Forum Topic

Brent Lea saved!!

Just seen on Chiswick W4 that the temporary school is not going ahead. That really is great and well done to the local residents who fought this stupid proposal. Hopefully our park in Isleworth will also be returned to local people for their leisure and enjoyment in the not too distant future.

Vanessa Smith ● 4109d24 Comments

Excellent news and well done to all concerned for their fine efforts

Paul Fisher ● 4109d

Perhaps we shall be Horseless in Isleworth shortly?

Vanessa Smith ● 4109d

When does the horse lease expire ?

Tim Henderson ● 4109d

October - however, things are moving with a councillor actually requesting a meeting with a couple of residents to start moving things forward on the consultation front, never known such times around here. Fingers crossed that we can at last make some progress - this nonsense has now been on-going for almost a year! They certainly know how to make heavy weather of the most simple things............

Vanessa Smith ● 4109d

It is good that the Brent Lea decision has been reversed and congratulations are due to those who campaigned on the issue.At the same time we should recognise that councillors who took the issue seriously played a key part in the reaching the final result. The Cabinet decision to provide a 125 year lease for a school that had been given the site on a temporary two-year basis raised immediate concerns. Cllr Tony Louki decided that a call-in of the Cabinet decision would be appropriate. For that he required nine other councillors to support his request. Some hesitated and some signed and then withdrew their signatures (you can see crossings out in the online document) but the result was that the form was signed by 13 councillors including more than half of the Planning Committee.The call-in led to a thorough airing of the issues at a well-attended Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. The Committee resolved that the decision to provide an extended least should be sent back for reconsideration and that there needed to be a review of the Council's policy on the use of Metropolitan Open Land.A call-in is a rare event. It should be noted that while both Labour and Conservative members signed it most signatories were Labour. This meant them questioning a decision of their own Cabinet. Such events are all too rare in local and national politics for us not to celebrate them when they happen.Local campaigners did a great job in raising the issue and councillors did a great job in taking their concerns through to a political decision.

David Pavett ● 4108d

Couldn't agree more - but it needs to be ensured that this victory is not just a one off. We need our green spaces more than ever and they cannot be seen as an easy option for other purposes, they have to be retained for the use of local people and the council as local representatives have to start understanding that they will face opposition if they don't listen to and involve local residents in the process. There is no need for this, it just requires some humility and good communication.

Vanessa Smith ● 4108d

I've been to the park several times and I am delighted to read that the park will not be dug up and turned into a building site.I have noted on the Web the following statement "Our councillors should regard themselves as the custodians and trustees of these irreplaceable assets providing greenery, fresh air, flora, fauna, wildlife and of course areas for sport, recreation, dog walking and more healthy lifestyles."This is absolutely correct and from reading the posting in the adjacent topic about Hounslow Council seeking to appropriate a very substantial part of the park contrary to the statutory trust, it seems extraordinary that such a proposal ever saw the light of day.

Nicolas Ozegovic ● 4108d

I agree with all of the above, and David in particular has highlighted the benefit of members of the community identifying issues and where necessary raising the alarm, and councillors acting upon their concerns.  For my part I have never asked for anything more than this.We all know however that this is not how it works in every instance, and that there are certain councillors who routinely treat organised community groups as the enemy and look upon those who challenge their decisions, no mstter how politely, with indignation and anger.It would be nice to think that decent and sensible people like David, who for whatever reason have elected to plough their own furrows through the medium of a local political party, will use whatever influence they can bring to bear to correct this negative mindset which still afflicts too many of our elected representatives on both sides of the local political divide.  I have to say that in my experience when well-meaning people join these organisations the gravitational pull has always seemed to be in the opposite direction, but if the Brent Lea experience proves to be the harbinger of a new approach to community engagement then nobody will be happier than I.

Phil Andrews ● 4108d

This has more to do with which councillors may have been completely ousted at the next election and the outing of double standards and collusion.Power and politics it seems are still more important than schools, parks and urban amenities, but when the level of feeling from the electorate becomes a potential vote loser, it's funny how alternative solutions are swiftly found.At long last, some discussion is being made in the Mayoral elections towards rectifying the faults and loopholes in planning that prevent affordable and social housing, schools and key infrastructure being incorporated into large developments.Both main parties are finally waking up to the reality that thousands of homes are being built for non taxpaying overseas investors and it is creating too many problems for people who live and work here. They are realising too, that the motives of developers and their backers are not truly in the interests of true residential district communities and their well being and long term quality of life.Listening and reading on the London Mayoral hopefuls it wasinteresting that all the Labour candidates could not agree on one single issue.Interesting that all want to embrace migration to London but every other issue was related to overcrowding and shortages of everything to sustain the status quo. Not one dared to link overpopulation with all the issues that are a consequence of such. They need to cast aside the shackles and fear of being racist or prejudiced and realise that overdensity is damaging to quality of life and opportunity all who already live here irrespective of ethnicity or cultural roots.

Raymond Havelock ● 4107d

Not entirely.  I am reliably informed (by a long-time Labour Party stalwart) that there is a view amongst some local Labour councillors and other party activists that their elected members should strive to serve local people so well that they will not be tempted to support the Community Group in the future.Whilst this view reveals a misunderstanding at a very fundamental level of the ICG's rationale, it does explain why we are seeing some really positive engagement from some sections of the party, although as we have seen in Isleworth to our cost this view is certainly not bought into by all.It is wrong to assume, as I confess I sometimes do myself in my darker moments, that the attitude which seems to prevail at leadership level is one that is shared across the board.  People generally do not enter politics with the sole objective of p*ssing everybody off.

Phil Andrews ● 4107d

"People generally do not enter politics with the sole objective of p*ssing everybody off."With some of the antics we have observed over the last few months we could all be forgiven for thinking that that is EXACTLY why they went into local politics!I can only comment that if this is true;"I am reliably informed (by a long-time Labour Party stalwart) that there is a view amongst some local Labour councillors and other party activists that their elected members should strive to serve local people so well that they will not be tempted to support the Community Group in the future."What a damning indictment of their understanding of what they are supposed to be doing - namely representing and being accountable to local people - the hint seems to be 'community' which some of the local councillors don't  have a clue about. None of them should need to be told what they should be doing to stop people from voting for someone else, for God's sake it's what they should be doing irrespective of anyone or anything else, isn't that the point?

Vanessa Smith ● 4107d

Precisely, which is what I meant by a fundamental misunderstanding of the ICG's rationale.If the "bleedin' obvious" came naturally to these people the ICG wouldn't participate in elections in the first place. And as a non-electoral group, why is it so important that the public should be discouraged from supporting the ICG? The very notion casts some doubt on the sincerity of the whole exercise.

Phil Andrews ● 4107d

Scepticism is always advisable in politics but cynicism is always corrosive. There are local councillors who don't have a clue what they are doing and who care even less. But there are others who work hard to represent their constituents and who are motivated by genuine concern and genuine principle. The cynic can't see the difference.The Floriat call-in was motivated by a genuine concern for principle and rather that just sounding off about how self-seeking all councillors are it would be better to give credit where credit is due. In this instance 25% of the members of the ruling party signed the call in. Some signed and then withdrew their names which almost certainly indicates behind the scenes pressures brought to bear. So lets applaud the 13 councillors who signed the call-in and only make accusations of self-seeking where there are real grounds for doing so.

David Pavett ● 4106d

Dave always happy to give credit where it's due, but it has to be said recent events do make that somewhat difficult, of course there are councillors who are doing a decent job but unfortunately they seem to be outweighed by the arrogant, egotistical and just plain thick ones. It tells the story doesn't it that some withdrew their names from the call-in? It is appalling that the 13 remaining were ever put in that position after the disastrous public meeting in Brentford when it was made abundantly clear that local people felt ignored and lied to. Had the leadership acted in a more democratic manner and started talking to local people a lot earlier in the process and discussing various options and problems it would never have come to this, that they didn't doesn't say much for their political acumen does it?

Vanessa Smith ● 4106d

Great news that the park has been saved. But we need a full audit on this and how it went so far. Parents have signed off their kids to go to Brent Lea area, and now being told they need to travel somewhere else. Not sure what the new site is like, but if its next to the motorway, I feel for the kids who now have to go there.

David Rose ● 4106d

I did suggest that Floreat acquired some of the Ballymore site in the long term in my email to the council. Ballymore's phase 2 is such a long way off when you see the snail's pace that phase 1 is proceeding at, that there would appear to be land to spare to avoid Ballymore wondering what to put there.

Ian Speed ● 4106d

As a long term resident of Brentford I cannot fathom the opposition which has been levelled against the council and its plans to open a school on this site. Let’s be honest, locally we refer to the Lea as ‘poo park’ for the obvious reason that dog walkers regard it as nothing more than a toilet facility for their animals. Also can anyone really remember the last time they saw someone having a picnic or jogging in the Lea? From my own personal experience it’s normally deserted – excluding of course the couple of occasions I’ve come across groups of dodgy looking blokes drinking lager from a can! Would it really have been the end of the world if a school had opened on the site?

Germaine Campbell ● 4106d

HiI think the issue is when will it stop....If we let them build on that park, what is next.....

David Rose ● 4106d

What public good is served by the council maintaining the Lea when it is so undesirable that only dog walkers and winos make use of it? By contrast the opening of a school on this site would be a great public good.

Germaine Campbell ● 4106d

I think you are missing the point entirely. This is Metropolitan Open Land, the council - or their contractors - if our park is anything to go by - do the minimum then claim the area is 'underused' and poorly maintained. Then add insult to injury by using those reasons as an excuse to misappropriate the land, without so much as a nod to any local people who may have a different view. At the public meeting it was quite clear that people do use the park and for some it was sometimes the only time they got to see and talk to someone else all day, it had a social function something not to dismiss too lightly, especially for older people. Perhaps if a bit more communication with local residents and a bit more commitment to proper work in the park to keep it in a more inviting state were undertaken then this mess could have been avoided. And this could well be the thin end of the wedge, it may only be a small green area to you but it's what it represents that is at the core of the objectors concerns. What a sad day it would be if councils thought they could hand over our parks to developers to build willy- nilly for their profit, we cannot stand idly by without doing something to preserve these important green spaces.

Vanessa Smith ● 4106d

David Pavett wrote: " There are local councillors who don't have a clue what they are doing and who care even less. But there are others who work hard to represent their constituents and who are motivated by genuine concern and genuine principle."I agree entirely.But it is reasonable, I would venture, that a political party or local unit thereof might be judged by the leadership it selects.David will, I presume, have those in mind whom he believes fit into the former of those two categories.  I would invite him then to take a look at those such individuals who are within his own party and see where they reside within the local party hierarchy.If he finds they are sitting at the top table, occupying seats which might more usefully have been distributed amongst some of those of genuine principle who do care, then I would suggest this might tell us a little about the priorities of his party, and our civic, leadership.

Phil Andrews ● 4105d

I don't know where the profiteering developers come in - I thought the plan was for a non-profit primary school, much needed in that part of Brentford. Brent Lea seemed an ideal location for a school, in a wooded field with a wall round it, that would be used by several hundred children nearly every day of the year, rather than by the handful of people who appear to use the area now. The latest proposed site, on the ground floor of a block of flats by the A4/M4 seems a very poor alternative. There's no question that a school is needed in the area and that the council is obliged to ensure that one is provided, so how about some positive suggestions.

Peter Evans ● 4102d

The land was given to the people of Brentford, not just a few. It was a gift, that should not be stolen by Coucil, it is also Metropolitan Open Land. If Council is so happy to give the school gifts how about handing over Acton Lodge.

Neil Chippendale ● 4101d

Quite.

Vanessa Smith ● 4101d