Kids sing against school funding cuts - 'Schools just wanna have funds'

More residents associations oppose Spur's Wembley Stadium application

Wembley Park Residents' Association is oppposing the Spur's planning application to increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium. This is noteworthy as it covers many residents of flats recently built in the Quintain regeneration areas around the stadium.

Residents in Kings Drive, Wembley (next to the old Brent Town Hall) have added their voice to the objections:

Objection on behalf of Kings and Carmel Courts Residents' Association (170 Flats on Kings Drive Wembley)

Kings and Carmel Courts Resents' Association object to the planning application 17/0368 on the following grounds:

1) Parking: Kings Drive is in the Event Day Parking Zone and whilst the permits required to park in the road limit the cars parked on event days it is becoming apparent that more cars have permits during recent events. The number of cars parking is steadily increasing and the application does not address this important issue which impacts on the daily lives of those living on Kings Drive. Consideration should be given to permits having an expiry date and residents having to reapply to ensure that those parking are doing so on a valid permit. The cost of this must not be passed on to the local residents and should be borne by the Stadium or Council.

Kings Drive is already used for daily commuter parking, the new local schools and ASDA shoppers which impacts heavily on residents who wish to park close to their home. Event Day parking used to weed out these users allowing residents to park easily but this is no longer the case.

2) Anti-social behaviour: Kings and Carmel Courts have extensive gardens adjoining the corner of Forty Lane with Kings Drive. Fans use these private grounds to throw litter, picnic, drink and urinate in. This is unacceptable behaviour and furthermore the Leaseholders of Kings and Carmel Court then have to pay for the clean-up operation after event days. This is particularly bad when rival teams are playing against each other and customers from the Torch and local supermarkets selling alcoholic drinks sit along the walls and grass banks on Kings Court.

The planning application does nothing to address the disruption to local people yet it seeks to impose further disturbance and expense to residents.

Residents need to be protected from the invasion of drunk fans who have little care for other peoples' property and the Stadium/Council need to take responsibility protecting private property from trespassers and cover the cost of all associated cleaning.

Please note that Kings and Carmel Courts Residents' Association is known to Brent Council however it was not consulted on this proposal.

We are happy to meet with the Council or Stadium to suggest ways in which Event Days can be managed in an acceptable way to the residents of Kings and Carmel Courts.

Transport planner critiques Planning Officer's report on Spur's application

From the comments on Brent Council Planning Portal made by a local resident:
 

-->

I am a local resident and am a transport planner/modeller by profession (hence the detailed questions).

I strongly oppose this application and appeal to all on the committee to consider the people they are representing. I went to the community engagement session with the FA & Wembley Stadium (which was very POORLY advertised just fyi) and met the officials. They were quite blunt and open with the fact that this was a purely commercial deal for them. They struggled to explain any benefits to the local community, didn't propose any reasonable solutions (apart from improved signage) and at that point in time, the application documents were not online for my scrutiny.

The documents are now available and here are some comments and questions from me to the applicant and their consultant;

With reference to the Environment Statement, Chapter D (Transport):

D5.23 - I note that the applicant says there will be a 'negligible' effect on the London Underground. I would like to challenge that.

D5.20 says that events will take place outside peak hours on a weekday. This is usually kickoff at 7:45pm according to my knowledge of football. Earlier on in the chapter, it was found that spectators "make their way to the event 2 hours before" - this means between 5:45pm and 7:45pm i.e. the PM peak hours. I have personally been travelling home from work in the city in the PM peak hour during a midweek THFC match and to say additional midweek matches will have a negligible impact on the tube is grossly incorrect. There is no data or modelling or criteria that I can see that defines this 'negligible effect' conclusion. Have any station crowding, egress, ingress models been developed? Have any general Railplan model's been run? If so I would like to see the results and the accompanying criteria.

(And to echo other comments from neighbours, the LU network just about copes in the AM & PM peaks on normal days let alone weekday PM peak event days! The Transport Chapter emphasises the push for people to use PT to get to the games...but this is inherently flawed as the PT network is already heaving).

D5.28 - I quote: "However, as the period of time where Olympic Way will be congested will likely be limited to one hour and 30 minutes for an average of three additional days per month, it is considered that this is a negligible effect." The ingress 1hour 30minutes of congestion has been ignored here. This brings the total congestion to 3 hours per event. When we spoke to the Wembley Stadium rep at the community engagement session, they said there would be measures in place to allow this north/south movement for residents and locals to be improved. I have personally be stuck several times trying to just get from Lidl to my home.

D6.36 - "To promote and support the use of measures which reduce the need for travel, like video-conferencing and flexible working" - what? This doesn't really apply to Wembley Stadium spectators (and probably 90% of staff who need to be there physically!)

D.39 - You need to get Google Maps and Waze on board because lots of people use their phone applications for navigation rather than TomTom these days. Getting TomTom on board simply isn't enough.

There are no numbers to quantify the delays to buses and the local baseline traffic. Has modelling been undertaken and can I see the results, please?

The metric used in the ES to identify minor/major/adverse/beneficial isn't clear. Please provide this. We also need to see the empirical modelling evidence.

With the Brent/Quintain regeneration plans, the numbers are probably far higher than when Wembley Stadium got approval many years ago. This needs to be taken into account before any cap is lifted.

As a local resident and a transport planner, I am abhorred by this application. We manage as residents with the current number of event days as they are sporadic (maybe twice a month?) and varied. Regular football matches will change this completely. I won't repeat in detail what others have said about anti-social behaviour, litter, drunkenness, transport pressures, safety, children, no 'home' affiliation etc but I echo those points as well.

There is no mention of Chelsea wanting the stadium for 2018/2019 in this application but rumours are already going around about this. Approving THFC this would set precedent and it would be a disaster for the up-and-coming regenerated Wembley Park/Brent.

I urge the council to reject this application and to apply pressures to Wembley Stadium & THFC to mitigate the 50,000 spectator matches that are likely to still be held.

Residents, locals and family need to come above corporations, money and commercial pressures.

I and many other will be attending the committee meeting.
In addition to my previous comments on the Transport Statement, I wanted to add that if their current/old stadium has a capacity of around 36,000 and their new one is "only" going to seat around 61,000 they can surely manage with the current limit of 50,000.

Pure profit for a few at the detriment of a whole community and area is unjustifiable.

I have already raised my concerns regarding this application and the Environmental Statement in a previous comment.

I am trying to get hold of the case officer to raise the issue that none of us at Danes and Empire Court have received letters about this application. Brent Planning told me on the phone that 20,000 letters have been sent out to neighbours. We have over 300 flats on North End Road, less than 5 minutes walk from the stadium and we have NOT received letters about this application. I found out about this through curiosity and some Google searching about why Spurs were playing here this season, because of all the grief it was causing us.

The neighbourhood consultation closes in less than ONE week, and it is unacceptable that we were excluded from being informed about it. I appreciate there is no restriction in making a comment on here, but how are my neighbours supposed to make their comments if they HAVEN'T been informed about the application in the first place?

Unacceptable.

I look forward to hearing from the case officer, and to receiving letters from the Council/Applicant very soon. The neighbourhood consultation will probably need to be extended to allow residents on North End Road to comment.

Incompetence dogs Brent Council's management of Tottenham Hotspur's planning application

Confusion or incompetence has continued to dog the Spur's Wembley Stadium planning application which is due to be heard on Thursday.  Readers will already know that the Council's planning portal for this application has been down several times leaving residents unable to submit their applications, when it was working many 'Object' comments were classified as 'Neutral' by the software and had to be corrected, many residents claimed not to have received letters from the Council about the application.

 On Friday I received a letter from Regeneration and Growth posted on 16th March which told me that planning documents for the application should be available on the Council website by February 7th.  Later that day I received an emailed letter from Regeneration and Growth which included details about Thursday's meeting:

The application will be formally considered at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 23 March, 2017. The meeting will be held at Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ starting at 7.00pm. You are welcome to attend the meeting and listen to the proceedings. It is possible to speak to the Committee subject to the restrictions set out in the Council's Standing Order. These provide for one objector and/or one supporter of the application to speak. The Chair has the discretion to increase this to two people from each side. In doing this, the Chair will give priority to occupiers nearest to the application site or representing a group of people. To address the committee you must speak to Democratic Services at least one clear day before the meeting and arrive at the Brent Civic Centre at least 15 minutes before the meeting starts. Please telephone the Democratic Services Officer, Mr Joe Kwateng, on 020 8937 1354 during office hours. 

On the Council website Planning Committee agenda Mr Kwateng is given as the contact but no email or telephone number is given. LINK

The only problem with all this is that Mr Kwateng is on leave until Wednesday, the day before the meeting. Will a 9am phone call on Wednesday qualify as one clear day?  Additionally the Council website advertises the Planning Committee as starting at 6.30pm not 7pm. There is a pre-meeting for councillors at 6pm. When I emailed the officer named as the author of the letter about this discrepancy on Friday I got this response:

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I need to first identify what the correct time of the meeting is, and we will then send out clarification to all those who have been invited.

I have heard nothing further...

Remember, this is an application involving a Premier League football team and the country's National Stadium which will have a profound impact on the quality of life of local residents. Doesn't look good does it?

It now seems likely that, as with other Wembley planning applications that the Chair, Cllr Sarah Marquis, will step down on grounds of having an interest (Marquis represents residents in Barnhill ward which is close to the stadium) and her place will be taken by Cllr Agha (Welsh Harp ward).

An issue that emerged at today's residents' meeting with Barry Gardiner (MP for Brent North) is the claim that agreeing to remove the cap on attendance at stadium matches will be to the advantage of Brent Council and council tax payers because Tottenham will then be liable to pay for the additional policing and litter clearing involved. If the cap remains those costs for the 22 extra events will remain with the Council.  This is not a material planning consideration so will not come up on Thursday but clearly more detail on this would be of great interest to residents when they weigh up the pros and cons.

I have heard that Cllr Butt, Leader of Brent Council, and councillor for Tokyngton ward in which the stadium sits, wanted events to be capped at 61,000, the capacity of Tottenham's new stadium at White Hart Lane, but this was turned down by Tottenham:

The Council initially suggested that the maximum capacity of the proposed additional event is reduced to 61,000 (the capacity of the new stadium at White Hart Lane). However, the applicant was not willing to propose reduction as this would result in a part-full stadium with only parts of the upper tier being occupied by fans, which they did not consider would achieve an appropriate atmophere(sic). Instead, following discussions with Council Officers, the total number of additional high capacity (up to 90,000 people) events has been reduced from 31 to 22 in order to reduce the number of instances where additional impact will occur.

I understand that the deadline for Tottenham to sign up for the stadium deal is at the end of March so things are looking very tight, especially as the many omissions and claimed lack of due diligence in the officers' report as well as the problems referred to above, could give grounds for the Committee to defer the application.

It is clear that mitigation of the impact on residents will feature on Thursday and there are likely to be demands for strict conditions to be attached to any planning consent regarding crowd control, traffic regulation, public transport over-crowding (including actual trains rather than just station access and egress), effective policing - including enforcement of the drinking ban, provision of temporary public toilets, and clean up of local streets after events (not just those nearest the stadium).

It is interesting to note that the Metropolitan Police made no comment on the planning application but the British Transport Police raised concerns based on the increased number of supporters compared to Tottenham's existing ground. They cited the number of away fans and the potential extra policing requirement was estimated at £58.3k.

Community organisation sets up school patrols after recent killings

This is an interesting development after the recent deaths of young people amidst much concern in the community about the need for action.

Labour and Tory MPs unite on concerns over Spurs at Wembley Stadium

Extract from the Planning Officers' Report

 

Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent North – Recognition of the significant regeneration in and around the area. Queried why there is a need for Tottenham Hotspur to play games at Wembley’s full capacity. Acknowledged economic benefits, but also the impact of vehicles on local residents and traffic and that an event day can be an unpleasant experience for local residents. The increase in the number of matches will prove a real strain on local living, and it is important that residents have their say. Concern that there can be violence associated with the crowd, and anti-social drinking in the street, lack of toilets and litter. Concern that standards of street cleaning has deteriorated and that the police do not have the resources to combat on-street drinking. Seeking further measures to mitigate existing number of event day impacts.

Bob Blackman, MP for Harrow East – Concerns raised about the impact of parking at Stanmore, and the proposed additional events would amplify this. There will also be additional pressure on public transport. Match dates and kick off times can vary, often at short notice which can have severe impacts on his constituents. It is not clear how this will be mitigated. Suggestion that the concerts (which have the most impact on local residents) could be curtailed. Concern that this sets a precedent for Chelsea FC to use the stadium for a further three years.

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.