Last chance today to submit comments on Wembley Stadium events and capacity increase

Guest blog from Wembley resident Denise Cheong

 I write regarding Wembley Stadium planning application 17/0368, which Martin has covered extensively.

For your information and in the interests of raising greater awareness on the issues residents face, these are the comments I submitted to the Head of Planning, Alice Lester.

"Dear Ms Lester

Thank you for consulting us on planning application 17/0368.

We object to the proposed variation of condition 3 (event cap, to allow 31 additional full capacity events) and removal of condition 33 (temporary traffic management) of planning permission reference 99/2400.

The proposal would adversely affect the quality of life of not only Wembley residents, but also a far reaching radius of other Brent residents (as well as their visitors). Traffic congestion generated on Event Days on local roads is noted to be over 3hrs per Event in supporting documents. Granting planning permission of this would effectively impinge on 1/5 of an average person's day time (based on an average adult sleep of 8 hrs per night) on up to 68 Event Days a year; an Event Day every 5.3 days.

The Stadium is not highly accessible by public transport. The supporting documents note the centre of the Stadium has a mere PTAL rating of 3.

There is no robust plan to safeguard residents (as well as their visitors) from additional litter and public order offenses such as urination generated by such Events. There is no firm plan noting exact monies sought from the applicant or the Stadium user for post Event clean up. There are guidelines and assurances but nothing specific to safeguard Brent residents (as well as their visitors). These issues are the financial responsibility of the applicant and need to be individually addressed.

Whilst we appreciate the many benefits our National Stadium affords us, Brent Council has a responsibility and duty of care to it's residents which it needs to safeguard."

Following on from the above, I was pleased to read on page 4 of the 13th March Brent cabinet report Pilot Paper on Managing Street Drinking that:

"7.1 The introduction of the Met Patrol Plus scheme in May/June 16 will also ensure there is robust policing plan of the PSPO areas in the pilot areas.

7.2 ASB Localities Officers, Local Safer Neighbourhood Teams and Kingdom Officers will also assist with the policing of these areas. There will be discussions with Quintain to address what resources they could contribute to the policing of the PSPO in Wembley Park."

We would like to see the specific details of the precise resources that Quintain will be contributing to the Wembley Park PSPO.

Have you submitted your comments yet? Today's the deadline.

Thanks for reading!
Denise Cheong

Submit on-line comments HERE

In a Tweet this afternoon Cllr Stopp (Wembley Central ward) said he was keen to hear residents views on this issue:  cllr.sam.stopp@brent.gov.uk

Just 4 councillors allow TwinTowers to change the face of Wembley Central

Impression from Park Lane Methodist Church/Park Lane Primary

The 26/21 storey Twin Towers block at the junction of Park Lane and Wembley High Road was given the go ahead by the Planning Committee on Wednesday evening. There were 4 votes for the the proposal, 2 against and 2 abstentions.  Sarah Marquis, Chair of Planning Committee, voted against the application.

Afterwards residents were aghast that two councillors abstained on such a major issue. If there is any committee where councillors are expected to make a decision it is planning. If you don't have enough information to make a decision you should keep on asking questions until you do.

If the vote had tied 4/4 I presume Marquis would have exercised a casting vote against the application.

Denise Cheong with just 2 minutes to represent hundred of local residents made a presentation on the impact of the high density high rise blocks on the local area, the impact on current over-crowded roads and public transport and the fact that the development did not comply with established GLA and Brent standards.

Cllr Sam Stopp (Labour, Wembley Central) appeared to have been so impressed by the developer's consultation procedures and his openness that this had persuaded him to support the development despite recognising that the building was not perfect. He would like to have seen it less high but its height was based on what officers had told the developer was possible. He thought the building's orientation was not ideal.

Stopp went to to list the positives: The excellent consultation by the developer, quality of the building design, provision of community space.

He went on to contrast the developer's consultation with that by the Council. Local residents seemed to have found out about the proposal late in the day with a rush of contacts comparatively recently. The Council needed to adopt a more open and transparent approach to consultation. As in Islington, we need members' panels which are accessible to the public so they can question developers and councillors.

David Glover, the planning officer,was faced with the task of explaining why officers were supporting the application despite it not complying with policies on density, carbon emissions, living space,  open space, play space and the proportion of affordable housing.

He claimed that although the building did not meet the standards that it could be approved by reference to the  guidelines that interpreted policy.  He echoed Cllr Stopp in praising the quality of the finish of the building and the flats.  He said that the restricted nature of the site justified the developer in building at greater height and density than set out in the local plan.  The 28% affordable hosing (rather than the recommended 50%)  had been subject to independent viability assessments. Initially the developer offered a higher proportion of affordable housing but this was limited to a 7 year period after which it would move to market rents.  Officers had negotiated a lower proportion of affordable housing but for perpetuity.

Some of the most  incisive qustioning came from Sarah Marquis, chair of the committee, who pointed out that the density was double that recommended for town centre locations and doubted that it complied with the requirement that not meeting those standards could only be supported if it was 'clearly and robustly justified by local circumstances.'  The density was that which applied to international city locations rather than a local town centre.

She went on to query the planners' claim that the development was allowed because the local plan allowed 'tall building' in the  Wembley Central vicinity. She pointed out that local tall buldings were much lower and that the previous application in the sites had been for 17 storeys. It was a big leap from the 30metre definition of tall to the 85metres of this development.

In the course of the discussion the developer confirmed that they were also seeking to purchase the green space on the embankment behind Chesterfield house and their aim would be to build residential properties there. This was not followed up by the Committee but would obviosuly add to the issues around local infrastructure including traffic density and school places. The negotiations had not got very far  and purchase of the garage space behind Chesterfield House to provide disabled parking for the new development has not been completed.

The extent of this additional land which is now subject to acquisition and development can be seen in this illustration:

Click to enlarge

There was a group of young people in the public gallery who applauded when the planning application was approved. Apparently in the wake of the closure of the Wembley Youth Centre LINK they thought they would be able to carry on their activities in the ground floor community space provided by the developer.  It is of course by no means certain that they would be chosen to occupy the space and we know from other applications that this could be a fraught process.  It feels sometimes that we grasp crumbs from the rich man's (developer's) table.

The actual process of building on a site surrounded by traffic congestion with difficult access and parking sounds as if it will be a two year nightmare for local residents not to mention the impact when crowds travel to the stadium and arena.

I am left puzzled by how the committee members who voted for the development could have felt persuaded despite all the arguments above. Does a community space and 'quality finish' really outweigh the disadvantages?

The voting details are below. A further puzzle was how Cllr Colacioco asked all the right questions, got extremely unsatisfactory answers, and then voted for the application!
 

Voting on the application was as follows:

FOR 4                           Cllrs Agha, Choudhary, Colacicco and Mahmood

AGAINST  2                Cllrs Marquis (Chair) and Cllr  Maurice

ABSTENTION  2         Cllrs Ezeajughi and Cllr Patel

Denise Cheong's speech on behalf of residents can be found HERE

Residents' 'grave concerns' over Wembley 'Twin Towers' proposal

Impression from the developers's consultation

 Brent Planning Committee will be visiting the Chesterfield House site at the junction of Park Lane. Wembley High Road at 9.40am on Saturday April 2nd. This is the 'twin towers proposal LINK

Planning Committeee members have been sent the following in  advance of their visit by Denise Cheong,  Former Chair, Friends of King Eddie's Park, Friendsofkingeddies.blogspot.com
Wembleychampions.blogspot.com :

Dear Planning Committee members, Wembley Central Ward Cllrs, Preston Ward Cllrs, Hub Group and Council Planning Case Officer

I understand the planning committee are due to visit the above site tomorrow (Saturday 2nd April) morning regarding planning application 15/4550.

I write to kindly urge the Planning Committee to give the following viewpoint due weight during their deliberations whilst they conduct tomorrow's site visit.

Please note during your site visit that (at the time of writing) several local residents from Princes Court and Keswick Gardens Residents Association, as well as members of neighbouring Park Lane Methodist Church are opposed to the height and scale of the proposed scheme.

Whilst residents appreciate the City's need for greater housing provision and welcome Hub Group's proposed donation to the Council for King Eddie's Park, we have grave concerns over the impact of a development that will be (although set back, at its heighest) twice the height of the opposite existing Elm Court flats and nearly three times the height of the existing Chesterfield House office block.

Mr Neidhardt notes in his report that pedestrian accidents have occurred at the junction of Park Lane and the High Road. This is a notoriously difficult junction for local residents to walk across. Please observe the existing pedestrian crossings at the junction during your site visit and consider the impact the proposed will have on the area even with any alterations from Transport For London (TFL) to the junction. Also, kindly observe the existing bus stops in the vicinity on the High Road which TFL note already operate at full capacity. You may also possibly observe heavy traffic queues on Park Lane tomorrow (as discussed at last year's planning committees for planning application 14/4208, heavy traffic from the junction of High Rd and Park Lane down past The Methodist Church and King Edward VII Park is a norm on Park Lane, and further evidence of the real need for this junction to be re-worked).

I await further communication from other resident members of the aforementioned plus neighbouring roads. I will update you all as soon as I have collated such responses and prior to Wednesday 6th April's Planning Committee.

Welsh School planning application for King Edward VII Park refused

Campaigners are celebrating tonight after Brent Planning Committee refused the planning application to site the London Welsh School in Wembley's King Edward VII Park.

The application was defeated  decisively with 6 votes against and  1 abstention.

Denise Cheong and other residents, helped by local councillors, fought a spirited campaign reaching deep into the local community.

Denise and  Paolo Di Paolo both spoke on behalf of residents and Cllrs Stopp, Hossain and Mitchell-Murray addressed the committee.

It was unfortunate for the London Welsh School that the chosen site was so controversial. The school is unique and very special and I hope they are sucessful at finding a more suitable alternative site.

Further comments on Welsh School planning application to build in King Eddie's Park

Denise Cheong has submitted the following additional comments regarding the Planning Applciation to convert the Bowling Green Pavilion in King Edward VII Park Wembley to a classroom and build an additional classrook nearby. This will be used by the London Welsh School, displaced from Stonebridge, along with Stonebridge Adventure Playground, by the expansion of Stonebridge Primary School. The Adventure Playground has not been offered an alternative site  or any other help by Brent Council, indeed its Council  funding has been cut.

The below additional comments are in relation to planning application no. 14/4208:

The council has a duty of care to Brent residents when providing pre-application planning advice, during the planning process and when deciding on planning applications.

The historic value of this parkland is worthy of preservation: King Edward VII Park was bought by the council in 1913 (and opened in 1914) to compensate the residents of Wembley for the loss of Parkland at Wembley Park, which was being developed as a high class residential garden suburb.   
Cllr Stopp mentioned the possibility of a disconnect arising in his committee speech on 13th January. Now is the time for Brent planning officers and planning committee members to take serious note of the Brent residents this application will affect. The residents who actually are neighbours of King Edward VII Park (affectionately known as King Eddie's Park), the residents who actually use King Eddie's Park, residents who grew up in Brent and or actually live in Wembley and the London Borough of Brent.

The additional documents submitted fail to provide an area of land (for the proposed landswap) that is of equal or better quality as per paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework, as highlighted by Sport England. The documents propose that residents sit or lie down on what was completely waterlogged grass yesterday (18th January 2015), beside the traffic fumes of the frequent tail backs of stationary vehicles on Park Lane whilst enjoying a beverage and the views. I noted the predominant view from the steep bank yesterday as being of a couple of leafless trees. In addition, opening that land up to public use would put the striking London Borough of Brent landmark, that is the mock tudor Collins Lodge, in danger of vandalisation and arson.

The community have expressed a willingness to provide a community hub, which will truly enable the wider Wembley, Brent and a broad spectrum of the population to make use of it. Furthermore, they will re-open Wembley Bowls Club with the Council's permission and have 60+ happy to be fee paying members provisionally signed up to date.

Under these community proposals:
1. No park trees would be unneccesarily cut down. i.e. the 4 category B trees (a Monterey Cypress Tree and 3 Irish Yew Trees) proposed to be removed, which have the ability to contribute to the quality of an area for up to 20 years (and even if proved to be diseased through probe testing, rather than merely showing signs of disease, could live on for a many years),
2. No land within the bounds of our King Eddie's Park would be built on
3. No children would be put at risk through misguided planning advice and inexperience of actual life in the Wembley area

Whilst planning application number 14/4208 does not comply with paragraphs 74 and 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework, as well as CP18 of the core strategy and the All London Green Grid, our Community Business Proposal would comply with all the aforementioned planning policies.

Please acknowledge receipt by return reply. Thank you.