Big Bird Count at Welsh Harp on Sunday 30th April

How Brent residents were left out in the cold over Tottenham's Wembley Stadium planning application

As Tottenham Hotspur prepare to make an announcement about their 2017-18 season at Wembley Stadium a Freedom of Information Request (embedded below) by former councillor Paul Lorber has revealed that Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt and Chief Executive Carolyn Downs met on October 5th 2016 with representatives of Tottenham Hotspur and the Football Association* about the planning application to increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium.

There followed a number of meetings between Brent officers, sometimes including Carolyn Downs and Head of Planning Alice Lester and Wembley National Stadium Limited, Tottenham Hotspur, Lichfield Planning and Momentum Transport Planning.

On December 12th 2016  Wembley National Stadium Limited made a presentation to councillors about their plans. Present were Cllrs McLennan (Deputy Leader), Agha (Vice Chair of Planning Committee who eventually chaired the decision making meeting),  Miller, Hirani, Choudhury, Mahmood, Long, Moher, Colwill, Maurice, Marquis and Carolyn Downs, Alice Lester, David Glover (Planning Officer for the application) Chris Bryant (Wembley Stadium Limited) Richard Serra (Tottenham Hotspur). Nick Baker (Lichfields) and Roy McGowan (Momentum Transport Planners). Councillors were able to ask questions about the application.

Another meeting took place on February 20th 2017:


On March 8th 2017 Tottenham, Lichfield and Momentum made a glossy presentation to Alice Lester, David Glover and Christopher Heather:

It can be argued that some of these meetings between the applicants and Brent officers were essential to ensuring that there was a dialogue over the application.  However, the early involvement of Cllr Butt gives the impression that things were fixed at an early stage in terms of the principle of lifting the cap. Moreover it is surely wrong that councillors, including members of the Planning Committee were, in my view, lobbied, way back in December by the applicants.

All this took place without residents knowing what was going on and they, with limited resources, had to scramble to mount a case against the application at very short notice based on how it would disrupt their quality of life. On the other hand councillors had known about the case for a very long time.

Imagine the residents and their organisations having the same access to officers and councillors as Tottenham Hotspur, Wembley National Stadium Limited, Lichfields and Momentum Transport?

Instead it is clear that residents didn't have a chance and it is to their credit that they achieved so much despite the odds being stacked against them.

* The FoI response states no meetings took place with the FA but that is contradicted in the next paragraph.

The FoI Response:

Urgent appeal as Sufra Food Bank demand rockets as a consequence of new benefit cuts

Mohammed S Mamdani, Director of Sufra NW London, writes a lively Newsletter to supporters of the food bank and food growing project. His personal message is often humorous but beneath the humour lies anger at the injustice he sees through his work at Sufra.

Here is his latest message:

 Forgive my sarcasm, but I can just imagine the Department for Work & Pensions’ delight, three weeks into the latest round of benefit cuts. Cuts that will save mere pennies in the big scheme of things and penalise thousands of children with a life of poverty.

So what's it all about this time round? Until recently low-income families have received child tax credits to support the upbringing of a new generation. Now that we’re chucking out EU migrants, we desperately need to start reproducing so that we have a home-grown crop of economically active workers to pay for the social care of our elderly folk.

However, as of 6 April, families will only receive tax credits for their first 2 children, with no regard for any additional children in the family. It's a kind of state-sponsored baby sanction! The only consolation is that victims of rape will be entitled to additional tax credits - but you’re going to have to prove it!

I can just hear you sniggering. Most rape victims can hardly fathom reporting their violation to the police. Now you've got to tell the random dude who sits in the job centre too.

It's a double whammy since Her Majesty has also cut widows allowance (and the accompanying payments to a child who has suffered the bereavement of a parent). So, when your darling suffers a heart attack and drops down dead, don't grieve for too long. Wipe away those tears and be in work by Monday morning.

But why should British tax-payers pay for the upkeep of other people’s children?

Because children who grow up in poverty perform less well in school and have a lower life expectancy than their peers. And with the NHS crisis and a new funding formula for schools that will result in teacher redundancies, it will end up costing the nation more to deal with in the long-term.

Let’s not forget that hundreds of thousands of WORKING families rely on child tax credits. Parents who slog day and night, often in service industries or low skilled work. With almost all their wages covering the rent, child tax credits put food on the table.

And why are we subsidising working parents? So that we can continue to enjoy cheap take-outs, cheap clothing and cheap entertainment. Since we won’t pay more for goods and services, employers refuse to pay a sustainable, living wage. It is impossible to support a family, whilst earning the minimum wage (which equates to an annual income of £13,650). We’re paying for other people’s children, because we’re screwing them over in the work-place.  

I accept that some parents are ‘irresponsible’ in their life-style choices (they are far fewer than the tabloids would make us believe). But why should we punish their children?

OK, I’ve got that off my chest now.

URGENT FOOD APPEAL

As you can imagine, demand at the Food Bank has skyrocketed. Looking around our storage facility, all you see are empty shelves. We’re surviving from one week to another.

I have no shame in dropping to my knees and begging you for your generous food donations. We need practically everything: long-life milk, tea (we’ve never been short on tea before!), biscuits, juice, rice, jam, cereal, instant noodles, soup, tinned fish, fruit and vegetables, toiletries, nappies… you get the drift.

The only items WE DON’T NEED are pasta (but yes to pasta sauce), baked beans and tinned chick peas.

If you can’t be bothered to head down to Lidl, like me, you can place an online order for delivery to us, or make a donation here towards our food budget. We promise that any donation made on this page will be restricted to food bank supplies. No admin costs.

VOLUNTEERS FOR SUPERMARKET COLLECTION

We’ve scheduled two emergency food collections at local supermarkets, but we need volunteers who can help for a few hours on the day to distribute ‘shopping lists’ to guests, smile profusely and guilt them into making a food donation at the end of their shop.

Saturday/Sunday 13/14 May 2017
Sainsbury’s Willesden Green – Register here.

Saturday/Sunday 20/21 May 2017
Waitrose Brent Cross – Register here.

Fahim and Saba, who will oversee the collections, will be working across two weekends. That’s 19 days in a row without a day off. So please pity them, and help out.

Also, our youth volunteers, who normally assist with our supermarket collections, are all revising for exams, so it’s time for the oldies to step up.

INTERFAITH FOOD WASTE ‘IFTAR’

To mark Ramadan, we would like to invite members of the community to an interfaith ‘food-waste’ iftar (the fast-breaking meal at sunset) at Sufra NW London on Saturday 2 June from 8:00pm.

The event will be an opportunity to see our work first hand, and celebrate our strong relationship with all of North-West London’s faith communities who sustain the food bank operation. Faith leaders from all denominations will also share their faith-inspired, ethical perspectives on food waste.

The event will conclude with a meal prepared entirely from food waste! And it’s free to attend. You can register here.

AND FINALLY…

We need to borrow a cement mixer for a couple of weeks on the garden, so if you have one handy (like we all do), please get in touch.

Dire impact of A&E closures in North West London exposed

Closing A&E departments has led to a deterioration in the performance of those that remain in North West London. An anaylsis by Dr Gurjinder Singh Sandhu for the Centre for Health and the Public Interest warns of the risk to patients if further A&Es are closed. 

Across England NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs) are proposing the closure or ‘downgrade’ of up to 24 emergency departments.

This analysis shows how A&E performance has suffered across North West London following the closure of two emergency departments in 2014.

Performance against the 95% 4-hour wait target dropped to as low as 60% shortly after the closures, meaning that up to 40% of patients requiring serious treatment had to wait over 4 hours to be assessed and admitted to an appropriate bed. Since then the performance of North West London hospitals has been some of the worst in the country, sometimes managing to treat fewer than half of the patients within four hours. For time-sensitive conditions such as sepsis or respiratory failure such delays are life-threatening.

In addition, since the A&E closures in 2014 the bed occupancy rate in all hospital trusts in North West London has been above 85%, compromising clinical safety through overcrowding.

This paper also points out that the closures aggravate health inequalities, hitting the most deprived boroughs in the region. (See image below)

The full paper by Dr Gurjinder Singh Sandhu can be found here LINK

'Tory Blue-eyed Boy' to stand in Brent North

Brent North Conservatives have selected Ameet Jogia as their candidate to fight Barry Gardiner in the General Election. Paul Lorber will stand for the Liberal Democrats and the Greens are still to select their candidate.

Jogia has been a councillor in Harrow since May 2014 when he received the highest Conservative vote and is said to be an admirer of the controversial Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Barry Gardiner is also a Modi fan.

The previous Brent North Tory candidate Luke Parker is short-listed for Richmond Park where he has family connections.

Cllr Jogia himself has a fan club being hailed as 'The Tory Blue-eyed Boy' in the Asian Times LINK after his maiden speech at Harrow Council.

His speech centred on  his experience as a homeless child in the 1990s and how Harrow Council helped the family back on its feet.

Help raise funds for Brent Sickle Cell Support Group on Sunday

In the light of recent cuts to essential services for those with Sickle Cell Disorder within Brent, urgent financial aid is needed for Brent Sickle Cell Support Group.

This group was formed over 31 years ago, by mothers wishing to share their experiences, offer information, advice and a wealth of understanding, to others in similar circumstances. So that they did not feel alone and overwhelmed struggling to understand the condition and the impact it would have on their lives.

Since then, they have grown with the help of wonderful volunteers and have acted as a patient advocate and liaison with the NHS, they have supported families in hospital, and offered respite breaks for parents.

They run an annual summer day trip for families, fully subsidised by the Brent Sickle Cell Support Group to theme parks and seasides across England. Over 900 trips in total. 

They also host a Children's Christmas party, attended by over seventy children and their families.

To continue this invaluable service in the community and to enable outreach education, Brent Sickle Cell Support Group will be doing a fundraising walk across all Brent parks, on Sunday April 30th 2017, starting at 9am in Barham Park. 

They will walk around each park, then continue on to the next. This will include King Edward VII Park, Wembley; The Welsh Harp, Gladstone Park and Queens Park, until they reach their end point, Roundwood Park where there will be a picnic held at the finish for all families and supporters. Lunch will be provided for those who participate on the walk.

We need YOUR support! YOU can really make a difference!

Cheques to be made out to Brent Sickle Cell Support Group or you can make a donation on the day at Barham Park or Roundwood Park.

For more information, or if you would like to participate or volunteer please contact 07947306733

Residents and allies win public footpath fight with Harrow School

From the Open Spaces Society
 

Local residents, backed by the Open Spaces Society,the Ramblers and the Harrow Hill Trust, have defeated plans by élite Harrow School to move two public footpaths across its sports pitches and tennis courts.  The objectors fought the plans at a six-day public inquiry earlier this year.  The government inspector, Ms Alison Lea, has now rejected the proposals.

Harrow School which spreads over 300 acres, is one of Britain’s most élite institutions.  The annual fees are £37,350 (the average UK annual wage is £26,500).  The school wanted to move two public footpaths, officially known as numbers 57 and 58 in the London Borough of Harrow, which have for centuries run in direct lines across the land now forming part of its grounds.

Footpath 57 follows a north-south route between Football Lane and Pebworth Road.  The school obstructed the footpath with tennis courts surrounded by fencing in 2003.  For nine years, the school even padlocked the gates across another section of the path but reopened them following pressure from the objectors.

The objectors had argued that Harrow Council should make the school reopen the path, as required by law,but instead the council agreed with the school 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 applied to move it to a zigzag route to avoid the current configuration of its sports pitches.

Alison Lea refused the proposals principally because of the impact of the changes on public enjoyment, in particular the loss of views which the Harrow West MP, Gareth Thomas, called ‘spectacular’ in his evidence to the inquiry.  The paths provide direct walking routes to Harrow-on-the-Hill with its impressive church-spire, whereas the views from the diverted routes were, the inspector said, ‘unexceptional’.

She also considered that the school had exaggerated the benefits of the proposed diversions. 

At the public inquiry, the school was represented by a QC, assisted by a junior barrister; the council was also legally represented, 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, Paul Catherall of the Harrow Hill Trust, Brent Councillor Keith Perrin, and local residents Gaynor Lloyd, Christopher Eley, John Parker and Margaret Roake.  Others 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: ‘It has taken local people 14 years of strenuous campaigning against the might of Harrow School to save these footpaths, with their splendid views and sense of purpose.

‘Now we shall press the council again to ensure that Harrow School reopens the blocked footpath 57.  We shall be fortified by the inspector’s decision—the council can no longer avoid taking action to resolve this mess.’

Sisters Margaret and Dorothy Roake add: ‘As residents of almost eighty years standing we can testify that the footpaths pre-date much of the local built environment.  They have been actively used by local people to reach St Mary’s church or the many hostelries and other interesting buildings that make up the village on the hill.  It is natural to set one’s eye on a destination and walk straight towards it.  The proposed diversions are inconvenient and considerably longer.’

Decision deferred (again): Harrow Council debacle over Harrow School planning application

There will be red faces at Harrow Council over a mess up that means that Wednesday's planning application by Harrow school has been deferred.
The application involving building on Metropolitan Open Land had already been deferred last November.

  Manize Talukdar, Democratic & Electoral Services Officer at Harrow Council informed Harrow Hill Trust, who have campaigned against the proposals:

Please note that officers will be asking Members to defer this application as an incorrect version of the report was published in the agenda, in error.

Harrow Hill Trust notified supporters of the deferral on its Change Petition website LINK and commented:

So although it [the planning application]  will be raised at the meeting it will be deferred. Unfortunately as it is being raised, the constitution does not allow us to raise a question even though it is not going to be discussed! 

We have clearly shown many mistakes in the applicant's documentation and the subsequent Case Officer's report, as set out in our letters of 11th June 2016 and 27 February 2017, we noted that the latest Officer's Report published unilaterally scrapped the MOL swap in favour of building on MOL and having an MOL extension. This being in conflict with the application as published and the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). 

This is all very worrying when we are relying on our Council's planning department to serve the residents.

It seems that Brent is not the only council having problems with its planning department!

For the record these are the recommendations as currently posted on the Harrow Council Planning Committee agenda page:

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Committee is asked to:
·      agree the reasons for approval and the conditions as set out in this report in appendix 1; and 

·      refer this application to the Mayor of London (the GLA) as a Stage 2 referral; and 

·      subject to the Mayor of London (or delegated authorised officer) advising that he is content to allow the Council to determine the application and does not wish to issue a direction under Article 7 that he does not wish to direct refusal, or to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purposes of determining the application, delegate authority to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the continued negotiation and completion of the Section 106 legal agreement and other enabling legislation and issue of the planning permission and subject to minor amendments to the conditions (set out in Appendix 1 of this report) or the legal agreement. The Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms would cover the following matters:
.        a)  The area to the west of the application site shown on Plan P.05.12 delineated in black and coloured light green (referred to below as “the MOL extension land”) shall remain permanently open and not be developed at any time in the future except for landscaping purposes approved by the authority or in accordance with policy relating to MOL as set out in London Plan Policy 17.7 or a revision thereof. 

.        b)  The existing buildings which are within the MOL extension land and also those within the area delineated in blue on Plan P.05.12 shall be demolished no later than 15 months after first occupation of the proposed new Sports facility building the subject of planning application P/1940/16. 

.        c)  The area of land delineated in blue on Plan P.05.12 shall thereafter not be developed at any time in the future except for landscaping purposes approved by the authority or in accordance with the policy relating to MOL as set out in London Plan Policy 17.7 or a revision thereof. 

.        d)  Community Use Agreement to be implemented; 

.        e)  Implementation of the Sustainable Travel Plan; 

.        f)  Undertaking that the applicant will work with Harrow Council on Employment and 
Training Initiatives including apprenticeships associated with the proposed 
construction;
g)  Additional Tree Planting; 

.        h)  Local goods and services; and 

.        i)  Monitoring fee - £5,000.00 


RECOMMENDATION B

Appendix 1 - Plan P.05.12

That if the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 14^th June 2017, or as such extended period as may be agreed by the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee, then it is recommended to delegate the decision to REFUSE planning permission to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning on the grounds that:
The proposed development, in the absence of a Planning Obligation to secure necessary agreements and commitments in relation to the development, would fail to mitigate the impact of the development upon infrastructure and the wider area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies 3.19, 6.3, 7.14 and 8.2 of the London Plan (2016), Policies CS 1 G and Z of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policies DM 43, DM 46 and DM 50 of the Local Plan (2013), and the provisions of the Harrow Planning Obligations supplementary planning document.

REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Whilst noting the harmful impact on the Conservation Area, the wider benefits to both Harrow School and the wider community are considered to override these concerns in this instance. Notwithstanding this, there are improvements to the Conservation Area and the setting of Listed Buildings, notably:
·      The implementation of high quality landscaping within the area to the south of Football Lane both within the application site and the areas adjacent the subject of the s106 obligation. 

·      The enhancements to the setting of listed buildings including in particular the Head Master’s, Vaughan Library, the Chapel, New Schools and Butler building by reason of creation of openness adjacent to them and by reason of the landscaping proposed, in accordance with covenants in the s106 obligation 
Furthermore the application has demonstrated very special circumstances in accordance with policies relating to development within Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), notably: 

·      The site circumstances, including the significant planning constraints experienced across the School’s estate and the lack of alternative suitable land; 

·      The pressing academic curriculum needs for sports and science; 

·      The very significant sports benefits of the proposal, providing sports facilities in a sustainable location which are of very high quality and sports training facilities for 
young persons in particular; 

·      The provision of significant shared access to very high quality sports and leisure 
facilities for the local community and local schools at no charge to the public purse in an area of high deprivation and need for sports facilities, where there are no comparable sports facilities in the area of such quality.