retained in the new application for the existing landscape contractor business and there is a new Arboricultural Report which aims to preserve more trees and mitigate any loss LINK.  The Ecological Report overall suggests little ecological impact on the site itself LINK but merits close examination.  I can see no travel and traffic management plan on the document list - pleas email me a link if you can see one.

So far there are no comments on the Barnet Planning Portal for this application but areas of consideration include.

Woodfield Nursery is an an area of Metropolitan Open Land and development would be contrary to the Barnet Unitary Development Plan.

The site is in an area of an SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest)

Development would disturb bird and wildlife on the site and in its proximity.

Development of 41 dwellings would contribute to traffic on what was originally a winding country lane which has single file traffic over Cool Oak Bridge to the new West Hendon development.

Increased traffic on the lane would increase the possibility of accidents to  pupils at the nearby Woodfield Special School who arrive by school buses and taxis.

There is  no public transport in the immediate area.

The Barnet-Brent Welsh Harp sited has already suffered from the West Hendon development on the opposite bank and further development would set a precedent for more applications to develop this rare and much valued open space, including perhaps the Birchen Grove Garden Centre site. (I have checked the Brent Planning Portal and no application has been lodged so far.)

A significant comment is made by Armstrong Rigg Planning on behalf of their client Taylor Wimpey:

Pre-application discussions with the Council have unfortunately proven unhelpful and inconclusivewith officer’s initial positive stance towards the development of the site having been replaced with one that is diametrically opposed. This has been extremely frustrating for the applicants and has placed them in a somewhat difficult position, and one we as their advisors have never experienced before. Having sought legal advice, they feel that they have no option but to proceed with the submission of a planning application, and an appeal thereafter, if necessary, in order to obtain a conclusive response.

Their document goes into detail on this conflict with planning officers. LINK 
 
You can comment on the application HERE

All the documents can be accessed HERE

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! ]

Petition launched against 25 metre high Welsh Harp phone mast - please sign

Cllr Roxanne Mashari (Labour, Welsh Harp) has launched a petition against the proposed erection of a 25 metre high phone mast on the Welsh Harp. You can sign the petition HERE

The petition to Brent Planning Department says:

Stop the building of a 25 metre phone mast in the beautiful Welsh Harp Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is the largest nature reserve in Greater London.

Why is this important?

The Welsh Harp is the only Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in Brent or Barnet and is home to a wide and rich diversity of wildlife.

We are concerned by evidence suggesting a detrimental impact of wireless cell towers on wildlife as well as the building of such a visibly obstructive structure on the appearance and openness of this piece of Metropolitan Open Land. We believe that to give permission to this structure runs contrary to Brent Council's policy on the Protection and Enhancement of Open Space, Sports and Biodiversity.

The proposed improvement of 3G coverage resulting from the mast would appear to only benefit a very small area and is disproportionate to the greater disruption of land and surrounding wildlife.
The Welsh Harp is a truly unique and important site to local residents but also in its wider scientific, ecological and natural beauty value across London. It is our responsibility to preserve it for generations to come.

We therefore strongly object to the approval of this site for the construction of a Mobile Telephone Mast under application PA 17/4597.

To comment on the planning application individually please follow this LINK

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?

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. 
 


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.

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

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

Battle ahead between Brent Council and Pickles on Gladstone Free School?

Following confusion at yesterday's public meeting about whether the Gladstone Free School school had been in conversation with Brent Council over building on the William Gladstone Open Space and whether the council had indicated its opposition, I have now established:

1. That Brent Council in conversation with school representatives, told them that the Council supported free schools, such as Gladstone, as a way of solving the problem of increased demand for secondary school places over the next two years,

2. That the school had been told that any application to build on the William Gladstone Open Space would not be supported by the Council as it would be in breach of planning policy.

3. The Education Funding Agency, who act as as free schools' 'estate agents',  was given the same response.

The land is designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and Public Open Space. In such land there is a general; presumption against inappropriate development.

Brent Council's Policy CP18: Protection and Enhancement of Open Space, Sports and Diversity  in Brent's Core Strategy (2010) states that open space of value will be protected from inappropriate development and preserved for the benefit, enjoyment, health and wellbeing of Brent's residents, visitors and willife.

The Unitary Development Plan sets out acceptable uses of Metropolitan Open Land:

• Public and private open space and playing fields
• Agriculture, woodlands and orchards
• rivers, canals, reservoirs, lakes, docks and other open water
• gold courses
• allotments and nursery gardens
• cemeteries
• nature conservation

This advice may not be sufficient to stop Gladstone Free School  pursuing the site and a battle between the DfE (represented by the Education Funding Agency) and the Council is on the cards and it may well become an election issue.

Brent Council will be up against this guidance published in July 2010, soon after the Coalition took power: LINK

New planning principles for councils to consider when determining planning applications for school developments with local support have been published ahead of the Royal Assent for the Academies Bill.

This initiative was designed to allow school promoters to be confident about progressing their proposals and for new free schools to be set up quickly in response to demand from local people. Education secretary Michael Gove has already stated that the Government is committed to making it easier to secure sites for new schools.

Local planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate will be expected to take the statement by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles into account as a material consideration when determining all planning applications for school development.

In determining planning applications, local authorities should:

• attach very significant weight to the desirability of establishing new schools and to enabling local people to do so
• adopt a positive and constructive approach towards applications to create new schools, and seek to mitigate any negative impacts of development through the use of planning conditions or planning obligations, as appropriate
• only refuse planning permission for a new school if the adverse planning impacts on the local area outweigh the desirability of establishing a school in that area. Where a local authority refuses permission on this basis, the Government will ask the Planning Inspectorate to deal swiftly with any appeal that is lodged.

 For a comment on free school consultations see: LINK

The green space that may be lost to Gladstone Free School

I thought it would be worthwhile, before tonight's consultation on the proposed Gladstone Free School,  to take a look at the proposed site on the Metropolitan Open Land next to Gladstone Park.

I spoke to Anna, a local resident and Marcia who is the site representative on Gladstone Park allotments. It was very blustery today so please excuse the sound quality. However, the pictures on their own tell the story of what might be lost: