FA to challenge Quintain to preserve Wembley Stadium's iconic status at Planning Committee tonight

 The Football Association are expected to speak at tonight's Brent Planning Committee on the massive planning application for the area around Wembley Station. They have been support by  Clive Beets MP.

Clive Betts MP has written in relation to the proposal following conversations that he had with the Football Association about the proposed developments adjacent to Wembley Stadium. This letter seeks reassurance regarding the potential impact of the development on fans being able to get away from Wembley at the end of the games, about facilities for people with disabilities and about the potential for fans to be held back in “holding pens” at the end of the game. 

According to the analysis undertaken by the FA, the development could add two hours before fans can get out of the car park onto the roads leading away from the stadium. This amount of time is unreasonable and unacceptable, and could lead to reputational damage to Wembley Stadium, the FA and English Football and therefore an adverse effect on Brent Council. 

The FA have advised that fans with disabilities would take an extra 40 minutes on top of the two hours to get away from the parking facilities that are proposed, which may be a contravention of the Disability Discrimination legislation. It is presumed that an equalities impact assessment will be undertaken. 

The FA has also advised that, because of changes to the flow of supporters necessitated by the proposed development, it would be necessary to hold some fans in an area for a period of time after the game had finished. This is a throwback to the problems football had 30 years ago where away fans were held for long periods of time after the games, with football fans effectively criminalised and held behind in certain areas. This would be a disaster both for the image of football, the image of the national stadium and the Council.

Letter of objection from the FA

A letter was received from Martin Glen, Chief Executive of the FA raising issues which are summarised as follows:

The proposals which look to develop high rise blocks close to the stadium will severely damage the iconic view and status of the Stadium. 


Whilst regeneration is vital, it needs to be balanced with Brent’s and the FA’s duty to protect the spirit of what is a great venue. 


Wembley is a part of a national identity and positive celebrations of this should not merely be unhindered, but enhanced. 


The aim of the FA’s objection is to retain the visual power of the stadium to help stimulate every aspect of life in Brent, retaining the emotional response Sir Norman Foster intended for the stadium. 


If the Stadium is to continue to hold a special place in fans’ hearts, it needs to continue to provide a world class experience. All regeneration plans must place supporters at the heart of every day and that development need to ensure their safety and free movement. 


Currently the development does not do this. The parking options and pedestrian and traffic flow are not adequate and need to be reconsidered to ensure Wembley Stadium remains the best venue in the World. 


Residents enraged as Planning Committee approves controversial applications

Increase in schoool size to more than 1,000 pupils

Doubled in size to more than 840 pupils

Temporary  (2 year) 4 storey school

Retrospective permission for 2.4m fence aroud public space

361 dwelling tower blocks next to Civic Centre/Olympic Way

Last night's Planning Committee had a ridiculously heavy agenda with Chair Cllr Marquis, like a teacher  bravely concealing her irritation with councillors (pupils) who at times were sleepy and clearly wishing they were somewhere else, and at other times making rambling contributions way off the point,  struggled to make progress. Meanwhile the clock ticked away.

As always residents attending their first Planning Committee because of a local issue, this time the Uxendon Manor and Byron Court school expansions,  were enraged when they thought their concerns were being ignored. There were cries of 'Is this democracy?', 'Are we in North Korea?'. 'You are a disgrace.'

Byron Court  took up most time  (see posting below).  Cllr Keith Perrin made a presentation on behalf of residents. When Cllr Marquis asked if he had been approached by anyone about the application he answered 'between 1,000 and 2,000 residents'.  About 1,400 of those who had put their addresses on a joint letter about the application had not been contacted by the Council about the officer's report on the planning application. He derided the plans to use the Northwick Park car park for parents describing its impracticalities and producing the numbers to back this up. At one point the officer's response made him put his head in his hands in despair. His mood wasn't  helped when Cllr Marquis failed to give  committee members a chance to ask him questions about his presentation although this was remedied later.

Several members of the Committee declared that they had received phone calls about the application from Barry Gardiner MP that afternoon. The application was narrowly approved. I made it four for, 3 against and 1 abstention.  Loose ends will be tied up by officers regarding some of the conditions requested by Cllr Perrin. Members of the audience were reprimanded by Cllr Marquis when they scoffed in disbelief at Byron Court's Executive (she insisted on the title) Head Teacher's claim that the school travel plan was working well and that the revised plan, when the school had over a thousand primary pupils, would be equally effective.

The increased traffic arising from school expansion was also a major concern of residents around Uxendon Manor in an area with poor public transport links and questions were asked for each application regarding the need for additional school places in that particular area. The response was far from clear. In addition there were questions about overflowing sewers at Uxendon voiced by John Poole a long-time resident that were shrugged off by the development agent.

Cllr John Warren spoke for residents about the  Marylebone Boys School temporary building in Brondesbury Park and he also raised the issue of flawed school travel plans and estimates of impact on public transport.  He raised the issue of the height of the building (4 storeys) and its design being out of character with the neighbourhood as well as the noise with an increase from160 to 480 pupils on the site.

Marylebone Boys School application to fence in public space around its existing building in the former Kilburn branch of the College of North west London was approved without any representations.

It wasn't until about 10.30pm that the innocuous sounding 'Yellow Car Park' application was heard.  Actually a huge development next to the Civic Centre with 361 rabbit hutch style  dwellings and retail and community space the only query  from members was about the possible provision of a nursery in one of the units. There were no public representations and a short presentation from Quintain. It went through in about 10 minutes in contrast to the earlier item.

There will be  134 one bedroomd, 109 2 bedroomed and 52 3 bedroomed flats at market rents. 8 one bedroomed, 10 2 bedroomed and 21 3 bedroomed at social rent.  12 one bedroomed, 9 two bedroomed and 6 3 bedroomed at 'intermediate' which the report states will be 'affordable'.

Brent Planning Committee attempts to push the affordable housing agenda forward

Steve Weeks,  Brent Council's Head of Area Planning, was refreshingly straight talking at last night's Planning Committee when he stated that the Government's aim was to push the housing market rather than the amount of affordable housing.

Speaking about the Vacant Building Credit, which enables developers to escape affordable housing requirements under somewhat vague criteria, Weeks remarked, 'There has been much discussion in planning circles about how much of a gift this is to the development industry.'

He said that the  purpose was to incentivise development and that the  Council were stuck with the policy but were trying to be interpret it in a reasonable way. The Committee (with one abstention) agreed a definition of that the Vacant Building Credit would be applicable only to 'builsings that have been in lawful use for a continuous period of less than six months in the three years before which planning permission first permits the chargeable development.'

In the ensuing discussion officers made it clear that they would check on whether developers had made genuine efforts to market such properties at realistic prices in a reasonable way or had deliberately left them empty or abandoned.  However, they also pointed out that they had limited resources.

The vexed question of Viability Assessment, whereby developers try and reduce the amount of affordable properties they have to provide in developments, often once planning permission has been granted and work started, on the grounds of getting a 'reasonable return' on their investment, was discussed at some length.

Officers were working with other London boroughs on a Protocol to address the issue and the aim was to have some guidance on the Council website for developers  which would address the issue of viability from the pre-application stages.  The Protocol should be available by the end of the year. Sarah Marquis, Chair of the Committee had circulated to member a very full document from Islington Council and suggested something similar for Brent.

Steve Weeks said that much of the Islington Policy was lifted from the London Plan, and thus repeated existing policy.  Brent Council could produce a shorter version but that would take some time and it was important that guidance should be available to developers sooner.

The Committee agreed recommendations that a position statement be posted on the Council website  requiring affordable housing viability assessment to be provided in a form that is open to public and members' scrutiny with more comprehensive affordable housing related advice. They also agreed in principle to closer work with London boroughs on an affordable housing protocol and joint procurement of a consultants' panel.

The Council's target of 50% affordable housing in new developments would be retained with a 70/30 social or affordable rent/intermediate split rather than the Mayor's 60/40.  The Council is commissioning a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) which should demonstrate the housing needs in the borough to update the Council's housing strategy. It is likely to show a large increase in the need for 'intermediate products'. House price rises mean that households with incomes between £58,000 and £73,000 should be eligible for 25% shared ownership properties.

Earlier in discussions of the  Brent Development Management Policies Local Plan officers said that there was a possibility of releasing some industrial (employment) sites for housing that would need to meet the minimum affordable housing targets and that these might also be released for the provision of new secondary schools that would be needed in the future.

Sarah Marquis asked officers to look at the potential of adopting a code for developers that would require them to sell to Londoners in the first instace rather than overseas buyers.

There was a fairly short discussion due to time constraints on the issue of 'Poor Doors' (separate entrances for private and social tenants in mixed developments).  Officers said that the entrances should look the same from the outside, although they would be different once you stepped inside. Private tenants would have services such as concierge and social teneants would not be able to afford the service charges involved.

When it was suggested that there should be a single entrance, committee members were told that there was a limit on how many flats should be accessible from a single court. This meant that there had to be several entrances.