Showing posts with label consultation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consultation. Show all posts

Tuesday 5 December 2023

Brent moves to remove 'Landlord Offer' from homeless moved into void properties on South Kilburn. Lettings Policy consultation will be required.

 

 

The above video was posted on Twitter yesterday revealing the state of Blake Court on the South Kilburn Estate. @DCustodians said:

Welcome to #BlakeCourtThis the airy 4th floor. Recently redecorated to a high standard by squatters. Just needs a do not disturb sign. Tenants are a bit inconvenienced, work/school and all but who are we to complain?

A picture of an an attempted break-in and soiled lift were also posted:


I thought it was appropriate to publish these images in the light of the Housing Report going to Brent Cabinet on Monday. The report includes a section on South Kilburn where it is proposed that some voids (empty properties) on the estate are brought into use as temporary accommodation. 

The fact that only 52  of 534 properties are considered suitable is in itself telling and clearly it is not just the flats themselves that need to be suitable - safe, clean - but the surrounding 'unsuitable flats', staircases, lifts and security that needs to be considered. 

Wembley Matters has revealed the £13m deficit in the housing budget caused by the rising number of homeless people in temporary hotel accommodation or expensive private rented placements.  LINK The council hopes to save on the average £3,000 a night for the 52 households:

There are currently 534 void properties across the South Kilburn regeneration site as households have either been moved into new or alternative homes, or leasehold properties have been bought back. Due to the increased demand for temporary accommodation and rising hotel costs, an exercise has been carried out to assess the suitability of South Kilburn voids for use as temporary accommodation.

However, there is a fly in the ointment. Brent Council want to avoid the 'Landlord Promise' made at the time of the South Kilburn Regeneation Ballot, applying to these households (my highlighting):



Of the 534 voids, 52 have been identified as suitable for potential use. This is based on their condition and the impact of using them on the regeneration programme. These are based in John Ratcliffe, William Dunbar, William Saville, and Zangwill. Historically, those living in temporary accommodation on the regeneration site were included in the South Kilburn Promise (Landlord Offer), which commits to re-housing temporary accommodation residents within South Kilburn, with the option to move outside of the estate (with the household’s agreement) along with other commitments. This was specifically for those impacted at the time of the ballot. If these voids are used for temporary accommodation, this report recommends that the South Kilburn Promise does not apply going forward. This implications of this proposal on the 2019 ballot outcome have been discussed with the Greater London Authority and no implications were identified.

 

The rational[e] for the promise not applying going forward to temporary households, is largely based on these households bypassing the choice-based lettings scheme, where other households have waited for years for family sized accommodation. Additionally, these households will not have been impacted by the regeneration scheme in the way those involved with the ballot.


This proposal does create a risk that temporary households will need to be decanted elsewhere, most likely away from the estate, when blocks are due to be demolished. Plus, there will be two tiers of temporary accommodation on the site, those who are eligible for the South Kilburn Promise and those who are not. This risk however is balanced by the immediate reduction in pressure for the Council as moving 52 households out of their current temporary accommodation and into South Kilburn would save the Council approximately £3,017 a night based on the average nightly rate paid and subsidy loss currently being covered by the Council. The use of these void properties has wider benefits to the overall wellbeing of households currently facing homelessness, many of whom are having to be placed outside of the borough which ultimately affects schooling and work.  

 

There is another pitfall in that the council is required to consult on any change in its Lettings Policy in order to amend the Landlord Offer.:

 

 To amend the South Kilburn Promise (Landlord Offer) for new temporary accommodation tenants, the Council is required to amend the Local Lettings Policy (allocations scheme) which requires consultation. The Council is currently seeking legal advice on how to consult and once obtained, this will guide officers to carry out the relevant consultation ahead of any decision being finalised.

 


The council had to open up bidding for council properties to homeless people after a legal judgement in 2021-22 when a teenager took them to court.  LINK That was the last change in the lettings policy. It is likely that South Kilburn residents, especially those waiting for accommodation on the estate, presently in accommodation outside the area, in temporary accommodation or decanted temporarily while waiting to be permanently housed in new build will be very wary of any change in the South Kilburn Promise. If it can be done once for one group, could it be withdrawn later for another group?

 

This will depend to some extent on residents perception of progress on the whole South Kilburn Regeneration.   A letter to Wembley Matters in November outlined the problems in terms of delivery and impact on those waiting to be rehoused. LINK

 

There are ongoing problems with defects to properties with L&Q one of the most notable and the ongoing Granville New Homes debacle where the cost of remediation is now put at £25m (against that budget gap of £13m) having been purchased for £17.1m by the council. Still no news on any council move for compensation from the builder. LINK

 

A veteran observer of the South Kilburn scene was asked for their view by Wembley Matters in the light of the latest news:

 

If the council were were to hold another ballot, would all those in temporary accommodation still vote yes if they were told they would not be getting a new home in South Kilburn for at least 10 years and that some of them would have to move into old blocks waiting to be demolished while they wait.


Although there are 730 households in temporary accommodation, we do not know how many of them have a South Kilburn connection but at the last consultation the ones that had it were promised a new home soon if they voted yes.

There are 370 secure council tenants waiting for a new home today and we will find out soon the exact numbers in each of the 7 blocks left and when they might be decanted.

But the next batch of new homes are for secure council tenants from both  Craic and Crone Court and there are none for those in temporary accomodation. Of course the council could  change their allocation policy to favour those in temporary accommodation but this is most unlikely.

There should be some more new homes available in 2029 which were for those in phases 7 and 8 but now they might go to those currently in temporary accommodation. I am not sure how many new homes will be available but there will be fewer than 100 and by then because of possible financial issues, many of the homes could be sold, or become shared ownership homes.

But with only 70 new homes available in 2029 and around a 1000 households expecting to get one of them, most of them are going to be disappointed.

I wonder if Osbornes Law will be interested in the new proposals?

 

Wednesday 15 November 2023

Brent Council open consultation on new Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) 24/7/365 on its Council Estates - £50 annual fee per permit

 There was an attempt by Brent Council a few years ago to introduce Traffic Management measures that were not popular. Another consultation has been launched. Parking permits will be £50 per year and in the first instance limited to residents. There will be a review regarding visitor permits once the scheme is operation. This was a particular concern for some residents who have a cultural tradition of visiting relatives as an extended family.

The Council warns that parking on estates will have to be suspended for a maximum of two days (weather permitting) while signs and new road markings are installed.

From the consultation website LINK:

We are consulting on estates across Brent regarding the introduction of Traffic Management measures. This will mean that the council can control parking on the estates in the same way that it does on public roads and will make parking safer, fairer and easier.

As a part of this consultation, we will be running a series of workshops where discussions will take place on each of these estates. The estates and the corresponding workshop details can be found below.


To sign up to one of the workshops, please click on each of the workshops (1-5) which will redirect you to an Eventbrite page. Booking through the links below guarantees your entry, however if you are unable to book through these pages, there will availability on the day at the venue if you wish to attend.

For more information on what is being proposed at each state, please click on the name of the estate which will open a plan of the proposals.

(Note the workshop for Summers Close and Saltcroft Close is given as two different vekues on the website and the printed brochure. There may be other mistakes - I have not checked them all.)

Workshop 1 - The Church of the Ascension, The Avenue, Wembley HA9 9QL Time: 7 - 9pm on 21st November 2023

Workshop 2 - Brent River College, 364b Stag Lane, Kingsbury NW9 9AE Time: 7 - 9pm on 21st November 2023

Workshop 3 - Maharastra Mandal London, 306 Dollis Hill Ln, London NW2 6HH Time: 7 - 9pm on 23rd November 2023

Workshop 4 - Christ Church Brondesbury, Brondesbury NW6 7BJ Time: 7 - 9pm on 28th November 2023

Workshop 5 - Brent Indian Association, 116 Ealing Rd, Wembley HA0 4TH Time: 7 - 9pm on 29th November 2023


If you would like to have your say on our proposals, please follow a link to our survey here (https://bit.ly/BHECS), or click on the 'Have your say' button on the top of the page. Survey closes at 23:59 on 13 December 2023.


Why do we need to make these changes?

Vehicles parking in an unsafe and inconsiderate way blocks roads and pavements, and are making it difficult and unsafe for residents to move around their estates, as well as hindering access for the Council’s refuse collection vehicles. Residents on the estates are also finding it more and more difficult to find a space to park their car. More seriously, unsafe parking can prevent fire engines and ambulances from getting to the estates for emergencies.

How do the new controls work differently to the current ones?

Under the current system, Wing Parking (enforcement agents) are not legally allowed to access DVLA information, meaning they can only ever enforce against estates residents, not those parking there without permission. The new system will make it easier for the Council to enforce against vehicles parked poorly or inconsiderately which cause problems in the estates. These stricter controls have been proven to deter nuisance estate parking when used by other London authorities.

What are the benefits of these changes?

  • Residents should find it easier to access a suitable parking space.
  • There should be less disruption to emergency service vehicles, allowing them to respond more rapidly to issues on the estates.
  • Unauthorised vehicles will be deterred from entering the estates and parking in resident bays, which will increase parking availability for estate residents.
  • Unobstructed footways will improve parking accessibility and safety for pedestrians, the mobility impaired and pedestrians with pushchairs.
  • There should be an improvement in access for Council services, including a reduction in missed waste collections.



Friday 10 November 2023

AT LAST! TfL consultation opens on safer routes for cyclists between Wembley Central and Harlesden

 

 

I used to do a daily return trip by cycle for work between Harlesden (St Johns Avenue) and Park Lane, Wembley Central. To say it was more dangerous than going over the Berlin Wall would be an exaggeration, but I was often surprised to still be alive at the end of the day.

Next year it will be 5 years since Brent Council and TfL began working on safer cycling and pedestrian routes for the Wembley Centra to Harlesden journey and the long-awaited TfL consultation opens today and closes just before Christmas on December 21st.

 

 

TfL say: 

We have been working closely with Brent Council since April 2019 to develop a project that would make it safer and easier for local people to walk and cycle between Wembley and Willesden Junction.

We are developing the project in phases, and the first phase will focus on the area between Wembley Central and Harlesden stations, where we propose to provide a new high-quality Cycleway and improvements for pedestrians.

The changes would make streets in the area safer and more pleasant by enabling people to walk and cycle more and drive less.

The proposals include a protected two-way cycle lane on the A404 Harrow Road and Brentfield, new and improved cycle and pedestrian crossings over Harrow Road, better street lighting to help make the area feel safer and more trees and plants more welcoming.

This would help us to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions, which could improve local people’s health. It would also address congestion, and help support new developments(External link) (External link) planned across the wider area by providing better walking and cycling links to local businesses and stations.

The changes we would like to make are:

  • Introducing a new protected two-way cycle lane on the A404 Harrow Road and Brentfield between Sylvia Gardens and First Drive, with separate low level cycle signals at junctions, new cycle crossings and better connections to other local cycle routes
  • Introducing bus stop bypasses for cyclists at bus stops C and K, with the two-way cycle lane behind the bus stop island for cyclist safety
  • Improving the quiet road cycle connections to Wembley Central and Harlesden stations
  • Improving the route for pedestrians by adding a new crossing over Brentfield near Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre and making existing crossings at the A406 junction more direct, which will reduce crossing times
  • We’ll add measures to slow traffic speeds, add better street lighting and drainage, and new areas of planting and trees where space allows along the route
  • Improving the service for bus passengers by extending bus stop D so two buses can stop here at a time, and moving stop B in line with the traffic lane so that buses can pull away easily after passengers board
  • Other changes to allow us to make these improvements include closing the left turn filter lanes from the A406 onto Harrow Road and Brentfield, making Sylvia Gardens exit only for motor vehicles (currently entrance only), shortening a parking bay on Harrow Road and reviewing parking restrictions on the quiet road connections. We would also move bus stop ‘Sunny Crescent’ 90m to the eastern side of Wyborne Way to make space for the new cycle lanes

 

The maps below will give you a more detailed idea of the proposals:

 




Two drop-in events are planned to discuss the proposals:

Public drop-in event 9th December

Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre, Brentfield, Harrow Road, London NW10 ORG (10:00 - 14:00)

 

Public drop-in event 12th December

Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre, Brentfield, Harrow Road, London NW10 ORG (15:00 - 19:00)

 

You can find the full online consultation here including further information: 

https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/wembley-harlesden

 

I have embedded the consultation form below in case you would like to preview it before responding or perhaps  prefer to answer offline.

 

 

Thursday 19 October 2023

Do you have views on the provision of student accommodation in Wembley/Brent? Contribute to the London Mayor's consultation.

 

 At a recent Planning Committee meeting where an application for new student accommodation in Wembley Park was made, existing residents spoke against on the grounds that it created would imbalance and undermine community cohesion because students were short-term residents not committed to the area. There were also concerns about anti-social behaviour. Countering this officers argued that students contributed to the local financial and cultural economy.

Now the London Mayor is undertaking a consultation on provision of student accommodation to which residents might want to conribute. Details below:

The Mayor of London is consulting on new London Plan Guidance (LPG) relating to student housing, otherwise known as purpose-built student accommodation or PBSA.

The guidance supports London Plan policy H15 to best meet student housing needs as part of a wider approach to housing delivery and regeneration. It aims to unlock PBSA delivery and also address imbalances to help achieve a more mixed and inclusive London.

This event is a Q&A session for stakeholders to bring any queries they have about the document or the consultation. It assumes that attendees have watched the two minute introductory video or read the draft document, both available on our consultation site.

Questions can be submitted in advance by email to studenthousingLPG@london.gov.uk or you are welcome to just turn up on the day and ask them and listen to our responses to other people's questions.

[Images courtesy of Unite and Affordable Accommodation for Students Ltd]

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the event free? Yes.

Who is this event for? The event is open to all and is suitable for interest groups, public campaign groups, developers, landowners, agents and Londoners to ask questions and find out more.

How will the session take place and how can I join? The session will take place online. Once you have registered via Eventbrite, you will be emailed a link to join the event 24 hours before the event takes place.

Will I be able to ask questions during the event? Yes the whole event is structured around Q&As.

Do I have to submit questions in advance? You are welcome to send questions through in advance by email to studenthousingLPG@london.gov.uk which will help us prepare, but you can also just turn up and ask them and we will do our best to answer them on the spot.

Is this a repeat of the event on the 3rd November? Yes, there is no need to attend both events.

What if I have accessibility requirements? Please let us know when booking your ticket on Eventbrite. Please let us know as soon as possible. We will endeavour to meet any requests made within two weeks of the event, however these cannot be guaranteed.

Where can I find out more and share my views? To watch the introductory video, read the guidance and share your views, visit the consultation page. Consultation on the LPG closes on 11 January 2024

How can I find out more about this event? Please contact studenthousinglpg@london.gov.uk if you have any further questions about the event.

We hope you can join us. RESERVE PLACE HERE

 

The consultation, including the survey (below) will be open until 11th January 2024.

We have 2 open-to-all Q&A events in October and November, and further engagement events are also planned with specific stakeholder groups, notably the cross-sectoral Mayor’s Academic Forum and boroughs. More information on the public events can be found on the 'events' section on this page.

All feedback will be reviewed and a consultation summary document will be published alongside the final guidance.

Register to be notified of planning policy consultations(External link) or sign up for GLA Planning News(External link).

You can email the team on: studenthousinglpg@london.gov.uk(External link)(External link).

 

SURVEY

 

 

Tuesday 28 February 2023

Supreme Court to rule on sale of park land to developer without adequate consultation

 

From Good Law Project

The Supreme Court will decide tomorrow (Wednesday 1 March) whether planning permission should have been granted for a piece of sold off park land, after locals argued that they have a right to continue using the space for recreation. 

The decision could have far reaching repercussions for the sale of green spaces in the future.

A section of Greenfields Recreation Ground was sold to a housing developer in 2017 and earmarked for 15 homes.

Local residents, who have been campaigning for six years to reclaim the site, say the local authority should have consulted with them before the sale was made.  

The Greenfields land was first bought by the local authority in 1926 for £1,000 and held in trust for community use.

Shrewsbury Town Council was criticised in a judicial review in 2019 for failing to identify the status of the land before selling it. The local authority has already apologised for its "failures".

Good Law Project has been supporting and helping to fund the legal action and believes the case will set a precedent for councils to consult with residents before they sell off land that has public value.

Campaigns Manager for Good Law Project, Hannah Greer, said:  

Recreational spaces are so important for our quality of life, and that was especially highlighted during the pandemic.
 

It’s simply not right for these spaces to be taken away by a local authority without consulting those who use it. We hope the Supreme Court will agree with us and help stop this happening again.


Further information LINK

Thursday 10 November 2022

'We want your school to stay open but we don't want it here' Islamia Primary School Consultation

 Extra chairs had to be brought into the hall of Preston Park Primary School last night as residents flocked to the last public consultation about the move of Islamia Primary School to the area. The mood of the often-rowdy meeting can be summed up by one comment shouted from the floor to the Islamia Chair of Governors, 'We want your school to stay open, but we don't want it here.'

 

The Chair of Governors Sofia Moussaoui was flanked on the platform by other members of the Governing Board, the pastoral adviser to the pupils, Shirley Parks, Brent Interim Operational Director, Safeguarding, Partnerships and Strategy and the Brent Council Transportation officer responsible for School Travel Plans. Several councillors were present including Cllr Gwen Grahl, Cabinet member for Children Young People and Schools. Cllr Grahl was initially incognito in the audience but perhaps should have been on the platform to give support when Shirley Parks was showered with sometimes angry questions. Both were only appointed to their posts in May of this year.

 

The headteacher of Islamia Primary School was unable to be present because he had been involved in an accident that evening and there was no representative of the Yusuf Islam Foundation, that has served an eviction notice on the school, in attendance.

 

At the beginning of the meeting there were complaints that local people had not been consulted, some had only heard about the plans for the move a week ago (they clearly don't read Wembley Matters!), and many had not read the consultation paper before coming to the meeting. The school had made some copies, and these were distributed.   The Chair of Governors denied a claim that locals who had given their emails in order to receive further information at the last meeting had not received anything.

 

As well as local residents the meeting was attended by a group of Islamia parents who were vociferously opposed to the move because of the difficulty of travelling from their homes in what they said was a 6-mile journey four times a day.  They had suggested in a 509-signature petition that Brent Council should make the proposed South Kilburn site, earmarked for the, to be merged, Kilburn Park Junior School and Carlton Vale Infant School, available to Islamia instead. They cited very low numbers in both the schools in contrast to the 420 pupils at Islamia.

 

Shirley Parks said that this was not possible because a community school. open to all, was essential on the estate as it developed, and the population rose. Work had already started in the two schools towards occupation of the new premises. The new school was part of the long-term plans for the area and needed to be open to all pupils, not those from just one religious group. In any event the new building would not be available until well after Islamia's eviction deadline from the Queens Park site.

 

After many interventions from the floor, including suggestions that the closed South Kilburn Job Centre site could be used, the Chair of Governors said that if there was a possibility of a move to South Kilburn the Islam Yusuf Foundation could be approached to delay the eviction until a new site there was available.

 

Residents already concerned about traffic congestion in the area, particularly at school run times when cars often drove on the pavement, were shocked when Sophia Mousssaoui revealed that 160 parents had said they would travel to the site by car, 51 by bus, 58 by train and one cycling. When pressed she was unable to say how many parents would not be able to travel to the new site at all. The 223 bus that runs close to the site is already over-crowded at school times.

 

There was derision from the audience when a School Travel Plan was mooted as a solution. It was claimed that Islamia did not have an extant Travel Plan on its current site and the Travel Plans of schools in the Preston area made little difference.

 

Cllr Kennelly, Preston ward councillor, said that the environment and meeting climate targets needed to be considered when looking at traffic issues. If the move were to go ahead there was the challenge of how to make it work. There would be a need to reduce the number of cars making the journey as low as possible.  


A resident from SKPRA (South Kenton and Preston Residents Association) asked why a request to see the feasibility plans for the Strathcona Road site had not been published. He doubted that there would be adequate playground space and whether it would meet DfE standards for a 2 form entry primary school. Shirley Parks replied that there was a caveat on the study that meant it could not be published.

 

The question of how many pupils would not be able to travel to the new school because of transport difficulties or special needs gave rise to two concerns.

 

Firstly, if numbers dropped would Islamia still be viable? Shirley Parks responded that there were many successful one form entry primary schools in Brent (in fact there are only a handful) and Islamia could operate as a one form entry school.  The Chair of Governors said there would be plenty of demand from neighbouring areas - that produced cries from the audience about more car journeys and the impact on the Council's Climate Emergency Strategy.

 

Secondly, if there were spare places at Islamia once established, would local Muslim children transfer from their present schools, threatening the viability of those schools that were already facing falling rolls and budget issues? Shirley Parks said that parents did not tend to move children from their current schools but there would be impact at Reception level when parents choose their child's future school. A question on how schools were funded was not answered but there is an amount allocated per pupil so that would make an impact if classes were only half full. In the 1970s when falling rolls hit London there were some schools where year groups were merged to make mixed age classes.

 

A member of the audience suggested that some schools, low in pupil numbers could be merged on one site and the building vacated allocated to Islamia. Shirley Parks said that a review of primary provision was in progress.

 

Emerging at times during this discussion was whether voluntary aided faith schools should exist at all. Shouldn't Brent as a multi-cultural and multi-religious borough have mixed schools open to all?  Cllr Michael Maurice, citing his own children attending the Jewish Free School l(JFS), mounted a strong defence of faith schools and Islamia's right to exist. Members of the audience quoted the number of schools in the borough of various faiths, compared with only one Muslim primary school.  Islamia was popular, followed the National Curriculum and had received a Good Ofsted Report LINK.

 

A resident raised 'the elephant in the room', Yusuf Islam and his Foundation and the fact that the Foundation had been given the opportunity to redevelop the Islamia site to improve provision by Brent Council, with funding, a long time ago but the Foundation had ended the discussion. There was an 'education use' only covenant on the site so the Foundation would be using it to expand their private secondary provision:

 

 'Yusuf Islam is going to get a free site and Brent Council will pay £10m to move the school.'

 

I pointed out that the Foundation's actions had divided the community and Yusuf Islam had not responded to requests for a comment on the situation.

 

A former Islamia Primary pupil who had gone on to the private secondary school spoke in defence of Yusuf Islam and the foundation.  He had put his own money into the project and the Foundation was a charity, he was not making money out of it. He should be accorded respect.

 

Amid this a member of the audience who works on Pupil Voice in local schools asked if children had been spoken to about their views and how this affected them as they would have heard what was going on. Shirley Parks said from a safeguarding point of view she would be concerned that such discussions would worry the children. However, the member of Islamia staff responsible for pastoral care and said that there had been questions from pupils and that these could be addressed through the Pupil School Council. 

 

The issue of lack of provision of information to local residents came up again. Sophia Moussaoui said that the Governing Board could not be expected to leaflet every home in the area. The parent who had organised the petition, Jamad Guled, said that she had prepared a leaflet for distribution to residents informing them of the plans but had been barred from distributing it by the Governing Board. The chair of the Board said they had seen the leaflets and that it was written as if from an outsider and they thought that it would create panic and division in the community.

 

Contributing from the audience Gwen Grahl, Brent Council Lead Member for Young People and Schools, said she recognised that this was a difficult situation. Brent Council had been approached by the Islamia Governing Board for help when the school received the eviction notice. Islamia was obviously a very popular and successful school and unique as the only Muslim state school in Brent. She understood that other schools were being built in Brent but the site in South Kilburn was inappropriate for a lot of reasons. Teachers, parents, and pupils of the merging schools were really excited about moving to the new school and in any case, it was not opening until 2023.

 

Cllr Grahl said that it was her job to scrutinise the council officers to make sure they were doing their jobs properly and she could assure residents and parents that they had looked at every single option for finding a site nearer to Queens Park. The Yusuf Islam Foundation had commissioned their own search and couldn't find a site either:

 

 'You can't build a site just anywhere it has to be big enough and accessible and crucially available in the very small window to 2024.' 

 

She recognised that there had been some problems with the informal stage of the consultation, not least that the Governing Board had not expected to have to undertake the consultation process. As a result of representations from the ward councillors the consultation period was extended, and the Council played a bigger role in ensuring the process was transparent and organising additional meetings. It was going to be her job to steer any proposal through Cabinet:

 

If I am not satisfied that either parents of the school or residents support the proposal, or its not feasible for any other reason, then I won't be voting for it. So, I ask everyone to engage in the consultation. We want to hear from you, but to be honest, my challenge was that 420 children go to a school, and it's going to close. I wish that it could have been able to remain in Queens Park - I wish they hadn’t been evicted.

 

This is the proposal that we have managed to come up with. The capital funding comes from Strategic CIL and is not coming from any other Council department. It had to be allocated as here is no guarantee that it would be available at a later date.

 

Cllr Grahl went on to assure that audience that the Council was here to listen and would see what happened at the end of the process. She finished, 'In terms of options I really wish there was another option, but there isn't one.'

 

 The Chair of Governors Sofia Moussaoui said that the Governing Board did not want to move either but were faced with the stark choice, 'Move or close'.