UPDATED A new face selected for Kilburn ward and the possible return of an old one in Willesden Green - Margaret McLennan rejected

Faduma Hassan

The first results are coming in for the selection of Labour candidates for the 2018 Brent Council Elections.  In Kilburn ward Rita Conneely and newcomers Abdirazak Abdi  and Corbyn supporter Faduma Hassan have been selected.

This leaves John Duffy, who has been extremely active in holding the Brent Cabinet to account, unselected in his current ward. I understand there are still some wards where short-listing is still open.

Elsewhere,  I understand that the architect of the 'Library Transformation Project, which saw 6  of Brent's 12 libraries closed, James Powney, has been short-listed for Willesden Green.  Powney has continued to hail the 'success' of that project on his blog but  has also used it to critique some Brent Council decisions as well as the leadership of Councillor Butt. LINK

Following rejection by Stonebridge ward last night local party members are asking if Deputy Leader Margaret McLennan will go back to seek selection in Northwick Park.  I understand Abdi Aden (currently Sudbury)and newcomer Promise Knight have been selected for Stonebridge. Ernest Ezeajughi has been reselected. Promise describes herself as a mentor and educator and previously worked as as campaign assistant to Dawn Butler and was one of David Miliband's communication team.

A reader has also been in touch to say that he understands all three sitting Queensbury councillors have been short-listed..

Planning Officers maintain their support for Stadium Planning Application in Supplementary Report

A supplementary report has been published on the eve of Thursday's Planning Committee. LINK It contains more information on mitigation. The Officers maintain their support for the planning application.

Following completion of the committee report, a further 24 letters of representation have been received. Where additional issues have been raised they are noted below, otherwise they are considered to have been dealt with in the main report.

One letter of support

The issues raised are considered to have been addressed within the main report.

23 letters of objection

Objection from one representation citing insufficient notice of the committee, and a request for an additional 3 weeks instead. Also, confusion over when the committee is due to take place. Concern that the additional number of events would result in the roads deteriorating.

The notice period given is considered reasonable and in accordance with the Council’s procedures. There was an error on the earlier communication which stated that the Committee would begin at 7pm and this was corrected last week. The proposal would result in additional journeys, but the mitigation in place is intended to reduce the number of cars as far as possible.

Request for clarification on the need for a section 106 legal agreement, and whether parking permits within the event day management zone would remain free.

A section 106 legal agreement is absolutely necessary to the acceptability of the proposal. 


The current charge for a parking permit is £10. The proposal would not change this. 


Concern about the noise from helicopters, which would be increased with a greater number of events. 


Helicopters can be associated with large events as part of the police operation. The height at which they fly or hover will inevitably vary, and hence so will the noise they generate. However, this is considered to be infrequent and for short periods of time. It is not considered that this alone would increase the level of noise to the point that it is considered unacceptable.

Other issues raised are considered to have been addressed within the main report.

Mitigation

The committee report identified a number of mitigation measures which would be secured within the section 106 legal agreement. Further detail is provided on a number of the additional measures which are proposed over and above those secured through the original agreement dated 23 August 2002. A number of them were detailed within the main report and so are not detailed further. These additional measures to cover individual events are proposed to apply only to the 22 additional major events. They are not proposed to apply to 37 high capacity (51,000-90,000 capacity ) events that can take place under the existing condition.

Event by event mitigation measures, for the additional 22 events proposed

Regulation of Public Safety – The Council’s reasonable costs would be met as part of the application on an event-by-event basis, which would be on a similar basis to what is currently done for street cleaning and the regulation of traffic management. This involves a requirement to attend pre-match meetings and monitoring safety documentation for each event. Inspections would take place (in addition to those which take place during existing major events) to monitor the measures and seek to refine the process. 


Alcohol licensing inspections – This would also be related to the Council’s reasonable costs, similar to the regulation of public safety. This involves inspecting licensed premises prior to an event and follow up visits afterwards if there have been complaints. 


Illegal street trader – This was highlighted in the list within the main committee report. This is proposed to be removed from the Section 106 legal agreement, but only because there has already been a mechanism established for the previous 4 Tottenham Hotspur events that have taken place at Wembley, which is proposed to continue. 


Anti ticket tout initiative – This would also be related to the Council’s reasonable costs, similar to the regulation of public safety. Ticket touts are a feature of many sporting events, and can lead to people being denied the opportunity to view sporting events at a reasonable cost. Touts can obstruct public areas and introduce an element of intimidation. 
One-off contribution mitigation measures: 


Pirate parking initiative – More than £47,000 has been secured to ensure that the existing scheme can 
continue. The intention is to ensure that parking on land which does not have planning permission for that purpose is addressed, so reducing the number of persons using cars and increasing the number of persons using public transport. 


Additional CCTV camera – This was detailed in the main report. The cost for this would be £22,779. 
In addition, further measures are proposed to those detailed within the main committee report. 


Litter bins – In response to a number of objections there would be a contribution of £20,000 for litter bins 
in and around the stadium and Wembley Town Centre. 


Radio system and protective clothing – This would ensure that the current equipment (which is 
leading to some problems with communication) is replaced by more advanced equipment. This would improve the event day operations, by improving communication when setting up road closures and managing traffic. Ultimately, this would assist in the safe and efficient arrival and departure from events at the stadium. This would be £50,000. 


Event day signage – Following an audit of the existing signage a contribution of £60,000 is proposed to improvements, to be secured before the 2017/18 season. This would include a more detailed audit to identify broken signage and identify where more signage is required. There would be maintenance of existing Variable-Message Signs (VMS) and event day flap signs. Additional signage would be provided in areas with insufficient signage. 
Reference has been had to the tests of whether a section 106 obligation is considered justifiable. As required by Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (as amended) a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if it is: 
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and
(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 
The obligations above, and those which are listed and detailed in the main report, are considered to pass 
these tests. They are proposed to maintain the existing levels of mitigation for the existing major events (as secured in the original section 106 legal agreement), and to go further for the additional major events proposed by this application.

Update on Tottenham Hotspur

Since the committee report was finalised there have been additional games played. As of 22 March 2017 there are 10 games remaining for Tottenham Hotspur in the Premier League. They remain well placed to be in European competition next year (specifically the group stage of the Champions League). They remain in the FA Cup, which has reached the semi-final stage. This is not considered to change the assumptions on the numbers of games they are likely to play next season.

Conclusion

The additional comments received raise some additional points, which are not considered to change the recommendation. Many of the issues have been raised previously, and are considered to have been addressed in the main report.

This supplementary report provides additional detail on some of the mitigation measures proposed, and some additional measures which go beyond what is contained within the main committee report. They are welcomed and would assist to mitigate the impacts of the greater number of major events which this application proposes.

Recommendation: Remains approval as set out within the committee report

Brent CEO confirms Cllr Butt's right to speak on Wembley Stadium Planning Application tomorrow

Carolyn Downs, Brent Council CEO, has responded to my request for clarification on the Council Leader’s right to speak on the Spur’s/Wembley Stadium Planning Application tomorrow evening:

Cllr Butt is entitled to speak at the planning committee in his role as a ward member representing the views of the residents of Tokyngton ward on this planning application.

The issue was also taken up with Carolyn Downs by Cllr John Warren, Brent Conservative Group:

I understand that Cllr. Butt intends to address the meeting in support of the application from Spurs re.Wembley Stadium .

If true, I find this outrageous and is a clear conflict of interest.  I recognise that he is a Tokyngton ward councillor, but there are two other members of his ward. I do not believe that Cllr.Butt has spoken in the past few years at planning  on the numerous Quintain applications that have been made in his ward.....for obvious reasons. As a cheer-leader, and leader of Brent Council, it would be totally inappropriate for any involvement from him at planning.

Brent was recently on the receiving end of a savage report from PWC regarding all aspects of the planning process. Surely, Brent should be conscious of the need to have a process that is  not only  totally fair and even- handed  but seen by a “reasonable person “ to be fair and even-handed.

I believe that Cllr.Butt speaking at the meeting would jeopardise any belief  that this controversial planning decision will be dealt with fairly....having the Council leader attempting “ undue influence “ on the committee members is hardly a fair approach.

Carolyn Downs replied:

As you know Cllr Butt is entitled to address the planning committee as a local ward member and raise issues that are specific to his role as a local member representing the views of the residents in Tokyngton ward.

It will be interesting to see how Cllr Butt maintains the separation between representing the views of residents, his own views amd his views as Council and Labour Group leader tomorrow evening.

This is what the Brent Constitution says about the Committee’s deliberations:

36.         When the Planning Committee vote to refuse an application contrary to the recommendation of officers, the Chair shall put to the meeting for approval a statement of the planning reasons for refusal of the application, which if approved shall be entered into the minutes of that meeting. Where the reason for refusal proposed by the Chair is not approved by the meeting, or where in the Chair’s view it is not then possible to formulate planning reasons for refusal, the application shall be deferred for further consideration at the next meeting of the Committee. At the next meeting of the Committee the application shall be accompanied by a further written report from officers, in which the officers shall advise on possible planning reasons for refusal and the evidence that would be available to substantiate those reasons. If the Committee is still of the same view then it shall again consider its reasons for refusing permission which shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. 


37.        Members of the Planning Committee shall refrain from personal abuse and party political considerations shall play no part in their deliberations. Members of the Planning Committee shall be respectful to the Chair and to each other and to officers and members of the public including applicants, their agents and objectors and shall not bully any person. Members of the Planning Committee should not make up their mind before hearing and considering all relevant information at the meeting and should not declare in advance of the vote, how they intend to vote on a particular application or other matter. 


38.        Members of the Planning Committee should not speak to members of the public (including applicants, agents and journalists) during a meeting of the Planning 
Committee or immediately prior to or after the meeting concerned, other than where permitted by this Code or Standing Orders. 

41.        When questioning members of the public or the applicant who have spoken at a meeting of the Committee, members of the Planning Committee shall ensure that their questions relate only to planning matters relevant to the particular application, and the question should not be party political. 


Merged teacher amalgamation will be 'a mighty force for progress'

Later today the ATL and NUT will officially announce the results of their unity ballots to amalgamate the two unions and to create of the National Education Union (NEU).

UNIFY, a cross union body, is confident that the majority of teachers and support staff recognise the need for, and support, greater unity and that the results will be a decisive YES.

Hank Roberts, Organising Secretary of UNIFY said:

We have been campaigning for a massive advance like this for 20 years. It will change the face of education in our country. It will not be panacea, but it will make us seriously stronger and better able to challenge the Government’s planned continuation of the privatisation of our state education system and the huge funding cutbacks currently proposed.

Our next step has to be to move to take this burgeoning unity further. The NEU union will be over 400,000 strong. A union of all education workers would be one million strong. A mighty force for progress.

Our congratulations to all the members, Officers and Officials of both unions who made it happen. And also to our own activists and supporters for all their efforts over the years. Time to move forward. A new dawn awaits.

Residents issue plea to Preston Ward councillors on Stadium planning application

Dear Cllrs Jean (Hossain), Matthew (Bradley) and Patricia (Harrison)

Please may we ask that you help us Preston ward residents (and residents and business friends across Brent). We really need your help.

You helped us in 2015 when we were faced with the London Welsh School's planning application to occupy the Bowls Pavilion in King Eddie's Park. (Very pleased to be able to inform you that we are in negotiations with Brent Council to finally finalise lease of this for much needed community space).

We have read the 44pg planning committee report and there is nothing to safeguard us Brent residents and local businesses. The document states "atmosphere" as being a key reason why Tottenham Hotspurs do not want less than 90,000 seats. This is not a material planning consideration. The works to the stadium access corridor have only partially been completed and we've been informed that the Council has spent all the £18million originally assigned to that. The report notes there will be no improvements to our road network during the period of this proposed temporary variation of condition. The Environmental Statement is far from robust.

We understand that works will commence at the Chesterfield House site likely end of this month. This 26 storey development will put added strain on an already congested Park Lane and High Road for the next few years. Without supporting infrastructure improvements, the high rise high density developments being granted permission are already and will further affect our road network; Impeding on our quality of life.

Cllr Jean - you and Cllr Sam attended the planning committee for the Chesterfield House site last year. The applicant sought to assign a huge portion of s106 monies to our King Eddie's Park, yet half our park was fenced off for over a year. A recent site visit showed the grass to be water logged. Quite simply we are not seeing the monies being spent on our Wembley resident needs. Friends of King Eddies Park  sent a series of emails to Parks and Regen, over many months, which I will forward on to you. Parks and Regen were very helpful, but it is alarming that it took such a lengthy period of time to complete the parks works. Whilst site visits to Barn Hill Park, Fryent Park, Gladstone Park and Woodcock Park show beautifully maintained public green spaces. Why is our King Eddie's park not in an equal state of kemptness?

Granting permission of this planning application would impede the quality of life of a wide reaching radius of Brent residents and local businesses. Our friends on Preston Road as well as Wembley High Road Business Association note that they also lose trade on Event Days.

There are known issues of anti-social behaviour, litter, alcohol consumption despite the whole of Wembley being a no alcohol zone. Our petition notes that "there were proven irregularities towards the implementation of effective control of traffic leaving the stadium by appointed CSP personnel causing heavier flows of vehicles within the vicinity, causing increased pollution and lessening quality of life. Observed drinking, urinating and defecating on residential streets, not only within Wembley but broader location."

Whilst we appreciate the many benefits our National Stadium affords us, Brent Council has a responsibility and duty of care to it's residents which it needs to safeguard. The committee report simply does not do this.

We, the little people, need your support. Please can you help us?

With kind regards
Denise
on behalf of Wembley Champions

Denise Cheong
Wembley Champions

Butt to speak at Wembley Stadium Planning Meeting

I understand that Cllr Butt, leader of Brent Council, has requested to speak on the Wembley Stadium planning application at Thursday's Planning Committee.

Although he is likely to claim that he is speaking in his capacity as a ward councillor for Tokyngton, the ward in which the stadium is situated, he is also leader of the Council.  The Planning Committee is supposed to be statutorily independent of the Council and cannot be whipped or directed to vote in a particular way.

However, when the Leader of the Council and the Labour Group makes his views known on a very controversial issue that has pitched Wembley Stadium, Tottenham Hotspur and Brent Council against residents and local businesses the question must arise as to whether this constitutes the potential exerting of undue influence on Committee members - especially Labour ones.

I await the response to a query I sent on this to the Brent CEO with interest.

Apparently there are many requests to speaks from residents and local businesses and a list is currently being drawn up. It is usual to give precedence to those who live nearest or who represent a group of residents such as a residents' association.

We will be very interested in who is allowed to speak and who is excluded...

Brent Council apologises for misinformation on Wembley Stadium planning application

I posted a story on Saturday about the incompetence surrounding the management of the Spurs/Wembley Stadium planning planning application to increase the number of events and increase the crowd capacity at the Stadium LINK 

Some residents who had made submissions on the application received the following email from Brent Regeneration and Growth.

You will recently have received two separate pieces of information about the planning application submitted by Wembley National Stadium Limited to vary the cap which restricts the number of major events held at Wembley Stadium. We wrote to you because you commented on the application, and we now want to let you know about the next steps in the process.  

The first communication, sent on 16th March 2017 by either email or letter was a repeat of an earlier consultation letter giving you 21 days to comment, rather than the committee notification letter. I do apologise for this and would like to reiterate that the consultation period has now closed – please disregard this communication.  

 The second communication stated that the Planning Committee will meet to consider the application on Thursday 23rd March 2017 is correct, however, the meeting will COMMENCE AT 6.30pm – not the usual Committee starting time of 7pm, as stated as the default time, in the communication sent on 17th March 2017.  

Please treat this as the correct information:  

That the above application 17/0368 will be heard at Planning Committee on Thursday 23rd March 2017 and the meeting will start at 18:30 / 6:30pm at Brent Civic Centre.

Please accept our apologies for any confusion this may have caused.

This still leaves the problem of the frequency of occasions when the Brent Planning Portal was down and the erroneous classification of Objections to the planning application as 'Neutral' to be addressed.

Brent approves more high rise flats at Wembley Stadium

I wasn't able to attend last week's Planning Committee so I am afraid you will have to make do with Brent Council's PR gloss on the latest approval of tower blocks at Wembley Stadium.  As usual the 'affordable' designation remains unexplored. 'Affordable' for whom?

 Brent Council's planning committee last night (Wed 15 March) gave approval for the development of 743 new homes for rent on the doorstep of the iconic Wembley Stadium, part of 5,000 new homes to be built over the next seven years.

When completed the homes will be part of the largest new build rental-only scheme in the UK, surpassing the current biggest in East Village, Stratford which has 3,000 properties. The homes will be available through developer Quintain's build to rent business Tipi, which was launched last year.

Of the 733 residential rental units, 42 per cent (303) will be offered under the affordable housing scheme and the remaining 58 per cent (440) available for market rent.

The new dwellings will range from 12 to 26 storeys in height and will include residential landscaped gardens, a clubhouse, energy centre, 91 coach parking spaces to support Stadium event days, and 569 square metres of commercial space.

The approval comes as part of the regeneration of the area around the stadium by Quintain which includes 11,500 new homes.

The 25-year project will also create 10,000 new jobs, apprenticeships and business opportunities. By the end of 2017 there will be 3,000 homes under construction in the Wembley Park area within a development containing a new seven acre public park, a new landscaped London square, a primary school and a wide range of shops, restaurants and workspaces.

Cllr Shama Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills said:

We know that buying in London is out of reach for many and with rising rent costs we are pressing developers to deliver as many affordable units as possible. We are committed to raising standards in our private rented sector and these newly built and professionally managed homes will provide high quality and safe places to live.

The vision for this vibrant new residential area in Brent will take some years to deliver, but work is well underway. Innovative architecture and design combined with retail, green spaces and excellent transport links create a great place to live and work.