Affinity working on water supply interruption in HA and NW9 postcode after burst water main in The Mall

 

Interruption to you water supply - HA0, HA1, HA2, HA3, HA7, HA8, HA9, HP3, NW9

Tuesday 25th October 2022

No water in postcode areas: HA0, HA1, HA2, HA3, HA7, HA8, HA9, HP3, NW9

We’re really sorry you haven’t got any water. We’ve been made aware of a burst water main on The Mall, Harrow which may be causing this.

What we’re doing

Our technician is on their way to your area to investigate and get your water flowing again soon.

What you can do

Until we’ve sorted this, please avoid using your:

• Washing machine
• Dishwasher
• Electrical appliances that use water

If you still have water, we recommend you put some in your kettle or fridge for drinking in case your water needs switching off for the repair.

We’re really sorry about this, we’re working to get your water back to normal as soon as possible.

We added this message at 22:40 and we'll update it again after 00:40

 

Register for text alerts/updates HERE

 

 

Schools Adjudicator finds Islamia Primary School admission criterion that favours children of alumni (parents who previously attended the school) is unlawful

The Office of the Schools Adjudicator oversees the fairness of the admissions procedures of schools. They become particularly important when schools are over-subscribed (have more applications for places than are available). For most primary schools in Brent the local authority is the admissions authority and sets the criteria. Faith schools are their own admissions authority, and this is the case for Islamia Primary School.

 

The Adjudicator in a Determination published on October 21st has considered a referral by 'A parent' claiming discrimination in criteria c and d of Islamia's criteria for admission when over-subscribed.

 

The adjudicator found that Criterion c (see below) was neither directly or indirectly race discriminatory, but that Criterion d (below) was indirectly discriminatory under Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 and thus unlawful and will have to be removed or reviewed by the school.

 

“Over-subscription Criteria 

 

1. If Islamia Primary School receives fewer applications than the Published Admission Number, then all those applying will be offered places.

2. If Islamia Primary School receives more applications than the Published Admission Number, after children with an Education, Health Care Plan in which Islamia Primary School is named have been admitted, admissions will be dealt with by applying the following criteria in the order set out below:

a. Looked after children, previously looked after Muslim children and internationally adopted previously looked after Muslim children who meet the religious practice test.

b. Children of Muslim staff where the member of staff has been employed at Islamia Primary School (IPS) for two or more years at the time at which the application for admission to Islamia Primary School (IPS) is made or the member of staff is recruited to fill a vacant post for which there is a staff shortage.

c. Muslim children of at least one parent who has reverted [converted] to Islam (not born in the Islamic faith). Up to a maximum of 25% (15 children) of the published admissions number.

d. Muslim children of parents who are former pupils of the school (alumni) since it became a Voluntary Aided school (post May 1998). Up to a maximum of 10% (6 children) of the published admissions number.

e. Muslim children who have a sibling at Islamia Primary School (IPS) or a sibling who is due to be attending this school at the proposed date of admission of the applicant.

f. Other Muslim children who meet the religious practice test who do not have a sibling at Islamia Primary School (IPS) or a sibling who is due to be attending this school at the Proposed date of admission of the applicant.

g. Any other looked after children, previously looked after children or internationally adopted previously looked after children.

h. Any other children based upon distance from the school.” 

 

It is worth reading the Determination in full for detailed discussion about what constitutes discrimination and the interplay between race and religion. LINK  Of interest is the claim that converts are a vulnerable group because of the prejudice they encounter both from non-Muslims and Muslims.  The parent ('Referrer' in legalese) argued that in listing the Criterion on converts high in the priority list it discriminated against groups where both parents were 'born' Muslim and gave Somalis as an example). 

 

The Adjudicator writes:

 

The question here is whether there is an exact correspondence between, on the one hand, the overt reason why a pupil would not fall within the criterion, namely that they do not have a Muslim convert parent, and, on the other hand, their race (taken here to be Somali). 

 

I do not consider that there is an exact correspondence of the sort required. I appreciate that the Referrer has contended that at least the great majority (if not all) of Muslim Somalis will have parents who are born Muslim, as opposed to having a parent at least one of whom is a convert. However, first, the material before me does not indicate that that is invariably the position as a matter of fact: in paragraph 13 of the original Objection, the Referrer states rather that there are “virtually” none who convert; and in paragraph 5 of the same document, it is accepted that there may be a “handful” of converts in Somalia and only “probably” none in the UK. I have not overlooked the Referrer’s contention that no Somalis in the local area will have a convert parent, but that contention needs to be seen in light of the way that the position is described elsewhere. 

 

Secondly, even on the assumption that, as a matter of fact, no Somali child who might wish to attend the school would have a convert parent, that does not mean that there is the exact correspondence required for direct discrimination to occur. It is plainly possible, however seldom it may occur, for the parent of a Somali child to be a Muslim convert. Any Somali may have a child by a person not born Muslim, which person may be a Muslim convert. The overt criterion and the claimed race-based criterion are therefore dissociable. On that basis also, there is not exact correspondence. 

 

It follows that I do not consider that criterion c is directly race discriminatory. 

 

The Adjudicator quotes the school's justification for the criteria which reveals the influence of Yusuf Islam on the voluntary-aided (receives funding from the state) school:

 

“The Yusuf Islam Foundation which is the umbrella body of Islamia Primary School was founded by Yusuf Islam formerly known as Cat Stevens who reverted to Islam at the height of his music career. Despite being a celebrated and highly respected individual he is fully aware of the vulnerability of reverts as they face hardships and challenges not just from their heritage community but also unfortunately, from the Muslim community. 

 

Many studies have been carried out which show the negative impact on reverts when they become isolated and no longer have access to a support network. 

 

Furthermore, support for reverts has always been an important aspect of the admissions process at Islamia Primary School as it was and remains an aspect that is very close to the heart of the Yusuf Islam Foundation. It is nothing new. 

 

Reverts were considered a priority group with a specific number of points awarded to the applicant in this category. It was only when the point system was extensively reviewed and eventually terminated that the revert category was ‘lost’ in the process and has now been reinstated as part of the admission policy, as opposed to a measure of practice in the supplementary information form. 

 

Just as the Admissions Code sets out to protect and positively discriminate in favour of vulnerable members of society such as for example Looked after Children, in the same vein the Admissions Authority has long been aware of the vulnerability of reverts and their children and seeks to support them. Unquestionably, the Admissions Authority aims to follow the Code to the letter but also has an obligation to the Yusuf Islam Foundation. 

The reasoning is that by attending Islamia Primary School the pupils who obtain a place through this criterion will be able, with their family to build up a strong network of friends and overall support”. 

 

 Regarding Criterion d the Adjudicator writes:

 

I sympathise with the school’s wish to engender a school community which is supportive and understanding of some of the difficulties it faces, and I am prepared to find that this aim or these aims are legitimate. However, I do not consider that they are strong enough reasons to justify the race-based disadvantage I have identified above to which Criterion d gives rise. 

 

I do not find that the children of alumni have any particular vulnerability such as that of the children of converts. If anything, the children of people settled in England for longer are more likely to have a more stable social and economic position than those of more recently settled groups. The criterion provides for a maximum of ten per cent of the PAN, six pupils, to be selected. Those 6 pupils will ‘displace’ six other pupils into a lower criterion who will tend to come from more recently settled racial groups who are more likely to be vulnerable. 

 

I find that Criterion d is indirectly discriminatory under section 19 of the EqA2010.

I note that the Referrer alleges that the school’s motivation for giving priority to the children of alumni is that such parents are more likely to make financial contributions to the school. I do not find that this is the case. I accept the school’s assurance on this point.

In light of the finding of indirect discrimination, oversubscription Criterion d is unlawful and will need to be removed or revised to become lawful. It is not necessary therefore for me to consider the other issues raised by the Referrer in relation to Criterion d. 

 

The Adjudicator discusses the relative priority of the Criteria but concludes that this is something the Admissions Authority can decide:

 

I accept that there are good reasons for giving siblings a high priority. It is difficult for parents to manage two or more primary aged children who do not go to the same school. Families move and may live further from a particular school when a sibling reaches an age to apply for a place. But that does not mean it is unlawful for the school to afford greater priority under the convert criterion than under the sibling criterion. There is no clearly “right or wrong” order in that respect. As is stated in paragraph 1.10 of the Code “It is for admission authorities to decide which criteria would be most suitable to the school according to the local circumstances”. In this case I have found that Muslim children who meet the convert condition are a vulnerable group in the school’s local area worthy of particular priority.

 

 

 

 

Friends of the Welsh Harp launch fundraiser for a bee garden and refurbished public bird hide - details

 

From Friends of the Welsh Harp 

The Welsh Harp is a Local Nature Reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest. It's a beautiful and wild blue-green gem hidden in North West London. For so many years it was largely neglected... but not any more!

 

Friends of the Welsh Harp is excited to announce our latest projects for the Welsh Harp:

 

1. BEE GARDEN

 

 

This small site is currently frequented by rats and owing to the compacted soil, can't support any plants. Our plan is to transform it into a beautiful bee garden.

 

Imagine this... 

 

A sloping bee bank, taking advantage of the site’s south facing position, that provides a habitat for wild mining bees and friendly wasps. To the left, a log pile. Dead and decaying wood provides vital habitat for a range of wildlife. To the front of the bee bank, native plants such as Knapweeds, Wild Carrot, Field Scabious, Chicory, Musk Mallow, Weld etc provide ground coverage and floral interest, whilst some Common Gorse provides native shrubbery at either end. Informative, simple signage explains these features and why they’re important. All this has transformed a dead patch of land into a thriving habitat for insects, birds, and small mammals. Plus, it's gorgeous to look at!

 

 

2. BIRD WATCHING HAVEN

 

 

The public bird hide at the Welsh Harp is subject to graffiti, littering, and loitering. The resulting space is intimidating for many. We want to provide a welcoming, exciting space for everyone to enjoy. Our solution is: huge street art 'stickers', a bin, gabion baskets at the entrance, and signage to increase footfall and awareness.

 

Imagine this...

 

A 'secret' birdwatching hide, nestled away from a busy urban environment, that looks out over a wetland which is home to many exciting birds. Sitting on the inviting bright red bench, and looking around, you can see a lot of cool street art - but with an ecological twist. Cormorants, grebes, terns and other bird of the Welsh Harp adorn the walls. There's always been graffiti here, but this new stuff is not offensive or rude, it's informative, interesting, and edgy. More and more people end up bringing their flasks of tea and coffee here, while they try out birdwatching with a pair of old binoculars. Others bring their children, hoping to stir within them a wonder of the natural world. Everyone agrees the birdwatching hide is a special place, and can't believe such a place exists in London! Outside of the hide, the street art 'stickers' are made from wildflower paper, so when it rains, it spreads seeds over time. Gabion baskets have been placed at the entrance, which adds to the invitation.

 

Thank you if you've made it to here. If you think the Welsh Harp deserves some love, please hit the 'Give Now' button. We welcome contributions of all sizes!

 

GIVE NOW
 

Forthcoming Brent Connects Meetings for your area via zoom Oct 31st to Nov 17th

 From Brent Council

Brent Connects are area-based forums covering the five areas of the borough; Harlesden, Kilburn, Kingsbury & Kenton, Wembley and Willesden.

These meetings are an opportunity for you to meet your local ward councillors, meet other members of your community and have your say on things that matter most to you. You will be influencing decision-making and have the chance to ensure that your voice is heard.

Brent Connects meetings will be held online via Zoom for each area:

• Harlesden - Monday 31 October from 6pm to 8pm
• Kilburn - Friday 4 November from 6pm to 8pm
• Kingsbury & Kenton - Thursday 10 November from 6pm to 8pm
• Wembley - Thursday 17 November from 6pm to 8pm
• Willesden - Tuesday 15 November from 6pm to 8pm

The next meetings will focus on the upcoming round of funding for community cash, the budget consultation and a local topic specific to your area.

We want Brent Connects to create space for local communities to come together to discuss the things that matter most to them and to work collaboratively with the council and its partners to develop and test new ideas for better outcomes for Brent residents.

Councillor Fleur Donnelly-Jackson,

Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Culture 

 

Register your place and find out more about Brent Connects.

Appeal to London Assembly following Ealing Council's approval of Twyford Abbey application for bulding on Metropolitan Open Land

Ealing Planning Committee's approval of the development at Twyford Abbey is subject to referral to the GLA.  Local resident Kiran Rao has written to Green Assembly Member, Sian Berry, in an individual capacity on behalf of West Twyford residents, setting out the case against the development.

 

Twyford Abbey in Ealing is perceived to have, ‘significant public heritage, environment and community benefits.’  This lens belies the truth that the benefits outweigh the harm, grossly misinterpreting Metropolitan Open Land policy and setting a dangerous precedent.   Ealing Council approved this development on the 19th October 2022  with the comment from the Ealing Planning Committee that GLA’s stage 1 decision did not factor in perceived ‘public benefits’.  In our climate emergency, we need to protect this land in order to be able to breathe cleaner air as part of our green recovery and wellbeing. 

 

The southern proposed open space is not desirable for the harm that will be inflicted to biodiversity net loss from TPO and MOL status as communicated by 255 objectors. Residents have access to 20 acres of parkland, lakes and garden within less than a 60 metre distance of this proposed development and several play areas throughout the West Twyford area. 

 

Other community ‘benefits’ proposed by the developer are limited access to an allotment, walled garden and orchard, but these so-called benefits are only a pavement away from an 8 lane motorway!  Growing food in a highly polluted area does not constitute healthy eating and active travel along the 8-6 lane motorway to the Hanger Lane gyratory, as proposed by the developer, does not constitute healthy active travel.  We do not have the active travel infrastructure nor can it be built in to make this a viable proposition. 

 

This is not some country idyll, this is a highly polluted industrial landscape, it is traffic saturated with significant health inequalities in our community.  The officer report notes that, “harm caused to metropolitan open land would be to the northern extent of the site which is flanked by the North Circular that does not perform well in respect of its functions as metropolitan open land and it is considered that the harm would be outweighed by the aforementioned significant public benefits” but it is exactly this area where the so called ‘amenity benefits’ will reside, from the walled garden to the allotments and we will lose two thirds of MOL land, critically on a flood plain.  We do not have assurance of the flood risk, as Thames Water have only agreed to this after lengthy negotiations and on principle.

 

Furthermore, there are significant concerns by a major stakeholder- the large primary school, adjacent to this development.  School Governors have objected on safety, health and education grounds, which is not reflected in the officers report.  This school cannot be transformed into a school street due to the topology of the area and traffic calming measures do not satisfy the school (there will be an increase in 100 parking spaces in the development and increased service demand).  We fear that it will take the death of a child either through a traffic related incident or via air pollution, for Ealing Council to take note of the harm caused for this generation and future generations to come.  The school currently has 431 pupils and includes a Children's Centre with facilities for pre-school care and nursery and reception/nursery aged pupils.  This is an area of deprivation with 28.4% of pupils on free school meals.  Current air pollution directly impacts pupils' health with significant spikes in asthma and respiratory conditions.  

 

There is a total misrepresentation of Green Belt/MOL policy and how it should be applied and there is a breach of biodiversity net gain.   

 

According to Directive 2011/92/EU Annex II, which forms part of The Town And Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, an EIA is required for 10. (b) Urban development projects, including the construction of shopping centres and car parks. The applicability threshold (ii) the development includes more than 150 dwellings is fulfilled.

 

The report and its conclusions are unbalanced and selective.  For example on (page 88 and following) Ealing Council mentions the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 but does not consider chapter 15, namely conserving and enhancing the natural environment.  This selective approach to conveying and interpreting policy, is neither transparent nor fair.  

 

You cannot remove 157 mature protected trees and woodland and expect there to be biodiversity net gain in replacing established trees and woodland with saplings.  The £100K for tree planting is not proportionate to the scale of this development with no aftercare plan in place.  A high proportion of newly planted trees in our area die as the  Ealing’s tree department is under-resourced. 

There is a total misrepresentation of Green Belt/MOL policy and how it should be applied;

 

●      Policy G3A of the London Plan affords MOL the same planning status as the Green Belt. Policy G3A protects MOL from inappropriate development in accordance with the national planning policy tests that apply to the Green Belt. These tests are set out in the NPPF.

●      Policy 147 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

●      Policy 148 of the NPPF states that 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

●      Policy 149 of the NPPF states that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. The policy identifies types of development that are exceptions to this policy. None of these exceptions apply here.

●      London Plan and NPPF policies do not appear to have been considered in the documents relating to this proposal

●      Concerned that the 'Assessment of Impact of Development Proposals on Metropolitan Open land' submitted to support the proposal does not test the development against these policies.

 

In relation to housing;

 

●      There are approximately 1850 new actual/proposed accommodation units around Lakeside Drive to 1849 around Hanger Lane Gyratory and other major developments; The Royal Waterside and Grand Union sites that have a bearing on local impact.

●      The proposal intends to deliver 110 affordable homes, which would allow for the delivery of 36% affordable units. London Plan Policies H4, H5 and the Mayor's Affordable Housing and Viability SPG seek to maximise the delivery of affordable housing with a strategic target of 50% across London. The threshold level of affordable housing on gross residential development is initially set at a minimum of 35%. This 'threshold approach' is sought by the applicant for one purpose only, i.e., to become eligible to follow the Fast-Track Route set out in the SPG, that will allow the applicant to not submit a viability assessment or be subject to a late stage viability review.

●      Ealing Council blames this failure on problems with migrating pipeline data into the GLA’s Planning London Datahub, which replaced the GLA’s London Development Database in 2020. Worse still, it is now using this excuse to apply the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development (see Twyford Abbey  planning application ref - 222378LBC and 222341FUL (Schedule Items 03 & 04 f2 of the officer’s report) due to be decided at Planning Committee on 19 October).

 

 We dispute the Council’s account of the reasons given in the officer’s report for Twyford Abbey for the lack of a 5-year housing land supply figure. See Planning Policies - Housing Land Supply.

 

The figures provided to the GLA’s Planning London Datahub originate from Ealing Council. If the Council has been aware of this data migration problem since 2020, why has it not taken steps to analyse its own data in the meantime as most other local authorities across the country have to do?

 

Indeed, why is it that by July 2021 (it may well be more now), 15 London boroughs, including the largest (Barnet) have been able to produce AMRs including 5-year housing land supply for 2019/20 when Ealing hasn’t?

 

When we enquired directly with the GLA on 28 September, we received by return an email from Peter Kemp, the Head of Change and Delivery, Planning saying that:’ You will be pleased to hear that the Datahub is now fully operational for Ealing, and as such any data that you are now looking for is now accessible, plus significant amounts more.’ 

 

Why is it that the Council, knowing the significance of the 5-year housing land supply, has not used the almost three weeks since the GLA’s confirmation to calculate that as a matter of urgency?  It seems to us that the Council’s withholding of a 5-year housing land supply figure betrays its own desire to collude with the developer in tipping the balance in favour of the development.

 

Finally, in terms of Air Quality (AQ) we consulted AQ experts at Imperial College London. 

 

●      In terms of air quality, the final sentence of the Detailed Air Quality Assessment report states, “The development has been assessed to exceed air quality neutral, but with the implementation of mitigation measures, this could be reduced.” LBE has committed to enforcing air quality neutral policy, therefore, by its own admission, the application should be rejected. I would not expect the phrase, “with the implementation of mitigation measures, this could be reduced” to be considered sufficiently strong to override this stated policy. Concrete measures to ensure it is air quality neutral should be enforced. I note that those mitigation measures proposed (encouragement of cycling, electrical charge points etc) may reduce impact, but it will not make it neutral. 

●      The application should not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality.  This does & is therefore in breach of The London Plan 2021 Policy SI1.

 

Our community was portrayed as not wanting change.  We do wish to see the restoration of Twyford Abbey but this needs to be done sympathetically with respect to the biodiversity and protections that exist and the typology of the area.  Ealing council need to be shown leadership to provide an alternative vision for this site, it could so easily be a genuine public asset.  This decision, if approved, will be devastating for this and future generations to come. 

Humphry Repton returns to Wembley Park

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant

 

 

I wrote about the work of the landscape gardener Humphry Repton in Part 1 of The Wembley Park Story, as part of “local history in lockdown” in May 2020. He turned farmland at Wembley owned by Richard Page, into a landscaped country estate around a house previously called “Wellers”, in 1793. Repton had firm views on what such estates should be called:

 

‘There is at present no word by which we express that sort of territory adjacent to a country mansion, which being too large for a garden, too wild for pleasure ground, and too neat for a farm, is yet often denied the name of a park, because it is not fed by deer. I generally waive this distinction, and call the wood and lawns, near every house, a park, whether fed by deer, by sheep, or heavy cattle.’

 

That’s how Wembley Park got its name, and it was, as Repton said in a letter to a friend in May 1793, ‘a most beautiful spot near Harrow’. 

 

Extract from a letter written by Humphry Repton on 6 May 1793. (From a copy at Brent Archives)

 

I don’t know how many times, if ever, Humphry Repton came back to Wembley Park after that, before his death in 1818. But a celebration of his career in 2018 by The Gardens Trust has led to his return this week. 

 

As part of their “Sharing Repton” events, a bust of the famous landscape designer, by the sculptor Hannah Northam, was donated to the Trust by Haddonstone. It was decided to award this as a prize in a competition open to places across the country where Repton had worked – and the winner was … Wembley Park!

 

Last Wednesday afternoon, I was one of a small crowd standing at the corner of Elvin Gardens, beside Humphry Repton Lane. Some of the builders working nearby were giving us puzzled looks, but seemed even more puzzled by a cloaked figure, wearing a Quintain hard hat.

 

 

The mystery figure was revealed when we were joined by the (even more beautifully robed) Deputy Mayor of Brent, Cllr. Orleen Hylton, who unveiled the bust of Humphry Repton.

 

 

As an aside, the pendant on the Deputy Mayor’s chain of office bears the date “1937”, another piece of local history. It was part of the Civic Regalia donated by the local benefactor Titus Barham, the Chairman of the Express Dairies company, when Wembley was made a borough in that year. He was chosen to be Wembley’s first Mayor, but he died just before the borough received its Charter. He left his home in Sudbury, and its beautiful grounds, for the enjoyment of the people of Wembley, and they were opened as Barham Park in January 1938.

 

In her short speech at the unveiling, The Garden Trust’s Head of Operations, Linden Groves, noted that all of Repton’s designs for this part of the Wembley Park estate had now gone, to be replaced by Quintain’s ongoing development. However, she was impressed by the modern landscaping of areas like Elvin Gardens. She emphasised how important green spaces were for the wellbeing of residents, as had been clearly shown during the Covid-19 lockdowns.
 

I hope that Cllr. Hylton will take that message back to her fellow councillors, as well as telling them about Humphry Repton, and the bust of him in the gardens just behind the Civic Centre.

 

The location of the Humphry Repton bust – see lime green arrow. (Image from Google Maps)

 

The site across Humphry Repton Lane from the bust has been built on since the aerial image above, and the block of apartments nearing completion is called Repton Gardens. Quintain originally planned to move the bust to Union Park, when work on that is completed, but its present location seems far more appropriate. I hope you will take the opportunity to go and see “Humphry” when you are in the area!

 

 

If you would like to find out more about Humphry Repton and his work, the London Parks & Gardens Trust has recently published “Repton in London – The Gardens and Landscapes of Humphry Repton (1752-1818) in the London Boroughs”. I will be recommending that Brent Libraries gets at least one copy that can be borrowed, but if you would like your own copy, go to: https://www.londongardenstrust.org/publications/repton.php

Philip Grant.