Havering Strategic Planning Committee 9th July, 2020

Selling Hall Lane Miniature Golf course was a cause celebre in 2019. Outraged residents*, in million pound houses, suddenly enthused for Miniature Golf. Too late. Romford’s Tories sold. This committee spelt out the horrors residents are facing.

The Hall Lane area surrounding the site is recognised for its special townscape and landscape character, with Policy DC69 requiring developments to maintain the special character of the Hall Lane Policy Area which is typified by large detached and semi-detached dwellings set in large gardens with considerable tree and shrub planting. Para 6:15 p27 (see source below)

Havering worries about people living in million pound houses.** Even people on quite decent wages – head teachers, doctors and so on – are deliberately priced out by policy DC69.

But credit where it’s due. Havering achieved 50% of Affordable housing. Affordable housing is sometimes mistaken for what used to be called council housing but is actually a mid-point for those with good incomes who’ve been priced out by inflation.

The Affordable housing, which will be built in Romford away from the Hall Lane site,*** comprises of:

…. 1 x 3 bed unit and 26 x 4 bed units (27 units in total), equivalent to 134 habitable rooms. As a comparison, 50% affordable housing, if it were to be provided on the application site, would equate to 18 units or approximately 72 habitable rooms. Para 6:23 pp28-9

Councillors might have had mixed motives for selling Hall Lane Miniature Golf course but Havering’s dire house building programme has made some progress. All we need now is social housing to complete the success.

Notes

* An astonishing 884 objections against 37 very expensive houses

** 11 The Fairway recently sold for £1.25 million

*** There has to be good planning reasons to not build on-site and on this occasion there are good reasons.

Sources

For a blog on the original decision see https://havering.blog/2019/04/28/the-sale-of-hall-lane-pitch-and-putt-conservative-revenge/

For the agenda of this meeting see https://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/g6652/Public%20reports%20pack%2009th-Jul-2020%2019.00%20Strategic%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=10

For GP wages see https://www.bma.org.uk/pay-and-contracts/pay/other-doctors-pay-scales/salaried-gps-pay-ranges

For affordable housing see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_housing#:~:text=Affordable%20housing%20is%20housing%20which%20is%20deemed%20affordable,local%20government%20by%20a%20recognized%20housing%20affordability%20index.

For social housing see https://england.shelter.org.uk/support_us/campaigns/what_is_social_housing

Havering’s Council Meeting 8th July, 2020*

The show began as satire. The first five minutes were spent discovering that the priest who’d led prayers was on mute. A great opening scene for, ‘Bumbling Councillors Meet Zoom.’ The mute gag was terrific and occurred repeatedly. Each time it was used everyone seemed genuinely surprised, which added to the joy of it. ‘Are we on mute?’ a truly great catch phrase.

Casting is all important for a show. This show needed a cartoon villain, a well-meaning elderly gent, a pompous young big-head, a council officer who wanted to be somewhere else and a strong group of walk-on parts. Casting did a magnificent job.

The mute gag degenerated into farce. Spending 25 minutes discussing, ‘How to vote!’ tested the patience of the audience. Severe editing was needed. Satire transformed into farce. Those who remained in the audience and loved farce, sensed magic in the air and hung on. They were richly rewarded.

A well choreographed conflict between, ‘Cartoon Villain’ and ‘Pompous Young Big-head’ didn’t disappoint. There’s nothing like teasing abuse to provoke a Cartoon Villain. Damian White did it with flair and a well practised smirk. Now and then he stoked the flames when it looked as if the gag was flagging.

And the winner was… Damian White! Once again he evaded any accountability.

* For the webcast see https://www.bing.com/search?q=havering+council+meeting+webcast&form=ANSPH1&refig=0343091694f646b287e301508ec75146&sp=1&qs=HS&pq=ha&sk=PRES1&sc=8-2&cvid=0343091694f646b287e301508ec75146

1) The first five minutes are the opening gag, which is sort of fun. Then there is 20 minutes of ‘How do we vote?’ which is fun for those who like train-crash humour.

2) If you fast forward to 1 hour 6 minutes the next 20 minutes reveal why Havering is more-or-less dead politically speaking.

Havering’s 2020 GCSE Results: Part Two

Havering’s schools will be judged this August as never before. GCSE results are dependent on previous performance, regardless of current individual achievement. But do students know what the previous performance is? Three schools opt for a ‘warts and all’ approach. Two schools have a decent half-way house. The other thirteen schools’ results are presented in an opaque manner, or not at all in three cases. Examination Boards will adjust schools’ assessment if they appear too severe or too generous. Adjustments will bring results into line with previous outcomes.

Coopers’ Company and Coburn, Frances Bardsley and Sacred Heart of Mary schools publish GCSE results in full. The 2020 results won’t be a straight ‘read through’ from 2019 but will be used in decision making. Coopers’ 2019 cohort achieved 26 grade 9s in Religious Studies. At Sacred Heart English Language, Mathematics and History all achieved six grade 9s. The same three subjects, in that order, at Frances Bardsley led to 6 grade 9s, five grade 9s and 10 grade 9s. All three schools have less successful subjects, which aren’t hidden.

Gaynes School said, “22% of our students gained Grades 7-9 (equivalent to a Grades A** – A) in five or more subjects.” The statement continued, “a phenomenal personal achievement for our students and incredibly rewarding for us as a non-selective local community school.”* This rather begs the question as to what the other 78% achieved. It shields weaker subjects from scrutiny. But in the Havering context this counts as a transparent statement.

Marshalls Park school says, “2019 saw Marshalls Park Academy students achieving amazing results, some of the best the school has ever had.”*** Their headline statement is, “Grade 5 and above in English and Maths: 46% (2018 = 33%)”. They’ve published a list of subjects with outcomes, which again is welcome whilst not hitting the gold standard of the virtuous three. Redden Court offers a different tactic as they make selected comparisons with national outcomes. Opaque but interesting.

Concealing examination results is reprehensible but that’s Hornchurch High school’s tactic. The head teacher’s introductory video presentation says she wants grammar school status. Looking at the government’s performance comparison site, this is delusional. They aren’t alone. Emerson Park and Sanders school join Hornchurch High in not publishing GCSE results at all, not even in the truncated way Brittons school adopts, “9-4 English and Maths… 49%”.

GCSE results should be published so stakeholders can readily understand the information offered. Transparency is important as a tool for critical analysis. Publishing GCSE results in full is the least that can be reasonably expected in a publicly funded education system.

Addendum: Raphael Independent School

Raphael’s don’t publish meaningful GCSE examination results either. They remark, “In 2019 70% of students obtained 8+ GCSE’s with a 92% pass rate in both English and Maths.” Quite what “a 92% pass rate” means depends on what’s meant by ‘pass’. GCSE grades run from 1-9. Most schools regard 1-3 as a fail even though it isn’t. GCSE’s measure achievement. Raphael’s don’t define ‘pass’ but the working assumption is ‘pass’ means grades 4-9.

Notes

* https://www.gaynesschool.net/gcse-results/

** https://www.cooperscoborn.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/GCSE-results-PUBLICATION2.pdf

*** http://marshallspark.org.uk/exam-results/#:~:text=2019%20saw%20Marshalls%20Park%20Academy,66%25%20(2018%20%3D%2059%25)

Sources

Click to access Summer_2020_grades_for_GCSE_AS_A_level_guidance_for_teachers_students_parents_09062020.pdf

For Coopers’ Coburn 2019 results see https://www.cooperscoborn.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/GCSE-results-PUBLICATION2.pdf

For Frances Bardsley’s 2019 results see https://fbaok.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Parents-Exam-booklet-2019.pdf

For Sacred Heart’s 2019 GCSE results see https://sacredheartofmary.net/wp-content/uploads/Exresult2019-1.pdf

For Gaynes 2019 GCSE results see http://www.gaynesschool.net/gcse-results/

For Redden Court’s 2019 GCSE results see https://www.reddencourtcloud.co.uk/information-for-parents/examination-results

For Marshalls Park 2019 GCSE results see http://marshallspark.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Subject-breakdown.pdf

For Hornchurch High’s 2019 GCSE results see https://www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/school/143946/hornchurch-high-school/secondary

For Emerson Park 2019 GCSE results see http://www.emersonparkacademy.org/page/?title=Results&pid=29

For Sanders school see https://www.sandersschool.org.uk/information-for-parents/examination-information

For Brittons 2019 GCSE results see https://www.brittons.havering.sch.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Examination-Results-2019.pdf

Havering’s 2020 GCSE Results: Part One

The government’s Covid-19 education policy depends on Year Eleven teachers grading and ranking students to replace GCSE examinations. This task was completed on 12^th June, 2020.

1) Teachers must produce an order of merit for their students

2) Teachers must ‘award’ GCSE grades based on that order of merit within each grade. Therefore every grade 9 student is ranked, likewise grade 8 students and so on.

Heads of Centre must sign a declaration confirming the centre assessment grades and rank order are a true representation of their students’ performance, before checking the data for accuracy, and submitting it to the exam board. p5*

The government is aware that teachers who support their students might subjectively slide into grade inflation, so grades are subject to statistical analysis.

So that the final grades awarded are as fair as possible, exam boards will standardise the judgements for each subject across different centres once they have been submitted, using a statistical methodology developed in conjunction with Ofqual. p4**

The government’s statisticians understand bias and its dangers. This is discussed on pages p10-11*. The ranking order won’t be altered but grades might be,

However, if grading judgements in a subject in some schools and colleges appear to be more severe or generous than others, exam boards will adjust the grades of some or all of those students upwards or downwards accordingly. This means that the centre assessment grades submitted by schools and colleges and the final grade that students receive could be different. It also means that adjustments to centre assessment grades might be different in different subjects. P9*

Using the 2019 GCSE results of Sacred Heart of Mary for example, a prediction that 19 students of Religious Studies should be awarded grade 9, will probably be agreed. Alternatively predicting 19 grade 9 successes in Mathematics would probably be downgraded. This is due to a significant differential between the subject outcomes in previous years.

The government’s advice is this,

If, when compared to the evidence… your judgements in a subject are more generous than would be expected, then the final grades for some or all of your students will be adjusted down. P11**

Teachers, parents and students at Sacred Heart are at a significant advantage to 15 Havering schools, as they publish results subject by subject. It’s the school that’s being graded. Individual students aren’t graded at Examination Board level.

Ofqual…. shows that for the vast majority of schools and colleges any year-on year variation in results for a given subject is quite small. In 2015 and 2016, 90% of centres were classed as having stable outcomes and 8.5% of centres were classed as having ‘unstable results’. Only 0.8% of centres had results that increased by more than the national average change in both 2015 and 2016 and only 0.5% of centres had results that decreased more than the national average change in both 2015 and 2016. p10*

Covid-19 has turned traditional examinations upside down. The historic performance of schools is now all important.*** Teachers have had a heavy burden placed on their shoulders as they adjudicate the GCSE grades of their students during this emergency.

Notes

Sacred Heart’s 2019 GCSE results in detail https://sacredheartofmary.net/wp-content/uploads/Exresult2019-1.pdf

* https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/890811/Summer_2020_grades_for_GCSE_AS_A_level_guidance_for_teachers_students_parents_09062020.pdf When there is quotation from this document there will be page reference and *

** https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/887018/Summer_2020_Awarding_GCSEs_A_levels_-_Info_for_Heads_of_Centre_22MAY2020.pdf When there is quotation from this there will be page reference and **

*** In a fast moving situation this has been modified https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coronavirus/gcse-and-a-level-pupils-can-sit-exams-if-they-don-t-like-coursework-grade/ar-BB169yfX?ocid=msedgntp accessed 30^th June 2020

Sources

For the worst performing school in England see https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-englands-worst-schools-revealed-13899939 The list is, …. based on how teenagers at each of the country’s secondary schools performed in their GCSE exams in 2018, taking into account progress not attainment.Drapers & Brittons feature from Havering.

For the general advice the government is offering see https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/890811/Summer_2020_grades_for_GCSE_AS_A_level_guidance_for_teachers_students_parents_09062020.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/awarding-qualifications-in-summer-2020

For the government’s specific advice to schools see https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/887018/Summer_2020_Awarding_GCSEs_A_levels_-_Info_for_Heads_of_Centre_22MAY2020.pdf

Havering’s Rainham Riverside Walk

“The medieval marshes of Rainham, Wennington and Aveley are one of the very few ancient landscapes remaining in London.”*

Rainham Riverside is an idiosyncratic gem. If you’re hoping for chocolate box beauty you’ll be disappointed. Approaching the car park you pass through an industrial area. Once beyond that there’s a narrow road with lush vegetation on either side. The last half mile or so prepares you for the small car park and the Thames in front of you. You’ve entered a different world.

Once on the riverside footpath, which is a good, sound surface, you can choose to go east or west. We took the eastwards route towards the RSPB site. Immediately you notice the sweep of the river. It isn’t glorious, it’s a working river. There are hulks from WW2 left in the mud. Their glory days supporting the Allied invasion on D-Day long gone. Numerous hand painted signs and information boards are scattered on fencing adjacent to the path.

One reason we didn’t get to the RSPB was that it was shut. The other reason was it was too far. Younger people could easily walk it. We needed more benches. Not very ambitious is it? A walk based on the distance between benches, but there you are. We did about a mile each way and found it to be most satisfactory.

It’s very popular with cyclists, many of whom have bells, unlike the ones who populate Hornchurch pavements. Small groups of walkers and families enjoyed the day as well. Recommended especially for the wonderful fresh air.

Note

* https://www.walkingclub.org.uk/walk/rainham-to-purfleet-via-rspb-rainham-marshes/ This is the website of the Saturday Walkers Club who do this walk four times a year

Source

For a blog on a walk from the RSPB, Rainham to Grays see https://exploring-urban-wastelands.co.uk/rainham-to-grays/

Havering Park: an Avenue of Redwood Trees

Havering Park still has the second largest plantation of Wellingtonia in England, totalling 100 trees

Havering Park is quite small and undistinguished. It doesn’t have a cafe or a deer park and it definitely doesn’t have stunning views across London. What it does have is a unique avenue of trees: Wellingtonia Avenue.

The Giant Redwood lines Wellingtonia Avenue but because of rapid local changes they go from nowhere to nowhere. They were planted about 140 years ago by the McIntosh family who owned the local mansion. Nowadays they’d be regarded as a foreign invader species but the attraction in the 19^th century was that,

Redwoods grow faster than almost any other tree in the world, obtaining 3 to 10 feet of growth per year. Most of this growth occurs in the first century of a redwood’s life.** (my emphasis)

The great 18^th century gardens took decades to put together before reaching maturity. The McIntosh family didn’t want to wait. They selected the Giant Redwood. The Giant Redwood lives for 3000 years becoming a monster, which means, barring climate change, they could live until about 5020! Havering Park is blessed with a landscape dominated by wonderful trees.

A short walk on a decent surface means that Havering Park provides a unique experience and is worth a visit.

Notes

* https://www.havering.gov.uk/info/20037/parks/723/havering_country_park

** https://www.gardenguides.com/12378880-how-fast-do-redwoods-grow.html

Sources

For a wonderful set of photographs see http://www.redwoodworld.co.uk/picturepages/havering.htm

For a detailed list of Havering’s principal parks see https://www.havering.gov.uk/info/20037/parks

For an overview of the giant redwood see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoiadendron_giganteum

For an 18^th century Capability Brown garden see https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/stowe/profiles/capability-found-at-stowe

The Battle for Tylers Common: Major Geoffrey Bing MP, KC*

Introduction

During the 18^th century, wealthy farmers enclosed common land. Poor people had had a traditional right to graze animals and get informal food supplies but they didn’t have documentary evidence of that right. Parliamentary ‘Enclosure’ Acts favoured the wealthy, who used a legal sleight of hand to dispossess them. By about 1850, enclosure was completed with just a few commons remaining. One of these was Tylers Common. The rights of the commoners were defended by the ‘lord of the manor’, the Branfil family.

The Battle for Tylers Common

During the Second World War all available land was utilised. Tylers Common was used for food production by Essex Council from 1943. Unlike the 18^th century, 20^th century commoners had documentary evidence supporting historic rights. No-one anticipated a land grab by Essex Council.

Geoffrey Bing was the local MP and a very senior lawyer. When commoners approached him about the enclosure of Tylers Common he was outraged. He was a formidable opponent of Essex Council and his forensic probing discovered,

…..Essex County Council have…… illegally enclosed this common and let it to one of their members.** (my emphasis)

In the subsequent court case, Essex Council’s refusal to reinstate pre-war common status led to a damning judgment. Councillors were surcharged for wilful behaviour and had to pay costs. Bing, as a lawyer and parliamentarian, trounced Essex Council and Tylers Common remains common land enjoyed by the people of Havering to this day.

Notes

* KC: this is the most senior rank for barristers – nowadays QC

** https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1951/aug/02/tylers-common-upminster

Sources

For Bing’s parliamentary questioning see https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1951-06-28/debates/6364ef34-abb3-4d77-8d58-238964525ea6/TylersCommonUpminster

and

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1951-07-05/debates/cc7314e7-5a6b-4a26-8ad7-cea4a2e0e84a/TylerSCommonUpminster

and

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1951-08-02a.1619.4&s=speaker%3A16658#g1619.5

For a Romford Recorder article see https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/heritage/nostalgia-tylers-common-havering-s-largest-open-space-1-2015231

For a more detailed on-line history of Upminster see https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol7/pp143-153

For the surcharging of councillors see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surcharge_(sanction)

For historic maps see https://www.francisfrith.com/tylers-common/maps

For a brief history of common land see https://www.acraew.org.uk/history-common-land-and-village-greens

Reopening Havering’s Schools: Governors Will Decide

Good government requires ministers and civil servants who pay meticulous attention to detail. Reopening Havering’s schools needs careful judgement not prejudiced, hand-wringing bluster. They were shut because of the government’s public health strategy in March, 2020. Public health is a government responsibility but health and safety in schools is devolved to school governors and Academy Trust management teams.

The Covid-19 pandemic hit Britain in February, 2020, becoming severe during March when the government declared a public health emergency. Public health legislation is a sledgehammer closing every school regardless of local conditions.

It’s seductively simple closing schools but reopening them is complex. Schools aren’t managed by the government. Havering’s schools will open when their governors are satisfied that the health and safety of staff and pupils is guaranteed. Health and safety is a responsibility of governors or the Academy Trusts. Government can advise but can’t instruct. The indicated date of June 1^st has been challenged across the country because of local circumstances.

Havering’s schools will reopen when governors are satisfied it’s safe to do so for staff and children. The arrangements will reflect the geography of their school buildings. Local knowledge is crucial here and will be used to keep Havering’s staff and children safe.

Sources

For school closures see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/schools-colleges-and-early-years-settings-to-close

For the responsibility of school governors see https://schoolgovernors.thekeysupport.com/finance-and-premises/health-and-safety/

For the reopening of Havering’s schools see https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/10/boris-johnson-coronavirus-lockdown-shops-schools-june-reopening

Damian White and Romford Marks and Spencer (M&S) July, 2019

Damian personally authorised the £14.7 million purchase of M&S’ Romford site in July, 2019. The checks and balances of the Overview and Scrutiny committee were by-passed by Darren Wise, the chair. As a consequence, the decision wasn’t subject to robust analysis as it was hurried through. A Havering College 6^th former studying Business Studies knows this is the worst possible way to make an investment decision. The students would have done a SWOT analysis first.

Strength M&S is an iconic retailer with a loyal customer base

Weakness M&S is a flabby, badly managed company feeding off past glories

Opportunity M&S has a wonderful reputation for quality, which can be migrated into other activities

Threat M&S, along with every other retailer, is faced with online competition, which is destroying their principal activities.

Havering’s M&S investment depends on a revenue stream paying the costs related to borrowing £14.7 million. The question posed by ‘Threat’ is: will M&S pay their rent? Many retailers are negotiating with landlords to accept CVAs with downward adjustments, sometimes to zero.

“£14.7 million is required to replenish the capital allocation for new opportunities. A significant opportunity arose to purchase the lease of the premises occupied by Marks & Spencer in Romford earlier this year [2019] which reduced the allocation by a similar amount. The annual lease income being received from Marks & Spencer covers the ongoing revenue costs of the purchase and makes a return to the General Fund.”**

Amazingly the July, 2019 report says, “this is a liquid asset, providing many of the characteristics which investors are seeking.” *** (my emphasis) The statement is nonsense. In 2019, some property unit trusts couldn’t meet redemption demands because their property assets were illiquid and they’re professional property investors.

Damian’s administration relies on the Harold Wood 3, one of whom is Darren Wise. He’s the Overview and Scrutiny chair who agreed scrutiny wasn’t applicable due to the urgency of the decision. The Cabinet was by-passed by Damian, using ‘strong leader’ provisions of the Localism Act. He behaves as if he’s an elected Mayor. (see Addendum One)

The use of ‘urgency’ clauses is exceptional and the assistant Director of Regeneration added a hand-written note to the document (see Addendum Two) stating it was authorised by Darren Wise. This suggests that he had doubts about whether it was urgent. The preliminaries of a property deal of this size take an extended period of time. Prior to purchase it went through due diligence, ensuring the deeds were accurate, the physical condition of the 52 year old building, the insurance details (which were odd, as it turns out). Finance has been arranged for thirty years. There was no ‘urgency’.

So why did Damian do it?

Nigel Wilcox, the executive director of the Institute for Economic Development said: “The conclusion is that local authorities are embarking on risky strategies – but they have clearly been driven to this route through the underfunding from central government.” (my emphasis)

£14.7 million of the Havering 2019 capital budget was used for property speculation by people who are naive as investors. Damian has saddled Havering with a 30 year debt for a non-performing asset which is probably unsellable and Darren assisted him. Covid-19 is the final nail in the coffin of this ‘investment’, which was reckless from the beginning.

Addendum One: The strong leader

“In 2009 Milton Keynes Council moved to the Strong Leader model – a model where all powers that fall to the Executive are now discharged solely by the Executive Leader (whether personally or through delegation), and not by the Executive as a ‘body’.”

“The two ‘executive’ models that now exist are the Executive Leader model (known as the Strong Leader Model) and the elected Mayor model.”

“…in practice these will be delegated to other executive members (cabinet members), committees of the executive, or officers of the council. But even once delegated this does not stop the leader from personally exercising any executive function.”* (my emphasis)

https://milton-keynes.cmis.uk.com/milton-keynes/Document.ashx?

And https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2013/06/On-line-Catalogue213663.pdf

Notes

* Strength – Weakness – Opportunity – Threat

** https://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/s39402/190910%20Budget%20Update%20-%20report%20final%20100919.pdf 18^th September 2019

*** See https://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/s38373/49%2039-43%20South%20Street%20Romford%20Acquisition%20and%20finalisation%20of%20outstanding%20pre-conditions%20on%20Prope.pdf

SourcesFor the retail environment as an investment see https://www.ellandi.com/our-news/ellandi-media-coverage/2019/11/exclusive-no-evidence-councils-buying-shopping-centres-out-of-the-area#.XrxBJG5Fy70

For illiquid property unit trusts see https://www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/Investing-in-property-consider-liquidity-risk

For M&S relegation from the FTSE 100 see https://www.theweek.co.uk/103101/why-ms-is-about-to-drop-out-of-ftse-100 Next joined the FTSE 100 in 2001