Proposed new development on London Road, Wembley at Planning Committee on May 8th

 

 

Planning Committee on Wednesday will consider an application to redevelop a building on London Road, close to the High Road, presently consistingof 8 one storey shops and a workshop at the rear, into a double frontage part 6 storey, part 7 storey block of mid-rise flats. LINK

For those who know the road it would be between Patidar House and the chicken shop on the corner of London Road/High Road.

London Road proposed 

Street view of the 6/7 storey double block

Aerial view showing proximity to Central Apartments

 

Residents of the Central Apartments on Wembley Central Square have been most vocal in their opposition:

 I am an owner occupier of at Central Apartment which was build as a part of regeneration programme and currently has 117 families occupying this development since 2010. I am submitting this Objection on behalf of the Wembley Central Resident Association (CARTA) which has more than 90 families as paid members. Our association is recognised by the landlord and our local representatives. I am a Chairman of this association and in that capacity on behalf of our members, I strongly object to this development for following reasons.

1. Our track record of corporation and supporting local regeneration -

We have not objected to any other developments in the close proximity of development in last 12 years and always supported Brent in its regeneration agenda. This proposed development directly impacts our quality of life and investment and hence we strongly object it.

2. Devaluation of 50 plus apartments facing windows and balconies to London Road.

As illustrated in the separate photographic evidence, this development will block the view of the windows and balconies facing London Road and significantly devalue the properties to the significant drop in appeal of these flats upto 40% from the current market price.

3. Loss of sunlight and its impact on living costs.

This development is too close to us literally in the face of the balconies and windows of 50 plus flats facing London Road , which receive its sunlight only in the morning from NE side (facing London Road) till noon. All the windows of our flats are facing this side only and there is no other way to get the sunlight. The close proximity of the proposed construction of seven storey building will create a complete wall in front of us blocking any natural sunlight at any time of the day and in fact we will come under shadow of it.

As illustrated in the photos send separately it is going to create complete darkness in 50 plus flats and directly forcing residents to use more electricity and heating to keep the flats warm and maintain sufficient visibility in the flats even during day.

3. Insufficient Ventilation -

Due to the layout of the property and building design, we have limited options to achieve natural cross ventilation and completely depend on the fresh breeze from NE. This development will completely block it and the current MEP systems in the flats are not designed to operate without any natural ventilation. As a result this will create unhygienic , unhealthy living conditions to all the residents which could lead to long term health issues.

Also its impacts on the maintenance costs of properties, It is important to note that one person produces 4 pints of moisture per day, through cooking, cleaning, bathing and breathing. Therefore 5 people will produce 84 pints of moisture per week. with inadequate ventilation moisture produced will condense to cold surfaces, and eventually turn to mould which could also lead to additional wear and tear/ maintenance costs of the property.

4.Loss of views and loss of privacy - All 50 plus flat owners have bought their flats with an extra premium for the views for Wembley Stadium Arc and overall landscape . The proposed development will completely block it and lead to becoming unattractive to occupy due to significant change in the surrounding. The new development's close proximity to our windows and balcony would result us in losing our privacy of occupation.

This is a significant risk to our investment and with this objection , we are hoping this development proposal would immediately stopped to progress any further. In the event this proposal is progressed further without any further consultation / clarity on how the affected leaseholders concerns would be addressed commercially and technically , we reserve the right to explore legal options.

Given recent controversies over the dearth of affordable housing in new developments readers will note that Brent Planning Officers accept the viability assessment for the development that no affordable housing can be provided.  A late review of viability will consider whether a contribution could be made towards affordable housing elsewhere.

A recent think tank report suggested that developments of this height were better for family homes and social cohesion than high-rise towers.

Provision includes 41 flats and a much smaller commercial area,

 

Officers examine issues regarding daylight acess in both the new block and neighbouring blocks. On the later (presumably including Central Apartments) they conclude:

 

The properties that are mainly affected currently afford outlook over the low scale existing buildings on site resulting in higher levels of daylight than what could be expected for a typical urban context. The overall benefits of the development including the delivery of new commercial floorspace and residential homes (including a policy compliant level of family sized homes) would outweigh the limited harm identified above.

 

 Overall Planning Officers recommend that the Planning Committee approve the application:

 

The proposal would include the redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use building of up to 7 storeys high, with a commercial Class E unit and 41 residential units. It would optimise the capacity of the site within a highly sustainable location within the Borough and make a contribution towards housing supply within the Borough, including the delivery of family sized homes. Whilst the scheme does not achieve 0.4 urban greening factor score, following the above discussion, officers consider that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions.

Complaint over party political content of a Council report – Brent’s Final Word.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The opening paragraph of Cllr. Tatler’s Foreword in the SCIL request Officer Report to 8 April Cabinet.

 

For “Wembley Matters” readers who have been following my correspondence with Brent’s top Council Officer for Governance (and now with the extended title: Corporate Director, Governance and Law), since my initial guest post on 5 April, here is the final instalment.

 

When writing about the previous exchange (published on 18 April), I said that I felt ‘the Senior Officer was trying to create a smokescreen’, over the central issue of party political content in a Cabinet Member Foreword (see an example in the extract above, but with a ‘content and style’ of a political manifesto as well). That is why, when replying to her on 17 April, I wrote:

 

‘So that we can finalise this point, please let me have your straightforward answers to these two questions:

 

a) Do you accept that the Cabinet Member Foreword, in the SCIL Request Officer Report to the Cabinet meeting on 8 April, contained some political material, including at least one piece of Labour Party political material?

 

b) Do you agree that it is wrong for Officer Reports to Cabinet meetings to include material which ‘in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party’ (irrespective of whether or not its publication breaches Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986)?’

 

You can judge for yourselves how well (or not) these specific questions were answered in this final exchange of emails on this matter, set out in full below.

Email from Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance at 9.12 am on 23 April:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email,

 

My role is to advise the council in relation to the law and governance.  As a matter of governance, I do not consider there to be any good reason why reports to Cabinet should not contain a section for the relevant Cabinet Member to provide the council policy context of decisions to be made.  As indicated previously, it is my view that the Cabinet Member Foreword about which you are concerned did not contain any material covered by the legislation to which you refer.

 

The new report template, including the section for a Cabinet Member Foreword, was introduced at the request of the Chief Executive.

 

The Chief Executive has considered your emails and does not consider there to be any need for the inclusion of the Cabinet Member Foreword in the template to be reviewed.

 

I recognise that you have a strong opinion in respect of this matter.  As a result of your emails, I have reminded officers of the purpose of the Cabinet Member Foreword and how it should be presented in reports.  However, our opinions differ as to the appropriateness of including the Cabinet Member Foreword in Cabinet reports.

 

Best wishes

 

Debra

 

Corporate Director, Law & Governance

 

My response to that email at 8.45am on 26 April:

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for your email of 23 April.

 

On point 2 of my email to you of 17 April (Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate in Officer Reports to Brent’s Cabinet?), our opinions do differ. You have my views on this, and the reasons for them, on record should the matter be raised again in future.

 

I am disappointed that you have failed to answer either of the two specific questions which I asked you at point 1 of my email of 17 April (Did Councillor Tatler’s Cabinet Member Foreword contain political material?). Instead of the straightforward answers I requested, you have repeated your earlier view that the Cabinet Member Foreword: ‘did not contain any material covered by the legislation to which’ I had previously referred.

 

I acknowledge and accept that your ‘role is to advise the council in relation to the law and governance.’ But, as Monitoring Officer, should you not also be showing leadership, by example, in answering questions objectively and honestly, rather than evading them?

 

I can only hope that, when you say you have: ‘reminded officers of the purpose of the Cabinet Member Foreword and how it should be presented in reports’, this means that you have advised them to ensure that there is no party political material included in them in future.

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

North West London 'Campaigns for Health' Conference May 12th at Unity Centre

 

NW London "Campaigns for Health" Conference

Date Sunday 12th  May

Time 1-5 Registration from 12.30

Venue Unity Centre 103 Church Road NW10 9EG

Admission and refreshments free

Organised by the Socialist Health Association

Enquiries 07930 157351

No need to book, Just turn up.

 

 

Wembley FC get behind battle to save Byron Court Primary School from academisation

 

There's a bit of a tradition of Brent sports stars getting behind community campaigns to save local facilities for young people. Remember boxer Audley Harrison fighting for Stonebridge Adventure Playground? LINK

Having grown up in the borough they know what facilities are important for young people  and contributed to their own success.

Wembley FC tweeted the above picture over the weekend and said:

We utterly believe in the @SaveByronCourt cause. Our players, one of which attended the school, wore “SAVE BYRON COURT” t-shirts ahead of our last game of the season yesterday.

Licensing Committee meeting to decide controversial Wembley Rooftop Bar application cancelled and adjourned until June

 

The entrance and rooftop area of the proposed bar

A Brent Entertainment and Licensing Committee meeting to hear an application for a rooftop bar overlooking Wembley Stadium, atop a residential block, has been cancelled at short notice. The meeting was due to be held tomorrow and is now adjourned until a later date in June. The applicant made the request stating that "the developer is currently devising a new entry plan which may help to address a number of the objectors key concerns. This may take a couple of weeks to finalise".

The application by Field Vision Wembley Rooftop, at 10-12 Wembley Park Boulevard was for the sale of alcohol Monday to Sunday 10am -11pm and to remain open 8am -11.30pm Monday to Sunday.

The application has attracted opposition from residents of the block regarding noise, anti-social behaviour, sharing lifts with rowdy  and safety of children fans amongst other concerns.

Council officers and the police have also opposed the application as it stands although there is a possibility of agreeing conditions:

 

Brent Licensing Enforcement Officer

 

I certify that I have carefully considered the above premises licence application, and

consequently, I wish to make a representation on the grounds that if the application were to be granted as it currently is, it would likely have a detrimental effect on two out of the four below licensing objectives:

 

• the prevention of crime and disorder;

• public safety;

• the prevention of public nuisance;

• the protection of children from harm.

 

Match Day

 

- Has the applicant undertaken an Entry/Exit Plan, Fan Zone Crowd Safety Management Plan

and an Evacuation Plan?

- Taking into consideration the use of the internal space on the ground floor, does the client

intend to have a queuing system beyond the entrance onto the outside area/ Wembley Park

Boulevard? (I.e., Fan Zone Crowd Safety Management Plan)

- Will the premises be open to patrons following full time on a football event match day? If so, how will the applicant deal with the outside queuing area, especially if fans are leaving the stadium via ‘The Spanish Steps’? (I.e., Fan Zone Crowd Safety Management Plan)

- How will staff ensure that the number of patrons will not go beyond capacity? (I.e., Entry/Exit Plan)

- How many staff will be downstairs managing the internal reception area? (I.e., Entry/Exit Plan)

- How will the phased entry system work? (I.e., Entry/Exit Plan)

- Will the use of the lift to the terrace be exclusively for patrons or will it be shared with

residents? (I.e., Entry/Exit Plan)

- How will patrons leave the premises? Will there be a phased exit system as well? (I.e.,Entry/Exit Plan)

- Will there be a separation between patrons wanting to leave the premises and patrons waiting in the reception area? (I.e., Entry/Exit Plan)

- Where are the designated fire exits on the ground floor? (I.e., Evacuation Plan)

- Will the internal reception area impede any evacuation procedure? (I.e., Evacuation Plan)

- How will staff mitigate against fans throwing objects over the edge off the terrace? (I.e., Will there be a barrier/planter erected? What will the height of this be?)

- Will the applicant have a specific security plan for high risk, medium risk, and low risk football match day events?

 

Having carefully read the application, I wouldn’t have any issues with this application being granted providing that certain assurances are made by way of conditions and if the applicant agrees to the reduced hours. This in turn will satisfy the promotion of the four licensing objectives.

 

Nuisance Control Team

 

Dear Licensing Authority, applicant, and agent

 

Nuisance Control Team as a Responsible Authority make representation against the

application. This is based on concern that granting the application is likely to result in public

nuisance arising from airborne noise associated with patrons in an open air venue in close

proximity to noise sensitive premises – those being the north elevation upper floors at the

neighbouring 14 Wembley Park Boulevard, and residents living beneath the roof space at 48

Olympic Way. We are concerned that rowdy or raucous alcohol-fuelled behaviour would

result in public nuisance by adversely interfering with the right of neighbours to reasonably

enjoy their home.

 

Metropolitan Police

 

Police concerns are around Public Safety.

 

1. Police to establish how the applicant will manage the crowd/queuing system in and out of

the venue on match days.

2. Police to establish what measures the applicant have in place for an emergency? Eg

police/ambulance attendance to the rooftop and/or evacuation

Regeneration at Scrutiny meeting – The truth about Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone land

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity-

 

The Scrutiny page on Brent Council’s website includes the following question and answer:

 

From: https://www.brent.gov.uk/the-council-and-democracy/council-meetings-and-decision-making/scrutiny#Whatisscrutiny

 

For the Scrutiny system to operate effectively, the information given to Scrutiny Committees by Cabinet members and Council Officers needs to be truthful. Within the Brent Members’ Code of Conduct, this is spelt out: ‘you must comply with the seven principles of conduct in public life set out in Appendix 1.’ The seven principles include “Honesty”, and “Accountability” which is defined as: 

 

‘You should be accountable to the public for your actions and the manner in which you carry out your responsibilities, and should co-operate fully and honestly with any scrutiny appropriate to your particular office.’

 

Martin posted a blog article, “Cllr Tatler taken to task on regeneration issues”, following the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting last Tuesday (23 April 2024). It included a video, taken from the Council’s webcast of the meeting, which I watched with interest.

 

I have tried several times, since January 2022, to get proper scrutiny of the August 2021 Cabinet decision to allow a developer to sell at least half of the homes at Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) development (including most at the more favourable Cecil Avenue site) for private profit. WHZ was in the first of the regeneration growth areas dealt with in the Officer Report to the Scrutiny Committee meeting:

 

 

 

When I heard what Cllr. Shama Tatler said about WHZ when addressing the meeting, I could hardly believe what I had heard. I submitted a short comment, saying: ‘I'm sure I heard Cllr. Tatler claim that Brent did.not own the Wembley Housing Zone land, which is why it was not viable to build more affordable housing there.’ I finished my comment with: ‘Was Cllr. Tatler being "economical with the truth"?’

 

After further research, I submitted a follow-up comment, which Martin has agreed to post as a separate item on Wembley Matters. This is what I wrote:

 

‘I asked above: 'Was Cllr. Tatler being "economical with the truth"?'

 

This was in relation to the Wembley Housing Zone, where I have been campaigning for more genuinely affordable housing, and writing guest posts about it, since August 2021.

 

I have gone back to the webcast, and transcribed what Cllr. Tatler said. Martin kindly sent me a document from a Brent Executive meeting in April 2014 on proposed land rationalisation at Copland Community School and adjacent lands.

 

This is the relevant extract from the webcast of Tuesday's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting, with Cllr. Tatler addressing the committee on Brent's regeneration schemes:

 

'With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own the land. We had to purchase the land. That impacts viability as well. And we are looking at how we deal with affordable housing on the scheme. Ideally we would want to deliver 100% social housing on any of our land ....'

 

This is the key paragraph from the April 2014 Report to Brent's Executive (now Cabinet), whose recommendations were approved and put in place. CCS is Copland Community School, which had been served with an Academy Order by the Secretary of State, and the IEB is the Interim Executive Board, which Brent Council as Local Education Authority had put in place instead of CCS's previous governing body, to run the school until it was taken over by the Ark Academy group.

 

'CCS is a foundation school and therefore the land and buildings are mainly in the ownership of the school itself, the responsibility for which is vested in the IEB. The IEB has expressed agreement to transfer the freehold of the site which it currently owns to the Council instead, in order for the Council to rationalise the ownership and use of the site overall, ensuring an optimum footprint for the school. The ARK would under these proposals be granted a 125 year lease on the final school site.'

 

In the "Financial Implications" section of the Report, these were the key points from the proposals (which were approved and put in place):

 

'2. The IEB transfer to the Council the freehold interest in the CCS site at nil consideration.

3. The Council accepts a surrender of CCS’s leasehold interests at nil consideration.

5. The Council grants the ARK a short term lease of the existing CCS buildings at peppercorn rent.

7. The Council will grant the ARK a 125 year lease of the new school siteat a peppercorn rent.

8. The ARK will surrender the lease to the existing school at nil consideration.'

 

So, Brent became the freehold owners of all of the original Copland School site and playing fields in 2014, granting ARK a temporary lease of the original school buildings from 1 September 2014. 

 

When the new school was built on the playing fields behind the original school buildings, Brent then granted ARK a 125 year lease for the new school site, BUT retained the freehold of the original Copland School land, now the Wembley Housing Zone Cecil Avenue site, at no cost to the Council.

 

The other, smaller, part of Brent's Wembley Housing Zone scheme, for which it received an £8m grant from the GLA in 2015, is Ujima House. Brent bought that office building in 2016, using £4.8m of the initial £8m GLA funding. It has since received further GLA funding to be used on affordable housing as part of the WHZ.

Cllr. Tatler DID mislead the Scrutiny Committee when she said that Brent did not own the Wembley Housing Zone land and had to purchase it!’

 

Map showing the land around Copland School and its ownership, prior to the rationalisation.
(From an Appendix to the Report to the April 2014 meeting of Brent’s Executive)

 

If there was any doubt about Brent Council’s ownership of the former Copland School site, the freehold of all the land hatched in green on the map above was transferred to Brent in 2014. The only land that Brent had to purchase for its WHZ scheme was the much smaller Ujima House site (which will provide 54 of the 291 WHZ homes, scheduled for completion in 2026).

 

Back in November 2021, Cllr. Tatler, in answer to a public question I had asked ahead of a Full Council meeting, said: ‘it is not financially viable to deliver all 250 homes at Cecil Avenue as socially rented housing.’ [Her scheme only delivered 37 affordable rented homes there then!]

 

Yet neither she, nor anyone else at Brent Council, has been willing or able to answer my question of why it would not be viable to build far more of the Cecil Avenue homes for genuinely affordable rent to Council tenants (see my January 2024 guest post for the latest figures), when the vacant site to build them on was already owned by Brent, they could have gone ahead with the development themselves as soon as they received full planning consent in February 2021, and interest rates were very low (and did not shoot up until autumn 2022).   

 

 Philip Grant.

Wembley Library closed this weekend

 From Brent Council

Wembley Library is getting an exciting makeover, with a new purpose-built chidren's library, additional study areas and much more.  From Monday 29 April the library will temporarily be based on the first floor of Brent Civic Centre. All library services will operate as normal from the temporary space, but the events programme will paused.  As a result of the move Wembley Library will be closed this weekend, Saturday 27 and Sunday 28 April. We apologise for any inconvenience caused. Ealing Road Library is the nearest library and is open as usual.  Ealing Road Library  Coronet Parade Ealing Road  Wembley  HA0 4BA

Cllr Tatler taken to task on regeneration issues

 Tuesday's Resources and Public Realm Committee was the swan song of the Committee as it was the last one of the municipal year and it may well have new members and chair after the Council AGM.

I may put the kibosh on the present committee if I say that in my opinion this would be a pity as it has developed its skills over the last year and Cllr Rita Conneely has proved a formidable chair. It takes time for councillors to undergo training and increase their confidence at holding lead members to account.

Cllr Shama Tatler, with the regeneration and planning brief, was in the hot seat on Tuesday and faced some tough questions.

The issue of the viability of both private and public developments was a major theme in the light of the post-Truss financial situation with its high interest rates and reduction in confidence, inflation, shortage of labour post-Brexit and supply-chain problems. In addition the post-Grenfell need (rightly) for second staircases in tall buildings has meant that developments have had to be reviewed.

Cllr Tatler explained how as a result the amount of units for sale might have to be increased and affordable housing reduced, tenure cmay be hanged to include more 'intermediate# housing (often shared ownership) or alternative sources of funding sought.

A note of realism was introduced early in the meeting when Pete Firmin, a South Kilburn resident, spoke about the problems with the regeneration of the South Kilburn estate including poor quality new housing, scaffolding up around relatively new blocks and problems of incursions into blocks where tenants had been decanted. His contribution and Cllr Tatler's response can be seen in the video at the top of the page along with some of the other exchanges reported here.

Cllr Anton Georgiou brought up tenure on the new South Kilburn blocks. saying that he had been told that they were not at social rent as Cllr Tatler claimed but at the higher London Affordable Rent. He promised to produce evidence to this effect.

Improvements in infrastructure was an issue in Alperton regeneration as it lagged behind the building of new blocks. He gave the example of improvements to Alperton Station needed by the new residents in car-free developments.

Cllr Tatler said it was often difficult to get the improvements in place because of the need to work with partners such as TfL, regarding the station and the NHS regarding the promised medical centre on South Kilburn, and things moved slowly.

She pointed out that it was pivate housing that yielded Strategic Community Infrastructure levy in regeneration areas - Council housing did not qualify.

The need for more affordable social housing was another major themes. Committee chair Cllr Rita Conneely said, 'That is what we want as a committee, what backbenchers want and what residents want.'

She urged Cllr Tatler and the Regeneration Department to challenge developers more ('Let's say no, let's start saying no!' ) and for London councils to get together a common front to stop developers' divide and rule. 'Whatever you bring back to use, we will want more.'

 Cllr Tatler had said, 'We can't say no to developers', but Gerry Ansell who earlier had said, 'we can't walk away from  developers' pointed out that the Planning Committee could say no and reject applications. That as we know happens seldom and Planning Committee members are reminded of the need for housing at the start of each meeting and are also warned that an Appeal by a developer would cost the council money.

Shama Tatler pointed out that there was already a London-wide body in the form of the GLA and that as Local Plans began to more closely mirror the London Plan there would be more consistency across London.

She went on:

It is wrong to say we don't challenge developers. Mo (Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council) and I have conversations day in, day out, with developers about what our red lines are. This is why we get criticised for having too many high blocks. I will have high blocks if it means we are getting as much affordable housing in a scheme as possible.

The committee, following a point raised by Pete Firmin, said that community spaces in regeneration areas needed to be publicly owned rather than belong to the developer.

The meeting finished with Cllr Tatler agreeing to meet with concerned residents in regeneration areas.

 Note: It was a very long meeting. The full webcast is HERE

Following comments on this article here is a link to the latest ONS (Office of National Statistics) data on rent levels and house prices in Brent. Main findings in the image. For links to each go to: 

 https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/housingpriceslocal/E09000005/

 

The Opening of the British Empire Exhibition, 23 April 1924

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant in a personal capacity

The front page header for Wembley’s local newspaper, reporting the event. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

Wembley had made front page news in April 1923, when its new stadium had hosted an F.A. Cup Final amid chaotic scenes. One year on, crowds again descended on Wembley, but this time for a much more organised event. The stadium had been built for the British Empire Exhibition, and on 23 April 1924 (Saint George’s Day) the exhibition itself was to be opened.

 

One week earlier, the press had been allowed to share the details for the opening with the public. It would be conducted by King George V, and would be preceded by a royal carriage drive through Wembley itself. Even though the procession would not take place until after 11am, there were apparently large crowds of people lining the route two hours earlier, with several hundred police officers drafted in to control them.

 

Timetable for the procession, from “The Wembley News”, 17 April 1924.

 

 Members and Officials of Wembley Council, from “The Wembley News”, 24 April 1924.
(Both images from Brent Archives – local newspaper microfilms)

 

Among those looking forward to the event were the members of Wembley Urban District Council (what a contrast they look from the councillors and Senior Officers of Brent, 100 years later!). It had been agreed that they could give a brief welcome to the King on his way to the stadium. Wembley had only been set up as a separate local authority thirty years earlier, now they would have the chance to be part of a famous occasion. 

 

The Council had decorated the High Road with flags and bunting, and had asked the residents of Swinderby Road and Ranelagh Road to decorate the fronts of their houses as well. There was a small crowd waiting to see the King and Queen arrive by car from Windsor, and transfer to an open carriage at the junction of Eagle Road. Seventy years later, a lady who had been there as a local teenager remembered Queen Mary instructing her husband as to what he had to do (or, as she put it, ‘giving him earache’!).

 

Wembley Town Hall in the High Road, decorated for King George V’s silver jubilee in 1935.

 

All the shops in the High Road were closed for the day, so that staff and shoppers could witness the Royal visit. The procession did not stop at the Town Hall (demolished in 1962, and replaced by a department store – now Primark), as the Council had built itself a decorated platform at Wembley Green (now commonly known as Wembley Triangle, where the High Road joins Wembley Hill Road).

 

The Council and the King, from “The Wembley News”, 24 April 1924.
(Brent Archives – local newspaper microfilms)

 

Typical of attitudes to the Royal family at that time, “The Wembley News” reported that: ‘Their majesties had consented to break the great procession at the Green and to receive the homage of their local subjects.’ Three minutes was allowed in the procession timetable for this stop, which saw the Home Secretary introduce the Chairman of Wembley Council, Mr Hewitt, to ‘their majesties’.

 

The Chairman handed an illuminated address to the King, having to stretch across as the carriage had not stopped close enough to the Council’s platform. Then a girl, Betty Soilleux, had to climb onto a chair to present a bouquet to the Queen. The King’s only recorded words during his encounter with Wembley Council were to ‘express his disappointment at the weather’, which was grey and chilly.

 

 

 A paragraph from “The Wembley News”, 24 April 1924. (Brent Archives – local newspaper microfilms)

 

The procession then passed on and into the stadium, where invited guests, and up to 100,000 members of the general public, who were allowed to stand on the terraces free of charge, had already been entertained with music from military bands. Among the crowds were all the pupils of Wembley’s Elementary schools (for children aged five to thirteen), who had been brought there to witness the ceremony.

 

The royal carriage inside the stadium. (From a coloured newsreel film)

 

The King was welcomed onto an ornate royal dais by the Prince of Wales, as President of the Exhibition. Dressed in naval uniform, the Prince gave a short address, inviting his father to open ‘a complete and vivid representation of all your Empire’. He hoped that the result of the Exhibition would be: 

 

‘to impress upon all the peoples of your Empire … that they should work unitedly and energetically to develop the resources of the Empire for the benefit of the British race, for the benefit of those other races which have accepted our guardianship over their destinies, and for the benefit of mankind generally.’

 

[Personally, I find the sentiments in that statement offensive, although they do reflect the views held by the British elite at that time!]

 

The royal dais at the east end of the stadium, 23 April 1924. (From a coloured newsreel film)

 

The King’s opening address was broadcast via wireless across the country by the new BBC, the first time that his voice had been heard on radio. This extract from his speech gives a flavour of how he viewed the British Empire:

 

‘The Exhibition may be said to reveal to us the whole Empire in little, containing within its 220 acres of ground a vivid model of the architecture, art and industry of all the races which come under the British Flag. It represents to the world a graphic illustration of that spirit of free and tolerant co-operation which has inspired peoples of different races, creeds, institutions, and ways of thought, to unite in a single commonwealth and to contribute their varying national gifts to one great end.

 

This Exhibition will enable us to take stock of the resources, actual and potential, of the Empire as a whole; to consider where these exist and how they can best be developed and utilised; to take counsel together how the peoples can co-operate to supply one another’s needs, and to promote national well-being. It stands for a co-ordination of our scientific knowledge and a common effort to overcome disease, and to better the difficult conditions which still surround life in many parts of the Empire.’

 

King George V reading his opening address. (From a coloured newsreel film)

 

As I wrote in a guest post at the start of this year, King George V had visited most parts of what would become “his Empire” when he was younger. He saw himself as a father figure, and had some concern for the needs of people in other nations within his “family”. But he still had the blinkered, British-centric, view that the Empire was “a good thing”. If he had been taught the history of how the British Empire had come about, and the various atrocities committed in the course of British imperialism (some very recent then, like the Amritsar, or Jallianwala Bagh, massacre just five years earlier), he was ignoring those facts, or at least keeping quiet about them.

 

The world-wide spread of the Empire was demonstrated when, after King George had spoken the words: ‘I declare the British Empire Exhibition open’, they were sent by telegraph through under-ocean cables to Canada, then via Pacific islands, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and St Helena, arriving back at Wembley in just 80 seconds. A Post Office telegram boy then delivered the message in an envelope, and handed it to the King.

 

Postcard showing the telegram being delivered to the King. (Source; Brent Archives)

 

The telegram boy was 17-year old Henry Annals. Seventy years later, and still living in Wembley, he said that he had been delivering messages to the Exhibition site for over a year, including during the 1923 F.A. Cup Final. For most of that time it had been a muddy building site, so he was given a new uniform to wear on the morning of 23 April, and had to quickly sew on a light blue arm band, as a sign that he was allowed access to all areas of the ceremony.

 

The Post Office also took advantage of the occasion to issue Britain’s first ever commemorative postage stamps. They featured a lion, which was meant to represent the strength of the Empire, although it was not the lion design chosen as the symbol for the exhibition itself.

 

The two 1924 British Empire Exhibition commemorative stamps.

 

Some people may have been satisfied with a First Day Cover of the new stamps as a souvenir of the opening of the Exhibition, but the Vicar of Wembley asked for more. John Silvester (father of the ballroom dancer and band leader, Victor Silvester), who was also attending the ceremony in the stadium as a Wembley councillor, asked the exhibition organisers to give him the thrones used by the King and Queen! 

 

They said “yes”, he could have them for his church, after they had been used for the closing ceremony for the 1925 edition of the exhibition, as the organisers were not sure what to do with them after that (they were large and heavy - made of Canadian pine and English oak). One hundred years later, they are still in St. John the Evangelist Church, at the western end of Wembley High Road.

 

The Royal Thrones, in the north aisle of St John’s Church.

 

I’ve commemorated the centenary of the British Empire Exhibition’s opening, and there will probably be other articles relating to the exhibition later in the year. The centenary of this major exhibition at Wembley Park gives us the opportunity to learn more about the history of the former British Empire, which has many dark sides as well as the benefits claimed by the speeches at the opening ceremony. 

 

I would also repeat my (and Martin’s) earlier invitation to anyone whose roots are in one of the nations represented at the 1924 exhibition, to share their views on “Empire”, or their family’s stories of how they came to Wembley (or Brent). Please do that in a comment below, or in your own guest post. Your voices deserve to be heard, and learning more about the past, from different perspectives, should be one of the legacies of this centenary year.

Philip Grant.

 

(With thanks to Mike Gorringe for the notes of his meeting in 1994 with Henry and Mrs Annals.)