The case for deferring decision on Welsh School build in King Edward VII Park

I have tried on Wembley Matters to enable debate and dialogue over the planning application for the London Welsh School to relocate to the Bowling Green in King Edward VII Park. As with many planning applications the general public were unaware of the plans.

This will be a difficult decision with the protection of green space and the preservation of a unique institution apparently in conflict.

A glance back at comments on the earlier coverage on this blog will indicate that new information has emerged during the discussion and further suggestions have been made that are not in the officers' report.

The Welsh School is a charity, along with other independent schools, and charges fees. The school however prides itself on never turning a child away so fees are reduced for those in need. However the school has applied twice to become a free school and if successful  would receive funding directly from the DfE. It is not clear whether they will re-apply.

The Gladstone Free School had plans to build on open sports space adjacent to Gladstone Park and this was opposed by local residents and the school withdrew. Gladstone would have been a much bigger school but free schools being built on open space is a controversial issue.

Clearly the Planning Committee would need to be mindful of setting a precedent that may open the way for other applications and the importance of protecting Brent's parks and open spaces.

There has been some confusion over which ward is affected. The Bowling Green, Park Lane school and the land between them are in Wembley Central ward. The rest of the park, including Collins Lodge and the land swap site, are in Preston ward. The houses on Park Lane, opposite the park, are in Tokyngton ward. So far only Sam Stopp. Wembley Central ward councillor has made a submission to the Planning Committee and will be speaking at the meeting. (email address below)

One suggestion has been that a possible alternative site in King Edward VII park that would be more accessible. This is on the disused yard next Collins Lodge. It has also been suggested that the Pavilion would be better used as a community facility for Wembley Central residents. The question has been asked as to why the availability of the Pavilion for other uses has not been made known to residents.

There is some confusion about the school's use of the Bowling Green itself - the planning application is only for the Pavilion and the land between the Pavilion and Princes Court back gardens. The Chair of Governors of the Welsh School in a blog comment said the bowling green itself was not in their  demise but elsewhere there is an assumption that the children would use it.

There has been a flurry of late support for the planning application, many of whom have links with the Welsh School and praise its provision.  Although labelled 'Comments from Neighbours' many are from much further afield. One postal letter of support mistakenly names Barham Park as the site of the Pavilion rather than King Edward VII Park. An early support statement that appeared under a name at  28 Princes Court has been removed from the Council. A neighbour checked at the address and found that no one of that name lived there and the occupants hadn't submitted a statement of support.  Brent Council, rather strangely, accounted for  its inclusion an as 'administrative error'. Other submissions from Princes Court are in opposition. Sports England are in touch with the Planning Officer and will make a submission by Monday.

My personal view is that because of the wider implications of this application, confusion over the detail, possibility of an alternative site within the park, and lack of public knowledge about the proposal, the Planning Committee should seriously consider deferring a decision on Tuesday.

Comments can still be made up to Monday midday to victoria.mcdonagh@brent.gov.uk

The site visit is tomorrow (Saturday) morning at 9.35am

The application will be heard on Tuesday at the Planning Committee, 7pm, Brent Civic Centre. Residents can apply to speak for 2 minutes and applications have to be made 24 hours in advance.
Apply to: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk

To view the on-line comments so far follow this LINK

Standing orders for the Planning Committee (explains how it works, speaking rights etc)  LINK

Planning Committee Code of Practice LINK

Cllr Sam Stopp is still keen to received comments from residents:  cllr.sam.stopp@brent.gov.uk

Brent Youth Parliament must feel free to campaign on youth service cuts

Five years ago Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) raised the issue of alleged 'intimidation' of Brent Youth Parliament members in the House of Commons  LINK

He said:

Recently, my hon. Friend Ms Butler [Dawn Butler then an MP] invited young people who were members of her Facebook group to visit her in Parliament. Many of those young people were also members of the Brent Youth Parliament. Shortly thereafter, members of the Youth Parliament received a letter from Brent Council's senior lawyer. The letter stressed that Brent Youth Parliament is supported by the London borough of Brent and it counselled them as follows: "You will obviously need to give careful consideration as to whether you wish to align yourself with a particular person or group and what impact this may have on others' perception of you as a Brent Youth Parliament member. If you do decide to participate in local politics, you will need to give consideration as to which person or group you are willing to be connected with and any implications of this."

Many of these young people have been frightened by the letter and regard it as a warning shot. They have previously believed that Brent council was encouraging young people to become politically active, but they now consider that it encourages them only if they are sympathetic to the Liberal Democrats. What action can this House take to ensure that these young people are not bullied in this way by a local authority?

Unfortunately I think the problem is related to the way the Youth Parliament is set up, regardless of the political complexion of the administration. Members 'shadow' particular departments and take part in Council Meetings, Committees etc but this closeness, (incorporation some may say), seems to prevent open, public disagreement with Council policy.

In April 2011 Kishan Parshotam, the Chair of the Brent Youth Parliament, in a presentation to Scrutiny Committee, claimed that the YP was being ignored over their opposition to library closures LINK

In January 2012 a youth wrote to me about his/her concerns regarding the independence of the Youth Parliament LINK

Changes in youth provision are planned in Brent with options  ranging from  outsourcing to voluntary organisation to complete closure of the  youth service.

When these proposals were first announced there was an outbreak of comments from Youth Parliament members on Twitter and then silence descended. I understand that there were suggestions that members should not get involved in party politics, which is rather similar to what was said above during the Liberal Democrat administration.

If Brent Youth Parliament cannot campaign over drastic cuts to the youth service which will impact on young people throughout the borough, what can they campaign on? There was a presentation to the Council meeting on December 15th (see below) but I would expected press publicity at the least and public meetings, visits to youth centres and schools, to gain support for the retention of the service.

Of course Youth Parliamemnt Members should get involved in opposing the cuts - as loudly and vociferously as possible.

That is what happened when cuts were proposed by Ann John's Labour administration and the cuts were opposed  by young people with some success. LINK

A question I wanted to ask at the Scrutiny Committee was not taken. The Safer Neighbourhoods Team has spoken about their work to prevent youth offending and prevent re-offending which included work with gangs based on the Cincinnati model.  The police recognised the roots of crime in inequality and deprivation and the remedy in improved educational outcomes and employment opportunities.

They'd had some success and I wanted to ask what they thought the impact of  cuts in the youth service and the closure of Stonebridge Adventure Playground on their work.

Cllr James Denselow's blog LINK in an article on crime in Brent included this:

Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala, who represents the Stonebridge ward, works with youths in Brent. He is calling for the availability of more activities in the borough to divert young people away from crime.

He said: “This is terrible news for our young people. Although it’s important we take tough action on youth crime, it’s also important we provide alternatives to keep young people out of crime.

“The government cuts to youth services, such as abolishing Brent Connexions, which gave career advice to young workers, is making it harder, not easier, to tackle youth crime.

“We need to divert our youngsters away from crime and gangs. If not, we could easily see another repeat of the London riots”.

Now as the result of Coalition cuts Brent is proposing to cut the Youth Service.  The social long term impact of cuts made for short-term financial gain is incalculable.

In Haringey, Seema Chandwani, former Deputy Head of Haringey Youth Service wrote in September 2012 LINK:

Tottenham sadly is now on the map for all the wrong reasons, an area that will long be known as the home of the riots and not for the first time as the 1985 riot also took place here. Prior to the riots, as many Youth Workers up and down the country are aware, Young People from Haringey (the borough where Tottenham is located) commenced a campaign to save their Youth Service. Despite their campaign, in Feb 2011 Haringey Council decided to cut the Youth Service by 75%. Cuts started to take effect from April 2011, the riots occurred in Aug 2011.

It will be wrong to state that the closure of the Youth Service led solely to the riots, but knowledge informs us that a circus of social circumstances leads to social disorder. For Young People in Haringey, specifically Tottenham there is an array statistics that demonstrate a negative impact on Young Peoples lives ranging from low educational attainment, high youth unemployment, high crime rates etc. Intelligence should have informed decision makers of the potential risks of the action they were about to make, especially as the Young People and wider community had told them at every juncture – Young People needed their Youth Service.

There was some self-congratulation at the Scrutiny Committee that Brent had not experienced rioting at that time but the message to the Council must be 'Brent Young People need their Youth Service' and Brent Youth Parliament members should feel free to shout that from the roof tops.

The current campaign in Haringey LINK

Fiona Ledden has left Brent Council

I have had confirmation that Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement at Brent Council,  decided to take redundancy over Christmas and left the Council at the end of December 2014.

Ledden's post was recommended for deletion in the proposed restructuring of the senior management of Brent Council. A new post of Chief Legal Officer is proposed to be  ring-fenced to three Hay graded lawyers, which includes Head of Human Resources, Cara Davani's partner, Andy Potts.

Fiona Ledden was mentioned in the Judgment of the Employment Tribunal where Brent Council was the  first respondent and Cara Davani the second. The Judgment found that Rosemarie Clarke had been racially discrimination against, victimised and constructively dismissed.

Controversially Brent Council decided to appeal against the Judgment and last month a Judge at Employment Tribunal Appeals found that Brent Council had no grounds for appeal.

Deputy Leader of the Counci, Michael Pavey, has almost completed his internal review of Human Resources which has a remit limited to procedures and policies. It will be tabled at General Purposes Committee on January 29th.

Cara Davani continues in post.

This is an extract from the Employment Tribunal Judgment:

With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant,[Rosemarie Clarke] following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made. Indeed, by the evidence before the tribunal a decision was taken following a meeting between Ms Cleary [a Brent HR Manager] and Ms Ledden [Brent’s Legal Director]. In her oral evidence, Ms Ledden confirmed that Ms Cleary’s role at the meeting was an advisory one only, but also that she, Ms Ledden, had not made the decision either. Ms Ledden could not identify who had made the decision

Time to Save the Welsh Harp Environmental Centre yet again!

I don't really have to set out the case against the closure of the Welsh Harp Environmental Study Centre as Brent Council does it for me in the promotional video above.

The Centre has been threatened with closure on a number of occasions and each time schools, young people and former users, as well as environmentalists, have come to its defence. LINK

Thought to be in the 1980s

February 2011

The projected savings for closing the Centre are small £13,000 in 2015-16 and £14,000 in 2016-17. Current projected expenditure is £36,102 and projected income £23,000 (the Centre charges per head).

The Officer's report LINK suggests that Carey's, who currently fund one teaching post, might be interested in 'a greater role which could keep the centre open'. Carey's is the parent company of Seneca the waste materials reprocessing company sited between Wembley Park and Neasden.