Hazel Road development, opposed by local residents, a local heritage historian and Queens Park ward councillors passed with just one Green councillor against

Front elevation showing the new building and nearby houses

 I watched the council's livestream of the Planning Committee earlier this week but the sound was so poor i could not hear the two presentations at the begining of the meeting. They just happened to be presentations against the controversial replacement proposals for the Victorian community centre in Hazel Road.

 

I tried the recording of the meeting but that was just as bad so I have asked the two speakers for copies of their presentation to publish. The public have a right to know what they said.

 

 Unofficial impression of the current building and the new

 Phil O’Shea’s spoke to the  Planning Committee on behalf of Kensal Green's Residents Association.

  

Good evening. I’m Phil O’Shea, speaking for Kensal Green Residents Association. I live on Hazel Road. 

 

There are clear reasons why this application has attracted 151[1] objections.

 

Even the committee report acknowledges that this proposal falls short of required standards. That alone means this is not the right development for this site. Hazel Road is in a two-storey Victorian neighbourhood. 

 

Brent’s Historic Environment Strategy is clear. Once much-loved heritage buildings like Harriet Tubman House are demolished, their value to the community is lost forever. 

 

The proposed glass and aluminium block is wholly out of keeping with a brick Victorian neighbourhood. At four storeys, it would be over-dominant and harmful to local character. 

 

The committee report misrepresents Brent Local Plan Policies which support contemporary design - where it respects and complements historic character and require development - to conserve and enhance heritage assets’.[2] This proposal fails those tests.

 

The demolition of our Community Centre - which supports playgroups, exercise classes, warm-space provision, counselling, arts, church groups, community christmas lunches - means more than a halving – a loss of over 53% - of dedicated community space – and once the new hallway and toilet are deducted – we’re left with a space 10 by 11 metres.[3] The suggestion that these groups can instead hire a training room, IT suite, or roof terrace from Making the Leap - is simply not viable.

 

The report tries to suggest that the scheme will improve local safety, yet the proposed Hazel Road frontage includes a covered porch and alcoves that are likely to attract anti-social behaviour after dark. 

 

Residents opposite the proposed block would suffer up to a 36.5% loss of daylight, including in homes occupied by some vulnerable people. The daylight consultant did not visit number 31a. Users of the proposed roof terrace would be able to look straight down through their skylight and onto their bed.

  

A large part of Hazel Road Open space will be lost during construction and  - Making the Leap - propose to “reclaim” an area of the parkland adjacent to the children’s play area. 

 

Network Rail objected to this proposal in January last year because the Bakerloo and Lioness lines run approximately five metres beneath the proposed development. That objection was withdrawn last month - without any publicly available explanation - and it is unclear what assurances or technical information were provided by the applicant. 

 

Taken together, the proposal causes clear harm to heritage, amenity, safety and community provision. For these reasons —residents believe this application should not be approved.

 

---

[1] 163 in total, 151 objections, 10 in favour, 2 neutral

[2] Local Plan Polices BD1, DMP1 & BP6 South East – and see KGRA 100226, how the Committee Report misrepresents DMP1 & BD1

[3] From 247 square metres to 115msq. The new community centre will have a hallway of 13msq, toilet & store of 15.5msq leaving 105.6msq

 

 

Application 25/0041 – Philip Grant’s heritage presentation to Planning Committee:

I only have time to outline the heritage objections. Please ask me for details at the end.

Part e) of policy BHC1 is key to deciding this application. It says: “proposals affecting heritage assets should … seek to avoid harm in the first instance. Substantial harm or loss should be exceptional, especially where the asset is of high significance.

Any proposed … loss of a heritage asset … should require clear and convincing justification, and can be outweighed by material planning considerations in the form of public benefits, but only if these are sufficiently powerful.’

This proposal would demolish a heritage asset, which my detailed February 2025 Alternative Heritage Statement showed has high significance. It also explained why the applicant’s main public benefit claim was no benefit at all!

I’d shown the proposals failed the part e) test, but the Case Officer wanted the application approved. He asked the agent to send a revised heritage statement, and when that wasn’t good enough, he spelt out what it needed to say. Consultation on this second revised version was invited on 10 June, but the document wasn’t published until 9 July!

The Heritage Officer’s November comments included a serious error, saying 28 Hazel Road ‘was not considered to have reached the necessary threshold for local listing.' If true, its significance score could be no more than five, and that was the score he gave it.

I drew this error to his attention, but the Committee Report still used the false claim. Now the Supplementary Report tries to “spin” its correction, but all the non-designated heritage assets identified in 2016 would have scored at least six. I believe the true score is nine.

The Report uses the agent’s claimed public benefits, but doesn’t mention my counter views. The proposal cuts community space in half, to just 115sqm, but the agent claims we should treat it as 450sqm. That includes training rooms which might occasionally be hired out. The proposed Access Plan condition would only cover use of one small community room.

The heritage asset IS of high significance, and the public benefits are NOT ‘sufficiently powerful’ to justify its demolition. The application should be refused.

Philip Grant’s thoughts about the Planning Committee consideration on Hazel Road:

I realise that I could be accused of bias, because I was at the meeting as an objector, but I have tried to make my thoughts about it objective.

 

One feature of how the case was handled by Planning Officers is that they did not show any images, apart from the site plan, when introducing the application at the meeting, and there were none apart from the site plan in the agenda pack which members had. Committee members had apparently had a site visit, so would have seen the existing street and building, but they had not seen any drawings of the proposed building.

 

The Development Management Area Manager (South Team), who introduced the application, spoke mainly about what a good modern design the proposed building was. He clearly had no feeling for heritage buildings, or the Victorian character of the Hazel Road area!

 

Phil O’Shea of Kensal Green Residents’ Association spoke about the application and its effect on the Hazel Road neighbourhood, pointing out where it went against several Brent planning policies. I presented the heritage case explaining why the application failed the Local Plan heritage policy tests, so should be refused, then answered several questions from committee members fully and honestly.

 

Two Queen’s Park Ward councillors, Lesley Smith and Neil Nerva, then spoke against the application, reinforcing the views of local residents that the proposed building was not suitable for the scale and character of the area.

 

The Chief Executive of Making the Leap then spoke in favour of the application, emphasising the valuable work his charity does in training young people, mainly from BAME backgrounds. He wanted them to be able to learn in a modern building, like the ones they aspired to work at in Central London, rather than in one that is now not up to standard. His planning agent and architect help answer questions from committee members.

 

Committee members then put questions to Council Officers. Among these, Brent’s new Heritage Officer maintained his view that the former Victorian mission hall had only low to medium significance, and in his opinion would not have qualified for Local Listing.

 

The Development Management Manager for the whole of Brent, who led the Planning Officers' response to members questions, did her best to justify the application. She claim that the four-storey building would not look out of place, as there were other buildings of a similar height nearby on Harrow Road (the two Queens Park councillors sitting beside me were shaking their heads in disbelief, as Harrow Road is separated from Hazel Road by an open space and bank, and is at least five metres lower down the slope).

 

She also gave a long (and unnecessary) explanation of the different types of heritage building for planning purposes, suggesting that even though 28 Hazel Road was treated as a non-designated heritage asset, it did not mean it deserved as much protection for planning purposes as Statutory Listed buildings (I had never claimed that it did, only that it needed to be properly considered in line with Brent’s policy BHC1).

 

Towards the end of Officer questioning, Cllr. Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam asked Officers to show some images of the existing street and the proposed building. Because of delays in finding those pictures, the Chair said that they would carry on with questions, and the images were only shown, for a few seconds each, while members were dealing with other matters. The image below was the only one, shown briefly, of the proposed building. This was on the bigscreen, opposite Cllr. Robert Johnson, and he was the only member who I saw looking at it.

 

The front elevation of the proposed building and nearby homes in Hazel Road.

 

When it came to a vote on whether members agreed with the Officers recommendation to approve the application, Cllr. Johnson abstained, on the grounds that he was concerned about the scale of the proposed building. You can see why! That may be why Officers didn't want members to see it.

 

In summing up the Officer’s comments, the Development Management Manager said that what members needed to decide was whether the application did more good than harm (and I’m sure she was not just referring to the heritage policy question). She did not mention the different policies which objectors had pointed to as reasons why the application should be refused, despite planning decisions supposedly being based on planning policy!

 

The ”more good than harm” argument has been used before by Brent Planning Officers to sway committee members’ decisions, when objectors have shown that the application which Officers wish to see approved goes against Brent’s adopted planning policies. One which immediately comes to mind is the 776/778 Harrow Road (the Barham Park former park-keepers homes) case in 2023. After that I challenged Brent’s then Head of Planning to show what planning policy contained the ”more good than harm” principle, and did not get a straight answer.

 

As the time was around 7.30pm, with two more applications still to be dealt with on the agenda, the Chair, Cllr. Matt Kelcher, called for a decision on the application, indicating that he thought the application had definite benefits. He, and Vice Chair Cllr. Saqib Butt, voted to accept the Officers’ recommendation to approve the application, along with three other Labour councillors (Akram, Begum and Chappell) and one Conservative (Cllr. Jayanti Patel). Green Party member, Cllr. Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam, who had been the most active questioner, voted against, and Labour’s Cllr. Robert Johnson abstained.

Brent Council seek pause in Wembley student accommodation building as proportion of students in population predicted to reach 26.8% within next 3 years

 

 

A drastic slow down in conventional home building in Brent  and a boom in purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) has led to fears of an unbalanced community, particularly in the Wembley Growth Zone.

In 2023-25 planning permission was granted for 8,000 conventional homes in Brent but there were only 656 net additionas to housing stock. Delays were blamed on shortages of labour and materials and updated safety requirements. 

Meanwhile the PBSA figures (bedrooms) were:

Completed 6,257

Under construction 1,617

Permitted/approved 1,559

Awaiting decision  2,010

 In discussion but declared acceptable by planning officers 918

 

The Wembley Growth Area 

Most of these are in the Wembley Growth area LINK:

As identified however, the spatial distribution of PBSA provision has been focussed on Wembley Growth Area where to date 6058 bedspaces have been constructed. Currently 21.8% of the Growth Area’s population is students either in PBSA or in all student households renting homes.

 

A further 1617 PBSA bedspaces are under construction and planning committee has been minded to approve 759 more bedspaces, subject to an appropriate S106 obligation. Some sites are subject to current applications and others are also in relatively advanced pre-application discussions where the principle of PBSA has been identified as acceptable. If all delivered, a further 3500 student bedspaces could be supplied in the next 3 years, resulting in 9558 bedspaces in total. It is anticipated that 1871 additional dwellings will be completed in the area in the next 3 years. Students would in three years comprise 26.8% of the overall population.

 More than a quarter of the total population would be students and this is not considered appropriate in terms of a balanced community. A planning statement is proposed that would pause  PBSA building. The officers' report suggests this would enable building of conventional housing to catch up and the student proportion of the total population would return to an acceptable 20%.

As this is an interpretation of policy in relation to clarifying the position in terms of PBSA over-concentration/ supporting balanced and mixed communities, rather than writing new policies, it is suggested that the Council issues a policy position statement. Although not officially recognised in planning statutes as a Local Development Document or perhaps having the weight of a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), if consulted upon and following the same processes as a SPD, once adopted by the Council it can be regarded as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications with some weight.

 

This will provide clarity to prospective developers or investors in PBSA, particularly in Wembley Growth Area that, other than schemes already subject to approval or with clear advice from the Council through the pre-application process that the principle of PBSA is currently acceptable, the Council is unlikely to support their scheme in the short term.

 Given developers' enthusiasm for profit-making student accommodation and the limited legal status of the 'planning statement' we may well see appeals in the future if applications are refused. Backbenchers have expressed disquiet at the amount of student accommodation being approved versus the lack of truly affordable housing. Whether building of normal homes will actually accelerate is currently unclear but as an interm measures is proposed PBSA developers rather than providing a proportion of afford student accommodation would instead make a contribution to the building of affordable homes elsewhere in the borough.

 

'Stark' 826 student accommodation that will 'tower above Cricklewood Broadway' approved by Brent Planning Committee

 

Brent Planning Committee has approved the replacement of the Matalan site on Cricklewood Broadway by two blocks of student accommodation, together comprising 826 beds. The blocks range in height from 3 to 9 storeys

 Previously the developer had permission for a lower height development of 238 residential flats but submitted the new application blaming the change of direction on regulatory changes including new fire safety requirements,

A resident submitted a deputation supporting the application citing the run down nature of the current site and its impact on the area.

In his deputation, Ben Tansley for Northwest Two Residents Association, described th proposed development as too large, bleak, imposing and stark, 'towering above Cricklewood Broadway'.  It was disproportionate in relation to the two storey houses on Temple Road.

Tansley said that the Association supported development of the site but not at this scale.  They would prefer a height of 5 storeys but would perhaps settle for seven.  He argued that the proposal did not comply with the Local Plan.

 There were the usual arguments that purpose built student accommodation would attract students currently renting houses, freeing them up for families if the application was approved. It would help meet London's overall target for student accommodation. The development would provide the equivalent of 300 homes that would count towards Brent Council's housing target.

The application was approved by 5 votes to 3 with Cllr Saqib Butt, Akram and Dixon voting against.

 

Planning applications for housing blocks on both College of North West London Brent sites approved in exchange for new college building on Olympic Way

Tower blocks replacing CNWL Wembley Park building

Medium rise and high rise blocks on CNWL Dudden Hill site

Despite having doubts regarding the amount of affordable housing, lack of amenity space and fears of flooding (Wembley Park) and shared ownership and shading nearby 2 storey homes (Dudden Hill) members of Brent Planning Committee unanimously voted for the redevelopment of the College of North West London (CNWL) sites at Wembley Park and Dudden Hill. 

They were told that plans for a new college building in a prime site off Olympic Way could not go ahead without approval of both applications because the developments held fund the college building.  Promises of viability reviews at various stages of the process of development looked promising for increasing the number of affordable homes at first (just 69 social rent homes out of 1,000 at Dudden Hill) but later looked very unlikely when they were told the costs for the college new build could rise.

No one asked if a less expensive option than prime site Olympic Way had been considered for the college. Brent Council arranged a loan for United Colleges (merged CNWL and City of Westminster College) to enable the redevelopment project  at Wembley Park to go ahead.

A review of intermediate tenures other than shared ownership, generally considered not affordable, was agreed along with a £149,500 contribution to bus service enhancement at Wembley Park.  Again at Wembley Park, the developer will pay £100,000 towards improvement of nearby open spaces as little amenity space is offered on a constrained site.  There will be road layout changes and crossing enhancements and possibly a CPZ at Dudden Hill and Denzil Road.

The Planning Committee waas chaired by Cllr Saqib Butt in the absence of Cllr Matt Kelcher while his brother Cllr Muhammed Butt (Deputy Leader and lead member for housing, regneration, planning and growth)  looked on from the public gallery.

New CNWL campus on the corner of Olympic Way and Fulton Road

 The twin developments will add many homes to Brent Council's target and there will be a new state of the art FE college, but there will be nagging doubts, not least in some councillor's minds, about whether a better deal could have been possible in terms of homes affordable for the many on Brent's housing list.

 

Cllr Kelcher's casting vote gives approval to 318 room aparthotel in central Wembley. Cllr Dixon abstains.

 The approved 6, 8 and 10 storey aparthotel replacing the two storey Euro Hotel

 

 The 7 building student accommodation named Wembley Edge was approved at Planning Committee last night. There was opposition from owners of neighbouring sites that were concerned that the application would limit their own development options but only Cllr Dixon voted against.

As it turned out it was the application to build an up to 10 storey hotel on the otherwise two storey family home side of Elm Road in central Wembley where the decision was really on the edge!

 

The 20 minute video below features the end of decision making where there is a tied vote (Cllr Johnson was absent) and prompted by the planning officer Chair of the Committee,  Cllr Kelcher votes for the proposal. 

 

Cllrs Saqib Butt, Begum and Akram voted against and Cllr Kelcher, Chappell and Patel for. Cllr Dixon abstained. 

 

 

 

 

Cllr Akram intervened after the vote to ask whether the vote could be retaken to give Cllr Dixon a chance to vote against the application. If you listen carefully to the video Cllr Dixon, asked for reasons for her abstention, says (16.50):

I think it is against because I'm not confident that we are following our, some of our, policies around the tall zone and I think it is out of character.

The reasons she gave were very similar to those given by councillors who voted against.

Cllr Kelcher told Cllr Akram that they'd had the chance to vote and it stood. Cllr Dixon did not contribute further. Cllr Akram said the reasons for rejection were quite clear, it was overbearing and not in character with the area. He added, 'It's quite upsetting that it's been put forward and approved, but that's the decision that has been made.'

During the discussion and questioning of planning officers there were concerns that it was a tall building but not in a tall building zone and that this approval would set a precedent for more tall buildings on Elm Road, especially as the developer had been buying up the 2 storey houses. Much of the support for the application came from local businesses on the High Road. Planning officers said that it contributed to the growth of Wembley as a metropolitan area.

Cllr Saqib Butt said:

This is an aparthotel. It is not giving our residents any sort of benefit whatsover, apart from blocking the light, outside of a tall building zone in a completely residential area.

Ironically on the other side of theChiltern railway is Princes Court that used to be designated a site of distinguished suburban development. I don't know if that is still the case.

Wembley Stadium's 9 extra non-sporting events application to be heard on September 11th. Brent Chief Planner recommends 'GRANT CONSENT'

 From Brent Council

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (as amended) THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

Re: Wembley National Stadium, Olympic Way, Wembley, HA9 0WS

I refer to the planning application for the above site which proposes:-

Variation of conditions 1 (Event Cap) and 2 (Temporary Traffic Management) of Variation of Conditions reference 20/4197 dated 21 June, 2021, for Proposed variation of Condition 1 (event cap) of planning permission reference 18/4307 (varied permission for the construction of the stadium, dated 07/03/2019), to allow up to 9 additional major non-sporting events per event calendar year.

The current application includes the submission of an Environmental Statement.

The application will be formally considered at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 11 September, 2024 starting at 6pm.

This meeting of the Committee has been arranged to take place in the Conference Hall, at the Civic Centre.

Those who wish to observe proceedings may either do so in person or via the live webstream which we will make available on the Council’s website:

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/democracy-in-brent/local-democracy/live-streaming/
 

It is possible to speak at the Committee Meeting, which can be undertaken online (or via the telephone) or in person at the meeting, subject to the restrictions set out in the Council's Standing Order. These provide for one objector and/or one supporter of the application to speak. The Chair has the discretion to increase this to two people from each side. In doing this, the Chair will give priority to occupiers nearest to the application site or representing a group of people.

To address the committee you must notify Executive and Member Services by 5 pm on the working day before the committee meeting. Please email committee@brent.gov.uk or telephone the Executive and Member Services Officer, Mrs Dev Bhanji, on 07786 681276 during office hours. Please indicate if you intend to speak at physical meeting or online.

The Chief Planner's recommendation for this application is to Grant Consent subject to Legal agreement

Yours sincerely

Sean Newton
Neighbourhoods & Regeneration

Extra Event Days petition to be presented to Brent Cabinet on September 9th

 

Summer 2025

 

The Liberal Democrat petition on additional Wembley Event Days will be presented to the next Brent Council Cabinet on Monday September 9th. This means that the petition will be heard before Wembley Stadium's planning application for extra events goes to Planning Committee.

The aim is to persuade the Council that this matter is so important  that they should hold consultation meetings with local residents and businesses so that they are fully aware of the impact of events now and the potential disruption of extra days. This was done when Tottenham Hotspur applied to use the stadium. A Planning Committee with limited time for residents to speak is not sufficient.

If residents wish make their own representations about the impact extra event days would have on them personally they could write to Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, at: cllr.muhammed.butt@brent.gov.uk

 THE PETITION (Now closed):

We the undersigned petition the council to Consult and to Listen to concerns of local residents and businesses about the impact of increasing the number of "Large" Events at Wembley Stadium

Plans for the new Wembley Stadium were approved in 1999 with a limit of 37 Large Events per year. A few years later Brent Council allowed an increase to 46 Large Events per year. The Stadium owners have now applied for planning permission to increase this by another 8 to 54 Large Events per year.

 

Large Events at the Stadium have a major impact on the lives of local people and business - especially when as many as three events are held on 3 successive days.

 

We call on Brent Council (jointly with representatives of the FA) to carry out an extensive public consultation with Brent residents and local businesses on the social and economic impacts of Wembley Stadium Large scale events before the Planning Application is considered by the Brent Council's Planning Committee.

 

We believe that local people and businesses have the right to be properly consulted and informed about these possible changes and for their views to be assessed and documented before any decision is made.

The petition will also be referred to the relevant Director and Lead Members as well as the appropriate Scrutiny Committee.

Ealing Road blocks replacing bank and public house approved by Brent Planning Committee

 

Brent Planning Committee approved the plans for  245-249 and 253 Ealing Road at Wednesday's meeting. Two members voted against approval. There were representations  against the development from nearby residents and from ward councillor Anton Georgiou. The sound quality of the Coucil recording was very poor so Cllr Geogiou has let me have a copy of his representation:

I am here, once again, to be a voice for the residents in Alperton who are fed up with the intense development in this particular part of the ward. An area that has already had to endure years of construction works, that are still ongoing causing misery to the lives of local people. If any of you have visited recently – you will understand why.

 

As a ward Councillor, I often come to these meetings to voice opposition to the wrong type of development and am often attacked by the Chair and others for not understanding the pressures we face as a local authority with regards to our housing needs – these attacks are totally unwarranted.

 

It is important to recognise that the bulk of the development that has occurred to date has not and will not address the genuine and growing housing need in our community. It has though compounded existing issues in my ward whether that is a lack of infrastructure to deal with the increasing population, or the problems that present for existing residents and even our newer residents who are living in some of the new blocks that have been thrown up.

 

Firstly, I think that it is important to read the letter from my resident Alexandra, who is unable to be here today, which outlines her and her neighbours, objections to this development. The issues she highlights are all genuine planning considerations, loss of light, privacy and overlooking issues, the cumulative effect that ongoing development has had and will have on this area. I do believe that before you make a decision tonight you should read her letter and listen to the comments Mathew, another resident at 243 Ealing Road will make, who will also be speaking in opposition.

 

If I could get into the final details of this application, I think it’s important to recognise that whilst some affordable housing is provided, not all of it is the genuinely affordable provision we need. I continue to take issue with the Council’s view that shared ownership is an affordable housing tenure. It is not. 

 

Shared Ownership is a scam, and you only have to speak to the 1000’s of residents in Brent who have been trapped by the false pretence that Shared Ownership is affordable to see this. In the application it is proposed that there will be 10 Shared Ownership units. In my view that is enough of a reason to reject this version of the application entirely. 

 

Whilst I recognise the scheme proposes a 35% affordable housing offer, as an authority we should be pushing for much more from developers if we are serious about addressing our growing housing need. We do not need 56 more private units at market value, who are they for, who can afford them? It is time this Committee stopped saturating the local housing market with what we do not need.

 

Moving to existing issues in some of the new blocks in Alperton, I would like to ask this Committee if they follow up on the developments that have already been approved. If you had you would realise that most new residents are having to already contend with difficulties in new buildings, such as broken lifts, anti-social behaviour in communal spaces, lack of access to communal areas due to safety issues, significant construction issues, including with cladding, the list goes on.

 

My point is that this Committee is approving new developments without recognising that most of these developments from the offset have major, inherent issues with them. You are effectively allowing residents to move into the ward and into Brent who are then forced to cope with a myriad of problems in their new homes from day one. 

 

Is the Council holding the developers, housing associations and construction/ building companies to account – when they make commitments to us at this stage of the process? I am personally having to intervene when issues present in new blocks and it seems unbelievable, frankly a dereliction of the Council’s duty towards residents, that new developments keep being approved despite there being such flaws in new builds. Enough is enough.

 

I would finally like to turn to the financial contributions offered alongside this development.

 

The papers indicate a £45,00 towards a CPZ close to the site, I would like the Committee to tell me if they know where the existing CPZ is, and whether the mentioned extension will simply be imposed on residents. Before accepting more money for CPZ’s I would suggest the Council gets its act together in progressing schemes – they take too long to implement and in the meantime parking havoc ensues on local roads.

 

£7,000 for off street tree planting is welcome but are the Council committing maintenance and upkeep, rather than letting new trees die?

 

£10,000 for improvements to open spaces within the borough but not solely for the ward so again money generated in Alperton being spent elsewhere. This is not fair.

 

Another £150,000 for step free access at Alperton tube. Welcomed. But will it actually happen. TfL are good at sending out press releases on this, but how long will it take? Issues at the station are present now, local people cannot wait any longer.

 

CIL contribution again welcomed, but how much will actually be spent on infrastructure in my ward, to mitigate the impact of this development. Will the Council not be tempted, as it has been to date, to just grow the overall pot and resist spending it on immediate needs?

 

These financial sweeteners are simply not reason enough to justify even more development in Alperton.

 

I will close by saying, the proposed site used to house a public house and bank. Both great amenities, that local people want and need. The worrying trend of pubs closing down and being redeveloped into unaffordable housing will continue if you approve this application. I am sure many of you have fought to save such amenities in your wards. Why doesn’t Alperton deserve the same fight?

 

This Committee is making my ward a place for people to sleep in but not live. It is a concrete jungle, with little to no community vibe. Please pause and think again before agreeing to two more tower blocks here.

Petition launched calling for Brent Council and Wembley Stadium to consult with Brent public BEFORE 'Large Event' increase goes to Planning Committee

Brent Liberal Democrats have launched an e-petition calling for local people to have a voice in Wembley National Stadium Limited's  bid to run more large events at the stadium:

We the undersigned petition the council to Consult and to Listen to concerns of local residents and businesses about the impact of increasing the number of "Large" Events at Wembley Stadium

Plans for the new Wembley Stadium were approved in 1999 with a limit of 37 Large Events per year. A few years later Brent Council allowed an increase to 46 Large Events per year. The Stadium owners have now applied for planning permission to increase this by another 8 to 54 Large Events per year.

Large Events at the Stadium have a major impact on the lives of local people and business - especially when as many as three events are held on 3 successive days.

We call on Brent Council (jointly with representatives of the FA) to carry out an extensive public consultation with Brent residents and local businesses on the social and economic impacts of Wembley Stadium Large scale events before the Planning Application is considered by the Brent Council's Planning Committee.

We believe that local people and businesses have the right to be properly consulted and informed about these possible changes and for their views to be assessed and documented before any decision is made.

Started by: Paul Lorber (Brent Liberal Democrats)

This ePetition runs from 11/07/2024 to 22/08/2024.

SIGN HERE