WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Olympic Way and land between Fulton Road and South Way including Green Car Park, Wembley Retail Park, 1-11 Rutherford Way, 20-28 Fulton Road, Land south of Fulton Road opposite Stadium Retail Park, land opposite Wembley Hilton, land opposite London Design
Level Playing Field have expressed concern that the proposal will make access for disabled persons to and from the stadium worse due to the unreasonable waiting times for the lifts, fewer accessible parking spaces being available, the emergency evacuation procedures and the travel distances from the stadium entrance. They highlight that to expect a disabled person to wait 40 minutes to queue for the lifts is a significant worsening of the current situation and is unreasonable.
They also highlight that the proposed 105 blue badge spaces in the multi-storey car park is significantly less than the 174 blue badge spaces currently in place, and that Wembley Stadium has 310 wheelchair spaces, not including the Easy Access and Amenity seats available for ambulant disabled people. Level playing fields have specified that they have been told that the existing 174 Blue Badge spaces frequently fail to meet demand.They also specify that the capacity of the proposed lifts would be significantly reduced when transporting wheelchair uses, and that these lifts would also be shared with Club Wembley guests. They highlight that a robust emergency evacuation plan for ambulant disabled people and wheelchair users would need to be put in place from the upper levels in the event of the lifts not being in use, with a significant number of people potentially requiring assistance.
The queue times that have been cited for the lifts are identical to those cited by the FA and this has been discussed above and within with the consideration of the objection from the FA, with the Detailed Considerations section of this report. The applicant has committed to the provision of 250 blue badge spaces, some of which are to be located within the Blue Multi-storey car park and others elsewhere in the vicinity of the stadium (e.g. the Red Multi-storey car park). Details of the provision of these spaces are to be secured through the Wembley Park Parking.
Management Plan, discussed within the Detailed Considerations section of this report. Emergency Evacuation Plans are secured through the building regulations. With regard to the distance to the blue badge parking spaces, Quintain initially were looking to propose a ramp from the blue badge parking level to the Stadium Concourse which would have resulted in a significant improvement. However, due to structural and warranty issues with the Stadium Concourse, this could not come forward at this point in time. The ramp was subsequently removed from the proposal.
The Powerleague 5-a-side football centre is not within the site for this application. It was implemented as a “mean-time” temporary use within a development site. The Council is supportive of its re-provision and the applicant is looking at options to relocate it elsewhere in the vicinity when development comes forward on that site. However, it was only proposed as a temporary use and its loss could not be resistedLastly once again officers seem to be playing with the definition of 'affordable housing' to make it virtually meaningless:
Housing mix and Affordable housing: The Affordable Housing proposal are supported by officers. The total Affordable Housing offer proposed within the scheme comprises 34 % of the total number of units. A total of 22 % of the total units are to be provided as permanent Affordable Housing, comprising Affordable Rent, Discount Market Rent (at 65 % of market rent), Intermediate Shared Ownership and Discount Market Sale (at 75 % of market value). A total of 12 % of the total unit are to provided as time limited Affordable Housing (80 % market rent for a 7 year period) through the Mayor’s London Housing Bank. The tenure mix fo Affordable Housing differs from the standard products referred to within Council Policy, but is supported by officers as it looks to provide a wider range of Affordable Housing products which will help to meet housing need whilst maximising the proportion of Affordable Housing that the scheme can afford. The proportion of proportion of family sized private units is below the levels set out within the Wembley AAP, but the proposed mix by unit and tenure results in a significant increase in the level of Affordable Housing and is supported on that basis.
The development includes the maximum reasonable (WM's emphasis) proportion of Affordable Housing including Affordable Rent, Intermediate Shared Ownership, Discount Market Sale and Discount Market Rent units. The price of private units cannot be considered or set within a planning application, other than how it affects the proportion of Affordable Homes.
 |
| Revolting childfen and parents yesterday |
There is no evidence that this would improve the quality of teaching and learning in our school
It would remove local democratic accountability of schools through the local authority
It would further destabilise schools already affected by new curriculum and assessment demands and problems of recruitment and retention
Dear Cllr Butt,
I am writing to you in regards to my concerns about the Government’s proposals, announced in the Budget, to reform England’s schools system by instituting the forced academisation of all schools by 2020.
The Government are claiming that the academies programme will transform education by helping to turn around struggling schools while providing the freedom for successful schools to build on their achievements even further.
In practice, however, it seems that there is little substantive evidence to show that turning a school into an academy will automatically raise standards. Ofsted chair, Sir Michael Wilshaw recently criticised seven sizeable academy chains for failing to improve the results of too many pupils in their schools.
I am concerned forced academisation will bypass consultation amongst parents, schools and communities particularly in local areas like Brent where vital ground-level knowledge is needed.
The Tories obsession with changing the school structure will do nothing to tackle the real problems facing our education system. A flawed teacher recruitment programme and retention crisis added to the widening attainment gap between poor pupils and their peers. Furthermore, I believe forced academisation will cause utter chaos for successful local schools, such as Wykeham Primary, who prove the very point that you do not need to be an academy to be a successful school.
I want us in Brent to lead a fight back and bring schools back in to local authority control. I will fight the government and ask for money to make this happen. It is important that our schools work together.
Today I have also received letters from the Secretary of State for Education Nicky Morgan MP confirming that two further Brent schools, Oakington Manor Primary and Furness Primary, will be converted into academies, please see enclosed a copy of the letters. I hope you will share my concerns of this continued assault towards taking Brent schools out of Brent control.
Academies do not automatically equate to good schools.Tulip Siddiq wrote back:
I hope we can discuss this matter further, and I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Dawn Butler MP
Needless to say, I entirely agree with the three bullet points and I’ll keep you updated on Parliamentary work I do on this.As yet Barry Gardiner MP for Brent North has not replied.
Model Motion Opposing Forced Academisation
This council meeting notes with great concern the proposal in the recently published education White Paper, Educational Excellence Everywhere, which will force all schools to become academies, irrespective of each school's wishes.
This council meeting notes that the White Paper’s proposals –
- would remove the requirement for schools to elect parent governors.- would require the transfer of land and buildings of such schools to central ownership by the Secretary of State.- do not include any say for parents and local communities over the future status of local schools.- would require over 17,000 schools to conduct costly and lengthy conversion exercises at an estimated national cost of over £1billion.*OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL COMMENT* In [NAME OF TOWN], the cost of converting the [INSERT NUMBER OF NON-ACADEMY SCHOOLS] non-academy schools would be £[INSERT RESULT OF CALCULATION – NUMBER OF NON-ACADEMY SCHOOLS x £66,000].This council meeting further notes –
- over 80 per cent of maintained schools have been rated good or excellent by Ofsted, while three times as many councils perform above the national average in terms of progress made by students than the largest academy chains.- the invaluable role of parent governors and the local authority in acting as ‘critical friends’ to both support and hold to account head teachers and schools.- the comments of The National Association of Head Teachers that plans to force every school to become an academy presented “a particularly high risk to the future viability and identity of small, rural, schools.”This council meeting believes –
- no single system of school organisation has a monopoly on success, and that a one size fits all model as proposed by the White Paper would not deliver the improvement in school standards and outcomes that this council wishes to see.This council meeting therefore resolves to –
- ask the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for Education expressing the concerns of the council as set out in this motion about the proposals to force all schools to become academies, asking her to demonstrate how the proposals will improve educational outcomes in [NAME OF TOWN].- ask the Leader of the Council to write to our local MPs expressing the council’s concerns and to seek their views on the proposal.- engage with head teachers, school governors, professional representatives, parents, and the wider local community to raise awareness of the Government’s proposals.
