Another Brent school 3G pitch application meets opposition

View of the Claremont site - the proposed 3G pitch will be on the grassed area lower centre

Kingsbury High School, Queens Park Community School and Claremont High School have all had plans to install floodlit artificial grass 3G pitches on their sites. The Powerleague proposal for Kingsbury High was withdrawn after a local campaign that cited environmental and social harm.  The interests of the local residents compete with those of the school. The Claremont Planning Application is HERE .

19/1388 | Construction of an additional floodlit artificial grass sports pitch and cricket practice facility with incorporated batting cages, installation of 12 floodlights, erection of high boundary fences with associated gates, formation of pedestrian access stairs and ramp. | Claremont High School, Claremont Avenue, Harrow, HA3 0UH

Roe Green Residents' Association have written to a senior Brent planning officer and councillors drawing attention to some of the issues.

The Roe Green Village Residents' Association in North West Brent (RGVRA) may not be directly impacted by what is going on at Claremont High School but RGVRA nevertheless has an important contribution to make to the planning process concerning this particular application.

We have great concerns over the impact this application represents to residents and the environment. We are also concerned that this application is being assessed prematurely and without all necessary facts being available.

RGVRA has been faced with an almost identical application by an Academy school in recent months. In assessing the application RGVRA and its consultants have learned a significant amount of information about the development and operation of installations of this type which applies to the application described in 19/1388 as well.

The overall impact such installation has on its surrounding area makes this application at Claremont High School entirely unsuitable for this site. Installations like these belong far away from any residential dwellings due to their significant environmental impacts such as noise and light pollution affecting neighbours 365 days of the year until late at night. This also concerns the transport impact these facilities generate on what are typically quiet residential streets.

Scrupulous developers and agents appear to have devised schemes to provide cash-seeking academies with free ‘upgrades' to their perfectly usable natural grass playing fields through funds such as the Condition Improvement Fund (CIF) and the prospect of new revenue streams by hiring these out as entertainment venues to the public. 

Pupils tend to only have use of these new sports facilities for 35% of the time whereas the vast majority of the time these facilities get hired out for profit is to a narrow target audience of 18-25 year old male adults.

This is a recurring scenario running throughout the country. In Brent alone we have seen several of these applications in recent years. 
Brent Council needs to recognise that these facilities are not sustainable for the long term future of Brent and its residents. In fact these schemes are detrimental to community cohesion.

This particular application at Claremont High School appears to represent an intense over-development of the site.

Residents will not be able to defend themselves against the new and constant noise, light and traffic impact this scheme will create.

Brent Council needs to listen carefully to the concerns of the residents affected by this application. Brent Council also needs to ensure that both residents and the Planning Committee have access to all the facts that govern the impact of this application based on professional evidence.

This application comes without a noise assessment and without a transport assessment. These types of facilities are well-known for their excessive noise and traffic generation. It thus seems evident that this application is lacking crucial information. Without this crucial information it would seem impossible for anyone to assess the true impact of this application.

We also feel concerned that the ecological evidence available may not be receiving sufficient consideration.

Alison Fure, the author of the 'Ecology and Bat Survey Report' to this application, is a highly-respected ecologist and bat expert with a specialisation in light impact on bat behaviour.    Her findings and recommendations seem clear when her report states that ‘light curfews should be operated throughout the summer’ and that in fact ‘the new pitch should be used by the students from the school only’ which appears to suggest not to operate the facility past 4pm, i.e. school time.

Given Alison Fure's experience and expertise, we cannot think of any reason to question the ecology report’s findings or not take its recommendations seriously.

Furthermore, there are significant environmental impacts that do not appear to have been considered at all.

Within the Borough of Brent there are at least 150 artificial football pitches made of hazardous 3G rubber compounds. According to manufacturers' guidance, each of these pitches requires topping up with 2-3 tonnes of rubber infill throughout the year. This infill and its dust is toxic to humans and the Environment and, according to manufacturers’ guidance, may only be applied whilst wearing personal protection equipment.

Within the Borough of Brent alone, we thus have 300 - 450 tonnes of toxic material being released into the Environment every single year where it degrades further into ever finer micro-plastics that pollute our rivers and water supplies and enter residents’ lungs and our food chain.

Has anyone at Brent Council calculated the impacts this has?     Is there an impact assessment available of how many 3G pitches there are and the health and environmental impacts these represent?

The site of the proposed new pitch is directly adjacent to the Wealdstone Brook. The applicant has neither accounted for nor mitigated against the micro-plastics pollution this development will cause.

Brent has declared a Climate and Ecological Emergency in recognition of our seas choking with plastic. Brent has committed itself to making Brent the cleanest, greenest borough in London.

As servants of the public and stewards of public resources Brent, therefore, has an obligation to ensure that these aims and commitments are upheld.

The Planning Committee and the residents affected by the sports pitches at Claremont High School must be given access to all the facts pertaining to the impacts of this planning application before this could possibly be considered,

We further request that Brent immediately puts on hold all planning applications involving 3G pitches until it has fully established the impact these have on our Environment and until it has completed an impact assessment on the current use of all 3G pitches in Brent and can assure the public that 3G pitches are compatible with Brent’s stated aims and objectives for making Brent the cleanest, greenest borough in London.

In the interim, Brent Council should instead focus on making more effective use of existing resources and help academies such as Claremont High School benefit from the 150 plus existing 3G pitches in the borough.

Powerleague at Kingsbury High refused planning permission on noise grounds

Kingsbury High School's bid to run a Powerleague football facility in its grounds has been refused planning permission. The plans were strongly opposed by nearby residents in Roe Green Village. LINK

The Brent Planning Department refusal is based on the level of noise and disturbance to neighbours which would be caused by the late opening of the facility until 10.30pm:

The proposed development, by reason of the levels of noise associated with the use (including the ancillary activities), having particular regard to the hours of operation of the use and likely frequency of those activities throughout the week and year, will result in an unduly detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining occupiers through the exposure to noise beyond levels that may reasonably be expected within this specific context. This is contrary to Policy DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan Development Management Policies 2016 and Policy 7.15 of the London Plan (March 2016).

 The delegated report elaborates: (bold is my emphasis)

Council officers are of the opinion that the submitted hours of operation (until 10-10.30pm), represent an excessive intrusion on the reasonable expectation of amenity in this location for local residents. In this circumstance the council would normally seek to restrict the hours of operation as suggested by the NPS.

As it stands, the proposal raises amenity concerns for the local residents in terms of the noise generated by activities inherent on the site when other background noise levels are low. Specifically, a number of football games occurring at the same time with numbers of people and cars attending the facility in hours considered to be sensitive.

Whilst these would reduce noise from the activities emanating from the facility, it is clear that the duration and length of time of noise and disruption resulting from this facility are a function of the late hours of operation.

It has been suggested that a condition be applied to any consent restricting the hours of operation. However, it is understood that a restriction in the hours of operation would render the proposal unworkable as the operators of the football centre rely upon the submitted hours in order for the scheme to be commercially viable.

Whilst this may be the case, it is held that the business model required by the operators cannot be at the expense of the amenity of neighbouring properties, particularly in a suburban setting such as this where an increase in noise, light, activity and vehicle movements is accentuated to the point of being intrusive in an environment of low-level ambient noise, movement and light that reduces even further as the evening progresses.

For this reason, the proposal is considered contrary to London Plan Policy 7.15 and DMP 1 and a reason for refusal based on these policies would be reasonable and sustainable.

Wembley Stadium due to disappear behind more high rise flats

Brent Planning Committee on December 14th will be recommended by officers to approve plans LINK to replace the present Powerleague pitches adjacent to Wembley Stadium, the Wembley Arena and Brent Civic Centre, with two new buildings comprising 340 100% private rented flats and retail space.

The pictures speak for themselves but officers think the plans are superior to those submitted in 2007 - although a lot has changed in the area since then. Officers say that no affordable housing needs to be provided on this site as it is over-provided on other sites in the overall Quintain development.

Powerleague will be temporarily housed in a 'meanwhile' space at Wembley Retail Park close to the Yellow Pavilion. Incidentally the controversial Powerleague proposals for Kingsbury High School appear to have stalled.

The housing will be 11% studio, 41% one bedroom, 46% 2 bedrooms and 3% 3 bedrooms (yes I know it doesn't equal 100% bu that's what the report says). There will be an artificial grass lawned terrace at first floor level and another terrace on the 10th floor as well as a small public square.

The retail space will allow 'outdoor cafe culture' to spill out into the area.

Wedged between the Stadium and the Arena clearly there will be noise problems but 'acoustic solutions' are planned and potential buyers can't really be aware of the potential problems.

Personally I feel that the loss of the shouts and thumps of footballs from the Powerleague will take away from the atmosphere of the area.  At present there is live football, in a sense, at Wembley Stadium every day. A far better place for the shouts and thumps than at the back of suburban gardens!

The reports says that notices of the application were sent out to nearby owners and occupiers including the the London Designer Outlet, Wembley National Stadium, Hilton Hotel and Raffles House but rather surprisingly at the time of the publication none had responded. There is no record of any representations from Tokyngton ward councillors.

Roe Green Village resident puts case against Lucozade Powerleague in TV interview

FA & fans take on Brent planners and Quintain over Wembley redevelopment,

There has been some speculation about the fact that Brent Council is holding two Planning Committee meetings next week. One explanation is that a senior officer is leaving shortly so the meeting was timed to take place before her departure and the second explanation is that following the Labour Group AGM some members of the Committee may be replaced by councillors who are less compliant.

Whatever the explanation there is not doubt that controversial proposals are being pushed through.  The Huffington Post LINK has picked up on an issue I raised over an application to be heard on 9th where officers said the students needed less daylight in their accommodation that ordinary residents.

Now a huge development around Wembley Stadium LINK has been brought forward attracting the opposition of the Football Association and football fans.

This is the area the planning application covers:

Olympic Way and land between Fulton Road and South Way including Green Car Park, Wembley Retail Park, 1-11 Rutherford Way, 20-28 Fulton Road, Land south of Fulton Road opposite Stadium Retail Park, land opposite Wembley Hilton, land opposite London Design

Retail/financial and professional services/food and drink (Use Class A1 to A4) up to 21,000 sqm; 


Commercial (Use Class B1) up to 82,000 sqm; 


Hotel (Use Class C1): up to 25,000 sqm; 


Residential (Use Class C3): up to 350,000 sqm (up to 4,000 homes) plus up to 
20,000 sqm of floorspace for internal plant, refuse, cycle stores, residential 
lobbies, circulation and other residential ancillary space; 


Education, healthcare and community facilities (Use Class D1): up to15,000 
sqm; 


Assembly and leisure (Use Class D2): 23,000 sqm; 


Student accommodation (Sui Generis): Up to 90,000 sqm. 


The proposals have produced the following comments:

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

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

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

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

Letter of objection from the FA 

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


Level Playing Field objection (Brent planners' commentary)

Level Playing Field have expressed concern that the proposal will make access for disabled persons to and from the stadium worse due to the unreasonable waiting times for the lifts, fewer accessible parking spaces being available, the emergency evacuation procedures and the travel distances from the stadium entrance. They highlight that to expect a disabled person to wait 40 minutes to queue for the lifts is a significant worsening of the current situation and is unreasonable.

They also highlight that the proposed 105 blue badge spaces in the multi-storey car park is significantly less than the 174 blue badge spaces currently in place, and that Wembley Stadium has 310 wheelchair spaces, not including the Easy Access and Amenity seats available for ambulant disabled people. Level playing fields have specified that they have been told that the existing 174 Blue Badge spaces frequently fail to meet demand.

They also specify that the capacity of the proposed lifts would be significantly reduced when transporting wheelchair uses, and that these lifts would also be shared with Club Wembley guests. They highlight that a robust emergency evacuation plan for ambulant disabled people and wheelchair users would need to be put in place from the upper levels in the event of the lifts not being in use, with a significant number of people potentially requiring assistance.

The queue times that have been cited for the lifts are identical to those cited by the FA and this has been discussed above and within with the consideration of the objection from the FA, with the Detailed Considerations section of this report. The applicant has committed to the provision of 250 blue badge spaces, some of which are to be located within the Blue Multi-storey car park and others elsewhere in the vicinity of the stadium (e.g. the Red Multi-storey car park). Details of the provision of these spaces are to be secured through the Wembley Park Parking.

Management Plan, discussed within the Detailed Considerations section of this report. Emergency Evacuation Plans are secured through the building regulations. With regard to the distance to the blue badge parking spaces, Quintain initially were looking to propose a ramp from the blue badge parking level to the Stadium Concourse which would have resulted in a significant improvement. However, due to structural and warranty issues with the Stadium Concourse, this could not come forward at this point in time. The ramp was subsequently removed from the proposal.

These are not the only controversial aspects of the application.  A huge car park is planned despite the fact that Wembley Stadium was supposed to be a public transport destination and a new, three form entry primary school is planned on the site of the car park for York House.  The application states that this is to be run by Ark Academies although it is not clear how they were chosen.  Questions are raised about the issue of air quality on the site and only partially addressed.

The demise of the Powerleague facility between the stadium and  Brent Civic Centre is mentioned almost in passing and this may explain why residents have been unable to gain local councillor support for opposition to a Lucuzade Powerleague facility at Kingsbury High School:

The Powerleague 5-a-side football centre is not within the site for this application. It was implemented as a “mean-time” temporary use within a development site. The Council is supportive of its re-provision and the applicant is looking at options to relocate it elsewhere in the vicinity when development comes forward on that site. However, it was only proposed as a temporary use and its loss could not be resisted

Lastly once again officers seem to be playing with the definition of 'affordable housing' to make it virtually meaningless:

Housing mix and Affordable housing: The Affordable Housing proposal are supported by officers. The total Affordable Housing offer proposed within the scheme comprises 34 % of the total number of units. A total of 22 % of the total units are to be provided as permanent Affordable Housing, comprising Affordable Rent, Discount Market Rent (at 65 % of market rent), Intermediate Shared Ownership and Discount Market Sale (at 75 % of market value). A total of 12 % of the total unit are to provided as time limited Affordable Housing (80 % market rent for a 7 year period) through the Mayor’s London Housing Bank. The tenure mix fo Affordable Housing differs from the standard products referred to within Council Policy, but is supported by officers as it looks to provide a wider range of Affordable Housing products which will help to meet housing need whilst maximising the proportion of Affordable Housing that the scheme can afford. The proportion of proportion of family sized private units is below the levels set out within the Wembley AAP, but the proposed mix by unit and tenure results in a significant increase in the level of Affordable Housing and is supported on that basis.

The development includes the maximum reasonable (WM's emphasis) proportion of Affordable Housing including Affordable Rent, Intermediate Shared Ownership, Discount Market Sale and Discount Market Rent units. The price of private units cannot be considered or set within a planning application, other than how it affects the proportion of Affordable Homes.

The same evening planning applications for other projects in the stadium area will also be considered.