Schools Adjudicator finds Islamia Primary's new admissions arrangements disadvantage siblings

The Schools Adjudicator, whose role is to ensure that school admission arrangement are fair and conform to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, has issue a determination in the case of objections to revised admission arrangements at the state-funded Islamian Primary School in Brent. The governing body at the school determines its own admission arrangements.

 

The case raises important issues regarding class (in the guise of professional status) and race (relating to the Somali population).

The objection by two individuals relates to the criteria applied when the 60 pupil intake school is over-subscribed. 

 

The adjudicator summarises the criteria as:

 

a.     Looked after Muslim children and previously looked after Muslim children.

b.     Children of staff.

c.     Muslim children of at least one parent who has reverted to Islam (not born in the Islamic faith). Up to a maximum of 25 per cent of the PAN (Planned Admission Number).

d.     Muslim children of parents who are former pupils of the school (alumni) since it became a Voluntary Aided school (1998). Up to a maximum of 15 per cent of the PAN.

e.     Muslim children who have a sibling at the school.

f.      Other Muslim children.

g.     Other looked after children or previously looked after children.

h.     Other children.

 

 The objectors argument is summarised:

 

1.              Taken together, the objectors argue that newly-introduced oversubscription criteria giving priority to Muslim children of at least one parent who has reverted to Islam and Muslim children of parents who are former pupils of the school (alumni) are in breach of paragraphs 1.9 e) and f) of the School Admissions Code (the Code), which prohibit the giving of priority to children, respectively, on the basis of any practical or financial support parents may give to the school and according to the educational status of parents applying.

2.              Both objectors point out that, as a result of the introduction of the new criteria, the priority for children with siblings at the school has become the fifth rather than the third oversubscription criterion. The objectors refer to the “disadvantage” and “hardship” this will create and describe the change as “unfair.” Paragraph 14 of the Code requires admission authorities to ensure that the practices and the criteria used to decide the allocation of school places are fair.

 

The objectors felt that the priority given to alumni was made on the basis of their  ability to give support to the school including financially through voluntary contributions. One objector said:

“During the [consultation]meeting the panel explained to the parents in attendance that they wished to encourage alumni to come back to the school as they tended to be professionally successful, therefore they could ‘share their skills to drive standards up, hold the school to account and give something back thanks to their professional status.’

 

The Adjudicator comments:

 

My task at this stage, though, is not to come to a conclusion about what the true reasons for the new criteria are, but to determine whether those criteria are in breach of the Code. In order to qualify under either of the criteria, parents are not required to make any financial contribution to the school or to give it practical support, or indeed to pledge to do. The governing board may hope that parents may do so, but it is not necessary to gain priority for a place. I therefore do not consider that they are in breach of paragraph 1.9 e). 

Similarly, with reference to paragraph 1.9 f), there is not a requirement that parents demonstrate that they are employed in a particular occupation. In order to be considered alumni of the school, parents must, of course, have attended it. I do not regard this as conferring an “educational status”, which I take to relate to educational achievement, including qualifications obtained at school and in further and higher education. I do not uphold the objection on the grounds that the criteria giving priority to the children of alumni and reverts breach paragraph 1.9 of the Code.

 

The Adjudicator adds on this and  the issue of 'reverts'  LINK (people who become Muslim as did the original founder of the school Cat Stevens/Yusif Islam):

Whilst it is clear that there is strong disagreement about the appropriateness of the reasons the admission authority has given for giving priority to children of alumni, those reasons could not be described as arbitrary or irrational. With respect to the priority of children of reverts, it is common practice for schools with a religious character to differentiate between adherents of the faith of the school in their admission arrangements, for example, on the basis of for how long or how often they attend a place of worship. It is not unreasonable to take account of when someone became a member of the faith (provided this can be established objectively) and to give their children priority for places at the school as they may need more support than children born into the faith. I therefore consider that these criteria meet the test of reasonableness.

There was a further argument made in correspondence that the Adjudicator termed 'very important':

 

In her initial objection, this objector argued that the proposed changes “will directly impact families from poorer socio-economic backgrounds.” She develops the argument in subsequent correspondence, explaining that there has been a change in the demographic profile of the school, due to a large number of Somali families being housed in what was previously the catchment area. She says, 

 

“This has translated into a net increase of Somali children and their siblings securing spaces at Islamia due to closeness to the school, being within the catchment area and having sibling priority.  l believe these changes are aimed at reducing that through decreased sibling priority.

Moreover, since there are close to no Somali alumni from 20 years ago and traditionally no reverts from Somali heritage these changes will effectively exclude a large portion of parents  and directly affect their ability to secure spaces for a second, third or fourth child. I believe these changes are discriminatory and aimed at curbing the access of poorer families from specific ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds usually in need of more spaces.”

 

 The Adjudicator found that the revised arrangements discriminate against siblings and adds a warning (my stress) regarding the above point:

 

I have found that the arrangements unfairly disadvantage siblings. Although the objector’s arguments appear to me to have some merit, it would be difficult to establish whether the effect of the proposed changes would be specifically to disadvantage the Somali racial group. Indeed, any finding in this matter would not add materially to my conclusion relating to unfairness. I therefore make no further comment, other than to stress the importance of the admission authority’s monitoring of the effect of the arrangements in future years to ensure that they do not run the risk of a successful challenge that they may cause indirect discrimination on the grounds of race. Indirect discrimination occurs when a practice or criterion, which applies to everyone in the same way, has the effect of disadvantaging a group of people who share a protected characteristic listed in the Equality Act 2010. It is a defence against indirect discrimination if the criterion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

 

Summary of Findings

 

1.              The consultation conducted by the admission authority prior to the introduction of new criteria prioritising the children of alumni and reverts met requirements. The criteria do not contravene paragraphs 1.9 e) and f) of the Code as they do not give priority to children on the basis of practical or financial support parents may give or on parents’ occupational or educational status. I do not uphold these aspects of the objection.

 

2.              Children of alumni and reverts (up to 40 per cent of the total to be admitted) have a higher priority to siblings, some of whom might not obtain a place. The disadvantage to siblings and their families is not outweighed by the benefits the new criteria bring. The arrangements do not meet the requirements of fairness in paragraph 14 of the Code. In this respect, I uphold the objection.

 

Determination

 

3.              In accordance with section 88H(4) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, I partially uphold the objection to the admission arrangements for September 2021 determined by the governing board for Islamia Primary School, Brent.  

 

4.              I have also considered the arrangements in accordance with section 88I(5) and find there are other matters which do not conform with the requirements relating to admission arrangements in the ways set out in this determination. 

 

The Chair of Governors at the school has been contacted for a  comment but has not yet responded. 

 

The full report can be found HERE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Free 'Cycle Buddies' scheme launched in Brent - sign up to pair with an experienced cyclist to gain confidence and knowledge of safe local routes

 

A very welcome and enterprising scheme is introducd by Brent Cycling Campaign:

Brent Cycling Campaign has launched a scheme  to pair experienced riders with people new or returning to cycling to help them navigate their new work commute, get around locally or enjoy a leisure pootle.

After lockdown there was a 200 percent increase in cycling.  Local bike shops are busy with people buying new bikes or repairing bikes which have not been used for a while. New cycle lanes and healthier, low traffic neighbourhoods are making it easier to get around by bike. 

Government and local authorities are actively encouraging people to cycle short journeys to keep public transport running at social distancing capacity and prevent more pollution and congestion building up on the roads. 

Brent  Cycling Campaign wants to help people keen to get on their wheels, to do so safely. They will pair up new with experienced riders so they can meet up and ride together - to work, to local shops or just to the park for a bit of practice.  Experienced riders will help plan routes on quiet streets, make use of existing cycling provision, give the new riders support and share their experiences of riding on city streets. 

Cycle Buddies has helped many new and returning riders across London already. 

If you are a new or returning to cycling - or if you are an experienced cyclist who would like to help others - sign up - it's free! to Brent Cycle Buddies at  https://www.brentcyclists.org.uk/2020/09/30/brent-cycle-buddies-scheme/

Carmen Solino, from Wandsworth, where the Cycle Buddies scheme was first launched, said: 

I hadn't been on a bike for 17 years. After a couple of rides with my bike buddy I found the confidence to take a ride all the way to work, near Westminster and found out about the Quietways, a safer, less stressful way to cycle in London!

Dr Bruce Lynn, who helped set up Cycle Buddies in Southwark commented:

I am delighted to be involved to pair up new cyclists and experienced riders to explore and enjoy London in a different way. They will see how quick and pleasant it is to ride around the city. 

Sylvia Gauthereau, coordinator of Brent Cycling Campaign:

We already have a good number of people interested to help out, including a mum who is keen to inspire other parents to cycle the school run. So please do not hesitate to get in touch so we can start finding you a cycle buddy.

 

 

Court finds in favour of Brent Council in Bridge Park Case

  

The community meeting that launched the campaign to prevent Brent Council from selling off Bridge Park

The High Court verdict in the Brent Council versus Bridge Park case was delivered virtually today. Michael Green QC found in favour of Brent Council's claim on the land and granted an injuction against any further claims.  The redevelopment can now go ahead.

Although admiring the initial concept of a community centre addressing the needs of the community at the time of the riots and paying tribute to Leonard Johnson's  charismatic leadership qualities he decided the case strictly on its legal merits, but at the end of his long judgment (posted in previous article) called for co-operation between the parties in the case. He said:

I do not want to end this judgment on that note. While I have been somewhat critical of the Defendants’ strategy of opposition to Brent’s proposals in relation to Bridge Park, I am saddened that it has been necessary for this dispute to be determined by me in a long judgment that deals with the legal position in relation to the ownership of Bridge Park. The fact that I am delivering this judgment means that the mediation and settlement talks have failed to reach an outcome satisfactory to both parties. As I said at the beginning of this judgment, a trial of the issues before me is not the way to resolve the real issues between the parties. This dispute has come to a head in the context of understandably heightened tensions within the black community and the important focus on the Black Lives Matter movement. While the parties may be able to take such matters into account in seeking to resolve their differences out of court, I cannot do so. I had to decide the case on the facts surrounding the acquisition nearly 40 years ago and the law. 

 

I totally understand that Bridge Park was Mr Johnson’s conception and that the critical aspect of it, if it was to work and the riots were to be avoided, was that it would be run and managed by the local community for the local community without any direct involvement of Brent. Brent understood this, as did central government and the GLC, and they all shared Mr Johnson’s and HPCC’s philosophy. Everyone wanted it to succeed in that way as the stakes were so high. And, for a time, it did succeed. But the failure to set up a community co-operative or to agree the terms of a lease to the Steering Group Company, then the break-down of relations between HPCC and Brent leading to Brent’s repossession of Bridge Park and, for the last 25 years, HPCC being completely uninvolved in its management, all undermine HPCC’s claims to a beneficial interest. Those facts also confirm that the absence of any reference in any of the documentation to Brent holding the Property on trust whether for charitable purposes or HPCC or anyone was deliberate, reflecting the understanding of the parties that Brent did not hold the Property on trust. Instead the Property was held beneficially by Brent for its statutory purposes which are essentially to act in the best interests of the community, as I believe Brent is striving to do with its proposals for Bridge Park. Mr Gutch, the Defendants’ witness, admitted that “at the end of the day, the asset was Brent’s” even if it was acquired so as to be run by the community and even if the community aspired at some stage to own it. 

 

It is obvious that something needs to be done to Bridge Park. Brent cannot just allow it to languish and be of diminishing use to the community. Brent has to respond to the current needs of the community but says it can only provide a newly enhanced leisure and community facility if it sells off part of the Property. It is not right, in my view, for Mr Johnson and HPCC to claim a veto on anything that Brent may wish to do with the Property based on an inaccurate recollection of what was said at the time of the acquisition. All of Brent’s witnesses paid glowing tributes to Mr Johnson and the tremendous achievements of HPCC. I do too. But now that the legal issues have been resolved in my judgment, I would again urge the parties to move on and seek to achieve, by mutual co-operation and agreement, the best outcome for Bridge Park and the local community.

Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, made a statement following publication of the Judgment:

It’s great that the court has made the legal position over the ownership of Bridge Park absolutely clear.We’ve always said that whatever the outcome of the court case, our door remains open to everyone in the community to discuss the future of Bridge Park and that absolutely remains the case.

What this result means is that we can now get back to work in delivering on the promise of unleashing the potential that’s been trapped for far too long in this treasured but crumbling site. This is the chance we’ve all been waiting for to come together as a community and finally revitalise this invaluable facility.

If you want to work with us on the future facility please do get in touch.

 The Bridge Park Campaign has been contacted for a comment.

Brent Council v Bridge Park Judgment published

 

Cllr Tatler moves swiftly to address concerns over Healthy Neighbourhood schemes

Cllrs Shama Tatler and Krupa Sheth are to hold meetings with ward councillors this week to discuss the experimental  Healthy Neighbourhood schemes in their area following concern about lack of consultation and practicality voiced at a councillor briefing earlier this week.

The councillors are assured by Cllr Tatler that there was no intention to ignore residents or permanently impose changes but to fulfil an ambition, shared by all, to have 'healthier, cleaner and greener' neighbourhoods. The email circulated to councillors says that there is no disagreement on the principle but that there is a need to iron out some of the implementation and teething issues as well as communication.

Councillors are told that no scheme wil be operational until residents have been written to in order to clarify  proposals, inform them of how they can comment and engage in the trials, and, importantly, a date on which schemes will go live. Tatler states that if a scheme is not working it will be amended or removed.

There will be regular communications with councillors on the monitoring process and updates for councillors and residents during the 6 month trial to ensure that all comments and feedback are tracked.

Covid restrictions permitting there will also be walkabouts with offices,

Cllr Tatler points out that in many areas, there are significant numbers of people, who do not have a car and that Brent Council has a responsibility to attempt to make the neighbourhoods we live in pleasant and safe environments.

She concludes that change, especially of necessity done at high speed,  is not easy but the potential benefits are huge and long lasting.

1 Morland Gardens – How Brent Council’s Officers got it wrong!

Guest blog, by Philip Grant in a personal capacity:-

Five weeks ago, I wrote about how Brent Council won its planning “victory” over 1 Morland Gardens, its redevelopment scheme for the Brent Start college in a locally listed Victorian villa in Stonebridge. I used that article as the basis for raising serious concerns over the conduct of Council officers with Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, and those concerns are still being investigated.

 

After the Planning Committee meeting on 12 August, and before I wrote that blog article, I submitted three Freedom of Information requests. It appeared to me that things had gone wrong with this scheme from the start, and I was looking for evidence of what had gone wrong, when and why. In the past two weeks I have received responses to those requests, and I will share the main points from them with you here, in the order in which the events happened.

 

As soon as Planning Committee had approved Brent’s application, by 5 votes to 2, the Council and its architects publicised in the construction and architectural press that the £43million scheme was going ahead (even though the application’s official status is still ‘awaiting decision’, and it has not yet gone back to the GLA for the Mayor’s Stage 2 consideration). One of the facts included in their press release was that Curl la Tourelle Head Architecture had been appointed for the scheme in September 2018, after winning a competition. One of my FoI’s was to discover more about that competition.

 

The cover of the winning entry by Curl la Tourelle Head Architecture.

 

The “competition” was actually an “invitation to quote” for the design of the Morland Gardens project, which Brent Property Services sent out to three firms in the summer of 2018. Among the details for the entries were:

 

'Part of the building is locally listed and will need to be factored into any design moving forward. The full site is in Brent council’s ownership as found in the site plan. It must be noted that some of the site is designated as public footpath which may require appropriation.'  And;

 

‘The scheme is defined as being able to achieve anywhere between 50-70 residential units. It is expected that the development potential will be maximised.’

 

Site perspective drawing of CLTH’s proposals, from cover of their entry.

 

The first of my growing list of blogs on 1 Morland Gardens, back in February, asked ‘Housing or Heritage? Or both?’. As you may have spotted from the illustrations above, the original answer to that question by the winning architects was “both”! Their planning assessment said:

 

‘Piecemeal development has built up around an Italianate Villa and does not make best use of the land available. There is a clear potential to redevelop the site as a co-ordinated whole, to provide better facilities for the existing uses, new workspace, as well as new housing.

 

The locally listed villa is of architectural merit and there is potential to retain the villa as the focus of new development at the heart of the new project.’

 

CLTH’s two development options.

 

The original Curl la Tourelle Head proposals ‘recognise(d) the existing strengths of the site by retaining the locally listed villa, enhancing its setting at the heart of a new shared collegiate courtyard.’ They put forward two options. The first, which stayed within the 1 Morland Gardens site, would provide 66 new homes, and keep the existing open space between it and Brentfield Road, with improvements to the 1994 Harlesden City Challenge community garden there. 

 

The second option took in the public footpath and open space, retaining a smaller garden area, but providing 89 new homes, as well as retaining the villa. This scheme would have been carried out in phases, allowing the college to be retained on site, rather than decanted to temporary accommodation. Both schemes would have provided homes in blocks a maximum of seven storeys high. 

 

It was clear that these were outline schemes, where detailed designs would have to be developed through discussions with the client, but on the face of it they provided everything that had been asked for. One of the case studies that CLTH had put forward, to illustrate their competence for taking on the project, was a recent scheme they had carried out in Islington, which involved adding a modern extension to a listed Victorian residential building. Here they would design modern buildings around another Victorian heritage building. Why didn’t Brent allow them to do that? The response to my next FoI throws some light on this point.

 

In my 20 August article, and based on information provided in the planning application documents, I wrote: ‘Brent’s Property team and their architects had their first pre-application meeting with Brent’s planning team on 8 March 2019.’ My FoI asked for the documentation around that meeting. On 28 January 2019, the architects had submitted a detailed “amended report” on their designs, and this said:

 

'The proposal puts forward a new purpose built Adult Education centre, with associated café and affordable workspace arranged around a new courtyard. Residential development sits above the education facility, and has the potential to house around 90 new build homes. The locally listed villa on the site is not retained, as the development cannot be achieved around this building.'

 

CLTH’s January 2019 retained villa option page.

 

This new document was to be used in a meeting that the Property team had arranged with ‘Cabinet members’ in early February. They had also asked CLTH to provide supporting evidence, in the form of outline designs, for a ‘retained villa option’. This exercise produced the result that up to 89 housing units could be provided if the locally listed villa was demolished, while only up to 49 units would be possible if it were retained. It appears that the project team at Brent’s Property Service were keen to convince relevant Cabinet members (Regeneration, Education?) from the start that the Victorian villa had to go.

 

Given Brent Council’s heritage assets planning policy, and its public statements that it valued the borough’s heritage buildings, and would protect them, why did the Property team think this would be acceptable? The answer to that was tucked away at Para. 7.2, on page 37 of the amended report. This summarises the ‘planning comments’ from a meeting they had held with an unnamed Brent Planning Officer on 18 December 2018 (nearly three months before the first official pre-application meeting!). Those comments included:

 

‘Locally listed building – it would be good to retain, but this is likely to be difficult without significantly affecting development quantum and therefore viability. We’re not likely to refuse a scheme due to loss of this building, but there is some planning risk associated with its loss.’

 

Despite Brent’s adopted policy on heritage assets, here was a member of Brent’s Planning Service actively encouraging his Property Service colleagues to break that policy!

 

  

The start of the minutes of the Planning Pre-Application meeting on 8 March 2019.

 

The first official meeting between Brent Property Service, as applicant, and its architects, with Brent’s Planning Service to discuss the 1 Morland Gardens scheme was on 8 March 2019. In my FoI request I had asked for a copy of the minutes of that meeting, and these had been made by Tibbalds, the planning agent appointed by to handle Brent’s application. As you can see above, the identities of the meeting participants have been redacted in the copy supplied to me. 

 

The main contributions from the Brent planning side were made by one officer, whose identity I can probably guess from the initials used in the minutes. However, as I’ve made clear that the serious concerns I raised are not a complaint against any individual officer(s), I will not disclose that identity here. This is what the minutes record under “locally listed building”, with the initials replaced by job titles:

 

i.               Planning Agent: Previous discussions with the council confirmed that not retaining the villa was acceptable in planning terms and would result in more comprehensive development.

ii.             Planning Officer: Heritage officer would prefer to keep it and highlighted risk that a spot listing could be applied.

iii.           Planning Officer: The building has lost a lot of its heritage value on account of internal changes.

iv.            Planning Officer: Heritage officer would like to arrange a site visit.

v.              Action: Architect to arrange site visit.

 

I would have expected, at this “first” pre-application meeting, that at least one of the three planning officers present would have mentioned Brent’s heritage assets planning policy DMP7, its requirement that applicants must demonstrate a clear understanding of the historic and architectural significance of the heritage building, and seek to retain it as part of their proposals. Instead, they appear to have gone along with the view that not retaining it was “acceptable”, and apart from saying that ‘the Heritage Officer would prefer to keep it’, the spokesperson for Brent’s planners actually talks down its value.

 

Brent’s planning officers have clearly treated the Council’s adopted heritage assets planning policy as if it did not matter. The locally listed building was "sacrificed" by Brent's planning team, even before the Heritage officer has been able to take a proper look at it, and on a very superficial view held by one of them, without any clear knowledge or understanding of the building's historical and architectural value!

 

The Heritage Officer was present at the Planning team’s Major Cases Forum meeting on 18 April 2019, when the pre-application for the 1 Morland Gardens scheme was discussed. The record of that meeting observed, under “Principle of Development” that: ‘Loss of locally listed building required to enable efficient re-development of site – argument has been put forward that an alternative scheme retaining the building would only provide 39 units; however could other options be explored?’ (Note the “villa retained option” has “lost” another 10 homes!)

 

At the meeting, the Heritage Officer put forward some ideas on how he thought that the scheme could be redesigned to retain the Victorian villa, which he still felt should not be demolished. After follow-up emails, the architects did submit some 'design packages on an updated retention scheme for the Villa and options for moving the Villa's tower,' on 14 May, but the link to those documents was redacted in the copy I received. It seems likely that these were the were the “revised retention scheme” designs shown as an Appendix to the Design & Access Statement which formed part of the planning application.

 

Those last “retained villa” designs were so impractical, compared to the original ideas that won the architects this contract. I doubt that they were ever intended to be of any use, other than so that the applicant could say that they had tried to find a solution which would allow the locally listed villa to be retained, when their client, Brent's Property Service, had already decided, no later than January 2019, that they would demolish the building in order to achieve the maximum number of homes as part of the redevelopment scheme.

 

My third FoI request was for emails etc. within Brent Council over the Heritage Officer’s response to the Heritage Impact Assessment of June 2020, and his final comments on the “significance” of the locally listed villa, and the preparation of the Planning Officer’s Report(s) to, and presentation of their case at, the Planning Committee on 12 August. Exactly twenty working days after my request, I received the Council’s response from the Head of Planning. He formally refused my request under Regulation 14 of the Environmental Information Regulations, 2004 (the EIRs), on the grounds that ‘internal communications’ are exempt under Reg. 12(4)(e) of the EIRs.

 

When he first acknowledged my request, I had said that I was puzzled as to why he would treat my FoI request as if it were under the EIRs, but had said ‘as long as the information is provided, as it should be under a normal FoI request, I will not make an issue of that point.’ It is now an issue, as I have expressed dissatisfaction with his refusal, and asked for an internal review by a senior Council Officer not connected with Brent’s Planning Service!

 

There is no equivalent exemption for ‘internal communications’ in the Freedom of Information Act, so I can see now why it suited Brent to deal with my request as if it were under the EIRs. But I was not asking for “environmental information” – it was not requesting copies of bat surveys(!), or anything else within that definition. The exemptions in Reg. 12 are subject to a public interest test, under which ‘a public authority shall apply a presumption in favour of disclosure.' 

 

According to the Head of Planning, emails etc. ‘provide the authority with the necessary space to discuss matters and provide advice in private.’ He believes this outweighs the public benefit of ‘openness and transparency of the consideration of the planning application.’ I believe that, if Brent’s planning officers have nothing to hide, it would be in the Council’s interest, as well as in the public interest, to supply the evidence that shows it. 

 

And if they have got something to hide, the serious concerns I have raised may well be justified.

 

Philip Grant.