Welsh School Planning Application Deferred

The Planning Application for the London Welsh School was deferred tonight in order to have a wider consultation with the community local to King Edward VII Park. Officers were also asked to look again at the land swap as it was felt that the land next to Collins Lodge, which slopes up to Park Lane, wasn't equivalent to the land that was being lost.

The issue has been extensively covered on Wembley Matters with many comments. Here are links to previous articles:

London Welsh School seeks new home in King Edward VII Park

Planning Officers recommend granting of planning permisison for Welsh School in King Edward VII Park

Comments in support of Welsh School application to be verified by officers

 Stand up for King Eddie's Park

Update on Welsh School Planning Application

Parkland and open space belong to the people

Campaigners against the use of land in  King Edward VII Park for a school have started a blog called Wembley Champions HERE

 Cllr Sam Stopp has posted his presentation to the Planning Committee HERE

This is what Paolo Di Paolo told the Planning Committee:

This proposal in effect takes away a community sporting facility from local residents and replaces it with a private business operating as the London Welsh School. Their Registered Company Number is 3952000. This sets a dangerous precedent.

At the site visit, Mr Richards said that they will require parking for 9 vehicles daily and will have keyholder access to the park car park. This car park has been closed to the public for many years with access only granted for sporting events, for example, weekly football, park bowls club use or special Council events.

The idea of compensating for the loss of the open space adjacent to the pavilion with the steeply sloping bank next to Colin's Lodge is not comparable and unusable. In fact this will make Colin's Lodge vulnerable to vandalisation and arson. As an attractive notable architectural feature of the park and the wider Wembley area this would be tragic.

The Tree Officer's report has not been available within the submitted documents. As no tree survey was submitted with the application there is a real need for formal proof before this category B Monterey Cypress tree can be removed. Category B trees have the ability to contribute to the quality of an area for up to 20 years. Granting permission without such proof would be a travesty.

Child protection is important. The location is too exposed to the public being in the middle of the park. This would not be a secure site for children. The rear elevations of several Princes Court properties face the bowling green. The proposed site would be a very vulnerable location for the children. e.g. Dunblane shooting occurred because the site was open and therefore vulnerable.

I stop here. Where will the planning department stop at permitting the taking of open space from the people of Wembley and Brent? We urge our elected planning committee members to look at the limited evidence base, lack of transparency in the planning department's provision of supporting statements and timeline of supplementary document submission for this application, alongside the case officer committee report, to ultimately refuse this flawed proposal.

This is the text of Denise Cheong's speech to the Planning Committee:

King Edward VII Park was bought by the council in 1913 (and opened in 1914) to compensate the residents of Wembley for the loss of Parkland at Wembley Park, which was being developed as a high class residential garden suburb. 

2/3 of the alternative sites considered by the London Welsh School are not in Brent. They include Orpington Kent. Only 16% were considered too far for parents. These figures strongly support the viability of the school relocating outside of Brent.

The consulting of only 11-18 Keswick Gardens, 21-32 Princes Court and Park Lane Primary School, (plus councillors and officers) prevented wider park users their right to be consulted for this council owned, but ultimately public sporting space.

The change of use of the bowling pavilion would prejudice use of the bowling green. This application does not include the bowling green, yet there is clear intent to use and restrict access to this public green space. The use of the word “exploit” in supporting documents, mention of “appropriate groups” and exclusion of dog walkers is further evidence of this. The park is a resource for the whole community, not just half of two streets, and should not be exploited by any group. 

There are 202 bowls clubs in Greater London and West Ealing juniors start from 7yrs old.
Former Wembley Bowls chairman, Ron Ferrari, informed me no adverts were placed by Brent Council indicating possible demise and urgent need for members. 

The western half of King Eddie's Park is the only tranquil and quiet open space for local Wembley residents. Many of whom now and will live in high rise flats, with Quintain's proposals, with no open space close by.  

Fundamental changes to the scheme were made, concerning removal of trees, after the consultation period. Application procedure was flawed and may give rise for an application for judicial review.
Parkland and open space belongs to everyone, me, you, you and you. Based on the facts, taking all material planning considerations into account NPPF 74, NPPF 123, CP18, ALGG alongside any doubt as to the transparency of this planning application, there is a case for deferral as supported by Sport England, if not refusal

Update on Welsh School Planning Application ahead of tonight's decision

During the day new information and clarifications have been received over the London Welsh School/King Edward VII Park planning application.

First, following so many comments extolling the virtues of the Welsh School and the achievemnts of its pupils, I asked if they would be taken into account. Normally there are strict guidelines about what counts as a 'material consideration' for planning purposes. Residents in the main are not questionning the quality of education offered but are objecting on planning grounds which would apply to any non-sports/park use for the premises.

This is what the Case Officer wrote in response:

The planning application will be considering the planning considerations of the scheme including the site, traffic  impact etc. The main committee report does consider the education need but the quality of the education itself would not be a material planning consideration.

The Supplementary Report going to Committee  clarifies issues around the submissions:

Reference has been made to a letter of support being registered to the incorrect address. To clarify, a letter of support was received from 23 Toley Avenue. The letter was incorrectly registered to the wrong address 28 Princes Court when it received by the Council. This administrative error was rectified with appropriate letter sent to 23 Toley Avenue providing detail of the Planning Committee meeting and site visit. There has been no letter of support received from 28 Princes Court or letter purporting to be from this address.

I still don't think how this 'error' could have happened with a different number and street and no submission at all from the address that was erroneously posted on the Planning Portal. I am sure the Planning Committee will seek further clarifcation.

The Report goes on:

  Concerns have also been raised with potential false addresses being provided by those wishing to support the planning application. Your officers can confirm that a total of 7 representations (of a total of 27) supporting the application have been received by residents in Brent, and that it has been verified that the names provided are connected to the relevant addresses. A number of the other representations have been received from outside the Borough. Whilst officers have not been able to verify these addresses, given the specialist nature of the Welsh School, it is not considered unrealistic that representations from outside the Borough could be provided. There is no evidence to suggest that false details have been provided.

Sport England have sent in a response that suggests in the last paragraph that deferral may be appropriate:

Sport England aims to ensure positive planning for sport, enabling the right facilities to be provided in the right places, based on robust and up-to-date assessments of need for all levels of sport and all sectors of the community. To achieve this, our objectives are to seek to protect existing sports facilities from loss as a result of redevelopment; to enhance existing facilities through improving their quality, accessibility and management; and to provide new facilities that are fit for purpose to meet demands for participation now and in the future.

Sport England seeks to ensure that the needs of sport are given appropriate consideration and significant weight in the development management process. The Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) makes the need for such consideration clear in its requirements to:

·      deliver community and cultural facilities to meet local needs;

·      protect existing sports and recreational buildings and land;

·      guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services;

·      promote mixed developments;

·      plan positively to provide opportunities for outdoor sport in the Green Belt; and

·      ensure that decisions are based on robust, up-to-date and relevant evidence.

In this above context, Sport England would support the ongoing use of the site for sport. Whilst we accept the findings of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the committee report, it is not clear what proactive attempts have been made by the Sports and Parks Service to promote the site and encourage a viable and ongoing sporting offer at the site. Sport England would advocate that the site remain in sporting use and that other sporting uses should be considered ahead of non sporting uses.

Strictly speaking, the application does not demonstrate full conformity with para 74 of the NPPF:

Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:

·      an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or

·      the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or

·      the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.

As indicated, whilst we do not dispute that the Bowls Club disbanded in 2013, this in itself does not mean that the site has no future purpose in serving the ongoing strategic needs of the bowls community.

The other consideration, which is not within the red line of the application boundary, is the bowling green itself. Sport England has not commented on the loss of the bowling green as this does not form part of the application red line boundary. The bowling green should therefore remain in D2 Use. The red line only extends around the pavilion and does not include the bowling green. We would therefore like to clarify that the bowling green does not  form part of this application and should remain available for ongoing community use.  This is an important point which needs to be explicitly made.

I trust you will find the above helpful, which gives a better understanding of Sport England’s position. In light of the above, it might be helpful to understanding current sporting needs in more detail before making a determination of this application. It may be appropriate to defer this application from determination until a fuller understanding of sporting need is undertaken.

Energy Solutions must stay to protect the poor from fuel poverty

One of the most troubling aspects of the current round of cuts is that organisations that contribute to long term stability and long-term savings in expenditure are losing their funding in order to balance current budgets. Sometimes those long-term costs are paid by individuals or departments outside the Council: cost shunting.  This is the case with the Stonebridge Adventure Playground and the Youth Service where long term costs of the loss of those services may be picked up by the criminal justice system or mental health - much more expensive in the long run and often at the social expense of ruined lives.

Energy Solutions is another such case:

Energy Solutions who are housed in the chapel building close to the Welsh Harp Environmental Study Centre in Birchen Grove also threatened with closure, have a long term aim of reducing the carbon footprint of the borough contributing to the fight against climate change.  In the process they are helping residents, landlords, schools and businesses reduce fuel bills and emissions and providing a vital educational function.

They work with local organisations such as Citizens Advice Bureau and AgeUKBrent.
 
 

--> During the period since January 2012, Energy Solution clients have benefited in excess of £717,000 in disputed or refunded gas and electricity bills, trust fund applications and ECO funded affordable warmth measures (heating and insulation).
This figure could have been considerably higher if DECC/ECO funding for heating and insulation upgrades had not dried up early in 2014, and if Energy Solutions had been able to find funding for health and wellbeing based referrals.

Much of their time is spent trying to find funds from pension funds, friendly societies and other legacy organisations, this has resulted some good outcomes - recently the banking benevolent fund paid for a new boiler for a pensioner who didn’t qualify through benefit proxies but was none the less in hardship.

It is cases like these that the organisation find most challenging, where need is great - and often urgent, but  proxy profiling takes no account of individual circumstances, so there is little they can offer other than a personal visit and the provision of advice on how to make the most of the assets they have in terms of behavioural change, tariff or energy company switching and energy saving advice.

Their new ‘Boilers on Prescription’ funding approach is aimed at Public/NHS health and Adult Social Care services in Brent and is unique in that it proposes to prioritise patients/residents living in cold homes based on their clinical need rather than the benefit proxy. Health and wellbeing first and all the other, often conflicting issues, around housing, family ‘obligations’, and conflicted interests later.
Energy Solutions’ approach to Social Prescribing has been described elsewhere, but the ‘Boilers on Prescription’  LINK hub concept they propose could be extended into long term help and assistance from the third sector to make it easier to move vulnerable private tenants into more suitable housing, and provide a holistic circle of support to help improve social isolation, loneliness and mental stress - saving countless ££££’s to the local authority, Public Health and the NWLHCT, the CCG.

In the words of Dr Tim Ballard, Vice Chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, “What’s not to like?”


The proposal in Brent Council's budget consultation states baldly:

Cease grant to Energy Solutions. Discontinuation of grant  for the provision of energy efficiency / fuel poverty advice.

The grant is just £50,000.Energy Solutions must stay

It comes with the virtual abolition of the Environment Department and the ending of many of Brent's green initiatives. The Council has made public statements about fuel poverty and only in December 2014 announced a series of roadshows on energy saving LINK

In his 'My Priorities' blog in  December 2012 LINK   Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council said:

Too many people in our community live in fuel poverty - unable to afford to turn the heating on over Christmas. That is why we will launch a Brent Collective Switching scheme.

But the answer is more than just switching and the work that Energy Solutions does with the poor, the elderly, the sick and with schools and other organisations is absolutely vital.

If the Council's aim is to protect the vulnerable, then Energy Solutions must not be cut. If it is serious about its commitment to combating climate change, then Energy Solutions must not be cut. If it wants to invest in the long term wellbeing of the community, then Energy solutions must not be cut.

 More about Energy Solutions work and contacts HERE  

Energy Solutions also collects donations to help those in fuel poverty. Older people who received the extra DWP winter fuel allowance but are not in need may be particularly keen to donate HERE 

Brent Labour's choice: Resist or Rat on the Poor

from @MapesburyGreen

Saturday was a busy day for Brent Labour Party members with the opening of offices for the parliamentary candidates and a big push on Dawn Butler's campaign for Brent Central.

Down at the Methodist Hall on the Neasden roundabout members were subjected to 'Death by Powerpoint' style presentations and separate cafe style discussions on different services and the cuts proposed. A familiar process for those who have experienced 'Shaping a Healthier Future' or Brent Plan consultations.  It is a method that seems to dilute opposition and impose the control of the organisers.

I expected little from this 'Shaping a Broken Borough' consultation and that was confirmed by Graham Durham's posting on the Brent Fightback page on Sunday:

-->

Well what a poor turnout at the All Brent Labour Party meeting yesterday on the £54million cuts proposed by the Labour leader, Cllr Butt. By the time votes were taken only 12 ordinary Party members were present - the rest were councillors. Reasons for this poor attendance vary - obviously considering how to destroy services to the poorest and most vulnerable in Brent is not everyones cup of tea as a priority for 10 am on a Saturday morning. There is also a democratic deficit in the Labour Party as ordinary members know that whatever they say the Labour councillors will ignore it.

This cynicism grew when Labour councillors awarded themselves a 25% pay award this year - so councillors now have an interest in turning up to ensure their huge allowances are protected. As usual the trick of proposing slightly more cuts ( £60m) was used so Butt and co can claim later they saved this or that ...but otherwise there were the usual crocodile tears from Cllrs Butt and Pavey that Labour councillors do not want to attack the most vulnerable at all but feel obliged to do so. 

The cuts themselves were set out in a series of PowerPoints prepared by Council officers - and sadly most of the justifications were read by Cabinet members from scripts prepared by Council officers -as ever it was clear Labour councillors were doing what they were told by officers and exerted no control over Council decisions at all. When the detail of the cuts were revealed there was much unhappiness- in the children's service for example over the £8.4 million cuts. 

Cllr Ruth Moher tried to present £2.3milion of these cuts as 'uncontentious'-as they represent a £700k loss of residential placements for the most needy children in care ,cuts of £650k in spending on quality remand placements . They were, of course, deeply contentious. Worse was to come as £900k was to be lopped off what is left of the Youth Service, carers and study advice to the most vulnerable young people was to be slashed by £500k, Stonebridge Adventure Playground was to be slashed by £118K, up to ten Children’s Centres closed etc etc. 

When it was pointed out that there is an epidemic of child abuse in Brent and everywhere else and all these proposals and more put children more at risk of abuse it suddenly dawned on some councillors that they were attacking the very children they had been assured would be protected. One new Brent North councillor declared she spent her working life working for vulnerable children and became quite upset when she realised she was required to vote to damage these very children. 

When a vote was taken on a Kilburn ward motion to refuse to make the cuts and to campaign against them Party members were tied in the vote - but twelve highly paid Labour councillors were allowed to vote to rule this out (only one Cllr Rita Conneely abstained). There will be sleepless nights counting those allowances between now and March 2nd when the Council budget is set.

There are consultations with residents tomorrow (see image above) where there will be a temptation to argue for specific services in the £6m cap between the cuts set out in the draft budget and the total actually required.  However Brent Fightback wants a much more militant approach by the Council"

Fightback believes the Council should resist the cuts, tell the government that they are totally unacceptable and refuse to implement them, that they should organise a march to Eric Pickles' office or Parliament and ask the people of Brent and all the other Labour Councils and the people of other boroughs to come with them. It would be good if Fightback supporters could go to these meetings and make these points

A well placed senior source reckons that Muhammed Butt currently has the support of about three quarters of the Labour Group so a revolt seems unlikely at present, although those who are disaffected are VERY disaffected.