Friday, 16 January 2015

Committee Meeting, Resident Speech 1 (13th Jan 2015):

King Edward VII Park was bought by the council in 1913 (and opened in 1914) to compensate the residents of Wembley for the loss of Parkland at Wembley Park, which was being developed as a high class residential garden suburb.
2/3 of the alternative sites considered by the London Welsh School are not in Brent. They include Orpington Kent. Only 16% were considered too far for parents. These figures strongly support the viability of the school relocating outside of Brent.

The consulting of only 11-18 Keswick Gardens, 21-32 Princes Court and Park Lane Primary School, (plus councillors and officers) prevented wider park users their right to be consulted for this council owned, but ultimately public sporting space.

The change of use of the bowling pavilion would prejudice use of the bowling green. This application does not include the bowling green, yet there is clear intent to use and restrict access to this public green space. The use of the word “exploit” in supporting documents, mention of “appropriate groups” and exclusion of dog walkers is further evidence of this. The park is a resource for the whole community, not just half of two streets, and should not be exploited by any group.

There are 202 bowls clubs in Greater London and West Ealing juniors start from 7yrs old.
Former Wembley Bowls chairman, Ron Ferrari, informed me no adverts were placed by Brent Council indicating possible demise and urgent need for members.

The western half of King Eddie's Park is the only tranquil and quiet open space for local Wembley residents. Many of whom now and will live in high rise flats, with Quintain's proposals, with no open space close by.

Fundamental changes to the scheme were made, concerning removal of trees, after the consultation period. Application procedure was flawed and may give rise for an application for judicial review.

Parkland and open space belongs to everyone, me, you, you and you. Based on the facts, taking all material planning considerations into account NPPF74, NPPF123, CP18 & ALGG, alongside any doubt as to the transparency of this planning application, there is a case for deferral as supported by Sport England, if not refusal.

No comments:

Post a Comment