North Brent School (Neasden Lane) planning application at Planning Committee next Wednesday

The proposed building on Neasden Lane

Chancel House

The school plan

The planning application for the new school in Neasden lane (currently, rather confusingly called North Brent School) goes to the on-line Planning Committee on Wednesday June 10th. LINK

The school will be part of the Wembley High School Academy Trust and some children are expected to travel down from the north of Brent and from Wembley High itself, as well as from Harlesden and neighbouring areas.  There has been some parental demand for a secular secondary school in the area in the past and Brent Council's pupil projections indicate the need for two more secondary schools - although that may change post-Brexit and post-Covid.

The building design looks like many of the period and there is more outdoor space than schools such as Michaela.  However, one of these spaces is a Muga (multi-use games area) on the school roof overlooking Neasden Lane.

Those familiar with the area know that Neasden Lane is one of the most polluted roads in Brent and also has heavy vehicles, including skip trucks, accessing the industrial area between the proposed school and the station.

Industrial area off Neasden Lane

Wembley Matters has already expressed concern about the proposed Ark Somerville, with a roof top playground overlooking a busy road, and this application follows a similar pattern. The question arises is why, when the Council is attempting to mitigate the impact of air pollution on existing schools, is it permitting the building of new schools on polluted roads?

The answer is partly the lack of other suitable sites and also the desire to build near transport links. There is little in the officers' report about air pollution but the Velocity Active Transport report looks at the routes to the school:

Route 1
This route connects the site to the residential areas located north of the Dudden Hill Lane / Neasden Lane roundabout. This route also connects the site to Neasden Underground Station north of the proposed development.
Clean air – According to the London Air Quality Network, this section of the carriageway fails the annual mean objective for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) air pollution indicating unacceptable air quality. This is likely due to the high volume of vehicles that travel along this main road. An investigation could be done into how the timing controls at the junction along Neasden Lane could be improved to reduce exposure to air pollution from motor vehicles. 

Route 2
This route connects the site to the residential areas located east and west of Church Road, southwest of the proposed development.
Clean air – According to the London Air Quality Network, this section of the carriageway fails the annual mean objective for NO2 air pollution indicating unacceptable air quality. This is likely due to the high volume of vehicles that travel along this main road. An investigation could be done into how the timing controls at the junction could be improved to reduce exposure to air pollution from motor vehicles. Adding some planter boxes with low level planting would also help mitigate the impact of air pollution. 

Route 3
This route connects the site to bus stops (Willesden Magistrates Court) on High Road southeast of the proposed development.
Clean air – According to the London Air Quality Network, this section of the carriageway fails the annual mean objective for NO2 air pollution indicating unacceptable air quality. This is likely due to the four signalised junctions. An investigation could be done into how the timing controls at the junction could be improved to reduce exposure to air pollution from motor vehicles. Adding some planter boxes with low level planting would also help mitigate the impact of air pollution. 

Route 4
This route connects the residential area beyond Dollis Hill underground station the east of the proposed development. This route also connects the site to the bus stop on Dudden Hill Lane (Chapter Road stop DK and DG).
Clean air – According to the London Air Quality Network, this section of carriageway fails the annual mean objective for NO2 air pollution indicating that the air quality is unacceptable. This is likely due to the high level of traffic present in this area. To further reduce air pollution, improved footway infrastructure could be introduced to encourage walking

I don't find the mitigation proposals very convincing but more worrying is not the walk to school but the exposure to pollution of both staff and pupils over a long period while in the school and its grounds.  The school building is closer to the main road than Chancel House, but the report states that these will be the 'noisy areas', with classrooms towards the back.

A proposal in original plans that 4 coaches should transport children from the north of Brent to the school in the morning and back again in the afternoon has been reduced to one after opposition from TfL and £750,000 will be paid to them to improve existing bus routes.  The 297 route is on Neasden Lane itself, 260 and 266 on Willesden High Road, and 226 and 302 on Dudden Hill Lane. Neasden Station on the Jubilee line is close by.

The proposal includes space for staff and pupil cycle parking (up to 172 for pupils)g but I challenge the planners to attempt to cycle from the Civic Centre to Chancel House and, if they survive,  report back on the experience.

Apart from the obvious positive of a brand new secondary school for Brent children, is that in an area without many mature trees, the landmark willow on the bend of Neasden Lane will be retained.

Brent academies propose new free school and special schools a new free special school

With the present government snot allowing local authorities to build new schools to meet growing demand for school places, Brent Council has said it will pursue options with academy and free school providers.

As all local secondary schools are academies it is unable to force them to expand on existing sites. Now local academies that are not part of a chain have claimed they have been backed by Brent Council in proposing a new secondary free school in the north of Brent.

Separately a consortium of special schools have forward a bid for a new special school to meet growing demand. This also claims to be backed by the Council.

In both cases a headteacher will be appointed from an existing school and will head up the new school in addition to their present post.

Both bids will have to be approved by the DfE.

The secondary proposal is for Brent North School in the north of Brent/Wembley area and is backed by Terry Molloy, headteacher of Claremont High School; Mike Hulme headteacher of Queens Park Community School and Gil Bal, Executive headteacher of Wembley High Technology College. Gil Bal would me headteacher of the new school in addition to her role at Wembley High.

The proposers have no site in mind at the moment and readers will know the difficulties various free schools have had in finding a site in Brent. A site in the north of Brent will add to the imbalance of schools between the north and the south of the borough.

Wembley already has Ark Elvin (previously Copland), Ark Academy, Michaela Free School,  Preston Manor and Wembley High with the new 1,000 plus private French School also in the area. Elsewhere in the north of the borough there is Claremont, Kingsbury High and St Gregory's RC - the only non-academy. The Jewish Free School, situated in Kingsbury, takes few pupils from Brent.

Despite not having a site the school intends to open in September 2018 with 180 places for Year 7 pupils. It promises to admit children of 'all faiths and none, giving priority to siblings and children at local primary schools'.

The proposers  justify the need for a new school on the basis that Claremont, Queens Park and Wembley High collectively received over 3000 applications for Year 7 in 2016, including almost 1,000 first preferences for the 670 available places.

This is their brochure:


The second proposal is for a new special school and is led by Woodfield Special School Academy, Manor School and the Village School. This may prove to be controversial as there are many who want to see special needs pupils integrated into mainstream schools rather than segregated into special provision. This is dependent on resourcing that ensure high quality provision.

The school would be sited at the junction of Christchurch Avenue and Brondesbury Park NW6 which is possibly the same site that Marylebone Boys Free School had their eye on. LINK

It would provide 100 places for children aged between 4 and 18 with complex needs including ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorder). The proposers say that the school is needed because the existing special schools are full.

Ms Jardine, Head of Manor School, would be headteacher of the new school in addition to her existing post.

This is their brochure:

Anger as thriving Preston Community Library faces curtailment

Preston Library campaigners went to Cabinet last night to raise concerns over the School Expansion report which will mean the Preston Library Community Hub restricting its activities to weekends from September.  The Council has decided that the former library building is needed for primary classes from Wembley High School as building work there is behind schedule.

Philip Bromberg from the campaign told the Cabinet that he was not convinced that there was no alternative buildings available (the report lists the former Anansi Nursery as available from July 2016 until July 2018 but states 'this building is no longer required').

He told the Cabinet about all the activities that are available at the Hub, including a cinema, with visitor numbers doubling. He said that the Community library was doing things that the Council had pulled out of and 'doing them very well'.  He told the Cabinet that if the Council could not succeed in cooperating with a large and successful group such as the Community Library and Hub, he could not see its strategy succeeding elsewhere.

After an optimistic letter from Cllr Mashari about joint design of the new facility in April little had happened with the promised collaborative approach and now the use by Wembley High was being discussed just 3-4 days before their licence ended, with no direct word to the Library from the Council.

A local film maker told the council about the sucecss of the cinema which had been funded with a £4000 grant from the council and had become a vital part of the local community with all showings at capacity. The grant would be a waste of money if the Library did not  continue.  He invited councillors and the governors of Wembley High School to visit the Community Hub. Campaigners were keen to establish as positive a relationship with Wembley High as they'd had with Preston Park Primary but this had not happened yet.

Michael Pavey agreed to amend the term 'pop up' used in the report about the library when a speaker said that it was a fully fledged community library with 663 visits in June.

Cllr Margaret McLennan, responding to the delegation, said the Council had always made it clear that the priority needs of the borough were school places and housing. These came ahead of the policy to bring buildings back to life. She substituted a new paragraph for one in the report which would now say that there was no prospect of disposal of the Preston library building until 2017-18 and options would be looked at for commercial or community disposal in August 2017 at the earliest.

To protests from campaigners Cllr Mashari said that she did not appreciate Philip Bromberg's claim that the council had reneged on a deal and had not responded to campaigners. She said that they had made it 'extremely clear' before the election that school places were a priority and the building had never been promised to one particular group. She concluded that the library supported 'fantastic community activities - but don't misquote us'.

Philip Bromberg asked for a right of reply to what he saw as a personal attack but Cllr Pavey refused.

Cllr Ruth Moher, lead member for Children and Families, said that places were needed so that schools had a 5% vacancy rate as required by the government. At present the soare capacity in Brent schools was only 2.3%. She was not expecting things to get any better in the near future but would eventually like to see buildings used as the community desires.

This is a relatively new requirement (I am not sure of its statutory basis) which is claimed to enhance parents' choice but also has the knock-on effect of increased pupil mobility, particularly in less popular schools, making it harder for them to improve.

Complaint lodged over councillor's alleged non-disclosure of interest in planning application

Local resident Roger Brown has lodged a Corporate Complaint with Fional Ledden, Brent Council's Legal Officer regarding Cllr Ruth Moher which may be on interest to readers aware of recent local planning controversies.

The complaint reads:

I am writing to you in line with your Corporate Complaints Policy regarding complaints about councillors.

The complaint is with regard to planning case 13/2961 (Wembley High Technology College) and her involvement with this together with her lack of disclosure with regard to being both a Governor and Company Director of W.H.T.C  - particularly with regard to the planning meeting of 12th February 2014. 

Both Mrs Moher and Mr Jim Moher are Directors and Governors of WHTC and I believe as such there was a clear breach of Brent's Constitution (and a clear conflict of interests) under the Planning Code of Practice. Their involvement in this particular case and the non disclosure of both of their interests in the register of councillors interests (Brent Council's web site shows there are no such disclosures with regard to this case). Both councillors were in fact listed as first alternates (as listed in the Public Information pack for the supplementary planning committee) and Mrs Moher was allowed to speak at length at the meeting after again failing to disclose her interests. It was pointed out by someone as she spoke that she was a Governor and should not be speaking but she was allowed to continue. In contrast Councillor Singh, a local resident, declared his interests at the start and left the room, taking no part in the meeting.

I have asked Brent Council for a copy of any recording or transcript of this meeting but was told that none existed and was sent the minutes for this meeting instead, which is a poor representation of the meeting itself. I cannot understand why you decide not to record these meeting for which the decisions play a vital part in the lives of the people they blight and affect.

If this situation had take place with an application of a private individual instead of a public body I'm sure, rightly, questions would surely be asked but because it is a council project I believe that all issues with regard to this contentious application appear to be attempted to be swept under the carpet. 

I will also be raising the matter of another WHTC planning application to the council (13/1775) for the failure to disclose information paramount to the case, therefore allowing it to pass unopposed. With this I refer to the reason for the MUGA being built being that of the subsequent planning application 13/2961 as this built upon land  occupied by the current MUGA and no residents were aware of it at this stage due to the council and schools lack of residents consultation in February 2013. The council abjectly still claims that residents were consulted but cannot state to which houses they delivered the notices to, which is frankly laughable.

I would ask to to look into this as a matter of urgency and I will also raise the matter with the Local Government Ombudsman and ask the DFE to conduct a thorough review of this case.