Quintain submit bumper bundle to next Brent Planning Committee

Quintain's developments from Barn Hill

Brent Planning Committee must be having difficulty in keeping up with the speed and complexity of Quintain's planning applications. The April 26th meeting will hear two pre-applications from Quintain and decide two applications. These items of interest in the context of my previous posting on Brent;s definition of affordable housing.

The first pre-planning application will be for the 'Green car park' where 500 'affordable' (see posting below) and private housing units are proposed above a 77 coach park and 212 car park.

On affordable housing officers' comment:

The submission documents have not included details on the proposed provision of affordable housing within the scheme, officers understand that this is still under consideration by the application team and will be included within any submission. London Plan policy 3.12 requires borough’s to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, taking account of a range of factors including local and regional requirements, the need to encourage rather than restrain development and viability. The policy requires borough’s to take account of economic viability when negotiating on affordable housing. 

The applicant will be required to demonstrate that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is being provided in this scheme unless the proposal achieves the Council’s target of 50 % Affordable Housing with a 70:30 split of Affordable Rent to Intermediate housing. This would need to be tested through the submission of a financial appraisal submitted with any future planning application which would be subject to scrutiny by or on behalf of your Officers. 

The application is proposing build to rent units within Plot E05. This will be the first purpose designed PRS block within the Wembley Masterplan and is proposed to improve marketability and absorption rates thereby allowing more units to be delivered more quickly. 

Quintain have stated they will provide affordable housing at a level to be agreed, having regard to viability testing, which has not yet been concluded. 

Units would be designed to meet the noise criteria set out within the outline consent and thus will be appropriately designed to mitigate against stadium and road noise.

The proposed mix of units does not accord with the housing mix specified within the Wembley Area Action Plan, which a considerably higher proportion of studio and one-bedroom units proposed. The applicant has specified that they would look to balance the mix of units through the delivery of additional larger units within subsequent phases of the masterplan. Officers consider this approach to be acceptable in principle as it would look to establish a balanced mix of housing in the area and are working through the implications of this with the applicant. However, given the predominance of smaller units, officers consider it necessary to secure a convent (covenant?) which requires the units to be owned and managed by a single organisation as Private Rented Section accommodation for a reasonable period of time.

The second pre-planning presention is on what Quintain are calling the Fulton Quarter (Wembley Retail Park and Fountain Studios). Quintain are holding a public consultation on this next weekend LINK.

In this case the Brent officers do make a passing reference to the new London Mayor's Supplementary Planning Guidance LINK but note also that the application does not include the units with more bedrooms needed by Brent residents:

The Wembley Area Action Plan specifies that mixed use development with predominantly commercial uses is acceptable in this location. Appropriate uses include retail, office, leisure, student accommodation, hotel and community use with a limited amount of residential. Additionally, the site lies within the Strategic Cultural Area where leisure, tourism and cultural uses are encouraged. The Area Action Plan specifies that at least one of the buildings should be in education use. 
A key element of the proposals is the potential to deliver a new higher education facility for Wembley. Whilst these discussions with potential institutions and the Council are still at a relatively early stage, the Fulton Quarter Masterplan has been designed with flexible buildings which can be used to accommodate an educational use should the discussions progress further over the coming months. The preferred location for this use would be fronting on to Olympic Way and adjacent to the College of North West London. 
The variety of proposed uses for the site are considered to be acceptable by officers and will ensure an appropriate environment is created in line with the Area Action Plan.

Affordable Housing

The proposed provision of affordable housing within the scheme is still under consideration by the application team and will be included within any submission. London Plan policy 3.12 requires borough’s to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, taking account of a range of factors including local and regional requirements, the need to encourage rather than restrain development and viability. The policy requires borough’s to take account of economic viability when negotiating on affordable housing. 
The applicant will be required to demonstrate that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is being provided in this scheme, and this would need to be tested through the submission of 
a financial appraisal submitted with any future planning application which would be subject to scrutiny by or on behalf of your Officers. 

The applicant is proposing a broad mix of units with final number yet to be agreed. The housing mix does not fully accord with the mix set out within the Wembley Area Action Plan with a greater proportion of Studio and 1-bedroom units proposed.

In the intermediate/discounted market rent and sale tenures, Quintain will look to provide the predominance of units in these tenures as studio, one and two bedroomed units.

It is expected that the units will be provided across the rented and sale tenures and so will be designed and brought forward having regard to the Housing SPG 2012 and the further evolving guidance on PRS from the Mayor. 

 The first planning application (17/0328) is for a slab of land described as:

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 

 In this case the application covers a change in the proposed layout of Plot W06:

The proposed changes to the parameters of Plot W06 are as follows:

The re-orientation of the massing of the building to create two distinct buildings, with no proposed change in height;  

Splitting of the approved B1 and C3 uses into the two separate buildings; and  

A change in the form and location of the open space as a consequence of the amendment to the buildings.

It is worth noting that the housing component of the scheme has 115 for private rent and 35 London Housing Bank units which at 80% of market rents are not affordable to most Brent residents

  35 units are provided as London Housing Bank units. This is a time limited affordable housing product, supported by the GLA, with rents set at 80% of the market level for a minimum period of seven years. In accordance with the GLA guidance, after seven years these units can be sold to the market or to tenants as individual homes, retained as affordable housing or transferred into the company’s housing portfolio. A decision will not be made until much nearer the time but the potential for tenants to either remain or relocate to other units (private or Discount Market Rent) within the wider Masterplan scheme will be a key consideration so as to maintain a strong sense of community and to ensure that Wembley continues to develop as a vibrant, balanced and sustainable neighbourhood. This is to be comprised as follows:  9 studio, 15 1 bedroom, 11 2 bedrooms 0 3 bedrooms

The second application for the 'Land North East of Wembley Stadium' (17/0462) is likely to be most controversial with Wembley National Stadium Limited making representations.

The proposal for Plot E01 E02 comprises of four buildings splayed radially, providing 3 distinct landscaped gardens. The proposed development provides 633 residential apartments and 3,376sqm GEA of non-residential floorsapce together with cycle parking for residents, all associated external amenity space, hard and soft landscaping and ancillary areas including a basement.  

Residential Accommodation

• The ground floors will accommodate residential entrances and lobbies, concierge facilities, commercial spaces, residential amenity, circulation and primary access to upper floors.
• Building 1 provides 195 residential apartments across 15 levels above podium floor.
• Building 2 provides 186 residential apartments across 12 levels above podium floor.

• Building 3 provides 153 residential apartments across 12 levels and upper ground floor. • Building 4 provides 99 residential apartments across 12 levels and upper ground floor. • Each apartment has access to a private balcony or terrace. 

Non-Residential Space

The proposal as submitted proposed the provision of 3,376sqm GEA of non-residential floorspace within the ground and lower ground levels that would be used for purposes within Use Classes A1-A2, D1-D2 and/or B1 on its Northern, Western and Southern facades within Block 1, 2 and 3. However, this does not fully accord with the parameter plans approved through the outline consent which only allow uses within Use Class D1 (community) and C3 (residential dwellings) within these plots. As such, a condition has been recommended restricting the use of these units to Uses Class D1.

 Wembley National Stadium say:

Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) 
WNSL supports the principle of high quality development within Wembley Park that will improve the surrounding environment of the stadium. The close relation of plots E01/E02 to the stadium and the scope for impact on existing operations means these proposals are of particular importance to WNSL and we raise the following key points. 
 

1.         Introduction of non-residential uses WNSL does not necessarily oppose the principle of ground floor A2, B1 or D2 uses in Plot E01/E02, however, it can only support this inclusion if it satisfied the potential uses would not impact event day operations. Of particular concern is the proposed A1 use and the impact this could have on the flow of spectators through the area, including Perimeter Way East. Retail uses would introduce the possibility of crowd flow pinch points which could cause safety and security issues and impact the access and egress times. WNSL would only consider A1 use acceptable in E01/E02 if appropriate measures were put in place to mitigate any event day impact.

2.         Active frontages on Perimeter Way East The reserved matters application is inconsistent with the approved parameters in terms of the extent of the defined active ground floor frontage and pedestrian entrances for the E01/E02 scheme. In principle, WNSL do not object to pedestrian entrances from Perimeter Way East; however, for stadium event day safety it cannot support the use of commercial frontages on Perimeter Way East during event operations.

3.         Servicing and Residential Movement WNSL consider a condition should be attached to any permission that clears and restricts all movement on Perimeter Way East on event days unless for required emergency services.

WNSL request further information in relation to ‘resident movement on event day’ to demonstrate how this will be suitably managed and controlled

4.         Noise The application does not seek to discharge Condition 34 which relates to residential units affected by externally generated noise. WNSL look to forward to future confirmation that the noise levels set out in the condition are adhered to.

5.         Design The application material does not provide an elevation from Olympic Way that shows both plots E01/E02 and plot W03 and how they relate to the stadium. An additional drawing is requested so that this key view can be appropriately reviewed.

6.         Car Parking The proposed car park access for Plot E01/E02 is indicated to be made from the adjacent E05 car park. This may be an acceptable solution but cannot be confirmed until a scheme is approved. Accordingly a condition is required that prevents any use of the car parking spaces as shown on the submitted drawings until a satisfactory access arrangements have been approved.

Brent Officers note the points raised by WNSL and have the following observations to make:

1.  The flexible use of the non-residential uses for purposes within a number of Use Classes (A1, A2, D1, D2 or B1) is proposed within the submission. However, this is not considered to materially accord with the parameter plans which only allow Use Class C3 and D1 within this plot. As such, a condition has been recommended restricting the use of these units to Use Class D1.

2.  The introduction of active frontages on perimeter way is supported by officers. It is considered that this is a good design approach based on sound principles and will activate the southern side of the building as well as providing surveillance on what may otherwise become and under-used service road. It also contributes to the relationship between the proposed development and stadium and will provide an appropriate environment on non event days for future residents of the building and locality. In relation to event day safety, the measures referred to above are considered sufficient to ensure the subject site is appropriately managed and therefore reduce their event day impact. Active frontages for two small non-residential units are proposed outside of the “Areas for Active Frontages” shown on “Parameter plan 08 - Proposed Uses” which was approved through the outline consent. However, this is not considered to materially change the scheme, given the scale and nature of the proposals within the outline consent and the material planning considerations associated with this element of the proposal. The outline consent allows non-residential uses at ground floor level and the parameter plan identies parts of these plots facing both Olympic Way and Perimeter Way East as being area for active frontages. Whilst the Reserved Matters proposals look to provide activity in areas slightly outside of those identified on the Uses parameter plan, they do not introduce them within streets where active frontages were not previously approved.

3.  Details on servicing and deliveries will need to be submitted under condition 26 of the Masterplan planning

permission which is required to be discharged prior to occupation. This will ensure appropriate measures are in place so as not to affect the stadium or crowd flow on event days.

4.  The reserved matters application does not seek to discharge condition 34 relating to the internal noise environment at this time. Details of this will need to be submitted under condition 34 of the Masterplan planning permission which is required to be discharged prior to occupation.

5.  The applicant has submitted an image of Plots E01/2 together with Plot W03. These show that the designs are not duplicates but have a similar language and officers consider they compliment each other when viewed together. The overall design approach and finished appearance of the development is supported by officers.

6.  The plans do not include access to the car park and therefore it cannot be accessed by vehicles. Condition 11 of the Masterplan consent restricts any vehicular access to this area unless details of access that do not conflict with stadium vehicular or crowd flows have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Until such time the car park cannot be used. This is in compliance with the requirements of the masterplan and ensures that an appropriate approach will be secured before any vehicular movements to this plot take place.

 

39.8% (252 flats) of the residential units is provided as 'affordable' housing. 39.2% (248 flats) are to be delivered as private market rent. The remaining 21% (133 flats) are to be London Housing Bank dwellings. (See above) The mix comprises 123 x studios, 219 x 1bed units, 229 x 2bed units, 55 x 3bed units and 7 x 4bed units.  

I hope councillors will probe further into what is meant by affordable here. 

Quintain's Fulton Quarter Masterplan - can we save some more "Wembley Lions"?

Guest post by Philip Grant

In a blog last week (LINK) ) Martin drew our attention to Quintain's latest consultation on the redevelopment of the "Fulton Quarter" at Wembley Park. This includes the former Fountain TV Studios, whose fascinating story I wrote a guest blog about when it closed last December (LINK) 

Although Wembley has lost a fantastic high-tech business, there is something from our local heritage which can be saved when the studio building is demolished. Two lion head architectural ornaments, from the British Empire Exhibition building which was converted to film studios in 1928, were preserved when that building was demolished in 1989. They were re-used to embellish the walls outside a new entrance to the remaining "Studio 5", which became Fountain TV. 

The lion was the emblem for the BEE, and it was adopted as a popular symbol for Wembley itself, with both the stadium's speedway team (from 1929) and the arena's ice hockey team (from 1934) known as the "Wembley Lions". Through Wembley History Society, I worked with Brent Council and Quintain to put one concrete lion head (from the Palace of Industry building) on permanent public display in 2014, to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the British Empire Exhibition. 

Now I am hoping to persuade Quintain to recycle the two "Wembley Lions" from Fountain Studios, as part of their landscaping plans for the Fulton Quarter. As well as providing an attractive feature in the public spaces which the proposed development promises, this would help to share the stories of Wembley Park and the Wembley Park Studios with future residents and visitors.

I hope that Martin will be able to put a copy of my comments document (submitted to Quintain's consultation) below, so that you can read what I have in mind, if you are interested. If you think my suggestion is a good one, please send your own "comments" on the Fulton Quarter Masterplan, including your support for Philip Grant's ideas for incorporating the BEE / Fountain TV lions into the landscaping scheme, to Quintain at the consultation email address: info@wembleypark.com . Thank you.

Is Brent Council using Sadiq's or Boris's definition of 'affordable' homes

Brent Planning Committee at its meeting on April 26th will be hearing two pre-application presentations from Quintain and making a decision on two planning applications from them. All contain references to 'affordable' housing.

Over the weekend my attention was caught by a tweet from Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, publicising his draft affordable housing and viability supplementary planning guidance (November 2016 LINK)

As I have long had a gripe with Brent Planning Officers over their failure to explain what they mean by 'affordable' housing in their reports to Planning Committee (usually 80% of market ents which are not affordable for local residents) I thought it was worth looking at what the Mayor had to say.

The supplementary guidance states:

The Mayor strongly encourages LPAs (local Planning Authorities) to apply the affordable housing threshold approach to applications for sites which are capable of delivering ten or more units. In addition, when developing future affordable housing policy (and other policies on planning obligations and CIL levels) LPAs are strongly encouraged to take account of this Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and the importance the Mayor places on increasing the numbers of affordable homes

Central to this is the London Living Rent capped at one-third of the median gross household income for the borough:

Definition of London Living Rent

London Living Rent is a new type of intermediate affordable housing that will help, through low rents on time-limited tenancies, households with around average earnings save for a deposit to buy their own home. Eligibility for London Living Rent is restricted to existing tenants with a maximum household income of £60,000, without sufficient current savings to purchase a home in the local area.

It is aimed at single people, couples and other households with more than one person, but is unlikely to be suitable for house shares of multiple adults due to the household income limit. Any update to this criteria will be provided through the GLA’s annual monitoring reports. The GLA has calculated ward-level caps for London Living Rent homes based on one-third of median gross household income for the local borough.  

The cap varies from the Borough median by up to 20 per cent in line with house prices within the ward. The caps have further variation based on the number of bedrooms within the home. Registered Providers (RPs) have the flexibility to let homes at lower rents if they wish. 

RPs are expected to actively encourage London Living Rent tenants into home ownership. They will be expected to assess the ability and inclination to save of prospective tenants and, where part of mixed-tenure schemes, offer tenants
the right to purchase their London Living Rent home on a shared ownership basis.  Further information on this product is available in Homes for Londoners: Affordable Housing Programme 2016-2021. As set out in the current annual monitoring report, for intermediate dwellings
 to be considered affordable, annual housing costs, including mortgage (assuming reasonable interest rates and deposit requirements), rent and service charges should be no greater than 40% of net household income.(My emphasis)

Importantly in the light of Quintain's entry into the Build to Rent market the guidance says these should 'preferably' be at London Living Rent levels:

Affordable housing tenure: the pathway recognises the need for all homes on the Build to Rent development to stay under single management and as such will encourage affordable homes on the development to be delivered as discounted market rent (preferably at London Living Rent levels), managed by the Build to Rent provider (or possibly via another designated manager). 

At the very least Planning Committee members should establish with officers whether they are using Sadiq Khan's definition of 'affordable' based on the median borough income or Boris Johnson's 80% of market rent.


 

Protest over Donoghue's Cricklewood waste facility April 28th

From a group of local residents and community groups campaigning for the urgent relocation of overgrown P B Donoghue waste management site in residential Cricklewood

Twitter @DumpDonoghue 

Brent 'one of the worst councils for trying to force families out of London' report claims

Over the holiday weekend Brent Council has become the focus for attention over its housing policy. A report by Housing Action Southwark and Lambeth claims that Brent Council is one of the worst London boroughs in forcing families out of London:

  Not all London boroughs force homeless families into the private sector (for example Southwark and Islington), but out of the 23 that have in the last year, 75% have tried to force homeless families out of London. However, some are worse than others, with the Labour ran councils of Brent and Newham accounting for two-thirds of the out-of-London placements.

Brent council tried to move 112 families to the West Midlands last year alone, with 65 refusing and likely facing further homelessness. This is from a total of 139 out-of-London offers made by Brent council, meaning that 80% of the time that Brent council offer someone private rented accommodation out of London it is in the West Midlands. Very clearly Brent are not trying to find the nearest suitable accommodation to Brent as the Nzolomeso ruling requires LINK.

Nearly all of the households (95%) that Brent and Newham councils have tried to move out of London have children. These out of London placements will seriously disrupt their childhood and education. The councils will probably argue that families with children are the households that they struggle most to house in London due to the effects of the benefit cap. However, the case of the Telford placements (see below) shows that out-of-London placements are being used for families who not affected by the benefit cap. The fact that 29 other London boroughs can house homeless families without moving any, or many, families out of London shows that what Newham and Brent are doing is not necessary. Due to the massive difference in behaviour and use of private sector placements across London boroughs, the actions of Brent and Newham can therefore be seen as ideological.

The report gives a case study of Brent Council's moving of families to Telford in Shropshire:

As Brent were the worst council for trying to force families out of London we decided to look in detail at their use of out-of-London private sector discharges. We took the case study of the 11 households that Brent had tried to force to move to Telford, Shropshire. All 11 of these households had refused Brent council’s offer, likely facing further homelessness as a result. According to the council none of these 11 families reviewed the decision to be moved to Telford or approached social services for help under the Children’s Act. This means the families would have had to have found accommodation themselves or stayed with friends or family.

FOIs revealed that all private sector discharges were to the same property that the council kept re-offering to household after household. This means that one house in Telford resulted in further homelessness for 11 families. No family viewed the property but it also appears from the notice given to these families explaining the offer and its consequences (see below) that no expenses were offered to view the property and they were only given 24 hours from receiving the letter to decide whether to accept the offer. All 11 families obviously decided the property was unsuitable, but Brent did not get the message. It is worrying that Brent kept offering this property, which very quickly they knew was going to be rejected. The later offers of this house in Telford are not done by a council who are trying to house homeless families, but rather one who is trying to end any responsibility they have towards homeless families as efficiently as possible.

The suitability assessments that Brent carried out for each family were also obtained through FOI (summary of the assessments is in the Appendix). The questionnaires asked basic facts such as the age of children, work details and medical needs. The assessments showed that across the 11 families there were 35 children, 29 who were school age. The offers therefore would have had serious disruption to many children’s lives. 9 of the 11 families also had parents in work. This means that the offers were potentially breaking the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012 which requires local authorities to consider the disruption caused by the location of accommodation to a household’s employment. It also means that most of the families would not have been subject to the benefit cap, meaning there would be far more available and affordable areas in which the council could place them, making the decision to place the families in Telford even more worrying.  

One possible reason why this Telford house was deemed so unsuitable by the families (even more so than offers to Birmingham, which more Brent families accepted and is a similar distance from London) is because it is a much less culturally diverse place. Our FOIs revealed that of the 8 families Brent council attempted to send to Telford which they had ethnicity data on, half were not white, and the 4 who were recorded as white were not necessarily white British (a County Court case here against Brent is by a Polishwoman for example). From the 2011 Census Telford is 90% white British compared to 53% for Birmingham and 18% for Brent.

Even though Brent Council said none of the 11 families reviewed the private sector discharge there was one court case reviewing the suitability of an offer in Telford by Brent council covered on the Nearly Legal blog. This means that either Brent Council were not accurate in their FOI response or that they were still making private sector offers to Telford after the time period for which the information they gave us covered. This court case shows how even though the person was actually trying to accept the Telford offer, Brent were clearly just using the offer to try and end a homeless duty to the family as they turned the parent’s temporary illness into a rejection of the offer.

 All this is happening while Brent Council is approving planning applications by Quintain for developments that are unaffordable for local people.

This is the full HASL report (Click bottom right for full size version):

Cut Tory education policy waste - not school funding

With education in the news over the weekend as the teaching unions meet I was interested in this information from Janes Eades of Wandsworth NUT and CASE (Campaign for the Advancement of State Education).
 

Much has been in the news about the cuts which will be taking place in schools, forcing many schools to cut staffing.  However, there has been virtually no coverage of the waste of money as a direct result of the implementation of the Government policy of opening 'free' schools, UTCs and studio schools, combined with the conversion of schools into academies, controlled by trusts which are often not up to the job or which are financially irresponsible.

The NUT/ATL have put together information on how different parts of the country will be affected and this can be seen on the School Cuts website.

However, I have looked at ways in which the Government have been wasting millions:

Sorting out Old Oak and Park Royal regeneration - lessons for Wembley?

Vision...

... and reality (Schedule of Board meetings)

The Brent and Kilburn Times has an interesting front page story today on the multi-million Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) plan. London Mayor Sadiq Khan following a review of the project which criticised former Mayor Boris Johnson for rushing into an agreement withe the government on unfavourable terms and leaving the project 'in a mess',  has appointed a new chair, Liz Peace, former CEO of the British Property Federation.

Presumably sorting out the mess may also involve sorting out the OPDC Board which should have been scrutinising the project along with GLA members.  Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, is a member of the Board.

These are the Board's functions:

The OPDC Board is responsible for governing the OPDC. Their responsibilities include:

• providing leadership, advice and support
• setting strategic direction and overall policy
• monitoring standards, performance and corporate governance
• representing the OPDC with other stakeholders

Cllr Sarah Marquis is a member of the Board's Planning Committee.

What I found particularly interesting, after the controversy over Quintain's high rise developments around Wembley Stadium and elsewhere in Brent, was Navin Shah AM's statement in the Kilburn Times article that he was concerned about the number of 'excessively tall buildings' planned for Old Oak/Park Royal.

Clearly he has a role as GLA member for Brent and Harrow to scrutinise a Mayoral project but it seems odd that he has been silent on the high rise developments in Wembley, including the 26 storey 'Twin Towers' at the junction of Wembley High Road and Park Lane. In his statement to the Kilburn Times he also spoke about engagement with local residents and businesses, something that was sadly lacking in the recent Wembley Stadium/Spurs planning application:

Old Oak Common and Park Royal don't need 'mini Manhattan' like glass and steel towers. The development corporation must actively and genuinely engage at all stages with local residents, businesses and stakeholders to ensure their aspirations are taken into account.

Nor do we and yes, Brent Council must.

The OPDC is holding a consultation on Regulation 19 of the draft Local Plan on Wednesday 26th April at 7pm, at the CoClub, 140 Wakles Far, Road, London W3 6UG 

The OPDC say:

The nature of the next stage of consultations is very different to last year Regulation 18 draft Local Plan, so we’re holding an event to go through the differences. This will enable you to have your say in the future of Old Oak and Park Royal once the consultation is launched.

Teachers invited to celebrate Welsh Harp Centre & find out about its outdoor learning programme

Teachers and pupils in Brent fought hard against the proposed closure of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre and it was saved when the Thames21charity took it over from Brent Council.

This is a message for Brent teachers and educatiors from Thames21

Teachers and Educators – join us by the campfire!

Thames21 is hosting an open afternoon at the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre in Brent, for teachers and educators.

This get together is being held to celebrate our first anniversary of managing the site and to share our outdoor learning programme.

There are a wealth of opportunities for developing the centre and we’re really keen to hear what other ‘outside of the classroom’ learning activities people are interested in attending there.

We’ll host a tour of the site and give a camp fire lighting demonstration after which you can cook up your own tasty treats.

We’re meeting from 4.30pm – 6pm, so feel free to drop in at any time.

To book your spot, please get in touch with Edel Fingleton, Thames21’s Education Coordinator, at edel.fingleton@thames21.org.uk or by telephone on 07734 871 728 to book your spot.