England fans on Market Square ahead of the 2020 Euro Cup Final - July 11th 2021
(Credit & Copyright Alamy)
Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) has joined Wembley Park ward councillors Cllr Ahamadi Moghaddam and Cllr Najib Warsame in opposing the building of a hotel on Market Square and Samovar Space, currently in use as a public open space.
Barry Gardiner writes:
Planning Team
Brent Council
29 July 2026
To whom it may concern,
Objection to planning application 26/1351 for Plot NW04
I write to object to the above-referenced planning application for the erection of a hotel between two and 17 storeys tall on what is currently the Market Square/Samovar Space.
You may be aware that I do not normally intervene in planning matters except in exceptional circumstances, including if the planning application is a major infrastructural development. These developments have knock-on effects with wider political ramifications within the local community such as traffic generation, overcrowding of doctors’ surgeries, and inadequate number of spaces in local schools.
This application is one such exception. I have been alerted to it by my constituents and I agree with their concerns that these proposals would have severe detrimental impacts on Wembley Park, visitors, and most importantly, residents.
At the time of writing, the application has attracted 131 comments on your planning portal. Every single one of them objects. I note from these comments that residents have not been properly notified or consulted by the applicant. I am also aware of a Change.Org petition against the application which has almost 700 signatures to date.
Benefit of the Samovar Space
The Market Square/Samovar Space is one of the few free, open spaces in Wembley Park that people can spend time in. It hosts markets and community events and is one of the most attractive spaces in an area which is increasingly dominated by high-rise blocks. Samovar provides a free play area for local children, many of whom live in high rise flats that lack outdoor space. The plot is currently a much needed ‘third space’ in which people socialise and form community without having to patronize a business.
I understand that the proposals include plans for a new square. This does not afford the same community benefit as the existing space. It would likely suffer from wind tunnelling, and would effectively be the courtyard of commercial premises rather than a genuine public space. The space would also be completely lost with no alternative provision during multiple years of construction.
Supposed benefit of the development
There is already a plethora of hotels in the immediate vicinity. In Wembley Park we have two Premier Inns, a Holiday Inn, Best Western, Novotel, Hilton Hotel, Wembley International, St George’s Hotel, ARK Wembley, CityLiveIn, and the Ibis which is being refurbished. There are also a number of smaller establishments and further options in neighbouring wards.
A new hotel is of very little benefit to the residents who live here and does nothing to diversify the area. Residents actually benefit from community services such as the social and leisure space that already exists on the plot.
This is already an intensely developed area. Regeneration projects, commercial services, and the custom and footfall they create need to be balanced across Wembley and Brent, rather than further concentrated in Wembley Park.
Harms of the development
While the benefits of the proposals are extremely limited, this development would cause a range of active harms to the area, residents and visitors. On top of the loss of the community space, these harms include:
· Years’ long construction causing noise and physical disruption as well as dust and debris;
· Reduced sightlines and sunlight due to the huge scale of the proposed building;
· Exacerbation of the Olympic Way wind-tunnel and echo effects;
· Traffic from construction, hotel guests and ongoing servicing will exacerbate road congestion;
· Trees are unlikely to survive relocation or, if retained, to survive the nearby construction;
· Reduced attractiveness and vibrancy of the area.
Many of the consultation’s respondents have quite rightly raised critical safety concerns about the development.
Baroness Casey’s review into the disorder in and around Wembley Stadium during the Euro 2020 Final concludes that there was a series of ‘near misses’ in which serious injuries or fatalities were only narrowly avoided. She highlights issues with crowd control specifically on Olympic Way and Engineers Way, and notes that ‘excess crowds overloaded in confined spaces’ were ‘deemed to be one of the highest risk scenarios’ that day.
The existing plot provides much needed open space for event day crowds to gather and dissipate, as well as potential space for evacuation of the high volume of visitors we often welcome to Wembley Park. The proposals would remove the Wembley Splay route, which eases pedestrian congestion. Without this, event day crowds will be even further concentrated.
The Casey Review quotes a FA/Wembley official: ‘the outer perimeter [of Wembley Stadium] is hard to manage because of the residential blocks’. Constructing a further block so close to the Stadium and Arena can only exacerbate this concern.
Planning compliance
I understand that outline permission for this development was granted in 2011 under decision 10/3032. Since then, the Market Square and Samovar Space has become a well- established community facility, and Wembley Park has seen the proliferation of similar high-rise blocks. The Planning Committee must consider the site’s current use and setting rather than rely on 15 year-old proposals and assessments.
I understand that in 2018, Brent Council contributed £12.1 million to improve the site on the condition that the developer would not pursue the full outline parameters. However, I understand that this proposal of a 17 storey building does reach the full parameters. The planning committee must consider whether the approving this application would default on this agreement involving public funds.
The outline permission was granted ahead of various new policies such as the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the Brent Local Plan 2019 – 2041 and the London Plan 2021. Application 26/1351 must be assessed against current requirements. Particular attention should be paid to the following:
The National Policy Planning Framework 2012
Section 8: Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities
102. Planning policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence requirements by:
a. anticipating and addressing possible malicious threats and other hazards (whether natural or man-made), especially in locations where large numbers of people are expected to congregate…
103. Access to a network of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for the health and well-being of communities,
104. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields and formal play spaces, should not be built on unless:
a. an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or
b. the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or
c. the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.
105. Planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails.
Brent Local Plan 2019 – 2041
Policy DMP1: Development Management General Policy
Development will be acceptable provided it is:
a. of a location, use, concentration, siting, layout, scale, type, density, materials, detailing and design that provides high levels of internal and external amenity and complements the locality;
b. satisfactory in terms of means of access for all, parking, manoeuvring, servicing and does not have an adverse impact on the movement network;
i. resulting in no loss of, and where possible enhancing, community facilities or other land/buildings for which there is an identified need.
Policy BD1: Leading the Way in Good Urban Design
6.1.12 The policy seeks to create buildings and places of high quality that will be appreciated by future generations. High quality design is both visually interesting and attractive and should enhance local character. Good design is not just about what things look like, it is also about how places function and how individual buildings and the spaces around them contribute to the public realm and community well-being... Good design makes places that put people first, promote health and are welcoming, feel safe, are enjoyable and easy to use for everyone.
London Plan 2021
Policy G4 Open space
B. Development proposals should:
1. Not result in the loss of protected open space
Policy S4: Play and informal recreation
B. Development proposals should:
1. Increase opportunities for play and informal recreation and enable children and young people to be independently mobile
5. Not result in the net loss of play provision, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no ongoing or future demand.
Policy S5 Sports and recreation facilities
C. Existing sports and recreational land (including playing fields) and facilities for sports and recreation should be retained unless:
1. An assessment has been undertaken which clearly shows the sports and recreational land or facilities to be surplus to requirements…
2. The loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or
3. The development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.
Concluding remarks
It is my view that this application offers very little benefit to residents and in fact risks damaging the community, whereas the existing use of the plot as the Market Square/Samovar Space has visible and proven benefits.
Permission should not be granted without wider consultation of residents. I support my constituents’ calls for the application to be heard at the Planning Committee with public speaking rights for local residents, and for a public explanation of how the developer has met the conditions to benefit from £12.1 million of public funds in submitting this application.
Nor should permission be granted prior to the publication of independent reviews on matters including wind, daylight, trees and construction impact as well as assessments from the Metropolitan Police, Wembley Stadium/the FA, the Safety Advisory Group, and any other relevant authorities.
I would be grateful if you could please register my objection and ultimately reject this application.
Yours faithfully,
Barry Gardiner
Member of Parliament for Brent West
To make your own comment follow this LINK Ref 26/1351
