Sunday, 13 March 2016

Standards at Brent Council – Will Standards Committee set a good example?

This guest blog by Philip Grant continues his attempt to ensure Brent Council displays high standards of conduct in public life.
 
In a blog article of 2 January 2016 LINK I referred to the Annual Report which Brent Council’s Monitoring Officer was presenting to its Standards Committee the following week, and some matters of concern which it raised. I was not able to attend the meeting, so was interested to read what the minutes of the committee meeting on 7 January would have to say about that Report. This is the text of the draft minute for that item, which appeared on the Council’s website last Friday:
‘5. Annual Report to the Standards Committee 2014 - 2015
The committee considered the circulated report of the Monitoring Officer which updated members on conduct issues and the work of the Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer for the period December 2014 to December 2015.
The committee was informed that the process of recruiting Independent Persons would begin later in January. Councillor Warren enquired about the Council’s existing arrangements. He proposed that the Independent Person should be given a higher profile in order to give the role greater credibility by bringing forward their role in the process of considering complaints. Concern was expressed that this could potentially undermine the position of the Monitoring Officer and that such an arrangement was not followed in other boroughs.

RESOLVED:

(i)            that the Monitoring Officer’s Annual report 2014/15 be noted;
(ii)          that the procedure for dealing with complaints be considered at the next meeting of the Standards Committee.’
While I am glad to see that Standards Committee did more than simply ‘note’ the Annual Report, which is what the Monitoring Officer had recommended they should do, the brevity of this minute raises more questions than it gives answers to.
1.     What was Cllr. Warren’s enquiry ‘about the Council’s existing arrangements’ (for Independent Persons?), and what was he told in reply to his enquiry?
2.     Which other committee members raised enquiries on, or made comments about, the Annual Report; what points did they raise and what answers were they given?
3.     Was Cllr.Warren’s proposal ‘that the Independent Person should be given a higher profile’ put as a formal motion, and what discussion (and vote?) took place on this proposal?
4.     Who was it that expressed concern ‘that this could potentially undermine the position of the Monitoring Officer’, and what reasons were put forward in support of that concern?
5.     Who put forward the resolution (not referred to in the Annual Report itself) ‘that the procedure for dealing with complaints be considered at the next meeting of Standards Committee’, and what views were expressed “for” or “against” this proposal?
The minutes of the meeting at which the previous Annual Report was presented (9 December 2014) give details of a number of questions raised and comments made by committee members; these are followed by a 17-line paragraph beginning: ‘In reply to the issues raised, Kathy Robinson advised that …’ which gives answers to the points raised. [For information: Kathy Robinson was the Council solicitor deputising for the then Monitoring Officer, Fiona Ledden.] Why was that precedent, and the good practice it showed of properly recording in the minutes what happened, not followed for the meeting on 7 January 2016? And how can the draft minute for item 5, quoted above, ‘be approved as an accurate record of the meeting’?
The purpose of Standards Committee, as set out on the Council’s website, is:
‘To promote high standards of conduct by councillors, to receive allegations that councillors may have failed to comply with the Council’s code of conduct and hold hearings into allegations of misconduct.’
At the heart of those high standards of conduct are the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership (see footnote below for an explanation of what these principles should mean in practice), which all members must comply with whenever they are conducting any business of the Council.
I hope that the members of Standards Committee (to whom I am sending a copy of this blog article) will show openness and accountability, by amending the draft minutes for item 5, so that they record properly the actions of those who took part in the discussions on the Annual Report and the reasons given for those actions, so that the public can hold them to account. The amended minutes for the meeting on 7 January should then be posted on the Council’s website, in place of the draft minutes, as soon as possible after 21 March.
By amending the draft minutes, Standards Committee would demonstrate leadership, in promoting high standards of conduct. It would also avoid the integrity and honesty of committee members being called into question, which could be the case if it appeared that the minutes were deliberately being kept vague, as part of ‘a culture of covering up uncomfortable truths’. Failure to amend the draft minutes would provide further evidence for the criticisms I made about Brent Council in my open letter to its Chief Executive on 27 November 2015 LINK
So, please come on, Standards Committee, and set a good example over standards of conduct to other members, to encourage public confidence in Brent Council.
Philip Grant,
13 March 2016

Footnote:

Brent’s Members’ Code of Conduct says:
You must maintain a high standard of conduct, and comply with the following general conduct principles:

The General Principles

Selflessness – you should serve only the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.
Integrity – you should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.
Objectivity – you should make decisions on merit, including when making appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards or benefits.
Accountability – you should be accountable to the public for your actions and the manner in which you carry out your responsibilities, and should co-operate fully and honestly with any scrutiny appropriate to your particular office.
Openness – you should be as open as possible about your actions and those of their authority, and should be prepared to give reasons for those actions.
Honesty – you should be truthful in your council work and avoid creating situations where your honesty may be called into question.
Leadership – you should promote and support these principles by leadership, and by example, and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence.

Observer reopens the mystery of the Mary Fedden paintings, the deputy and the council


The Observer today  LINK asks some pertinent questions about  the paintings by Mary Fedden that were given to Copland High School (now Ark Elvin) and then, according to Brent Council, retrieved by them from the school, which was hit by a financial scandal, and 'returned to the Portland Gallery on Tuesday 13th May 2014.' The Council went on to say, 'It is a matter for the estate of the late Mrs Fedden to decide where the paintings are displayed, not the council.'

A former art teacher ar Copland, Jenny Williams, is reported by the Observer as commenting, 'If Mary Fedden wanted the children in Wembley to have these paintings, that is where they should be. It is very sad if after all that has happened at the school they are simply sold off to a private collector.'

The issue of whether Fedden wanted children to have the paintings is critical. Regular readers may recall previous coverage on Wembley Matters of this issue. I reprint some of comments below:
Seeing 'millions' and Copland School in the same article should ring a bell with Mr Butt and Mr Pavey and have them both sticking a post-it Note to Self on their fridges as follows:

'1. Find out progress of the 'pursuit of costs through the civil courts' which we promised when we told the gobsmacked judge in the dodgy headmaster Davies case that we weren't applying for costs.

2. Find out progress in the pursuit of the overpaid 'bonuses' to Davies and chums in same case.

3. Find out what really happened to the Mary Fedden paintings

4. Try really really really hard to tell Cara that we need to have a word today.
Or maybe leave it til Monday ..................or December .............'
Reply

What were the Mary Fedden paintings? I mean, I know who she was, but were there some in Brent's possession?






  1. This appeared as a comment on WM in October 2013:
    You refer to the tricking of the aged artist Mary Fedden into 'donating' expensive paintings supposedly for a 'gallery' at the school to inspire 'deprived' youngsters. Evans (deputy head)  paid a number of visits to her house taking young pupils with him as 'leverage'. These children were witnesses to his eagerness to get his hands on the artwork.. The paintings were then sold at Sothebys by Evans. Others have supplied the police with evidence corroborating this. Why no prosecution yet?

  2. Another comment somewhere 'had it on authority' that some of the paintings came into the possession of Brent Council. The assumption seemed to be that the paintings Evans hadn't yet managed to flog, he claimed were, of course, given to the school and, as he was by this time suspended or resigned, he handed them over to their 'rightful owner' (or the Council as Copland's ultimate authority). 

    Given the Council's feeble efforts in the whole saga, they probably returned them to him!
  3. I know for a fact that the police have been in contact with witnesses within the last 12 months. No action though.

Brent Momentum debuts with frank open debate & a little political torsion

Interestingly it was not criticism of his attitude to cuts that made Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt fly into a rage at yesterday's Brent Momentum meeting but a challenge on the implementation of the Prevent Strategy in the borough.

Butt had been asked to make a public statement on Prevent to the people of Brent by Humera Khan of the long-established An Nisa Society.  Butt stood up and visibly shaking, shouted over Humera and jabbed his fingers at her yelling, 'You always do this..'   Eventually, when he had been forced to stop and calm down by the chair of the session, Faduma Hassan, Humera was able to complete her question. She recognised that there were statutory constraints on the Council about their duty to implement the Strategy but wanted a clear statement from Butt about its shortcomings. In particular she wanted the Council to commit to tackling Islamophobia and inequalities that impacted on the Muslim community.

Cllr Butt said that he had been critical of Prevent in a Channel 4 programme but that the Council was taking a different approach to the Strategy by working with communities and placing it in a broader safeguarding context which would not stigmatise the Muslim community. He would be speaking in Cambridge about his criticisms of the Strategy. He confirmed  'I don't like Prevent' and thought the current strategy was 'pernicious'.

Humera said that she wanted a statement made to the community in Brent - not in Cambridge or on Channel 4. The question of which community groups Brent Council was engaging with and how they had been selected remained in the air.

On the issue of cuts Michael Calderbank called on Cllr Butt to show more political  leadership, 'all we hear from you is managerialism.' Asked to join with other councils in funding an attempt to get a Judicial Review of the 'Shaping a Healthier Future' proposals on local health services, based on the findings of the Mansfield Report, Butt would make no commitment pending legal advice.

The day had begun with an emollient address by Cllr Michael Pavey where he admitted that the Council had made mistakes in the way they engaged with people and presented cuts. The library closures and Stonebridge Adventure Playground were such cases. He claimed that having a Labour Council had lessened the impact of austerity on local people.  He wanted to move away from a 'stale debate' with the left over not implementing cuts, needs budgets etc and work with them in challenging austerity and  government cuts to local authority funding.  He cited 'Red Lines' LINK where Labour councillors were standing up to defend Londoners.  He wanted to work with council trade unions on these issues.

In earlier commentary I had raised the issue of inviting Butt and Pavey to a 'Brent Uncut' event when they had implemented cuts in Brent but organisers justified on the basis that it would open the dialogue between the community and Labour councils that Jeremy Corbyn had advocated. This was bound to result in some friction but there was much constructive work, especially in the workshops on issues such as health, education, welfare, environment and housing where I hope some of the proposals will be published by Brent Momentum. Framed as helping to build a 'Better Brent' (an old slogan) they could produce a unity beyond the normal activists.

Kilburn Labour Party member and Brent TUC Secretary Pete Firmin said in his introduction that we all know what the government is doing but the question for the day was how to oppose these measures and in some cases, work from against them from within. It was no use just shouting at councillors for implementing cuts but adopting alternative policies, learning from other councils, (such as Islington on housing) and admitting that the council had failed to win the hearts and minds of local people.

A number of themes emerged from the workshops which didn't always avoid reiterating the awful things that are going on rather than suggesting ways to oppose and transform:
  • councillors managing cuts rather than adopting a political response
  • privatisation in health, education and council services
  • council's attitude to free schools & academies when they are not allowed to build new schools
  • protecting paid jobs  but at the same time need volunteers to keep services going
  • need to train volunteers in order to recognise that jobs can't be done by just anyone
  • unpicking language around benefits so as not to reinforce stereotypes
  • address the issue of digital inclusion by improving Council and CCG websites and catering for those without access
  • use Goverment Accessible Information Standard  in publications and communications
  • in council reports include the impact of policies on the 30,000 people with disabilities alongside that on other groups
  • the need for some form of Basic Income
  • proactive measures council could take on environment including insulation, microgeneration, climate jobs 
  • school funding changes impact on local authority education services including school improvement and special educational needs
  • need for key worker housing if we are to stem loss of teachers, nurses and other public service workers
  • challenge developers on amount of affordable social  housing in regeneration schemes
  • support community unionism on the model of the Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group
  • develop a culture of passion to help service users in council  officers when they are bound by an inflexible scripted response
  • linked with that build links between councillors, activists and the community for a united response to government policies
About 40 people attended the conference including in addition to Cllrs Butt and Pavey, Cllr Perrin and Southwood. Cllr Margaret McLennan, lead member for Housing and Development, was due to take part in the housing workshop but did not turn up.




Saturday, 12 March 2016

'Angry & disappointed' Barry Gardiner refers Byron Court planning decision to Secretary of State

Following the Brent Planning Committee's decision to approve the expansion of Byron Court Primary School to accommodate more than 1,000 children, Barry Gardiner, the Labour MP for Brent North, has asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to call in their decision and recommends its overturn on the grounds that it sets a dangerous precedent for planning applications for similar sized schools and that the application has not been made in compliance with the National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF).

The Planning Committee is statutorily independent of the Council but Gardiner's decision marks a significant moment in his relationship with the Council.

Below you will find Gardiner's letter to residents and his letter to the Secretary of State.



Will Momentum cause some friction at church today?

The conference at Neasden Methodist Church today organised by Brent Momentum, Brent Trades Council and Brent Fightback will be a test of the extent to which the recently formed Momentum Group is able to reach out to local grass roots campaigns and non-Labour activists.

Originally billed as 'Is a better Brent possible?' it is now 'Brent Uncut', which as I've pointed out before is a bit of a joke given the swathe of cuts Labour Brent Council has made. The leaders of the council are listed as speakers.

Momentum is responding to a challenge to his followers by Jeremy Corbyn to have a dialogue with councillors on how they can challenge austerity and local government cuts - although remaining 'legal' of course.

Today's programme is ambitious and it will interesting to see how many people turn up on a grey Saturday morning in Neasden.  I will be raising the Green Flag.

The venue is a walk from Neasden station via the underpass at Neasden Shopping Centre or 182, 232, 245,  297 or 302 bus.

Friday, 11 March 2016

10 year olds views on Brent - something positive for the weekend


These are some of the pieces of work produced by 10 year olds from Chalkhill Primary School asked to express what Brent to them in a workshop by Brent Housing Partnership's Stories of Brent.LINK

Amidst all the concern about children's well-being in the current over-demanding testing culture and the impact of austerity and the housing crisis, it is heartwarming to see the children's optimism and understanding of the really important things in life come shining through.

Something positive for the weekend.

Here's a teaser for the video BHP are making:


 

Kilburn councillor Tayo Oladapo has died after long illness

Brent Council posted this sad news today. I would like to pass on my sympathy to  Tayo's family, friends and colleagues
 
Councillor Tayo Oladapo, Labour Councillor for Kilburn, has sadly died after struggling with ill health for some time.

He had represented Kilburn ward since 2010.

Born in March 1981, Tayo was a young man who was keen to improve the lives of those he represented. He was first elected to Brent Council in May 2010 and served on various committees.
These included the Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Committee 2010 to 2013, Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee 2010 to 2011 and more recently Scrutiny from 2014 to 2015.

Cllr Lesley Jones MBE, Mayor of Brent, has led tributes to Cllr Oladapo. She said: "Tayo was respected and liked across the political spectrum and I offer my deepest sympathy to his friends and family at this difficult time."

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, added: "Tayo had been struggling with ill health for sometime but the treatment he was receiving appeared to be working earlier in the year which makes this latest news even more tragic. 

"He was a man of great integrity and represented the people of Kilburn with great dedication. He will be sorely missed."

The council is contacting the family to understand what plans they have for funeral arrangements.

Once this is understood, the Returning Officer will consider the most appropriate date for a by-election which will be announced in due course.

The flags at the council headquarters are flying at half-mast today (11 March 2016).

Potty 'Park and Stride' scheme exposed by Perrin in Byron Court car mayhem debate

Streets around Byron Court Primary School (click on image to enlatrge)


Cllr Keith Perrin claimed at the Planning Committee on Wednesday evening that the officer's report to the Planning Committee showed that currently the school experiences 'outrageous and dangerouus tarffic movements.' He said that the school had 'patently been unable to enforcde their Travel Plans' mainly because they have no enforcement tools.  He claimed that only last week someone was convicted of assaulting a resident.

Perrin went on to say that police and parking enforcement had been ineffective, even with camera cars.  The situation was exacerbated by lack of parking spaces and public transport and pressure on parking space from the increasing number of staff at nearby Northwick Park Hospital.

The result is that local roads are choked during the day and the Northwick Park Car Park had to apply restrictions to allow park users to park there.

Cllr Perrin said that the travel plans had failed and that the revised plan was deficient because it relied on 'Park and Stride'. (parents dropping children in Northwick Park Car Park and the pupils walking to school from there).  He had analysed the current pupil role by postcode (see LINK - I had the postcodes but deleted them to safeguard the identity of the children).  His analysis showed that of 697 pupils  only 319  are under 20 minutes adult walk to the the school,  100 come by tube, 11 travel for almost an hour on the 245 bus - in all at least 200 currently travel by cars that  'create absolute mayhem.'

That was the current situation but the report says that with expansion 299 extra pupils will travel by car.  Using Northwick Park Car Park for 'Stop and Stride'  would mean 162 cars needed to enter and exit via a single carriagewat - 324 car movements in 30 minutes, or a car movement every 5.5 seconds.

Perrin raised a number of issues regarding the proposal to use Northwick Park Car Park for 'Park and Stride':
  • the logistics of staff collecting and controlling 160 children and marching them to the school through 'rain or shine'
  • the chances of cars arriving within the same 10 minutes - one every 2 seconds
  • where wouldl children wait in the park
  • will there be sufficient staff to manage them
  • would there be any shelter or holding area?
  • a zebra crossing would be required at Norval Road - would this be a dangerous?
  • what were the chances of parent ignoring Park and Stride in the event of bad weather and attempting to drop their children off at school?
  • how would staff know which children to expect to be dropped off and what action woudl be expected if they don't turn up?
  • clear safeguarding issues
  • condition of the children if they have to wait in the rain for 10 minustes and walk 0.4 of a mile for 15 minutes in the rain to get to school
  •  
Cllr Perrin called for the Park and Stride idea to be abandoned and said he felt that the Highways Department did not really support the scheme despite their report: 'I know these officers to be some of the best and they are definitely not stupid.'

 To help inform readers here is an extract from the memo sent to the Brent Head of Planning from Transportation on November 23rd 2015:

 
-->
Parking
Parking standard PS12 of the UDP-2004 will allow 1 car parking space to be provided per 5 staff, with visitor parking to be provided at 20% of the staff parking, but a minimum provision of a single car space. This standard also urges close attention to pick-up and set-down facilities at school sites, and the impact of on-street car parking on local residents.

The school currently employs 75 staff; 41 teachers, 29 support staff and 5 admin staff. This will increase to 105 staff members as a result of the proposal.

The school currently has 23 unmarked parking spaces, 22 cycle parking spaces and 15 scooter spaces and the proposal will provide 26 parking spaces including 2 disabled and 60 cycle spaces. This is sufficient to satisfy standards.

Cycle parking
62 cycle parking spaces will be provided and the cycle sheds appear to be located by both accesses; Spencer Road and Nathans Road. The cycle spaces should be in a secure and covered shed to protect against theft and weather in compliance with PS16 of the UDP-2004.

Site observations
The main issue observed was the number of vehicles parking in obstructive manners at the junctions on double yellow lines, blocking resident’s driveways and in some cases actually parking in the residents drive and overhanging the footway. This obstructive parking as well as parents wanting to park directly outside the school, or as close to the school as possible, was resulting in a tail back of traffic up to the junction of Norval Road. This in turn was leading to dangerous crossing behaviours by parents and pupils. Due to the nature of the road, it only took one or two vehicles to park in this manner or travel against the informal flow, for severe congestion to occur.

It appeared that on the days that teachers were outside the entrance encouraging traffic to move on and signs were placed out on the highway, vehicles were less disruptive as the teachers and signs were a deterrent to stop them parking so close to the school. However, this deterrent does not stop vehicles carrying out obstructive parking at the junction with Norval Road or vehicles trying to mount the footway and still did not stop vehicles blocking driveways, parking in the resident’s driveways and parking on the single yellow lines outside the school. On the days teachers were not always outside the entrance, parents appeared to revert back into bad habits of parking.

This illegal and inconsiderate parking by parents is a major concern for pupil and pedestrian safety and for access into and out of residential properties in the street. 

It was disappointing to see that Northwick Car Park was not used at all. Two parents were observed driving up to the entrance of the park looking for on street parking on The Fairway and then turning around when they did not find any.

Having discussed this with out School Road Safety Team, they have advised that they do encourage the school to make use of Northwick Car Park and name and shame parents who park dangerously. However, our observation on site shows that illegal parking and inconsiderate parking still occurs and in many instances it was the same vehicles parking in this manner. The traffic congestion is still an issue and the school should be more active to reduce this problem and address pupils safety concerns. 

Transport Assessment

Table 2.1 illustrates that 66% of the students live in same postcode region as the school (HA0), with 13% living nearby in HA9 and 12% living in HA1.

Point 2.26 refers to collision data retrieved from TfL. The data shows one slight collision at the junction of Abbots Drive/Spencer Road in 2011, involving a child pedestrian hit by a vehicle. Transportation’s accident statistics in the last three years showed show 2 slight accidents in 2014/2015, involving vehicle accidents on The Fairway at junctions with Norval Road and Abbots Drive and is unlikely to be related to pupils at the school as the children in the vehicles were aged 13 and 15 (Please see attached documents).  Please note that the accident statistics only report data whereby injury had occurred and near misses or slight accidents where no injuries were reported will not be included in the data. Therefore, statistics do show that no accident has occurred in the vicinity of the school.

Table 5.1 shows the mode split data of existing pupils taken in the summer 2014 and winter 2015. The results show 490 pupils walking in the summer and only 249 in the winter resulting in 50 pupils travelling by car in the summer and 96 travelling by car and 33 car sharing in the winter. Pupils’ travelling by bus doesn’t seem to change however, those using the train’s increases in the winter by 4.6%.

Northwick Car Park is in the vicinity of the site and the parking survey (carried out March 2015) shows that the car park provides 96 spaces with 79% occupancy. Due to the recent enforcement of commuter parking, within this car park, Transportation had requested for a more recent parking survey to be carried out. This was carried out in May 2015 and table 5.28 and 5.29 showed an average availability of 96%.

An all day parking survey (05:00 and 21:00) was carried out on Thursday 12th March 2015, by the consultants. Roads included Abbots Drive, Nathans Road, Norval Road, Spencer Road and The Fairway. The results showed an average of 57% occupancy in the morning peak between 07:30 -10:00 and an average occupancy of 70% in the afternoon peak between 15:00 – 17:30. The parking survey for Spencer Road showed an average occupancy of 64% in the morning and a high occupancy of 112%-127% in the afternoon during school pick up time.

The survey was carried out again in May 2015 after the enforcement of the car park and results in table 5.30 show that there were still spaces available on street and that the displacement of parking from the car park had not affected on street availability. Further to Transportation’s site observations on 23rd, 25th and 26th November, it was noted that there was no on street parking spaces available in the vicinity of the school on either Nathans Road or Norval Road due to the high number of commuters parking in the vicinity before 8.30am.

Please note the parking survey shows two figures for Spencer Road; 49 and 26 spaces. The 49 spaces are counted on both sides of the road as there are no legal restrictions for parking on one side only. However, the road is too narrow to allow parking on both sides and therefore the figure is incorrect and the realistic figure for a total of 26 spaces should be used for assessing parking availability. In addition to this, parking on Spencer Road should be discouraged due the width of the road and danger to pedestrians/pupils crossing the road near the school entrance and therefore parking availability on Spencer Road should not be considered.

Northwick Car Park
This car park is proposed to be used by parents for park and stride to school and table 5.23 shows a break down of occupancy in the between 08:00-09:00. The car park occupancy does gradually start increasing by 08:30 however, the average occupancy is 39% and therefore less then half the car parking is being occupied giving scope to use the car park for parents to park and stride.

A follow up survey was carried out 12th May 2015 and showed 115% occupancy on Spencer Road in the morning school peak and 146% occupancy in the afternoon school peak. However, Northwick Car Park shows only 4-5% occupancy both in morning and afternoon peak which is a significant change in results.

Since the enforcement of the car park, only approx. 5-10 parked cars have been counted during our site observation and the survey carried out by the consultants shows a low 4-5% occupancy. The car park is therefore ideal for parents to park within to ease congestion on the surrounding residential streets. However, the access into the car park is 200m long and does not have segregated footway, which is a concern for pedestrians walking on the carriageway whilst vehicles travel in and out of the car park. The grassed area either side of the carriageway can probably be walked along in the summer months however during the recent site observations, it was found that it was to muddy to walk on leaving pedestrians to walk on carriageway. This is Brent Council Parks land and Transportation would suggest that the school seriously consider the use of this car park for parents when dropping and picking up children and if this option is to be taken forward then discussions with Parks Department should be made to implement a segregated footway for pedestrians, especially the school children, to be able to use.

Automatic traffic counters on Spencer Road showed 100 vehicles travelling southbound between 08:00 -09:00 and at speed of 11mph and 63 vehicles travelling at 10mph between 15:00-16:00. Automatic traffic counters on Nathans Road showed 61 vehicles northbound and 34 vehicles southbound between 08:00-09:00 and 29 vehicles northbound and 23 southbound between 15:00-16:00. Traffic on Nathans Road travelled between 17-18mph.

Table 5.34, 5.35 and 5.26 shows a pupil and staff modal split for the existing and proposed as balanced however transportation would like to see an improvement to these figures via the Travel Plan targets and initiatives.

One of the initiatives the school proposes is to increase the ‘soft start’ from 10 minutes to 20 minutes between 08:30-08:50 to allow a staggered drop to reduce number of vehicles in the vicinity at any one time. Based on this and the assumption of extra school activities, table 5.49 proposes 20% of pupils to arrive 07:00-08:00, 25% between 08:00-08:30 and 54.7% between 08:30-09:00. The departure figures proposed 39.6% to leave between 15:00-15:30, 24.7% to leave between 15:30 -16:00 and 30% to leave between 16:00-17:00.

Table 5.58 anticipates an additional 83 - 299 during the morning and afternoon peak of summer/winter. These vehicles will be staggered between 7am – 9am and 3pm- 6pm and these vehicles can be accommodated within the Northwick Car Park, which can accommodate 50 or more spaces, alleviating on street parking concerns.

Travel Plan
After assessing the travel plan (dated October 2015) using the attrubte tool, it has failed for the following reasons:
·       The submitted travel plan will be effective from the proposed development 2016 and this is not acceptable. A revised travel plan should be submitted with initiatives already in place in order to address and reduce existing problems. 
·       A travel plan coordinator should already be appointed and working towards implementing measures
·       Targets should also be set out for 3-5 years after occupation
·       or adhere to a standardised approach.
·       The travel plan shows a target in Autumn (2016) when the proposed site is due to open and the vehicle target is 16%, which is as existing. By 2020 the target for vehicle travel is 12% (winter) when the proposed site should be in full occupancy. The staff targets show a reduction in vehicle travel by only 8% in 2020 with targets for walking to remain the same and the cycle travel increased by only 2% by 2020. These targets should be increased to encourage more sustainable modes of travel.

The travel plan does not mention use of Northwick Car Park, which was initially discussed as part of the pre-app and our School Road Safety Team have also discussed this option with the school as well. Transportation have suggested the car park to be used for parents to park and then walk to pick up or drop of their children particularly since enforcement of the car park has meant only 5-10 vehicles park in their with over 50 parking spaces available for parents to use. However it has been very disappointing to see that the school are currently not encouraging this option and that this is not mentioned as one of the travel plan measures.

The school currently uses a voluntary one way system in the morning from northbound on The Fairway and southbound on Spencer Road. The streets are too narrow to accommodate a two way flow and therefore the voluntary one way system in the morning attempts to alleviate traffic. The afternoon pick up attempts to keep to a one way system however, parents park to pick up their children so the one way system can provide difficult. However, this is simply a case of dealing with the symptoms of the travel problems and not addressing the underlying cause of too many car-borne pupils being brought to the school gates by car along a road that is unsuitable for the level of traffic generated.

In conclusion, the school has an existing parking and traffic congestion problem and they have failed to be proactive in addressing these existing problems by implementing sufficient measures in order to mitigate these issues before proposals of expansions were put forward. The travel plan should address measures to start mitigating these issues and should be enforced. Only then could any comfort be provided that the school would be able to expand without significantly worsening existing traffic problems in the area

Servicing Management Plan
During construction, the school proposes to continue using the access of Spencer Road for their deliveries and refuse, as is the current situation.

After construction, the school proposes to use the access on Nathans Road for their deliveries and refuse.

Drawing number SP21A proposes a 5.3m wide access leading to a 21m long and 20m wide hard standing area. The drawing shows the vehicle tracking for a refuse vehicle, which is 8.3m long. The drawing shows that a refuse vehicle can turn around within the site and leave in forward gear, which is acceptable. Refuse storage is proposed near the rear access for straightforward collection.

Swept path analysis has also been provided for ‘transit’ sized vans, which can also turn around and leave in forward gear. The van deliveries will be made for groceries/food deliveries and drawing number 941N200J does propose the kitchen near the rear access, allowing straightforward unloading into the kitchen. There is also an office by the rear access which will presumably allow deliveries such as post to be collected.

The hard standing area reserved for unloading/loading and turning area, will not be marked out with bays or ‘keep clear’ signage and therefore could potentially lead to off street parking by the school. This is not acceptable as it would lead to obstruction of large vehicles being able to turn around or park. Clear signage should be implemented or the school should strictly enforce no vehicle parking in the area other than deliveries.

The applicant also states that the area will be used for coaches and a swept path analysis should be submitted for this.

The school currently restricts deliveries between 08:00 – 09:00 and 15:00 – 16:00. As the access from Nathans Road will be used by pupils during the start and end of school and the expansion is likely to result in pupils using the after school activities as stated in the TA, Transportation would request the restriction to be placed from 15:00 – 17:00.

It appears that delivery vehicles will have to wait on Nathans Road whilst trying to access the school and this is not acceptable. The vehicle should set the gate back 10m to allow a refuse vehicle to wait within the access whilst they are pressing the intercom to gain access into the school.