Planning Portal comments in support of Welsh School planning application to be verified by officers

Cllr Sarah Marquis, Chair of Brent Planning Committee, told residents attending the site visit at King Edward VII Park this morning that she had instructed officers to investigate comments that have appeared on the council planning portal in support of the London Welsh School's application to build a school in the park.

The resident of 28 Princes Court, whose address and someone else's name, had been used to post support, when she herself was opposed, said that she was not satisfied with the officers' explanation that this was an 'adminstrative error'.

Marquis has asked officers to investigate that and also to verify the 13 other comments (excluding 23 Toley Avenue) in support of the application that suddenly appeared on the portal on January 8th.

Apart from a representative from the Welsh School the 20 or so residents (including children) who attended seem to have been opposed to the planning application.

Debangshu Dey, a local resident, has offered to collate bullet points from residents that could then be included in a presentation to the Planning Committee on Tuesday. Residents can apply to speak for up to 2 minutes and the points could be spread between several speakers.

Debangshu's email is debangshu.dey@medreich.co.uk (corrected)

It would be useful if you could say if you are willing to speak. The collated points can then be sent to all who have responded.

Cllr Sam Stopp (Wembley Central) also continues to welcome comments on the planning application  cllr.sam.stopp@brent.gov.uk  He will be speaking at the Planning Committee and will have up to 5 minutes for his presentation.

The site visit was also attended by Cllr Jean Hossain (Preston) and Preston ward residents can write to her cllr.jean.hossain@brent.gov.uk .  Most of the park is in Preston ward, including Collins Lodge where the land swap is proposed. The Bowling Green is in Wembley Central ward.

Residents who live opposite the park on Park Lane should contact Tokyngton councillors and copy in Sam Stopp.

Here are some photographs of the Bowling Green site taken this morning.

The additional classroom proposed to be built here, 4m from the boundary with back gardens

This area behind the Bowling Green Pavilion proposed to  be resurfaced as a playground

Planning Officers confirmed that the Bowling Green itself did not form part of the planning application.  Councillors were shown the disused yard adjacent to Collins Lodge which had not been considered as a possible school site or land swap.

Brent Central Tories select Mendoza and declare 'no confidence' in Muhammed Butt

Former Brent Conservative Councillor Alan Mendoza has been selected by the Tories to  fight Brent Central in the General Election. Mendoza topped the poll in a by-election in Preston ward in June 2005.

He was regarded as a 'Young Turk' who presented a challenge to the leadership of Bob Blackman, now MP for Harrow East.

Mendoza  is Executive Director of the neo-con Henry Jackson Society and a supporter of the Conservative Friends of Israel. He has affiliations with many other organisations and when a councillor declared that he was a Freemason.

He has a particular interest in the Middle East and in security issues and was commenting on TV over Charlie Hebdo on Friday LINK


Mendoza contributes to the Guardian's Comment is Free website.

Foreign policy could be come an issue in the General Election, as it was in 2010 over the Iraq war. The views of HJS are likely to be in conflict with those of the other candidates so far selected:

Henry Jackson Society:

1. Believes that modern liberal democracies set an example to which the rest of the world should aspire.
2. Supports a ‘forward strategy’ – involving diplomatic, economic, cultural, and/or political means — to assist those countries that are not yet liberal and democratic to become so.
3. Supports the maintenance of a strong military, by the United States, the countries of the European Union and other democratic powers, armed with expeditionary capabilities with a global reach, that can protect our homelands from strategic threats, forestall terrorist attacks, and prevent genocide or massive ethnic cleansing.
4. Supports the necessary furtherance of European military modernisation and integration under British leadership, preferably within NATO.
5. Stresses the importance of unity between the world’s great democracies, represented by institutions such as NATO, the European Union and the OECD, amongst many others.
6. Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that the political or human rights pronouncements of any international or regional organisation which admits undemocratic states lack the legitimacy to which they would be entitled if all their members were democracies.
7. Gives two cheers for capitalism. There are limits to the market, which needs to serve the Democratic Community and should be reconciled to the environment.
8. Accepts that we have to set priorities and that sometimes we have to compromise, but insists that we should never lose sight of our fundamental values. This means that alliances with repressive regimes can only be temporary. It also means a strong commitment to individual and civil liberties in democratic states, even and especially when we are under attack

No stranger to controversy, Mendoza was lambasted for his activities in the Henry Jackson Society,and accused of mounting a putsch by Marko Attila Hoare LINK

I grew up with groups like the Socialist Workers Party, in which total power is held by one or two leaders, but the totalitarianism is disguised by window-dressing consisting of branch meetings, annual conferences, meetings of the Politburo and the like. Well, the HJS is like that, but without the window-dressing: there isn’t even the pretence of democracy or consultation. Instead, the organisation operates on the basis of cronyism and intrigue. Sole power is held by one individual – Executive Director Alan Mendoza. He was not elected to the post and is not subject even to formal or technical restraints, nor to performance review and renewal of contract.

Mendoza's views can be seen in this clip when he was up against Stop the War's John Rees:


Meanwhile the Brondesbury Park Conservatives have put forward a motion for the next Full Council meeting that should also attract controversy:

-->

Motion under Standing Order45 in the names of Cllrs.Warren,Shaw and Davidson.

"NO CONFIDENCE VOTE IN CLLR.BUTT..........BUT HOW DO WE DO IT???? "*
This Council recognises that Cllr.Butt is unfit to lead Brent Council,and notes his actions since taking this post......
1. On becoming Council leader falling out with the previous Chief Executive and costing Brent £200,702 in compensation for loss of office.
2. In May 2014 installing  himself for four years as "Brent's Prime Minister," instead of the usual annual election for leader.
3. Introducing a Kremlin - style Constitution  in May 2014,including a reduction in Council scrutiny from 8 to 1 committees.
4. Presiding over a humiliating Industrial Tribunal case,where Brent was found guilty of race discrimination and yet still continuing with futile appeals....costing thousands .
5.  Damaging dramatically Brent staff relations as a result of the aforementioned I.T.case.
6.  Surrounding himself with a " Mafia - style " group of members and officers at the expense of most Labour members.
7. Losing Cllr.Perrin from his Cabinet within days of the new Council and barring Cllr.Van Kalwala from the Civic Centre.
8. Appalling lack of judgement in the Tricycle furore that happened in the summer of 2014.
9. Wasting more Brent Council taxpayer monies in the so called "independent " Mansfield inquiry into Brent NHS issues.
10. Totally undermining the Mayor of Brent by hogging every conceivable photo- opportunity at Mayoral events.
11. Showing a total lack of leadership in the ongoing budget process with endless consultations,forums,working groups,focus groups instead of showing real leadership.
12. Including the amazing Standing Order 13 in the Council constitution,which eliminates the traditional method of moving a motion of no- confidence.
This Council notes how difficult it is to move a no- confidence vote in Cllr. Butt Standing Order 13 requires 40% of Council members to put forward such a motion to Council some 10 working days before the meeting.In the interests of democracy this Council calls upon Cllr. Butt to remove Standing Order at the Council AGM on 20 May 2015.

A bit odd as Cllr Butt doesn't have the power to remove Standings Orders on his own, surely removal  of SO13 itself should have been a motion that the Brondesbury Conservative 'Provisionals' put to the AGM?

I expect the Kenton Conservative 'Officials' to treat the motion with disdain as they seem comfortable in their role on the Council after being officially recognised by Labour as the official opposition.

Brent North Conservatives have selected Luke Parker who works for IBM. According to the Kilburn Times LINK he wants 'better' schools, will champion small businesses and supports the living wage.

It really does look like there are two distinct Conservative Parties in Brent.

* The printing of this motion does not indicate my support for any or all of the points or  belief in their accuracy.

Another high-rise development for Wembley but where is the truly affordable housing?

From the planning document

Shortly after my article about the high rise 20 storey development behind the Brent Civic Centre LINK Quintain have put in their planning application (14/4931) for the South West Lands. This is the area along the Chiltern line going south from Wembley Stadium station which is crossed by White Horse Bridge (below) Full documentation for the Planning Application can be found HERE

New developments in white

This fills in the space currently occupied by shrubbery. The application leaves some options which will probably be decided by Quintain on grounds of viability (or better known as profit) in negotiation with Brent Council.

Some of the blocks are 19 storeys high, just one storey below the blocks planned behind the Civic Centre and three or so higher than the Orbis Hotel next to the White Horse Bridge.

Someone recently asked why, having demolished the tower blocks of Chalkhill and Stonebridge, the Council were now supporting the building of them in Wembley?

This is an artist's impression of the impact on the skyline:

Summary of Planning Application

A hybrid planning application, for the redevelopment of the site to provide seven mixed use buildings up to 19 storeys in height accommodating: outline planning permission for up to a total of 75,000sqm to 85,000sqm mixed floor space including up to 67,000sqm of C3 residential accommodation (approximately 725 units); 8,000sqm to 14,000sqm for additional C3 residential accommodation,

C1 hotel and/or sui generis student accommodation (an additional approximate 125 residential units; or 200-250 bed hotel; or approximate 500 student units; or approximate 35 residential units and 200 bed hotel); 1,500sqm to 3,000sqm for Classes B1/A1/A2/A3/A4/D1/D2; together with associated open space and landscaping; car parking, cycle storage, pedestrian, cycle and vehicle access; associated highway works; improvements to rear access to Neeld Parade; and associated infrastructure full planning permission for a basement beneath Plots SW03 - SW05 to accommodate 284 car parking spaces and 19 motor cycle spaces; Building 3A within Plot SW03 to accommodate 183 residential units and 368 cycle spaces at ground floor; and associated infrastructure, landscaping and open space

In the consultation last year, which got a low number of response, out of the 37 general comments the largest number on a single topic was nine (from Consultation summary):

Nine comments express ed the view that affordable housing/family housing should form part of the development and be delivered quickly.

Nine comments related to specific suggestions for provision of infrastructure/amenities as part of the development. These suggestions included schools, GPs and provision for youth, the elderly and disabled people.

So are the consultees going to get what they requested?  The application gives two scenarios for the amount and type of housing:

In Scenario 1 the proportion of social rented housing is 2.2% and in Scenario 2 5%. This is against Brent's 50% target for affordable accommodation. As usual the definition of affordable is unclear but for the developer seems to include the Intermediate category and is hedged by caveats..

-->

At present, the proportion of the affordable units is not known as this will be subject to negotiations, planning priorities and viability. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, a range of affordable housing provision has been considered to ensure the impacts at both ends of the spectrum are identified and,where necessary, mitigated. The range assessed is between 10% (Scenario 1) and 25% (Scenario 2) by unit. In the event that affordable housing provision falls outside these bounds, a review will be undertaken to identify any new impacts or significant changes to the impacts identified as part of this assessment.

Given the amount of housing Quintain's assessment of the number of children in the development seems low. The number of 3 bedroomed properties, a priority for many Brent families is low. Perhaps the developers are assuming most of the residents with be Dinkies (Double Income No Kids).

From this prediction they suggest there is already enough secondary school places if Gateway and  Gladstone Free Schools open (a gamble?)  and the development will have a 'negligible effect'  locally. However there they may be the need for some Community Infrastructure Levy contribution to primary school places as the development is deemed to have a 'minor adverse effect'. With GP's lists at capacity locally it also suggests a CiL contribution to health provision may be necessary.

It is worth reminding ourselves what was promised in terms of social provision for local people at the beginning of the Quintain development, aside from affordable housing:

Anticipated infrastructure is expected to include (inter alia):

· 2 x 2 forms of entry primary school; a new combined primary (2FE) and secondary school (6FE) on the Wembley Park site;

· Extensions to existing local schools; nursery places;

· At least 2.4ha of new public open space comprising of a new park (1.2ha min) and 3 pocket parks/squares (0.4ha each);

·Improvements to the quality and accessibility of existing open spaces;

·A new community swimming pool; indoor and outdoor sports facilities;

·Play areas; new health facilities with space for 14 GPs and 11 new dentists;

and  new multi-use community facilities.

I recommend that among the hundreds of documents you read the Socio-Economic Chapter of the application which covers some of these issues. LINK

Among the positives about the development are the provision of green space and play space for children although we will need to see details about public accessibility and quality. Some of the buildings will have green roofs.

However once again we have to ask, where is the benefit for the ordinary people of Wembley/Brent and what will the Council do to increase the proportion of truly affordable housing for local people?

The case for deferring decision on Welsh School build in King Edward VII Park

I have tried on Wembley Matters to enable debate and dialogue over the planning application for the London Welsh School to relocate to the Bowling Green in King Edward VII Park. As with many planning applications the general public were unaware of the plans.

This will be a difficult decision with the protection of green space and the preservation of a unique institution apparently in conflict.

A glance back at comments on the earlier coverage on this blog will indicate that new information has emerged during the discussion and further suggestions have been made that are not in the officers' report.

The Welsh School is a charity, along with other independent schools, and charges fees. The school however prides itself on never turning a child away so fees are reduced for those in need. However the school has applied twice to become a free school and if successful  would receive funding directly from the DfE. It is not clear whether they will re-apply.

The Gladstone Free School had plans to build on open sports space adjacent to Gladstone Park and this was opposed by local residents and the school withdrew. Gladstone would have been a much bigger school but free schools being built on open space is a controversial issue.

Clearly the Planning Committee would need to be mindful of setting a precedent that may open the way for other applications and the importance of protecting Brent's parks and open spaces.

There has been some confusion over which ward is affected. The Bowling Green, Park Lane school and the land between them are in Wembley Central ward. The rest of the park, including Collins Lodge and the land swap site, are in Preston ward. The houses on Park Lane, opposite the park, are in Tokyngton ward. So far only Sam Stopp. Wembley Central ward councillor has made a submission to the Planning Committee and will be speaking at the meeting. (email address below)

One suggestion has been that a possible alternative site in King Edward VII park that would be more accessible. This is on the disused yard next Collins Lodge. It has also been suggested that the Pavilion would be better used as a community facility for Wembley Central residents. The question has been asked as to why the availability of the Pavilion for other uses has not been made known to residents.

There is some confusion about the school's use of the Bowling Green itself - the planning application is only for the Pavilion and the land between the Pavilion and Princes Court back gardens. The Chair of Governors of the Welsh School in a blog comment said the bowling green itself was not in their  demise but elsewhere there is an assumption that the children would use it.

There has been a flurry of late support for the planning application, many of whom have links with the Welsh School and praise its provision.  Although labelled 'Comments from Neighbours' many are from much further afield. One postal letter of support mistakenly names Barham Park as the site of the Pavilion rather than King Edward VII Park. An early support statement that appeared under a name at  28 Princes Court has been removed from the Council. A neighbour checked at the address and found that no one of that name lived there and the occupants hadn't submitted a statement of support.  Brent Council, rather strangely, accounted for  its inclusion an as 'administrative error'. Other submissions from Princes Court are in opposition. Sports England are in touch with the Planning Officer and will make a submission by Monday.

My personal view is that because of the wider implications of this application, confusion over the detail, possibility of an alternative site within the park, and lack of public knowledge about the proposal, the Planning Committee should seriously consider deferring a decision on Tuesday.

Comments can still be made up to Monday midday to victoria.mcdonagh@brent.gov.uk

The site visit is tomorrow (Saturday) morning at 9.35am

The application will be heard on Tuesday at the Planning Committee, 7pm, Brent Civic Centre. Residents can apply to speak for 2 minutes and applications have to be made 24 hours in advance.
Apply to: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk

To view the on-line comments so far follow this LINK

Standing orders for the Planning Committee (explains how it works, speaking rights etc)  LINK

Planning Committee Code of Practice LINK

Cllr Sam Stopp is still keen to received comments from residents:  cllr.sam.stopp@brent.gov.uk

Brent Youth Parliament must feel free to campaign on youth service cuts

Five years ago Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) raised the issue of alleged 'intimidation' of Brent Youth Parliament members in the House of Commons  LINK

He said:

Recently, my hon. Friend Ms Butler [Dawn Butler then an MP] invited young people who were members of her Facebook group to visit her in Parliament. Many of those young people were also members of the Brent Youth Parliament. Shortly thereafter, members of the Youth Parliament received a letter from Brent Council's senior lawyer. The letter stressed that Brent Youth Parliament is supported by the London borough of Brent and it counselled them as follows: "You will obviously need to give careful consideration as to whether you wish to align yourself with a particular person or group and what impact this may have on others' perception of you as a Brent Youth Parliament member. If you do decide to participate in local politics, you will need to give consideration as to which person or group you are willing to be connected with and any implications of this."

Many of these young people have been frightened by the letter and regard it as a warning shot. They have previously believed that Brent council was encouraging young people to become politically active, but they now consider that it encourages them only if they are sympathetic to the Liberal Democrats. What action can this House take to ensure that these young people are not bullied in this way by a local authority?

Unfortunately I think the problem is related to the way the Youth Parliament is set up, regardless of the political complexion of the administration. Members 'shadow' particular departments and take part in Council Meetings, Committees etc but this closeness, (incorporation some may say), seems to prevent open, public disagreement with Council policy.

In April 2011 Kishan Parshotam, the Chair of the Brent Youth Parliament, in a presentation to Scrutiny Committee, claimed that the YP was being ignored over their opposition to library closures LINK

In January 2012 a youth wrote to me about his/her concerns regarding the independence of the Youth Parliament LINK

Changes in youth provision are planned in Brent with options  ranging from  outsourcing to voluntary organisation to complete closure of the  youth service.

When these proposals were first announced there was an outbreak of comments from Youth Parliament members on Twitter and then silence descended. I understand that there were suggestions that members should not get involved in party politics, which is rather similar to what was said above during the Liberal Democrat administration.

If Brent Youth Parliament cannot campaign over drastic cuts to the youth service which will impact on young people throughout the borough, what can they campaign on? There was a presentation to the Council meeting on December 15th (see below) but I would expected press publicity at the least and public meetings, visits to youth centres and schools, to gain support for the retention of the service.

Of course Youth Parliamemnt Members should get involved in opposing the cuts - as loudly and vociferously as possible.

That is what happened when cuts were proposed by Ann John's Labour administration and the cuts were opposed  by young people with some success. LINK

A question I wanted to ask at the Scrutiny Committee was not taken. The Safer Neighbourhoods Team has spoken about their work to prevent youth offending and prevent re-offending which included work with gangs based on the Cincinnati model.  The police recognised the roots of crime in inequality and deprivation and the remedy in improved educational outcomes and employment opportunities.

They'd had some success and I wanted to ask what they thought the impact of  cuts in the youth service and the closure of Stonebridge Adventure Playground on their work.

Cllr James Denselow's blog LINK in an article on crime in Brent included this:

Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala, who represents the Stonebridge ward, works with youths in Brent. He is calling for the availability of more activities in the borough to divert young people away from crime.

He said: “This is terrible news for our young people. Although it’s important we take tough action on youth crime, it’s also important we provide alternatives to keep young people out of crime.

“The government cuts to youth services, such as abolishing Brent Connexions, which gave career advice to young workers, is making it harder, not easier, to tackle youth crime.

“We need to divert our youngsters away from crime and gangs. If not, we could easily see another repeat of the London riots”.

Now as the result of Coalition cuts Brent is proposing to cut the Youth Service.  The social long term impact of cuts made for short-term financial gain is incalculable.

In Haringey, Seema Chandwani, former Deputy Head of Haringey Youth Service wrote in September 2012 LINK:

Tottenham sadly is now on the map for all the wrong reasons, an area that will long be known as the home of the riots and not for the first time as the 1985 riot also took place here. Prior to the riots, as many Youth Workers up and down the country are aware, Young People from Haringey (the borough where Tottenham is located) commenced a campaign to save their Youth Service. Despite their campaign, in Feb 2011 Haringey Council decided to cut the Youth Service by 75%. Cuts started to take effect from April 2011, the riots occurred in Aug 2011.

It will be wrong to state that the closure of the Youth Service led solely to the riots, but knowledge informs us that a circus of social circumstances leads to social disorder. For Young People in Haringey, specifically Tottenham there is an array statistics that demonstrate a negative impact on Young Peoples lives ranging from low educational attainment, high youth unemployment, high crime rates etc. Intelligence should have informed decision makers of the potential risks of the action they were about to make, especially as the Young People and wider community had told them at every juncture – Young People needed their Youth Service.

There was some self-congratulation at the Scrutiny Committee that Brent had not experienced rioting at that time but the message to the Council must be 'Brent Young People need their Youth Service' and Brent Youth Parliament members should feel free to shout that from the roof tops.

The current campaign in Haringey LINK

Fiona Ledden has left Brent Council

I have had confirmation that Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement at Brent Council,  decided to take redundancy over Christmas and left the Council at the end of December 2014.

Ledden's post was recommended for deletion in the proposed restructuring of the senior management of Brent Council. A new post of Chief Legal Officer is proposed to be  ring-fenced to three Hay graded lawyers, which includes Head of Human Resources, Cara Davani's partner, Andy Potts.

Fiona Ledden was mentioned in the Judgment of the Employment Tribunal where Brent Council was the  first respondent and Cara Davani the second. The Judgment found that Rosemarie Clarke had been racially discrimination against, victimised and constructively dismissed.

Controversially Brent Council decided to appeal against the Judgment and last month a Judge at Employment Tribunal Appeals found that Brent Council had no grounds for appeal.

Deputy Leader of the Counci, Michael Pavey, has almost completed his internal review of Human Resources which has a remit limited to procedures and policies. It will be tabled at General Purposes Committee on January 29th.

Cara Davani continues in post.

This is an extract from the Employment Tribunal Judgment:

With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant,[Rosemarie Clarke] following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made. Indeed, by the evidence before the tribunal a decision was taken following a meeting between Ms Cleary [a Brent HR Manager] and Ms Ledden [Brent’s Legal Director]. In her oral evidence, Ms Ledden confirmed that Ms Cleary’s role at the meeting was an advisory one only, but also that she, Ms Ledden, had not made the decision either. Ms Ledden could not identify who had made the decision

Time to Save the Welsh Harp Environmental Centre yet again!

I don't really have to set out the case against the closure of the Welsh Harp Environmental Study Centre as Brent Council does it for me in the promotional video above.

The Centre has been threatened with closure on a number of occasions and each time schools, young people and former users, as well as environmentalists, have come to its defence. LINK

Thought to be in the 1980s

February 2011

The projected savings for closing the Centre are small £13,000 in 2015-16 and £14,000 in 2016-17. Current projected expenditure is £36,102 and projected income £23,000 (the Centre charges per head).

The Officer's report LINK suggests that Carey's, who currently fund one teaching post, might be interested in 'a greater role which could keep the centre open'. Carey's is the parent company of Seneca the waste materials reprocessing company sited between Wembley Park and Neasden.

Pavey internal review into Brent Human Resources to be published later this month.

The internal review by Cllr Michael Pavey into possible improvements in policy and practice in he Council's Human Resources department will go before the General Purposes Committee on Thursday January 29th.

It should be available on the Council's website a week before the Committe meeting.

The review is much narrower than the independent inquiry requested by many Brent organisations including Brent Green Party, Brent Trades Union Council, Brent Againt Racism Campaign, Brent Labour Representation Committee and many individuals that would have looked at a wider range of issues.

Since the internal review was set up an Employment Tribunal Appeal judge has found that the Council had no grounds for appeal against the findings of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.

The officers concerned are still in post.