Guest Blog - GREENSPACES, SPORTS AND RECREATION GROUNDS

Guest blog by Julia Hines

Barnet is in the final stages of preparing its Local Development Framework, which will contain its planning policy against which all planning decisions will be made in the next few years. They are consulting on changes which have been made to the policy along the way.

I am writing this to highlight the changes to the map which showing all the open spaces, sports and recreation grounds in the borough, Map 11.

This has been changed in the course of the consultation, and it might help if I explained why.

In 2009 Barnet Council employed Ove Arup to survey and map all the greenspaces and sports grounds in the borough, which they did. This was illustrated as Map 11 in the pre-publication stage of the consultation of the Local Development Framework. Technically this survey is a PPG17 audit. If you want to read PPG17 you can find it here

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningpolicyguidance17

Developers, who own some land behind my home, including the land on which the West Finchley Bowling Club stands, protested that this land should not be on the map because it was private land and did not have legitimate private access. So Barnet took it off Map 11.

There was another round of consultation, so my neighbours and I wrote in arguing that this was unfair because:

1. Ownership & access are irrelevant under PPG17;
2. The land behind our homes is PPG17 land (2 Planning Appeal Inspectors said so & Bowling Clubs are specifically listed in PPG17); and
3. It was unfair to remove us from Map 11 on these grounds, if other private sports clubs like Finchley Cricket Club, Finchley Rugby Club or the Hall School Memorial Ground; or public spaces without public access, like school sports grounds; or other greenspaces which are private and do not have unrestricted access, like College Farm or Long Lane Pastures, are not treated the same way. Basically I said it was unlawful to treat us differently; decisions should be policy based and not purely because developers or planning consultants.

We asked to be put back on the map.

I think Barnet accepted our arguments, because they realised they could not keep Map 11 as it was. However, instead of putting us back on the map, they removed EVERY sports ground in the borough. Map 11 now only shows Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Space.

You can see this on p.59 here. Look at the amount of dark green land lost from the map and the change in title.

http://www.barnet.gov.uk/further-proposed-changes-barnet_s-core-strategy-21-01-2012-v2.pdf

I believe that this will weaken the protection from development that all this land has.

Map 11 is supposed to support and illustrate policy CS7 in the LDF. I think it no longer does that. It is supposed to tie in with other policies, like the yet to be drafted Site Allocations Development Plan, but without laying the groundwork by describing the land accurately, it won’t do that.

If you would like to make your feelings known on this, or any of the other changes in the Local Development Framework, the link is here

http://www.barnet.gov.uk/index/council-democracy/consultations/planning-consultations/consultation-on-the-proposed-further-changes-to-the-core-strategy-and-development-management-policies.htm

The closing date is 4pm on 8 March 2012.

My feeling is that the Map 11 should revert back to the pre-publication version because that is the version which is

1. Justified – it is based on a robust and credible evidence base – the Ove Arup audit
2. Effective – it was the original plan
3. Consistent with national planning policy, in other words PPG17 (and also the Mayor’s London Plan). I believe the current version isn’t because it does not show all the land which ought to be on there.

If you agree with me, please let Barnet know.

Thank you for listening.

Julia

PS The planning consultants who act for the developers who own the land behind my home are Capita Symonds. They are in the running for the £250 million contract which would see them becoming the planning officers for Barnet. For my views on this see

http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2011/09/guest-blog-greensquare-field-planning.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Hines is  a Barnet resident and a regular contributor to the Barnet Eye. Guest blogs are always welcome - This blog is read by 20-30,000 people a month. If you want them to hear what you have to say, please send me a guest blog via the email link at the side of the page.

Manchester City FC Special - The joy of six

As regular readers of this blog will know, I support Manchester City FC. I have done since 1968. It is fair to say that it hasn't always been easy or even much fun at times. Not so long ago the team were languishing in League 1. On Sunday something remarkable happened. They played Man United off the park and spanked them 6-1 in their own back yard. Much as I'd love to write a blog gloating and winding up my United supporting family and friends, I'll refrain from that. There are other issues which are more important in Football. Firstly there has been criticism in some quarters as to the fact that City have bought a team. I disagree. Every football fan be it Manchester United or Barnet FC would love to see David Silva in their team. Not every team will have a rich sheik buy them, but it is something to dream of. That is what football is all about.

Back in 1999 as I sat in Wembley Stadium with 88 minutes gone and City trailing Gillingham 2-0 in the League 1 play off final, with United about to win the Champions League, the concept that we'd spank them 6-1 at Old Trafford in 12 years seemed ridiculous. Somehow they pulled 2 goals back and beat Gillingham on penalties. Even though for a few minutes anything seemed possible, the next day I realised that all that had happened was we'd beaten the mighty Gillingham.

As I write this, there is talk in some quarters that the abolition of relegation from the Premiership is a realistic possibility. Had that happened in 1999, then where would City be now? They certainly wouldn't be parading their pomp at Old Trafford. They are not the only big club who have been relegated. What sane person would make the case for Leeds, Birmingham, West Ham and Southampton being excluded permenantly from the Premiership? They all have the potential (with a rich benefactor) to be Champions League contenders. Who can possibly say that Blackpool didn't light up the league last season? This season we have new boys Swansea paying attractive football having come up. We have Delia Smith at Norwich, possibly the best loved chairman of the lot gracing the terraces of the Premiership. Who can possibly say such clubs should be excluded.

As I mentioned above, many of my friends and family are Manchester United fans. They have criticised City for being bankrolled by their owners. I would be far more critical of the ownership of United. Whilst City's owners have pumped money in, producing a team which is playing superb football, the Glazers have sucked money out. I read the Glazers had cost Manchester United over £450 million in fees, wages and interest payments since they took over. Imagine the team that could have bought? Sir Alex Ferguson publicly says that he's bought whatever players he wanted, but I for one do not believe he didn't cast the odd envious glance at the City bench on Sunday. Owners such as the Glazers and the Americans who own Liverpool are not sentimental. They see the clubs as a franchise and the supporters as cash cows, to be milked. Sadly this means kids like my son, who wants the latest kit.

I watched two games of Football on Sunday. Before the Manchester derby, I watched my sons team Watling FC lose 10-2 at Cressingham Park. The club used to be based at Watling Boys Club. Sadly Barnet Council are selling the Club building off for housing development - http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=10665. Sadly there is no rich sugar daddy for Watling. Unlike Manchester City, who's ground is owned by the Council, Watling FC have a landlord who doesn't give a stuff about providing facilities for young people. They cannot see that providing sports facilities is a positive force for the community. The more things young boys and girls have to do, the healthier and happier they are. I don't expect Barnet Council to buy David Silva to head the team, but decent basic facilities and playing fields to play on, is surely not too much to ask, is it.

Every time I see grafitti, a smashed bus stop or broken shop window, it reminds me of the total failure of Barnet Council to provide basic sports and recreation facilities for youngsters. It really is shameful. A win such as the one City played out on Sunday can lift your spirits. God knows we need it in Barnet.

Mill Hill Sports Club pays the Price for overdevelopment in Barnet

The Barnet Council Cabinet resources committee are debating how they murdered Mill Hill Sports Club on the 27th September. There are two items for discussion :-

The transfer of the lease on the site to Barnet Council
http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=10641

The relocation of Orion School to the site of Mill Hill Sports club
http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=10642

This blog has been saying for years that Barnet is being overdeveloped. We've been saying for years that this will cause social problems and destroy the character of the Borough. Why do we need a new school? Because overdevelopment has made Barnet Council run out of school places. Section 9.4 of the report states :-
9.4 Area of demand: Primary aged children must be offered a primary school place within two miles walking distance of their home address. Sustained demand is projected over the next five years, 2012/13 to 2016/17, in the following areas.

Colindale, West Hendon, Burnt Oak and Hendon: 4FE rising to 7FE by 2015/16 18

Hale, Mill Hill, Edgware and Totteridge: 2 to 3FE

East Barnet, Brunswick Park and Oakleigh: 2 to 3FE

Coppetts, West Finchley, Woodhouse, East Finchley and Finchley Church End: 2 to 3FE

Childs Hill, Garden Suburb and Golders Green: 2FE

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, the overdevelopment of Colindale needs a virtual doubling of Primary School provision. 4 form entry to 7 form entry. So to meet this legal requirement, they sacrifice community facilities. Have they learned? Of course not. It's all very well providing school places, but what do these kids do when school finishes? As football and cricket pitches are ripped up, they are left with no choice but to hang around on Street corners.  It will get even worse, with the humungous monstrosity that will become Brent Cross.

The closure of Mill Hill Sports club and the building of a huge school complex on it's site, destroying forever playing fields, which have been used by generations of local families is just one of many little bits of a jigsaw, where green fields are replaced by concrete and tarmac. I discussed this with a local Tory - his response "It is nothing to do with overdevelopment".  Oh yeah, what about the enormous Beaufort Park site next door? "Erm, well the population in Barnet is going up anyway" he responded. "Yes,with people moving into the developments and then starting families". This country has a static birth rate. The reason the number of forms in schools rises from 4 to 7 is nothing to do with a shagfest or a breeding spree by people in Colindale inspired by the latest EastEnders story. It is because they are putting up huge blocks of rabbit hutch flats.

For residents of Barnet I have two pieces of advice. Firstly go and enjoy the green spaces now, before the Council destroy them all. The second piece of advice. Have a good long look at the sky, because you won't see too much of it once all the skyscrapers have gone up.

Isn't it odd how the Tory strongholds such as Totteridge (home of Brian Coleman) don't seem to be affected by the overdevelopment? Strange that?

Oh yes, one other thing. Report 6 states as a risk :-

4.2 At present, this site is under utilised in terms of its provision of facilities for the
community. Its use as a site for a school will correct this. There is a risk that Sport
England may require that part of the site continue to be used for sports purposes. Dependant on the site area of the school to be built, this requirement may be able to be satisfied on site. Failing that, an alternative site for sport use will need to be identified
from the Council’s property portfolio.

Well they damn well will if I have my way. This whole scheme has been shrouded in secrecy, this is the first proper detail of what Barnet were planning.  Is that any way for a council to behave. Make the decision then consult people.

Mill Hill Sports Club latest - Mill Hill Jazz club is moving

An update on the closure of Mill Hill Sports Club. The Mill Hill jazz club has found a new home. It is :-

Mill Hill Golf Club Clubhouse
100 Barnet Way
Mill Hill
NW7 3AL

They have a real treat as an opening event :-

Our Next Evening: Wednesday 7th September
The Graham Pike Quartet
	Graham Pike is a great multi instrumentalist transgressing many styles from jazz and fusion to classical, trad folk to blues. On trumpet and flugelhorn Graham's been compared to Chet Baker and Miles Davis.  His harmonica playing and singing is also up there with the best.   He is also a Composer/songwriter for TV and Theatre with a lifetime's experience in studio production, scoring and arranging. The quartet features Graham supported by Barry Parfitt on piano, Jason Simpson on bass and Eric Ford on drums. This band will putt us on the map at our new golf club venue.
Price: £5 Members/£7 Guests

Graham Pike is a great multi instrumentalist transgressing many styles from jazz and fusion to classical, trad folk to blues. On trumpet and flugelhorn Graham's been compared to Chet Baker and Miles Davis.  His harmonica playing and singing is also up there with the best.   He is also a Composer/songwriter for TV and Theatre with a lifetime's experience in studio production, scoring and arranging.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the latest gossip on the Sports Club, and I have heard this third hand so I don't know how true it is. The staff have now been given until the end of September to be completely out of there when the Club closes. Originally they had been given a 3 month rolling contract to be caretakers of the place. Now, allegedly, the council is meeting with the current owners to discuss buying back the property to, as you may know, build a school there.  Whilst the area does need more schools, its not such a good idea when it comes at the expense of loosing sports facilities. The council owns plenty of land in Barnet, so why destroy amenities for the community, rather than using existing sites? We cannot afford, socially, morally or for the sake of our young peoples health and wellbeing to keep destroying playing fields.

The 12 STD's of Christmas

I came across this story in the Independent yesterday (no pun intended). The author, Mary Wakefield seems to have been rather upset by this adaptation of the Christmas classic. Click Here to hear this catchy ditty. The Lyrics start with "On the first day of Christmas, My true love gave to me, a bug that made it hard to pee". Mary Wakefield seems to be rather upset that this is being used by the education service to raise awareness of the risks of promiscuity and to promote the use of condoms. To quote her article :-

On days four to 12, sang the happy health workers, my true love gave to me, in this order: genital herpes, gonorrhoea, pubic lice, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, genital warts, scabies, pelvic inflammatory disease and crabs. The song is called The 12 STDs of Xmas and I think (though I hope I'm wrong) it was accompanied by slides.

Afterwards, the NHS minstrels left very pleased with themselves – instructive and fun too! But the kids sat in worried silence. They were traumatised, said my friend. No wonder. Their spongey little brains were learning to associate true love with herpes and Christmas with lumpy testicles.

This sort of article, normally more at home on the pages of the Daily Mail, never cease to amaze me. Firstly she doesn't say what age the children targeted were. She mentioned that Ed Balls was bringing in mandatory warts and all sex education for five year olds. Now you'd instantly think "Oh I don't want my five year old listening to that". The thing that bothers me is that although she drew this link, it is quite clear that the song wasn't sung to five year olds. As ever, the devil is in the detail. When I was 14 years old, I didn't even know what an STD was. I was blissfully unaware of all of the things which I could catch. Would the 12 STD's of Xmas changed my behaviour? I doubt it, but I'm sure it would have got the message across. If I'd have got a bad itch or a sore on my private parts, I'd have kept very quiet. At least todays kids know that they need medical attention.

As to the message that you should wear a condom. It's all about damage limitation. I've got teenage daughters and I'd fell much more comfortable with them abstaining from sex. If they sought my advice (which I think they'd rather hang themselves than do) on such matters, I'd certainly tell them to wait. If they wouldn't, I'd ask them to make sure they were on the pill & used condoms. If this song could help modify their behaviour, I'd play it to them. Oh and before you ask, yup I'm a church attending Roman Catholic, but one who believes in damage limitation and isn't ready to become a grandad just yet.

Having said all of that, I think that they are sending the wrong message. You see, I believe that drink and/or drugs plays a major role in many teenagers getting pregnant. People loose their inhibitions and that is when the problems happen. I suspect that if teenagers are given things to do which don't include drinking, then teenage pregnancy rates will drop. That is my bugbear with these campaigns. My 14 year old daughter spends virtually all of her leisure time surrounded by nearly naked men, but I doubt she's in much danger of getting pregnant. She's a swimmer and by the time she finishes her 11 sessions a week, she's completely knackered. I know this isn't the answer for everyone, but I suspect boredom plays a major role in under age sex and relationships. Organisations such as scouts, guides, youth clubs, sport and music projects etc are the solution. Is it any wonder that teenage pregancy rises as councils sell off playing fields and youth clubs?