Preston Manor Primary Consultation Riles Residents

The consultation on the expansion of Preston Manor High School to incorporate primary provision got off to a controversial start at the residents consultation meeting on Wednesday.  Residents complained that householders on nearby streets had not received consultation letters and had only heard about the meeting by word of mouth. It was apparent that they did not have full information when it emerged that many thought the proposal was only for a temporary 2 classroom building on the school site, rather than a two form entry permanent building for 420 children (more if a nursery is incorporated into the plans). A Brent officer said that there was a limit to how many individual letters to householders could be sent out. Residents retorted that householders on streets adjacent to the development had not been informed.  A quick search on the Brent planning website reveals that for a minor development, such as the temporary swimming pool at Chalkhill Primary  School, which will be in place for only 15 weeks, 104 individual letters had been sent out. LINK

Residents also complained that the timing of the meeting, from 5pm-6pm, meant that the majority of residents in employment, were unable to attend so had been denied their democratic rights.

Another issue was a statement from the Authority that 'In the immediate local area of Preston Manor High School 72 Reception aged children' remain without a school place. When I sought clarity on what 'immediate area' meant I was told this was the whole of HA9 and HAO, a huge area compared with the common-sense assumption that 'immediate area' suggests the streets immediately around the school. It became clear that pupils attending the school would be coming some considerable distance, raising concerns  that traffic levels would increase at the same time as the ARK academy's gradual growth will produce additional congestion in the vicinity.  This is a copy of the Authority's map showing where reception pupils are unplaced. It is clear that there is a cluster in the Wembley Central area as well as several south of the North Circular:

Apart from this issue of whether a new school was actually needed on the Preston Manor site, rather than elsewhere, questions were raised about why Brent Council had not anticipated the increased demand for primary provision given that these children were born 4 years ago (although obviously some were children of recently arrived families);  whether in the face of the recession some were only temporary residents who would return to their countries of origin; and the impact of the cap on housing benefits which Martin Cheesman, Brent's senior housing officer, had said would make local rents unaffordable for many families.

When I asked what plans had been made for a primary school on the Quintain development site around  Wembley Stadium, where the next phase includes the building of 1,300 new homes, I was told that Section 106 money which could be used for a new school, would only be drawn down after the housing was built. Surely this will create a further school places crisis until the new school is completed? Overall Brent's approach seems to be 'flying by the seat of our pants' when what we need is a strategic school places 'master plan'.

At the conclusion of the meeting the Chair of Preston Manor Governors said that the governors had not yet made up their minds on the expansion proposal and welcomed representations to aid their deliberations.

There was no time to discuss educational issues but hopefully there will be time to explore these at the Wembley Area Consultative Forum on Wednesday 20th October at the Patidar Centre, 22 London Road, Wembley.  The meeting starts at 7pm and the Expansion of Preston Manor Consultation is timed for 7.35. However only 30 minutes is scheduled for this item  and discussion on parking charges and Wembley Link.

Among the educational questions that need to be answered are:

1. Is the proposal for an 'all through school' as stated in the consultation document (i.e. one school, under one leadership, perhaps with separate heads of the primary and secondary departments) or a 'feeder primary school' as stated in the glossy consultation leaflet given out at Wednesday's meeting?  A feeder would be a separate school with its own headteacher.
2. What system of governance is envisaged? Separate governing bodies for the primary and secondary schools or one governing body?
2. If it is to be an 'all through' school what are the educational arguments for such a structures?
3. As the ARK Academy is already an all-through school and Capital City is applying for primary provision, is this emerging as  the de facto favoured development option of the Authority? If so an open debate is needed on the policy.
4. What repercussions would there for local primary schools of such a policy?
5. What would be the catchment area of the new school and how would this affect the catchments of neighbouring primary schools such as Preston Park and Chalkhill?
6. Would the primary school pupils receive preferential treatment for entry to the secondary school? If so this would reduce the places available to pupils from other primary schools by a quarter.
7.  As the secondary school is popular and over-subscribed, canny parents would enrol their children into the primary school in order to secure a secondary school place. What would be the knock-on impact on other local primary schools both in terms of their rolls and social make up?

Consultation document is HERE. Closing date October 25th. If the governors of Preston Manor decide to go ahead on the basis of this consultation, there will be a further 6 week statutory consultation period.

Bestway takes on Barnet Council in Brent Cross Battle

Barnet Council has been given an ultimatum of the likelihood of impending legal action by a major local company who fear the loss of their successful business to a massive waste dump.  The controversial Brent Cross Cricklewood (BXC) regeneration plans, which are fiercely opposed by thousands of local residents, politicians and campaign groups, call for the compulsory purchase and demolition of Bestway cash and carry and its replacement with a huge waste handling facility and incinerator, taking refuse from all over north London.

Bestway have discovered major flaws and inconsistencies in the plans and proposals put forward by Barnet Council and their development partners.  An official letter from the North London Waste Authority in early September stated that they no longer needed the site.  This was hastily retracted a few days later, quite likely following discussions between Barnet Council and the Waste Authority. Bestway are now challenging the whole scheme on the basis of this and other serious flaws and irregularities.  A letter from Bestway on the 8^th October asks Barnet to meet with them, the developers and the North London Waste Authority as a last ditch attempt to resolve matters, since Barnet has stated that it is likely to confirm the BXC application by October 29^th.  Otherwise, lengthy and costly legal action would likely follow.

Malcolm Carter, Head of Property, Bestway Holdings says, “I cannot understand why Barnet is still pursuing the Bestway site as it is patently not required any more.”

Alison Hopkins, member of the Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Cricklewood Plan and Dollis Hill resident says, “Barnet Council is allowing a single unelected official to decide the future of much of North London.  This is clearly undemocratic, especially in view of the cosy relationship that seems to exist between it and the developers.  Barnet’s motive is for financial gain to cover the massive losses made by ill-advised investments in Iceland banks and huge project overruns.

“A judicial review could kill the project altogether.  This will likely cost Barnet millions of pounds better spent on services for local residents.” 

The Brent Cross Cricklewood scheme has been formally opposed since last year by both Brent and Camden Councils. It was wrongly stated at Barnet's Planning Committee that Brent had withdrawn its opposition, and that brought a stinging response from Brent's Head of Planning to Barnet officials.

The Coalition has been fighting for several years the proposals for a Brent Cross incinerator, the demolition of houses with gardens, and the massive increase in road congestion.  It is now calling on Barnet Council to reconsider before it is too late.

Gardiner leaks cabinet election results

Barry Gardiner didn't get elected to the shadow cabinet but he still managed to get his name into the story when he leaked the result on Twitter  before the expected 9pm announcement and it was picked up by the New Statesman. Here are his postings:

1. #ShadCab Cooper 232 Healey 192 Balls 179 Burnham 165 Angela Eagle 165 Johnson 163 Alexander 160 Murphy 160 Jowell 152 Flint 139 Denham 129 3 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone
2. #ShadCab Contd: Benn 128 Khan 128 Creagh 119 McKechin 117 Maria Eagle 107 Hillier 106 Lewis 104 Byrne 100 You heard it here 1st Gardiner 41! 

Figures for those not elected were:


Thornberry 99, Hain 97, MacTaggart 88, Keeley 87, Coaker 85, McFadden 84, Goodman 80, Lammy 80, Timms 79, Bryant 77, Woodward 72, Thomas 71, Jones 68, Brennan 64, Blackman-Woods 63, Abbott 59, Harris 54, Twigg 55, Bradshaw 53, Wright 43, Gardiner 41, Hanson 38, Lucas 34, David 30, Irranca-Davies 28, Leslie 26, Flello 15, Gapes 12, Michael 11, Joyce 10

Green Party Backs November 6th Anti-Fascist Demonstratiuon

The Green Party has given its official backing for the national demonstration against racism, fascism and Islamophobia on Saturday 6 November.

The party has added its name to the statement backing the demo, which is called by UAF and backed by the TUC, the Muslim Council of Britain and a range of trade union leaders, faith and community groups.
The march assembles on Saturday 6 November at 12 noon, Malet Street, London WC1. It aims to bring together the widest possible alliance of people opposed to racism, fascism and Islamophobia – and show that the vast majority of people are opposed to the racism of the English Defemce League and the fascists of the British National Party.

Caroline Lucas MP said:

"Racism, fascism, Islamophobia and antisemitism have no place in a civilised society and must be firmly resisted. That’s why the Green Party is supporting this demonstration."

Caroline has also added her own name to the list of those supporting the demo and Jean Lambert, one of the party’s MEPs, has agreed to speak at the central London demonstration.

One Million Climate Change Jobs Now! Pamphlet Launch

Fightback at Tory Conference

Romayne Phoenix, Green Party, speaking at Right to Work Demonstration

Report on the demonstration from Sara Cox: The Brent Fightback Campaign sent a contingent to the demonstration in Birmingham on Sunday October 3rd that marked the beginning of the Conservative Party Conference. Marching behind the banners of the Brent Trades Council and Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group were pensioners and students, employed and unemployed, trades unionists and service users including disability rights campaigners and people with learning disabilities. Trades Unions represented included the NUT and UCU teaching unions, the CWU postal workers' union, the RMT rail workers' union, bus drivers and others from UNITE. Together they braved the pouring rain to join a lively protest that brought together thousands united by their determination to resist the proposed cutbacks to jobs, services and the Welfare State that the Government is proposing to bring in to solve the bankers' crisis. 

For more information about Brent Fightback go to www.brenttuc.org.uk or email brentunited@gmail.com

Brent starts school budget claw back process

Brent Council is in the process of sending members of the Schools Finance Team into schools with large budget surpluses to examine the paperwork associated with their spending plans. The Department for Education have stipulated an 8% of the school budget share threshold for primary and special schools and 5% for secondary. However local authorities can take into account the reason the school is holding a large surplus before deciding whether it is excessive or not. Schools may hold balances above the threshold when they are being used for specific projects, especially around building works.

It is likely that in the Comprehensive Spending Review for 2011/14 to be published on October 20th that Local Authorities will be required to monitor balances closely and implement claw back more vigorously. Local Authorities coping with cuts in their overall budget may well be tempted to claw back as much as they can. However, schools using their own budgets for building works actually save LAs money by rebuilding and refurbishing schools out of the school's own money, rather than letting buildings deteriorate to such an extent that the LA has to use its own money to remedy the situation.. Schools often put money aside over a period of years in order to build new libraries, IT suites, toilets, kitchens and classrooms that enhance the quality of education and standards of achievement.

If surpluses are clawed back in a period of retrenchment it will also rebound on schools' capacity to withstand the impact of cuts and lead to staff cuts as staff costs form the bulk of school spending. This will be most keenly felt in the provision of ancillary staff including teaching assistants, learning mentors and parent liaison workers. All of whom do great work in providing for children requiring extra support in order to achieve heir potential.

Brent has identified 39 schools with surpluses giving a potential claw back of almost £8 after setting aside 'acceptable' carry forwards at the 8% and 5% levels. . However the schools have largely claimed that these are ear-marked for specific projects and this will now be verified by the Finance Team. Some schools however still have uncommitted balances of which the largest are Michael Sobell Sinai at £169,000 and St Marys RC Primary £108,000.

The Finance Team will be looking at the following:

1. Where schools have given details of specific projects, evidence of inclusion in the School Development Plan, approval at Governing Body/Finance Committee meetings and correspondence with other agencies such as Asset Management, Architects, Planning, is seen. Also timescales for completion of the projects.


2. Where funds are being used to cover salaries, they will be asked to show how the long term funding will be covered once the surplus balances have been used.


3. Where funds are being used to balance 2010/11 or 2011/12 budgets, they will be asked to show where the pressures are and what the long term aims are to address those pressures in the form of monthly budget monitoring and budget setting spreadsheets.

Lack of evidence will lead to Brent implementing the claw back mechanism  at the next budget setting cycle for 2011-12.

Preston Manor on Academy Road?

In August I high-lighted the fact the School Places document going before the Council Executive during the school summer holiday included proposals for an expansion of Preston Manor High School into an 'all-through' 5-19 school.

Things have moved quickly since then. Matthew Lantos, headteacher of Preston Manor, presented his plans to the governing body at their September meeting. There was disquiet because this was the first most of the governors had heard of the proposal despite the School Places document stating:

3.3.8.4 Preston Manor Secondary School: has agreed to house temporary accommodation for two Reception classes on the school site from January
2011. The school has principally agreed to provide permanent primary provision from September 2011 (my emphasis). Further discussions need to take place with the governing body.

 Nevertheless the governors agreed to consult on on whether respondents agreed to support 'the proposal to expand Preston Manor High School by creating a two form entry permanent primary provision from September 2011." Consultation paper HERE

The consultees list includes Preston Manor High School (parents,staff, student council), all maintained schools in Brent; Westminster Diocesan Education Service, the London Boroughs of Ealing, Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, Barnet, Harrow, Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Trade Unions, Brent MPs, Admissions Forum, local Residents Associations, councillors, London Diocesan Board for Schools and the Brent Governors Forum.

All these organisations are expected to respond by October 25th despite the fact that many schools will not have a scheduled governing body meeting by then.The Preston Manor governing body will then consider publication of a statutory notice by 1st November.  If it decides to go ahead there will then be a formal six week consultation with the Council Executive making a final decision in January 2011.

As with the ARK the decision is foreshadowed (pre-empted?) by a temporary 2 form entry Reception  building on the site to be erected in January 2011.

The document is based on meeting the need for primary places because of the growth in Brent's population but no data is supplied providing evidence that there is a need in this particular area of Brent. No assessment is made of the potential impact on the roll of other local primary schools.

The document states that "the LA consulted with primary schools in the borough to explore the possibility of increasing the number of school places." As a Brent school governor I challenge whether any such formal consultation has taken place - instead there have been a number of informal discussions and an ad hoc series of decisions made to add a 'bulge class' to some schools (a one-off class in a particular year that moves through the school as an additional class in that cohort) or increasing the form of entry of some schools..  The process seems neither well-researched or well thought out and my fear is that there may be repercussions later when demand stabilises and some schools find themselves with half-empty classes with a consequent detrimental impact on their budgets.

Informed sources suggest that Matthew Lantos sees this as the only way that Preston Manor can compete with the ARK Academy just down the road. Year 7 pupils started at ARK this term as the first cohort in the secondary school.

The danger is that once (if?) the all-through school is approved that Lantos will then decide that the only way to fully compete with the ARK is for Preston Manor to seek academy status - otherwise the ARK would have the edge in terms of finance, curriculum flexibility and the ability to decide its own teachers' salary structure and conditions of service. If  Preston Manor becomes an academy that could start a domino effect with other Brent high schools feeling that they have to take the academy route in order to compete.

This was exactly what happened in the 1990s when Claremont, Kingsbury, Convent of Jesus and Mary, Queens Park, and Copland high schools all applied for self-governing Grant Maintained Status, creating problems for Wembley High and the then Willesden High. Willesden was designated a failing school and became the first City Academy in Brent.

If this were to happen Brent Council would be in the position of losing a lot of money to the academies with a detrimental impact on the remaining schools, special needs provision and other services. In turn poor local authority support and provision  could lead to more schools opting for academy status and thus ending democratic control of local education.  This is not so far-fetched: Surrey Council is in talks with the DfE over plans to convert all its secondary schools to academy status.