Friday, 18 November 2022

Unhappy Windmill Court residents put Brent Council Lead Members on the spot over infill proposals, estate neglect and fire risk

Residents from Windmill Court, Shoot Up Hill, Brent, have tabled written questions for Brent Council's Full Council Meeting on Monday.These are the questions and replies. The questioners are allowed to ask a follow-up question based on the Lead Members' responses.

 

Question from J. Audrey to Councillor Knight, Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness & Renters Security


You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill Court. Why are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to the detriment of existing residents?


Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court? Carrying out infill development whilst doing nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?


How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?


How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?


Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.


How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?


Response:


You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill Court.Why are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to the detriment of existing residents?


How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?


The Council has brought these proposals forward in response to the chronic shortage of genuinely affordable housing in Brent. There are 24,000 households on the waiting list, over 1,700 families currently living in temporary accommodation and a further 240 families in priority need for a transfer because of issues such as overcrowding. Every home we develop is an opportunity for a family to have the security of a permanent home that meets their needs.


Whilst building council homes is a priority for us, so is ensuring that any new council development also works for people who already live in the area. That's why we have engaged with residents living on Windmill Court early on, to hear their views and create proposals that balance the needs of existing residents with those that do not have a safe, secure and affordable place to call home.

 

We appreciate the concerns voiced about the development proposal at Windmill Court and acknowledge that the building close to existing homes will have some impact on existing residents. The Council is working hard to mitigate the impact of new homes being built where reasonable.


Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court?


Carrying out infill development whilst doing nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?


The New Council Homes development at Windmill Court will deliver improvements for existing residents, this includes security improvements such as boundary fencing and CCTV, which we know are a priority for residents as well as landscaping to improve the communal green space.


Alongside the development of these new homes, it was recognised the need to improve standards for existing residents.


The Council will be spending approximately £40m over the next three years on its tower block refurbishment programme of which approximately £14m will be spent on Windmill Court, and we are already consulting with residents on this.


The proposed specification is comprehensive and includes repairs to the building fabric; new energy efficient cladding; new windows; roofing; upgraded heating; upgraded mechanical and electrical services; internal refurbishment of the dwellings; and refurbishment of the internal communal areas.


How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?


Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.


As part of the development process and planning application, a detailed assessment of the impact the proposed development at Windmill Court will have to existing residents light was carried out. This assessment ensures that the proposed development is in line with local, regional and national planning policy, which is clear about not permitting any new development that will cause an unacceptable loss of daylight or sun light amenity to the surrounding properties.


The findings of the assessment compiled in the report concluded that the vast majority of the neighbouring habitable windows and rooms will retain good levels of daylight and that the development is consistent with the British Research Establishment guidance and relevant planning policy in terms of daylight and sunlight.

 

This will be reviewed and considered as part of the planning application submitted for Windmill Court.


How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?

Our commitment is to balance the building of new affordable family homes with improvements that will benefit existing residents whilst mitigating potential impact this will have on them. Whilst we understand and appreciate the concerns voiced, we are confident that the development project team will implement the necessary measures to minimise any disruptions or inconvenience to achieve a positive outcome for all.

 

Question from S. Culhane to Councillor Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Planning

The Transport Consultant's document submitted as part of the full Planning Application for the Windmill Court proposed infill development contains swept path analysis showing how vehicles can access and negotiate the site layout.

This analysis does not include high-reach fire appliances, and the main tower is over 40m high.

 

Did anybody in the Planning Department ask why?


Did anybody in the Planning Department ask or direct the Transport Consultants to conduct such an analysis?

 

Response:


It should be noted that the fire service does not use very large vehicles as a starting point for firefighting, there are many other ways that they approach a fire, working mainly from the inside. A very tall appliance would only be used in the case of very significant failure of the other fire safety measures, and it would not be a requirement of Building Regulations (which is the main regulatoryframework for considering fire safety measures, rather than planning).


The assessment of vehicular access for fire safety has been made based on the likely vehicles that would attend a fire at the site.

IMPORTANT EDITOR'S NOTE

Windmill Court was one of the infill projects mentioned in a recent Cabinet paper for the 'conversion' of up to 50% of the  tenures from London Affordable Rent to Open Market Sale or Shared Ownship, neither of which are truly affordable for Brent residents. LINK

Letter to Wembley Matters on  Windmill Court infill proposals HERE

Timely new campaign launched: 'United for Warm Homes, Brent' Kick-off event 7pm November 30th on-line

 

A number of local organisations and campaign groups have joined forces as part of a new coalition calling for a response to the energy crisis that ensures no one goes cold in winter.    
 
United for Warm Homes, Brent is a new local campaign which aims to bring together communities concerned about the impacts of rising energy bills to advocate for affordable energy and demand the right to a warm home.   
 
The partnership involves a variety of organisations that work on local issues including housing, food banks, parks, faith groups and environmental protection. They hope that by working together towards a common goal, they can win the fight for warm homes that don’t cost the Earth.  
 
The average energy bill has almost doubled in the last year. Even with the government’s recently announced package of emergency financial support, it’s expected that around six million people will be in fuel poverty in the UK this winter – that’s almost double the number in 2021.  
 
In Brent alone, recent analysis found that there are 95 energy crisis hotspots, in almost 55% of Brent’s neighbourhoods – neighbourhoods where the energy crisis is most acutely felt. 
 
Clearly, the sky-rocketing price of energy is hitting some people harder than others. That’s why United for Warm Homes, Brent is calling for additional financial support to help those who need it most and to stop people going cold this winter. 
 
But financial support is only a short-term fix. To put an end to the energy crisis we need solutions that will get to the root of the problem - our heat-leaking homes and dependence on expensive and volatile gas.  
 
The UK has some of the worst insulated homes in Europe. That means they require more energy to stay warm and therefore cost more to heat.  
 
By rapidly rolling out a council-led, street-by-street insulation programme, targeted first at the most in-need households, hundreds of pounds can be saved each year on the average annual energy bill. United for Warm Homes, Brent wants this to be at the top of the agenda for local and national decision-makers. 
 
This is needed alongside getting UK homes off costly gas for good, which more than 80% depend on for things like heating and hot water. Instead of extracting more fossil fuels, boosting investment in cheap, clean renewable energy will help to bring down bills quickly, because renewables can be developed faster than more oil and gas.  
 
The solutions that will lower our bills permanently are also the same that can cut the climate-changing emissions our homes produce, so they are a win-win for both people and planet.  
 
The new local partnership will be one of many across the UK contributing to a much bigger national movement calling for the transformation of our energy system and a drive to insulate UK homes. 
 
United for Warm Homes, Brent will be holding its kick-off event online at 7pm on 30th November for members of the public who would like to learn more about the partnership and get involved in the campaign. 


To register for the event go to https://brentfoe.com/WarmHomesEvent.


To find out more about the national campaign please visit www.unitedforwarmhomes.uk.  
 

 
Ian Saville joint coordinator of Brent Friends of the Earth, said: 
 
 

We all deserve to live in warm homes that don’t cost the Earth. But with energy bills nearly double what they were last year, and living costs such as food and rent spiralling, millions across the country are facing a bleak and miserable winter.  
 
No one in Brent should have to go cold just to be able to feed their families or pay their rent. We recognise that there are so many of us locally who want happier, healthier communities. By coming together, we want to build a powerful local partnership that wins the fight for warm homes.  
 
We believe we can achieve this by demanding the solutions that are simply common sense. Insulating our heat-leaking homes and investing in cheap, clean renewables can both save households hundreds on their energy bills and lower costs for good. The great thing is that these solutions are also what’s needed to protect our planet and ensure that future generations have a world left to grow up in.


Local campaigns that have signed up to the campaign include Brent Friends of the Earth, Sufra Food Bank, Brent Parks Forum, Divest Brent, Advice4Renters, Transition Town Kensal to Kilburn, Harlesden Neighbourhood Forum, Granville Community Kitchen and Harlesden Mums who Cycle.




Thursday, 17 November 2022

Next Week: Hidden Heritage - An-Nisa Society in Conversation with author Fatima Manji on Britain's long-standing connection with the Muslim world. November 24th at The Yellow, Wembley Park

 

 

On Thursday November 24th 2022, Brent residents and those from further afield will be able to learn about Britain’s long-term links with the Muslim world. 

 

Fatima Manji, Channel 4 News presenter, will be talking about her ground-breaking book, ‘Hidden Heritage’.

 

The event, to mark this year’s Islamophobia Month, has been organised by Wembley’s An-Nisa Society, and will be held at The Yellow, 1 Humphry Repton Lane, Wembley Park, HA9 0JL, from 6-8pm.

 

TICKETS £5.98 BOOKHERE

 

Extracts from Reviews

 

"This is such an important, brave book that sheds a calm, bright light on the complexity of history at a time when simplistic assumptions have become the norm. It is truly brilliant" 

 Elif Shafak

 

"A timely, brilliant and very brave book" Jerry Brotton, author of This Orient Isle: Elizabethan England and the Islamic World

 

"A compelling read about a history of Britain rarely cited and one that enriches an understanding of our complex, intriguing and wonderful past" Daljit Nagra

 

VENUE


 The Yellow, corner of Harbutt Road and Humphry Repton Lane

 


Wembley Park Tube, 83, 182 and 206 bus or Wembley Stadium station (Chiltern Line)

Brent Planning Committee: Tower blocks, back gardens and the Climate Emergency

 

It may seem odd that a 349 bed triple-tower development in Wembley High Road went through Brent Planning Committee with scarcely a murmer last night while a proposal for a single dwelling in Brondesbury Park had a professional planning advisor speaking on behalf of residents and suggesting  possible legal action against the Council,  and a 5 minute speech against by a ward councillor.

While much attention has been given recently to the Council's proposals for in-fill on its estates, and objections by residents to the subsequent the loss of green space and trees, less attention has been paid to what called be called 'private in-fill' when back gardens are built on.  This is often through extensions or outbuildings at the side and bottom of gardens. The suspicion is that some of these are let out - 'beds in sheds'.

Last night's application was for building on the back garden of 7 Sidmouth Road, a house that has already been divided into flats. This was the latest application in a series which had been refused.

 

Cllr Erica Gbajumo submitted the following objection:

I write in order to formally object to the planning application 22/1282, located at 7A Sidmouth Road, London, NW2 5HH.


This borough does not need additional luxury homes which will be unaffordable to residents in desperate need of housing. This is a council which promised to build '1000 council homes' with the intention of supporting our most vulnerable residents in Brent with housing. The approval of this application would be a step away from this Council's pledge made in May 2022.


Moreover, in July 2019, Brent Council declared a climate and ecological emergency, a decision which many will agree was a step in the right direction in order to combat climate change. One of the aims of the climate emergency was to continue to double the number of trees planted in the borough.


The loss of trees, particularly category B and category C trees, will be detrimental to the area. This part of the Brondesbury Park ward is well known for its leafy green nature, and the removal of trees, will harm the biodiversity as well as being detrimental to the leafy green character of the local area.


I therefore call on the planning committee to not only scrutinise the application, which has made a CIL application to fund their unaffordable housing project, but to also reject the application based on the reasons outlined above.

 

A request by Cllr Gbajumo and Cllr Hack that consideration of the application be deferred because late changes had not been consulted on was rejected by officers on the grounds that these changes were only minor and did not require further consultation.

Cllr Ryan Hack made a careful considered presentation to the committee:



 

A particularly worrynging aspect of the case was the officers' argument that despite the loss of the garden and its trees and habitats that the development did less harm than the benefit of a new house. This could set a precedent when future schemes come before the Committee. Private back gardens could be a goldmine for the owners of similar properties. 

The link with the urgent need to take into account the Climate Emergency scarecely figures in the Planning Committee's deliberations.

The planning application was approved by the Committee with Cllr Dixon and Cllr Maurice voting against. Cllr Dixon's reasons were the net loss of habitat, lack of clarity on how the development constituted less harm to the community and concern over drainage.  Cllr Maurice was concerned that the Council may face a costly legal challenge and that the development was out of character being too large and he disliked the design. He was also concerned about drainage and the potential for sewage discharge in the event of heavy rain.

Wednesday, 16 November 2022

Resident promises legal action if Minterne Road planning application approved tonight

 

A planning application to demolish six garages in Minterne Road, Kenton, and replace with a 4 bedroom house will be heard at Planning Committee tonight. A supplementary report has been published today reporting a further submission by a local resident. The report is published below

A local resident has objected to the proposal re-iterating their concerns that the plan is not feasible and will destroy the neighbourhood and severely impact their privacy as the proposal would overlook their garden and side of their house. 

They requested that the Planning Committee make a site visit to further understand the impacts. The objector has also specified that they would take legal action against council if the proposal is approved.


The concerns raised about (sic) in terms of impact on the character of the neighbourhood, privacy and overlooking to neighbouring properties have been discussed within the committee report. 

Members of the Planning Committee do make themselves familiar with the site and the surrounding context prior to considering the application at the committee meeting. A formal Planning Committee site visit was not considered necessary in this instance as it is possible to understand the proposal, the site and its context from the information available to members.

 
Recommendation: Remains to Grant Consent subject to conditions as set out within the draft decision notice.

Tuesday, 15 November 2022

349 student bedroom accommodation in 13,16 & 17 storey building in Wembley High Road likely to be approved tomorrow

 

The present buildings, Pitman House and Fairgate House, 390-402, 402-408 High Road Wembley


The replacement building

The plans for a massive student accommodation block to replace Pitman House and Fairgate House on Wembley High Road, comes to Plannning Committee tomorrow.

Thge plans are for a party 13, part 16 and part-17 storey buildng housing 349 student bedrooms and a range of communcal spaces, along with three commercial units at ground floor level. 

Following other high-rise buildings on the High Road this is consider acceptable by officers. The building would almost face the controversial Cecil Avenue/Copland site where Brent Council is proposing a high density 9 storey building and close to the 17 and 19 storey Wembley Link (416 - 44 High Road) and the 27-storey Twin Towers (Uncle building) that replaced Chesterfield House.

The mock-tudor shops wedged between will begin to look very much out of place.

 Figures indicate the number of storeys

The land behind the development, between it and the railway line, is also likely to be  developed as a continuation of the Wembley Link concept:



The planning application has attracted few comments and only two objections.That is quite surpising given its size and potential impact. The Brent Trees Officer regrets the loss of trees in the development and is pessimistic about the survival chances of new trees to be planted in a shaded space.

Student accommodation and its suitability for the area and any potential problems are not directly addressed but Officers have this to say about that aspect of the proposal:

…Student housing contributes to Brent’s housing targets, at a rate of 2.5 bedspaces to one conventional housing unit, and the provision of accommodation for 349 students would equate to 139.6 new homes, which would contribute towards the wider target of 650 dwellings within the whole of the site allocation. To date within the wider site allocation, planning permission has been secured for 256 homes within Wembley Link scheme (18/3111) and outline consent secured for 5000sqm of residential floorspace (upto 54 homes) within Ujima House (19/3092).


The accommodation would be secured by condition for occupation by full time students enrolled on UK accredited and based further education courses during term time (for not less than 39 weeks of the year). The remaining time, (outside term time,) the Council is content that the units may be rented out on short-term lets, perhaps assisting tourism within the summer vacation period. This will apply to all of the student rooms. The majority of the units (51% of bedrooms) would be provided through a nominations agreement with one or more higher education providers, through the s106 agreement. This demonstrates that the accommodation would meet a specific London need, in line with policy H15 of London Plan and policy BH7 of Brent’s Local Plan.

A draft student management plan has been submitted, setting out how the development would be managed through an on-site staff presence providing a point of contact for students but also for local residents who might be concerned about any incidents of anti-social behaviour. Management and maintenance of communal facilities, emergencies and security measures are also addressed. An updated document would be required as a condition prior to occupation, and would provide a dedicated contact for local residents.

Officers recommend approval of the application subject to conditions and a Section106 Plan.

Residents' Association launch petition calling for Islamia Primary School move to Strathcona site to be stopped

 A second petition on the Islamia Primary School proposed move to the Strathcona site in Preston ward has been launched. This follows a petition in the summer by a group of Islamia parents that opposed the proposed site and called instead for the school to occupy the South Kilburn site earmarked for the merged Carlton Vale Infants and Kilburn Park Juior schools. That petition was signed by 509 people by the time it closed LINK.

The second petition is by South Kenton & Preston Park Residents' Association (SKPPRA) and appears on the Change website. It opposes the school based on the traffic and environmental impact and its affect on neighbouring school pupil numbers.  SKPPRA insist that their opposition is not based on the faith nature of the school and that they represent a multi-ethnic community.

The interests of the two sets of petitioners converge in terms of opposition to the site but the governing board and Brent Council insist that there is no alternative. Both Brent Council and the Yusuf Islam Foundation have searched for an alternative site in the borough and found none. Brent Council insist that the new South Kilburn site is an integral part of the estate regeneration and its expanding population and would be open to children of all faiths and none. In any case it would not be ready in time for occupation given the eviction deadline. The Islamia Primary Governing Board said that if Brent Council were, nevertheless, to provide that site they could try and persuade the Foundation to extend their occupancy for the required period.

The informal stage of the consultation on the move ends tomorrow. The Governing Board will then start the formal statutory consultation and report on its outcome. Brent Council officers will then  provide a report and recommendations for the Brent Cabinet who will make the final decision.

The petition can be found HERE and had 265 signatories at the time of writing.

The petition

Islamia Primary School, currently in Kilburn NW6 are being evicted and have been given two choices by Brent Council, to either close down or move to Strathcona Site HA9. The 6 mile move to this new site is not supported by the existing school parents, teachers, governors or the local residents of the new site.

A new school in the area will have serious environmental impact on the area causing pollution, lower air quality and damage to the climate, not forgetting health and safety concerns of the general public.  

Three existing schools near Strathcona site are already under subscribed and a new school will only exacerbate the situation.

We urge you to sign the petition so that Brent Council Cabinet Members can take this into consideration.

In a recent public meeting with Islamia Primary school the Local resident's state: "We want your school to stay open, but we don't want it here"!

Consultation period ends on 16th November 2022


Monday, 14 November 2022

Islamia Primary School move - minutes of September 12th Cabinet Meeting that set the process in motion

In view of the intense interest in the proposed move of Islamia Primary School to a site in Strathcona Road, Preston ward, I thought it might be useful to publish the minutes of the Cabinet Meeting of September 12 that set the process in motion:

 

This report details a proposal regarding the relocation of Islamia Primary School and seeks approval to the associated capital project business case and statutory consultation process.

Decision:

Cabinet NOTED the comments by Sofia Moussaoui, representing the Governing Body of Islamia Primary School, who had requested to speak on the report in relation to the future of Islamia Primary School. 

 

 In commenting on the proposals within the report she advised that the main aim of the Governing Body moving forward was to secure the future of Islamia Primary School.  As such she advised the Governing Body remained committed to ensure that the necessary funding and a suitable, viable alternative site was secured for the school.  This recognised the advice from the Council that the South Kilburn site identified as the preferred alternative by the parents who had signed the petition was not a viable option given the timing of its availability and allocated use.

 

In advance of the report being considered, Councillor Butt again assured the petitioners about the formal consultation that would need to be undertaken by the Governing Body, should the recommendations be agreed, along with the work being undertaken with the School and Governing Board in order to maintain and secure the schools future provision on the basis of the proposals identified.

 

Having noted the report, including the exempt information within the appendix, and the comments raised by the petitioners and Governing Body representatives at the meeting Cabinet RESOLVED:

 

(1)       To note the historical context and background set out in the report.

 

(2)       To note that the Yusuf Islam Foundation has issued eviction notices to its Voluntary Aided Islamia Primary School and that the future options for the school were for the school to either relocate or close.

 

(3)       To note the proposal to relocate Islamia Primary School to the Strathcona site as a 2FE school and agree to allocate up to £8.0m capital towards the total project costs of £10.0m, noting that the preferred option was estimated to cost £9.11m.

 

(4)       To approve the delegation of authority to agree pre-tender considerations, procure and award the necessary works contracts valued in excess of £5m to the Corporate Director Finances and Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools and Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Reform.

 

(5)       To note that if the school relocated to the Strathcona school site, the site could be transferred into the name of the Yusuf Islam Foundation who would be required to hold the site for the benefit of the Islamia Primary School. Further details in terms of ownership would be set out in a Trust Deed. This would ensure that the primary school would be protected from eviction in future. (My emphasis)

 

(6)       To note that a statutory consultation process to allow the relocation of Islamia Primary School as a 2FE Primary School to the Strathcona site would need to be undertaken and that the Governing Board would be responsible for making this proposal through statutory consultation.

 

(7)       To acknowledge that, should the Strathcona site be used for Islamia Primary School, then an alternative site would be required to deliver Post-16 SEND provision.

Minutes:

Following on from consideration of the petition relating to Islamia Primary School, Councillor Muhammed Butt (Leader of the Council) advised that he had accepted a request to speak on the report from Sofia Moussaoui, representing the Governing Body at Islamia Primary School.  In commenting on the proposals within the report, Sofia Moussaoui advised that the main aim of the Governing Body moving forward was to secure the future of Islamia Primary School.  As such she advised the Governing Body remained committed to ensure that the necessary funding and a suitable, viable alternative site was secured for future provision of the school.  This recognised the advice from the Council that the South Kilburn site identified as the preferred alternative by the parents who had signed the petition was not a viable option given the timing of its availability and allocated use.

 

In advance of the report being considered, Councillor Muhammed Butt again assured the petitioners about the formal consultation that would need to be undertaken by the Governing Body, should the recommendations in the report be agreed, along with the work being undertaken with the School and Governing Board in order to maintain and secure the schools future provision on the basis of the proposals identified.

 

Councillor Gwen Grahl (Cabinet member for Children, Young People and Schools) then introduced the report which set out proposals for the relocation of Islamia Primary School.  In considering the report Cabinet noted the outline of options reviewed along with the capital project requirements and business case supporting the option to develop the former Strathcona school site as a two form entry site for the School.  The report also set out the statutory consultation requirements that would be required in order to deliver the project.  In thanking the petitioners and representatives of the school Governing Body for their comments, Councillor Grahl advised that she acknowledged the concerns and frustrations raised but, at the same time, felt it important to recognise the limited options available in relation to the availability of alternative sites to secure future provision of the school.  In terms of reference to the new school site within South Kilburn, confirmation was provided that this had already been allocated for use as a replacement for Carlton Vale Infant and Kilburn Park Junior School as part of the wider South Kilburn regeneration masterplan with the new school also not available until September 2026.  Members noted it would also not therefore be available as a viable option on the basis of the timing, given Islamia Primary School were required to vacate their current site by the end of July 2024.

 

Taking this into account, members were advised of the significant effort which had gone into development of the Strathcona site as a viable alternative for the school along with the assurance of the Council’s continued commitment to work with the school and parents in order to ensure a smooth transition, should the proposal be approved, including on how best to facilitate travel and access particularly for more vulnerable pupils.

 

In recognising that the preference identified by the petitioners for allocation of the new school site in South Kilburn was not a viable option, members supported the efforts being made to safeguard the long term future of the school working with the Governing Body and Trust in terms of the provision of a suitable permanent site that could be developed to accommodate the school and on which it would be possible for parents to contribute and outline their views as part of the statutory consultation process.

 

Having considered the report, including the exempt information within Appendix A, and the comments raised by the petitioners and Governing Body representatives at the meeting Cabinet RESOLVED:

 

(1)      To note the historical context and background set out in the report.

 

(2)      To note that the Yusuf Islam Foundation has issued eviction notices to its Voluntary Aided Islamia Primary School and that the future options for the school were for the school to either relocate or close.

 

(3)      To note the proposal to relocate Islamia Primary School to the Strathcona site as a 2FE school and agree to allocate up to £8.0m capital towards the total project costs of £10.0m, noting that the preferred option was estimated to cost £9.11m.

 

(4)      To approve the delegation of authority to agree pre-tender considerations, procure and award the necessary works contracts valued in excess of £5m to the Corporate Director Finances and Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools and Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Reform.

 

(5)      To note that if the school relocated to the Strathcona school site, the site could be transferred into the name of the Yusuf Islam Foundation who would be required to hold the site for the benefit of the Islamia Primary School. Further details in terms of ownership would be set out in a Trust Deed. This would ensure that the primary school would be protected from eviction in future.

 

(6)      To note that a statutory consultation process to allow the relocation of Islamia Primary School as a 2FE Primary School to the Strathcona site would need to be undertaken and that the Governing Board would be responsible for making this proposal through statutory consultation.

 

(7)     To acknowledge that, should the Strathcona site be used for Islamia Primary School, then an alternative site would be required to deliver Post-16 SEND provision.

Supporting documents: