A virtual exhibition has been launched today
You may well already be aware of the proposed changes to Vyners School admissions policy for year 7 admissions in 2021. If not they can be found at
These will give precedence to those pupils attending Ryefield school who live within 2km of Vyners over local children who live nearest to the school.
We were not informed directly of these proposed changes; we were informed by concerned parents as were those residents in roads closest to the school. This despite the following statement on the school website that
Vyners School’s Governing Body has supported the changes to the admissions criteria subject to consultation with stakeholders.
The consultation is for the attention of:
- parents of children in the locality of Vyners School between the ages of two and eighteen;
- other persons in the area who in the opinion of the admission authority have an interest in the proposed arrangements;
- all other admission authorities within the local area;
- the local authority;
- any adjoining neighbouring local authorities.
Our schools representative has endeavoured to arrange a meeting with the head but has been informed that no meetings will take place till after the consultation finishes on 24th January.
We therefore feel, as an Association eligible under bullet point 2 above, that this consultation has not been properly undertaken.
We are very concerned about the impact this will have not only on those children who attend Breakspear,, Glebe and Hermitage (the 3 nearest schools) but also on the village community in the potential for increased traffic and pollution among other issues.
In addition to our concerns about the detrimental impact of the proposal on local people, following a detailed review of the national admissions code, the schools adjudicator annual reports and several adjudicator judgements, we believe that the Trust’s proposals may breach the code in at least three areas:
- No rationale or justification for the criteria have been offered – impeding stakeholder’s ability to consider whether the criteria are reasonable and fair (as they must be)
- No tie-breaker criteria (which must be included)
- Failure to consult on the full criteria. The approach taken by the Trust of only consulting on one criteria means stakeholders are deprived of the opportunity to comment on the cumulative impacts of the criteria as a package and suggesting supplementary new criteria, or consequential changes to existing criteria.
With these potential breaches in mind, we call on the Trust to hold a further, legally compliant consultation.
We would urge that if you share our concerns you write accordingly to the school as below
An email to: email@example.com referring to Admissions Consultation in the subject header or a written letter addressed: Admissions Consultation and sent to the school’s address.
We have been asked to circulate the following by the London Green Belt council. They are hoping to get sufficient signatures to get it debated in Parliament:
Cease all new developments on Greenbelt and Greenfield sites across the country
Government housing policy is forcing councils to meet aggressive house building targets. This directly causes new developments on Greenbelt & Greenfield. Many councils believe the targets are unrealistic. According to CPRE 460,000 homes are currently planned for greenbelt & greenfield sites.
This from RAF Northolt:
Royal Air Force Northolt is required to submit an Airspace Change Proposal under the Department for Transport’s Future Airspace Strategy Implementation (South) programme. All airports in the South East of the United Kingdom are taking part in this programme, which will not be implemented before 2024.
This Airspace Change Proposal will be implemented under the Civil Aviation Authority’s ‘CAP1616’ process, which directs an airport or airfield to engage with those geographical areas that may be affected by any proposed flightpath changes. We have identified that your area could be affected by Royal Air Force Northolt’s Airspace Change Proposal.
We want to ensure that you are aware of this Airspace Change Proposal, and seek the input of local residents before we start the initial airspace design process. Before we start to put any lines on maps, we would like to understand what is important to local residents and this information will influence the design principles that we use in designing the Airspace Change. This way we can ensure that local opinion is taken into account, where there are choices to be made in the airspace design process.
You can let your views be known by completing the design principles form and sending an electronic copy to the email address below, or by posting a hard copy to ‘Senior Air Traffic Controller, RAF Northolt, RUISLIP, HA4 6NG’. Please rank the design principles in it in order of preference for Tables Two and Three.
The form is here: 20190320-RAF Northolt Draft Design Principles-AL3-O
The associated PowerPoint presentation is here: 20190412-CLG B – 23 Apr 19-O
We stress that operations and usage at RAF Northolt will remain unchanged, just the airspace in which our aircraft operate will change. What we are looking to achieve at this stage is simply to understand which of the design principles are most important to residents. From there we can go about designing the airspace and share the proposals once complete. For electronic contact please use the following email address: NOR-Airspaceportal@mod.gov.uk
Somehow this petition has slipped through almost unnoticed. It will run only until the 24th April. It needs to get to 10,000 signatures to get to a Government response or, at 100,000, it might get a parliamentary debate.’ So, if you agree with the proposal, please sign it, if you haven’t already done so. Please pass the link on to everyone you can think of. Thanks!
We call on the Government to abandon the HS2 Rail project:
From Ickenham Residents’ Association
The following application regarding the Master Brewer site is due to be considered at the Major Applications Planning Committee on Tuesday 19th February 2019 starting at 6pm in the Council Chamber in the Civic Centre.
This Association will be speaking against the proposals.
SUBJECT: Application reference 4266/APP/2017/3183 Amendment Sept. 2018
FORMER MASTER BREWER SITE, FREEZELAND WAY HILLINGDON
Proposal: Construction of a residential-led, mixed use development comprising buildings between 4 and 9 storeys to provide 437 residential units (Use Class C3); employment floor space (Use Classes B1(a-c)); flexible commercial floor space (Use Classes A1/A3); associated car and cycle parking; and hard and soft landscaping, plant and other associated ancillary development. (Revised Application)
If you would like to show your support please come along and listen to the discussion
Thank you in advance
Committee member Brian Adams summarises the current situation with Swakeleys Roundabout as follows:
The Transport for London (TfL) application, supported by HS2, to install traffic lights on Swakeleys roundabout has not been approved by the London Borough of Hillingdon. The TfL proposal did not appear to take the problems of the local road systems into account and the response to the consultation by residents was overwhelmingly against signalisation. The proposal did include improvements for pedestrians and cyclists and the London Borough of Hillingdon has proposed that TfL should proceed with these , particularly as there will be many HS2 HGVs using the roundabout when the Main Works construction takes place.
We have been asked to publicise this:
There will be a public meeting at 6pm on Tuesday October 30th at the Uxbridge Civic Centre to discuss Hospice Care in the North of the Borough (i.e. Michael Sobell Hospice). The following is copied from the council’s website.
Following the closure of Michael Sobell House inpatient service, the Hillingdon Council External Services Select Committee is interested in establishing why the closure happened so quickly and what action is now being taken to ensure service provision within the North of the Borough.
Questions asked by Members of those present at the meeting may include the following:
1. Which organisation/s is/are responsible for ensuring a hospice provision?
2. How is MSH funded?
3. What is each organisation responsible for providing in relation to MSH?
4. Which organisation/s is/are responsible for reporting repairs, undertaking maintenance and funding this work in relation to the Hospice building?
5. Which organisation/s made the decision to close and why?
6. When did the need for repairs first become apparent?
7. What action was taken to address any estate repairs issues that had been highlighted before the decision was made to close?
8. Why were building improvement works/repairs not carried out before the decision was made to close?
9. Was a risk assessment undertaken regarding the closure of MSH (before and/or after)?
10. Was an equalities impact assessment undertaken?
11. What service level agreements are in place for the hospice service provision?
12. Why was the proposed closure of the inpatient unit not communicated to the External Services Select Committee in a timely manner (bearing in mind that there is a duty on relevant NHS bodies and health service providers to consult health scrutiny bodies on substantial reconfiguration proposals or on substantial variations in the provision of such services)?
13. What action was taken in relation to relocating patients and why? What will happen to them in the medium/long term?
14. Why were (cancer) Wards 10 and 11 at MVH deemed more appropriate than an inpatient hospice?
15. What action was taken in relation to relocating staff and why? What will happen to these staff in the medium/long term?
16. What action has been taken to support patients, families and staff since the MSH closure and how has the effectiveness of this action been measured?
17. What action has been taken to ensure that the care of MVH patients has not been impacted?
18. What works are needed to bring the building up to standard (and associated costings and timescales)?
19. If the MSH building is not repairable, what action is being taken to source alternative provision in the north of the Borough and where would the associated funding come from?
20. What are the timescales to recommence a hospice provision in the north of the Borough?
21. Going forward, how will residents be kept updated on progress in re-establishing a hospice provision?
HS2 and TfL have fielded their proposals for alterations to the Swakeley’s roundabout. LBH is running a consultation. It closes October 16.
Please visit https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/34321/HS2-Signalisation-of-Swakeleys-roundabout-consultation to provide your own feedback.
Here’s some solid information on the boundary issue. In short, we believe it makes sense for Ickenham’s ward boundary to match the village boundary and we’d like people who agree with this to make their views known.
All Association members on our mail list were given a detailed view yesterday. Here are some key extracts (plus two extra links):
We will try to expand the Ickenham Ward to reflect our true boundaries. This would match the boundaries as agreed by LBH for the Ickenham Neighbourhood Plan, including The Greenway, Ickenham Green, The Brackenbury estate and the Ickenham Marshes, which are all currently in other wards.
Chris Mountain provided a link to a brilliant interactive map of the village – it shows electoral and natural boundaries and green spaces.
We are asking all Ickenham residents to please send in their own comments, as numbers matter here, and just one letter from the Residents’ Association will not be sufficient to sway the review.
How to get involved (Local Government Boundary Commission for England)
This is a public consultation and we welcome views from individuals and organisations across Hillingdon on where they think new ward boundaries should be drawn.
In drawing up new electoral wards, we must balance three legal criteria, namely:
– to deliver electoral equality: where each councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the borough;
– that the pattern of wards should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities;
– that the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government.
We will treat all submissions equally, and judge each case on its merits and against the legal criteria.
If you wish to put forward a view, we would also urge you to ensure that evidence supports your submission.
For example, if you wish to argue that two areas should be included in the same electoral ward, make sure you tell us why they should be together, providing evidence about community facilities, ties, organisations, and amenities, rather than simply asserting that they belong together.
There is more advice on our website about how you can get involved in the consultation.
Our website features technical guidance that explains the process and our policies, as well as guidance on how to take part in each part of the process.
We have also set up a webpage dedicated to the review of Hillingdon, where you can find all the relevant information.
You can also access interactive maps of the current ward boundaries across Hillingdon on our specialist consultation portal. The portal also allows you to draw your own boundaries, mark areas of interest on the map and upload documents directly to the site.
You can make a submission to the Hillingdon electoral review:
1. through our consultation area,
2. by e-mailing firstname.lastname@example.org, or
3. writing to the following address:
The Review Officer (Hillingdon), Local Government Boundary Commission for England, 1st Floor, Windsor House, 50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
PLEASE PLEASE DO MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN and feel free to share this post to anyone who is a resident of Ickenham.
Thank you in advance.