Brent planners recommend approval of more full capacity non-sporting events at Wembley Stadium despite opposition from locals fearing for their quality of life

 Lucrative

Recently it has often seemed that planning officers speak directly on behalf of developers at Brent Planning Committee, rather than giving a balanced view in the light of an application's short-comings and the submissions of local residents.

Wednesday's application by Wembley National Stadium Ltd to increase the number of full capacity non-sporting events, an attendance of up to 90,000 rather than 51,000, is no exception.

The proposal:

Planning officers state:

Many objectors consider that the number of events currently held at the stadium already has an unacceptable level of impact on local residents. However, it should be borne in mind that this application does not affect the number of events that take place at the Stadium, just the capacity of the crowd. Unlimited events at up to 51,000 can take place within the terms of the existing planning consent. Additional mitigation measures would be secured. Some of these measures would relate to all major events and some would relate to the additional non-sporting events. These mitigation measures  are considered to be sufficient to warrant the additional 9 full capacity events proposed.

They later remark:

 WNSL do not currently intent to hold concerts on more than four consecutive nights.

Note the 'currently'.

Live music events contributed substantially to WNSL's income in the past and went into deficit when music events were scaled back from the 2015-16 and this is clearly an attempt to to retrieve the position. LINK

There were 37 representations made on the planning portal, including one from Barn Hill Residents Assocation. All but 2 were opposed to the application, one was in favour and 2 neutral.

Local residents were concerned about the impact of the increase on the quality of their daily lives, already impacted by crowds at the stadium in normal, non-Covid times.

This is the planning officers' conclusion to their report:

The objections received indicate that there is a level of impact currently experienced by local residents as a result of events at the stadium, with concerns predominantly focussed on anti-social behaviour, transport issues, air quality and noise. Some impacts are to be expected, given the size of the stadium and its siting in a location surrounded by residential properties and businesses, within a dense urban area.

 

The original cap on events was imposed to manage the impacts until such time as specific transport improvements had been made. Whilst most of these have taken place, not all of them have been realised. Circumstances have changed since the original planning permission in 2002, which suggest that the final piece of transport infrastructure (the Stadium Access Corridor) will not be provided in its originally envisaged form, but other changes to the road network have now taken place or are currently underway. Therefore, the Council considers that the cap remains relevant.

 

Clearly, to increase the number of higher capacity events to accommodate up to 9 additional major non-sporting events per event calendar year would imply an increase in the impact. However, a wide range of mitigation measures are proposed to help mitigate these impacts. There are ongoing efforts to reduce the number of vehicles on an event day. A number of mitigation measures are proposed to continue this work, including additional parking enforcement capacity and an updated Event Day Spectator Travel Plan to promote sustainable travel patterns. WNSL and public transport operators work closely to promote sustainable transport solutions and maximise the efficiency of the network. This in turn contributes to reducing noise and air quality issues.

 

Infrastructure works including two-way working in the area to the east of the stadium and the opening of a link between the western end of North End Road and Bridge Road to provide an east-west route past the Stadium that is capable of being kept open at all times before and after Stadium events will improve traffic flow in the area and assist residents’ movements on event days.

 

The Trusted Parking Scheme aims to ensure authorised car parks are responsibly run in a way that would limit their impact on neighbouring residents and reduce local congestion, whilst the Private Hire Management Scheme would reduce the number of vehicles in the area around the stadium after events have finished.

 

Employment and Training benefits for Brent residents would also be secured by the proposed scheme.

 

With regard to antisocial behaviour, a financial contribution would be paid by the Stadium to Brent Council per additional major non-sporting event. This would go towards mitigation measures as agreed between WNSL and the Council which may cover measures to address anti-social behaviour such as additional public toilets.

 

Whilst it is appreciated that local residents face challenges on event days, the direct economic benefits for the local Brent economy of stadium events are also recognised including spending on accommodation, food, drink and other ancillary items within the Wembley area. The uplift in the event cap would also create additional event day steward and catering positions. Whilst some types of business would suffer on event days, many would benefit from the influx of people to the area.

 

In summary, it is recognised that there is a level of impact associated with major events now, and that this would increase with an increase in the number of high-capacity major events. However, the measures proposed would ensure that this is moderated as much as is reasonably achievable. All are considered necessary to mitigate the increased number of major events which this application proposes.

 

A further consideration is that the stadium can be used for major events up to 51,000 now without restriction and remaining within this limit would mean that no additional mitigation measures would be formally secured. Measures including the training and employment opportunities would apply more broadly to stadium events, not just the additional major non-sporting events for which permission is sought under this application and would therefore provide wider benefits to local people and the local economy more generally.

 

The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, having regard to material planning considerations. While there will inevitably be some additional impacts associated with an increase in the number of higher capacity non-sporting events, a range of mitigation measures are proposed, and some benefits are also anticipated. The proposal is, on balance, recommended for approval.

 

 

Blooming marvellous! Double award for Barn Hill Conservation Group



Barn Hill Conservation Group are celebrating a double award from London in Bloom.

The Roe Green Walled Garden won Gold in the small Conservation Area category.

The garden is one of the gems of Brent, lovingly tended by volunteers, and replete with vegetables and flowers and fascinating installations dedicated to giving a home to wildlife.

You can visit on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturdays between 10.30am and 2.30pm.







The second award, also a Gold, went to Fryent Country Park and was the overall winner in the Best Country Park Category.

The Conservation Group worked with Brent Council and Barn Hill Residents Association to clear rubbish and the remains of camps from the 250 acre park deposited about 2 years ago.

There is now a dedicated team of residents who collect litter whilst working in the park and leave it a collection points for the Council to collect.

The Conservation Group work in the park every Sunday not only clearing litter and flytips but undertaking conservation work including keeping footpaths clear,  carrying out new planting and surveying the park's wildlife.

Further information can be found on their website HERE

Barn Hill Residents comprehensively oppose Wembley Stadium planning application

This is the submission made by the Chair of Barn Hill Residents Association (BHRA) to the Planning Department on the Spurs bid  to hold more events and lift the capacity cap at Wembley Stadium:

Planning Application ref: 17/0368

Wembley Stadium

We wish to make the following comments on this Application:

Proposed variation of Condition 3

Condition 3 of the original Wembley Stadium Planning Consent has not yet been fully complied with.  This Condition restricts the number of full capacity events at the Stadium until various transport improvements have been put in place. These include the upgrade of one section of road within the Wembley Industrial Estate which requires the purchase of a significant amount of land. This purchase has not yet taken place, despite Wembley Stadium having given Brent Council millions of pounds to facilitate these works.

We believe that until such time as these works are completed in their entirety, this Application should be refused.

It is not at all clear why the Stadium feels the need to increase the number of full capacity Event Days. There is no restriction on the number of events using only the lower and middle tiers of the Stadium which can accommodate up to a total of 51,000 spectators. 

The pretext for increasing the number of Event Days is that Tottenham Hotspur will be using the Stadium from 1^st August 2017 until 31^st July 2018 while their own stadium is being rebuilt.

However, Tottenham’s current average home attendance of 36,824 falls well short of the capacity figure of 51,000 for normal Event Days. The 31 additional planned events could therefore go ahead without any variation to the existing planning consent.

Although this proposal purports to be a temporary arrangement to accommodate Tottenham, we strongly suspect that, if approved, it would pave the way for Chelsea Football Club to use the

Stadium for a further three years while their stadium is also being rebuilt.

Proposed removal of Condition 33

We do not agree with the lifting of this Condition as we believe that many fans of Tottenham will travel to Wembley via the North Circular Road despite it already being heavily used and subject to constant traffic jams.

Other issues

We believe that Brent Council is not fully taking into account the detrimental impact that approving this Application would have on the local environment and residents. Even without any increase in the frequency of matches and the numbers of spectators, it is evident that Police resources are totally inadequate when it comes to enforcing the law on match days. 

In flagrant disregard of the regulations in the local Controlled Drinking Zone, there is widespread and excessive consumption of alcohol in the streets, especially when large numbers of fans are turned out of the local hostelries one hour before kick-off, while Police officers look on, apparently powerless to act.

This inevitably leads to the public nuisance of widespread urination not just in the streets but also in residents’ gardens, or even behind the Civic Centre.

The other unwelcome by-product of match days is the sea of litter left behind in the streets.  Fans discard food packaging with impunity, an offence which in other circumstances might attract a fine of £80. Sadly, Veolia (Brent Council’s contractor) are failing to maintain their previous standards of rubbish collection.   

This is to say nothing of the massive disruption suffered by local residents in many other ways on Event Days, what with overcrowded buses and trains making normal travel by public transport very difficult, and parking restrictions inconveniencing family and social events in residents’ own homes. 

Any increase in Event Days would seriously impact the right of residents to the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their properties.  In addition, other local activities would increasingly have to be curtailed at short notice, with venues such as church halls suffering a serious loss of income.

I believe that, before attracting ever larger crowds to Wembley on match days, measures should be taken to alleviate existing problems, whether that involves a large increase in Police resources or perhaps the Council reviewing the licences of local pubs.

Local residents suspect that designating many more match days as full Event Days when this is not warranted by the likely numbers attending, is a kind of 'Trojan Horse' strategy to increase the full Event Days to 68 on a long-term basis, to continue long after Chelsea and Tottenham have returned to their rebuilt stadiums.

If, as we have been told, the local Police already have insufficient resources to enforce the widely-flouted ban on drinking in the streets around the Stadium, what hope is there that they would be able to cope with extra Event Days?

Even if there were to be no increase in Event Days, we strongly believe that extra Policing is essential and suggest that the costs should be borne jointly by Wembley Stadium and the clubs involved.

For the reasons given above, we strongly object to this Application.

More Wembley history takes a knock on eve of anniversary

The Planning Committee this week discussed two Wembley issues which local people have expressed concern about:

Agenda item 7, for 4 blocks of flats (3 x 8-storey and 1 x 5-storey with total of 109 flats) and one pair of 3-storey semi-detached family houses on the former station car park at Brook Avenue, Wembley, was brought forward. It was explained that during the site visit on 9 March it had been pointed out that several people who had commented on the application within the time limit had not been notified of the visit or committee date. 

Investigations had shown that those not notified included two Ward Councillors and the Chairperson of the Barn Hill Residents Association. The committee’s Legal Advisor had recommended that, in these circumstances, consideration of the application should be deferred to the next meeting of Planning Committee. The proposal to defer was put to the committee, and accepted unanimously.

The Chairman, Cllr. Ketan Sheth, told the members of the public present, including around half-a-dozen local residents who had come for this application (two of whom had been given speaking “slots” at the meeting as objectors) that the item 7 application would not now be heard at the meeting. He thanked those who had come for that item for attending, and said that he hoped they would come again to the meeting when it would be considered.

Plan with part retention of Palace of Industry walls

 Agenda item 4, for 1,350 temporary car parking spaces on the former Palace of Arts and Palace of Industry site at Engineers Way, Wembley, was the first application actually considered. Planning Officer Neil McLennan gave some further information on points from the Supplementary Report handed out at the start of the meeting, and said that the recommendation was now to give consent for temporary car parking for five years, rather than three, but with a reduction from 1,350 to a maximum of 510 spaces after three years, unless otherwise agreed by the Council. This would save the applicant from having to make a further application at the end of three years.

Philip Grant, a member of Wembley History Society, was invited to speak by the Chairman. He handed over some illustrations for the committee, and told them that since the application was made at the end of 2012 he had been trying to persuade the applicant, Quintain Estates, to retain at least some of the external walls of the Palace of Industry building until at least the end of 2014. 

That year would see the 90^th anniversary of the British Empire Exhibition, an event which would be of far more than local interest. The Palace of Industry was the last remaining building from the Exhibition, and it was important that visitors for celebration events in 2014 should be able to see the scale and architectural style of one of the original 1924 buildings, and the innovative construction method used for the Exhibition, which was also known as the World’s First City of Concrete.

Mr Grant said that he had been told by Quintain that none of the walls could be left free-standing for reasons of safety. He said that he had asked several times since 18 January for sight of any report showing this to be the case. He had made clear that he would withdraw his objection to the demolition of the walls if he could be satisfied on this point, but had been given no evidence to back up Quintain’s claim. He said that he had recently written to Quintain’s Chief Executive with proposals for just a small section of the walls to be retained, rather than all of the northern and eastern external walls, and referred members to the illustrations he had given them which showed details, and that his proposals would not interfere with the planned parking spaces. 

He asked the committee, if it could not make keeping part of the walls a condition of granting consent, to make a strong request to Quintain to retain the small section of the external walls now suggested.

Anne Clements, Quintain’s Senior Planning Manager, addressed the committee next. She said that temporary car parking on the site was essential to her company’s Wembley City regeneration project, which had been approved by Brent in 2000. The extra parking was needed to meet its commitments to Wembley Stadium, and had to be available before they demolished an existing multi-storey car park as part of the next phase of the project. The latest phase, the London Designer Outlet, would be ready later in 2013, and was already over 50% pre-let, with Marks & Spencer as the lead tenant. This would provide 1,500 new jobs, and steps were being taken to try to ensure that most of these went to local people. The Wembley City regeneration was of major economic importance to Brent, and the Council should continue to give it their full support.

Ms Clements said that Quintain were mindful of the site’s British Empire Exhibition heritage. Several mosaics had been carefully removed when they demolished the last section of the Palace of Arts some years ago, and the lion’s head corbels from the building currently under demolition would be preserved, with some given to Brent. She said that they needed to clear the whole site for car parking, and that, for safety reasons, they were not prepared to accept the risk of leaving any of the walls standing. When asked by one of the members whether there was any survey or report which showed that it would be unsafe to leave the walls standing, Ms Clements said that Quintain’s demolition contractor had said that the concrete was deteriorating and that the whole building should be knocked down.

Several members of Planning Committee then gave their views. Cllr. Ann John said that she must start by saying that, although she had no personal interest in the application, she had known and had many discussions with Ms Clements and other members of the Quintain team about the Wembley City regeneration during her years as Leader of the Council. She stressed the importance of the scheme, and said that she fully supported the application. While she did not blame Mr Grant for trying to keep a part of Wembley’s history, it was a similar situation to when some people wanted to retain the twin towers of the old Wembley Stadium. That would have cost £30-40 million, and would have meant that Brent did not have the new Wembley Stadium.

Cllr. Mark Cummins said that what Mr Grant was now suggesting looked very reasonable, and he hoped that Quintain would try to accommodate his suggestion to retain a small section of the Palace of Industry walls. The British Empire Exhibition was an important part of Wembley’s history, and it should be possible to allow part of its last surviving building to remain standing for the anniversary in 2014. Cllr. Mary Daly, Vice-Chair of the committee, supported this view, and asked Ms Clements to take the feelings of members, on retaining the small section of the walls now proposed, back to her company. Cllr. Sami Hashmi said that he agreed with the comments of Cllrs. Cummins and Daly. 

Making final comments from the Planning Officers, Stephen Weeks said that there was no legal bar to Quintain demolishing the Palace of Industry building, and no condition over keeping part of the walls could be imposed as part of this planning consent. Neil McLennan clarified the wording of the amended conditions to the consent which the Officers recommended. The committee voted unanimously to grant consent, as amended.

The amended recommendations to the conditions on which consent would be granted for temporary car parking spaces on the Palace of Industry / Palace of Arts site, which were approved by Planning Committee were:

Condition 1: Period for which consent given: 5 years (rather than 3 years in original recommendation);

 

Condition 7: Maximum number of parking spaces: 1,350 spaces for the first three years from first use, and 510 spaces for the following two years unless otherwise agreed by the Council (rather than 1,350 spaces in the original recommendation).