Learn more about Fairtrade, February 25th, Brent Civic Centre

This year Brent Council is marking Fairtrade Fortnight by hosting a training session on Fairtrade, the system that enables people shopping in the UK to ensure fair incomes and decent working conditions for producers of commodities such as coffee, sugar, fruit and cotton. The purpose of the training is for participants to learn more about Fairtrade and to be equipped with information and skills to promote Fairtrade. There is no commitment involved in attending the training but those who wish to do so will qualify as Fairtrade Ambassadors to promote Fairtrade in the local community. 

The training will involve listening to and discussing presentations and taking part in group exercises that explore questions that people often ask about Fairtrade. It will be led by Peter Moore of Brent Fairtrade Network at the Civic Centre on Wednesday 25 February, 7-9 pm. The training is open to everyone over the age of 18 who lives or works in Brent and will be informal, enjoyable – and free. Places are limited to 10 people so please contact Peter soon on p.moore883@ntlworld.com if you are interested in taking part or want to know more

West Hendon Public Inquiry hears comprehensive account of mistreatment of tenants

Paulette Singer, former community organiser on the West Hendon Estate, got a warm round of applause for this statement that she read out at the Public Inquiry yesterday evening:

1) I am writing this letter in objection to the Compulsory Purchase Order as the former Community Organiser on the West Hendon estate and ongoing supporter of the residents group ‘Our West Hendon’.

2) I spent a year and a half working on the West Hendon estate up until November 2014. My role, paid for by central government as part of the Community Organisers Programme was ‘building relationships in communities to activate people and create social and political change through collective action’.

3) Part of my work involved taking on volunteers from within the community whose role was to assist with the door-to-door listening process. In March last year a group of these residents formed ‘Our West Hendon’ in a attempt to both campaign about the perceived unfair treatment residents were experiencing through the regeneration process and also in order for them to have a support group in place to deal with individual housing cases. Along with several volunteers I listened to over 300 people across the estate and in the local area.

Copland: Did Premature Ejaculation Rule Out Final Ofsted Visit?

Guest blog by ‘Pamela Stephenson-Connolly’

For those who like closure in their stories these are frustrating times. With only 2 weeks of the school year left it has been announced that, due to illness, Copland’s final Ofsted inspection visit will not now take place. This will mean that the HMI’s  written report of the visit may have to be put back on the shelf for a while. This is quite unnecessary, however, as the 3 reports published after earlier visits this year indicated that the actual inspections had little influence on the final reports,  the content and assertions of which were overwhelmingly determined by the DfE/Ofsted’s pre-written narrative of which the reports simply formed a  part. LINK to http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/copland-is-getting-goves-reverse-trojan_11.html 

The nature of the narrative arc was set in the first Ofsted report this year (‘the interim headteacher and associate headteacher and very strong governance of the IEB are driving change well’) and it soon became clear that the reports’ principle purpose was to portray  the ‘saving’ of a school by Gove, his ‘useful idiots’ Pavey, Marshall, John, Price and the rest of the IEB, through  forced academisation, ‘tough’ but necessary action, (60 staff and half the curriculum axed), and finally the salvation that would be The Ark Rescue (and thence onward ultimately to privatisation). The report on the final inspection, now postponed, would have provided the climactic instalment.

There are some, however, who are sceptical about the official reasons given for the cancellation of the inspection and support their case by reference to the tone of fevered over-excitement in the last report in March  ( ‘We can see hope now.’ This new-found optimism is palpable!’ etc). These sceptics contend that this March report in fact read more like the climax (‘richer quality of learning…yes!…rigour…yes!…challenge…yes!…more this, more that…...yes yes!…  more rigour still….   yes yes!….best practice…yes yes yes!………..cutting edge……more more more! …….yes yes yes! …ooooohhh ……’ etc)   and that the inspectors reached this climax too early. In a kind of Ofsted premature ejaculation they came too soon to what they should have delayed until later, ie the final triumphant inspection report written to justify the whole year’s evisceration of the school, its curriculum, its staff and its soul. The inability to defer gratification left Ofsted with nothing left in the tank for the final report, hence the cancellation.

The rumour surrounding this theory now joins a litany of other half-believed stories which have circulated in recent months at the school. Here’s a sample.

Rumour 1.    Subject: No Ofsted Inspection (Alternative explanation 1)

According to this one, after the Trojan Horse fiasco, nobody believes Ofsted anymore and Copland’s new owners, Ark,  didn’t want their new property tainted by association. Ark wide-boy and Tory party contributor Lord Fink had a word with Cameron who told Gove, ‘No inspection or I’ll unleash Theresa May on you and you stay on the naughty step for another month’.   ‘Sorted, Dave’, was apparently Gove’s reply.

Rumour 2.     Subject: New School House Names

Apparently, the Ark functionary who decided to impose the name Harold M.Elvin Academy on the new school is determined to continue this theme in other areas. Accordingly, the new school house names are to be similarly influenced by stars of 1970s Philly Soul and will be called

Delphonics, Stylistics, O’Jays, Spinners, Trammps, Sweet Sensations

Plans to change the boys’ school uniform to wide-lapelled velvet jackets, flares and platform shoes with contrast laces and to adopt ‘Betcha By Golly Wow’ as the school motto were considered a step too far, however.  

 (The proposal for ‘Backstabbers’ to be the Leadership Team Motivational Song for the new Ark era was nevertheless accepted unanimously).

Rumour 3.   Subject: No Ofsted Inspection (Alternative Explanation 2) 

 

This rumour claimed that the final Ofsted inspection would, in fact, still take place and it would be on Thursday 10^th July when almost all the staff would be on strike and the school would be closed to students. An inspection of an empty school would achieve 2 objectives. Firstly, the incidence of pupil misbehaviour would be substantially less. (The March Ofsted report’s claims that ‘behaviour is much improved and the school is a more respectful place…’  were laughed at by staff who know the reality. ‘The worst it’s ever been’ was what I was told by one experienced teacher in a position to know and with no axe to grind. Hardly surprising when support staff, student supervisors and an entire mentoring department have been scrapped this year and the remaining hard-pressed staff regularly receive messages asking them to help out ‘as we are rather understaffed today’. No kidding!).

The second reason to visit on a strike day would be so that the HMI could see at first hand one great growth area at Copland which is a direct result of the IEB/Marshall regime. Up until last September Copland’s annual loss of teaching days through strike action averaged less than 1 day per year. This year, since the imposition of IEB/Marshall, that figure has improved by about 800% year on year. Having shot their bolt over teaching and learning standards in the March report, Ofsted could have at last begun to retumesce on this one great sign of progress. ( ‘We can see solidarity now. The new-found disillusionment and militancy is palpable!’). It would have made enjoyable reading.

Copland will close next Wednesday and that’s not a rumour. None of the staff forced out over the last year have received any kind of recognition from IEB/Marshall: no leaving ceremonies, no presentations, no collections, no leaving speeches, no spoken thanks, no written communications of gratitude for their contribution. Nothing. Instead, those taking ‘voluntary’ redundancy have received a letter which begins with the sensitive formulation: ‘I write to confirm your dismissal from the services of the school on the grounds of redundancy’.

In a way this is a fitting end to a decline which began with Ofsted failing Alan Davies’s Copland on Safeguarding. (Failing to safeguard the students, that is, not the public funds in the school budget. Ofsted had been quite happy with Davies/Evans/Patel’s financial management of the school, as had Brent Council. It was the staff who blew the whistle on the £2.7 million scam and the staff who suffered the consequences: a series of clueless appointments at senior management level (with new managers primed by Brent to regard the staff as ‘the problem’), and a refusal by Brent either to pursue the missing money or to balance this refusal by acknowledging its responsibility for the resulting budget deficit).

So it goes. For the moment, the city boys, the privatisers, the self-seeking ‘non-political’ careerists and the bullshitters are in the ascendancy. Schools as exam-grade factories will dominate for a while. But they’re only a manifestation of a particular point on the greater narrative arc of our society. If Copland’s teachers have achieved anything in the school’s varied and mostly honourable history it will have been to have helped produce kids who will grow into adults who will appreciate the limitations of this essentially sterile ‘vision’ and  come together to do something positive to change it. 

I wonder where that would feature in an Ofsted inspector’s checklist of teacher achievements.

School Summer Fairs bring the community together

All over the borough this month and next, local primary schools will be holding their Summer Fairs. PTAs and Friends Associations work with staff, governors and pupils to fundraise for those little extras. At the same time the events demonstrate how schools unite a diverse community in a common endeavour and showcase unity in action. It's just schools carrying on as normal but serves as a powerful riposte at attempts to divide us.

Barham Park Library Planning Appeal – Brent Council v. Our Community.

Guest blog by Philip Grant

It is nearly six months since I wrote a blog for this site: “Planning Committee upholds community use of Barham Park Library”. http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/planning-committee-upholds-community.html)  Brent’s Chief Planner had recommended at the meeting on 13 November 2013 that they should agree a change to business use, based on a Community Facilities Assessment. This document (which I called ‘dishonest’ in an objection comment at the time) had been produced for the Barham Park Trust by anonymous Council Officers, but as I reported:

It was plainly obvious to committee members from evidence given to them by objectors ... that there was a need and demand for community facilities in the area which required full-time use (not a couple of hours a week) of at least parts of the building. To give all of the space to the arts charity ACAVA to let out as artists studios would deprive local people of those existing community facilities.

That should have been the end of the planning process, with the Trust and the Council (effectively one and the same, as Brent is the ‘corporate sole Trustee’ of the Barham Park Trust) working with their preferred tenant, ACAVA, and the local community groups who also wanted to rent space at the Barham Park buildings to find a compromise solution. Instead, on 3 December, the Barham Park Trust Committee (five members of Brent’s Executive) accepted a report from Richard Barrett (Brent’s Operational Director, Property and Projects, and a member of the Barham Park Management Group, a group of Senior Council Officers), and resolved: 

To pursue an appeal against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the change of use of the premises.

Although Mr Barrett said in his report to the Trustees that ‘... there does remain a significant risk that the appeal will be refused’, when questioned about the risk at the meeting he said that, having taken informal advice, ‘... the risks were perceived as being lower than indicated in the report.’ The reason he believed the risks were less was because the Planning Committee had not followed the Planning Officer’s recommendation.

Five months later, there is some bad news for Mr Barrett, and for the Barham Park Trust, and some very good news for the objectors, including the Friends of Barham Library. Last Sunday was the final day of the four week period during which people interested in the planning appeal could submit comments on it to the Planning Inspector. Someone at Brent’s Planning Department must have been working overtime, because that was the day when the Council’s Appeal Statement (as Local Planning Authority) was submitted, and posted on the full details webpage for the Barham Park application 13/2179: https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=101150&reference=112613&st=PL .

Brent’s Planning Officer, who originally accepted the Community Facilities Assessment at face value, has now considered the evidence put forward by objectors, and agrees that the Planning Committee decision was the correct one! This is one of many similar extracts from the Statement to the Planning Inspector:

'...  the Local Planning Authority consider that the Community Facilities Assessment does not demonstrate that the existing community floorspace is not required to meet the needs of the local community and as such, it is considered that this proposal is contrary to Policy CP23 of the Brent LDF Core Strategy 2010.'

The planning appeal by the Barham Park Trust raises some important questions:

Why would Brent Council want to appeal against its own Planning Committee’s decision, especially when that decision was based on upholding one of Brent’s core planning policies (CP23 – Protecting Existing Community and Cultural Facilities)?

 Why would the Trustees of a Council-run charity, that claims to want to put the Barham Park buildings back into productive use, delay resolving the issue for months, losing rental income that would help to maintain the property and incurring an estimated £10,000 in fees (out of “charity funds”) to a planning consultant to present the appeal for them? 

and (does this make me a three “whys” man?):

Why did it take so long for the Barham Park Trust’s appeal to be lodged with the Planning Inspectorate?

Here are what I believe to be the answers to these questions. There is a chance that I am wrong on some of the points, and if so, I would invite anyone who feels aggrieved by what I have written to add a comment, or to ask Martin for a “right of reply”.

The Barham Park Management Group is chaired by Jenny Isaac (Operational Director, Neighbourhoods), who as well as being “in charge” of Brent’s parks has overall responsibility for Brent’s library service. She may have wished to prevent any undermining of the Council’s Libraries Transformation Project. Richard Barrett is “in charge” of Brent’s properties, and probably considered that letting the Barham Park buildings to a single tenant, with no local community involvement, was in Brent’s best business interests. They would also have realised that such a proposal would be an attractive proposition for the Labour Executive members on the Barham Park Trust Committee, as any letting to the Friends of Barham Library would suggest that the Executive’s decision to close six libraries in 2011 had been wrong, and might be seen as a “victory” for Cllr. Lorber, the leader of the main opposition party on the Brent Council.

It was the Senior Officers, not the “Trustees”, who put in the planning application in order to make their plans for a single letting to ACAVA possible. They have no interest in Brent’s planning policies, if those policies get in the way of what they want, and did not like being “shown up” by having the planning application rejected. The Officers therefore gave the “Trustees” only two options for how the Barham Park Trust should respond to the Planning Committee decision, but made these more attractive to the Executive members by saying that either would take six months. Even though the Trust Committee members knew that there were other options which should also have been considered, they went along with their Officer’s advice, accepting the delay, loss of rental income and extra costs of a planning appeal because this would put off a resolution of this embarrassing problem until after the local elections in May 2014.

The appeal appears to have been Mr Barrett’s “preferred option”. I was puzzled as to why it should take six months, as it was a relatively straightforward matter and I thought that the appeal could probably have been lodged by the end of January. However, if the Barham Park Trust did not actually appeal until after mid-March, there would not be time for it to be decided until after 22 May. As it was, the appeal was lodged at the end of March 2014, giving a four week period from 7 April to 4 May for objectors and others to submit their comments on the appeal. Was it a coincidence that this might be a period when Cllr. Lorber and his supporters would perhaps be too busy preparing for the local elections to be able to respond effectively with their written representations?

If I am only half right in the “answers” I have given to the questions I raised, I think that this calls into doubt the actions of both the Council Officers and the Brent Executive members who between them run the Barham Park Trust. The Trust is meant to be a charity whose object is ‘the provision of Barham Park and its buildings for recreational purposes’. Titus Barham, who left the property to Wembley on his death in 1937, clearly saw this as being for the benefit of the people of the district in which he had made his home. The way in which the letting of the buildings, the planning application and the planning appeal have been handled by the Trust could be seen as an abuse of power, putting the interests of Brent Council and of its current ruling politicians ahead of the interests of the local community.

The appeal has still to be decided by the Planning Inspector, but there is now a very strong case for it to be rejected, and for Brent Planning Committee’s original decision to stand. This will ensure that the former Barham Park library must be used as “community facilities”, but it does not guarantee that all, or part, of it will be made available for the Friends of Barham Library and their volunteer-run library service. That will depend on who is elected in the Brent Council poll on 22 May, and whether whoever controls the Council after those elections is willing to stand up to Senior Council Officers who have become used to getting their own way. 

I hope that thought will motivate you to use your vote for candidates who are committed in practice to local councillors, Council Officers and local people working together for the benefit of our community, rather than to a situation that we have seen too often in recent years of Brent Council v. Our Community

Housing inequality bus tour in Brent today

28th April deadline for Kensal Rise Library development comments

Brent Council is currently consulting on Andrew Gillick’s latest controversial planning application for the Kensal Rise Library building - LINK

It seems likely that the council planning committee will consider the application on 14^th May, the week before the local election, and before the Metropolitan Police CID has reported on the fake emails which were submitted at the time of Mr Gillick’s original application.

The consultation is being conducted over the Easter/school-holiday period and many residents, both those for and against, may be disenfranchised as a result of being away. Some consultation letters dated 21st March were arriving only in week beginning 7th April. With only 21 days for response some may not bother, believing 11th April as the final date. The cut-off date is, in fact, 28th April, as the site-notice states LINK

So far most of the comments published publicly on the Brent Planning portal are against the proposal. When making a comment remember to state 'Objection', 'Support' or 'Comment'.

• 11/04/2014 - 102 Liddell Gardens , London , NW10 3QE. Objection: I would like to object to this planning application to change the former Kensal library into flats. My business address and email address was used fraudulently in the previous planning application for this same building, (used as a supportive vote and comments made by another person, not myself, also in support of the application) which was very upsetting and detrimental to my business re our standing in the community here. This matter of the fraud from the previous application has STILL not been resolved, with very little communication with me, and for this reason I am strongly against the granting of the planning permission to these people wanting to convert the library, leaving the area without one.
• 10/04/2014 - 2 Bathurst Gardens , London , NW10 5JA. Objection: I vehement to the change of use of this building from a public community space into apartments for a number of reasons. This loss of a public building, given in perpetuity to the people of Brent, shut by a weak unimaginative council because it was a soft target brought about by Government spending cuts due to a recession fuelled by greedy bankers, betrayed by the owners, the very wealthy All Souls college, and sold to an unscrupulous developer who is accused of making fraudulent comments on his previous application for permission. I object to these peoples actions. What a sad state of affairs and what a sorry bunch they all are. Who looses out? The community, the elderly, unemployed but most of all the children, who gains the wealthy college, unscrupulous developer and the pathetic unimaginative council who save a little money to take and waste elsewhere. The building was built as a public building not as a residence it is in close proximity to and overlooks other properties previously not overlooked by residents. Some of the windows overlooking adjoining properties are on the application said to be partially obscured this needs clarification what does partially obscured mean? There will be additional cars in what is an already very busy street and at a very busy junction. There would seem to be no provision for additional parking for, what could be up to 5 cars. The appearance of the former library will be changed forever if the proposed plans go ahead, the roof line, roof terrace and "community hub" entrance are not in keeping with the style and period of the library and will remain as a scar on the beauty of the building. There are serious low pressure issues with the water and it is often reduced to a trickle in the morning or early evenings pressure is lower than during the rest of the day. The addition of five more residential apartments in this building will potentially exacerbate this issue. I dont want 5-10 (?) new neighbours on my doorstep, I bought my property 28 years ago and part of the attraction was that it was end of terrace and next to a library and therefore a reasonably quite location, this development will put an end to this, we will lose this peaceful corner of Kensal Green.
• 10/04/2014 - 4 Bathurst Gardens , Willesden , London , NW10 5JA. Objection: I object to the development of Kensal Rise on the following grounds. 1) change of use, this is a community building and should remain so, this should not now be used for residential. 2) the neighbourhood is already densely populated and the council is barely able to fulfil it role for current tenants and residents,, clearly they do not have the ability to handle more. 3)building is not fir for the purpose of residential as it is positioned too close to other properties. 4) if the building is developed it will overlook my property and be an invasion of my privacy. 5) There are no provisions for the parking facilities that would be required for this number of additional residents, the number of cars and parking is already at maximum capacity. 6) the proposed development will increase activity on a very busy junction. This is a major health and safety concern. 7) Proposed structural changes to roof and proposed community hub entrance are not in keeping with this period of property, will be aesthetic eye sore. 8)Proposed development will contribute to the loss of a much needed community space in the area for which council tax payments are received annually. 9) developer did not get permission for hoarding before erection, which suggests already a level of dishonesty and lack of integrity. 10) failure of the council to allow the developer to put hoarding up and remain there without permission suggests the council may either be on the payroll of developer and thus biased and corrupt in its judgement of this development. 11) water pressure and supply already compromised by the densely populated area. 12) sanitation additional garbage of added residence will added to vermin issue that council has not managed to control. 13) I know from the survey conducted on my property in 2008 I was told to beware of building close to mine developing upwards as foundations in the immediate vicinity of my property could not withstand additional weight. Thus additional stories on the Library would pose increased risk to land stability of my property and risk of subsidence.
• 10/04/2014 - 4 Bathurst Gardens , Willesden , London , NW10 5JA. Objection: I object to the development of Kensal Rise on the following grounds. 1) change of use, this is a community building and should remain so, this should not now be used for residential. 2) the neighbourhood is already densely populated and the council is barely able to fulfil it role for current tenants and residents,, clearly they do not have the ability to handle more. 3)building is not fir for the purpose of residential as it is positioned too close to other properties. 4) if the building is developed it will overlook my property and be an invasion of my privacy. 5) There are no provisions for the parking facilities that would be required for this number of additional residents, the number of cars and parking is already at maximum capacity. 6) the proposed development will increase activity on a very busy junction. This is a major health and safety concern. 7) Proposed structural changes to roof and proposed community hub entrance are not in keeping with this period of property, will be aesthetic eye sore. 8)Proposed development will contribute to the loss of a much needed community space in the area for which council tax payments are received annually. 9) developer did not get permission for hoarding before erection, which suggests already a level of dishonesty and lack of integrity. 10) failure of the council to allow the developer to put hoarding up and remain there without permission suggests the council may either be on the payroll of developer and thus biased and corrupt in its judgement of this development. 11) water pressure and supply already compromised by the densely populated area. 12) sanitation additional garbage of added residence will added to vermin issue that council has not managed to control. 13) I know from the survey conducted on my property in 2008 I was told to beware of building close to mine developing upwards as foundations in the immediate vicinity of my property could not withstand additional weight. Thus additional stories on the Library would pose increased risk to land stability of my property and risk of subsidence.
• 10/04/2014 - 2 Bathurst Gardens , London , NW10 5JA. Objection: I vehement to the change of use of this building from a public community space into apartments for a number of reasons. This loss of a public building, given in perpetuity to the people of Brent, shut by a weak unimaginative council because it was a soft target brought about by Government spending cuts due to a recession fuelled by greedy bankers, betrayed by the owners, the very wealthy All Souls college, and sold to an unscrupulous developer who is accused of making fraudulent comments on his previous application for permission. I object to these peoples actions. What a sad state of affairs and what a sorry bunch they all are. Who looses out? The community, the elderly, unemployed but most of all the children, who gains the wealthy college, unscrupulous developer and the pathetic unimaginative council who save a little money to take and waste elsewhere. The building was built as a public building not as a residence it is in close proximity to and overlooks other properties previously not overlooked by residents. Some of the windows overlooking adjoining properties are on the application said to be partially obscured this needs clarification what does partially obscured mean? There will be additional cars in what is an already very busy street and at a very busy junction. There would seem to be no provision for additional parking for, what could be up to 5 cars. The appearance of the former library will be changed forever if the proposed plans go ahead, the roof line, roof terrace and "community hub" entrance are not in keeping with the style and period of the library and will remain as a scar on the beauty of the building. There are serious low pressure issues with the water and it is often reduced to a trickle in the morning or early evenings pressure is lower than during the rest of the day. The addition of five more residential apartments in this building will potentially exacerbate this issue. I dont want 5-10 (?) new neighbours on my doorstep, I bought my property 28 years ago and part of the attraction was that it was end of terrace and next to a library and therefore a reasonably quiet location, this development will put an end to this, we will lose this peaceful corner of Kensal Green.
• 08/04/2014 - 18 College Road , Kensal Green , NW10 5EP. Objection
• 03/04/2014 - 72 Liddell Gardens , London , NW10 3QE. Support
• 02/04/2014 - 101A Wrottesley Road , London , NW10 5TY. Objection: I object wholeheartedly to this planning application (formerly Kensal Green Library). I vehemently oppose this application for a number of reasons but principally because I do not want it to lose its community value forever - the library was a great asset to our incredible community. The value of this building is surely not just going to be reduced to a useful revenue stream - it was an artery serving the community. I beg you to reconsider.
• 01/04/2014 - 9 Victoria Mansions Sumatra Road , London , NW6 1PD . Support: It's a beautiful building that shouldn't sit empty. There are far too many people that need a home so it will be lovely to see it restored.
• 01/04/2014 - Liddell Gardens NW10 3QD. Objection: This building is currently classified as non residential and community use D1 - and has been since the library was build with a combination of philanthropy and community contribution. The change of use of a community owned asset to private dwellings, in which a developer stands to make significant profit is a mis-use of the existing resources of the community and for Brent council. Ensuring that 75% of the ground floor will continue to be D1 usage is not enough of a commitment to community use. I feel that the entire building should remain as D1 usage. However if that is not possible then the D1 usage should be at least 50% of the floor space of the building, the complete ground floor and some room upstairs and the residential units should include social housing. Changing a community asset from D1 usage to private dwellings is a serious loss to our area - and I strongly oppose it. In terms of details in the proposal - the large door and hallway to the D1 space, in the plans has been proposed to be used by residents and a much smaller door for the community space, likely a library. This seems an extra-ordinary way of dividing the building - to ensure a few residences use a large doorway and hallway and leave a much smaller more awkward door for a public building likely to have significant numbers of daily visitors .The proposed flats (if approved) should have an entrance hall to the side of the building - possibly where the extension and extra residential building is proposed. Does there really need to be so many flats proposed ? The proposed D1 ground floor space is also an awkward U shape - not at all suitable to maintaining a community space, that maybe used for community meetings, classes. this seems to be determined by maintaining the large entrance for a few residential flats The plans look like they are pushing as many individual residences into the space rather than a vision of practical co-living. Lastly the lack of parking spaces for 5 new flats will cause significant parking place squeeze in the area.
• 31/03/2014 - 27 Chelmsford Square , London , NW10 3AP. Objection
• 28/03/2014 - 31 Chelmsford Square NW10 3AP. Objection: Former Kensal Rise Branch Library, Bathurst Gardens, London NW10 5JA I object to the proposed planning application for three basic reasons. Firstly, The entire community has come together to oppose the removal of our beloved library. Despite campaign after campaign and petition and demonstration after petition and demonstration, all our efforts have fallen on deaf ears. The Council¿s consultation process is a sham. The Council consults because it is legally obliged to do so and then totally ignores the results of that consultation Secondly, this library was opened by Mark Twain and was under a covenant to be a free reading room and NOTHING ELSE. Mark Twain, the American writer, who educated himself in libraries, was invited to open the Public Reading Room in 1900 by the Kensal Rise Libraries Committee of the then Willesden Council. The land was donated with a restricted covenant by All Souls College who, at that time, obviously believed in education. The covenant said that the land could only be used as a free public reading room and library. The Reading Room was extended into a library in 1904 by Andrew Carnegie, the Scottish philanthropist. It is also relevant that the building has been listed as an Asset of Community Value. This applies to the whole building and means that the planners must take into account that the building has been listed in this way. It is not enough for just the ground floor to be an Asset of Community Value. The change of use affects some of the most vulnerable of the community. There are so many children who used the library as a safe place to do their homework as they had no other place available to them There will be a major impact on traffic safety and congestion with effects on parking provision and a change to the character of the area. And finally, I understand that there is an on-going police investigation concerning the alleged fraudulent attempt to influence the first planning application I feel that is is most inappropriate to consider any further planning application until the police investigation has run its course.
• 27/03/2014 - 69 Crundale Avenue , London , NW9 9PJ . Comment: Although I have not considered all of the planning policy aspects of this application, I feel that the new design, with a much better D1 community use space solely on the ground floor and fewer residential units, is a great improvement on the previously rejected proposals. Commitments have been given in the detailed commentary on the application, to lease back the D1 space to All Souls' College, with that College then leasing the space to FKRL, or another community group, which will undertake to make good use of the space, for a peppercorn rent. In my opinion, that will now satisfy Brent's Core Policy CP23. For me, this application takes on board the points which I made in objecting to the previous application, and still retains the good points of the previous design in respecting the important late Victorian building which it proposes to convert. A point has been raised by others that this planning application should not be allowed to proceed until the investigation into the alleged fraud over bogus comments in support of the previous application in respect of this property has been concluded. My personal view is that this new application should not be delayed for that reason, so that if it is approved, work can go ahead and the building be brought back into use, for a mixture of residential and community purposes, as soon as possible. If there was fraud in respect of the previous application, that can be dealt with in law as a separate matter. Philip Grant.

Queensbury Pub in Willesden Green Saved

Copland students challenge councillors over ARK forced academisation

Copland students on the picket line

Around 400 Copland school students have signed a petition* to Brent councillors over the forced academisation of their school. A headteacher from the Ark stable has already been appointed. Copland was the last non-academy/non-faith secondary school left in the London Borough of Brent.

The petition states:

PETITION TO KEEP COPLAND A COMMUNITY SCHOOL

We believe it unfair that we have not been listened to regarding the future of our school. We do not want our school to be linked to Ark Academies, We believe that school requires more resources and more permanent teachers.

As Brent Green Party's spokesperson on Children and Families I fully support  the students' petition. It is not just school students who are denied a voice on forced academies but also school staff, parents and the local community.

This is the letter that accompanied the petition:

Dear Councillors,

I am a student at Copland School and I amk sending this petition on behalf of hundreds of students. Probably everyone in the school would have signed it but we did not have permisison to go around classes with it. As soon as Ofsted visited our school last year we collected a petition of hundreds of names and handed it to Brent Council. No-one admitted seeing the petition and so it was ignored, We have now collected hundreds of more of signatuires and this time we have photocopied it and are sending it to every councillor.

I am not including my name and address for I know that our teacheres have contacted all of the councillors but have received very few replies so you will probably not reply to me either and I am frightened of what would happen if ARK Academy found out that I write this letter.

I have some questions:

1. Is it fair that our last petition was ignored?
2.Will you do anything about this petition?
3. Is it fair that staff were sacked at Christmas and now we have no mentoring department at Copland?
4. Is it fair that staff were sacked at Christmas and now our school library is often closed? It even closes at lunch!
5. I know that Brent Council have closed down libraries in Brent. Is it fair that those of my fellow students who have no internet at home cannot do their homework?
6. Is it fair that over their holidays many of our teachers have been sent letters saying they will not be needed next year because there are no students to do their subjects and we will be told that we cannot do certain subjects next year because there will be no teachers for these subjects?
7. Is it fair that Ark Academy is already deciding which subjects we will not be allowed to study (Business, Drama, Media, Music, Photography etc etc)?
8. We are not interested in councillors saying that they want to do the best for us. Prove it. We have made it clear all along that we do not want to become an academy. Support us, our teachers and our parents to keep our school a Community School.
9. Why when our teachers went on strike for 6 days and we joined them on the picket line did we only see one councillor there to support us? We want to thank that one councillor.
10. Will you make it clear in public that you will help us to stop our school from being forced to become an academy?

Sincerely,

Copland Student

*Wembley Matters has seen copies of the petition and can vouch for its authenticity.

Expansion of Princess Frederica school proposed despite strong parent opposition

Princess Frederica  Cof E Primary School, Kensal Rise

The Brent Executive on January 13th will be asked to approve the expansion of Princess Frederica Primary School despite substantial opposition.

The school would grow from 420 pupil capacity to 630 by 2020 with some new build and partial demolition and rebuild of the present building.  The new build would include a roof top playground.

The Council argue that the expansion is needed to address the current shortage of school places due to the rising child population of Brent.

The Officers' Report LINK states that in the initial consultation 7 local residents were for expansion and 14 against, 3 parents were for and 22 against and 26 staff were for with 1 against.

Following the Statutory Notice during the four week Representation Stage  224 responses were received of which 16 were for the expansion and 208 against.

These are statement from some of the objectors:

“I am writing to ask you to turn down the request for the school expansion of Princess Frederica. The local area and infrastructure will not be able to sustain the added congestion. Already both the pupils and local community are put at risk through the cramming of small pavements and roads. I would suggest a much better use of Brent’s resources would be to turn around the local schools in the area –meeting specifically Furness Road School.

Piling all the resources into one local school which for now is popular, shows no sense of long term  planning for the broader community.”

“- the proposal is far too large for the footprint of the site and the access roads in the surrounding areas. The works will cause severe disruption to the education and welfare of the children there in 2014 and the dust created by building work will create a health hazard for my daughter who suffers from asthma there are better alternative schools sites for building expansion in the vicinity, we have real worries about how the building work - dust, noise, heavy machinery is inevitable - will affect the education of the current children, and also that the pressure on space from the additional classes each year will affect the future education in the widest sense, as well as the logistical issues of safety in delivering and collecting a greater number of children from school each day.”

“College Rd & Purves Rd are narrow & bottle neck at the slightest provocation. How will they & their residents cope with the heavy lorries & construction vehicles that will be needed on top of an already precarious equalibrium? If, as I understand,  the admission criteria are not to change to include more children on proximity rather than church attendance, there will be more cars & bicycles at drop off  & pick up times. Bicycles are being stolen from the railings outside the school on a regular basis & campaigns for parking them on the school premises have failed for years for reasons of short space!”

 “I believe that the school facilities are already over stretched and the addition of more pupils at the expense of outside s pace does not serve the educational interests of the pupils. In addition, two years of packed lunches and studying next to a building site will not help the children's education

 On space the Council respond:

Design work shows that it is possible to fit the additional buildings/internal space needed for the

increased number of children on the existing school  site and leave sufficient outside play area to  meet guidelines.

The additional proposed roof top play area and changes to the surfacing of ground level play areas, mean that based on the government’s method for measuring outdoor play areas there is sufficient to meet guidelines for a 3FE school on a confined inner city site.

It is accepted that during construction the available outside play space will be reduced but this will be managed to minimise the impact on existing children.

 On parking and infrastructure the Council state:

There is no parking on the school site and no facilities to drop off children by car other than on roads immediately surrounding the school. The school travel plan will actively encourage a majority of parents to walk or  cycle to school with their children.Cycle and scooter storage will be provided on site to avoid congestion created on the pavement by cycles being chained up outside school.  

It is proposed to widen the pavement in parts along  Purves Road to alleviate pedestrian congestion.  

A full transport assessment has been undertaken and will be submitted with the planning application. LBB Highways will review the application in detail and make further recommendations if required to minimise the  impact of proposed expansion on the existing road network.

On the community's preference for a 2 form entry school the council gives no quarter and presses what it sees as the benefits of larger shcools and in a new departure suggests they are becoming the norm:

Brent has 12 successful 3FE primary schools and 6 successful 4FE primary schools. 3FE and larger primary schools are now becoming the norm across London. Larger primary schools have considerable advantages in being able to afford higher levels of expertise, including subject expertise in e.g. MFL.

They also offer a wider range of extra curricular and after school activities. Brent also has many primary aged children currently without a school place. The council has a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places for Brent residents who require a school place.

The Council say that it cannot changes the admissions criteria because the school is a Church of England Voluntary Aided School and therefore in charge of its own admissions. These currently give preference of church worshippers.

 Clearly this case raises issues that have been previously addressed on Wembley Matters over the optimum size of schools and the importance of play space. Most importantly of course it raises questions about consultation processes when, in this case, overwhelming views of parents as stakeholders are rejected.

The expansion plans will not be going to Planning Committee until June 2013 but the Council proposes that an additional 30 pupils will start in existing accommodation in September 2014 with the building works finished before the start of the 2015/16 academic year. The additional forms of entry will then gradually fill up the school year by year.

Greens hail community victory over Pinkham Way waste plant

Euro-MP Jean Lambert has welcomed the decision to scrap plans for a massive rubbish treatment plant in north London, in the face of opposition from community, environmental and human rights groups.

The proposed site at Pinkham Way between would have handled about 300,000 tonnes of waste each year – more than 1% of the national total – from seven London boroughs: Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington and Waltham Forest, despite being less than 80m from the nearest housing and

with 14 schools lying within 1.5km of the site.

Ms Lambert, the capital’s Green Party MEP, said:

I am delighted that the North London Waste Authority has decided to ditch the proposals for Pinkham Way treatment plant. It’s a massive victory for local campaigners.

Now the North London Waste Authority should think about using existing sites more effectively, working to reduce household waste levels, and building smaller sites, closer to where the waste is being produced, where these prove absolutely necessary rather than developing systems that rely on ongoing waste production.

Support the redoubtable Kensal Rise Library campaigners tomorrow

The Friends of Kensal Rise Library will be represented at the Brent Council Planning Committee on Wednesday 18th September by Co-Chair David Butcher. There will be other speakers including two from local resident’s associations and whoever has requested permission to speak and also the developer or his agent.


At this meeting the Planning Committee, which is made up of councillors, will decide whether or not to accept the recommendation of the Chief Planning Officer to refuse planning permission for the proposal for the library by Mr Andrew Gillick of Kensal Properties Ltd. The Friends would like to see as many people as possible at this meeting as it is important to show how this community feels about the proposed development.
- See more at: http://www.savekensalriselibrary.org/news/#sthash.e1suynlr.dpuf

 Planning Committee Meeting Wednesday 18^th September at 7pm at the Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley.  Wembley Park tube, Olympic Way and then right just before the stadium. 206 bus.

Councillors and The Queensbury: The roll call of shame

Guest blog from the Save The Queensbury Group

This is an epic battle; good vs evil, David vs Goliath, community vs developer. It seems to also be a battle of resident vs councillor.

Several residents have asked us what our local councillors are doing about the threatened demolition of The Queensbury Pub. Given the huge public opposition to the plans, the response of our elected representatives has been, on the whole, rather shabby. We find it disappointing that they are so out of touch with public opinion and also surprising, given that we are now in the run-up to to next year's local elections.

We urge everyone to telephone and write to local councillors and ask them to take a stand against the loss of a valued community space. Note that some will say that they will pass your views on to the planners but have no view themselves (the "postman" approach).

This is not acceptable - as representatives they should declare a view and stand up for the interests of their residents. If they refuse you might like to ask them why they think it acceptable to remain neutral on (or even support!) the destruction of community facilities in the name of a developer's profit. Don't be shy to email or telephone councillors, remember they are supposed to work for us! You might also like to remind them of the upcoming elections which take place in May 2014.

We have listed local councillors in the four wards closest to The Queensbury, along with their known views and their contact details. If your councillor is one of those who is opposing the development it is still worthwhile dropping them a line thanking them and saying you support their stance.
You can find out which ward you're in here http://www.writetothem.com/

MAPESBURY WARD
146 of the formal objections to the original plans came from residents in the Mapesbury ward.

Councillor Hayley Matthews (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Matthews' colleagues tell us she against the Queensbury development although she has not made any public statement regarding it nor, as far as we are aware, has she submitted any formal objection to the plans.
cllr.hayley.matthews@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 020 8937 1133
Verdict: Not good enough

Councillor Chris Leaman (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Leaman is opposed to the demolition of the Queensbury and has submitted an objection.
cllr.chris.leaman@brent.gov.uk
Tel 020 8451 9072
Verdict: Good

Councillor Sami Hashmi (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Hashmi is a member of the Planning Committee and so is not allowed to declare a view until he hears all the evidence at the Planning Committee meeting. This should not stop you making your views known as a resident and he should still acknowledge your comments.
cllr.sami.hashmi@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 07956 212 825
Verdict: N/A

WILLESDEN GREEN WARD
90 of the formal objections to the original plans came from residents in the Willesden Green ward.

Councillor Lesley Jones (Labour)
Councillor Jones is opposed to the demolition of the Queensbury and has submitted an objection.
cllr.lesley.jones@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 020 8452 3086
Verdict: Good

Councillor Ann Hunter (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Hunter has so far refused to take a view and is taking the "postman" approach. She has claimed that some residents are supporting the development but has refused to give figures of the numbers of people who have contacted her either for or against.
cllr.ann.hunter@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 020 8830 2152
Verdict: Poor, and possibly dishonest

Councillor Gavin Sneddon (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Sneddon has not so far taken a view on the demolition of the pub. In conversation he has expressed concern that the development may be inappropriate and too profit-driven but he has made no formal statement. When questioned recently he exclaimed "you can't expect me to make a decision right now!" and was silent when it was pointed out out that that the demolition plans had been in the public domain for 7 months.
cllr.gavin.sneddon@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 07407 155 438
Verdict: Must do better

DUDDEN HILL WARD
41 of the formal objections to the original plans came from residents in the Dudden Hill ward.

Councillor Aslam Choudry (Labour)
Repeated emailing finally got a response 6 months after our original inquiry. Councillor Choudry has stated that he supports the need for new housing in Brent. He has not responded to our reply that just 4 of the proposed 56 flats will be the affordable family-sized homes that Brent desperately needs, and that these could easily be incorporated into a design which preserves The Queensbury.
cllr.aslam.choudry@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 07958 732 384
Verdict: Poor and misguided

Councillor Krupesh Hirani (Labour)
Councillor Hirani has submitted a view that the current proposals do not have enough wheelchair-accessible homes and there is not enough disabled parking provision . He has not objected to the demolition of the pub but will adopt the "postman" approach to residents who send him their comments. In response to a tweet asking him if he supported demolition of the Queensbury he said he had "no opinion". A local politician having "no opinion" on the loss of a community amenity seems quite odd to us.

cllr.krupesh.hirani@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 07886 939 295
Verdict: Poor

Councillor Rev David Clues (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Clues moved to Brighton over a year ago and has not been seen or heard from for many months. He remains a Brent councillor and is still entitled to collect his allowances. Many residents have complained to us about their emails going unanswered, his lack of response to residents is now the subject of a complaint to the Standards Committee of the council by one resident, another is promising to pay him a visit in Brighton with copies of her unanswered letters about The Queensbury.
cllr.david.clues@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 07957 140 372

Verdict: Absolute disgrace
BRONDESBURY PARK WARD
24 of the formal objections to the original plans came from residents in the Brondesbury Park ward

Councillor Carol Shaw (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Shaw is opposed to the demolition of the Queensbury and submitted an objection early on in the process.
cllr.carol.shaw@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 020 8958 4436
Verdict: Good

Councillor Barry Cheese (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Cheese is a reserve on the Planning Committee and prefers not to express a view as it may be grounds to disqualify him from voting. This should not stop you making your views known as a resident and he should still acknowledge your comments.
cllr.barry.cheese@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 020 8459 1716
Verdict: N/A

Councillor Mark Cummins (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Cummins is a member of the Planning Committee and so is not allowed to declare a view until he hears all the evidence at the Planning Committee meeting. This should not stop you making your views known as a resident and he should still acknowledge your comments.
cllr.mark.cummins@brent.gov.uk
Tel: 07976 739 058
Verdict: N/A