Government Spin Won’t Fund Our Schools - how you can help get fair funding for ALL schools

 

This is DfE advice on how to achieve 'efficiences' - all would affect the quality of education

Guest blog by Kiri Tunks and published with her permission. Original is here Our Community-Our Schools

The government claims that school funding is protected; that the funding per child is the same; that they are equalising funding inequities across the UK.

But this simply isn’t true.

The government has accused teaching unions and parent campaigns of scaremongering but, in fact, we are witnessing the largest real term cuts in education funding since the 1970s.

Using statistics from the DFE, the National Audit Office and the Institute of Fiscal Studies, education trade unions have created the School Cuts website. Just enter the name or postcode of your local school to see the cuts it is likely to face.

This analysis of the impact of the government’s policy on schools around the UK shows the truth is rather different.

Funding per child is not in line with inflation so claiming it is the same is disingenuous because in real terms it simply won’t cover the same costs.

On top of that, the government has put more costs on to school budgets without increasing funding to cover them. These are things like the apprenticeship levy, the annual pay awards to staff and salary increases, increases in the teachers’ pension scheme and National Insurance costs as well as other inflationary pressures on non-staff spending.

None of these things are in the control of the schools and colleges and yet they will have to find a way to pay them with no extra money being given to cover them.

What does this mean?

The only way a school can increase its funding is to increase the number of children on roll without increasing its staff allocation.

So we are already seeing:

• Increased class sizes
• Teachers teaching out of their specialism
• A reduction in Teaching Assistants and administrative support
• Unqualified/inexperienced/cheap teachers and support staff
• Staff pay being held down unfairly and their conditions worsening
• Staff leaving or not being replaced
• The narrowing of the curriculum as schools focus goes on core/EBacc subjects
• Cuts to all “non-essential” activities such as trips or libraries or
• Lack of resources – teachers are reporting a lack of pencils, glue and paper

 

This isn’t scaremongering. This is reporting from the front line.

And it is going to get worse.

 

How bad are the cuts?

 

According to statistics from the National Audit Office, these are the largest real-term funding cuts in education since the 1970s . The current proposals are already a huge change compared with funding under the last coalition government.

 

So we are looking at: 

• 8% real term reduction in per pupil funding for mainstream schools 2014-2020
• UK mainstream schools needing to make savings of £3bn
• 60.6% of academies saying they have overspent their budget 

What about the improved National Funding Formula?

The National Funding Formula is the system by which schools are funded. Previously, this money would go to the Local Authority who would decide how to divide up the cash. Now schools are being funded directly. The government say that the National Funding Formal needed to be revised as funds were not fairly shared out.

 

It is true that the National Funding Formula needs an overhaul. There is a postcode lottery and there are many places around the UK where schools are simply not getting enough money. However, the funding disparities are not as bad as has been claimed with statistics showing that funding has, largely, followed area costs and child poverty levels. Even so, the new NFF means that nearly every area is seeing their funding levelled down rather than levelled up.

 

Put together this means that 98.5% of schools, and 100% of colleges, are set to have per pupil funding cut in real terms.

This means:

• £339 average loss per primary pupil 
• £477 average loss per secondary pupil

The cuts are not evenly spread and are regressive with the poorest areas receiving the highest cuts 

• £447 average loss per primary pupil 
• £658 average loss per secondary pupil 

In Waltham Forest, cuts will look like this:

•  £20,185,760 loss in funding by 2019 
• £538 average loss per pupil
• 541 fewer teachers 

The cuts are universal with no school spared. Academies & Free schools are among the worst hit:

• West London Free Schools                                                          £1,016 per pupil
• Mossbourne Academy                                                                  £965 per pupil
• Ark Schools                                                                                   £701 per pupil 
• Harris                                                                                             £671 per pupil 
• Oasis                                                                                              £609 per pupil

 

And Conservative areas are being hit too. Even the last Chancellor, George Osborne, has met with Education Secretary, Justine Greening, to share his concerns about the cuts. She must be worried herself as schools in her own constituency of Putney are looking at cuts of between £655-£834 per pupil.

 

Even the claim of an “NFF Floor” which was meant to guarantee that no school would lose more than 3% of their funding doesn’t hold water. This ‘guarantee’ is akin to safeguarding, so the floor will stay at same level until the NFF authorises an increase. In effect, this will mean 5,300 schools receiving flat cash funding for years up to 2025 and beyond.

Spin

The Department for Education will tell anyone who listens that the numbers on the School Cuts website are speculation and spin.  They need to be reminded that these figures are the government’s own figures and that these calculations have been endorsed by reliable independent bodies. Additionally, the website is endorsed by the NUT, the ATL, the GMB, Unite, NAHT and Unison.

 

The sources are: 

• Schools funding allocation for 2015/16 from the Department for Education
• National Funding Formula consultation data from the Department for Education
• National Audit Office estimate of school costs 

Furthermore, the calculations have been upheld by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Who else is worried?

Parents all over the countries are getting organised under the Fair Funding for All banner. There have been huge public meetings and demonstrations all over the UK such from Haringey to Cheshire, from Lambeth to Shrewsbury.

Schools in previously better-funded areas have been able to make real improvements in the quality of their provision. This has only been achieved because schools have been able to invest in staff, resources, training and infrastructure. Without that money, we will see standards and conditions rolling backwards. 

We want all schools to have the necessary money to make these improvements. And a country that is the fifth richest in the world should be able to find the necessary money.

 

You can find out more about the Fair Funding for All campaign here

What we need to do

There are indications are that government is starting to backtrack on NFF at least but this is not time to take our foot off the pedal. We need to press harder.

Now is the time to increase the pressure

1) Use the www.schoolcuts.org.uk website to find out how your local school will be hit.

Share the figures on Facebook and Twitter 

Talk to other parents about them 

Sign the petition via the site

Email your MP via the site

 

2) Respond to the government’s consultation before 22nd March.  The government is consulting on its new formula for distributing school funds and it’s vital that lots of us respond.

 

Here’s how to do it:

• Visit https://consult.education.gov.uk/funding-policy-unit/schools-national-funding-formula2/consultation/intro/ and enter your details 
•  Go to question 1 and tick ‘no’ (There are 19 questions in total but you don’t have to answer them all. It’s most important that you answer the first.)
•  Fill in any other bits you want and submit the response
•  If you would like further guidance on completing the consultation, have a look at the guide on the website http://www.fairfundingforallschools.org/resource.html 
•  Sign the petition - https://www.change.org/p/stop-school-funding-cuts-all-our-children-deserve-a-great-education

3) Write a letter or E-mail to your MP

 

 You can find a template letter to use and more information about this on the resources page of the Fair Funding For All Schools website (http://www.fairfundingforallschools.org/resource.html)

 4) Start a campaign at your school 

 

Parents in the Fair Funding Campaign have been setting themselves up as school reps and working with other parents to raise awareness.

• Talk to other parents 
• Talk to the Headteacher 
• Ask if s/he will write a letter to Justine Greening 
• Will she let you organize a meeting for parents in the school 
• Contact us and let us know what is happening and how we can help
• 
  

5) Join the campaign on Social Media

Join the conversation online, help us to reach other parents, and keep up to date with campaign developments by joining our Facebook group  

Some Twitter accounts to follow are

 

@Fairfundschools

@HaringeyParents 

@NoSchoolCuts

@FairFundLambeth 

@FairFundCheshE 

@OurSchoolsLBWF

@RedbridgeRAA

Help raise the profile of the campaign by tweeting about it using  

#schoolsjustwannahavefunds

The voices of parents matter and have real power. Let’s work together to build a campaign to stop these cuts. With our allies, we are a formidable force.

 

Many thanks to @FairFundSchools and @FairFundLambeth for their links and resources

 

Brent Council urges parents to respond to government consultation on school funding

From Brent Council today

Parents, schools and Brent Council are uniting to defend local school children following Government plans to cut funding to local schools by £2.2 million.

The proposed cuts - which would see local schools lose two per cent of their budgets overall and equate to £105 per pupil - are a result of the government's National Funding Formula. Overall, schools in London are set to lose £19million.

As around 80 per cent of a school's budget is spent on staff salaries, funding reductions are likely to result in fewer teachers and support staff posts in schools, as well as increased class sizes. This is significant because top quality teachers who are motivated and highly skilled are the main reason that children make progress and achieve good results in their education.

Cllr Mili Patel, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, said:

In recent years, schools in Brent have made great strides. We have gone from 78 per cent of schools in the Borough rated as 'Good' or 'Outstanding' by Ofsted, to 96 per cent currently. Our primary school, GCSE and A Level results are all above the national averages and we are in the middle of an ambitious school build programme to ensure that every child in Brent has access to a good local school place.

All of these things are absolutely fantastic and a result of the tireless hard work and dedication that our senior leaders, teachers, support staff and governors in Brent put in every single day. But we need the teachers and schools' staff in the first place and this is only possible thanks to the sustained investment over many years.

Fewer teachers and bigger class sizes will do nothing to help our school children thrive - especially in a hugely diverse borough like Brent where pupils come from a huge range of different backgrounds. This is why we, at Brent Council, will do everything we can to support our schools.

 If you are a parent of a school age child, the Government's current plans will see nearly £105 a year taken away from your child's education. I would urge all of our parents and carers in Brent to respond to the Department for Education's consultation and let them know what you think.

ENDS
 

What to do if you would like to know more or share your views

Have your say: You can submit your views to the government consultation about the NFF online at: https://consult.education.gov.uk/funding-policy-unit/schools-national-funding-formula2/which is open until 22 March 2017.

These are  suggested responses to certain questons as set out below. 

·       Q1: In designing our national funding formula, we have taken careful steps to balance the principles of fairness and stability. Do you think we have struck the right balance?

·         The proposals do not provide enough financial stability for schools. All Primary schools in Brent stand to lose significant amounts of funding, and all schools are experiencing rising costs.

·         There is no evidence that schools can manage the funding reductions whilst maintaining or improving performance levels.

·         Additional funding should be allocated to prevent cash losses to individual schools.

·       Q2: Do you support our proposal to set the primary to secondary ratio in line with the current national average of 1:1.29, which means that pupils in the secondary phase are funded overall 29% higher than pupils in the primary phase?

·         Locally in Brent the proposals mean moving away from this national average resulting in primary schools losing funding.

·         The Department for Education should look again at the impact of the national formula on London primary schools.

·       Q7. Do you agree with the proposed lump sum amount of £110,000 for all schools?

·         Small school funding is not just a rural issue.  Smaller primary schools, including faith schools, serve their community but can not always expand as physical space is an issue in London.  Smaller primary schools should receive additional funding.

·       Q14. Are there further considerations we should be taking into account about the proposed schools national funding formula?

·         The school national funding formula should be considered alongside the Pupil Premium funding.  We believe that an area cost adjustment should also be applied to the Pupil Premium to reflect higher costs in London.

·         Many of the cost pressures facing schools are the direct result of government policy, such as changes to national insurance and pension contributions, and the introduction of the Apprenticehip Levy. Any action the government can take to ease these cost pressures would make the introduction of a fair funding formula less challenging.

Fair funding for all schools - meeting March 29th Cricklewood

Parents and pupils are joining with teachers and governors to protest about the forthcoming cuts to school budgets which are being implemented through changes in the National Funding Formula for schools. Government sources have denied reports from Tory back bench MPs that they are about to postpone the changes so all the more reason to maintain the pressure.

www.fairfundingforallschools.org

Pupils, parents and staff  from Kenmont Primary held a protest against the cuts earlier this week. Despite the school  being in the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham many of Kenmont's pupils come from the Brent side of the Harrow Road.

Brent Planners recommend approval of Spurs' bid to increase number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium

Brent Planning Committee will decide the application to increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium on Thursday March 23rd. The planners recommend approval 'on balance' and in the face of opposition from local residents and Barry Gardiner MP and Bob Blackman MP. After discussions the number of additional major events proposed has been reduced from 31 to 22. The planning commitee will be held at the earlier time of 6.30pm at Brent Civic Centre.

This is the officers' conclusion:

-->

123.    The objections received indicate that there is a level of impact currently experienced by events at the stadium. Comments received suggest that these mainly fall under the headings of anti-social behaviour and transport. Some impacts are expected, as it is a large stadium in a location with residents and businesses nearby.

124.    Additional events can take place at the stadium irrespective of the outcome of the application. However, those events that are beyond the existing cap would be limited to a capacity of approximately 51,000.

125.    The original cap on events was imposed to manage the impacts until such time as specific transport improvements had been made. Whilst most of these have taken place, not all of them have been realised. Circumstances have changed since the original planning permission in 2002, which suggest that the final piece of transport infrastructure (the Stadium Access Corridor) will not be provided in the originally envisaged form, but will be a variant of this. A further change is the level of development within the area, which has increased the population and will continue to do so. Therefore, the Council considers that the cap remains relevant, and any further impact associated with the additional events must therefore be assessed.

126.    Clearly, to increase the number of events to accommodate Tottenham Hotspur would imply a commensurate increase in the impact, albeit that it is proposed to be temporary for 12 months. In addition, following discussions the number of additional major events has also been decreased from 31 to 22, which would reduced the number of instances within which those impacts are apparent over that 12 month period.

127.    In analysing the impacts there has been some concern about the level of economic

benefit which would result, and this is primarily centred on visitor expenditure. In any event it seems common sense that there would be winners and losers on event days, dependent on the type of business. This makes it all the more important that the social impacts on event days are further mitigated. A number of additional measures have been secured to deal with some of these issues.

128.    Transportation issues have been extensively raised, and there are ongoing efforts to reduce the number of vehicles on a match day. A number of mitigation measures are proposed to continue this work. Some of these allow for existing work to continue, and others are new or updated. The pirate parking initiative is considered particularly important. On an individual event basis, Tottenham Hotspur do have the ability to influence their supporters’ behaviour over the course of a year, which is more difficult than for visitors on a one-off basis such as the FA Cup final. Addressing transport issues will also contribute to reducing noise and air quality issues.

129.    In summary, it is recognised that there is a level of impact being caused by major events now, and that this would increase with an increase in the number of high capacity major events. However, the measures proposed would ensure that this is mollified as much as is reasonably achievable. All are considered necessary to mitigate the increased number of matches which this application proposes. A further consideration is that Tottenham Hotspur could use the stadium for major events up to 51,000 now without restriction, and were they to do that then no additional mitigation measures would be formally secured. The proposed additional mitigation would apply to Tottenham Hotspur events, and with some of these being within the existing cap would represent a theoretical improvement for these major events.

130.    The proposal is, on balance, recommended for approval. 

Full Report HERE

Latest on the Grunwick 40 commemorative mural

Foer those wondering what had happened with the Grunwich 40th anniversary mural here is a message from Anna Ferrie, the mural artist and the Grunwick 40 team.

The exhibition is in its last weeks  at Willesden Library finishing at 5pm on Sunday March 26th.

We wanted to let you know about progress with the Grunwick 40 commemorative mural as many of you have been asking for an update. We had hoped to have the mural up by now but issues with site permissions and bureaucracy have meant that we can't yet move forward to install the panels. 

However, the mural composite designs are done and incorporate all of the artwork that was produced in the workshops. We are working hard to speed up the process to ensure the mural can be installed and unveiled within the next few months and we hope be able to bring you a firm date soon. In the meantime, you may be interested in The Art of Protest event later this month where we'll be discussing the different ways that art can be used to remember radical histories. We hope to see you either there or when we launch the mural!

Anna Ferrie and the Grunwick 40 team

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-art-of-protest-tickets-32435324930

Barry Gardiner MP to meet with residents on Wembley Stadium controversy - Saturday

Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) has arranged to meeting with residents concerned about the potential impact of the proposal to increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium. The application goes to Planning Committee on Thursday March 23rd.

The meeting will take place at St Cuthbert's Church 214 Carlton Ave West Wembley HA0 3QY on Saturday at 10.30am.

Capacity is limited (unlike the Stadium) to the first 30 residents or representatives to respond by emailing this blog with name/s at martinrfrancis@virginmedia.com (I will pass on to the organiser) or commenting on the NextDoor website LINK 

 

182 bus stops nearby

Inadequacy of Spur's Wembley Stadium Environmental Statement exposed

With the Evening Standard anticipating Brent planners statement on the Wembey Stadium application for additional full capacity soon, ahead of the March 23rd Planning Committee. I thought it worth publishing this submission from a resident of Corringham Road, addressing the applicant's Environmental Statement. LINK

In addition I publish the supporting submission from Haringey Council at the end of this article.

Comments on the Environmental Statement (January 2017) to the Temporary Variation to the Event Cap at Wembley Stadium - Document Chapter C - Socio-Economics

There are a number of points to make with reference to the Environmental Statement (ES) accompanying the Planning Reference 17/0368 - the application by Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) - and in particular to the Socio-Economic aspects.

The most important points are as follows:

1. It has almost no economic or quantitative analysis at all, as opposed to just assumptions, and its conclusions cannot be supported in the absence of further work and also a properly produced cost-benefit analysis.

2. It does not deal with any likely costs, and has only skimmed over the so called "beneficial socio-economic" impacts. The coverage and the quality of the analysis are far from adequate.

3. The conclusions under the heading "Potential Effects" are not robust, and there has to be much further and more careful work done to look at the likely negative impacts on the local economy.

4. What about the economic costs of congestion, stress and strain on the local services and population, the crowding out of other economic activity, the inconvenience caused by hugely larger attendances at more much larger scale events at the Stadium?

5. There is inadequate analysis of the location of possible additional expenditures, either within or outside the stadium?

How much extra and additional economic benefit accrues to the local area and population as opposed to just within the stadium? This is certainly not clear from the application documents, and is vitally important in coming to any decisions.

6. The figures in the conclusion in the summary of socio-economic benefits that expenditures of £43.5m and £14.5m (excluding traffic) can be expected locally are based not on calculations done at the Wembley site but are based on a primary survey by THFC of spectators to White Hart Lane.

It is stated in the application documents in paragraph C5.14 of the ES that "if this expenditure profile ..... were to be transferred to Wembley Stadium during the 2017-18 season, this could support (my bold) £43.5 million of expenditure.......this would mean £14.5 million of expenditure would be available for spending on food, drink and other ancillary items at Wembley".

However, these figures are purely assumptions. There is no robust analysis or justification that these are likely to be appropriate, and are certainly not accompanied by any corresponding costs which should have been taken into account.

7. Paragraph C5.16 of the ES states that "On this basis, taking into account employment and visitor expenditure effects, it is assessed that the impact of the temporary variation of the event cap will result in a moderate positive impact on the local economy for the duration of the 2017-18 football season" (my bold).

How can any conclusion follow from the implausible assumptions in paragraph C5.14 stated above?

8. In the document entitled "Temporary Variation to Event Cap at Wembley Stadium..." written by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, it is clear from paragraph 6.5 that the conclusions of the environmental impact assessment should have covered all four aspects namely (1) Socio-economic (2) Transportation (3)Air Quality and (4) Noise and Vibration.

However, in the summary to this document, in paragraph 9.7, it is stated that "this Statement demonstrates that the proposals accord within planning policy and will not result in any unacceptable effects in terms of transport, noise and vibration and air quality impacts".

But, where is the reassurance about socio-economic impacts? It is strange that it should be omitted if there was a clear conclusion that this was also acceptable.

9. There is no clear analysis of which geographical area the claimed benefits are supposed to support. The definition of the area around the Stadium is important to identify, especially if the costs as well as benefits are to be assessed. The costs are likely to be spread around the wider neighbourhood via aspects such as traffic congestion, parking problems, noise and safety. Why have these not been included? It is common practice to include some valuation for these impacts in a properly worked cost-benefit analysis.

10. There is very little understanding of the scale factors associated with increasing the numbers of visitors to the Stadium from a maximum of 51,000 to 90,000 on an extra 31 days a year. A proper analysis would have shown a much better awareness of the huge impacts such large crowds will have. The various comments in the papers accompanying the planning application imply that all impacts will be minor.

11. As an example of the lack of understanding of the likely impacts of scale is paragraph G6.4 in the Summary and Conclusions of the Environmental Statement, which states that: "Minor negative residual effects remain in relation to specific sensitive recepto Comments on the Environmental Statement (January 2017) to the Temporary Variation to the Event Cap at Wembley Stadium ? Document Chapter C ? Socio-Economics

There are a number of points to make with reference to the Environmental Statement (ES) accompanying the Planning Reference 17/0368 - the application by Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) - and in particular to the Socio-Economic aspects.

The most important points are as follows:

It has almost no economic or quantitative analysis at all, as opposed to just assumptions, and its conclusions cannot be supported in the absence of further work and also a properly produced cost-benefit analysis.

It does not deal with any likely costs, and has only skimmed over the so called 'beneficial socio-economic' impacts.  The coverage and the quality of the analysis are far from adequate.

The conclusions under the heading 'Potential Effects' are not robust, and there has to be much further and more careful work done to look at the likely negative impacts on the local economy.

What about the economic costs of congestion, stress and strain on the local services and population, the crowding out of other economic activity, the inconvenience caused by hugely larger attendances at more much larger scale events at the Stadium?

There is inadequate analysis of the location of possible additional expenditures, either within or outside the stadium?

How much extra and additional economic benefit accrues to the local area and population as opposed to just within the stadium? This is certainly not clear from the application documents, and is vitally important in coming to any decisions.

The figures in the conclusion in the summary of socio-economic benefits that expenditures of £43.5m and £14.5m (excluding traffic) can be expected locally are based not on calculations done at the Wembley site but are based on a primary survey by THFC of spectators to White Hart Lane.

It is stated in the application documents in paragraph C5.14 of the ES that 'if this expenditure profile ..... were to be transferred to Wembley Stadium during the 2017-18 season, this could support (my bold) £43.5 million of expenditure.......this would mean £14.5 million of expenditure would be available for spending on food, drink and other ancillary items at Wembley'. 

However, these figures are purely assumptions. There is no robust analysis or justification that these are likely to be appropriate, and are certainly not accompanied by any corresponding costs which should have been taken into account.

Paragraph C5.16 of the ES states that 'On this basis, taking into account employment and visitor expenditure effects, it is assessed that the impact of the temporary variation of the event cap will result in a moderate positive impact on the local economy for the duration of the 2017-18 football season' (my bold).
How can any conclusion follow from the implausible assumptions in paragraph C5.14 stated above?

In the document entitled 'Temporary Variation to Event Cap at Wembley Stadium...' written by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, it is clear from paragraph 6.5 that the conclusions of the environmental impact assessment should have covered all four aspects namely (1) Socio-economic (2) Transportation (3)Air Quality and (4) Noise and Vibration.
However, in the summary to this document, in paragraph 9.7, it is stated that 'this Statement demonstrates that the proposals accord within planning policy and will not result in any unacceptable effects in terms of transport, noise and vibration and air quality impacts'.
But, where is the reassurance about socio-economic impacts? It is strange that it should be omitted if there was a clear conclusion that this was also acceptable.

There is no clear analysis of which geographical area the claimed benefits are supposed to support. The definition of the area around the Stadium is important to identify, especially if the costs as well as benefits are to be assessed. The costs are likely to be spread around the wider neighbourhood via aspects such as traffic congestion, parking problems, noise and safety. Why have these not been included? It is common practice to include some valuation for these impacts in a properly worked cost-benefit analysis.

There is very little understanding of the scale factors associated with increasing the numbers of visitors to the Stadium from a maximum of 51,000 to 90,000 on an extra 31 days a year. A proper analysis would have shown a much better awareness of the huge impacts such large crowds will have. The various comments in the papers accompanying the planning application imply that all impacts will be minor.

As an example of the lack of understanding of the likely impacts of scale is paragraph G6.4 in the Summary and Conclusions of the Environmental Statement, which states that: 'Minor negative residual effects remain in relation to specific sensitive receptors in relation to bus services impacted by additional vehicular traffic in the immediate periods prior and post matches. The additional mitigation measures proposed to encourage public transport will assist in minimising this effect as far as possible. These adverse impacts should be balanced against the beneficial socio-economic effects arising from the proposal.'

Well, this is not good enough. What does 'as far as possible' mean? Why have these, as well as lots of other negative impacts, not been costed?

Furthermore, why has there been the assumption that they 'should be balanced' against some inadequately analysed socio-economic benefits? Where are the figures to accompany this sort of comment in the Conclusions?

As an indication of how little account has been taken of the scale factors associated with the proposed changes, and the overall lack of coverage of issues that cause detriment or negative impacts, the Environmental Statement contains in its Summary & Conclusion the following key points:

Paragraph C8.5: in relation to local air quality 'No mitigation measures are required'.

Paragraph C8.6: comments 'In terms of noise and vibration, it is considered that crowd noise from the additional sporting events would have a negligible impact.....

There are no further mitigation measures that are required other than those considered or already implemented'. (My bold)

Paragraph C8.7: comments in conclusion from the ES that 'The proposed variation to the event cap to allow THFC to use Wembley Stadium for the 2017-18 will bring significant additional expenditure and employment to Wembley and its surrounding area'. (my bold)

Finally, in my view the analysis done for this Environmental Statement, which is a crucial input into any decision as to whether to allow the Planning Application 17/0368 to get approval, is not sufficiently robust to form the basis for any decision.

There are sufficient problems, gaps and inconsistencies in its coverage to require a further and better piece of work to be undertaken and provided in writing to the Brent Council Planning Department before any decision is taken.

The impact on the geographical area close to the Stadium of the proposed changes embodied in the Planning Application is so considerable that this information must be supplied.

Meanwhile Haringey Council has submitted its support for full capacity matches to be played at Wembley.

Leisure Services, Haringey Council, Alexandra House, 10 Station Road, Wood Green, London, N22 7TR 

Haringey Council Parks & Leisure Services support the application for Tottenham Hotspur to play all of its games at Wembley at full capacity.

We have seen considerable benefits for our community from Tottenham Hotspur's work in our Borough with their Foundation having spent time for example working with employers in the area, the Job Centre as well as in schools across the area.

Through an increase in the number of people attending and the size of the events, we believe there will be increased opportunities for local business, greater employment benefits on events days and a general bump to the local economy.

Additionally, having engaged with the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation, we are pleased that this application outlines a further commitment to enhancing their programme of activity in the borough of Brent and expanding it during their year in the borough. Through this work, we believe there will be some real opportunities to develop employment and skills opportunities beyond just event days and not just in industries you would associate with Wembley Stadium or football. We look forward to working with them to develop these programmes.

With regard to the event's themselves, while event days do come with issues for the community, we believe from our own experience that the additional mitigation measures put in place to manage them at 90,000 will make them considerably better run events than we currently have at the stadium. We welcome the extra efforts being made by the Club and Wembley to address the issues which arise regardless of the stadium capacity and hope that by accepting this application we will see the benefit of those measures positively impacting the area on event days.

Strike at Ark Elvin Academy, Wembley, tomorrow

PICKET LINE - Thursday 16 March at Ark Elvin Academy, Cecil Avenue,Wembley, HA9 7DU.
7am onwards.

NUT, ATL and NAS/UWT members at Ark Elvin Academy will stage their  first day of strike action tomorrow against ten proposed redundancies -part of the fightback against government education cuts.

All those who are sympathetic to the strike are welcome to join the picket line.

Ark Elvin was formerly Copland High School and was forced to become an academy despite opposition from staff, parents and students.