Showing posts with label Football Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Football Association. Show all posts

Monday 1 January 2018

Disquiet over developers could become election issue in May 2018


Looking back on  2017 it is clear that regeneration, particularly in the Wembley area, has been the most controversial issue reported on Wembley Matters.

Planning applications from Quintain have come thick and fast, sometimes several complex, multi-million schemes, have been submitted for one sitting of the Planning Committee. The Committee itself was weakened by the absence of Cllr Sarah Marquis on maternity leave. Her lawyerly independence as chair gave the Committee some much needed credibility but in her absence many far-reaching controversial decisions have been made on the casting vote of the current chair Cllr Agha.

Time and time again, despite opposition from residents, schemes have been approved that do not comply with the Council's own guidelines on  issues such as height and light. Officers give excuses such as good design makes up for the height or that students do not need as much light in their rooms as long-term residents. But most importantly the amount of affordable housing has been less than that advocated by Brent Council and the GLA, and the definition of 'affordable' has been manipulated to an extent that makes the term meaningless.

Rather than providing homes for families, Quintain has switched to all inclusive 'life-style' private rental schemes boasting super broadband access aimed at high income single people or couples without children. Meanwhile Brent's housing list becomes longer.

Given all this it is no wonder that residents were suspicious of Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt's unrecorded meetings with developers revealed in the response to Andrew Linnie's FoI response.  His claim  that the initial FoI response had got dates wrong did not dispel the suspicions and WM will be watching developments closely in 2018.

Similarly the meetings that Butt along with other councillors, including members of the Planning Committee, had with Tottenham Hotspur FC and the Football Association left residents feeling that decisions were being made, if not secretly, without their active involvement LINK. The increase in the number of events at the Stadium and higher capacity, continues to have a negative impact on residents.

The long-running saga of Brent Council's pay-off to former Head of Resources, Cara Davani, who had been found guilty of racial discrimination and bullying by an Employment Tribunal, was the subject of an objection to the the Council's accounts by a group of local residents, led by ex-tax inspector Philip Grant. The auditor eventually found in favour of the Council in a pretty unsatisfactory report LINK.  Philip is to be congratulated on the thorough case he painstakingly put together and a fair reading of his post on the issue suggests that the Council's case is far from convincing.

One of the interesting sidelights on the case is that part of the employment tribunal case against Cara Davani was that Rosemary Clarke, a black woman, had been treated unfairly compared with how Clive Heaphy a white man and former Brent Head of Finance had been treated in his case which involved a handsome pay-off of 140,508 as 'compensation for loss of office'.  The auditor's report reveals that the Clive Heaphy case was cited by Cara Davani to support her threat that if she did not receive a pay-off she would take action alleging that she had been sexually discriminated against  by the Council in comparison with Heaphy. She herself had been involved in the compensation package put together for Heaphy! As Philip Grant points out this all went back to the earlier conflict between Cllr Butt and Gareth Daniel where in an exchange of emails between Heaphy and Davani it was said, 'Mo owes us one' in an apparent reference to bringing in former Ofsted colleague Christine Gilbert as CEO.

Given all this how secure is Muhammed Butt in his role as leader going into the May 2018 local elections?   The thorn in Butt's side in 2017 was undoubtedly Cllr John Duffy who challenged the Labour Cabinet and officers over what he saw as mismanagement of the Council's waste services and the ill-fated outsourcing of enforcement of a littering strategy via fixed penalty notices. He made the case that the Council had failed to both provide an effective service and provide best financial value.

Duffy failed to be selected to fight his ward in 2018 following a vote of Kilburn ward party members which I was told was not at Butt's behest but an independent decision. Butt was apparently pleased with the de-selection but when Duffy continued to challenge the Cabinet and built support for his claims, the party turned to disciplinary action against him based on allegations of bullying. The party removed the Labour whip from Duffy.  There have been calls from the public for him to stand as an independent in May but that appears to be unlikely.

Other Labour group members who had been critical of Butt have been quiet, with Cllr Pavey, who had challenged him for the leadership previously, adopting a low profile.  Stonebridge councillor Zaffar Van Kalwala, an earlier casualty of his leader's displeasure, has operated in a sort of limbo. He will not be standing in May but has put a lot of energy into community initiatives with young people in St Rapahel's and Stonebridge. Kalwala's fellow Stonebridge councillor, the ambitious Sabina Khan, has decided her ambitions lie elsewhere and has hardly attended any local meetings for months.

Elsewhere Cllr Jumbo Chan has impressed with his work on the Joint Teachers Consultative Panel in developing a Brent Teachers' Fair Workload Charter and in leading opposition to the academisation of The Village School.

Unlike Haringey, the surge in Labour Party membership and support for Momentum made little impact on candidate selections for the local elections and the slate for next year does not promise any radical move to the left. There is at least one Momentum candidate who is likely to get elected but that is one out of 63 and it could be a rather lonely and potentially vulnerable position unless rank and file members get behind her.

Brent Green Party has a new and young leadership and is likely to mount an effective challenge in a few target wards and it is crucial that there is some quality opposition on the largely one party council. The rival Tory groups have come together ahead of the local elections but won't be helped by the state of the Tory government. Lib Dems won't be helped by their lone councillor's decision  to go independent but they may target wards where they have a relatively firm base in the community.

Most intriguing is the prospect, raised in comments on this blog and some Brent Facebook accounts of the possibility of some independent candidates emerging from the various campaigns that have taken place over the last two years. If they are based on residents' associations they could be in with a chance - watch this space.

Saturday 23 December 2017

Can you help the Wembley FC petition get to 25,000 signatories before the end of the day?

--> The petition is support of Wembley FC has now attracted more than 21,000 signatures. Brian Gumm, chairman of Wembley FC  told BBC London LINK he is determined to appeal against the decision by the European Union's Intellectual Property Office:
The petition has given me a bit of faith, seeing that people out there do care about non-league football.

The FA have not spoken to me. I want the best for my club and I will fight them. If we want to make a stance for non-league football then I think we should.
The FA in a statement to the BBC said:
We have never objected to their use of this logo in the UK or elsewhere. This case is about Wembley FC registering their logo in several countries outside of the UK, such as Russia, China and the US, and then refusing to co-exist with us in those countries. 

We have not asked and will not ask Wembley FC to pay the costs to date.
Is this the beginning of a climb down? Let's increase the pressure by persuading more people to sign. 
 
You can sign the petition HERE
Wembley FC web page HERE
Wembley FC Facebook HERE

Thursday 21 December 2017

Wembley FC 'David' takes on the FA 'Goliath' over club's name





After yesterday's coverage on ITN Wembley Football Club have received massive support on Twitter in their battle with the FA over the club's use of the word Wembley. The FA are citing 'Wembley' as their intellectual property despite not objecting when the name of Wembley FC went forward in 2012.

After the EU ruled in favour of the Football Association Wembley FC were ordred to pay the FA's costs threatening the future of the 70 years old club.

I wonder if they will act against Wembley Matters, Wembley Champions and Wembley Futures?

Here is some of the scathingTwitter reaction:


Tuesday 7 February 2017

House of Commons vs Football Association February 9th k.o. 2.15pm



The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has secured a debate on the governance of football governance in the House of Commons.
The debate taking place on Thursday 9 February 2017, starts at approximately 2.15pm and is on this motion:
That this House has no confidence in the ability of the Football Association (FA) to comply fully with its duties as a governing body, as the current governance structures of the FA make it impossible for the organisation to reform itself; and calls on the Government to bring forward legislative proposals to reform the governance of the FA.
The Committee published two Reports in the last Parliament calling for reform of the FA, to allow representatives of fans, women’s football, BAME groups, officials such as referees and the grassroots sport a significantly greater say in the governance of the game, and to give the Executive Directors of the FA greater weight in comparison with the representatives of the Premier and Football Leagues. However, the reforms called for by groups representing the wider game, the Committee, successive ministers for sport and recently, a number of past Chairmen and Chief Executives of the FA, have been ignored by The FA.

Last autumn, the Government published its guidance on best practice in sports governance. It is clear that The FA does not comply with this guidance now and there appears to be considerable resistance to the idea of changing its very out-of-date structure at all. The Committee is therefore preparing a draft Bill to bring the structure of The FA—which is, in legal terms, a company—into line with modern company law.

The Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Damian Collins, said:
The current Minister for Sport told the Committee that The FA had been given six months from publication of the Government’s guidance in October 2016 to demonstrate that it was willing to improve governance, otherwise public money would be withdrawn from The FA and distributed to football through other means.

We do not believe that The FA will comply voluntarily: it can survive easily without the Government’s contribution of money to grassroots sport, and there are powerful vested interests that refuse to accept the right of all those involved in football to play a role in the governance of the sport. We are therefore preparing a draft Bill to bring the structure of The FA, especially its Board and Council, more into line with modern company practice and the Government’s guidelines for sports bodies.
 

Thursday 26 January 2017

More events and larger capacity at Wembley? Exhibition Monday at Chalkhill Community Centre

From Wembley National Stadium Limited


As part of its preparations for the 2017/18 season, Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) has submitted a planning application to temporarily increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium.

The application seeks to establish a temporary cap to accommodate up to an additional 31 THFC sporting events at Wembley Stadium between 1 August 2017 to 31 July 2018 where the available spectator capacity is increased from 51,000 to up to 90,000.

This would allow up to 36 full capacity THFC home games may be played at Wembley during the season with 5 of these accommodated under the existing event cap. In practice however, the number of games is dependent on progress within knockout competitions and whether fixtures are drawn to be played at home or away. In reality, based on recent averages, the total number of home games likely to be hosted at Wembley Stadium is expected to be in the region of 30.

The application also seeks the associated removal of a limit on temporary traffic management events (Condition 33), to enable effective event day travel planning;

Summary Planning Document:

 

 
The application has been submitted to Brent Council where it is to be assessed on its own merits against the prevailing planning policy.

The FA and WNSL are responsible for ensuring that local residents and the wider community are a key consideration in the organisation of any events that take place at the stadium. A consultation process is underway and further discussions will be held prior to the determination of the application.
Local residents and businesses are invited to attend an exhibition at Chalkhill Community Centre on Monday 30 January 2pm until 9pm to learn more about the planning application and what it entails.

Wednesday 28 December 2016

FA bids to increase the number of full-capacity events at Wembley Stadium


High rise developments around Wembley Stadium today
The Football Association is bidding to increase the number of full-capacity events at Wembley Stadium.  At present the cap is 20 per year and the FA wants to increase this by 20 to 57 per year - more than one a week.

The FA will be making a presentation at the next Brent Connects Wembley as part of the consultation process.  They have left little time for a public response as Brent Council expect the formal application to be made around January 20th 2017. There will be just 30 minutes allocated to the presentation by the FA and questions from the public.

Meanwhile little further has been heard about the FA's opposition to Quintain's  housing developments close to the stadium which they felt pose a danger to fans. LINK

Other weighty issues will also be on the agenda for the meeting including consultation on the 2017-17 council budget and  on how the Community Infrastructure Levy (CiL) should be spent.  The CiL is the contribution made by developers towards improvements in local infrastructure (roads, nurseries. schools, health facilities etc) and is subject to some controversy.  Some feel it should be spent in the immediate area of developments like South Kilburn, Wembley and Alperton while others feel its benefits should be distributed across the borough. Negotiations over the amount of CiL between the Council and developers are an issue that could benefit from deeper scrutiny.

Brent Connects is 7pm-9pm  on Wednesday January 11th at Patidar House, 22 London Road, off Wembley High Road, HA9 7EX


Click on image to enlarge




Monday 12 December 2016

Brent getting a poor deal in Spur's Wembley Stadium deal, claims councillor


Tottenham Hotspur's win against CSKA Moscow last Wednesday may have done something to allay fans' doubts about the move to Wembley but Cllr John  Duffy has voiced doubts about the Council's capacity to achieve benefits to Brent residents.

In an email to all Brent councillors Cllr Duffy said:
To All Brent Councillors,

I am very concerned that the Wembley Stadium and Spurs planning application is being guided and manipulated by both officers and Cabinet members.It would seem they seek a solution, that will not fully benefit Brent residents . 

All Councillors are independent on this issue and Councillors should not be influenced by either Cabinet members or officers on a pre-agreed application and should seek to ensure and maximise the benefits for Brent.

Firstly you have to consider does Brent want Wembley stadium to be a home ground for a Premier League Club and do not we want the extra congestion, nuisance and general disruption. Unless we get real investment  from the FA, Premier League and Spurs, I believe the answer is NO.

It is clear that the Cabinet are unaware of the potential of ensuring the investment to alleviate the problems caused by Wembley hosting Spurs and have not negotiated a reasonable deal for the residents…..I am tired of Brent residents being short changed, therefore I  believe Councillors should oppose the application as it stands.

Please find an edited email I previously sent to the Labour Group, which outlined my concerns about the planning application and the lack of benefits for Brent.
The earlier email, sent only to the Labour Group of councillors, said:
Dear All,

As it is 99% definite,Tottenham Hotspur will be moving to Wembley and its also likely that Chelsea (they may go to Twickenham) will moving in the following year.Its time we sorted out a strategy to protect and improve our Environment, Sports Education , parking ,community and employment strategy, together with compensation for Brent  residents.

As Chair of planning when we knocked down the old Wembley stadium and a member of the Task force for Wembley Stadium regeneration I have seen negotiations close up with the FA and they will be tough and we need a clear strategy.

From memory Wembley were allowed 22 sporting advents and they were no envisaged to be the home venue for any football club.Therefore at this point I would advise not to accept a season long deal but to treat every game as an FA cup Final and expect resources to reflect this. There Are many safeguards we  need for residents.I will outline the basics without the detail.

(1) Environmental improvement. 
I would expect extra resources ( too many options to go into) plus investment into plant. I have not looked at other Boroughs but I am aware of some who get a massively enhanced service for match day.
(2) Parking. 
Increased protection/enforcement of the neighbouring area. 
(3) Sports Education.
Ensure Investment in equipment and sports teaching in our schools including visits from football stars. Its important both the FA and Premier League show their commitment to grass roots football.
(4) Community Support .
Financial support for community activities,including , local R/As ,St Patricks day,Eid and Navratri and maybe support for local group who participate in the Notting Hill Carnival.
(5) Employment strategy.
Ensure that Brent residents get their fair share of any new jobs/ training arising from  the extra games. Also local firms should get a fair share of the increased supply chain for contracts 
(6) Compensation for local Business and residents.
Whereas the some business will benefit many other will lose (who would travel to Wembley to shop on a match day) so its important we look at high street improvements. The new games coming to Wembley will not only be on a Saturday they will included Sundays and weekdays at various kick off times.

There are many ways to negotiate and you should not look at only the time the football club is there, you should seek a 2/3 year deal on things like sports education and community support.I think you should have a local councillor on the negotiations ( seems unlikely as the leadership reject a task force for Kilburn Regeneration and now all decisions are made by the Lead member ) so local input will be represented.In my opinion we should not over engage in the - presentations- Vol-au-Vents  and vanity projects system which some members of the Cabinet prefer. We should also not going in asking for jobs at LLW ( getting employers to pay LLW is a failure ) we should be looking better jobs in supervision and management training. Finally do not over rely on Officers who will seek a deal that suits them as administrators. 

It would seem that some of the cabinet wish to treat the FA, the Premier League and Tottenham Hotspur  as " partners" whereas I see them them as people who wish to make a lot of money while using the facilities of  Brent which I have no problem with. However I believe this should be reflected in how we support our residents.So hopefully the cabinet have an agreed strategy about what we need from the richest sport in the world and the most famous football venue in the world.
    And Brent should not be short changed for all the inconvenience  




Friday 9 September 2016

Tottenham Hotspur's stay at Wembley Stadium - details

A number of concerned local residents have asked me about Tottenham Hotspur's plans for using Wembley Stadium.  I reproduce below their statement made earlier this summer which makes clear that the main impact will be in the 2017-18 season:
 
The Club can confirm that we have reached agreement with Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) to play our Champions League fixtures for the 2016/17 season at Wembley Stadium.
 
This will be necessary in order to meet UEFA requirements, which will be impacted by the works in and around the current stadium affecting access, capacity and rights delivery.
As we shall be required to vacate White Hart Lane to complete the latter stages of our new stadium and surrounding environs, the agreement additionally provides an option to play all our Premier League and cup home games at Wembley Stadium for the 2017/18 season. It is our intention to open the new stadium for the 2018/19 season. This timetable is, however, also dependent on infrastructure, transport and associated commitments being delivered by TfL and Haringey Council.

Chairman Daniel Levy said:
We are delighted that, through working in partnership with WNSL and the Football Association, we have been able to reach this agreement. Given the current reduction in capacity at White Hart Lane for next season and the ticketing requirements for Champions League, playing at Wembley will mean that we can continue to accommodate all of our existing Season Ticket holders. Our season ticket waiting list is over 50,000 so this now also offers us a great opportunity to provide more of our supporters with a chance to see the team play live during our Champions League campaign.

Importantly, as we know it was our fans' preference, it means that we can continue to play our home matches in London during our season away.

Football Association Chief Executive, Martin Glenn said:
Having Tottenham at Wembley for big European nights next season is a welcome opportunity for us to further the stadium’s position as a world-class venue. As well as helping the club and its fans, it will benefit London and English football in general with our commitment to reinvesting all profits back into the game.

The increased revenue will particularly help us meet our targets for improving coaching and grassroots facilities and growing participation. We were already on a strong financial footing, which allowed us to reinvest £117m back into the game at all levels last season.
We should like to thank all our supporters for their patience during the period leading up to this announcement.

Friday 13 May 2016

Brent Council hails Wednesday's Planning Committee decisions

This is Brent Council's press release which I am sure everyone will find really reassuring.




Plans for 4,850 new homes, a new school and student accommodation around Wembley Stadium have been given the green light.

The creation of 7,000 new jobs, new retail and leisure space as well as new community facilities and parking spaces around the national stadium all formed part of the planning applications, which were submitted by property developer Quintain. More than £80million will also be provided by Quintain to improve local infrastructure.

After listening to a number of representations about the proposals, including hearing speakers from The FA, the council's Planning Committee granted approval to the applications yesterday evening (May 11).

During the three and a half hour meeting, Members discussed in detail matters relating to transport, safety and design and found that, on balance, the plans should be granted approval subject to a number of conditions including ones to improve transport, safety and the exit of fans from the stadium.

A council spokesperson said:
"These plans mark the next phase in the regeneration of Wembley and will create much needed new homes, jobs, leisure and educational facilities around the iconic home of football.

"While these plans will help accelerate the transformation of Wembley, the committee did consider all representations in detail and these concerns have been taken on board with the series of additional conditions which were imposed."

"Safety always comes first and we are confident that the plans will ensure that fans and other visitors to the national stadium can continue to enjoy these facilities while providing the significant regeneration which the area needs."

Quintain's plans will now be subject to consideration by the Mayor of London.

To view details of the planning applications, see the Planning Committee report.

Thursday 12 May 2016

Resident launches petition to Sadiq Khan after Council agrees Wembley Stadium tower blocks planning application

I have received this from Sonia Shah. The petition can be signed HERE

Stop Brent Council from rushing through planning applications for big developments

I am a resident of Wembley, and an active member of resident-led campaign Keep Wembley Tidy. I would appreciate it if you could spare a minute to take a look at my petition, and circulate/publicise it. There is a great concern for public safety at Wembley Stadium and the surrounding area.





Brent Council approved all 5 planning applications related to the Quintain-owned lands around Wembley Stadium in just a single planning committee meeting on Wednesday evening. This is in spite of two councillors not being in attendance (under legal advice) and a third leaving before the final item was addressed. The new developments include high rise housing, more hotels and more student accommodation (with limited natural light which, according to Quintain, is irrelevant since it's temporary accommodation).

Plans for the car parks were approved last night by Brent Council, along with a scheme to bring 4,850 new homes, 350,000sq ft of new offices and shops, two new hotels, a new seven-acre public park, student accomodation and a 600-place primary school to Wembley Park as part of one of the biggest regeneration schemes in Europe.

Julie Harrington, operations director at the FA, last night told the council’s planning committee the location of the car parks off South Way “created genuine public order and safety concerns which would serve as a retrograde step for the stadium.” She said developer Quintain was ”working from a position to maximise profits” rather than to “protect fan safety”. “The holding of fans, the kettling of fans, that’s a return to the 1970s in my view. Even a short amount of time holding people, irate fans from teams that have lost, or rival fans mixing together is too much.” Ms Harrington warned that the FA “would not be able to attract major events to Wembley if fan’s can’t leave the car park.” “We cannot be complacent about the huge steps forward made in stadium safety in the past two decades. No-one should believe that its acceptable to herd fans like cattle. We must learn from past mistakes.”

The Football Association also argued that more flats by Wembley stadium would cause worrying safety issues http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/wembley-stadium-tower-block-plan-would-risk-fans-safety-a3245221.html What about the number of new residents needing to see local GPs and the effect on local hospitals? Having already closed Central Middlesex and Hammersmith A & E departments, they are now threatening to cut 500 hospital beds http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/revealed-london-nhs-chiefs-to-axe-enough-beds-to-fill-a-hospital-in-battle-to-plug-1bn-black-hole-a3244251.html

Councillor Michael Maurice, the only member of the planning committee to vote against the proposals, told the meeting: “Up to 5,000 fans kettled? We don’t want to see another Hillsborough.” (A statement here on the original petition has now been removed by Sonia Shah - see comemnts below)

Objectors are also opposed to the size and scale of seven residential and commerical tower blocks of up to 19 storeys which were also given outline approval. Critics say they could block “iconic” views of Wembley from across London.

What chance do local residents have to try and make Brent Council see sense if they won’t listen to the FA, Sport England and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport?

Brent Council have given the go ahead for another 4,500 more homes in Wembley High Road and another 4,000 by the canal in Alperton.  They are also planning to build flats where the Fountain TV studios are and St Josephs social club (close to London Designer Outlet) is closing, it sits on a nice large piece of land just suitable ..for more flats?

Add to this the impact of events at the Stadium and the Arena - capacity of 90K plus staff at the stadium and 12K plus staff at the Arena = a potential extra 105K people in the area if events are on at both venues.  

What about public transport?
What about refuse collection – does the contract Veolia have with Brent Council include dealing with waste from all these new homes? 
What about services like sewers, water supplies, gas, electric?
What about the environment as a whole?
Brent Council has experienced a torrent of internal squabbles over the last few weeks, and rushing through such proposals, that'll have a huge impact on the surrounding area, is simply irrational.
This petition will be delivered to:
  • Barry Gardiner MP
  • Football Association
  • Mayor of London
    Sadiq Khan

Wednesday 11 May 2016

Controversial development around Wembley Stadium approved by Brent Planning Committee despite FA opposition



Julie Harrington speaks for the FA against Quintain's planning application


A depleted Brent planning Committee approved all 5 planning applications related to the Quintain (Texan company Lone Star) owned lands around  Wembley Stadium tonight. They include high rise housing, more hotels and more student accommodation.

The Committee was depleted because two councillors said they had been unable to read the huge number of documents (on paper and on-line) associated with each application after having read all the paper's for Monday's meeting earlier this week. Legal advice was that they should not attend.  Cllr Sarah Marquis, chair, was therefore absent and so was Cllr Patel.  Cllr Colacicco left before the final item leaving just 5 councillors making the decisions.

There was a battle on the main application between Quintain and the Football Association each drawing on their consultants' reports.  At one stage there were 4 people from Quintain occupying the speaker seats for deputations.

Julie Harrington made an impassioned speech on behalf of the Football Association. She stressed that they were a non-profit making organisation - everything got ploughed back into football. Unspoken was the fact that Quintain are very much a profit making organisation. Harrington stressed the threat of the development to the safety of fans and the FA's duty to preserve the status of the National Stadium.

Quintain relied on their experts to rebut the claims and emphasised how much their developments were benefiting Wembley.

Brent Planning Officers were challenged as to why a record of a meeting between the FA and Chris Whyte of Brent Council on community safety had not been submitted to the Committee and over officers' claim that TfL supported the application when in fact TfL had said there was much to be concerned about.

Generally the officers spoke in support of Quintain and minimised any issues.

When Cllr Stopp in his presentation remarked that he sometimes wondered why there was no Brent Cabinet member for Quintain it drew an angry response from Cllr Shafique Choudhary who accused him of bringing the upcoming Brent Labour Group AGM into the matter.

The Legal Officer (the same one who advised against Sarah Marquis' deferral motion on Monday, said it was unfortunate that Cllr Stopp had brought politics into the arena which the Planning Committee was strictly non-political (tell that to Cllr Butt who persuaded committee members, behind the chair's back, to hold two meetings this week before the AGM. Legal also intevened when Stopp said some councillors were not present because of the volume of documents that had to be read. She said 'I hope the public feel comfortable that members of the Committee present have read all the documentation.' There were cries of 'No!' from the public gallery.

To be fair there was some probing questioning from councillors, although some of it revealed they hadn't read all the papers. Issues around crowd management, safety of routes out of the stadium, penning in of fans, access to offices and homes on event days, the amount of affordable housing and the 7 year limit on some were all discussed.

I felt that the answers were not very convincing and wanted to urge the councillors to dig deeper. Instead they tended to pause and then say 'Thank you' very politely. The Planning Officer rushed through his answers at high speed which tended to leave councillors looking a bit bewildered, pausing and then another murmered 'Thank you'.

An attempt by Cllr Maurice (Conservative)  to defer the final application ignoted by Cllr Agha who was chaiting and not put to the vote.  In the event Maurice voted against each application and Lia Colacicco (Labour) abstained on each except the last where she was absent.

That left Cllrs Agha, Choudhart, Ezeajughi and Mahmood (all Labour) voting through the applications.

Although an attempt may be made to bring the two sides togather Brent Planning Officers said that could not be a condition of granting the application.

There is a possibility that the FA will appeal.

Sarah Marquis absent from tonight's planning meeting

Sarah Marquis, Chair of Brent Planning Committee has sent her apologies to tonight's meeting. No reason was given. Cllr Agha is in the chair and Cllr Patel is also absent. This means that tonight's decision on the controversial Wembley Masterplan development will be made by just six people.

I have now heard that they are absent on legal advice because they have not had time to read ALL the enormous documentation attached to the applications to be heard tonight.

We must presume that the six present have read it all...



Officers recommend tonight's Quintain decision handed to Head of Planning + Football Supporters objections


May 2011, before the UEFA Champions League Final between Barcelona and Manchester United (Photo Philip Grant)
Tonight's Planning Commitee and the battle between Quintain/Brent Council and the Football Association/Wembley Stadium/Football Supporters has hit the Evening stndard headlines tonight LINK.

Meanwhile Planning Officers appear to have changed their Recommendation through a recent published Supplementary Report which hands over decision making from the Committee to the Head of Planning (I am not sure if there is one at present).  This seems to undermine the democratic involvement of councillors in  such a massive multi-million development.

Recommendation in original report:

To resolve to grant planning permission, subject to the Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London and subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and to delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Chief Legal Officer, subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice.





Recommendation in supplementary report:

To delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to grant permission, subject to the Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London and subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and to delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Chief Legal Officer, and subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice, an additional condition regarding design standards and amendments to conditions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 19, 22, 26, 29 and 36 as discussed above.
The Football Supporters Federation have also objected to the planning application:

 

Football Supporters’ Federation opposition to planned redevelopment around Wembley Stadium

The Football Supporters’ Federation (FSF) represents more than 500,000 football supporters, with our membership comprising both individual fans and organised supporter groups for clubs across England and Wales. The FSF’s role is to ensure that the collective voice of football fans is heard on important issues and our members are always keen to engage in our work. Our recent campaigns have included our successful work to secure lower ticket prices for away fans in the Premier League, opposing The FA Chairman’s recent “B-team” proposal, and campaigning to enhance the diversity of football crowds.

I am writing to you today to ask you to oppose the recent planning applications for redevelopment around Wembley stadium (15/5550 and 15/5615) as implementing these proposals as they stand will have a hugely detrimental effect on supporters at Wembley Stadium.

For many fans, coming to Wembley Stadium to support their club in The FA Cup semi-finals or final, the League Cup final or the Football League Play-Offs is a once in a life-time opportunity and one that remains hugely special to the millions of people who have enjoyed seeing their teams play at the national stadium. In addition, hundreds of thousands of fans of the England national team also come together for matches at Wembley.

Of course the fans’ experience of Wembley is based on much more than the outcome of the game itself and the whole match day experience from beginning to end is important to football fans.

We are concerned that the planning proposals submitted for the redevelopment around Wembley have been created without football supporters in mind. We understand that the current proposals will mean that supporters would need to queue for over two hours to exit the new multi-storey car park, and that the proposals for the new coach park would see fans leaving the stadium in an anti- clockwise route and then joining the back of the queue towards the south of the stadium before being allowed back to the Carey’s/VDC coach park. Supporters would be held at the south of the stadium after the match before they are allowed to get back to their coaches.

These plans mean that there will be significant delays for fans when arriving at and leaving the stadium. Meanwhile, queuing or grouping fans together at best will create a poor experience for fans and at worst could lead to public order problems. We also have concerns for the safety of fans leaving the stadium and accessing the coach park at VDC/Carey’s, in particular as the current proposals will lead to conflict between pedestrians and vehicles, something which we feel is not acceptable.

Football fans appear to have been completely forgotten in creating these new proposals which would ruin supporters’ experience of Wembley and surely endanger the prospects of Wembley attracting world-class events in the future.

We recommend that the Council rejects the planning applications and works with supporters, Wembley and the developers to create a solution which ensures that Wembley Stadium retains its status as a world-class sporting venue.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Miles
Chief Executive
The Football Supporters’ Federation

Sunday 8 May 2016

'You can gaze across to Wembley, if it wasn't for the towers in between' -'iconic' stadium views trashed

The Old Music Hall song LINK  had the verse:

'Just by clinging to the chimney,
You can gaze across to Wembley,
If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between.'

Now it is Quintain's speculative luxury tower blocks and private student accommodation blocks that are getting in the way of the views of Wembley Stadium.  When the new stadium was built the 'iconic views' were supposed to be preserved but Brent Council's Planning Department has done little to further this aim.

This can already be seen from Barn Hill:


And the views on Olympic Way from Wembley Park Station are closing in:


The current view from Chalkhill Park, which runs parallel to the Metropolitan and Jubilee lines, will be obscured by the  new development which is being discussed at planning on Thursday while Monday's application will put tower blocks in front of the stadium as viewed from White Horse Bridge.


Residents are not happy about this and the Football Association has put in objections. Martin Glen, Chief Executive of the Football Association wrote:
-->
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
Brent Planners argue on 'Protected Views':
-->
Policy WEM 6 of the Wembley Area Action Plan sets out 13 protected views to the Stadium. The submitted assessment includes verified views from these locations with wire line drawings of the proposed buildings.

This shows that the proposed buildings do not intrude significantly into the space between the roof of the stadium and the arch within the majority of views. The view from the Welsh Harp Reservoir (protected view 5) shows that the proposed taller element of the building within plot E03 projects into the space between the roof of the stadium and the arch. However, it is considered that the dominance of the arch is maintained within this view.

The submission shows that elements of plots NE04 and NE05 project significantly into the space between the stadium roof and its arch when viewed from Chalkhill Park, and obscure the lower parts of the arch on one side. The majority of the arch is still visible, but the development reduces the amount of space that is visible between the roof and arch. Whilst the amount of sky visible below the arch is reduced significantly, the arch continues to be visible. Whilst this would not be considered to be appropriate within a primary approach to the stadium, such as along Olympic Way or from the White Horse Bridge, regard must be given the nature of the space from which it is viewed. Chalkhill Park is a local park within an urban locality and the majority of the arch continue to be visible. On balance, this is considered to be acceptable.
It is likely that the F.A. will attend either or both of the Planning Committees to try and stop Brent Council from trashing the national stadium

UPDATE



This morning a local resident sent the photograph above with this comment: Interesting article on the ever decreasing views of the stadium.

Couldn't work out how to add this photo to the comments, 115 Chalkhill Rd used to have unspoilt views of the stadium and arena, over the oadt few years, so many high rise buildings have been erected we can no longer see the arena and our view of the stadium is rapidly disappearing. The work on the old retail park will no doubt eclipse whatever view we have left of the stadium.

Sunday 23 September 2012

FA to build World Football Museum at Wembley?

From thisismoney.co.uk

The Football Association is hatching plans  to build a ‘World Football Museum’ at  Wembley Stadium.
A planning application has been submitted  to Brent Council in north-west London for permission to construct a building to display exhibits including a crossbar from the  1966 World Cup Final.

The new World Football Museum will house a unique private collection of football memorabilia which has been assembled over many years,’ the FA’s planning application says.

The FA expects up to 1,200 visitors through the doors every match day. The stadium stages up to 30 games and other events each year.

The new museum will be in the pedestrianised Olympic Way – known to fans as Wembley Way – near the stadium’s entrance.

The plans envisage a space half the size of the National Football Museum in Manchester, which opened in July. 

FA sources said the plans were still in their ‘early days’. One said: ‘Like all potential  ideas there are lots of hurdles along the way.’