Ark DID hit the rocks in Barnet last night

 

Vin-dic-tive - Deviant Art

Guest blog by Jenny Brown

The pubic gallery was packed at Hendon Town Hall last night as residents, teachers, school governors and teaching assistants listened to the councillors question and discuss the issues regarding the Education Funding Agency's application for the building of an all-though Ark Pioneer free school on green belt land. LINK

Barnet Planning Committe rejected the planning application for the  Free School proposed by ARK PIONEER.

The EFA/ARK can appeal but the fact that Barnet council turned down the ARK PIONEER application for planning permission has  particular reference to Free Schools in general.

The decision from Barnet shows how important it is to get involved at the planning application stage and to have local councillors working with residents and resident associations.

The proposed site is in a Labour ward with active hard working councillors. Conservative supporters lobbied their councillors  too so the Conservative dominated planning committee was not prepared to pass this over-development so near to other primary and secondary schools that have scope for expansion.

The message from Barnet is that we (parents, residents, governors and teachers) expect the recommendations and legal guidance for outside play space, safety and standards, to apply to Free Schools as they do to other buildings.

This stand from Barnet should be widely shared to empower other areas to defend themselves from Free Schools especially  ARK PIONEER and their low level of education and building design.

Shortage of land for free schools is no excuse for not planning additional housing along with school places and infrastructure.

Last night the EFA /applicant for ARK argued that lack of outside play space was acceptable since in some free schools children play on roof tops. I think this one comment, tipped the balance against the whole project and the public were genuinely shocked.

Need for school places was especially relevant because the proposed site is green belt. The EFA and Tory councillors  tried unsuccessfully to argue that although it is a site on green belt, there are officers, toilets and football stands built in the recent past. Even in leafy Barnet, air quality samples are too high and at the proposed site, Barnet Friends of the Earth  found that it was high at the site.

Residents and councillors were unimpressed by the EFA  offering to purchase roads, widen them and install traffic lights. which would increase air pollution from stationary vehicles at red lights.

Areas with unsound short term arrangements for schools, should let national education organisations such as CASE know.

CASE is aware of these issues for example at Kingston Community School children are in an unsafe building surrounded by main roads with no fire assembly point possible and no plan to get children to safety should there be any type of emergency.  Buildings that are unsafe or unsuitable should not be accepted as schools. CASE would like to hear from anyone in the Kingston area who would like to help this particular school. Please visit the CASE website and consider joining.

Finally just to say that Barnet teachers and governors of local schools are shocked at the EFA's proposal to misuse the education budget by spending on roads, especially at this time.  Although this issue was not raised last night, as not relevant to a planning  committee, nevertheless the waste of money by the  Education Funding Agency is utterly unacceptable especially as the amount is enormous. CASE is working on the figures to be released soon.  Please consider looking for information on CASE. LINK

Barnet Labour Party  LINK published the following statement after the decision LINK

Plans to build an all-through Ark Academy school for up to 1,680 pupils on the Underhill Stadium site have been rejected at Barnet Council's Planning Committee (25 January).

Councillors on the committee ruled that the size and bulk of the school was too big for the site, that traffic and parking resulting from the school would have an unacceptable impact, and that there were no exceptional circumstances to allow the school to be built on greenbelt land.

The plans for the school have caused controversy and concern amongst residents living near the Underhill Stadium site, many of whom were worried about the size and scale of the school, and the parking and traffic problems it will cause.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had also advised Barnet Council in October that the school's planning application as originally submitted did not comply with the London Plan.

Labour Underhill councillors had organised a public meeting for residents in September so they could hear direct from Ark representatives and Barnet council officers about the plans for the school. Over 150 residents attended, and at the end of the meeting an indicative vote showed an overwhelming majority were opposed to the plans.

Underhill councillor, Paul Edwards, who spoke against the planning application at the committee said:

I am very glad that common sense prevailed at the committee last night.

The committee's ruling reflects the concerns that residents raised at the public meeting we organised four months ago.

Their main concerns include the size and height of the school buildings; the resulting traffic problems that will inevitably paralyse Mays Lane and surrounding roads; and the development of local Green Belt land.

The development is excessively large given its very close proximity to local housing.  It will take more than three times as many pupils as the Totteridge Academy, which has a much larger site and could accommodate further expansion.

The size of the building means the school will undoubtedly invade the privacy of the  homes and gardens surrounding the school – regardless of any of the fine words in this document.

The arrival of more than 120 teaching staff and 1800 pupils every day will exacerbate a traffic problem that has already reached unacceptable levels for local residents. 62 parking spaces is going to lead to increased street parking and will inevitably lead to future calls for a CPZ.

The residents who live in close proximity of this development do not want to see this scale of development in their back gardens, nor would I suggest would any member of the committee.

Secret Plan to cut almost 8,000 NHS jobs and slash services in NW London.

From SoH  (Save Our Hospitals)

Plans to slash NHS jobs and services have been developed in secret by NHS bureaucrats and only been uncovered thanks to a Freedom of Information request by a Brent health campaigner.

This revealed the NW London Delivery Plan for the STP Oct 16 labelled "strictly confidential not for wider circulation" and unseen even by some of the councils involved.

The plans include

• The loss of 3,658 NHS jobs in NW London next year 17/18 - rising to 7753 job losses by 20/21
• Almost 50,000 planned admissions and 222,370 outpatient appointments cut by 20/21. Already patient waiting times for planned operations are at record levels - these plans will only make things much, much worse.
• The loss of 500 - 600 hospital beds with the closure of Charing Cross and Ealing as major acute hospitals
• A reduction in A&E attendances by 64175 in the next 5 years.

More very ill patients have arrived at the remaining A&Es in NW London this year than ever before - there is NO evidence that there will not be a need for these departments and acute beds in the future. Merril Hammer, Chair of Save Our Hospitals, said ‘These plans threaten patients' lives. We need more beds and more staff, not ongoing cuts.’

The cost of planning this massive cuts and closure programme is spiralling out of control with many millions pocketed by private management consultants. 

Faced with this crazy set of damaging proposals for NW London's health services it's no wonder Tracey Batten Chief Executive of Imperial NHS Trust (and the highest paid NHS CEO in London) resigned yesterday. Dr Batten is leaving her £340k job at Imperial to return to Australia. Imperial controls 5 hospitals across NW London. As Merril Hammer also said ‘Our campaign fears that Imperial management will spend months looking for a new CEO when they should be tackling the unprecedented A&E, bed capacity and treatment crises.’

Sources:

 

Re Jobs

STP Do Something Summary Appendix A Xcel spreadsheet plan for job losses of 7753 by 20 - 21

From 48258 now,

losing 3658 by 17/18, 

5222 by 18/19,

6592 by 19/20,

7753 by 20/21

Re Outpatients

STP Do Something Summary Appendix A Xcel spreadsheet

Cut by 222,370 by 20/21

Re Elective Admissions

STP Do Something Summary Appendix A XCel spreadsheet

Cut by 34,437 by 20/21

Re Non Elective Admissions

Source NW London Delivery Plan for the STP Oct 16 p8 

Cut by 64175 by 20/21

RE Costs

Source App A Excel spreadsheet Investment requirements tab:

Re non-recurring revenue costs now up to £303m on top of £845m of gross capital costs up to 20/21.

Brent holds no information on tree losses and plantings in its parks

Trees on BHP's Kings Drive Estate, Wembley

As the importance of trees for cleansing the air attracts attention following recent  'Red Alert' air pollution days in Brent and the rest of London, it is surprising to find that Brent does not keep a record of tree losses and replanting in its parks, and that Brent Housing Partnership has not replaced trees lost on its estates.

Maintenance of parks and BHP Estates is out-sourced by the Council to Veolia. The lack of information on parks may need further investigation to ensure that there is not a net loss of trees. The Council will soon take over BHP and I hope they will adopt a ;olicy of tree replacement.

I deliberately excluded Fryent Country Park and the Welsh Harp Open Space from the request as they are natural rather than formal open spaces.

This is the Council's reponse to my FoI request:
 

1. The number of a) street, b) BHP & other social housing estates and C) park trees (excluding Fryent Country Park and Welsh Harp Open Space) removed by the council and its contractors from January 1st 2016-December 31st 2016. 

a) (Street) - 220 (approx)
b) (BHP) - 62
c) (Parks) - The Council does not hold this information 

2. The overall pattern of reasons for removal (eg safety, redevelopment, disease) expressed as an approximate percentage. 

a) (Street) -
End of life (dead/decayed/diseased) - 60% Damage to pavements, walls etc. - 30%
Other (insurance claims, vandalism etc.) - 10%
b) (BHP) -
Unsafe 12 trees 19%

Rot/decay 22 trees 35%

Dead 28 trees 45%

c) (Parks) - The Council does not hold this information 

3. Of those trees the numbers where stumps were left.
a) (Street) - Almost all but no precise figures available. b) (BHP) - 62 (all)
c) (Parks) - The Council does not hold this information 

4. Of those trees the numbers where they were replaced by a) semi mature trees b)saplings
a) (Street) - All replaced by saplings, 155 in the last season but this runs from September and is not recorded by calendar year
b) (BHP) - None
c) (Parks) - The Council does not hold this information 

5. The number of new trees planted: a) street trees b) social housing estates c)parks and d) new developments/regeneration (eg Wembley Park, Alperton, South Kilburn) in the stated period. 

a) (Street) - 155 in last season
b) (BHP) - None
c) (Parks) - The Council does not hold this information
d) (Regeneration) - 240 (mostly funded by S106 money)

I think 5a is probably a mistake as 155 is the same number as street replacement trees. I wanted the figures for new planting in addition to replacement.

Call for public inquiry as 78 CNWL students lose out to fraud

The UCU branch at the College of North West London (CNWL) is calling for all merger negotiations with the College of Westminster (CoW) to be called off pending a Public Inquiry by the College Corporation into a fraud by college subcontractors.

Click to enlarge

The college accounts give a sum of £139,000 lost in the fraud but staff calculate that the total could be at least £256,000 and at most £356,000 over two years.

A branch member said:

The 78 students who fell victim to this fraud should be offered compensation as well as provision being put in place that is twice as good as before, so that they can fulfil their once held aspiration to further their life chances. Any public enquiry should place them at its heart, some of them have probably been forced to seek employment instead. The majority of them are from the diverse community we serve.

The union has posed some key questions over whether steps have been taken to recover the lost monies under its fraud policy and how the college audit committee's monitoring as well as that of the Skills Funding Agency and Ofsted failed to uncover the  fraud.

Indro Sen, the CNWL Branch Secretary, is currently suspended from teaching, but is continuing to represent members.

I may be sacked but not silenced. I will keep defending our members in which ever forum they choose to fight and continue to be true to our students and believe the best judge of me remains the trade union movement and my students.

A public meeting will take place on Wednesday 24 February from 6pm to 8pm at Willesden Library,.  The meeting will  focus on trade union victimisation, the merger of the CoW  and CNWL as well as the UCU branch's ongoing fraud investigation.

CNWL UCU members took half day strike action on the 19 January between 8am to 2pm following a 95% yes vote on an ERS ballot for industrial action on a turnout of about 60% ballot return, the dispute dispute being suspension and dismissal threat against the Branch Secretary.

Members also took 1/2 day's strike action on the same day between 2pm to 9pm following a 90% yes vote on a concurrent but separate ERS ballot for industrial action on a turnout of about 54% ballot return, the dispute being compulsory redundancy a member whose internal appeal against compulsory redundancy was heard on the 17 January 2017 and who was represented  by Indro Sen her at her hearing.

Both ballots remain live.

No Metropolitan and Jubilee trains again this weekend

More events and larger capacity at Wembley? Exhibition Monday at Chalkhill Community Centre

From Wembley National Stadium Limited

As part of its preparations for the 2017/18 season, Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) has submitted a planning application to temporarily increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium.

The application seeks to establish a temporary cap to accommodate up to an additional 31 THFC sporting events at Wembley Stadium between 1 August 2017 to 31 July 2018 where the available spectator capacity is increased from 51,000 to up to 90,000.

This would allow up to 36 full capacity THFC home games may be played at Wembley during the season with 5 of these accommodated under the existing event cap. In practice however, the number of games is dependent on progress within knockout competitions and whether fixtures are drawn to be played at home or away. In reality, based on recent averages, the total number of home games likely to be hosted at Wembley Stadium is expected to be in the region of 30.

The application also seeks the associated removal of a limit on temporary traffic management events (Condition 33), to enable effective event day travel planning;

Summary Planning Document:

 

 
The application has been submitted to Brent Council where it is to be assessed on its own merits against the prevailing planning policy.

The FA and WNSL are responsible for ensuring that local residents and the wider community are a key consideration in the organisation of any events that take place at the stadium. A consultation process is underway and further discussions will be held prior to the determination of the application.
Local residents and businesses are invited to attend an exhibition at Chalkhill Community Centre on Monday 30 January 2pm until 9pm to learn more about the planning application and what it entails.

Brent Central LP calls on Brent Council to oppose STP alongside Ealing & Hammersmith Councils

At a crowded meeting in Harlesden, the Labour Party in Brent Central condemned the cuts being made to the NHS services that people in Brent depend on. Labour Party members voted unanimously to call for Brent Council to reject the plans drawn up by NHS officials to reduce hospital services across northwest London.  The motion requested that the Council's Labour Leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt discontinues any negotiations over the Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) and any other proposed cuts to the NHS budget.  The meeting also called for unity with Hammersmith and Ealing Councils who have also opposed STP.

NHS bosses across England are required by the Department of Health to produce these plans, known as “Sustainability and Transformation Plans” or STPs. The plans rest on the idea that large numbers of patients could be looked after more cheaply in the community instead of in hospitals. However, doctors at the meeting said that GPs and other community services are already stretched to breaking point and would not get enough extra staff or money to take on the additional work this would involve.

The plans include closing the 24/7 A&E Departments at Charing Cross Hospital and Ealing Hospital, turning them into Urgent Care Centres.

In 2014, when Central Middlesex Hospital had its A&E Department downgraded to an Urgent Care Centre, Northwick Park Hospital was supposed to take on all the extra emergency patients. Instead patients waited far longer to be seen because Northwick Park was overwhelmed by the needs of the extra patients. Not enough had been done to prepare Northwick Park Hospital for the surge, and funding and staff numbers were nowhere near enough to handle the number of people coming through.

The NHS is already in crisis over long-term funding cuts imposed by the Government, and the plans for further cuts to hospital services are a serious threat to the health of the public, health campaigners told the meeting.

Butt said that Brent Council had not accepted the STP and has demanded assurances on funding and risks from the Government before it could be agreed. Brent Council is currently considering their next steps relating to the plans covering the borough.

At the Health and Wellbeing Board on Tuesday Cllr  Krupesh Hirani said that it was the issue of the adequacy of out of hospital services that kept him awake at night.

High Speed Rail Project can't deliver low speed public notices to those affected by test drilling in South Kilburn

This image does not necessarily  reflect the views of our guest blogger

Guest blog by Pete Firmin, resident on the South Kilburn Estate

Just a few notes from the exhibition event HS2 held in South Kilburn studios on Monday, which might be useful for those who couldn’t make it (and even for some who did).

As ever, lots of boards with maps and lots of HS2 people standing around waiting to sell you their  pet project. Though whenever I asked a question it was never the person I asked who could (attempt to) answer it. We, of course, are expected to understand every aspect of what is going on. While I was there (late afternoon) there were not many members of the public (maybe 6 during the 3/4 hour I was there). As ever, this may well get portrayed as a lack of interest, taking no account of the fact that of those who heard about the event (see below) many would have felt there wasn’t much point in going, or couldn’t make the times (3-7) it was held. Funny how they could send everybody a letter (twice) by recorded delivery saying they might need to CP0 their property, yet can neither rescind these notices (by sending everybody a letter) nor ensure delivery of letters they consider less important).

My first question was about distribution of the notice of the event, knowing that I only knew about it by other means and at least some others in Gorefield House had not had notice. First reaction – as always – was to say it had been delivered, then to retreat into “I know there was at least one block the contracted delivery firm couldn’t get into and we asked for them to send them via Royal Mail, I will check if that happened”. I pointed out that I live on the ground floor with direct access, but that didn’t seem to compute. I also said that it was bit late if they found out now that it never happened.  This is a recurring problem, whether with the Council direct or others (such as the film company last year). They either don’t bother to deliver, or do not check if it has happened.

Another issue which comes up regularly is the maps that are used (people may remember that at the parliamentary enquiry into HS2 we pointed out the inaccuracy of their maps). In this case it seemed questionable as to whether they recognised that Canterbury Road does not continue on to Coventry Close, but that there is a section which is just footpath. Cathedral walk was certainly not named on any of their maps. Maybe this is why some people seem to think it is okay to drive vehicles along the footpath.

Part of the significance of Cathedral Walk is that during their test drilling, and later during the main work, they may find they have problem with utility pipes etc, in which case they would need to do work on them, which could mean taking up part of Canterbury Road and Cathedral Walk, something they will otherwise not need to do.

This event was primarily just about the test drilling, not the main construction. Even so, I was able to ask again about lorry movements etc. This will be of particular interest to people in Albert Road and Canterbury Terrace. For the main construction there will be 100 heavy lorry movements a day (50 in, 50 out). They will enter the site along Albert Road from the Queens Park end, entering  the site through the railway entrance at the end of Albert Road. They will leave through Canterbury Works and turn into Canterbury Terrace and back down Albert Road. When I raised (again) the issue of the narrowness of Albert Road to take these vehicles, I got the response from the “traffic guy” that he had just realised this and they would need to look at how they overcame the problem! We’ve only been pointing this out for years, after all. One thing they will probably do is make Albert Road one way (for other traffic, not HS2) with a diversion.

Their plans also show the loss of 15 parking bays on Albert Road during construction. When I asked where those people were expected to park, I was told wherever they can. No provision will be made for alternative parking. When I pointed out the lack of parking spaces in the estate already, I got a shrug of the shoulders. I also asked where site workers were going to park and was told they would be `expected’ to use public transport. When I asked `yes, but what if they do bring their cars”, he said they would need to pay for parking. And what if they use residents parking bays, as was a constant problem with the construction site on Alpha Place? `That’s up to the Council to enforce’. More wry laughter from me.

An issue of particular concern to many of us is working hours and enforcement of them. I was told that working hours are restricted to 8-6, BUT that they are allowed half an hour each side for preparation. They said they would also take account of the fact that they would be next to the school, but I could not get an answer as to what this concretely means. From bitter experience, I asked how all this would be enforced and was told “these are top tier contactors who will know that have to keep to the rules”. I pointed out that Wilmott Dixon is also considered a pretty “top tier” construction company and had repeatedly flouted the rules, I was told this wouldn’t happen with HS2. When I asked about enforcement, I was firstly told the Council (wry laugh from me!) and that people could send in reports and photos of infringement. As if we hadn’t been doing so for years with no effect. They gave me a copy of their “Residents Charter” and their “Code of Construction Practice”, but we have seen such promises before. Hopefully these are worth more than the paper they are written on, but we will obviously need to keep a close watch.

Lastly, I have been asking at every opportunity for years whether it creates problems that they will be tunnelling for HS2 underneath the Bakerloo line and never got an answer. Finally spoke to someone who knew what he was talking about, who said, yes, there are particular issues and `we will need to monitor whether our tunnelling causes the Bakerloo tunnels to sink. We don’t expect them to, and we don’t foresee having to close the Bakerloo line (or the mainline nearby) at all’.