Stand up for Brent children's right to play - take part in this London Play survey now

 

 

I have not forgiven Muhammed Butt and co for the loss of the fabulous Stonebridge Adventure Plaground.

Just look at the video above to see what our Brent children are missing out on as a result of the Council's action in removing the grant and earmarking the site for development.

London Play are running a survey aimed mainly at people (adults and children)  living on estates, or high density housing areas to try to ascertain the changing face of our communities with reference to children’s play.

They may be in receipt of some Lottery money in order to further some of their objectives regarding getting communities more involved in children’s play.

To take part in the survey follow these links: 

 

Children and young people survey link: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/LondonPlayCYP2021

 

Adults survey link: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/LondonPlayAdults2021

UN report provides opportunity to campaign to restore children's right to play

Re-blogged with thanks from policyforplay.com

The campaign to save Stonebridge Adventure Playground

 The UN’s latest report on the UK government’s record on children’s rights includes some stringent conclusions about the abandonment of play policy. If play advocates can seize the moment, suggests Adrian Voce, it also provides the basis for a persuasive influencing campaign to restore children’s right to play as a national priority.

The concluding observations of last week’s report by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, on the UK’s recent record on children’s rights, has been welcomed by Theresa Casey, the President of the International Play Association (IPA) as ‘the strongest I’ve seen’ on children’s right to play.
This is perhaps no cause for celebration among play advocates. The CRC’s ‘concern about the withdrawal of a play policy in England and the under-funding of play’ across the UK, merely confirms what we know about the woefully inadequate, not to say destructive response of the UK government since 2010, to a human right for children that the CRC says ‘is fundamental to the quality of childhood, to children’s entitlement to optimum development, to the promotion of resilience and to the realisation of other rights’.

The Children’s Rights Alliance for England went on to observe that, since 2010, the government had in fact ‘undermined children’s rights under Article 31 …’

The dismissive approach of the Coalition and Conservative governments of David Cameron, to article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which commits states parties to support and provide for the fulfilment of the right to play, was highlighted by the independent NGO, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) last year. Its civil society report to the CRC on the UK government’s record on children’s rights pulled no punches when it came to play, saying: ‘Rest, leisure and play have been a casualty of the austerity drive. In the absence of a national play policy, many councils have disproportionately targeted play services for cuts with many long-standing services and projects closed and the land redeveloped’.

The CRAE report went on to observe that, since 2010, the government had in fact ‘undermined children’s rights under Article 31 by: abandoning a ten-year national play strategy for England with eight years still to run; cancelling all national play contracts … (and) withdrawing recognition of playwork in out-of-school care…’

Many observers of the work of the CRC over the years have been disappointed at its lack of rigour in holding governments to account for article 31, but the committee’s publication in 2013, of a general comment[1] on the ‘right to rest, leisure, play, recreational activities, cultural life and the arts’ appears to have raised the bar, further vindicating the work of Theresa and her colleagues at IPA in lobbying the UN to produce the document.

UN expects national governments to honour its obligations to ‘respect, protect and fulfil’ children’s right to play

The General Comment (GC17) on article 31 expands on government responsibilities for children’s play under the 1989 convention, urging them ‘to elaborate measures to ensure’ its full implementation. GC17 makes it clear that, in the face of increasing barriers, the UN expects national governments to honour their obligations to ‘respect, protect and fulfil’ children’s right to play by taking serious and concerted action on a range of fronts including, in particular, ‘legislation, planning and funding’. Last week’s report simply highlights what we already know: that the UK government, having been among the world leaders in national play policy before 2010, has since been in abject dereliction of this duty.

While we take no pleasure in this confirmation of the steep decline in the status and priority afforded to children’s play within national policy, we should, nevertheless, see the UNCRC’s report as both an opportunity and a reminder. The opportunity is to fashion an influencing campaign, aligned to the wider advocacy movement for children’s rights in the UK, to persuade future governments to recommit to children’s play. Unsurprisingly, the CRC is critical of the UK record on children’s rights in other areas than play. Its main recommendation is that a broad national children’s rights strategy, abandoned by the coalition government in 2010, should be ‘revised … to cover all areas of the convention and ensure its full implementation’. In England, this plan included a 10-year national play strategy. The play movement should be building links with other children’s rights advocates – who will now use the CRC’s report to put pressure on policymakers – to ensure that the right to play is properly considered in any such revision.

There has been a tendency, since the demise of the Play Strategy, in England at least, to lower our ambition for play policy

The reminder delivered by the CRC report is that children’s play is a serious, crosscutting policy issue, requiring a strategic response and high-level leadership. There has been a tendency, since the demise of the Play Strategy, in England at least, to lower our ambition for play policy. The Children’s Play Policy Forum, for example, has seemed to level its proposals at an agenda that disregards play for its own sake, relegating it to the level of an activity with only instrumental value to such existing policy areas as improving children’s health, reducing neighbourhood conflict or encouraging volunteering.

Good public play provision and playable public space can contribute to all these things of course, but the UN reminded us last week that our government has a duty to legislate, plan and budget for children’s play, first and foremost, because it is their human right. Such an approach will most likely fall on deaf ears, as does so much else with this government, committed as it is to relentlessly scaling back public services and privatising the public realm. Our duty in this case is to point out its failure, and to cultivate support from policymakers outside the government.

An All Party Parliamentary Group, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, the Children’s Commissioner for England, the Leader of the Opposition and now the United Nations have all recently called for a higher priority to be afforded to children’s play by our local and national governments – many of them urging the UK government to emulate that of Wales in adopting a play sufficiency duty on local authorities.

The Play England board earlier this year sanctioned an open, independent debate about its future role and purpose. Sadly, it seems to no longer have the resources even to manage its own consultations; but if it only does one thing between now and the next general election, this must surely be to cultivate and capitalise on such support in high places and coordinate a cohesive, sustained influencing campaign for play to be once again afforded the status it needs within government policy.

Adrian Voce
[1] A UN General Comment is defined as ‘the interpretation of the provisions of (its) respective human rights treaty’ by its treaty bodies. In other words, it is the UN ’s own interpretation of how nation states should meet their obligations under international law.

Disabled children miss out on play opportunities - call for action

Last year Brent Council removed the funding from Stonebridge Adventure Playground and demolished it.  The playground had been the site of integrated play facilities for disabled and non-disabled children.

This report makes the case for play.

A report by the national deafblind charity, Sense, reveals the severe restrictions facing disabled children in accessing play. The report identifies failings at every level that result in disabled children missing out on play opportunities that are vital to their emotional, social and physical  development. A lack of attention by government, insufficient funding at a local level and negative attitudes towards disabled children and their families are all barriers highlighted in the report.

The report calls for urgent action to address these inequalities and to enable the Prime Minister to deliver on his recent call to improve the “life chances” of all children.
 
The report follows a three month public inquiry into the provision of play opportunities for disabled children aged 0-5 with multiple needs in England and Wales. Chaired by former Secretary of State for Education and Employment, Lord Blunkett, the inquiry was established in response to parents’ concern that they had fewer opportunities to access play services and settings than families with non-disabled children.

Chair of the Play Inquiry, Lord Blunkett, said:

We know that play is vitally important for children with multiple needs and their families, bringing a wide range of developmental and emotional benefits. However, our inquiry found that all too often the parents of children with multiple-needs point to barriers they face in accessing and enjoying play. It means that disabled children don’t have the same chance to form friendships, and parents are prevented from taking a break from caring. Both disabled children and their parents are excluded from their own communities.
 
I know that there is strong support across the political spectrum for addressing the findings of this report, and I look forward to working with colleagues from all parties to achieve real change for parents and families across the nation.

 Key findings from the report:

92% of parents felt that their child did not have the same opportunities to play as their non-disabled peers, and 81% of parents reported difficulties in accessing mainstream play groups and local play opportunities.

·         51% of children had been turned away from play settings by providers, failing to meet their legal duties under the Equality Act 2010.

·         95% of parents said that parents of children with multiple-needs require support to find ways to play with their children.

Majority of parents had experienced negative attitudes towards their child from other parents and most considered this to be the most significant barrier to accessing mainstream play.

·         40% of parents said that additional financial costs was a major barrier to accessing play opportunities

63% of parents said they didn’t have enough information on accessible play opportunities in their area, and word of mouth is commonly used in place of official sources of information.

Families feel there is a lack of specialist support that can be accessed locally, and many make long journeys to access play settings.

There is a lack of strategic approach to funding play for children with multiple needs at local and national levels across England, with no notional funding for special educational needs and provision in the early years


Key recommendations from the report:

National policy:

·         Greater investment in play as part of early years funding to support play in the home and in mainstream services.

·         Developmental play services such as Portage should become a statutory service for disabled children under the age of two, with an increased emphasis on children with multiple needs.

·         Play should be a key strand of the Government’s policy on parenting and should be an explicit part of government-funded parenting classes.

·         The Equality and Human Rights Commission should investigate the exclusion of children with multiple needs from mainstream play settings, and take action to enforce the Equality Act 2010.


Local policy:

·         Local authorities should be required to take action, as necessary, against settings which intentionally exclude disabled children and fail to meet their legal duties under the Equality Act 2010.

·         Local authorities should take a lead on increasing awareness and understanding of the general public and other parents about disabled children. This could be centrally funded but locally delivered.

·         Local authorities should consider whether there could be a modest retraining of existing health professionals to enable them to provide the support needed to help families of children with multiple needs to play.

·         Local authorities should provide easily-accessible information for parents to help them to find out about existing play and support services.

Play settings:

Settings should ensure that play staff have received training on disability to help improve the way they support children and families.  This should include responding to medical needs and communicating with children with specialist communication needs.  The training should also enable them to create an environment and ethos which is inclusive and developmentally appropriate.

·         Every play setting should have a play policy statement which stresses the inclusion of every child.

·         Settings should plan carefully prior to the admission of every child in order to ensure their needs are met and that they will be welcomed and understood by other parents and their children.

·         Voluntary sector organisations should do more to share their significant experience of supporting children with specific impairments and multiple needs with public and private play settings.  This could include offering training and toolkits on inclusive play.


Sense Deputy CEO, Richard Kramer, said:

Play is critical in giving children the best start in life and improving outcomes for children and their families. The report makes clear, however, that where a child has multiple needs, the barriers they face to accessing play settings and activities are also multiplied. We hope that local and national policymakers, as well as play professionals, reflect on today’s recommendations, and make the necessary changes that will make access to play a reality for all children.

Sense will use the inquiry findings to campaign for changes to the way play services are designed and delivered. They plan to produce a series of toolkits for parents, providers and commissioners of play.

The full report can be downloaded at: www.sense.org.uk/play

Sadiq Khan exposes Mo Butt's short-sightedness

Muhammed Butt retweeted Sadiq Khan, Labour candidate for Mayor on New Year's Eve,  not realising perhaps that in his Independent article Khan advocated exactly the sort of playground that Cllr Butt had bull-dozed in Stonebridge.

Khan's position chimes with Save Stonebridge campaign's argument that the playground brought the community together, aided social cohesion and reduced crime.

Brent Council finds request for information on the Stonebridge Playground betrayal 'extremely burdensome'

As we have heard this week the Government wants to get rid of the Freedom of Information Act, although they haven't quite said it so bluntly.

As far as Brent Council is concerned is seems they have already adopted their own Obfuscation of Information Act.

Glynis Lee, puzzled over the sudden change of policy by Brent Council in Summer 2014 - at a first meeting Brent Council officers informed the Brent Play Association that the Stonebridge Adventure Playground was to be rebuilt, with a new building and perhaps slightly less land but then, at the next meeting, told them they would be closed.  An excited architect named Fred Eastman of South Stuio Architects had shown them his plans for the Playground at the first meeting.

At the same time Brent Council decided to end funding for the Playground.  Their own consultation report later admitted that 80% of consultation respondents wanted to keep the playground, but this was followed by Cllr Ruth Moher stating at a Cabinet meeting that 'you can get anyone to sign a petition'.

Wanting to unravel all this Glynis had put in a Freedom of Information request that the Council refused to answer. She then asked for a review and this was the response.

Note the promised reply by  12th May 2015.  In fact it did not come until July 8th and had been apparently arbitrarily changed from an FoI request to an Environmental Information Regulations request.

This is Fiona Alderman's reply:

--> Dear Ms. Lee

Thank you for your request for a review received on 13 April 2015.

Your information request
Environmental Information Regulations 2004

I refer to your request received on 13 April 2015 for a review of the
council’s decision to refuse your request for information relating, in
broad terms, to the Stonebridge Park redevelopment from 16 September 2013
to date. Please accept my apologises for the delay in conducting the
review.

As part of my review I have considered your original request for
information received on 9 March 2015 which was in the following terms:

“All correspondence, reports, minutes, letters and proposals which relate
to the redevelopment of Stonebridge, the expansion of Stonebridge primary
school, the removal of the Welsh School and the closure of Stonebridge
Adventure Playground. This information would be with specific reference to
all of the above between the Brent’s Asset management department, Children
and Young people department, and department of Regeneration and growth.
Information including reports and plans from South Studio Architects to
also be included, and all communication between council officers, and
councillors which pertains to any or all of the above”.

I have also considered the council’s response to your request dated 8
April 2015.

The response stated that your request is being handled under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004 (EIR) and that with one exception your request was
refused because it exceeded the statutory cost limit of £450 (or 18 hours)
as set out in section 12 of FOIA.

The response referred to the diffuse nature of your request, its breadth,
the shear volume of the potential information that might be in scope, the
hundreds of officers across the council and other individuals who may hold
the information you have requested, the difficulties in determining with a
reasonable degree of certainty the information the council actually holds
and the council officers and other individuals who actually hold it (i.e.
the difficulty in locating the information) and the inordinate amount of
time and the excessive and wholly disproportionate amount of resource and
money complying with your request (including retrieving and extracting the
relevant information) would demand.

I also note that you were invited to narrow or refine the scope of your
request.

A link, however, was included in the response for ease of accessing the
report to Cabinet on the council’s re-development proposals for
Stonebridge Park which is a public document and was already published on
the council’s website.

Against that background, I now set out the outcome of my review.

As your request was for information relating to redevelopment proposals,
it constituted ‘environmental information’ for the purposes of EIR.
According to EIR, environmental information includes any information on,
amongst other things, the state of land and plans and activities affecting
or likely to affect the state of land. Your request therefore should have
been considered under EIR and not FOIA and, as a consequence, the refusal
of your request did not comply with the requirements of EIR.

Under EIR, the council can refuse to disclose environmental information if
an exception applies and, in all the circumstances of the case, the public
interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in
disclosing the information. There is, however, a presumption in favour of
disclosure. Although, unlike FOIA, EIR do not contain an express
cost-limit, the council can refuse to disclose information to the extent
that the request is “manifestly unreasonable”. Further, according to FOI
case law, the costs of compliance can be taken into account under both
regimes.

In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is necessary to refuse
your request to protect the resources of the council from being squandered
on disproportionate use of EIR. I am also satisfied that there is no
adequate or proper justification for your request and that it is not aimed
at the disclosure of important information which ought to be made publicly
available.

In this regard, I note in particular that key decisions about the
Stonebridge Park redevelopment proposals have been made by councillors in
open and public meetings and that important information, such as Cabinet
reports and associated documents, are already freely available. Also of
particular note is the extensive and widely advertised consultation that
was undertaken to seek the views of residents and other local stakeholders
about the redevelopment proposals which included creating a website
setting out consultation information with an on-line response portal and
face to face consultation events. The consultation also received
considerable local press coverage.

Finally, as the redevelopment proposals have education, planning and
procurement implications, the attendant statutory controls bearing upon
the council ensure that its decision making is open and transparent and
that there are opportunities for public participation and for the council
to be held to account.

As the availability of the manifestly unreasonable exception is subject to
the public interest test, I have also considered the benefits of
disclosure. The disclosure of yet further information would be in the
interests of openness and transparency. Providing access to information
can assist in holding public authorities to account and encourage greater
public participation in the exercise by public authorities of their public
functions.

On the facts of this case, however, I have no doubt that for the reasons
given in the previous refusal of your request and the reasons I have
given, the public interest in disclosing the information you have
requested is outweighed by the public interest in withholding the
information. In deciding how much value there would be in attempting to
comply with your request I have also had regard to the fact that at least
some (if not most) of the information is likely to fall within available
exceptions under EIR which the council could and would rely upon to
justify a refusal of your request.

Thus, for all the reasons I have summarised in this decision notice, as
your request is extremely burdensome and costly, would require an
unreasonable diversion of finite resources from the provision of valuable
services and is of no public value, it is in my opinion manifestly
unreasonable.

Hence, although your request should have been dealt with under EIR, and
not FOIA, to all intents and purposes, very similar considerations apply
and the outcome is the same.




In conclusion, therefore, I have upheld your complaint in part because it
was dealt with under FOIA, and refused under section 14 of that Act, and
not under EIR. Ultimately, however, I have upheld the decision to refuse
your request because it is manifestly unreasonable and the public interest
favours withholding the disclosure of the information.

If you are not content with the outcome of my review, you have the right
to complain directly to the Information Commissioner. The Information
Commissioner can be contacted at:

The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow,



Glynis would appreciate a translation of the above into English so that she can inform the children of Stonebridge, badly missing their playground as the summer holidays begin, of the Council's position. Can anyone help?

Incidentally the School expansion document going before the Cabinet on Monday notes (regarding the Stonebridge Day Centre currently hosuing Stonebridge Primary classes) and the Preston Library site:

It should be noted that of the above sites, the former Preston Road Library and the former Stonebridge Day Centre are both included in the Capital Disposals Programme for 2016/17 with forecast receipts of £700k and £1.5m respectively estimated for Quarter 4.

 

Child's Play? Investing in the young despite austerity

This guest blog by Andrew Ross, which he has adapted from his LGiU briefing to local authority members and officers, succinctly sets out some of the arguments for maintaining play provision in the face of pressure for further cuts. Wembley Matters publishes it with permission from the author and Policy for Play LINK.  It is of particular interest following the decision of Brent Council to close Stonebridge Adventure Playground.

Readers of this blog will be acutely aware of the threats to playgrounds and to play services. The London Play & Youth Work Campaign has come out fighting, warning the new government that it must:

‘recognise the profound value of play and youth work to society. If not, then be warned: cutting us will not be an easy ride.’

It’s not as if this ‘profound value’ is a secret. I recently wrote a briefing for local authority members of the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU), an organisation that aims to improve local democracy. I pulled together the findings from two recent reviews that caution local councils against cutting money for play because of the many wider benefits that play services bring. The first was by the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on a Fit and Healthy Childhood. Adrian Voce has written about the APPG approach, set out in its first paper, Healthy Patterns for Healthy Families; and about its forthcoming play review, expected later this summer.

The other – The Play Return – was commissioned by the Children’s Play Policy Forum and written by Tim Gill. Tim cites the many developmental benefits for children of play. But he also points out that play could be a prudent investment for other reasons too. Play initiatives:

• encourage volunteering and community cohesion: the review illustrates a number of examples of where this has happened, including Playing Out schemes
• reduce antisocial behaviour and vandalism: Thames Valley Police have reported that installing youth facilities in Banbury led to a 25 per cent drop in the cost of repairs to children’s play equipment
• reduce obesity: one study has found that children with a playground in a local park are ‘almost five times more likely to be classified as being of a healthy weight rather than at risk of being overweight’ than those without playgrounds in their nearby park
• create healthier places: providing enticing outdoor play spaces can make a trip to the local park more inviting for children and their carers, and is one way of making it easier for people to maintain good health
• reduce inequalities: public parks are – or should be – free to use, and are places where any child can play regardless of their family’s income.
•  

It’s tempting to think that the arguments speak for themselves. But local authorities are under enormous pressure to cut budgets. For example, government figures show that council spending on open spaces (excluding national parks) fell by 14 per cent, or almost £15.5 million between 2009-10 and 2013-14. In practice, that means councils have already reduced funding on maintaining parks, adventure playgrounds, sports fields and a whole range of services that go on in them.

How can they be persuaded to keep spending on play? I think elected members need to be reminded constantly of how increasing the opportunities for play can help create the sorts of communities that councils are elected to deliver, even as budgets continue to decline: places that are attractive to live in, safe, connected and where everyone feels like they have a stake in the local area.

This means making spending on play part of something bigger. One example is Knowsley Council’s Green Space Strategy (2015-2020). It acknowledges the many benefits of providing outdoor play spaces, but recognises that funding to maintain and develop these is under threat. The strategy focuses on what the council can influence:

• Leadership: this starts with the council and elected members but should draw in people from public, private and social enterprise sectors (which could include representatives from the play sector)
• Achieving more with partners: including local communities, but also working with other stakeholders to create new management partnerships (again, the play sector could have an influential role here)
• Establishing a compelling business case for investing in green space assets: Knowsley believes that its future economic resilience and competitiveness ‘will be strongly influenced’ by the overall quality of its parks and green spaces
• Securing funding and investment: Knowsley is developing a needs-based approach that will allow it to assess how best to continue to invest in green spaces and services
• Identifying alternative delivery models: these are likely to include private funding, support from the community and voluntary sectors, generating more income from uses of the green spaces, and fund-raising/sponsorship.

As for what limited spending there will be on play specifically, what might be the biggest wins for any investment? The former director of Play England Cath Prisk writes that:

 ‘The onus will be on local providers, schools and councils to make the case that is right for them to increase or sustain investment in most provision.’

She suggests three possibilities:

• Street Play (championed by the Bristol-based Playing Out), where streets are closed regularly so children can play – this achieves multiple objectives of play, physical activity, and community cohesion – ‘not free, but certainly not a huge expense’
• Encouraging head teachers to use some of the pupil premium and protected school funding to invest in spaces to play because of the evidence that play and outdoor activity improves attainment (most particularly for this funding in reading and maths)
• More outdoor nurseries utilising existing quality outdoor spaces following the government’s commitment to double the free childcare allowance for three- and four-year-olds in England.
•  

I’d be really interested to know how well the local authority in your area understands how play connects to some of the wider arguments about creating decent places to live, and whether that is reflected in their spending plans! Feel free to leave me a comment below, or tweet me at @andrew_ross_uk.

This blog was written by Andrew Ross, a freelance writer, researcher and facilitator specialising in urban places, andrew@fdconsult.co.uk. It is an abridged version of an LGiU briefing, available to members only. For more information, or to subscribe, visit www.lgiu.org.uk/briefings

Complacency at Cabinet as controversy swept under the carpet

Preston Community Library representatives spoke at Cabinet tonight on the issue of Brent Council's new Property and Asset Strategy.   They were concerned that the community library they now have up and running in the building, which provides many services to the local community apart from lending books,  should not be affected by the strategy which states:

Fundamentally the strategy moves away from a presumption to dispose outright of property towards one of retaining and acquiring assets with a view to maximising revenue potential.

Muhammed Butt, leader of the council said that the  council also recognised the importance of social value of property, rather than just monetary value.

Several Cabinet members praised the campaign which had been promised the Preston library building at a peppercorn rent.  However Cllr Moher indicated that discussions were taking place on the use of part of the building to provide additional school places.

Clearly there will be some difficult decisions when weighing up any conflict between monetary and social values in a period of budgetary cuts.

Ex councillor James Powney wrote on his blog:

The new strategy has two apparently contradictory aims.  One is to maximise value through renting property.  The second is maximise "social value" through renting below market rates to worthy causes.  Of course this all takes place in an environment where the Council's income from fees & charges, Council Tax and government grant will all be in decline.  Inevitably, this locks Brent Council into cutting public services to the maximum extent possible, which I suspect is not a policy that the majority of those who voted in May 2014 would support (although it is very much what the newly elected Tory government supports).

There are likely to be a number of Community Asset Transfers with voluntary organisations running services from former Brent buildings. 

Cabinet approved the Strategy Report's recommendations which Cllr Pavey claimed marked a 'massive' change in Council policy - but he does tend to suffer from superlative inflation.

They went on to approve authority to tender for a Direct Payments Service contract for adult and children's social care. Cllr Hirani argued that this would enable better working conditions and wages as it would do away with the profit requirement of agency providers.

The Council is expecting an increase of 400 people on Direct Payments over the next three years, a total of 1,127.

Cabinet approved the award of the Local HealthWatch Service contract to CommUNITY Barnet, Cllr Pavey remarked that the current HealthWatch has been well-intentioned but ineffective. It had not been successful in getting community engagement and representing patients.

There were similar remarks about the youth service when the Cabinet discussed the £1m cut it is making which will result in further demands on the voluntary and faith sectors.  In answer to Cllr Mashari who asked if this represented a move away from a universal youth service, Cllr Ruth Moher said she doubted if Brent had such a service at present and that the present service was not coherent, it had developed rather than was planned.  She remarked that that there was no point in providing a service if what it provided was not what young people wanted, so they would be consulted. She went on to say that the Coucil had never done a proper mapping of the services that were already offered acxross the borough by the council, voluntary organisations and faith groups.

Cllr Moher referred to the paragraph about the dangers for the Roundwood Centre if the strategy was not successful. Cllr Mashari said that there were many groups just waiting to get into the centre and she looked forward to it being better used and more dynamic.

There seemed little recognition of what could be read between the lines of the report and was pixcked up by the Kilburn Times - this could mark the end of youth provision in Brent.

I was shocked that there was no delegation at the council from the youth service or its users,  or the Youth Parliament which is, after all, supposed to represent young people.  Cabinet were told that their had been a question from the former chair of Brent Youth Parliament asking what a youth worker attached to the BYP would actually do - the answer was value to say the least.  However, the BYP, kept on at a cost of £60,000 may have to watch out as Cllr Moher said that they would be looking at 'different ways' of delivering that service.

Ruth Moher also presented the report on the Expansion of Stonebridge School and was equally complacent saying that most of the respondents to the consultation had been concerned about the future of Stonebridge Adventure Playground, swallowed up by the school expansion and accompanying regeneration. Referring to the 700 letters  received against the proposal she said that these had all been the same so didn't mean much and went on to say, about a 1,000 plus petition calling for the saving of the adventure playground, 'as we know you can get anyone to sign a petition.

Dear reader, I was moved to protest at this disparagement from a councillor who had never once visited the playground!

Cllr Pavey then jumped in to tell us all how big schools were great (he is chair of governors at the BIG Wembley Primary), the bigger the better ('massive' 'bigger the better' - is there a theme emerging here?) and suggested that Quintain with its BIG profits could be persuaded to add another form of entry or two at its proposed primary school.

Cllr Butt followed this with his usual statement. The provision of school places was a statutory responsibility and the Council owes it to residents and children to provide places: 'We will not shy away from making difficult decisions'.

So, we have to admire Brent Council for making the 'difficult' decision to close a children's playground, even though it, as well as the school,  served families and children in one of the poorest parts of London. Campaigners were never persuaded that the Council had considered the possibility of an alternative design for the  expansion of the school that kept the playground or had even tried to find it an alternative site.

And wasn't Stonebridge Adventure Playground a community asset?

The meeting concluded with a refreshingly eloquent presentation by Cllr Eleanor Southwood, the new lead member for the environment. It was not about her portfolio but a report from a Scrutiny Committee task group that she led on the pupil premium and how it is used in Brent schools.

Cllr Southwood  said that the group had looked at case studies and talked to pupils not just about the impact on attainment but on enjoyment of school and the broadening of horizons.

The good practice described in the report will be shared with the Brent Schools Partnership.

Stonebridge Adventure Playground: what has been lost (or stolen from us)

I thought this 'Tribute to the children'posted yesterday on the Stonebridge Adventure Playground Facebook site LINK deserved a wider audience.

It shows just what has been lost by Brent Council's thoughtless closure of a unique facility. 

Brent install 24 hour security as they take over the Stonebridge Adventure Playground buildings and land which they intend to destroy

Brent Play Association handed over the keys of Stonebridge Adventure Playground to Brent Council this morning, but not before they had secured the Head of Assets signature on the handover document.

The BPA were told that Brent Council were installing 24 security cover in the playground. I wonder how much that will cost - and what are they afraid of? 

Protecting something they will destroy seems to be the ultimate irony...

Brent Labour Council should hang its head in shame as Stonebridge Adventure Playground closes

I visited Stonebridge Adventure Playground  yesterday for their last major children's event - an Easter Egg Hunt. Caught up in the excitement of the hunt children soon forgot about the imminent closure - indeed many children had thought that the playground was already closed on this the first day of the school Easter holiday.

The adults present were all too aware that this was the end of an era.  Salvageable equipment had been transported  from the playground building into safe storage. The outdoor play equipmentcannot be moved as the legs, embedded in concrete, would have to be cut off at ground level.

Brent Council served the playground a double whammy:  1) closure to allow Stonebridge Primary School to be expanded and housing built on the school's present annexe. The land sale will pay for the school expansion. 2) stop funding of the playground so even if the application to expand the school failed the playground would still not survive.

To add insult to injury the Coucil asked the playground workers to carry on working for nothing during the Easter and Summer holidays.

The consultation on the school expansion ends on Thursday March 2nd, two days after the playground funding stops. To comment go to LINK

The playground serves the children of Stonebridge and Harlesden, some of the most disadvantaged in Brent. The children in the new developments being built in the area will not only need school places but a safe, supervised place to play. The Council has deprived them and the present population of that.

Median income of Brent wards 2014

 Stonebridge ethnicity compared with Brent (2011 census)

Age and gender compared wit Brent (2011 census)

The 2011 census results showed that 32.1% of the Stonebridge population were under 18 compared with 22.6% of the whole borough.

The Stonebridge School Annexe. This will be demolished and the children moved into the expanded main school. The net increase in capacity of Stonebridge School as a whole will be incraesed by only 30 pupils. Houses will be built on the Annexe site.  Substantial investment has been made to make the Annexe suitable for educating children.

New housing is going up opposite Stonebridge School and the adventure playground, eventually making a continuous run of housing on both sides of the road.  The green space below and the trees are threatened by the new development. They originally provided screening from the busy main road for the school.

The empty interior of the playground building, soon to be bulldozed

Children left their signatures and messages on the piano as a farewell to the playground

On a personal note I'd like to pay tribute to Doug and Glynis Lee, the amazing playworkers and all those who fought so hard to keep Stonebridge Adventure Playground open. You are an example to all who care about their community.

 

Tributes and tears as Stonebridge Adventure Playground closes

The closure of Stonebridge Adventure Playground as a result of a heartless double whammy by Brent Council (demolition to make way for school expansion financed by sale of land for house building plus withdrawal of funding) continues to reverberate around the Stonebridge community.

There have been tears from children and adults as equipment is moved out ahead of total closure at the end of the month.

The 'Stonebridge Adventure Playground  Must Stay For Ever' Facebook has received many messages of support and regret amidst tributes to Doug and Glynis Lee.

This one posted by  Robert 'Becks' Beckles speaks for many:

It's with sadness that I'm writing this, I've recently found out that the STONEBRIDGE ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND will close its doors for the final time at the end of March 2015, now to a lot of people reading this it won't mean much, but for me even at my age now, this place represents some of the best childhood memories that any young person could wish for.

Staff who were friendly, approachable, professional and made sure that the young people in their care were kept safe at all times. 

Trips like Chessington, Margate, Boxhill all for 50p!, events such as Bonfire and Halloween parties, celeb's such as Lenny Henry, Marvin Hagler, Audley Harrison and the late Jeremy Beadle (R.I.P), have all passed through the doors of Stonebridge Adventure. Playing arcade games, play fighting on the inflatable, playing on the Nintendo NES, stuffing our faces with toasted cheese sandwiches and chips or having chip butties, jam on toast or putting 2 straws in our tip-top drinks!, all added and helped make the adventure playground the best provision for young people EVER!!

So to Douglas Lee Glynis Lee Patrick Coley Everette Junior Colin Hunter Charlie Boots (Richard), Barry, Steve, Yvonne, Yasmin, Ian, Dave, Jennifer Parris-Buckley Carmen Williams, Joel and Ieisha WE THANK YOU!! Bless

Julyann Pusey wrote:

Big tribute to Glyn and Doug. Passion, tenderness, devotion, loyalty, love of people. They fought the fight from beginning to end and still they fight.....Stonebridge has lost two great soldiers. Side by side they fought Brent council. With their knowledge; wisdom and passion they made heads turn in Brent. They exposed the government for the people they really are!!.

No 'even playing field' when it comes to the Welsh School's bowling pavilion planning application

Tonight's Planning Committee will decide on the planning application from the London Welsh School to take over the Bowling Green Pavilion and build an adjacent single storey classroom in King Edward VII Park. The application is supported by planning officers and the Council has gone to considerable lengths in smoothing the application's passage, even to the extent of putting S106 money aside for landscaping of the bowling green which is next to the proposed school.

This is in stark contrast to the obstructiveness of the council regarding Stonebridge Adventure Playground which is also due to be displaced from the Stonebridge site to make room for the expansion of Stonebridge Primary School and the building of new houses. They have been offered no help at all to find a new site and Cllr McLellan  made an untrue statement to the local paper suggesting that the Playground had refused an alternative site.

It is not to disparage the Welsh School, which I admire, to point out that it has 30 pupils whilst hundreds of Stonebridge and Harlesden children from many schools, use the Adventure Playground particularly at holiday times and weekends when other facilities are not open.

The motivation behind this is a mystery to me.

At the same time it is worth considering the precedent of giving an approval to the building of a school in the park, albeit a small one, when there are extant free school proposals elsewhere in the borough, one of which, Gladstone, proposed to building on playing fields next to Gladstone Park.

Looking at the papers for tonight it appears that the officers' despite being reminded of the Qiueen Elizabath II Fields in Trust Agreement LINK have not fully informed committee members of the content of the  agreement it. Instead they have merely stated that negotiations about that would be a separate process. They do not warn the Committee that in addition to the S106 costs of landscaping the bowling green that Fields In Trust may seek financial investment from the Council in the remainder of the park.

The Trust said:

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."

60 local residents have indicated to the Council that they would be interested in resurrecting the Bowling Club but the Council gets round that by saying that they are prepared to subsidise existing clubs but not a new one.

Can you talk about 'even playing fields' regarding bowling?

Suggestions that Collins Lodge could become a school building, initially claimed to be unsuitable, are now answered with the statement that the Council wants to retain the currently empty Lodge as a possible cafe/toilets in the future. The barely used dilapidated space next to the Lodge is claimed to be needed by Veolia.

The Friends of King Eddie's Park petition has been signed by all three Preston Ward Labour councillors, Sam Stopp (Wembley Central), Cllr Wilhemena Mitchelll-Murray (Wembley Central) and Ernest Ezeajughi (Stonebridge).

The application is the first item on the Agenda after formalities. The meeting begins at 7pm at the Civic Centre  (Conference Hall).

Cllr Butt urged to 'be a real inspiration and turn the tide' following Stonebridge decision

Letter to Councillor Butt posted on Malcom Boyle's Facebook Page and shared on Brent Fightback

Dear Cllr Butt

I am writing to register my dismay at Brent Council's appalling decision to close Stonebridge adventure playground. I don't even need to enunciate the harm you and your fellow councillors have done to the childhood prospects of every child growing up in that area. Play is what builds childhood intelligence in the early years above all else, and it helps build communities. To choose the easy temptation of more money from development over preserving the quality of life of local children demonstrates that Brent Labour Councillors have abandoned both the principles of the Labour Party and the responsibility of local government.

I shall not be voting Labour at the next council election and will be advising all my friends and colleagues to vote Green. I have always traditionally voted Labour and should you and your fellows decide to support the community over this after all I will happily vote for you.

I was also dismayed at the state of the flower garden in Gladstone Park this weekend. It appears to be neglected and growing wild. The next step will be it becoming a venue for those with substance issues and could well even see the linked issue of teenage prostitution. I can only assume a cut has been made to gardening services.

I entreat you to resist these government cuts as Labour Councils nobly did in the 80s. You have an opportunity to be a real inspiration here and turn the tide. Don't waste it.

Regards

Malcolm Boyle