King Eddies campaigners bowled over by all the support they have had

Whilst the re-consultation has been carried out, the committee's request for an alternative land swap site selection in accordance with National Planning Policy and Sport England's comments has not been adhered to. 

Are the committee satisfied that you've seen a comprehensive spreadsheet of sites considered? Have you been given detailed information as to how the other sites were discounted? Has a detailed and robust assessment of alternative sites with fully justified reasons been presented? 

The proposed landswap is sloping, waterlogged on recent visits with restricted views across the park. Several trees beside the footpath obstruct the views across the park. The land is not functional and usable. No replacement building is proposed, there will be no indoor community space. Not only is it not a comparable land swap, it is actually an inferior replacement. 

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.

The park is afforded a level of protection under the Fields in Trust award should planning permission be forthcoming. Fields in Trust rejected the London Welsh School's [The Head of Planning, Steven Weeks, corrected this later. He said to the Chair, Cllr Sarah Marquis, that he believed it was Property Services [i.e. Brent Council] who applied to Fields in Trust] proposal in January. 

The community have come together to provide an enhanced bowls offer and community space. They have a willingness to secure complementary uses for the space for a robust community asset.

Whilst planning application number 14/4208 does not comply with paragraphs 74 and 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework, as well as the Council's own CP18 of the core strategy and the All London Green Grid, our Community Business Proposal would comply with all the aforementioned planning policies.

This proposal in effect takes away a community sporting facility from local residents and seeks change of use to replace it with a private business operating as the London Welsh School.

There is no parking provision within this application. Neither is there a travel plan. It's been mentioned that the school will use the car park. The lower car park is used by groups playing cricket who I've spoken to, who said they would oppose the proposal.
The idea of compensating for the loss of the open space adjacent to the pavilion with the steeply sloping bank next to Collin's Lodge is not comparable and unusable. Supporting documents propose that residents sit or lie down on what has been completely waterlogged grass on recent visits, beside the traffic fumes of the frequent tail backs of stationary vehicles on Park Lane whilst enjoying a beverage and the views. In fact this will make Collin's Lodge vulnerable to vandalisation and arson. As an attractive notable architectural feature of the park and the wider Wembley area this would be tragic. 

The Tree Officer's report has not been submitted with the documents. As no tree survey was provided, and, no reference is made in the committee report to the trees being felled, there is a real need for formal proof before the category B Monterey Cypress tree and 3 Irish Yew trees can be removed. Category B trees have the ability to contribute to the quality of an area for up to 20 years. Granting permission without such proof would be a travesty against nature. 

Child safeguarding is important. The location is too exposed to the public being in the middle of the park. Any CCTV & lighting would be subject to additional planning permission.

We urge our elected planning committee members not to permit the taking of parkland and a recreational facility from the people of Wembley and Brent. Please consider the limited evidence base, misguided supporting documents, limited re-consultation time, alongside the case officer committee report, to refuse this flawed proposal.