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.

Stand up for King Eddie's Park!

 

Boating lake at King Edward VII Park 1914 (Park Lane Primary on the hill, Collins Lodge left)

A reader has sent this in as a comment on a previous posting but I think it deserves a 'Guest Blog' of its own. As always comments welcome from both sides:

I cannot believe that Brent Council is entertaining any planning applications on public park land regardless of who the applicant is.

What short memories they have, and no affinity with history. After all, King Edward VII Park it's 26 acres were bought by the council in 1913 for £8,050.00 to compensate the residents of Wembley for the loss of Parkland at Wembley Park which was then being developed as a high class residential garden suburb. It was opened by Queen Alexandra herself in memory of her late husband on 4th July 1914.

This is more relevant now than it was then. The population of Wembley has increased by 20% over the last 10 years and shows no sign of receding. Over the past few years Wembley has experienced building and development of gigantic proportions at unprecedented rate which is set to continue in light of Quintain's ambitious development of Wembley Stadium estate and surrounding areas, building thousands ( approx 4700) of high rise flats with little or minimal consideration to providing green open space. Much of what is provided in terms of gardens or landscaping is not designated for use as a play area where ball games or any form of free active play can be enjoyed, picnics, barbeques, throwing frisbee's or balls, any noise, exercising pets is not allowed and often is strictly prohibited. So any residents wishing to participate in any of the above need to find their nearest open green space i.e King Edward VII Park.

Over the past few years the residents have experienced an enormous loss of green open space removed from the public domain, Wembley Sports and Social grounds to Ark Academy, Copland's Fields to the New Ark Elvin Academy, the latter still remains a mystery to many of us.

How did Brent Council manage to dispose of this land?

How much was paid for it?

Where and when was the public enquiry or consultation held for the residents of Wembley to have their say prior to this happening?

As I for one would have been there to object.

King Eddie's Park as it is affectionately called is a true family park which is well used by the residents of Wembley Central and Preston Park Wards, and the wider community, many of which reside in flats with no access to any communal green space. A current holder of a Green Flag award, as a part of local history should be preserved in its present state

The buildings currently in the Park, i.e. Bowling Pavilion, Collin's Lodge and the main pavilion in the centre should be opened up and remain in the public domain for use by local residents, charities and community based organisations who have seen their funding and buildings completely eradicated under the Councils austerity measures, but whose activities benefit a far greater proportion of the local diverse community, than an niche elitist Independent Fee Paying School which does nothing to enhance the wider community.

I therefore urge all local residents and elected members to reject this planning application for the greater good of the Wembley Community as a whole, and stick to the origins of why it was created in the first place.

Planning Portal comments in support of Welsh School planning application to be verified by officers

Cllr Sarah Marquis, Chair of Brent Planning Committee, told residents attending the site visit at King Edward VII Park this morning that she had instructed officers to investigate comments that have appeared on the council planning portal in support of the London Welsh School's application to build a school in the park.

The resident of 28 Princes Court, whose address and someone else's name, had been used to post support, when she herself was opposed, said that she was not satisfied with the officers' explanation that this was an 'adminstrative error'.

Marquis has asked officers to investigate that and also to verify the 13 other comments (excluding 23 Toley Avenue) in support of the application that suddenly appeared on the portal on January 8th.

Apart from a representative from the Welsh School the 20 or so residents (including children) who attended seem to have been opposed to the planning application.

Debangshu Dey, a local resident, has offered to collate bullet points from residents that could then be included in a presentation to the Planning Committee on Tuesday. Residents can apply to speak for up to 2 minutes and the points could be spread between several speakers.

Debangshu's email is debangshu.dey@medreich.co.uk (corrected)

It would be useful if you could say if you are willing to speak. The collated points can then be sent to all who have responded.

Cllr Sam Stopp (Wembley Central) also continues to welcome comments on the planning application  cllr.sam.stopp@brent.gov.uk  He will be speaking at the Planning Committee and will have up to 5 minutes for his presentation.

The site visit was also attended by Cllr Jean Hossain (Preston) and Preston ward residents can write to her cllr.jean.hossain@brent.gov.uk .  Most of the park is in Preston ward, including Collins Lodge where the land swap is proposed. The Bowling Green is in Wembley Central ward.

Residents who live opposite the park on Park Lane should contact Tokyngton councillors and copy in Sam Stopp.

Here are some photographs of the Bowling Green site taken this morning.

The additional classroom proposed to be built here, 4m from the boundary with back gardens

This area behind the Bowling Green Pavilion proposed to  be resurfaced as a playground

Planning Officers confirmed that the Bowling Green itself did not form part of the planning application.  Councillors were shown the disused yard adjacent to Collins Lodge which had not been considered as a possible school site or land swap.

Brent Central Tories select Mendoza and declare 'no confidence' in Muhammed Butt

Former Brent Conservative Councillor Alan Mendoza has been selected by the Tories to  fight Brent Central in the General Election. Mendoza topped the poll in a by-election in Preston ward in June 2005.

He was regarded as a 'Young Turk' who presented a challenge to the leadership of Bob Blackman, now MP for Harrow East.

Mendoza  is Executive Director of the neo-con Henry Jackson Society and a supporter of the Conservative Friends of Israel. He has affiliations with many other organisations and when a councillor declared that he was a Freemason.

He has a particular interest in the Middle East and in security issues and was commenting on TV over Charlie Hebdo on Friday LINK


Mendoza contributes to the Guardian's Comment is Free website.

Foreign policy could be come an issue in the General Election, as it was in 2010 over the Iraq war. The views of HJS are likely to be in conflict with those of the other candidates so far selected:

Henry Jackson Society:

1. Believes that modern liberal democracies set an example to which the rest of the world should aspire.
2. Supports a ‘forward strategy’ – involving diplomatic, economic, cultural, and/or political means — to assist those countries that are not yet liberal and democratic to become so.
3. Supports the maintenance of a strong military, by the United States, the countries of the European Union and other democratic powers, armed with expeditionary capabilities with a global reach, that can protect our homelands from strategic threats, forestall terrorist attacks, and prevent genocide or massive ethnic cleansing.
4. Supports the necessary furtherance of European military modernisation and integration under British leadership, preferably within NATO.
5. Stresses the importance of unity between the world’s great democracies, represented by institutions such as NATO, the European Union and the OECD, amongst many others.
6. Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that the political or human rights pronouncements of any international or regional organisation which admits undemocratic states lack the legitimacy to which they would be entitled if all their members were democracies.
7. Gives two cheers for capitalism. There are limits to the market, which needs to serve the Democratic Community and should be reconciled to the environment.
8. Accepts that we have to set priorities and that sometimes we have to compromise, but insists that we should never lose sight of our fundamental values. This means that alliances with repressive regimes can only be temporary. It also means a strong commitment to individual and civil liberties in democratic states, even and especially when we are under attack

No stranger to controversy, Mendoza was lambasted for his activities in the Henry Jackson Society,and accused of mounting a putsch by Marko Attila Hoare LINK

I grew up with groups like the Socialist Workers Party, in which total power is held by one or two leaders, but the totalitarianism is disguised by window-dressing consisting of branch meetings, annual conferences, meetings of the Politburo and the like. Well, the HJS is like that, but without the window-dressing: there isn’t even the pretence of democracy or consultation. Instead, the organisation operates on the basis of cronyism and intrigue. Sole power is held by one individual – Executive Director Alan Mendoza. He was not elected to the post and is not subject even to formal or technical restraints, nor to performance review and renewal of contract.

Mendoza's views can be seen in this clip when he was up against Stop the War's John Rees:


Meanwhile the Brondesbury Park Conservatives have put forward a motion for the next Full Council meeting that should also attract controversy:

-->

Motion under Standing Order45 in the names of Cllrs.Warren,Shaw and Davidson.

"NO CONFIDENCE VOTE IN CLLR.BUTT..........BUT HOW DO WE DO IT???? "*
This Council recognises that Cllr.Butt is unfit to lead Brent Council,and notes his actions since taking this post......
1. On becoming Council leader falling out with the previous Chief Executive and costing Brent £200,702 in compensation for loss of office.
2. In May 2014 installing  himself for four years as "Brent's Prime Minister," instead of the usual annual election for leader.
3. Introducing a Kremlin - style Constitution  in May 2014,including a reduction in Council scrutiny from 8 to 1 committees.
4. Presiding over a humiliating Industrial Tribunal case,where Brent was found guilty of race discrimination and yet still continuing with futile appeals....costing thousands .
5.  Damaging dramatically Brent staff relations as a result of the aforementioned I.T.case.
6.  Surrounding himself with a " Mafia - style " group of members and officers at the expense of most Labour members.
7. Losing Cllr.Perrin from his Cabinet within days of the new Council and barring Cllr.Van Kalwala from the Civic Centre.
8. Appalling lack of judgement in the Tricycle furore that happened in the summer of 2014.
9. Wasting more Brent Council taxpayer monies in the so called "independent " Mansfield inquiry into Brent NHS issues.
10. Totally undermining the Mayor of Brent by hogging every conceivable photo- opportunity at Mayoral events.
11. Showing a total lack of leadership in the ongoing budget process with endless consultations,forums,working groups,focus groups instead of showing real leadership.
12. Including the amazing Standing Order 13 in the Council constitution,which eliminates the traditional method of moving a motion of no- confidence.
This Council notes how difficult it is to move a no- confidence vote in Cllr. Butt Standing Order 13 requires 40% of Council members to put forward such a motion to Council some 10 working days before the meeting.In the interests of democracy this Council calls upon Cllr. Butt to remove Standing Order at the Council AGM on 20 May 2015.

A bit odd as Cllr Butt doesn't have the power to remove Standings Orders on his own, surely removal  of SO13 itself should have been a motion that the Brondesbury Conservative 'Provisionals' put to the AGM?

I expect the Kenton Conservative 'Officials' to treat the motion with disdain as they seem comfortable in their role on the Council after being officially recognised by Labour as the official opposition.

Brent North Conservatives have selected Luke Parker who works for IBM. According to the Kilburn Times LINK he wants 'better' schools, will champion small businesses and supports the living wage.

It really does look like there are two distinct Conservative Parties in Brent.

* The printing of this motion does not indicate my support for any or all of the points or  belief in their accuracy.

Another high-rise development for Wembley but where is the truly affordable housing?

From the planning document

Shortly after my article about the high rise 20 storey development behind the Brent Civic Centre LINK Quintain have put in their planning application (14/4931) for the South West Lands. This is the area along the Chiltern line going south from Wembley Stadium station which is crossed by White Horse Bridge (below) Full documentation for the Planning Application can be found HERE

New developments in white

This fills in the space currently occupied by shrubbery. The application leaves some options which will probably be decided by Quintain on grounds of viability (or better known as profit) in negotiation with Brent Council.

Some of the blocks are 19 storeys high, just one storey below the blocks planned behind the Civic Centre and three or so higher than the Orbis Hotel next to the White Horse Bridge.

Someone recently asked why, having demolished the tower blocks of Chalkhill and Stonebridge, the Council were now supporting the building of them in Wembley?

This is an artist's impression of the impact on the skyline:

Summary of Planning Application

A hybrid planning application, for the redevelopment of the site to provide seven mixed use buildings up to 19 storeys in height accommodating: outline planning permission for up to a total of 75,000sqm to 85,000sqm mixed floor space including up to 67,000sqm of C3 residential accommodation (approximately 725 units); 8,000sqm to 14,000sqm for additional C3 residential accommodation,

C1 hotel and/or sui generis student accommodation (an additional approximate 125 residential units; or 200-250 bed hotel; or approximate 500 student units; or approximate 35 residential units and 200 bed hotel); 1,500sqm to 3,000sqm for Classes B1/A1/A2/A3/A4/D1/D2; together with associated open space and landscaping; car parking, cycle storage, pedestrian, cycle and vehicle access; associated highway works; improvements to rear access to Neeld Parade; and associated infrastructure full planning permission for a basement beneath Plots SW03 - SW05 to accommodate 284 car parking spaces and 19 motor cycle spaces; Building 3A within Plot SW03 to accommodate 183 residential units and 368 cycle spaces at ground floor; and associated infrastructure, landscaping and open space

In the consultation last year, which got a low number of response, out of the 37 general comments the largest number on a single topic was nine (from Consultation summary):

Nine comments express ed the view that affordable housing/family housing should form part of the development and be delivered quickly.

Nine comments related to specific suggestions for provision of infrastructure/amenities as part of the development. These suggestions included schools, GPs and provision for youth, the elderly and disabled people.

So are the consultees going to get what they requested?  The application gives two scenarios for the amount and type of housing:

In Scenario 1 the proportion of social rented housing is 2.2% and in Scenario 2 5%. This is against Brent's 50% target for affordable accommodation. As usual the definition of affordable is unclear but for the developer seems to include the Intermediate category and is hedged by caveats..

-->

At present, the proportion of the affordable units is not known as this will be subject to negotiations, planning priorities and viability. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, a range of affordable housing provision has been considered to ensure the impacts at both ends of the spectrum are identified and,where necessary, mitigated. The range assessed is between 10% (Scenario 1) and 25% (Scenario 2) by unit. In the event that affordable housing provision falls outside these bounds, a review will be undertaken to identify any new impacts or significant changes to the impacts identified as part of this assessment.

Given the amount of housing Quintain's assessment of the number of children in the development seems low. The number of 3 bedroomed properties, a priority for many Brent families is low. Perhaps the developers are assuming most of the residents with be Dinkies (Double Income No Kids).

From this prediction they suggest there is already enough secondary school places if Gateway and  Gladstone Free Schools open (a gamble?)  and the development will have a 'negligible effect'  locally. However there they may be the need for some Community Infrastructure Levy contribution to primary school places as the development is deemed to have a 'minor adverse effect'. With GP's lists at capacity locally it also suggests a CiL contribution to health provision may be necessary.

It is worth reminding ourselves what was promised in terms of social provision for local people at the beginning of the Quintain development, aside from affordable housing:

Anticipated infrastructure is expected to include (inter alia):

· 2 x 2 forms of entry primary school; a new combined primary (2FE) and secondary school (6FE) on the Wembley Park site;

· Extensions to existing local schools; nursery places;

· At least 2.4ha of new public open space comprising of a new park (1.2ha min) and 3 pocket parks/squares (0.4ha each);

·Improvements to the quality and accessibility of existing open spaces;

·A new community swimming pool; indoor and outdoor sports facilities;

·Play areas; new health facilities with space for 14 GPs and 11 new dentists;

and  new multi-use community facilities.

I recommend that among the hundreds of documents you read the Socio-Economic Chapter of the application which covers some of these issues. LINK

Among the positives about the development are the provision of green space and play space for children although we will need to see details about public accessibility and quality. Some of the buildings will have green roofs.

However once again we have to ask, where is the benefit for the ordinary people of Wembley/Brent and what will the Council do to increase the proportion of truly affordable housing for local people?