Brent Cabinet members put on the spot by residents' questions. Detailed Q & A's here.

 Asking written questions of Brent Cabinet meetings is a chance for residents to air issues that directly concern them. Next week's Council Meeting has eight written questions and answers. The people who asked the questions have the opportunity to attend in person and ask a supplementary question, following up the answers received. The Cabinet member has two minutes to respond. You may like to suggest supplementary questions (one minute remember!) in the comments.

Next week's question cover:

1. The Council's upkeep of their estates

2. Collection of food waste & parking on North End Road, Wembley.

3. Lack of progress on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

4. Problematic Event Day traffic management.

5. Network Homes increasing service charges beyond what had been agreed with the Council.

6. Brent Council's actions on the requurements of the Building Safety Act.

7. Residents' opposition to Newland Court infill proposals.

 8. Brent Council action on Wealdstone Brook sewage & the finding of the polio virus in Brent's waterways.

 

The questions and answers can be found in the document below. Click bottom right corner for full page view.

The journey from Islamia Primary to Strathcona - what are the options?

 

 Strathcona Road - off Carlton Avenue East

Discussion around the potential move of Islamia Primary School from its Queens Park site to one in Preston, Wembley, (not Kingsbury) has centred around the difficulty of the journey for parents who live near the current site.

Here are some journey options I researched today as well as a video (above) of a site visit I made this afternoon.

By Tube (note the long walk that is along Carlton Avenue East) 44 minutes

 

A reader suggested this (could also be Bakerloo line) 

 

By bus even longer walk at the end (1 hr 14 mins)
 

Car journey (may be longer at peak school run time) 23 or 29 minutes

Cycling routes - pretty unlikely given lack of safe cycle paths  (37 or 39 minutes)
 

Practicalities regarding cycling or buses as a mode of travel leaves driving a car during school peak times or the tube journey.  The video shows Strathcona Road and the parking on it as well as the double yellow lines near the school so car travel, discouraged anyway on environmental grounds, is problematic.

Of course parents don't all live near the present school site but it would be essential to have some kind of travel assessment as part of the consultation. There is clearly a danger that some families will be excluded from attendance at the new site by the difficulties outlined and the cost.

Sofia Moussaoui, Islamia Chair of Governors, told the Cabinet meeting that approved consultation on the move, that they would look into ways of 'how the get them (parents and children) there.'

There will need to be an Equalities Impact Assessment as part of the consultation as the danger is that less well-off families will be excluded from the school because of the cost and difficulty of the journey. This could amount to discrimination.

Neither Yusuf Islam/Cat Steven, nor the Yusuf Islam Foundation, have responded to requests for a statement giving the reason for the eveiction order on the school. 

Note: Tube and Bus rotes from the TfL Plan a Journey website

Brent Council's Cecil Avenue Housing Scheme: Scrutiny - What Scrutiny?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The purpose of the committee, from Brent Council’s website.

 

In a guest post last May, I set out the efforts I’d made to get a proper explanation from the Council about why 152 of the 250 homes at the Council’s housing development on the former Copland School site in Wembley would be built for a “developer partner” to sell at a profit. And why only 37 of the remaining 98 homes (less than 15% of the site total) would be for “genuinely affordable” rent to Council tenants (with the other 61 being for shared ownership). 

 

I asked ‘Where is the Scrutiny?’ Proper scrutiny was needed, because all that Cabinet members and Officers would tell me was that it would not be viable to offer more affordable homes at Cecil Avenue. That answer did not appear to make sense! 

 

Illustration from Brent’s April 2021 Wembley Housing Zone “Soft Market Testing” exercise.

 

The Council already owned the site (so none of the high land costs they use to justify the “infill” schemes on existing Council estates). They already had millions in funding from the GLA for their “Wembley Housing Zone”, as well as £5.5m extra for this scheme. And they could borrow money for the construction from the Public Works Loans Board at historically low interest rates.

 

Of course, the Council would not let me (or any other citizen of the borough) see their “Viability” report, not even under the Freedom of Information Act, because it was “confidential”. But councillors on a Scrutiny Committee would be allowed to see it, and question the relevant Cabinet members and Council Officers about the figures; and about why Brent could not offer more affordable homes on this development for the families in housing need that they claim to be so keen to build “New Council Homes” for!

 

My old parody Brent publicity photo for its Cecil Avenue Council Housing scheme.

 

I’d been trying since a guest blog in January 2022 (“It looks bad. It looks wrong!”) to get one of Brent’s Scrutiny Committees to take a close look at the Cecil Avenue project. And I did manage to include this as part of in a deputation to the 9 March meeting of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee about the Poverty Commission Update report.

 

It took two months for the Council to provide a written (partial) reply to my deputation, by which time there had been local elections, and a new committee with a new Chair, Cllr. Rita Conneely. I wrote to her on 12 June, recommending that she include “Brent Council’s Cecil Avenue Housing Scheme” on her committee’s agenda for 19 July. I explained why, and said: 

 

‘Senior Council Officers and the Lead Member(s) involved do need to be put on the spot, to explain how they arrived at this apparent "giveaway" of much needed genuinely affordable Council homes, and if they can't give a satisfactory explanation, to come up with something better.’

 

Extract from minutes of the 9 March 2022 meeting of Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

 

I received no reply, but after the minutes of the 9 March meeting had been published with the agenda for the committee’s 19 July meeting, I wrote to Cllr. Conneely again. I pointed out that the written response to my deputation totally ignored my points on Cecil Avenue. The claims made at the 9 March meeting about moving forward on the Poverty Commission recommendations, and ‘all homes being ring-fenced as being at affordable levels of rent’ were also false. The 2020 Poverty Commission had recommended Social Rent level, and no New Council Homes were yet being built for Social Rent!

 

The Social Rent recommendation from the Brent Poverty Commission Report.

 

On 18 July, Rita Conneely replied to me, saying: ‘Many thanks for your follow up on this. I am looking into this & seeking relevant additional information for the committee & its members.’ She referred to this, under “Matters Arising”, when those minutes were considered at the 19 July meeting, and indicated that this would be dealt with when the committee met in September. 

 

I was looking out for the agenda for the 6 September meeting, and when it was published there was no mention of the Council’s Cecil Avenue housing scheme on it. Worse than that, this is what the minutes of the 19 July meeting showed:

 

Extract from the minutes of Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 19 July.

 

“None”! I wrote to Cllr. Conneely on 30 August, including a transcript of what she had said at the 19 July meeting (from the webcast, beginning at 3.35 minutes into the recording):

 

‘And then we’re going to do “Matters Arising”. After our paper (?), so we have received …. Prior to this meeting we received a deputation from one of our residents, Mr Philip Grant, in regards to a presentation which was made to this committee in our previous municipal year, on the Poverty Commission. We’ve received some further information from our, from the Housing Department, in regards to that which the committee will be looking at in future, and we’ll be commenting on any of our further recommendations at our September meeting.’

 

In my email I asked that the minutes should be corrected, and also wrote:

 

‘An opportunity to put the decision makers "on the spot" at the 19 July meeting was missed, but I was led to believe that this would be done at your September meeting. Please let me know how, and where on the agenda, you will be doing that, so that I can request to speak on that item, if appropriate.’

 

I heard nothing back from the Chair of the committee, but did receive a promise from its Governance Officer (who my email had been copied to) that the minutes would be corrected. The day before the 6 September meeting, the agenda was republished. There was still no mention on it of the Cecil Avenue housing scheme, but revised minutes showed:

 

Extract from the revised minutes of Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee’s 19 July meeting.

 

So what did happen on 6 September about the outstanding matters from my 9 March deputation, and especially the answers to the points I’d raised about the lack of genuinely affordable housing proposed for the Council’s Cecil Avenue development? There was no consideration by the committee, and no recommendations. This is a transcript (from the webcast, beginning at 1hour 8minutes and 25seconds into the recording) of the monologue from the Chair:

 

‘Next on my list – Minutes of the previous meeting. Does anybody have any challenges to the minutes of the previous meeting? [Pause – nothing heard] Lovely.

 

Matters Arising. I need to confirm that following a deputation that was received by this committee, historically, in the last municipal year as well actually. The deputation came from one of our residents, Mr Grant, and it was primarily regarding issues of affordability.

 

And I just want to flag in regard to that, as the Chair has received information which, er I’m sorry I’ve lost my …, I’ve received information which reassures us about the accuracy and the quality of the information that was presented to the Scrutiny Committee.

 

However, I do want to flag, a bit like my comment about acronyms earlier, affordability has a lot of different phrases now, and I think clarity in our meetings is important, both from us as councillors when we’re asking, that we’re clear what we are asking about, and that we try as best as possible to use the up-to-date and accurate terms when that information is being shared from officers.

 

So, we’d really, really appreciate an effort from all of us to keep meetings as clear and transparent as possible, so residents continue to be really as confident as possible in the information that is being shared. 

 

And again, just to reiterate that the issues of affordability in our housing stock is of serious concern to this committee, and the Community and Wellbeing Committee, and I know a lot of our residents as well. And I know the Cabinet of this Council as well. So, thank you all.’

 

Tucked away in that statement is the key sentence, which slammed the door shut on any consideration of the outstanding Cecil Avenue points (although that scheme is not mentioned by name):

 

‘I’ve received information which reassures us about the accuracy and the quality of the information that was presented to the Scrutiny Committee.’

 

What information was received? And what ‘information that was presented’ did it reassure “us” about? Did other committee members even see any of that information, or is “us” just the committee Chair? I think it’s fair to point out a lack of transparency here! 

 

And did you notice the hesitation before that sentence was read out? It certainly sounded as if Cllr. Conneely had to find the piece of paper that sentence was written down on – a carefully constructed form of words that prohibited any further discussion of this “matter arising” by committee members, without giving away any details of why that was the case. Did the Chair write those words herself (and if so who advised her on the best words to use), or was she just given the piece of paper by someone else, and told what she must say?

 

In my blog about this back in May, I said: ‘Brent’s Cabinet and Senior Council Officers do not want their Wembley Housing Zone proposals to be scrutinised.’ Well, they’ve got what they wanted, and Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee have allowed them to get away with it.

 

It’s not just on this issue that Brent’s Cabinet and Senior Officers seem to control what the committee scrutinises. A report to the Full Council meeting on 11 July, headed “Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee Chair’s Report”, but actually written by Council Officers and signed off by the then Assistant Chief Executive, included this section on the committee’s work plan for the year ahead:

 

Extract from item 11 on the Full Council meeting agenda, 11 July 2022.’

 

‘Scrutiny is the mechanism by which the Cabinet is held publicly to account.’ But if Brent’s Cabinet is telling the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee what subjects it can look at, those words are meaningless. 

 

Scrutiny – What Scrutiny?

 

Philip Grant.

Bridgewater development approved by Brent Planning Committee despite areas of non-compliance

Brent Planning Committee approved the revised schemes despite several areas of non-compliance with Brent Council's own guidance - the usual reasoning being the balance of benefits over disbenefits.

Only Cllr Michael Maurice voted against the application based on the shortfall of affordable housing and 3 bedroomed flats and the general design.

The issue of air quality on this busy road was not addressed  by the Committee or developer.

As Alperton ward councillor, Anton Georgiou, made a 5 minute contribution:

I always get a sense of déjà vu when addressing the Planning Committee. Every time I come here to oppose yet more dense development in my ward of Alperton, I do so on behalf of residents who are hugely frustrated and have simply had enough.

 

Affordability

 

I am not here to deny that young people like me, who were born in our borough, and have lived here our whole lives need places to live.

 

I am also not here to deny the fact that we continue to have a vast housing waiting list in Brent, which includes on it some of our most vulnerable residents.

 

That being said, I once again want to highlight that of the 173 units proposed in this development, only a fraction can be deemed realistically affordable, despite what the report states, with the vast majority being totally out of reach in terms of affordability for local people, let alone our most in need residents over the long term.

 

54 units are proposed at a London Affordable Rent level and the other 119 are shared ownership.

 

Shared ownership, as I am sure the Committee will agree, has huge pitfalls. Before approving more shared ownership schemes in Brent, we need further evidence that shared ownership is a genuinely affordable housing model. There are indicators that the most economically vulnerable are at most risk with shared ownership. It is one thing to deem units affordable at this stage, but as many already have unfortunately found out, there is no long-term guarantee of affordability. Particularly with no defined cap on rising rents on the percentage the shared-owner doesn’t ‘own’, coupled with the misery of ever increasing service charges and extra hidden costs like building repairs, the cost of lease extension, fees attached to stair-casing.

 

Don’t take my word for it, I highly recommend Committee members take a look at reports from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which go into detail about why Councils should be highly sceptical of shared ownership. In my opinion, we should be arguing against this broken housing model altogether.

 

This development also does not meet Brent’s 25% target for family sized units, as stated in the report – something that we really, really need in our borough. We do not need even more 1 to 2--bedroom boxes in the sky. Why do we have targets if we allow developers the room to always miss them?

 

Infrastructure

 

The proposed development is in an area that is experiencing intense development. The impact that this is already having on existing residents cannot be overstated. I have spoken to many families who have or are thinking about leaving Alperton because of nonstop development.

 

Planning decisions being by this Council are literally driving people out of our borough.

 

Despite the excessive amount of CIL, of which this development would contribute more to the pot, existing residents see very little done in terms of improvements to infrastructure in Alperton. In fact, we are seeing worsening standards in the area.

 

The meagre £50,000 ring fenced through section 106 contributions for One Tree Hill, will not touch the surface of ASB and other issues there. I speak from experience having seen how an NCIL bid worth over £100,000 to transform Alperton Sports Ground down the road, which had to be approved by Cabinet, did not even come close to addressing the concerns or desires of residents.

 

The recent loss of Alperton Bus Garage, a major, historic transport infrastructure site, just metres from the proposed development, has had a knock-on effect on local bus services. The concern that this would happen was brushed aside when the decision on that development was made.

 

I also note references to proximity to Alperton station and the Piccadilly Line in this report. In theory yes, it is a great asset that should be adequately serving local need. It does not. The infrequency of Piccadilly Line trains on the Alperton branch, when compared to the Heathrow one continues to be a major problem that results in huge backlogs at rush hour times. Despite recognition by all developers in the area that Alperton station is becoming a major travel hub that will be used by more local people the contribution towards step-free access by the developer is nowhere near enough to realise this aspiration.

                                                                           

Many of us have long highlighted the dire and dangerous state of local pavements. Metres from the proposed site on Bridgewater Road over 30% of paving slabs are regarded by Council Officers to be in need of repair and yet there is never enough resource to do essential remedial works. I find the response to a resident comment on this matter in the report particularly interesting, as it states “Community Infrastructure Levy funding could contribute towards works of this type”, which in my view and from my understanding of CIL would set a precedent.

 

Fundamentally, Alperton residents do not understand why more and more developments are being granted approval by this Committee whilst the state of local infrastructure is so bad.

 

Parking

 

A major issue we as Councillors have to contend with is the demand for parking provision in our wards. I can only reiterate how bad the situation is in Alperton, even more so in immediate areas surrounding new development.

 

There does not seem to be an overarching plan by the local authority to deal with inevitable increases in the number of vehicles on our roads. Existing residents are already contending with pressures on local parking provision as it stands – this development will make it worse. I do not believe the £80,000 contribution by the developer towards the implementation of a Controlled Parking Zone is a fix. The imposition of a CPZ without resident consent is wrong.

 

If we want to move away from reliance on car use, which I agree with, why is the Council not investing heavily in active travel infrastructure measures, like cycle lanes, alongside the approval of even more development in Alperton. It is short-sighted not to.

 

Conclusion

 

I appeal to every member of the Committee to really consider what this authority achieves by imposing yet more tower blocks in Alperton.

 

The focus of this Council should at this stage be to take stock, establish whether existing development has contributed to making our area better and gain a better awareness of the dangers of promoting shared ownership.

 

I strongly urge you to reject this application.  

 

Bridgewater Road, Alperton scheme back at Planning Committee tonight with amendments - are the homes 'truly affordable'?

The already consented scheme at the Westend Saab and Boyriven Textiles site in Bridgewater Road, Alperton will come back to Planning Committee tonight with changes.

The Committee is at 6pm and can be viewed HERE.

Officers' summarise the changes as:

The number of residential homes proposed is 173, compared to 124 in the consented scheme (an uplift of 49 homes). As with the consented scheme, all units would be provided as affordable housing in a policy-compliant mix of tenures. The scheme would secure 54 London Affordable Rented homes (the consented scheme secured 47 London Affordable Rented homes) and 119 intermediate homes (the consented scheme secured 77 intermediate homes).

· The amount of industrial floorspace proposed is 2,228sqm (GIA) compared to 1,878sqm in the consented scheme. It would continue to fall within use classes E(g)(ii) and E(g)(iii) as per the consented scheme.

· The bulk, scale and massing of the proposal would be altered, with the base element of the building increasing from one to two storeys and the lower point block (Block A) increasing in height from eleven to 13 storeys. Both the three-storey frontage building and the seven-storey central linking element at the rear would be removed, and the width and depth of both point blocks would be increased. The height of the taller Block B would remain at 19 storeys

 

 Given the recent discussion on Wembley Matters about the Brent Poverty Commission's view that the only rent truly afforable for Brent residents is council or social rent it is worth noting that 'affordable' home in this case  (54) actually refers to London Affordable Rent (higher than social rent) and the intermediate homes (1190 are actually shared ownership not considered affordable and with many drawbacks.

 

Remember Cllr Rita Conneely  recently told Scrutiny Committee to be very careful about terminology, especially as regards 'affordable' housing - transparency and ready understandability by the public is essential!

In addition to the main report there is a Supplementary of interest to Clear Air Advocates. I have especially highlighed on questionable paragraph.

 

A further review of baseline conditions and residual effects was conducted and is summarised below. In terms of baseline conditions, an additional 12 months of published air quality data has become available since the preparation of the Air Quality Assessment, across the full 2021 calendar year. However, the impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak upon air quality, due to nationwide changes in transport patterns and pollutant concentrations, mean that data from 2021 would not be representative of baseline conditions and so should not be used for assessment purposes. Therefore the approach taken in the Air Quality Assessment, to use 2019 as a baseline year, is considered to remain the most robust means of assessment. The newly available data would not impact the results, conclusion or proposed mitigation.

In terms of residual impacts on air quality, the predicted demolition and construction effects would not be affected by the amendments to the plans and would remain insignificant. In terms of operational effects, relocating two residential units from the first floor to the second floor would reduce the exposure of future residents to poor air quality, in line with the expectations of the Air Quality Positive approach.

 

Conversely, relocating the residents lounge to the ground floor could result in future residents being exposed to poor air quality. Mitigation measures such as nitrogen oxide filtration would be required to prevent significant health
impacts on residents using the lounge.

It is likely that these mitigation measures would not support windows in the lounge being openable. However, it should be noted that the residents lounge is not required by policy but is proposed as additional to the private internal space of residents’ homes and the private and communal external amenity space provided.

Residents could choose whether to make use of it, and would be less likely to use it for prolonged periods of time compared to their own homes and the external spaces. In these circumstances, it is considered that non-openable windows would be acceptable.

The necessary mitigation measures could be secured by the following proposed additional condition:

“Condition 29: Prior to first occupation or use of the development, further details of air quality mitigation measures required to ensure acceptable air quality levels in the residents’ lounge, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable standard of air quality for residents is achieved within the development.”

The proposed scheme also delivers significant planning benefits over and above those secured in the consented scheme, principally the increased number of affordable homes and increased amount of industrial floorspace. Although the development has not been demonstrated to be Air Quality Positive, these factors,taken together with the fallback position and proposed mitigation measures outlined above, are considered to outweigh the harm caused by this limited conflict with policy in this case.

Amendments to plan numbers (Condition 2):
Minor amendments to the list of approved plans are proposed.

These reflect the submission of an existing site plan to aid CIL calculations, and minor alterations to the elevational drawings including amendments to fenestration detailing. These alterations would have a negligible impact on the overall design quality and appearance of the proposal and are not considered to
require reconsultation

 

Recommendation: Remains to GRANT PERMISSION subject to conditions and s106 obligations as set out in the Committee Report and the additional Condition 29 proposed above

Brent Cabinet approve consultation on moving Islamia Primary School from Queens Park to Kingsbury despite parental opposition

Islamia Primary School parents presented a petition opposing the move of the school to the Strathcona site in Kingsbury at today's Cabinet meeting.  Public space in the meeting room was limited but 15 or so parent supporters squeezed in to back up Jamad Guled as she spoke to the petition:

 

The Yusuf Islam Foundation has issued  Islamia Primary school with an eviction notice. For the past couple of years Brent Council and Islamia's  governing body have been in talks in regard to moving the school to South Kenton which is over 6 miles away from Queen's Park.

 

Last June the Governing body  informed parents that  the decision was made  to move and  it was just being finalised. No mention of a consultation.

 

Panicked parents had to write to the council and were reassured  no decision was made yet and the school had a statutory duty to consult parents. 

 

Unfortunately, this attempt to mislead the parents created a lot of unnecessary  confusion,  frustration and mistrust.

 

 This petition was signed by 509 stakeholders, this undeniably demonstrates that the local community is against such move and worried about the future.

 

A change like this requires a serious discussion around issues like :

 

1) affordability especially since we are in the midst of a cost of living crisis ( low income families, single parent households and those with work and caring responsibilities will be left behind)

 

2)accessibility ( how will children with mobility problems,  children with sensory difficulties  or families with multiple young children travel safely  to a location with no viable parking facilities nor lifts)  they will be left behind as well.

 

3) higher population density ( how will local residents cope with increased traffic and people?

 

4) the environmental impact of  increased number of vehicles driving from different locations and accessing a small area like the Strathcona site.

 

5)safety concerns when hundreds of young children will  have to travel to a school  located in an industrial area near a car repair centre,and will also be accessing busy train station platforms every day at peak times.

 

Parents demand that  an equality and impact assessment is carried  out to protect the most vulnerable families.

 

We must bear in mind that some families, no matter the sacrifice required will choose to travel. How is the council going to protect and support those families? 

 

Others will choose to home-school.

 

This will make monitoring children's attainment and safety difficult and put further pressure on services required to monitor  and safeguard children.

 

This representation  is an opportunity to voice our anguish and worry as parents.  It aims to shed a light on the blatant discrimination this decision will enable.

 

It is our hope that this will be an opportunity to rise above the mighty  power afforded to some  VA schools which make it extremely hard for parents to be heard, to enforce  accountability and demand transparency. 

 

The truth  is, we are where we are because many opportunities were missed  over the years. Should the children be the scapegoats for those?

 

We are calling upon the council to finally  listen and act in the best interest of Islamia's children. 

 

We are tired of being permanently in limbo and kept in the dark.

 

 Everyone here knows that Strathcona is not a fair nor safe solution and should have never been an option made available to  Islamia's Governing body. If the governing body cannot uphold its duty of care, then the council must  step in, and safeguard children's futures by withdrawing this inadequate offer and  find a local solution.In the second part of my petition l have discussed the option of the new school being built in South Kilburn.

 

I firmly believe this is the best  solution. The council has a duty to use taxpayers where needed most.

 

 Carlton Vale and Kilburn Park have been struggling with numbers for years and cannot fill the new  2FE school being built. They  currently have respectively 77 and 76 children on roll. For a capacity of 230 and 240.

 

2022’s national census predicts a further decline in birth rates  therefore there  will be no shortage of primary schools places in the foreseeable future. So the council cannot invoke pressing needs.

 

 Government data shows that schools in the area are all operating well below capacity and can easily accommodate children from Carlton Vale and Kilburn Park when their school is demolished. 

 

That will be a like for like solution that will not disrupt their lives.

 

Islamia's children  will not be afforded the same consideration whether the school moves or shuts down  and some children will have to join neighbouring schools. 

 

Islamia's children will lose the faith element In their education .And faith matters.

 

 How can the council justify earmarking the new school for two empty schools when an oversubscribed and popular  one is at risk of shutting down? Who will safeguard Islamia's  children travelling 6 miles for compulsory education?

 

 Let us not forget that Islamia is a Brent school.

 

Sofia Moussaoui, Chair of Governors at Islamia, also spoke.  She said that she had seen the petition and the Governing Board would consider if the proposal for South Kilburn was viable but the Council had said the site was not available. Anyway it  would not have been available for 4 years and the school had only 2 years  in which to find an alternative site.  The school had been under pressure in terms of space, occupying a split site that was supposed to be temporary, but they had been there for 14 years.

 

She said, 'Ideally  we will take parents with us.  We will look into how to get them there. The main thing is to get families behind us.'

 

Leader of the Council, Muhammed Butt said that the Council would take on parents' broad concerns  over the viability of the proposal but the South Kilburn site was not an option. It was a long-long term part of the South Kilburn Development Master Plan.

 

Cllr Grahl, Cabinet Lead for Schools,  said that she recognised that the Council had invested in other sites but unfortunately South Kilburn was tied up as part of a development. Eviction had come at a time when no other sites were available in Queens Park.  An effort had gone into the Strathcona project and the Council will work to ensure a smooth transition for parents and children. The consultation would enable parents to contribute and the Council will look at how to facilitate access particularly for children with special needs.

 

Cllr Butt added that the petitioners will be able to have a say through the consultation. The main issue is to secure the futuure of the school working with the Governing Board and the Trust. He personally had been out to look for alternative sites and Strathcona was the only one that can be developed as a permanent site.

 

Perplexingly no questions were asked about why the Yusuf Islam Foundation had evicted the voluntary aided primary school while the private secondary schools remained. No reasons were given in the Cabinet papers and neither Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) or the Foundation have replied to the question, 'Why the eviction notice ?' sent on Twitter, Facebook and email.

 Social media reactions:

 The report that clears the way for a formal consultation on the move was approved by Cabinet.