Thursday, 1 January 2026

Why does Brent want to Stop-up “highway” near the Olympic Steps?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Philip for his many valuable contributions over the past year, 

 


I don’t make New Year resolutions. If I did, one of them would probably be not to get into any new entanglements with Brent Council in 2026. And I would have broken it already, after seeing this Legal Notice in the 18 December edition of our local newspaper.

 

The Notice said that the Council would be applying for a Stopping-up Order for an area of highway, including pedestrian areas near the Olympic Steps. That seemed an odd thing to do, as such an order would extinguish all rights of way over that land. I’m interested in the history of Wembley Park, and actually wrote an illustrated article, The Olympic Way Story, for Brent Council in 2017! I wanted to see what area of land the application affected, but to do that I would have to go to the Civic Centre ‘during normal office hours on Mondays to Fridays.’

 

A copy of the Notice, on a lamp post at Engineers Way, 22 December 2025.

 

So on Monday 22 December I went to the Civic Centre to inspect the Plan and Draft Order, and did see one notice about the proposed stopping-up on a lamp post. But when I asked to inspect the documents, staff in the Library did not know anything about them, and after a half-hour wait to be seen at the Civic Centre’s “Welcome Desk” (reception), staff there did not know about them either, and could not find them in the cupboards behind the desk.

 

I sent an email to the address of the Council Officer listed in the Notice as soon as I got home, and that Officer in Brent’s Development Services department sent me pdf copies of the documents the following day, also saying that they ‘were given to both Civic Centre reception and Wembley Library on the 12 December 2025 for public viewing.’ As I believe it is important that local residents have easy access to the Plan and Draft Order, I will ask Martin to attach copies at the end of this article.

 

When I saw what was involved in the Order Brent would be seeking from Magistrates on 22 January, I could not understand the reason for it. Why would they want to stop people walking over that land, or vehicles from going between Engineers Way and Olympic Way East or West? I felt it had to be questioned, and if necessary challenged! My 22 December email had been copied to Brent’s Public Realm Director (who had signed the Notice), and as his “out of office” message said that he was away until 29 December, this is the main section of the email I sent him first thing that morning:

 

‘[Your colleague] kindly sent me the documents for this Stopping-up application on 23 December, but that does not detract from the fact that those documents were not freely available for me to inspect, during normal office hours at Brent Civic Centre on Monday 22 December, as they should have been under your Notice of 11 December 2025.

 

Please let me know whether you still intend to make the Council's application at the hearing on 22 January 2026, or whether you will be issuing a fresh Notice, with a new hearing date, ensuring that the necessary documents are available to inspect, at a designated location within the Civic Centre (as suggested in my email to you of 22 December).

 

 

I note that the Plan showing the hatched areas which the proposed Order plans to stop-up was prepared for Quintain Limited in June 2025. Can you confirm, please, that the London Borough of Brent is making the application on behalf of Quintain Limited, and if so, on what basis is the Council doing that (and at whose expense)?

This is the relevant extract from the Plan (with the words "Olympic Steps" added for clarity):

 


 

The draft Court Order states that the application is being made because the area(s) 'shown hatched black on the plan attached drawing number TPHS-434-DR-00 should be stopped up on the ground that it is unnecessary.'

 

Please let me know the reasons why you consider those hatched areas to be unnecessary for pedestrians and/or vehicles to use in future. I have to ask that, because I cannot understand why that should be the case, as stopping-up would extinguish 'all traffic and all public rights of way ... over the said area of highway.'

 

From my knowledge of the area, including walking over some of the "hatched" areas myself on my visits to Wembley Park, I can't understand why it should be unnecessary for:

 

·      vehicles to pass, at least on some occasions, to or from Engineers Way and Olympic Way East and Olympic Way West, including to access the undercroft area for community and other events;

·      for pedestrians using the Engineers Way crossing from Olympic Way to have unimpeded access to the Olympic Steps, in both directions, especially when large events are taking place at the Stadium;

·      for pedestrians using the Engineers Way crossing from Market Square, beside the Civic Centre, to have unimpeded access to Wembley Park Boulevard (and back, on their way from Wembley Arena, the LDO and beyond towards Wembley Park Station);

·      for pedestrians coming west along Engineers Way from Canada Gardens, the University of Football Business and other developments, to have free use of the existing wide pedestrian area at the foot of the Olympic Steps, and the existing but narrower pedestrian area as they approach Wembley Park Boulevard and Arena Square.

 

The areas which your application proposes to stop-up were designed to be the way they are, as part of Quintain's Masterplan for Wembley Park. I can't see why the need for them should have changed, particularly given the growing number of people living in the area, and the increased number of large events at the Stadium, since that Masterplan was drawn up, and approved by Brent Council.

 

Unless you can provide a very strong justification as to why those hatched areas on the Plan are now unnecessary, I think that this application should be withdrawn. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

In case you have difficulty in visualising the areas the Council proposes to stop-up from the plan, I have marked them in red on this Google Maps satellite view extract:

 



The Public Realm Director quickly sent a holding reply, to say that he would consult colleagues on their return before sending a full response, and this is what he wrote when he sent that:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant,

 

The land proposed to be stopped up was the former bell mouth into Green Car Park and a sliver of land along the southern footway of Engineers Way located east of Wembley Park Boulevard.

 

The stopping-up was requested by Quintain as the area shown in hatch was deemed to be in the line of their Hostile Vehicles Mitigation bollards (an important counter-terrorism installation). These bollards are installed by Quintain, and the future maintenance will also be with them. The staggered nature of the former highway land would not serve any purpose as highway maintainable at public expense and so there is value in eliminating an ongoing burden on public finances.

 

I confirm Quintain has met all expenses in this stopping-up process. The original application was made around five years ago and the legal process, the statutory undertakers utility clearance and the obtaining of a court date have taken a considerable amount of time.

 

The stopping-up does not in any way impede public access to Olympic Steps nor to the access roads Olympic Way East and West. The stopping-up process will not in any way change the layout of the public realm that is currently in place. All existing pedestrian and vehicular access will remain unchanged, and we have had written assurance from Quintain to this effect. The purpose is simply to allow Quintain to maintain their land in future years to the same standard as the rest of the Wembley Park estate.

 

We have now been given a court date for the hearing on the 22 January 2026 at 2 pm. Therefore, the notice of intent and the draft order was publicised by our lawyers on the 15 December allowing sufficient time for the statutory notice period.

 

As part of the notice process, notices and a draft order were published in the local press; the same was posted on-site and a copy of the notice of intent, draft order and the stopping-up plan were left with Brent Civic Centre welcome desk and at the Wembley Library on the 12 December.

 

Following your email, my colleague contacted the Civic Centre welcome desk and requested that the documents must be available for public viewing until the end of the statutory notice period, i.e. 19 January 2026.

 

I regret you couldn’t view these documents when you visited. However, they were left with the front of house staff on Friday, 12 December 2025.

 

The stopping up process is a lengthy process and the court date is harder to obtain. Therefore, asking for an alternate date is not a viable option and would require substantial officer time.

 

I can advise, however, that if you are not satisfied with our process, then you can, of course, make representation at the court. 

 

I hope this is helpful background. Kind regards,

 

Director of Public Realm.’

 

The Olympic Steps and Stadium, from Engineers Way
(with people walking across a strip of land that could be stopped-up!)

 

If you have managed to read this guest post all the way through to here, thank you. What do you think of this proposed Stopping-up Order, and the Council’s explanation of why they are applying for it? If you have any views, please feel free to share them in the comments below.

 

I think it is important that local residents are aware of this application, by Brent Council on behalf of Quintain Limited. Having considered it myself, I believe that the proposed Order is unnecessary, and a misuse of Section 116, Highways Act 1980. I will try to persuade the Council Officer to withdraw the application, and will include my reasoning for that (as the text of an email I will send to him) for information in the comments section.

 

For now, though, I will wish all “Wembley Matters” readers a Happy New Year! There will be lots of interesting and important things happening in Brent in 2026, and this blog website is a very good source for information about them, so please keep following it.

 

Philip Grant 



13 comments:

Philip Grant said...

'The stopping-up was requested by Quintain.'

It makes you wonder why! But at least 'Quintain has met all expenses in this stopping-up process.'

Anonymous said...

From a security/safety perspective, this seems stupidly high risk.

On any given major event day, there are c. 90,000 visitors in the stadium with potentially hundreds of more outside. This excludes emergency workers, staff, volunteers, etc.

If anything, the hatched areas are not only necessary but are essential to public safety.

Philip Grant said...

FOR INFORMATION 1: (In case my first attempt was too long, I am splitting this comment in two!)

I said in my guest post above that I would share my reasons why Brent Council should withdraw its application with WM readers. Here is the full text of an Open Email which I sent to Brent's Director of Public Realm this morning:

'Thank you for your email of 29 December, and for the details provided which were very helpful in explaining the circumstances behind the proposed Stopping-up Order application. Having considered these, I believe that the Order your Notice states that you will be seeking is both unnecessary to resolve the situation you have described, and would also be a misuse of Section 116, Highways Act 1980.

I am writing to explain the reasons for that view, and to invite you to withdraw the Council's application for a Stopping-up Order in this case. As a failure to do that would risk damage to Brent Council's reputation, I am copying this email to the Chief Executive, Kim Wright, for her information.

I mentioned in an earlier email that I might publicise the application more widely, and I have now put the Plan and Draft Order into the public domain, under a guest post on the "Wembley Matters" blog website. This is the "link" to that article:
https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2026/01/why-does-brent-want-to-stop-up-highway.html

The issues surrounding the "hatched areas", on the Plan which forms part of the proposed Order, fall into two parts. They are the former areas in connection with the Green Car Park and the present public realm alongside Engineers Way.

The former areas of Brent Council highway which are shown on the Plan no longer exist, as they have been replaced as part of Quintain Limited’s developments at Wembley Park. The Stopping-up of those areas should have been made after planning consent was given for this part of Quintain’s development, and before that development took place, under Section 247, Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

As it appears that no such Stopping-up occurred then, this historic problem needs to be resolved, but it is unnecessary to use Section 116, Highways Act 1980, to achieve that end. There appears to be no dispute between Brent Council and Quintain that the rights to those areas of former highway, and the responsibility for their ongoing maintenance, should pass from one to the other. A simple legal agreement between the two parties, setting out the basic facts of the situation and formally transferring the rights and responsibilities in respect of the two areas hatched black on the plan with drawing number TPHS-434-DR-001, should suffice.

Such an agreement would eliminate any ongoing burden on Brent Council’s finances, and allow Quintain to maintain the “hatched” land in future years to the same standard as the rest of the Wembley Park estate. That would meet the two objectives which are claimed to be the purpose of the proposed Stopping-up Order, making the application unnecessary.

The present public realm, following Quintain’s development of the site, is what is displayed on the Plan which forms part of the application. The former Brent Council highway land, in connection with access to the Green Car Park which used to exist, is not shown because it has been replaced, at least five years ago, by Olympic Way East, Olympic Way West and the public realm alongside Engineers Way and to the north of the Olympic Steps. Seeking to stop-up current areas of public realm, because of former highway areas which no longer exist, is a misuse of Section 116, Highways Act 1980.

[Continued]

Philip Grant said...

FOR INFORMATION 2:

My email of 2 January to the Director of Public Realm continues:

'Your email to me of 29 December 2025 states:

‘The stopping-up does not in any way impede public access to Olympic Steps nor to the access roads Olympic Way East and West. The stopping-up process will not in any way change the layout of the public realm that is currently in place. All existing pedestrian and vehicular access will remain unchanged, and we have had written assurance from Quintain to this effect.’

Although it is claimed that the intention of the proposed Stopping-up Order would not affect any pedestrian or vehicular access, the legal effect of such an Order on the “hatched” land would be ‘that the said area of highway be authorised to be stopped up for the purposes of all traffic and all public rights of way are extinguished over the said area of highway.’ [That is a direct quotation from the Draft Order.] Although Quintain have given the Council a written assurance, that would not prevent any future owner of the land from seeking to enforce the legal right which the proposed Order would give them.

Advisors to Quintain and the Council may think that such an Order would be an expedient way to solve the historic problem described above, but it is a short-sighted and dangerous remedy in the long run. And as well as being unnecessary, it is also fatally flawed.

It is clear, from the paragraph of your 29 December email quoted above, that you (and presumably Quintain) agree that public access to the Olympic Steps and access to Olympic Way East and West should not be impeded, and that all existing pedestrian and vehicular access over the “hatched” areas should remain unchanged. In other words, those areas of “highway” within the present public realm along the south side of Engineers Way are necessary. But the grounds for your application are that those areas are unnecessary, and under Section 116, the magistrates’ court can only make an Order if they are satisfied that the relevant highway, as shown on the Plan in its present use, is unnecessary.

I hope you can see, for all the reasons set out in both parts above, that Brent Council should not proceed with this Stopping-up Order application. I look forward to receiving your confirmation that the application detailed in your Notice dated 11 December 2025 has been withdrawn. Please let me know if that is not the case.

If you are unwilling to withdraw the application, I intend to exercise my right under Section 116(7), Highways Act 1980, to be heard when the application is considered at Willesden Magistrates Court on 22 January 2026. I hope that will not be necessary, and that reason and common sense will prevail. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.'

Anonymous said...

I must say, kudos to Philip Grant for standing up to Brent, it’s certainly not easy standing up to such a large organisation, but he very clearly knows what he’s speaking about and as a community he is what you call a true and great community man and is an asset for all those living in Brent. Thanks for the work you do, and it’s great Wembley Matters documents your efforts which could go unseen. I’m sure other readers would agree with me.

Anonymous said...

Surely this roadway is a necessary route for vehicles to get near Wembley Stadium in an emergency such as the ASB that we saw during the Euros final? Emergency vehicles could feasibly have driven up the old pedway ramps but these have been replaced by steps.

Anonymous said...

To answer the question at the start, maybe: to rationalise Wembley Park estate management and save public money?

New Year’s resolutions. Quiet retirement and gardening, brevity, learning to play a musical instrument?

Anonymous said...

Having visited the area over the Christmas, these areas are now separated from Engineers Way (to the north of the bollards) and therefore 'stopping up' these historic areas seems the correct response to me.

They will still remain open to the public just as all the other Quintain owned public realm to the south of the bollards is. If this also mean Quintain is responsible for the cost of maintaining the land and bollards then that is a benefit as well.

Philip Grant said...

In answer to Anonymous (5 January at 09:07), these historic areas should have been stopped up as part of the planning and development process years ago. What this application seeks to stop up is the public realm areas as they are now, which is not the same thing.

As I explained to Brent's Public Realm Director in my 2 January email (see For Information comments above), at this stage, when the development has been completed and the "highway" is in very necessary use, the problem can be solved through a simple legal agreement between the two parties involved, Brent and Quintain.

It does not need a Stopping-up Order, and seeking one under Section 116. would be a misuse of that legislation, because the "hatched" areas on the Plan are necessary, not unnecessary. Brent and Quintain can have the benefits which they both want, without taking away the legal right for pedestrians and vehicles to pass over that land.

Anonymous said...

A cost benefit at the cost of safety?

Anonymous said...

Be interesting to know if Anon. at 9.07 is Brent or Quintain!

Philip Grant said...

FOR INFORMATION 3:

I have received a reply from Brent Council to my Open Email of 2 January (see For Information 1 & 2 above). This is what it said (with job titles of Officers inserted, rather than their names):

'Dear Mr Grant

I am responding to your email to my colleague [Pubic Realm Director] on behalf of the Council.

The Council has discretion as to what powers it uses in relation to the extinguishment/stopping up of highways. The use of S116 for these proposals was authorised on behalf of the Council by the General Purpose Committee on 22 March 2022, as part of the wider Wembley regeneration scheme. The Council has determined that S116 is the appropriate procedure to stop up the small and unnecessary remaining parts of the adopted highway that are now separated from the wider adopted highway by the hostile vehicle mitigation measures along Engineers Way. This decision was taken some 46 months ago, it was a public decision, and anyone aggrieved by the decision could have considered a judicial review against the Council at that time, no such challenge was made.

Therefore, the decision to apply to the Magistrates’ Court for an order under S116 is not capable of legal challenge.

You state in your email that in your opinion the Council should have used S247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Whilst that maybe your view, that power can only be exercised before the works start on site under the relevant planning permission. Further, S247 can only be used where the stopping up is necessary for development that has planning permission proceed. Taking these conditions into account, the Council determined that S247 was not the appropriate route in this case and decided to use its powers under S116 of the Highways Act 1980. This is a reasonable exercise of its discretion and an appropriate remedy in the circumstances.

The proposal is to extinguish the small areas of unnecessary highway so that it, and the hostile vehicle mitigation measures, is no longer maintainable at public expense and will become the responsibility of the landowner. The process will reduce the burden on the Council’s finances, which is one of the concerns you have raised in your email. S116 is the correct process to achieve theses aims, extinguishing a small area of highway that is no longer necessary as is the case here. Should the order be approved, the status of the land will be identical to the surrounding Quintain owned land i.e. privately owned public space as secured under the relevant planning permissions.

Our grounds to the Magistrates’ Court are that these small areas of land, due to the new highway configuration and development in the area, are no longer required as adopted public highway and the council will seek to regularise their use with the highway authority in an agreement. The areas will become privately owned public space as the land immediately adjacent to these areas already is.

The Council will not therefore be withdrawing its application to the Magistrates’ Court.

Kind regards,

Senior Engineer - Development Control
Planning and Development Services'

Philip Grant said...

FOR INFORMATION 4:

As I believe that the reply I received from Brent on 8 January, at "For Information 3" above, still misses the point, this is what I wrote to them in response, later the same day:

'Dear [Senior Engineer],

Thank you for your email this morning, explaining why the Council will not be withdrawing its application to the Magistrates' Court for a Stopping-up Order under Section 116, Highways Act 1980.

Firstly, I am not trying to say that Brent Council has no legal right to make that application, as you try to suggest. As you say, the Council's General Purposes Committee approved the submission of an application at their meeting on 7 March 2022 (46 months ago!). What my open email to [the Public Realm Director] said was that the application was a misuse of Section 116, and that Brent Council should not proceed with it. I still maintain that view.

You state that: 'Our grounds to the Magistrates’ Court are that these small areas of land, due to the new highway configuration and development in the area, are no longer required as adopted public highway ....'

They are clearly not required as adopted public highway, because they became part of the public realm within Quintain's Wembley Park development under planning application 15/5550. But these small areas of land are still highway, over which members of the public have a right to pass, either on foot or, where appropriate, in a vehicle. That right was protected, through a Section 106 agreement, as part of the planning consent.

Whereas a Stopping-up Order, under Section 247, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, would have been appropriate before the development took place, an Order under Section 116, Highways Act 1980, would permanently extinguish the legal right of members of the public to pass across those areas of land, as they now exist after the development has taken place. This would conflict with the existing position, and potentially create a legal nightmare.

That is why the Council's application is a misuse of Section 116, and why it should fail, because those areas of land are necessary for the public to cross. They are not unnecessary, which is what the Council's application claims.

I previously said that the problem the Council wishes to solve, over who should pay for the maintenance of theses small areas of land, could be solved with a simple agreement between Brent Council and Quintain Limited. Having looked further at the Highways Act, I see that it does contain a provision which provides for this situation:

"Section 256. Power to exchange land to adjust boundaries of highways.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the highway authority for any highway maintainable at the public expense may, for the purpose of straightening or otherwise adjusting the boundaries of the highway, enter into an agreement with the owner of any land which adjoins or lies near to the highway providing for the exchange of any such land for land on which the highway is situated, with or without the payment by either party of money for equality of exchange."

I hope that Brent Council will now reconsider its position, and withdraw its unnecessary Section 116 application. I look forward to hearing that it will. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.'