Wembley Ark students challenge the FA to pay the London Living Wage to 2,000 contract workers

Regular readers of the blog will know I am opposed to academisation of schools on principle. I see them as backdoor privatisation and undemocratic. However, credit where credit is due, I am impressed by the campaign by Wembley Ark Academy's student campaign on the London living Wage. This is from the school's website LINK:

Ark Academy students face FA over low pay at Wembley Stadium

Ark Academy students made national news on 8th November when they delivered a sack of 500 letters to the Football Association, calling for a pay rise for workers on low wages.

In a meeting at FA headquarters, students Zainab Ahmed and Hadeal Abdelatti pressed the FA to pay the London Living Wage of £10.50 an hour to cooks, cleaners and stewards employed by third-party contractors. They handed over a petition which Ark Academy students wrote in form time.

Channel 4 News interviewed the protesters. The Daily Telegraph said the 11- to 16-year-old protesters shamed the FA.

The FA agreed this year to raise hundreds of its own employees to the London Living Wage. But it stopped short of lifting 2,000 contract workers off the minimum wage.

Zainab told FA executive James MacDougall she visited classes to collect petitions. Numerous students told her their relatives work at the stadium on low pay.

MacDougall argued that the FA is a national organisation and therefore Brent-based activists have little say.

Hadeal struck back, saying people earning the minimum wage cannot afford the London cost of living. She said the FA has a historic opportunity to set an example among major employers.

MacDougall disclosed that 2,000 of the FA’s 6,000 workers live in Brent.

The students will meet again with the FA in January.

Will Spurs' stadium safety woes stop Quintain meeting Euro 2020 deadline for installation of the Wembley Stadium steps?

I understand that doubts are developing over whether Quintain will be able to deliver the Stadium Steps that will replace the Pedway in time for the first Wembley Euro 2020 game scheduled for June 14th 2020. It was also hoped that they would be in place for Brent's Borough of Culture 2020. LINK

It is feared that the already tight timetable will be adversely affected if Tottenham Hotspur's move to their new stadium is further delayed and their use of Wembley Stadium pushes into 2019.

The Independent reported today on the Spurs delays LINK:

Tottenham Hotspur are facing another crunch week in their attempts to move into the new White Hart Lane before Christmas.

Tottenham are currently aiming to move into the new 61,000 seater stadium for their match against Burnley on 15 December, three months after the initial target of the Liverpool game on 15 September. But they will only be able to do so if they can complete crucial work on the stadium’s fire safety systems in time for the two test events they have planned.

Before the Burnley game Tottenham have ‘home’ matches against Chelsea on Saturday 24 November and Southampton on 5 December. Those matches are officially listed as occurring at the new White Hart Lane but Tottenham are expected this week to announce that they will also be switched to Wembley, where Spurs have been playing their ‘home’ games since the start of last season. Tottenham insist that nothing has been decided yet, but that it will be announced as soon as they know.

After the Chelsea and Southampton fixtures are confirmed as moved focus will be on whether the new stadium will be ready for a pre-Christmas opening. Before the stadium can open it must receive its safety certificates, which Haringey Council will only grant after two successful test events. The first test event – pencilled in for late November – would be for a capacity of up to 30,000 people. The second, which Spurs hoped to be in early December, would be for a capacity of up to 48,000.

But those test events cannot take place until the safety systems are ready. Daniel Levy told a meeting of the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters Trust earlier this month that the stadium would have been ready for the Liverpool game were it not for the safety issues. The view at Tottenham is that the Liverpool game was a realistic target, but that they have been let down by certain contractors.

Ultimately Tottenham do not have to tell the Football Association whether they will need Wembley for the Burnley game until early next month. But if they do not open the new ground with that match then they may delay the opening until the arrival of Manchester United on 13 January. Spurs are due to host Bournemouth on Boxing Day and Wolverhampton Wanderers on 29 December, although there is a reluctance inside the club to open the new stadium for either of those games because of the logistical concerns associated with that time of year.

Stadium Sale: STOP THE STEPS!

Yesterday's news of the possible sale of Wembley Stadium reinforces residents feelings of lack of control over this behemoth that has so much influence on their daily lives.

With the Football Association known to be unhappy about the London Borough of Quintain's plans to replace the stadium pedway with steps, there is no knowing what the view of a new owner might be. As Green Party candidate for Tokyngton ward I have no hesitation in calling for the £17.8m project to be stopped pending clarification of safety issues and the legal basis of Brent Council's decision to spend Quintain's CIL money on a project that is primarily aimed to improve what Quintain has admitted is a project to improve the aesthetic appeal of its multi-million development. The money should be used to repair and improve Brent's crumbling infrastructure instead.

A further issue emerges from the proposed sale to an American billionaire Shahid Khan.  In his statement he made it clear that the purchase would be used to improve Jacksonville Jaguars' revenue stream. Given that England will continue to use the stadium for some games as well as a possibe NFL franchise that can only mean more events at Wembley Stadium.

The sale would mean that the two businesses with the most influence on Wembley would both be American owned and distant from the local community.

If we had a council that would stand up against a billionaire to represent the interests of local residents we might be reassured but that sad truth is that Muhamed Butt and his administration have a sad record of being pally with the 'big boys' and caving in to their demands.  They are likely to approve even more maximum capacity frequent events. Yet another reason for electing a decent opposition on Brent Council.

What all this means for the possible tenure of Chelsea at Wembley while their new development is being built remains to be seen.  It is ironical that Spurs owners wanted their new stadium to be a joint NFL franchise and now they have a Wembley competitior is the sale goes through.

Paul Lorber, ex leader of the Brent Liberal Democrats has written to Brent CEO, Carolyn Downs, chasing a response to email of April 19th:

Now that the Stadium is likely to be sold in a £800 million plus deal it is even more important that the Council cancels their £17.8 million ‘Give Away’ to a company owned by private investors via a Bermuda tax haven.

The £17.8 million of public money can then be spent on much more important works to repair the large backlog of dangerous pavements and potholed roads across Brent.

This is no time to pay for private vanity project that even the FA - the current owner of Wembley Stadium - think may not be safe and do not currently support.

This was Shahid Khan's statement yesterday:

I am very pleased to learn today that The Football Association board of directors received our offer to purchase Wembley Stadium, our home away from home in London, from the FA.

One of the many benefits of the Jaguars’ commitment to London has been our partnership with the FA and Wembley Stadium. Over the past several years, it became clearer to us and the FA that the idea of our purchase of Wembley Stadium made a lot of sense for all of us.

For the FA, it would mean Wembley Stadium returning to private ownership, permitting the FA to direct its full attention to its mandate to develop talent and serve the game with the vast resources it would realize from the sale. For the Jaguars, it would deliver another – and very significant – asset and local revenue source that would further strengthen our investment in London, which as everyone knows is crucial to the Jaguars’ continued sustainability in Jacksonville. In every respect, the Jaguars’ standing in London would be improved and dramatically enhanced if we are fortunate to be approved as the new owner and steward of Wembley Stadium, and that’s good news for the Jaguars and all of Jacksonville.

If you’ve had the occasion to join us for one of our Jaguars home games in London, you know that Wembley Stadium is a very special place. Our commitment to the FA is we will own and operate Wembley with the care and respect it deserves, always being mindful that it is – and will continue to be – the home of England’s national teams as well as the ultimate destination for the world’s top entertainment and sports event, including Jaguars and NFL games. And today’s announcement is additional evidence that we are committed to create and enhance new revenue streams to boost the Jaguars, such as the incredibly successful Daily’s Place and the project we revealed last week with The Cordish Companies on the proposed development around EverBank Field.

Butt attempts to shift blame for Pedway expenditure on to Lib Dems and Tories

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has been active on Next Door, the neighbourhood website, following members expressing concern about the poor condition of road surfaces and pavements in Brent and citing the £18m expenditure on the replacement of the Wembley Stadium Pedway by steps as wasteful when this work needs doing.  LINK.

In a message directed at me Butt states:

@Martin Francis Please take a look at this report from the councils website in relation to the money that you refer to LINK  The decision to allocate the funding was taken in 2009 by full council. This was a decision taken by the administration led by Paul Lorber and Bob Blackman. It's clear that the funding would be funded by the developer funds. The decision does make it clear that the pedway removal would have to be after 2013/14.

This is the relevant extract from the report (click bottom right corner to enlarge):

I responded:

@MuhammedButt I have looked at the document you cited re the Pedway. It says that the Delivery Mechanism is 'Through Developer' and the Funding source is 'By Development'. CIL was not yet implemented but other projects made it clear when Section106 (CIL's predecessor) was being used. S106 is not mentioned for the Pedway. It is unclear to say the least. Quintain's own press release  (below) boasts that this is 'private investment'. I don't think CIL money, paid by a developer to a local authority, and then given back to them is 'private investment'.

I don't think this supports Butt's claim that funding was by 'developer funds' if by that he means CIL money or its Section 106 equivalent.

 Interestingly I understand that the Football Association is not enthusiastic about the proposal to replace the Pedway with steps. They are said to be concerned about crowd safety when fans exit the Stadium and have engaged specialists to examine the issue. The Stadium's crowd management using the Pedway has been tuned to a 'fine art' and it is questionable as to whether the steps could operate as safely.

Meanwhile Quintain's main reasons for the change are 'aesthetic' with an emphasis on the Pedway spoiling the look of its development around the Stadium.  Of course it could be counter-argued that the development spoils the aesthetics of the Stadium!

Hurry to tell the FA about how Spurs at Wembley has impacted on you

From Danes and Empire Court Residents' Association

We have been asked by the FA to provide feedback to a study they are conducting on the impact of Wembley Stadium, and of Spurs on the local area, London and the Nation. Specifically, they would like input on the questions below, so please provide your feedback AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (i.e. before Friday) as we will be meeting at this point.

What are the positive and negative impacts of Wembley on local residents and local businesses, and your views on the impacts of Wembley stadium with a focus on Tottenham Hotspur, and whether there have been any positive or negative developments as a result of the increased occupation?

What has been done since the start of the season to address any negative issues and how that has worked out?

What future initiatives you would like to see in place for the benefits of local stakeholders?

Answer the Questions HERE before Friday 13^th April.

Incidentally this is a comment on the Stadium made in 1986 by a nine year old as part of the Domes Day project (see side panel):

Sometimes I hate Wembley Stadium  because when there is an event like a match on there are nearly always hooligans hanging about.   I live near the Stadium and nearly  every Saturday there’s a match on and lots of people hang about the “Harrow   Tavern”, which is a public house in  front of our house.  I hope that Wembley Stadium buy  security cameras to catch all the hooligans.   The time when I like Wembley is when   there are no hooligans and the match is a friendly game. Concerts like the Live Aid one are held there as well. Next to Wembley Stadium, in the car park, there is a market which is held every Sunday. H.P.( Aged 9yrs)

-->

Brent's give away of £17,800,000 to Quintain and the FA won't go away as an issue

We're not celebrating Cllr Butt

Since people have woken up to the decision of the Cabinet made last July to the £17.8m allocation of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to Quintain and the Football Association/Wembley Stadium Limited to public realm improvements, including the steps that will replace the current ramps to the stadium, there have been plenty of critical comments on social media.

At its most basic level people cannot seen how Brent Council can repay a large lump of CIL money back to the developer for something that is not of direct benefit to local people when the borough's infrastructure is falling apart.

The lead member for regeneration, Cllr Tatler,  has claimed that people are just 'making mischief' about a decision made long ago.

Paul Lorber has written to Carolyn Downs

Dear Ms Downs

I am very concerned how the Council made the decision to hand over £17.8 million of public money to Quintain for the benefit of Wembley Stadium and the FA without any apparent regard to other important local priorities.

Have you walked down Wembley High Road recently? If you have have you will have noticed the dangerous condition of many of the pavements which represent a major trip hazards to the local pedestrians. The condition and appearance of Wembley High Road - also a major route to Wembley Stadium and surrounding facilities is a major Brent shame.

Local residential areas around Wembley are also starved of resources. Many streets have dangerous pavements, potholed roads, destroyed grass verges and vastly overgrown trees.

Yet the Officer report to Councillors about the £17.8 million makes no reference to other Brent wide priorities on which the £17.8 million could have been spent. There were no options presented to Councillors.

All of this suggests that there was some very effective lobbying by Quintain and the FA to convince officers and Councillors that they should become the main priority for these funds above all the other desperate needs across Brent. 

It seems ironic that while residents and local groups need to go through a rigorous bidding process to bid for any NCIL (Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy) money and then be assessed against competing bids a company such as Quintain (owned by investors via the Bermuda Tax haven) only seem to have to do some persuasion in secret to achieve a massive windfall of £17.8 million.

This decision exposes the Brent Council lie that there is no money to upgrade pavements or resurface roads in Brent. It sadly shows that both officers and Councillors in Brent are out of touch with local realities and are prepared to ignore the needs of local people by giving priorities to large developers operating from foreign Tax Havens.

I note that the agreement for the £17.8 million has not yet been signed. Since part of this is clearly a bribe for Quintain not to build next to the Civic Centre this decision should be reviewed and Councillors provided with other local projects the much needed money could be spent on rather than handed over for the benefit of the FA and a large private developer.

Is Brent's gift of £17.8m to Quintain and the F.A. a step too far?

The steps that will replace the ramp - courtesy of Brent Council Tax payers

Last summer on July 24th a decision was made by the Brent Council Cabinet to spend £17.8m of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies on 'Strategic Infrastructure improvements' on Wembley Stadium and Olympic Way. Although I reported this on Wembley Matters at the time LINK under the headline 'Is £17.8m spend on Wembley Stadium public realm a good use of CIL cash?' the decision caused little discussion at the time. It was Item 24 on the Cabinet agenda and it was the beginning of the summer holiday.

Now Paul Lorber, former leader of Brent Liberals on the council, and others are querying the expenditure.  It is worth recalling the original Quintain statement about one part of the expenditure, the replacement of the stadium entrance ramps with steps:

No mention in 2007  that Brent Council would end up paying for the 'world-class entrance to the world-class Stadium.'

The Minutes of the Cabinet meeting of July 24th records Shama Tatler's justification for in effective giving back to Quintain and the Football Association (owners of Wembley Stadium) a significant amount of the CIL raised Quintain's development.  Part of the motivation to handover the cash was to get an assurance that the area outside the Civic Centre (the library entrance side) would not be built up with yet another high rise development. Brent Council had previously given outline planning permission for the site.

Councillor Shama Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills, introduced the item and spoke about the regeneration of Wembley and the need to support the ongoing transformation of the area into a thriving, attractive environment. Councillor Tatler informed Cabinet there was scope to use some of the strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds which had been raised as a consequence of development in the area, to invest in the public realm along Olympic Way. She said that enhancing the public realm was a key element in a step change of the positive experience the Council was aiming to achieve for residents and visitors, including an environment which would encourage people to dwell both before and after events. In addition, the arrangement would also ensure that the space outside the Civic Centre, currently subject to a planning permission which could be implemented, was used to contribute to the proposed educational quarter and provide more of a public square. Councillor Tatler said that this would be a joint project with Quintain and the Stadium and referred to a letter from Quintain (see Appendix 1 to the report on page 605 to the Agenda pack). She added that the report sought the approval for funds up to £17.8 million to accelerate the delivery of the public realm in two zones – B and C, with public realm works Zone A being entirely funded by Quintain (see page 594-602 to the Agenda pack).

Councillor Miller commented that the proposal was focused on a concentrated area, but it would have significant national impact. In relation to the rest of the Community Infrastructure Levy contribution, Councillor Tatler confirmed that options to spend it across the Borough would be considered.   

Zone A is Olympic Way, Zone B the area around the ramp from Olympic Way up to Bridge Road and Zone C the stadium ramp.

Brent Council made the following responses to Paul Lorber's request for further information on the plans:

“By copy perhaps the Chief Executive can explain why at a time when basic services to local residents are being starved of money the Council could possibly agree to hand over £17 million of CIL money to one entity - Quintain - a company owned mainly by an equity fund based in Bermuda. Were the Cabinet Members aware that they were handing public money to a company owned from a Tax Haven?”

The decision was made by Cabinet, to support the regeneration of Wembley Park and the role that the Stadium has not only in that, but as a piece of national infrastructure. The Cabinet report is available here (see item 24).

The decision builds upon the existing partnership between the council, Quintain and the FA to enhance Wembley Park, and must be considered not only in terms of the economic benefit which the regeneration brings to Wembley and the wider borough, but also in terms of the international reputation and national benefit associated with the location of the Stadium – which necessitates appropriate investment to create a world class public realm to go alongside it. 

The location of the ownership of Quintain was not relevant to decision, which was focussed on public realm improvements and the enhancement of Wembley Park. Cabinet resolved that the contribution is contingent on Quintain fulfilling a number of requirements for the public benefit:

a)       Not pursuing development of site NW04 adjacent to the Civic Centre to the extent currently permitted in the parameters plans associated with outline planning permission 10/3032.

b)       Working with the Council to deliver a development that better complements the role and setting of the Civic Centre, in particular creating a significant new square outside the Civic Centre Library.

c)       Agreeing a business plan and heads of terms, between Quintain and the council, for the future sharing and reinvestment of net income generated through assets on Olympic Way.

Paul Lorber replied:
 

I note that the CIL money will be used for “strategic infrastructure projects” and the Council is considering which ones. How did it come about that £17.8 million was allocated to one project before the process of considering which projects to fund have been listed or even consulted on?

As you know Councillors (including members of the Cabinet) receive hospitality from both Quintain and the FA and it seems odd that a decision on one project was made in such a rush without being assessed against a list of others.

It also seems very odd that part of this substantial sum seem to be a ‘bribe’ to persuade Quintain not to build a large building next to the Civic Centre - why would this be such an important priority for millions of public funds?

As you know many residents around Wembley and Alperton are very concerned at the height of some buildings given planning permission. In view of the approach in respect of the site next to the Civic Centre why would it not be appropriate for residents of Alperton to ask that the developer of the site on the corner of Ealing Road/Bridgewater Road to be paid a chunk of CIL money to persuade them to reduce their tower from the 26 Storeys to say a more reasonable 12?

 I hope that the priority for the £17.8 million decision has nothing to do with the fact that the Stadium is in the ward of the Leader of the Council.

In any case the report clearly does not identify other priorities in Brent in need of substantial funding. The Budget report for example identifies £300,000 shortfall of funding from the Mayor of London and of course CIL money could be allocated to Bridge this gap. 

My biggest issue is of course public money being handed over to a private company which is owned by Investors who are based in Bermuda for obvious tax reasons - when there is such a desperate need for cash to deal with the massive backlog of work to Brent’s crumbling roads and pavements. 

If the Council had consulted properly local residents would have made their views very clear. Every time they ask for anything to be done in their street - pavements, roads or verges - the answer is always the same “there is no money”.

That answer is of course not true as a staggering £17.8 million is being spent on something that most people in Brent do not regard as a priority.

in my view a wrong decision was made and Councillors were not given the right advice or proper options before making their decision. Sometimes officers advising should put themselves in the shoes of local residents - this might help determine local spending priorities.