Council housing at Cecil Avenue – a reply from Cllr. Muhammed Butt

 Guest blog by Philip Grant in a personal capacity:-

 

Council housing at Cecil Avenue – a reply from Cllr. Muhammed Butt

 

At Monday’s Cabinet Meeting, Kilburn Village Residents’ Association presented a petition expressing their opposition to the “infill” housing plans which the Council seems determined to push through for Kilburn Square, and dissolution with the consultation process, in which residents views had been ignored.

 

After watching the webcast for this item, I was struck by the way in which the Council Leader, and Chair of the meeting, seemed to dismiss the residents’ concerns. The most important thing for him was to build the Council homes that families in temporary accommodation urgently need, and he made no excuse (or apology?) for building them.

 

Architect’s diagrammatic view of Brent’s planned Cecil Avenue development

 

That struck a chord with me, because for the past six months I’ve been trying to find out why Brent’s Cabinet decided, in August 2021, that 152 of the 250 homes the Council plan to build, on land they own at Cecil Avenue in Wembley, would be for a developer to sell at a profit, and not for people in urgent housing need on the Council’s waiting list.

 

I sent an email to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, referring to the passion he had expressed in Cabinet for building Council homes, then asking about Cecil Avenue:-

 

‘Let me ask you a straight question, and ask you for a straight reply to it:-

 

What excuse are you making for not building all of the 250 homes on Brent Council's Cecil Avenue site in Wembley as affordable Council homes for rent, and only using 98 of the 250 as Council homes for Brent people in housing need?

 

 

Cecil Avenue is a vacant, Council-owned site. Full planning permission for the 250-home development on that site was given a year ago, and the Council could by now have a contractor building those much-needed homes there.

 

 

Instead, your Cabinet resolved last August to adopt a "developer partner" option, under which the contractor who would be appointed, and paid by Brent Council to build those 250 homes (plus 54 at the Ujima House site across the High Road), would be allowed to purchase 152 of the 250 homes at Cecil Avenue and sell them for profit.

 

 

People in the borough, including those in temporary accommodation that you spoke so passionately about, deserve to know why. I look forward to receiving your response, and sharing it publicly. Thank you.’

 

 

To his credit, Cllr. Butt sent me a reply at lunchtime today (Wednesday 9 February), and agreed that I could publish it, as long as it was unedited. That is what Martin has agreed to do, and you can read it in full below.

 

 

You will see that much of it has been written in the form of a party political speech for the Local Council elections in May, but there are parts which relate directly to my question about the Cecil Avenue development. I will give my response to those – readers can comment on his other claims, should they wish to.

 

 

I do appreciate that the Cecil Avenue site is part of Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone scheme. I made that clear in my very first “guest blog” about this issue, last August.

 

 

In case it leads to confusion, I should clarify that when Cllr. Butt says: ‘This site intends to deliver 100% affordable housing and a target of 50% across both sites’, the site with 100% affordable housing is Ujima House. This still only has outline planning permission, and will need to be demolished before a ten-story block of 54 homes (only 8 of them family-sized) can be built on the site, above affordable workspace on the ground floor.

 

Outline plan for Ujima House, currently an office block on the High Road.

 

 

The key answer given by Cllr. Butt, to justify the planned “giveaway” of 152 homes at Cecil Avenue to a developer, is this: ‘The Council needs to ensure the entire programme is financially viable within the GLA grant made available by the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, hence the requirement for a mixed tenure development in order to subsidise the delivery of the affordable elements.’

 

 

 

That may be Brent’s “excuse”, but Cecil Avenue is a Council housing development on Council-owned land. Brent Council will be borrowing the money, at low interest rates, to build the homes there, just as it would for any other Council housing scheme within its Housing Revenue Account, to provide homes for rent to Council tenants. Why does it need to sell 152 of those homes to a private developer, at a pre-agreed fixed price, rather than using them to house local people in housing need? I still don’t understand that.

 

 

After all, it appears to be acceptable, to the Council and its Cabinet, to borrow at least £48m, charged to the Housing Revenue Account, to purchase 155 leasehold flats in an Alperton tower block, from a secretive “Asset Special Purpose Vehicle”! I’m still waiting for an answer on that.

 

Artist’s impression of the courtyard garden at the Cecil Avenue site.

 

 

My final comment on Cllr. Butt’s reply is his reference to ‘a new publicly accessible open space’. The approved plans for the Cecil Avenue site include a courtyard garden square. This would mainly be for the benefit of residents, but there would be public access to it, through an archway from Wembley High Road. 

 

 

This shared public open space makes the Cecil Avenue site much more desirable than the 100% affordable Ujima House site, where the flats will just have tiny balconies (plus a play area on the flat roof of the block). 152 of the Cecil Avenue homes would be for private sale, and 61 of the remaining 98 “affordable” Council homes would be either for shared ownership or intermediate rent, leaving only 37 of the 250 for affordable rent to Council tenants.

 

 

I’ve had my say, but please read what Cllr. Butt has said, and make up your own minds. This is his reply to my question above, in full and unedited:

 

 

‘Dear Mr Grant

 

 Thank you for watching the live stream, and for your comments.

 

 

I hope that you can appreciate that the Cecil Avenue site is part of a wider development in the Wembley Housing Zones Programme and includes the adjacent site Ujima House - which is being used for affordable workspace so that it remains in use until things have been finalised.

 

 

This site forms part of our New Council Homes Programme to deliver at least 5,000 affordable homes with partners and at least 1,700 council homes directly ourselves, by 2024. Brent is one of a handful of councils that is meeting its targets, that means people desperately in need of housing get safe secure housing, something that surely not even you can be against.

 

 

This site intends to deliver 100% affordable housing and a target of 50% across both sites. We have always strived to achieve the best that we can on any given site – it is the responsible thing to do, to deliver homes today not years down the line. What this means in plain English, is that a mixed development at Cecil Avenue will enable the Ujima House site to be 100% affordable housing.

 

 

Our vision is for a development that will also include workspace to support job creation and growth in the local economy, a community space for everyone, highways and public realm improvements. I hope that you will have seen some of the works for the public realm improvements have already started on Wembley High Road, aiding the local economy, footfall and turbo-charging our recovery from Covid-19. We also want to include a new publicly accessible open space during this latest development. A positive outcome for the residents of Brent.

 

 

This is the commitment that we gave about making improvements for the residents of Brent and Wembley and this is what we are delivering, this is what a responsible Labour council can do, focussing on action and outcomes for today, to bring the future forward faster.

 

 

The Council needs to ensure the entire programme is financially viable within the GLA grant made available by the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, hence the requirement for a mixed tenure development in order to subsidise the delivery of the affordable elements. Your suggestion would jeopardise any affordable homes that are needed today; and would mean the people who desperately need those homes we are planning to build, would remain in poor quality accommodation, surely you would not want anyone to remain in poor quality accommodation?

 

 

As you point out, I care passionately about the people who need help to get a roof over their head; it is what I come to work for, to make a real difference to people’s lives. Creating the opportunities for people to upskill themselves through Brent start and Brent works.

 

 

Making sure that we work with all our schools to reach point today where about 97% of our schools are rated good or outstanding.

 

 

Investing in our high streets to create the strong local economy.

 

 

Our commitment to the green agenda with our climate emergency strategy and not forgetting the changes and improvements we are making to engage and interact with the good citizens of Brent with our new portal Citizen lab.

 

 

There is so much more that this Brent Labour administration has achieved and will absolutely strive to do more, despite what the Lib Dem and Tory coalition started and this party gate Tory government has taken away from us in Brent.

 

 

I need to remind you that over the last 10 years an average of £15.5 Million a year has been taken out from this councils funding. I hope that you find that truly distasteful, because I truly do.

 

 

This labour administration has worked diligently to deliver and support the residents that need our help, we have been the dented shield that has protected our residents.

 

 

We make the promise that we will continue to do whatever is in our remit and responsibility for the most vulnerable and needy in our society.

 

 

Sometimes this means taking decisions that people may disagree with, but I have always appreciated that.

 

Brent is a borough of ambition, aspiration and opportunity, that is what a good Labour council like Brent will deliver for its residents

 

 

I have answered your question; please feel free to post this on any site you wish to publish my response on; in the interests of transparency I hope unedited.

 

 

I look forward to hearing that you will be watching the next Cabinet meeting; it is a fantastic thing to see more people actively involved with local democracy.

 

 

Regards

Muhammed

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council.’

 

 

 

 

 

Camden and Brent agree redesignation of the Kilburn Neighbourhood Forum

 Following consideration of responses, both Brent and Camden Councils approved the application to re-designate the Kilburn Neighbourhood Forum.

This means the Kilburn Neighbourhood Forum will be able to continue the preparation of a neighbourhood plan in their area. 

South Kilburn is not included in the Forum.

Consultation responses can be found HERE

Kilburn Square residents present 900 signature petition over Brent Council plans they claim impact on density, green space and wellbeing on the estate

Kilburn Village Residents Association (KVRA) also presented a petition this morning about the proposed tower block and infill on Kilburn Square. The petition of 900 signatures was presented byMargaret von Stoll a founding member of the Kilburn Square Co-op:

Kilburn Square Petition speech to Brent Council Feb 7 2022

Good morning Councillor Butt, Cabinet Members and Officers

My name is Margaret von Stoll. I’m a longstanding Kilburn Square resident, and founding member of the Kilburn Square Co-op.

I’m here to present a 900-signature petition against the scale of the council’s proposals for infill development at Kilburn Square, and to voice our disillusionment with the pre-consultation process to date.

Despite repeated requests for more meaningful engagement, we have just been informed that the Council intends to submit its Approach A to Planning – an option which fails to address our concerns about our existing green space, and about overcrowding on the estate.

We feel let down by the undemocratic decision-making, and an inadequate and unprofessional engagement process. I would like you to listen to our concerns. You'll see they impact on Health, Environment, Community Engagement, Scrutiny and other portfolios as well as Housing.

Last year we were relieved when Source Partnership was selected as our independent Advisor We were led to believe that they would be allowed to work as a neutral channel between the Council and residents throughout the process

Their resident survey on the original scheme concluded;

“There is very little demonstrable support for the Council’s proposals, or trust in the consultation process”

That powerful statement was omitted from the published summary; and our request to send the full report to every household was refused. And since the re-set decision, Source has been largely sidelined. This is simply not acceptable!

 

Councillor Southwood:

 

You have acknowledged our community’s concerns, stating that you now sought “a scheme that can work for everyone”. That Brent would:

·      ensure the team would work “in collaboration with residents”

·      and balance the housing targets with respect for the wellbeing of estate residents 

We are here to say, Brent’s actions and latest decisions prove otherwise.

Our ‘design workshops” have proved to be one-way Drop-Ins, residents being instructed to choose from limited design proposals, without being allowed to state on record that none of the proposals address our concerns. We’ve been told “these are your options, your vote will be wasted if you don’t choose one”.

This engagement process is tokenistic, and gives only the illusion of collaboration with affected residents. You have held community-led co-design efforts elsewhere – why not on Kilburn Square? To tell us the scale and shape are fixed, and then offer us further engagement is disingenuous and totally unfair.

Brent is proud to have one of the largest social housing programmes in London. We believe you should be creating homes and places we can all be happy to live in - not just more housing. The London Plan stresses that the optimal capacity of a site is not the same as the maximum capacity.

We do accept the need for SOME additional housing. But Amenity Space at Kilburn Square is already much lower than Brent’s own policy norms require; and the scale of your current proposals would make this much worse.

Whilst increasing the number of homes at Kilburn Square by 60% may make economic sense, and achieve targets, there will be significant detrimental impact to our health and wellbeing through the overcrowding, loss of health and community facilities and loss of mature trees and open green space.

Brent’s Climate strategy seeks to increase green space - not remove it. New research shows we are the area most deprived of green space in the whole Borough. Your Approach A proposal will remove our green lung – which helps mitigate flood risk and the appalling air quality from Kilburn High Road.

Finally, let me point out that our petition is also addressed to the Chair of the Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee – for good reason. Brent’s Housing Director assured the Committee in January that “they would not want to force homes on anyone, so where they had built had been with the support and encouragement of local residents and ward councillors”. We urge the Council to honour that philosophy in relation to Kilburn Square; and, even at this late stage, to genuinely engage with residents to create a more sustainable solution.

 

Responding Cllr Southwood thanked Margaret for her 'helpful and detailed overview of the journey so far' but said the com mitment had always been to blance balance the provision of genuinely affordable homes with the benefits to the original residents of the estate. She recogniseed concern over the height of the proposed tower, the density of the proposals and the value that residents put on the green space.

 

Architects had come up with proposals to meet, in variable ways, the residents' concerns which result in proposals A and E. She said that she would agree to disagree with the residents over their criticism of the level of engagement. The tower height had been reduced and the issue of density could be picked up during the planning process.

Southwood said that over-crowded families, currently in homeless accommodation without a voice, would be given priority in the additional housing. The Plan A proposal was now entering the formal phase and would include work around the green space including making better use of it.

 

Cllr Butt in a notably more aggressive contribution said that he made no apologies for building homes and addressing the needs of children for the stability that would give them a secure future. Concerns would be taken into account but decisions had to be made that would not suit everyone - 'I will make no apology for that'.

 

Margaret von Stoll was muted on zoom when she tried to come back on those remarks.

 

A further comment is expected from KVRA later this week.

Tokyngton residents get some action over the state of their streets

Sonia Francis (no relation) presented the Tokyngton residents' 320 signature petition about littering, flytipping and street drinking to the Brent Cabinet this morning LINK that was publicised on Wembley Matters last month.

After publication, and before today's Cabinet, a site meeting was arranged in the area, attended by Cllr Butt (Brent Council leader and ward councillor), Cllr Krupa Sheth (lead member for Environment), Chris Whyte (Operation Director Envirnment), the Council Enforcement Manager and three Neighbourhood Enforcement Officers as well as local residents.

Quite a turnout!

Responding to the petition presentation Cllr Sheth said she agreed that there was a definitely a problem in the are aznd that the council would agree an Action Plan,  hold regular meetings with residents and set up a Whats App grouo for residents to report concerns. In terms of the detailed request she said that action was limited by budget constraints  but she would work with enforcement officers, council officers and Veolia to clean up the area.

Chris Whyte added that it was good to hear directly from residents and the council could not deny that there were problems in the area. Cllr Butt said that a Fixed Penalty Notice was served on a street drinker during the site visit,

Update on New Council Homes programme at Brent Cabinet on Monday - worth residents of affected estates checking key details - Church End, Grand Union, Windmill Court, Watling Gardens, Kilburn Square, St Raphaels

 Brent Cabinet will consider an important update on the main new homes project areas on Monday. Affected residents need to check out details particularly over the type of tenure envisaged - does 'Affordable' mean  Council rents, Social rent, London Affordable Rent, Shared Ownership etc? Arrangements for decanting during new build, the amount of green space taken up by in-fill, delivery times are all key:

7.0 New Council Homes Programme (NHCP) - Significant Scheme Updates

7.1 Grand Union (Northfields Site), Alperton. A total of 92 properties are expected to be handed over at the Grand Union site in 2 phases of 46 units each. After the properties were advertised, a successful viewing cycle for the first 46 homes took place in December 2021 into January 2022. A number of clients have viewed, accepted and have beenverified for sign up. Viewings are currently taking place for the remaining 46 properties in phase 2 and sign-ups will take place once the properties have been handed over by the developer.

7.2 Church End (99 homes £5m+). The Council is the freehold owner of the entire Church End Car Park site and has two separate planning permissions to deliver the following:
· Planning permission (ref: 13/1098) was granted for 34 affordable homes, ground floor non-residential use space, a new market square and the stopping up of Eric Road.
· Planning permission (ref: 13/2213) was granted to develop this part of the Church End Car Park site for 65 affordable homes, 7 car park spaces and 298sqm of retail use space.

7.3 The Council is currently evaluating contractor tenders to bring forward the on-site delivery of the above planning permissions. As closing the current Church End market is fundamental to achieving a start on site by March 2022, the Council has adopted the following two-phase plan to relocate the market to ensure that traders are not moved away from their core customer base and that local residents do not lose the benefits of this service provision:

· Phase 1 (March 2022 – July 2022): The Church End market will be moved to one half of the current car park site in order commence enabling works on the vacant half of the site before the end of March 2022. The market will continue operate on a twice a week basis (Wednesday and Saturday) whilst enabling works being are undertaken until July 2022. 

Please refer to Appendix 1 to view Phase 1 of the market relocation plan.

· Phase 2 (August 2022 – August 2025): After the Church Road public realm improvements and bus diversion works are complete, the Church End market will move to Church Road and will remain there until the Church End redevelopment works are complete and the new market square can be used. 

Please refer to Appendix 2 to view Phase 2 of the market relocation plan.

7.4 Officers have provisionally allowed a three-year programme period to complete detailed design and construction of the Church End development. Once contractor appointment is confirmed, then the Council will be in a more informed position on the key dates and these will be communicated to the relevant stakeholders in the near future.

7.5 Windmill Court - The existing estate comprises of 138 - 1,2 & 3 bedroom flats between the existing tower and the maisonettes as well as a community centre, kids play area and two-storey car-park. Within the maisonettes, there are nine leaseholders and nine tenants, all of whom are being consulted regarding the proposals. Brent are negotiating with the leaseholders to purchase their properties while the tenants will be decanted off-site and have a right to return to the new homes. Four tenants are proving difficult to contact or refusing to engage with us therefore we will need to proceed with the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO)  process ASAP whilst still trying to get a negotiated agreement.

7.6 Officers are aiming for vacant possession by March 2022 with a view to start on site by September 2022. Planning application has now been submitted, which include proposals for the two-storey car park and 16 of the 18 Maisonettes will be demolished. Following this, two new 7-storey blocks will be built offset on either side of the tower, which in total will equate to 60 new affordable housing homes giving a net uplift of 44 units. The two remaining maisonettes will be reconfigured into new studio flats at the base of the tower.

The community centre will be extended and remodelled in its existing location as well as this there will be changes made such as a new children’s play area & half basketball court, the introduction of outdoor adult exercise equipment, upgrades to landscaping (new trees planted), pedestrian routes, site security by way of gated entrances and perimeter fencing and ground level parking.

7.7 In terms of resident engagement, this has been done by way of online resident panel sessions (8 in total), onsite drop-in sessions, regular newsletters, letters, flyers, surveys and phone calls. There will also be an updated webpage on the Brent website with all the communications to date for residents to view. Now that the planning permission has been submitted more resident engagement will undertaken over the next few months.

7.8 Watling Gardens. The existing estate includes 2 x 12 storey towers that will be retained plus 12 bedsit bungalows and a deck access block of 30 x 1 bedroom flats that will be demolished. Decanting and leasehold buybacks have been underway for the last 12 months and are now finalising the last few tenants, who are currently being moved out.

We therefore anticipate vacant possession by February 2022. All tenants who have been decanted have a Right to Return to the new homes and a local lettings policy is in place to enable those living in the retained blocks who are in housing need, to have an opportunity to move to the new homes.

7.9 A planning application has been submitted for 125 new affordable rented homes including a 45 flat extra care scheme with a range of communal activity areas and 24 hour staffing plus eighty 1, 2 and 3 bed and general needs homes. In addition to the new homes, the planning application provides for significant upgrading of the estate landscaping and public realm with a new Multi-Use Games Area and playground. The scheme is due to be considered at Planning Committee on the 23rd February and is currently being prepared for tender to provide for a start on site in June/ July 2022.

7.10 The building works are ready to go out to tender pending planning approval with 3 contractors. We have already had initial contractor discussions in December 2021.

7.11 Kilburn Square, The current site comprises nine buildings, seven that accommodate residential use.

7.12 In the autumn of 2020, the Council started engaging with the residents about a proposed infill development of Council homes. As a result of resident feedback the designs are still evolving; with a focus on reducing height, density and loss of open space whilst still providing a significant number of genuinely affordable council homes.

 

As a result, of the consultation, five options where put forward, the Council is currently considering all five options, following which officers will communicate the outcome to residents. The Council intends to meet the timetable set by the GLA grant funding with a start on site by September 2023.

7.13 Alperton Bus Garage site, Cabinet has approved the acquisition of 155 homes to be let at affordable rents. This former bus garage development will deliver 461 homes altogether, 155 of which the Council will acquire. The Council will enter into a 50 year leasing arrangement, which will see the homes transfer to the Council for a peppercorn at the end of the Lease. The new homes are expected to be handed over during the year 2024/25.

7.14 St Raphael’s Estate, The GLA’s change of approach to the funding of replacement units using grant has placed a large number of regeneration schemes in jeopardy across London and has meant a fundamental rethink into the approach to the overall funding of these schemes. As a result of this change in grant funding coupled with adjustments to the project cash flow model in order to reflect programme and market changes, the redevelopment of St Raphael’s resulted in a project viability gap of -£110.2m. This was considered unviable.

7.15 The Council’s commitment to the residents of St Raphael’s was for a community led approach to the master planning of their estate, culminating in a resident ballot through which residents would be able to demonstrate their support for redevelopment, with infill development being the default option. This route to ballot has always been predicated on having a redevelopment masterplan that was financially viable and therefore able to be delivered.

7.16 In line with this commitment, and because the delivery of the redevelopment masterplan was no longer considered financially viable, the infill masterplan is now being progressed, with a community led approach being followed as before. The infill masterplan consists of clusters of new homes in the north and south of the estate, facing the river along the western edge of the existing homes, and some in underused pockets of land within the estate. It currently has the potential to deliver 370 new homes; 334 flats and 36 houses. The detail is likely to change as the design is developed. Homes are forecast to be 100% affordable, owned and managed by the Council.

7.17 The design of the phase 1 site in the south of St Raphael’s started in July 2021, with start on site currently forecast for winter 2022/23 and completion winter 2025/26. The design team will, as before, take a co design approach to the design of the buildings and public realm improvements.

 

7.18 In addition to the development of new affordable homes, there is the potential to deliver significant place making improvements, which arguably, whilst not as transformational as full redevelopment, have the ability to improve the lived experience for St Raphael’s residents. We have called this ‘infill plus’. Early priorities for delivery in 2021/22 ahead of the delivery of the Phase 1 site, are focused on the issues identified through recent consultation with residents. They centre on improvements to the care and maintenance of the estate and target green spaces, waste management and parking as well as providing a temporary building for use by the community and project team. We have already improved the public realm and dealt with primary issues of residents’ concerns such as; abandoned vehicles, grounds maintenance, basket ball court and the Wates compound. More significant improvements to the public realm, estate connections and community facilities will be delivered alongside the delivery of the new homes over the coming five years, in collaboration with the community.

 

Consideration of wider Council objectives for health, culture, education, climate emergency etc. will also be brought to bear in these discussions.

7.19 South Kilburn Regeneration, Unity place has now completed and progressing well towards full occupation. This scheme will have delivered 235 Council homes as well as an event space, car parking and open spaces. The Neville and Winterley’s scheme is currently in the final stage of the procurement process for a delivery partner. The affordable housing delivered on this site, as well as future developments, is to remain in the ownership of the Council.

7.20 South Kilburn has a number of sites that have been submitted to Planning for a decision in the coming months, this will then lead onto new tender processes expected to go live this year. Officers continue to explore opportunities in South Kilburn to deliver an increased number of Council homes while still ensuring a sensible balance between different housing tenures and place making priorities, as required in the Master Plan. The option of having one delivery partner for the remainder of the masterplan is also being reviewed. Officers are currently working towards promoting opportunities to decant a number of the blocks more quickly. This has arisen due to the desire to avoid long-term maintenance works, which will create unnecessary expense, both for the Council and Leaseholders. This can be achieved by a variety of means including identifying more decant opportunities for residents and accelerating the building programme.

 

Another dispute over public access to footpaths on Harrow School grounds - Harrow Greens speak out

 

Residents on the north Brent borders with Harrow will not be surprised that another dispute has broken out with Harrow School wanting to close a footpath used by the public on grounds of anti-social behaviour. This is the latest enclosure move by the private school.

 

A discussion is underway on the website Next Door LINK. This is a quote from the initial post:

To summarise: there is a path going through one of Harrow School's many fields, just off the West St in Harrow. It leads through a road between two of the John Lyon's buildings and then comes up towards the Byron Hill Road. This path is taken every day, pretty much exclusively by the students of the local Roxeth Primary School and their parents. Not once did I see any of the children or their parents damage property or behave in a disruptive manner.

After speaking to some local people, it turns out this path had been in use by the public for over 25 years. It's the shortest way up the hill, and in a borough where most of the green spaces seem to be fenced off by the Harrow School, it's a pleasant walk, much more so than walking around on some of the extremely narrow paths up the hill.  However, Harrow School informed me that it's private property and in a couple weeks they will be installing a coded gate between the cricket field and the road passing through John Lyon's so that parents like me will no longer be able to walk through. 

Considering Harrow School (and John Lyon) both enjoy the financial benefits of being registered charities, it seems obscene to block people's right of way in such a manner, for reasons which on inspection appear both flimsy and petty.

Gareth Thomas MP has got involved and has organised a zoom meeting for Tuesday at noon LINK

Speaking on behalf of Harrow Green Party, Emma Wallace said:

It is concerning to hear of Harrow Schools latest plans to block a footpath that has been in use by the public for decades.  There appears to be little to no evidence of anti-social behaviour along this path, with pupils & parents of Roxeth Primary School using it on a daily basis to get to and from school. The path provides them with the shortest route up the hill and ensures children don't have to walk along the extremely narrow footpaths and roads that can be found going up the hill. This seems to be more about the school blocking a historic right of way for the local community use, rather than about safety concerns for their students. 

This situation is not without precedent - in 2017, footpath campaigners won a 14 year victory against Harrow school who had been trying to divert two historic, public rights of way that cross its playing fields LINK. 

 

In 2020, Harrow School appealed and won against Sadiq Khan's refusal of planning permission for a large sports hall to be built on Metropolitan Open Land. The Mayor had cited in 2018 that the proposed sports building was an "inappropriate development within Metropolitan Open Land and causes substantial harm to the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land by reason of its excessive footprint and its location."  LINK

 

And in 2021, John Lyon failed in its latest bid to remove planning restrictions to expand the school LINK. 

 

Harrow School must respect the rights of public access on the Hill, ensuring that the local community can continue to enjoy this historic part of Harrow, rather than just a small, privileged elite.

 A clear route out of the problem for a footpath that has been used for more than 20 years  is available to campaigners on the Open Spaces Society website HERE