Pubic Inquiry Into Diversion Of Harrow School Footpaths Finishes

From the Open Spaces Society

The public inquiry, which opened in January, into the diversion of two footpaths across Harrow School grounds, ended this week.  It lasted for nearly six days instead of the scheduled three.  The inquiry was prolonged partly because of the number of objectors to the scheme.  These included the Open Spaces Society, Ramblers, Harrow Hill Trust and many local people.

Harrow School wished to move public footpaths 57 and 58 which have for centuries run in a direct line across its grounds.  Footpath 57 follows a north-south route between Football Lane and Pebworth Road.  Unfortunately, the school built tennis courts across the path in 2003, instead of first moving the footpath.  Local people wanted the path to be reopened but instead the school sought to move the path around the obstructions.

Footpath 58 runs in a direct line between the bottom of Football Lane and Watford Road, and the school has applied to move it to a zigzag route to avoid the current configuration of its sports pitches.

Harrow Council, instead of requiring the school to remove the obstructions in accordance with its duty under section 130 of the Highways Act 1980, agreed to move the paths, but because there were objections the matter was referred to the Planning Inspectorate.

At the public inquiry, the council and the school had legal representation, but the objectors represented themselves.  Appearing as objectors at the inquiry were Kate Ashbrook of the Open Spaces Society and Ramblers, Gareth Thomas MP, Harrow Councillor Sue Anderson, Brent Councillor Keith Perrin, Paul Catherall of the Harrow Hill Trust and local residents Christopher Eley, Gaynor Lloyd, John Parker and Margaret Roake.  Others had submitted written objections.

Says Kate Ashbrook, general secretary of the Open Spaces Society and footpath secretary of the Ramblers Buckinghamshire, Milton Keynes and West Middlesex Area:

We are united in our wish to prevent the school from moving these popular footpaths from their ancient direct routes to suit its own convenience.  The old routes have better views of Harrow-on-the-Hill one way and of the City of London the other.

They are shorter and have a sense of purpose, for those enjoying informal recreation and those using the paths to go to work or the shops.

We believe that, since the problems on these paths are of the school’s own making, it should resolve them by removing the obstructions rather than moving the paths.

We strongly hope that the inspector, Alison Lea, will find in our favour and that the paths will remain on their current routes.

Prevent secrecy prevents effective scrutiny

 

-->

Wednesday’s meeting of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee is to discuss a report on the implementation of the controversial Prevent duty in Brent.  However the report is framed in such a way as to undermine any effective scrutiny. It appears to actually discourage any action on the part of the Committee:

This report is submitted to the committee not as a result of seeking any specific recommendations, but as a direct request from the Committee.

Having stated that it sets out what the report is NOT about:

This report aims to provide an overview of Prevent programme delivery in the borough of Brent. The report will outline how Brent Council are meeting their statutory obligations to deliver the Prevent duty, alongside the aims of the broader Prevent Strategy. 


Whilst the Government published a Counter – Extremism Strategy in October 2015, this will not be covered by the report. Counter – Extremism work is complimentary (sic) to the aims of the Prevent strategy, but is not currently supported by a statutory duty to deliver it. 


Counter – Extremism work is distinct from Prevent programme delivery and does not form an active part of Prevent work. 


The report will concentrate on the implementation of the Prevent duty and related programmes, and not specific project work funded by the Home Office at a community level. 


The result is that the report is purely descriptive of the processes involved with no evaluation and no data.  There are hints at the more controversial  issues but these are not explored:

High quality and consistent training helps Brent to guard against misguided Channel referrals; in particular where there might be a limited understanding of cultural norms and practices. It is our priority whilst trying to successfully deliver the Prevent programme, not to conflate practices that may be regarded as highly observant or extreme, as indicators which actually do not pose a violently extreme, counter – terrorism risk. 


To ensure professionals possess confidence in assessing this area, Brent Council centrally commissioned ‘In depth Extremist Ideology Training’ to provide wider context and a firmer understanding of the triggers and drivers that solidify terrorist ideologies.

Brent’s Strategic Prevent Coordinator is currently developing a training module that sits between WRAP and the In Depth Extremist Ideology Training to help frontline staff assess for themselves when a case might be better suited to Early Help, Universal Services, the Channel Programme or wider Social Care support

 

Despite earlier assurances that Prevent is not aimed at the Muslim community the report states:

The Government has stated that the greatest threat to the UK and its interests comes from Al-Qaida, its affiliates and like-minded groups, for example, ISIS /ISIL. Brent’s main concerns currently come from this strand. These organisations have based their rhetoric on alleged Islamic principles. The borough of Brent has a large Muslim community; this community may feel particularly marginalized as Prevent objectives are addressed. 

The possible marginalisation of the Muslim community is not explored in the report but again surely something that the Scrutiny Committee would want to discuss.  Evidence of community concern, about the Prevent Strategy, as demonstrated at the October ‘Time to Talk About Extremism’ event LINK is not included in the report.  In fact the voice of the community most affected by Prevent is completely absent from the report, but surely must not be absent from the actual Scrutiny meeting.

So what should Scrutiny be asking? Here are some suggestions? 
 

1.  How many initial referrals were made under Prevent through schools, further education and health?

2.  What was the age, ethnicity and religious profile of these referrals?

3.  For how many of these referrals was no further action taken or referred to other agencies?

4.  How many initial referrals were carried through to the Channel process?

5.  How many individuals refused Channel referral?

6.  What happened to these individuals?

7.  How many Channel referrals were deemed successful in terms of diverting the individuals away from involvement in extremist groups?

8.  What was the breakdown in the nature of the referrals (e.g. right-wing extremism, Islamic extremism, animal rights extremism, Northern Ireland extremist groups)

9.  Who are the community groups chosen to advise the Prevent Delivery Group, how were they chosen and what steps have been taken to ensure they are representative of the community?

10.       What impact has the Prevent Strategy made on the relationship of trust between schools and parents and students and their teachers?

11.       What impact has the Prevent Strategy made on the ability of students to debate controversial issues in schools and college without fear of referral?

12. Please tell us more about 'In depth Extremist Ideology Training'.

Clearly some of these issues would be best addressed by seeking ‘expert witnesses’ to come forward and be examined by the Committee in the manner of Parliamentary Select Committees. 

Full report HERE