'Green Space' fronting new Ark Elvin school ear-marked for development

The slide of the artists' impression of the new Ark Elvin school building had pride of place at the Planning Committee tonight and the green space looked impressive - especially the bit fronting the High Road, although maybe it was a different shade of green so that might be a clue.

The space next to existing Brent House on Wembley High Road

It soon unravelled under questioning. It was going to be a temporary space pending redevelopment, although at first officers were vague about how long it would last. Then it emerged (as reported on Wembley Matters) that it would be a mixed development (in Brent this means shops and flats).

When Cllr Maurice suggested that a condition be put on the Planning Application that it should remain a green space, Steve Weeks, Head of Planning, came clean and said that couldn't be done because it would be contrary to the existing Wembley Area Plan, which of course sees retails stretching from Wembley Central station all the way down the High Road to the LDO.

However, the Planning Committee were told that they had to consider the Ark Elvin planning application separately from any plans for the High Road frontage.  Clearly any applications for the development of the space will be considered in the light of the Area Plan. Basically the new school will be hidden away, probably behind blocks of flats with retail on the ground floor.

It was also confirmed that Jesmond Road residents can't be spared construction traffic by  alternative access to the school site via Brent House, because the Council are on the verge of reaching a deal with developers on that site.

Does Butt's interference with Ark Elvin application amount to improper conduct?

Wembley resident Jaine Lunn staged a one woman protest at Brent Planning Committee tonight against plans that residents think will affect their right to access the playing fields behind Copland  (now Ark Elvin) School in Wembley High Road.

The Committee voted unanimously to approve the school the Chair, Cllr Sarah Marquis, accepted legal advice that they could not consider the Right of Way issue. She noted that residents might want to take up the issue under the Highways Act.

Raphael Moss, headteacher of the newly expanded Elsley Primary School spoke in favour of the new build and changes to the playing fields and raised issues about the safeguarding of children under current public access conditions.

A speaker from the Education Funding Agency Priority Building Programme poo pooed residents claims that they had had access to the fields as public land for decades, asserting (without any factual evidence cited) that they were 'incorrect'. In a threatening tone he warned the councillors that if they did not approve the plans the £26.5m earmarked for the new build might be lost. Responding to Cllr Colacicco who asked why green measures were always the last thing to be considered in such projects he said that such measures would require funding in addition to the £26.5m and a planning officer said that there was future proofing in the plans that meant they might be added later.

Speaker as a Wembley Central ward councillor, Cllr Sam Stopp, said he wasn't against a new school build replacing the dilapidated building (altholugh against academies on principle) but expressed concern that Muhammed Butt, the Leader of Brent Council had been consulted but not residents.

He later tweeted 'Very concerning lack of public consultation re. Ark Elvin app in Wembley Central. Further investigation needed, regardless of decision.' and 'Suggest Brent Scrutiny Committee reviews how we consult communities on planning applications. Enough is enough. Need to put communities first.'

Cllr Mitchell Murray said that she was concerned about the lack of respect for local resients shown during the consultation and remarked that the Council had not made a good job of the consultation.

Cllr Stopp has blogged on the issue HERE

The comment on Butt reflects disquiet I have heard is prevalent among both officers and councillors about what could be construed as improper conduct. As the Planning Committee is statutorily independent the Cabinet, and even more importantly the Leader, is not supposed to try and influence its decisions.

Evidence of interference? From the Kilburn Times website

Butt not only went to the site (see above) and talked with residents after the Planning Committee was made its site visit last Saturday, but then misrepresented the residents' views in a widely distributed email. He clearly has an interest not only as a proponent of the scheme in the Cabinet, but also as a governor at Ark Elvin and parent of a pupil attending the school.

Councillors on the Planning Committee could have been left in no doubt about what the 'Leader' wanted. They even referred to the fact that he had promised to write to the residents about their concerns during the meeting.

Perhaps something for Standards Commitee as well as Scrutiny?

Readers may be interested in an earlier planning case involving Cllr Butt LINK

Reasons to vote aganst Ark Elvin Planning Application

These are Chetan Patel's notes for his speech at Brent Planning Committee tonight.
 

I kindly ask the Planning Committee to vote against the ARK’s submitted planning due to the below listed reasons:

1)    Proposed ‘Yellow Lines’ on Jesmond Avenue Without Consultations

Materials changes in Construction Methodology Access Statement, which did not feature the proposed of ‘Yellow Line’ controlled parking on Jesmond Avenue. Kiers have failed to consultant the residents of Jesmond Avenue on this key issue, which I believe is a ‘Material Change’, which displaces and affects approximate 80% the local residents parking.

2)    Lack of Staff Car Parking Spaces

The development only accommodates 47nr spaces and is derived from an survey of 100/111 staff which finds there are 24 cars parked at the existing school. I know as a matter of fact there are more than 24 cars parked at the school at present. The survey result conflicts with the actual number of cars parked. The Transport Assessment report should have physically counted the cars parked on the school for an accurate representation of the facts, rather than relying on an incomplete staff survey. I would also question if the cleaning, catering and maintenance staff were included in the survey?

Our fear is that the parking allocation will not meet the real world demand created by the development as suggested above.

There is a risk staff will park in the neighbouring residential streets causing further social problems.

In my opinion parts of Transport Assessment report as aforementioned are fundamentally flawed, and a new accurate report needs to be undertaken.

3)    Inaccurate Design Access Statement

The Design Access Statement doesn’t recognise local community pubic right of way by long usage (or “easement by prescription”).

Many hundreds and if not thousands of individuals in our community have been continually using Copland Park for the aforementioned reasons in excess 20 years. This use has occurred without protest from the property owners. As a result, there is a legal presumption that there is a right of way based on public use of Section 21 of the Highways Action 1980 Act.  This gives the local community pubic right of way by long usage (or “easement by prescription”).

We believed the existing playing fields were public land until we saw sight of the misinformed planning application submitted by ARK.

4)    Construction Methodology Statement

A)     Kier’s have stated ‘A Public Consultation has been held to present and answer any queries local residents and key stakeholders may have regarding the development’. We note Kier have failed to provide reasonable notice period for the Public Consultation. Kier notice of public hearing was posted at our address on the 2^nd July and the meeting was held on the 15^th July 2015.  I know many of the affected community could not re-schedule their commitments with only 14 days notice. Thankfully I managed to attend the consultation, and was surprised when Kier did not present their Construction Methodology Plans. In fact, Kier didn’t present any documentation related to their ‘Construction Methodology’ nor did they have their Construction Methodology documents to hand to distribute at the meeting. You couldn’t have even noticed Kier where at the Public Consultation. The meeting was more of a design exhibition lead by the Architect. Kier’s merely discussed their plans when asked about the construction methodology. Without any Construction Methodology drawings and distribution of any documentations, it was almost impossible to grasp the proposed site access and logistics. In summary, I would describe Kier’s ‘Public Consultation’ as a poor and a  misinformed event. I strongly recommend Kier should be forced to re-hold the event and provide a reasonable period of a minimum 30 days notice period prior to re-holding this meeting.

B)     Kier have failed to adequately demonstrate how they intend to manage construction personnel parking. Their reports indicate an approximate area of 45m x 20m. How many construction personal cars will this space accommodate? Is this allocated space enough? What happens if construction personal start parking on residential roads? Is parking on the residential road permitted by Kier or by Brent Council? 

C)     Brent should stipulate as an ‘Planning Condition’ Kier need to accommodate all necessary parking facilities within their site boundary, and restrict any of Kier’s staff from using any valuable residential parking spaces.

D)    Jesmond Avenue is a quiet residential cul-de-sac area which already has insufficient road car parking capacity. I would also like to record, residents on Clifton Avenue are already parking on Jesmond Avenue, who then use the various alleyways between the roads to return back to Clifton Road. I fear construction traffic personal parking on the community roads would further complicate and disrupt the community relations in the area.

E)     Kier’s Construction Methodology states ‘all deliveries will be directed to arrive at site by travelling along the North Circular Road, then along the Harrow Road (A404) then into Jesmond Avenue. We have reviewed the different site access options with LB Brent Highways Dept and Jesmond Avenue is the preferred option because it provides the safest and shortest route between the A404 and the site’.

We would highlight to Kier their conclusion that Jesmond Avenue is the shortest route from the A404 and proposed site is incorrect.  (See Appendix B attached Map). 

Option 1: 90m using Cecil Avenue.

Option 2: 278m using Jesmond Venue

Option 3: 424m using London Road via Cecil Avenue.

I would also question how Kier have concluded Jesmond Avenue is the safest route. I believe the below listed risks affecting Jesmond Aveue has not been addressed by Kier.

·     •                Jesmond Avenue is a strictly cul-de-sac residential area where up to 8-10 children regularly play on the road after school hours, especially between Stanley Road and the end of Jesmond Avenue. When driving my car down Jesmond Avenue on a number occasions I have been forced to apply my breaks in an emergency to avoid an accident with the kids playing on the road. I fear heavy goods vehicles will not be able stop in time in such emergency situations. How have Kier managed this risk?

·     Cars are parked on both sides of Jesmond Avenue, thus reducing the road traffic to only one narrow lane, whilst still accommodating two way traffic. In my opinion using Jesmond Avenue to access construction traffic particularly heavy goods vehicles is dangerous and an accident waiting to happen.

·     With respect to the safest route, when using Jesmond Avenue construction traffic passes 79nr residential properties, where if Cecil Avenue was adopted construction traffic passes only 3nr residential properties, and makes Cecil the safest route.

·     With respect to safest route, Jesmond Avenue has cars are parked on both sides of the road, thus reducing the width of the road to a single narrow lane. However, Cecil Avenue has cars parked on only side, and the other side is protected by double yellow lines preventing cars parking on one side. Therefore, Cecil Avenue a has greater clear width to accommodate heavy duty construction traffic than Jesmond Avenue.

Under the CDM Regulations, I believe Kier have failed to competently demonstrate Jesmond Avenue is the safest Construction Access Road for the development. 

5)    Safeguarding Risk

I’m horrified and deeply concerned Kier have not elected to perform Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks on all construction personal. The proposed works is surrounded by vulnerable children and young adults from Copland School High School, Elsely and St Josephs Primary School’s. Kier have a duty of care to ensure all personal working near and in the vicinity are screened to ensure illegible personal are not permitted to work on the construction works. This is even more prevalent as the construction industry is very fragmented using large numbers of self employed personal, appointed by specialist Sub-Contractors. It’s likely, Kier would only appoint Sub-Contractors and thus would not have a direct relationship with the operatives.   In my opinion, if Kier’s do not perform these high sensitive checks, they are not fit to undertake the construction works. CRB checks is standard practise on school works used by other top Main Contractors in the industry.

Secrecy and murk cloud Ark Elvin planning application

A resident asks on the Brent Planning Portal whether the frontage of the new Ark Elvin school building will be as in the artist's sketch above, which is on the documentation to be considered.

The short answer appears to be 'no' if one refers to the Wembley Area Action Plan:

W5 Copland School and Brent House

(4 hectares)

Mixed use development on the High Road frontage with new / rebuilt school to the rear.

The ground floor on the High Road frontage should be commercial retail development with associated car parking.  Residential development either above or adjacent to the retail should include a high proportion of family housing.

Development of the school to the rear of the site should accommodate, if possible, an additional form of entry on current capacity.

The scale of new development near to Cecil Avenue should respect the adjacent suburban character.

Car parking on the retail site should have shared use for town centre parking. There should be an active retail frontage with servicing off Wembley High Road. Access from Cecil Avenue will be limited to residential access only.

In the event of the school not coming forward as part of a joint scheme, proposals may be brought forward for the Brent House site as a standalone development.

This seems to be yet more misleading information.  The frontage is likely to be occupied by housing and shops. The reason why access  to the building site through the Brent House site (high rise on the High Road, top centre) is that the Council does not want to disrupt the disposal and regeneration of  its property.

Meanwhile it is worth looking back at the discussion atwhat  was then the Brent Executive when the proposals came up for discussion. Muhammed Butt declared an interest as the parent of a child at what was then Copland but soon to be Ark, and not as a governor which he is now.

Jean Roberts, speaking for teachers at Copland and local residents  opposed the land transfer: (Extract from Minutes)

With the consent of the Executive, Jean Roberts representing teachers of Copland Community School and residents, addressed the meeting and spoke against proposals to expand the school on to adjacent land involving a land transfer. She referred to the terms of title deeds, covenants and Rights of Way which could prohibit the scheme and also the intention to grant a 125 year lease on the final school site to ARK Schools (ARK) to whom the school was due to transfer as a sponsored academy on 1 September 2014. Seamus Sheridan also addressed the meeting and expressed concern over the lack of proper consultation over the proposals and restrictions on speaking rights at a public meeting. He stated that children and residents were against the expansion proposals which would result in a loss of land used for play.

Rights of Way was raised at this early stage and although Fiona Alderman has ruled the application can go ahead with the Rights of Way being dealt with separately it is mentioned in the Application.

Demolition of existing buildings on site and erection of replacement building to

accommodate a three storey 9FE secondary school for 1750 pupils (1350 11-16 year

old and 400 post 16) with associated car parking, servicing and circulation space, Multi

Use Games Area, All Weather Pitch, games areas and other hard and soft landscaping,

together with the diversion of Public Right of Way (PROW) No.87

 Public Right of Way to be realigned to border the eastern end of the MUGA and widened to 3.4m (currently it separates the school building from the playing fields)

It seems strange that the POW forms part of the application but cannot be admitted as a material planning consideration.

At the Executive Meeting many reports were withheld from public scrutiny and designated as 'restricted' LINK

Although Wembley Central and Tokyngton ward councillors made no comments at the consultation stage I understand that two Wembley Central councillors are down to speak tonight. Muhammed Butt (sorry that name keeps popping up) is a Tokyngton ward councillor.

Currently the land is on a short-term lease from Brent Council to Ark but on completion of the new build would be handed over to them on a 125 year agreement.

Ark Elvin: Butt accused of misrepresenting residents' views

 

Satellite view of the Ark Elvin site

In an exchange of emails a Wembley resident has accused Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt of misrepresenting their views on the Ark Elvin Academy planning application due to be heard at tonight's Planning Committee.

The allegations concern a meeting between Butt and residents on the site at the weekend.  In an emollient letter Butt said:

At the meeting I was glad to hear from yourself and all the people present  that you were not against the development of the school and that you understood that the new school will benefit the local area in helping to shape the demand for school places, so that children will not have to travel far from their homes. The current school building is in a poor state of repair and the new proposals will deliver a high quality facility that will enhance the learning environment for the students and in conjunction with the new management team at Ark Elvin under the leadership of the Head Annabel Bates, we will improve the life chances for those students.

Butt is on the governing body of Ark Elvin.

Responding Chetan Patel wrote:

I'm surprised and concerned with regards to your email reply, which is wholly inaccurate, untruthful and misleading. 

I would like to record, I didn't say I was in support of the planning application. This is very well documented in my numerous correspondence, which you have also been copied into. Please confirm if you want me to resend all my correspondence opposing the planning application to yourself.

You also stated all the residents at the meeting were in support of the scheme. This statement also completely wrong. The residents only agreed the school required modernisation. None of residents at the meeting agreed with the proposed Planning Application, which adopts Jesmond Avenue for construction access traffic.

I can also confirm the residents have never been invited by Kier (the developer) or the council to participate in two discussions with regards to mitigation of construction impact. We have only ever been told what will be imposed upon us. It feels more like a dictatorship.

If you feel my record of this meeting is still incorrect, we can have this debate again at the Planning Committee meeting on the 22nd October 2015.

I'm very disappointed in your email and I hope the Planning Committee are not unduly influenced by Muhammed Butt's poor recollection of this meeting.

Patel, who is due to make a delegation to the Planning Committee this evening, has also been involved in an exchange with Fiona Alderman. Referring to his claim that the Planning Application was not valid because it did not deal with the issue of a Public Right of Way across the playing fields Alderman wrote:

The assessment of such claimed cannot be carried out by the Planning Committee and must instead be dealt with by a separate process by Transport Department. My view is that there is no impediment to the Planning Committee considering and determining the application.

 Chetan Patel replied:

There are legal procedures which apply when rights of way are affected by development. Development is defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as “the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land”. The Act says that, with certain exceptions, planning permission must be obtained before development is carried out.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has guidance (refer to section 48.d, attached) for local authorities on the validation of planning applications. The guidance states that applications for full planning permission should be accompanied by a plan of the proposed development showing all rights of way crossing or adjoining the site. I believe the claimed ‘Public Right of Way’ by myself any other residents by way of the 20 year easement period, should be shown on the Planning Application, but is missing from the Planning Application ref 15/3161.

If an application for planning permission affects a right of way (claimed Pubic Right of Way) then a special rule applies and the application must be advertised at the proposed site and in a local paper. This is an materially important so residents can make comments about them.

This means that, while the existence of a right of way across the site of a proposed development won’t automatically mean an application is rejected, the fact that it is there must be taken into account by the officer or committee which decides the application.

 The Planning Committee is at 7pm this evening at Brent Civic Centre.

Nicky Morgan slammed for attack on anti-academy parents and communities

 

Campaigners against the forced academisation of Gladstone Park Primary School

From Anti-Academies Alliance LINK
 

Commenting on Nicky Morgan’s attack on those in their community who campaign against academisation, including forced academisation, Kevin Courtney, Deputy General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, the largest teachers’ union, said; 

“The Department for Education’s press release has been timed to coincide with the passage of the Education and Adoption Bill through the Lords. If passed without amendment, this Bill could result in thousands more schools being forced into sponsored academy arrangements against the wishes of local communities. This is despite the absence of evidence that academy status results in improved standards. Even the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb, has been forced to concede that the Government ‘does not believe that all academies and free schools are necessarily better than maintained schools.’ 

“Crucially the Bill removes the consultation rights for parents, teachers and governors who in future would have no say over whether their school should become an academy, or the sponsor who would take it over. Nor would they be entitled to any information on the relative performance of the proposed sponsors compared with their local authority. It is therefore the undemocratic and illiberal Education and Adoption Bill which is underhand and intimidating, not the parents, grandparents and supporters of campaigns against forced academisation.

“The unsubstantiated attacks by the DfE on parents and local communities whose only crime has been to defend their school against the Government’s strong-arm-route tactics to force schools into academy status, including deploying bullying academy brokers, is utterly shameful. Under Nicky Morgan’s watch, the Department has plumbed new depths.

“Furthermore some of the ‘success’ claimed by academy heads, as cited in the press release, was occurring before these schools became academies. For example, results of SATs tests taken in May 2012 at Downhills, four months before the school was taken over by Harris,  show progress in English exceeded the national average (89%) by two percentage points (91%); while progress in Maths was just one percentage point (86%) below the national average (87%). It is not possible to make a direct comparison with the Key Stage 2 performance score for reading and maths prior to Downhills becoming an academy because from 2013 the reading national curriculum test and writing teacher assessment results were no longer combined to produce an overall English level. Instead, reading and writing results were reported on separately. This is yet another example of shoddy statistics emanating from the Department for Education.

“The Government’s assault on parents is a far cry from its claims that its academy and free school programme would give parents more ‘choice’ and a greater say in their child’s education. It is quite clear with this latest pronouncement from Nicky Morgan that the Government will stop at nothing to railroad schools, parents and communities into being forced to accept a school system that is neither wanted nor needed and for which there is no evidence base.

“Nicky Morgan should be concentrating on the real problems faced by schools such as a growing teacher recruitment and retention crisis and huge pressure on budgets and growing pupil populations. It is ridiculous that these issues are being ignored while the Government fixates on pushing through yet more privatisation.”

Ark Elvin 'land grab' to be decided at Planning Committee on Thursday

From the planning application

The redevelopment of the Ark Elvin school site (formerly Copland) is coming up at Brent Planning Committee on Thursday October 22nd (7pm Brent Civic Centre) LINK

Residents have been up in arms about what they see as a 'land grab' of the school playing fields to which they have had access for decades. The issue has been covered on Wembley Matters in the past LINK and there is an update on the Kilburn Times website LINK

Local resident Chetan Patel is claiming that the plans are a breach of the 'Public Right of Way':

With respect to planning application (ref 13/3161) for the redevelopment of ARK Elvin Academy formally known as Copland, I believe the proposal breaches the community's 'Public Right Of Way' to access the park in accordance to Highways Act 1980 Section 130A.

The proposed re-development removes all general public access to the park. The community has had access to the entire park without any objections from ARK or from the previous management of Copland Community School for many decades now. The Planning Application removes this general public access to the park.

The school have claimed anyone entering the park are trespassers, and the public don't have authorised access to park. However, the law assumes that if the public use a path/park without interference for some period of time set by statute at 20 years, then the owner (London Borough of Brent) had intended to dedicate it as a right of way. Therefore it is a 'Public Right of Way' by way of 'easement by prescription'.

 Residents appealed to Muhammed Butt, Brent Council leader when he visited the site on Saturday. However Butt is both a member of the governing body of Ark Elvin (representing the local authority), which put the proposal forward and a member of the Cabinet who gave the nod to the plans.

The Planning Committee is statutorily independent of the Council and under Sarah Marquis' has shown some independence.

The issue does of course raise the much wider issue of the handing over of public assets to academy chains.

At the same meeting the planning application for the Kensal Rise Library building is also under consideration. LINK

Barry Gardiner wins parents' meeting with minister over Byron Court school expansion

Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, yesterday agreed to try and arrange a meeting with parents from Byron Court Primary School either with her or the Minister for Schools to discuss their concerns over expansion of the school.

She was responding to the following question in the House of Commons from Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent North:

The Secretary of State said that her policy is that all “good and outstanding schools” should be able to expand to meet “the needs of parents” in their local areas. Byron Court primary school in my constituency is being forced to expand against the needs and wishes of parents in the local area. I shall not go into the details now, but will the Secretary of State meet me, parents and local residents who are desperately concerned about the state of this school’s expansion programme?

Brent Council has backed the expansion despite the parents' objections and a letter to the Cabinet from Barry Gardiner representing the parents' and residents' concerns. LINK

It became an issue during the General Election campaign. LINK