Brent approves Moberly Sports Centre development

After extensive discussion, much of it concerned with the lack of affordable housing in the development, Brent Planning Committee approved the redevelopment of the Moberly Sports Centre. A speaker from Wilmott Dixon said that they would not be able to provide a high quality sports centre if they were required to build affordable rather than market housing. He said that Brent and Westminster councils had accepted this.

Cllr Mashari who is responsible for sports told the committee that the new centre was required to give an opportunity to the large number of people in the south of the borough who do not partake in regular physical activity which contributes to ill health. The centre represented a bargain for local people who would benefit from superior facilities at special concessionary rates negotiated for disabled, unemployed and low wage residents.

The application was approved with 7 for, 1 abstention and 1 against.

Approval is subject to any direction by the Mayor of London to refuse the application. He has 14 days to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged or direct the Council to refuse the application.

Navin Shah issues challenge on A&E pressures

From Navin Shah Labour Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow

New figures have revealed the increasing strain London’s Accident and Emergency departments are facing. The increased pressure on A&Es follows the closure of wards across the capital. In the past year 199,693 people were forced to wait more than four hours at an A&E in London, this is an increase of 18% on the previous year when 168,604 people waited more than four hours.

The local A&E unit at Central Middlesex Hospital in Brent now operates at reduced hours with more suspected cuts to follow. Northwick Park Hospital in Brent, which is on the boundary of Harrow is the nearest A&E unit that is open for a twenty-four hour service. This will put so much pressure on Northwick Park Hospital with people waiting much longer hours at the A&E Department. Both Central Middlesex Hospital and Northwick Park Hospital fall under North West London, which has seen 12,778 people wait more than four hours over the past year.

Overall, two A&E units in London have been closed, two are to be “downgraded”, three are set to be closed and a further three are under threat of closure. In the past year all but one of London’s Hospital Trusts with A&Es failed to meet the key waiting time target of 95% of patients seen with 4 hours. In 15 out of 22 trusts this target was missed for over half of the last year. Navin Shah, local Labour London Assembly Member, is calling on the Health Secretary to urgently review the situation, and for the Mayor to lobby government for the resources that London’s NHS needs.

Navin Shah, local Labour London Assembly Member, said:

We were told that closing A&Es wouldn’t lead to longer waiting times, but the evidence shows that Londoners are waiting longer to be seen. In the past 12 months nearly 200,000 people across London and 12,778 people in North West London have been forced to wait for more than four hours at A&E. These figures are a damning indictment of the failure to properly plan our NHS services. 15 out of 22 Hospital Trusts have failed to meet this key target.

Last year we all celebrated the NHS’ 65^th Birthday, one year on the government’s botched top down reorganisation is putting severe pressure on our local services. Continuing to either close or downgrade London’s A&Es will make the situation even worse. NHS staff work hard to look after us all when we are at our most vulnerable, but they need the resources to be able to deliver the service we all expect. Central Middlesex Hospital now operates an 11 hour A&E service, which adds further pressure to Northwick Park Hospital’s A&E service. I am deeply worried that following these A&E closures, waiting times will continue to be high and Londoners will continue to suffer as a result.

1.    Navin Shah is the Labour London Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow.

Figures for 2013/14 taken from here: http://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/ae-waiting-times-and-activity/weekly-ae-sitreps-2013-14/ and for 2012/13 from here: http://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/ae-waiting-times-and-activity/weekly-ae-sitreps-2012-13/

Kensal Rise Library, Copland and Representative Democracy

Guest blog by Guestropod

Anyone following the Kensal Rise Library correspondence on Wembley Matters LINK would be struck by two things:   1. the level of interest in the matter    2. the desire to communicate that interest and the related opinions to councillors, with  the implicit expectation that the elected representatives would respond to them.

A similar level of interest and a similar expectation of a response to their concerns also seems to have characterised  the involvement of Copland students in their opposition to the dismantling of their school and its takeover by the Ark academy business. This opposition was ultimately expressed in a letter which followed up a petition signed by well over 400 students and addressed to Brent Council's Head of Children and Families. Apparently, none of these students had participated in any similar action before and many would have been unaware that it was possible for them to do so. I would imagine that the experience was worth a term's worth of Citizenship lessons.  

The original petition was ‘lost’ by Brent council and further copies had to be provided.  A copy of the follow-up letter went to every Brent councillor. LINK

Out of the 60+ councillors who were sent the letter, I gather that a grand total of 3 (THREE) managed the courtesy of a reply, (2 Lib Dem, 1 Labour).

Anyone teaching in Brent at the 2010 General Election would have been impressed by the level of interest shown by 6^th form students keen to use their vote for the first time. The mock election staged at Copland and organised by Mr Allman was supported by local and national politicians and enthusiasm for the breath of fresh air and honesty which Nick Clegg appeared to be offering was palpable. Within a few months most of these students were in further education. And grants were tripled. A more effective way of disillusioning a generation of new voters is impossible to imagine.

None of those kids who signed the Copland anti-academy petition have the vote, so presumably they can be ignored. Those Copland 6^th formers who voted Lib Dem in 2010 did have the vote, but they were ignored and betrayed anyway. Those contributing to the Kensal Rise Library discussion on Wembley Matters and elsewhere no doubt all have the vote, probably used it last time and are likely to vote again on May 22nd. It’s good to see the faith they seem to still have in the democratic process and in their elected representatives’ responsiveness.

I would hope that Copland's current and past students could share that faith. But I can also imagine (and sympathise with) the reasons why they might not.

Border dispute over Moberly/Jubilee sports centre development to be decided tomorrow

Flyer issued by Kensal Trian gle Residents earlier this year

Controversy over developments on the borders of Brent and other boroughs have been quite a feature recently: Brent Cross: (Brent and Barnet), Welsh Harp-West Hendon Estate (Brent and Barnet), Harlesden Incinerator (Brent and Ealing) and are now joined by the Moberly Sports Centre (Brent and Westminster).

Tonight the Moberly application will be heard by the planning committee and a lobby is planned by the mainly Westminster group, Save the Jubilee Sports Centre, to persuade Brent not to grant planning committee. Brent officers' with some conditions have recommended approving the application.

The Moberly is situated in Brent on the border of Westminster but owned and run by Westminster City Council.

Save Our Jubilee campaign has been given space on the blog  LINK of Westminster Labour councillors to argue their case:

The Save Our Jubilee campaign has been fighting Westminster City Council to keep the much-needed sports facilities at the Jubilee Centre, one of Westminster’s two most deprived wards.

Westminster’s plan for the new Moberly sports centre is part of a wider plan which involves the demolition of the Jubilee centre and its replacement by market housing. The plan involves combining most of the facilities provided at the Jubilee and Moberly now in one new centre.

We think it isn’t a good deal for Brent residents. This is why.

1. No affordable housing will be provided to meet the desperate needs of Brent residents. Brent’s Site Specific Allocations DPD identifies the Moberly site as one that could be redeveloped to improve the existing sports and nursery facilities and in addition to provide 104 housing units. Brent would normally expect half of these to be affordable – a valuable contribution to meeting housing needs in the borough. Westminster are proposing 71 flats (fewer than Brent thought the site might accommodate) and all these will be market housing for sale with no affordable units included.

2. Loss of daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties. Westminster City Council’s decision to relocate services from the Jubilee to the Moberly site has resulted in a massive new building, seven storeys high at the northern end, which will rob neighbouring homes in Brent of daylight and sunlight. As a result, properties in Chamberlayne Road, City Heights and Noko will experience daylight levels below BRE guidelines, while properties in City Heights and Noko will have no direct sunlight at any time of the day. The Report attempts to justify this on the grounds that the developers of Cityview and Noko should have anticipated the redevelopment of the Moberly site. But they were facing an open space. It was reasonable for everyone to assume that this would be left undeveloped in line with Brent’s planning policies.

3. Loss of outdoor sports facilities. On the north side of the Moberly site there is an 18 x 36 metre floodlit artificial turf pitch used mainly as a football pitch by local youth clubs and adult teams. The report Planning for Sport and Active Recreation Facilities produced jointly by the London Borough of Brent and Sports England in 2008, looked at the distribution of STPs (Synthetic Turf Pitches) across the borough and considered that the south of the borough was adequately served by the pitch at the Moberly. However, if Westminster’s application for the Moberly site is approved, this pitch will be lost and, as a result, wards in the south of Brent will no longer meet minimum standards for outdoor pitch provision. The replacement pitch offered is in Westminster, 1.2 miles away, nearly in Maida Vale – and foreign territory for most of the Brent and Queen’s Park youngsters who use the Moberly now.

4. Replacement, not better provision. Westminster City Council argues that the benefits provided to Brent residents by the new sports centre are so exceptional that Brent’s policies in relation to affordable housing and overshadowing should be set aside We say that, contrary to Westminster’s claims, the benefits offered by the new development are in no way exceptional. The new centre will, firstly, not provide any more usable leisure space than exists now and, secondly, the facilities mainly replace sports facilities already provided in the existing Moberly and Jubilee centres – which include a 25 metre pool, two sports halls, and gym and fitness suites..

For these reasons, we hope that the current planning proposals by Westminster will be refused by Brent Council at the Planning Committee meeting on 9th April.

There were 29 comments opposed to the proposal (along the lines of the above) and 12 in favour on the following grounds:

• The facility will provide excellent sports facilities in an area which does not have easy access to such facilities
• The proposed development will benefit sports provision in local schools
• The proposed development will increase visitors to the area which will be good for local businesses.
•  The proposed sports facility will benefit the health of local residents.
•  The building is of an appropriate size similar to neighbouring City View
• The proposal will be an improvement on the existing dilapidated facilities.
• The cost of the development will not be to taxpayers but the facilities will benefit all residents

Kensal Triangle Residents' Association have maintained a neutral stance on the issue with opinion divided between supporters and opponents.

There will be an arrangement giving Brent residents access to the Centre. The proposed facility would have a floor area of 9293 sqm and would include the following facilities:

•  25m 6-lane swimming pool;
•  8-court sports hall;
•  Boxing hall
• Multi-use sports hall
• Community Activity Room
• Fitness suite
• Three exercise studios
• Health Spa

In its comments supporting the proposals Brent Parks and Sports Department is decidedly bullish:

Brent’s Sports and Parks service feel that the redevelopment of Moberly sports centre will bring fantastic new opportunities for Brent’s residents to take part in a wide range of sports and recreation activities in this state of the art new leisure facility.

Brent has one of the most inactive adult populations in England and the new opportunities that Moberly bring to increase residents ability to become more active is welcomed. Brent has a number of health inequalities across the Borough including high levels of diabetes and obesity and a more active lifestyle through use of this new sports centre will help people lead a healthier life.

The range of facilities is significantly greater than that at the current Moberly centre. 

The inclusion of swimming pools brings a new facility dimension to the Kilburn area and will offer both adults and children the opportunity to learn and take part in swimming. Swimming was the most frequently participated in sports activity across England according to Sport England’s Active People survey and the provision of only a third pool within the Borough of Brent will enable more people to take part in this popular activity.

The range of different facilities spaces available from boxing to 8 court sports hall, studios and community space reflect that a wide and ranging programme will be offered to the local communities. 

From a strategic perspective, the Borough’s Planning for Sport and Active recreation facilities strategy identifies the need for additional publicly accessible fitness stations and upgraded sports hall provision which Moberly will provide.

The Sport and Active Recreation Facilities Strategy has a number of themes which the provision of a new sports centre at Moberly will help to achieve, namely:

Theme 1: Increase provision of appropriate Facilities

Theme 3: Get more people active

Theme 5: Increase sports opportunities for young people

Theme 7: Improve partnership working

It will also help the Council deliver against it’s Corporate priority of ‘a strong community’ and it’s associated outcome of ‘Excellent sports, leisure and cultural facilities used by more people’. Also the priority ‘Improving health and well-being’ and achieving the outcome of ‘More people living healthier and longer lives’.

In the now familiar mantra associated with such developments (cf Willesden Green Library and the luxury flats sold overseas and the upcoming development at Bridge Park complex) Brent Council accepts the view that provision of ANY affordable housing on site is not viable given the developer's provision of the new Sports Centre:

After careful consideration of the viability issues and in light the high quality sports and leisure facility that will be accessible to Brent residents at the same prices as Westminster residents the lack of affordable housing on-site will be acceptable provided there is an appropriately worded clause in the section 106 agreement to claw back any financial surplus that could be used to support the provision of affordable housing elsewhere in the Borough

It should make for an interesting discussion tomorrow night. The lobby/demonstration outside Brent Civic Centre is due to start at 6.30pm.

It may not be too late to apply to speak on the issue:  Contact: Joe Kwateng, Democratic Services Officer  020 8937 1354, Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk

REVEALED: All Souls/Gillick Kensal Rise Library option agreement

Guest blog by Meg Howarth
 
All Souls College (ASC) has released the Option Agreement (OA) to buy Kensal Rise Library which it signed with Andrew Gillick on 26 November 2012. It was ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner following a successful appeal against its refusal to disclose the document under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request - details of that decision have been published on the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) website.

 Failure to comply with the commissioner's decision could have resulted in ASC being reported to the High Court. Though the college was permitted to redact the names, dates and sale-price from disclosure, ironically it's only the price Andrew Gillick paid for Kensal Rise Library that's still unknown. As of today, the Land Registry records haven't been updated since the sale to Mr Gillick was completed on/after 31 January this year but currently reveal:

'Option Agreement dated 26 November 2012 made between 

(1) Andrew Gillick and (2) The Warden and College of the Souls of All 

Faithful People Deceased in the University of Oxford expiring on 31 

January 2013' 

and that the value of the property 

 'at 5 July 2012 was stated to be under £100,000'. 

Interestingly, the OA shows that Mr Gillick paid a deposit of £105,000 which was to be deducted from the sale-price of the building.

Dated                2012

THE WARDEN AND COLLEGE OF THE SOULS OF ALL FAITHFUL PEOPLE DECEASED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD (1)

--------------------(2)

__________________________________

                OPTION AGREEMENT

         to purchase Kensal Rise Library

___________________________________

Brent Fairtrade AGM Tomorrow

 Brent Fairtrade Network is holding its Annual General Meeting at 7.30 pm on Monday 7 April at the Civic Centre. This is a key opportunity for anyone in Brent to influence our plans for the next year and elect members of the Steering Group.  We shall review our progress over the last year too - and toast our successes in Fairtrade wine.

What do Brent councillors think about deferral of Kensal Rise planning application?

A lively and at times passionate debate is taking place on these pages over the redevelopment of the Kensal Rise building.

The article has attracted more comments than  almost any other on this blog and I am posting this to invite readers who may have missed it to join in.

In particular I am inviting councillors and council election candidates to respond to what is clearly an important local matter.

One major theme is whether the planning application should be deferred until after police have completed their investigation into the alleged fraudulent emails submitted in support of the developer Andrew Gillick's previous planning application. LINK

Other matters include whether the space offered to the trustees of Friends of Kensal Rise Library for a community library is sufficient, and how robust that agreement is.

The original article by the trustees of the Friends of Kensal Rise Library and subsequent comments can be seen HERE

Since this was written responses have started coming in via Twitter. I will update here:

1. Martin Francis ‏@WembleyMatters 1h

   .@CllrButt What do you think? http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/what-do-brent-councillors-think-about.html …
2. Cllr. Muhammed Butt ‏@CllrButt 1h

   .@WembleyMatters we have a statutory responsibility to look at application. 1000's apps in Brent. Do we check the person or application

   
   

    Vicky Zentner ‏@vickyzentner 56m

   @WembleyMatters @CllrButt isn't ignoring the suspicion over fraudulent emails at very least morally wrong and at worst, collusion?
3. Meg Howarth ‏@howarthm 47m

   @CllrButt Both person& app.need flagging up.Planning cmtee statutorily independent&can vote to defer hearing>
4. Alex Colas ‏@AlexWG2014 18m
   

   .@WembleyMatters Planning cmtee should defer decision on this application until investigation into fraud allegations are completed.

@WembleyMatters 1/2 Strongly agree planning app should be deferred until outcome of investigation. Result might invalidate, for example. Alison Hopkins  @Hopkins_Alison   @WembleyMatters 2/2 FKRL know if space enough. I want VERY watertight legal guarantees. I've bad experiences with developers (Brent X!

Tough Times at Copland Today

Guest blog by So Macho

We live in tough times, as the cushioned and the comfortable  frequently remind us, and there can be few more nauseating contemporary  sights than effete middle-class Englishmen like Osborne, Cameron and Gove, with the might of the state at their disposal, boasting of the toughness of the decisions they have to make in order to intimidate, bully or impoverish the vulnerable.  It was tough times too at Copland today as another swathe of teachers collected their P45s, the consequence of the tough decisions the IEB has had to make in order to make Copland into a tempting morsel for Ark Inc. No time for sentiment either as no recognition was made by the tough management of the fact that staff with up to 12 years of  service were getting their dismissal letters. No official farewells, no gathering of the staff for an organised and dignified recognition of colleagues’ contribution and no time for staff to hold even an unofficial goodbye as, contrary to tradition and custom and practice in other schools, they were told toughly that ‘Friday will be a normal day’. 

Not for those being made redundant it wasn't. Tough eh?