The Fryent Country Park Story - Part 6

The sixth and last in a series by local historian Philip Grant

 

The Fryent Country Park Story – Part 6

Over the past five weeks, we have wandered through 1,000 years of our open space’s history, up to 1980. Thank you for your company on this journey, and I hope you will enjoy the final instalment, which brings us up to date. If you missed Part 5, “click” here.

1. A Spring morning on Fryent Way, as you enter the Country Park.

As part of its plans to improve its open spaces (including the Welsh Harp) in the early 1980s, Brent Council appointed two Countryside Rangers. In 1984, Brent combined its Barn Hill and Fryent Way lands, under the name Fryent Country Park. That year volunteers, who began to help look after this open space in 1983, formed the Barn Hill Conservation Group (“BHCG”).

Among the first steps taken was the restoration of the existing ponds, and the creation of some new ones, to encourage frogs and other amphibians. The ancient hedges also needed attention, to bring the fields back to the way they had been on the Hovenden Map of 1597 (see Part 2). BHCG members collected seeds from existing trees and bushes on the Park in the autumn, growing new ones on an allotment to replant missing hedgerows.

2. BHCG’s 1988 illustrated map of the Country Park, with lists of species. (Photo of an old copy I still have!)

Group members also took part in nature surveys, to count the number of different species to be found there. Around 1990, the Park was declared a Local Nature Reserve. When BHCG members produced an illustrated map of Fryent Country Park in the late 1980s, it listed around 550 types of flora and fauna. The map included the old field names, and the rows of green dots marked new areas of woodland that were being planted at Beane Hill, in the south-east corner of the of the Park, growing ash timber for commercial sale.

Efforts to attract more public use of the Park were dealt a blow in August 1986, when Travellers occupied land beside Fryent Way. This was partly in protest against Brent Council’s failure to provide a permanent site for them to use. Towards the end of the year there were up to 400 Travellers living there, without a water supply or sanitation, and fly-tippers took advantage of their piles of rubbish to dump more. The Council took court action to evict them, but then allowed 30 families to occupy a “temporary site”, with portable toilets, near the Fryent Way car park, until a permanent site was built.

3. Traveller caravans at Fryent Way, December 1986. (Still from an RTE television news report)

The Travellers and their rubbish (tons of which had to be cleared away periodically) were a continuing source of complaint by local residents, even after the permanent “Book Centre” site in Neasden was completed in the summer of 1988. The last of the occupying caravans finally vacated the Country Park after further court action in 1990. Banks of earth were put in place along both sides of Fryent Way, to prevent vehicle access into the fields in future, and although these looked unsightly at first, they are now a grassy feature.

4. Hay meadow wildflowers and grasses, and a Gatekeeper butterfly. (Courtesy of Leslie Williams / BHCG)

An “organic” management plan is followed for the Park’s meadows, which have a rich mix of grasses and wildflowers, and are an important habitat for butterflies. Annual butterfly surveys have been carried out since 1986, to monitor the different types and their relative numbers, and several new species have established themselves. The grass is cut for hay, from July onwards, and where possible the Council markets the right to come and harvest the crop. In the photo below, from 2004, a farmer from Wiltshire was preparing to take the hay home, as winter feed for his organic herd of dairy cows, which provided milk to make Yeo Valley yogurt!

5. Hay baling in a field behind Valley Drive, 2004. (Photo by the late Ian Stokes, courtesy of BHCG

A popular corner of the Park has always been the old Bush Farm, reached along its drive from the corner of Slough Lane. Two fields were fenced off, as grazing for horses that are still kept in stables there, and BHCG has worked to restore the farm’s former orchard (shown on the 1597 map), which as well as old apple varieties has damsons, mulberries, cob nuts and hops. A wheelchair accessible path has also been created there, to allow disabled visitors to enjoy some of the fields and ponds.

6. Horses in a field at Bush Farm. (Photo by David Howard, posted on the Flickr website)

The Park is covered with a network of footpaths, and one of the tasks carried out by BHCG on their year-round Sunday morning projects is to keep these paths clear for walkers to enjoy. The photos below show volunteers working on a path near Uxendon Hill, which is part of the Capital Ring. This 72-mile long circular route, around the green spaces of outer London, was devised by the London Walking Forum and, in normal times, can be walked in easy stages. The leaflet for Stage 10, “South Kenton to Hendon”, describes Fryent Country Park as ‘one of the best surviving areas of traditional countryside in Middlesex’.

7. Before and after views from a Sunday morning footpath project. (Photos by John Parker / BHCG)

Another initiative to encourage visitors to enjoy the Park was Brent’s Countryside Day. From the 1990s, this annual show brought a range of country activities, information stands and fairground rides to the event field. Watching sheep dogs at work, or displays with birds of prey, brought crowds of many thousands. As well as seeing BHCG members demonstrating wood turning on a pole lathe, youngsters sometimes got the chance to have-a-go themselves. Unfortunately, funding for this event was one of the cuts the Council had to make after 2010.
 

8. A flyer for the 1999 Countryside Day, and using a pole lathe in 2010. (With thanks to John Parker and Rose Bennett / BHCG)

Click on the link below to read the rest of this article

Lorber: Residents losing all trust in the planning process in Brent

Paul Lorber has returned to the attack over the planning process under Covid-19 arrangements.

In an email to Alice Lester (Operational Director for Regeneration, Growth and Employment) who responded on behalf of Brent CEO Carolyn Downs, he claims local residents share his concern over a democratic deficit in the proposed arrangements:

I regret that I am not satisfied with your reply and would like the Chief Executive to intervene. I can tell you that having discussed this with local residents that they are not satisfied with the process and more importantly that they are losing all trust in the Planning Process in Brent. Losing public trust has major implications for any organisation in the business of public service.

I will make a number of points:

1. Unless you are already an internet user you will not be aware of the changes that Brent Council has introduced in the way Planning Committees will be held. Brent residents are used to the Planning Meetings to be held in the Civic Centre as those without internet access get the information from the Brent Magazine. As the Magazine is not delivered during the lockdown they have not been informed. Further local residents association is only able to communicate any changes to their members via the internet or whatsup messages - which once again excludes a large number of people - especially the elderly and the disabled for whom the loss of the car park on this site is a major consideration.

 

2. Unless there has been a very material change to the site meeting process (and perhaps you can set out the full rules and process) it would seem appropriate for a site meeting to be held in relation to this application. From memory of site meetings while discussions have always been discouraging and residents advised that this would take place at the Committee Meeting itself the process in the past included the officers and councillors arrival, the officers explaining the applicationg and pointing to any site issues, residents' representative being allowed to set out their concerns, councillors allowed to ask questions and seek clarification. Has this changed?

 

3. There are a number of issues in the Planning Report (and when I looked on the site on Thursday the Report was still marked as draft) which a site meeting would help with:

 

a. There is no evidence that Council Officers verified the information from 2018 provided by the applicant that the car park is no longer used. Councillors making a site visit would be able to see for themsleves that cars continue to be parked in the car park even during the lock down and that prior to the lockdown there were usually between 20 and 30 cars parked there at any one time.

 

b. They could see the proposed location for what is now described as the 3 blue badge car parking spaces. They could ask the obvious question as to whether these limited car parking spaces were being reserved for the users of the station or where they could be taken up by residents living on the new estate - especially as 5 of the units will be adapted for wheelchair users.

 

c. By walking or driving through the area to get to the site they would see the extent of the existing CPZ  and get a confirmation that the surrounding streets are heavily parked. That might lead to their better understanding and lead to questions about where will delivery vehicle park, where will visitors park and where will family members coming to visit overnight park - and how will the nearby residents be impacted by their streets being used as the car park for this development.

 

d. By visiting the site Councillors would also better understand the layout of the site and the impact of overlooking on residents of Barham Close. They might also the size of the car parking land TFL intend to retain for their 'Depot' for future works to the tail lines. They might ask the obvious question why the housing development is not repositioned in such a way that the retained land is used as flexible space which could allow the retention of part of the car park for pubic use. The following point is not considered by the report because officers are clearly not familiar with the area and simply take information at face value as provided by the 3rd parties behind the development - the point is this -

 

e. TFL intend to retain a fair sized part of the car par for a Deport for as yet unspecified works. This land is accessed via Barham Close. There is a possible alternative approach which ensures that the Housing proposed is built further back on the land intended to be retained. This would free up land closer to the entrance to the station (towards the pedestrian ramp). This land could than have a dual purpose - allow the retention of a reasonable number of car parking spaces on the site (say around 25), including some spaces for a few visitors and some loading and unloading space while still being available as a Deport as an when TFL need to undertake works to the underground lines. Should any TFL needs arise they could simply suspend public use of the car park for the required period. It would of course be much easier to explain this proposal on site as councillors could walk through the whole of the existing car park and see how this would work in practice.

 

f. The planning report refers to £30,000 and £20,000 future CPZ review contributions to both Brent and Ealing. By coming on site councillors would get an appreciation and view of the area where existing CPZs operate and what is intended. I make this point because I regard as the contributions as totally meaning less - equally meaningless to the Planning Service inability to enforce the condition that any resident of the new development will not have access to a CPZ permit. If I was asking for a site visit I would take the opportunity fo ask councillors to visit the new development of Fishers & Williams Way nearby to highlight the reality of car free developments. I would firstly point out that Planning permission often require developers to contribute money towards CPZ reviews. The developer of Fishers and Williams Estate made a CPZ contribution many years ago - an on the ball councillors could ask the Officers - how was the contribution used to benefit local people and improve the situation locally? I know the answer - very little. Perhaps you can answer this point and explain why nothing has been done for at least 5 years and what the point of the extra money is. And the usually planners response to residents raising concerns about new developments causing parking problems for nearby residents that "we have asked the developers to contribute money towards CPZ reviews" will simply no longer do.

The ability of the public to influence issues at at a Planning Committee is very limited already. They are given a very short time to speak and no opportunity to respond if inaccurate statements are made by the applicant or in some cases by planning officers. The work of Councillors is to provide effective scrutiny and sometimes to listen and take account of what residents have said. The process is very skewed anyway as officers (who have been approached and been influenced by the applicant through pre meetings etc) do not give the same opportunity to residents. 

The planning application for Sudbury Town Station has been around for a while. It has been revised following discussions between the planners and the developers. The ability for local residents to have further input has been limited.

There are other large and controversial planning applications for consideration by the Planning Committee on 6 May 2020. In most cases there is no urgency to determine the application - irrespective of the virtual online meetings allowed by Government legislation. The Zoom system has not been fully tested and as you are no doubt aware has been subject to security breaches. The approach will almost certainly deny large numbers of Brent residents the opportunity to fully participate.

Brent Council exists to serve Brent residents. It should in my view do so properly and fairly. The approach of deciding planning applications, which will have major implications for local people for many years to come, is very damaging for the image of Brent Council and should in my view not be pursued. Brent Council has closed its sports centres, libraries, the Civic Centre, offices, recycling centres and many other facilities and services - it simply is NOT right that it should continue to make decisions behind closed doors about planning applications that local people are very concerned about.

Regards

Paul Lorber

Brent councillor suspended by Labour Party

The Jewish Chronicle is reporting that Cllr Aslam Choudry has been suspended by the Labour Party while an investigation takes place following complaints over a video that he shared in a local Whats App group.

Cllr Choudry is a former Mayor and currently Chair of the Audit and Standards Committee. He is one of the three councillors for Dudden Hill ward.

Former Brent Council Leader issues Official Complaint over lockdown Planning Committee decision making

The proposed buildings on Sudbury Town Station Car Park

The Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday May 6th (6pm) will be a virtual meeting. The Agenda on the Council website states:

Note: Please note the press and public will be welcome to attend this as an online virtual meeting. The link to attend and view proceedings will be available via the Live Stream page on the Democracy in Brent website. 

The Agenda does not state how members of the public may make representations at the meeting, a normal Planning Committee provision, which ensure the public's voice is heard.

However,in correspondence with former Council Leader and Liberal Democrat General Election Candidate, Paul Lorber, the Council has stated:

It is possible to speak at the Committee Meeting (online or via the telephone) subject to the restrictions set out in the Council's Standing Order. These provide for one objector and/or one supporter of the application to speak. The Chair has the discretion to increase this to two people from each side. In doing this, the Chair will give priority to occupiers nearest to the application site or representing a group of people. 

To address the committee you must speak to Democratic Services at least one clear day before the meeting. Please telephone the Democratic Services Officer, Mr Joe Kwateng, on 020 8937 1354 during office hours or email committee@brent.gov.uk

Apart from the Sudbury Town Station proposal that Lorber was concerned about (see image above)  there are also applications for a mixed used development at the Abbey Manufacturing Estate/Edwards Yard site in Wembley  for 3-14 storey buildings, an 11 storey building on the site of Ujima House in Wembley High Road, and Peel Precinct and neighbouring sites  in South Kilburn for 7 buildings of 5-16 storeys.

A pretty heavy agenda by any measure and issues on which the public may well want to make representations.

Paul Lorber wrote to Brent Council CEO outlining his concerns over the absence of site meetings as well as the rights of residents witout internet access:

As you know I raised with you concerns about dealing with Planning Applications during this crisis. As in most cases applicants will not be able to pursue or implement any approved applications there seems no great urgency to rush applications through and deny members of the public an opportunity for a proper say.

It is normal for many residents to attend Planning Committee when they are concerned about an application. Determining applications on line denies them this opportunity. Any resident not on the internet or not familiar with the new technology faces an even greater disadvantage and unfairness.

It has been a long standing practice in Brent for many decades for planning applications which are either controversial or subject to great concern or opposition from residents to be subject to a site visit. Site visit were an important opportunity tfor members of the Planning Committee to better understand the concerns being raised and to see things on site. The reasons for this are obvious - explanations and information on paper only do not tell the full story.

The planning site meetings are also an opportunity for residents to point out the their concerns directly to Councillors.

I am concerned that going ahead with planning applications subject to Planning Committee Meetings, because of the nature of the application or the large level of opposition,in the way proposed undermines the normal Brent Council approach of meaning full public involvement and Brent Council's commitment to Open Government. All the advantage is handed over to the Applicants who have had the opportunity of direct access to Council Officers denied to the members of public. It is those officers who then advise Councillors in Planning pre meetings or in other ways outside of public scrutiny.

The lack of site meetings as a major change to the way planning meetings have been dealt with in the past which also undermines the whole process.

In my view Brent Council should suspend dealing with any applications which are subject to material number of objections and only deal with applications which fall into the category dealt with under delegated powers or those where no materail number of objections have been received.

Besides the risk of extra challenges to decisions were made there is a much more serious issue of public confidence in the whole planning process in Brent.

I trust that you will consider my concerns seriously and suspend the process of dealing with Planning Applications in the proposed way.

Lorber has now issued a formal complaint as a result of his dissatisfaction with the Council's response to his letter:

The Brent Council decision to proceed with planning applications in the way proposed in your letter has a number of implications:

1.     It denies members of the public (or even Councillors) to request a site meeting.

2.     It denies any member of the public without the internet or ability to join the online meeting of the right to participate.

In view of this any consideration of this application should be deferred until such time as things return to normal, site meetings are possible and all memebers of the public are free to attend a normal Planning Committee Meeting in Brent.

1 Morland Gardens should be considered 'an important local heritage asset of high significance' - Brent Heritage Officer

The proposals for the redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens on a prominent corner site in Harlesden/Stonebridge have attracted much controversy over the loss of a well-loved landmark in the Italianate style villa presently occupying the site. LINK  There has been an argument about its relative heritage merit and whether alternative proposals should be considered which would preserve the villa. LINK

Brent Council have kindly supplied me with the advice of the Council's Principal Heritage Officer which I hope will be given due weight.

Application Number 20/0345

Consultee Details 

Name: Mr Mark Price Principal Heritage Officer
Email: mark.price@brent.gov.uk
On Behalf Of: Principal Heritage Conservation Officer 

Comments 

SIGNIFICANCE: 1 Morland Gardens is a Locally Listed Building [a non-designated heritage asset] but not in a conservation area nor a statutory listed building. The local list description (attached) confirms and sets out its significance. It has a significance score of 8 out of 12 and therefore it should be considered an important local heritage asset of high significance. 

ADVICE:
The Heritage Statement submitted with the planning application [at 8.8] confirms the authenticity and the intactness of the building and therefore its relative significance and states that Externally, the Victorian house remains mostly intact and The houses south-facing façade still makes an impression on those passing along Hillside. However, although the report considers the history and use of the building, it does not put it into the immediate local context of Stonebridge nor as a building type within the Borough of Brent. It is therefore difficult to come to any judgement about its potential loss. Furthermore, it does not make a case for its demolition or give any comment on the merits of the replacement building. 

The NPPF at paragraph 8 states that an Analysis of relevant information can generate a clear understanding of the affected asset, the heritage interests represented in it, and their relative importance. It goes on to point out at paragraph 9 that Applicants are expected to describe in their application the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting (National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 189). In doing so, applicants should include analysis of the significance of the asset and its setting, and, where relevant, how this has informed the development of the proposals. 

Unfortunately, such information has not been provided. 

Brents DMP 7 [b] is quite clear that applicants should provide a detailed analysis and justification of the potential impact (including incremental and cumulative) of the development on the heritage asset and its context as well as any public benefit and [at c] argues to retain buildings where their loss would cause harm. With this in mind, the applicants should seek further advice from a heritage specialist to gather further evidence in support of this application. The specialist might offer different conclusions or mitigation measures for the Council to consider. 

I am aware that the D&A Statement at section 5.1, Heritage, alludes to the fact that the Design Team have carefully considered a wide range of development options for the application site, including options that retain the historic core of the building. Also that the proposed building is not without considerable design merit. However, the development options need to be carefully set out and argued as part of the planning application and form part of the heritage statement along with the architectural merits of the new design as well as the other public benefits [as defined by the NPPF] to countenance demolition. 

In my view, therefore, this additional information needs to be obtained before a proper assessment of the proposals can be determined.

Brent Council's Adult Social Care teams talk about how they're responding to coronavirus

Fryent Country Park extra! – The bunker on Gotfords Hill

I am pleased to publish this spin-off from Philip Grant's series on the history of Fryent Country Park

One of the encouraging things about sharing the local history I know is that other people sometimes add things that I didn’t know! This has happened through comments made in response to Part 3 of the Fryent Country Park Story.

One comment, from Wally, which began with memories triggered by an old photo of a gipsy camp, went on to say: ‘On top of “Mole Hill” in about the 60's an underground bunker was dug and buried and we saw its construction. Never found out what it was for or if it's still there.’ “Mole Hill” was actually Gotfords Hill, which today looks serene in its country landscape, but I had heard rumours about something “secret” which used to be there.

1. Looking across the Country Park fields, to Gotfords Hill, Kingsbury and beyond.

An anonymous comment followed, first saying: ‘I remember the bunker and what was inside,’ and later adding: ‘like a man hole cover in a concrete surround, a jacobs ladder leading down to a couple of rooms one with a early warning machine.’ There had obviously been something on that hilltop, but what was it?

The following day another comment arrived, which provided hope that we might soon have the answer. Brian wrote: ‘I have some photos of the bunker - not very good ones and I can't remember where I got them from, so I don't know who owns them.’ A day later, he had sent them to Martin, and we had our first glimpse of the Gotfords Hill bunker.

2. Royal Observer Corps volunteers at Gotfords Hill, 1968.

3. ROC men around the open trap door to the bunker.

The photograph above gives a clear picture of five of the men, four of them wearing the uniform of the Royal Observer Corps (“ROC”), a volunteer organisation linked with the RAF. Do you recognise any of these men, or are you one of them, who could tell us more? Once
the uniform was clear, it led me to an excellent website run by the Royal Observer Corps Association, which has helped provide the following information.

The Observer Corps was set up in the 1920s, to help the RAF in keeping track of enemy aircraft that might attack this country during any future war. I had heard that Gotfords Hill was the site of an observation post during the Second World War, and that would explain its later use by the ROC. 

Although the RAF had radar around the coast, to help spot approaching formations of German bombers during that war, it relied on a network of observation posts to help track their movements once they were over Britain. The post on Gotfords Hill probably reported directly to Fighter Command HQ at Bentley Priory, on the type and number of planes they could see, and the direction they were flying. Because of their vital work during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz, King George VI awarded the Observer Corps its Royal title in 1941.

4. A World War 2 Observer Corps observation post. (Still from a British Pathé newsreel film in 1941.)

After 1945, the nature of any future conflict changed, with faster jet aircraft and the development of nuclear weapons. The role of the ROC also changed, and from 1957 it was brought under the control of the new United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation (“UKWMO”). Between then and 1963, around 1500 underground ROC posts were built, in a network across the whole country. Many reused old ROC locations, such as Gotfords Hill.

Wally’s comment was right, when he said that an underground bunker was dug and buried there in the 1960s. The bunker had reinforced concrete walls, one foot thick, and could only be reached by ladder down a 14-foot concrete shaft from the surface. The Gotfords Hill bunker opened in 1961, and was named ROC Post Colindale (which has led to at least one website saying it was in the London Borough of Barnet!). It was reached via a footpath across the field from Valley Drive, and through a locked gate in the high wire fence surrounding the site.

5. ROC members around the top of the bunker, with Valley Drive in the background.

The bunker consisted of two rooms, a monitoring room and a storeroom (with a chemical toilet in it). The Cold War was at its height in the early 1960s, and in time of an emergency the job of these ROC posts would be to report where nuclear bombs had exploded, and to monitor the spread and toxicity of the radioactive fallout. Two or three observers would be expected to seal themselves into the bunker, and stay there, potentially for many weeks!
 

6. Inside the monitoring room in the Gotfords Hill bunker.

The radioactivity readings, from equipment linked to the surface, would have been used alongside reports from neighbouring posts (Acton, Northolt, Chorleywood, Kings Langley and Bowes Park/Haringay) and data from the Met. Office to predict where the nuclear fallout would spread to, and alert people there of danger coming their way. If you are interested, there is a public information film [“The Hole in the Ground” (1962)] on YouTube, all about these methods:

I remember those times, as my grandfather was an active member of the Civil Defence Corps then. Aged 11 to 13, I was “volunteered” to help, as a casualty, with a number of their training exercises. For one big exercise there was no gory make-up, just dozens of us delivered to a mock casualty clearing station in a local school. We each had a card listing the symptoms we had to describe to the first aiders, whose task it was to decide what to do with us. My “condition” was radiation sickness, and the symptoms were awful! Since then, I’ve been convinced that nuclear weapons should never be used again.

As the threat of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union diminished, half of the underground ROC bunkers were closed in 1968, and Gotfords Hill was one of them. The photographs that Brian shared with us are dated 1968, and may have been taken as the ROC members paid a last visit to their post (if whoever took them would like to get in touch, we would be happy to give a proper acknowledgement). Although the hatch and its surround have gone, the sealed-off bunker underneath must still be there!

7. Closing the hatch to the bunker in 1968, with the fields of the future Country Park beyond.

The final photo shared with us shows the metal hatch being closed; but the pictures have also “lifted the lid” on the mystery of the Gotfords Hill bunker. It is now part of the Fryent Country Park Story!

Thankfully, the bunker never had to be used for the purpose it was built to serve, but history can teach us things, if we are willing to learn. In the 1950s, the government perceived a danger which threatened the life of everyone in the country. They planned for what would be required to deal with that threat, put in the resources necessary, and trained the staff and volunteers who would be involved. Even though that threat passed, without becoming a reality, the country was prepared.

Philip Grant.

IF YOU ENJOYED THIS YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN THE SERIES OF ARTICLES ON FRYENT COUNTRY PARK

 

History of Fryent Country Park – Part 1

History of Fryent Country Park – Part 2

History of Fryent Country Park – Part 3

History of Fryent Country Park – Part 4

History of Fryent Country Park – Part 5

History of Fryent Country Park – Part 6

History of Fryent Country Park – Bunker Special

 

Daniel’s Den Snipathon Launch - Linda's epic haircut! They deserve a donation

From Daniel's Den

Daniel’s Den Snipathon is our major fundraising event of the year! 26 days of snipping activities all raising money for Daniel’s Den! It was launched on Sunday April 26th 2020 by Linda and her daughter Shauna! This is the video of Linda having 26 inches cut off her hair - it was an epic community event!

Lots of neighbours came to cheer her on (social distancing rules in place! Follow the link to donate! https://t.co/BexMnn9HNx

About Daniels Den Snipathon

The 2.6 Challenge has inspired us to run a 26-day fundraising campaign called Daniels Den Snipathon. Everyday someone or something will be snipped! 

It will kick off on Sunday April 26th 2020 (the day the London Marathon should have been run) when one of our volunteers Linda will cut off her hair all 26 inches of it!! 

Here is her story

'What I love about Daniels Den is that its not just a job or volunteering opportunity - its family. 

It is not just a session, set up, run, pack away and done its so much more. It reaches further - building links with other organisations, developing relationships with the children and families, with the other volunteers, with the people who run the venues where our sessions are held and the wider community. 

The staff and volunteers offer a non-judgemental ear and share suggestions and advice. Its a huge support network. 

I remember when my daughter started full time school and she asked me why I was still volunteering at Daniels Den as she wasnt there anymore. I said "if there were no volunteers when you started going to DD it would not have been such a good place would it? No one to do the craft, no one to make the juice and fruit, no one to do singing time etc". It took her a while to get her head around it, but finally did. 

I'm the volunteer fundraising events coordinator and this idea has been floating around in my head for a few months - but the time seems right now. People need to be part of something at this time, to give them something to be involved in as we cant meet them at the moment.' 

So everyday someone in Daniel's Den is going to do a snipping challenge. Photos and videos will be shared. Here are just some of the challenges taking place 

Cuthbert the Caterpillar is going to have his 'hair' trimmed

Titch and Roxy, Lindas dogs are going to have the hair in their toenails clipped

Danielle will snip baby Hallies fingernails

Our children will make a collage of their favourite things 

The money raised will help our fundraising targets for the year and enable us to reach more families. 

We have decided to donate 26% of what we raise to two charities close to our heart - St Luke's Hospice and our local women's refuge! And the hair that Linda snips will be donated to the Little Princess Trust to make wigs for children that have lost their hair due to cancer treatment. 

The motto of our charity is TEAM Together Everyone Achieves More and all donations are welcome. 

Thank you!