The economic impact of Wembley Stadium events 2017-18 - locally, London-wide and nationally

Tonight's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee will be discussing the following report on the economic impact of Wembley Stadium with a particular emphasis on Spurs' stay at the stadium. There is a short section about the views of local people on the impact of event days on their lives.

Click bottom right corner for full-page view.

Litter at Wembley Stadium is far from a new problem it seems

Guest post by Philip Grant
  

One of the reasons given by objectors to the recent planning application, to increase the number of higher capacity Tottenham Hotspur football matches at Wembley Stadium, was the widespread littering associated with these matches. It is not a new problem, as this extract from the copy of an article (kindly given to me by a fellow Wembley History Society member) shows:

‘The photograph printed on this page shows the amount of “clearing-up” that is necessary after the public has paid a visit to the Stadium at Wembley. One of the criticisms of Wembley last year was of the shocking untidiness of the visitors, and day after day a number of men who might have been more profitably employed in other ways had to spend a considerable time in getting rid of the rubbish that had been left behind.’

(The article was on “The Editor’s Page” of “The Boy’s Own Annual”, in 1925!)

FA claims Wembley events in 2017-18 contributed £150m to Brent's local economy

The FA has circulated a report on the economic impact of the Wembley Stadium 2017-18 season. One local resident immediately said, 'Do you belive any of this? I am sceptical.' I leave it to readers to make up their own minds and welcome your comments.

I wanted to share with you the Wembley Stadium economic impact study we commissioned on the back 2017/18 season – a unique season for Wembley Stadium marking the 10 year anniversary of the new stadium, welcoming our 10 millionth stadium visitor and of course hosting Tottenham Hotspur FC for a full Premier League season. 

We entrusted Deloitte to analyse the economic impact of the stadium during this period – 58 major events, which, in addition to football, saw boxing, Rugby League, NFL and music concerts come to London.

We are looking forward to building on these successes with some of the biggest events in world entertainment, such as UEFA EURO 2020 and UEFA Women’s EURO 2021, just around the corner.

Report Summary

§  The 2017/18 season at Wembley saw a record 58 events and was the first time a Premier League football team had taken residency at the stadium. This higher number of event days resulted in an unprecedented amount of visitors to Wembley Stadium and the surrounding area.

§  Findings shows that Wembley’s events led to a boost of £150m to the local economy of Brent, £424m to London and £615m to England.

§  The 58 events attracted 3.8 million spectators, including 350,000 visitors from overseas. The project therefore reaffirms Wembley’s status as one of the leading event venues in the world that attracts significant numbers of visitors to England, London and Brent.

§  Deloitte’s analysis shows that the economic impact from the 58 events supports 1,800 FTE jobs in Brent, 4,900 across London and 6,100 across England.

§  Gross Value Added (GVA) is a common way to look at the value added to GDP by the production of goods and services. The GVA contribution of the 2017/18 event season was £83m to Brent, £231m to London and £334m to England as a whole.

The full report is below. Click bottom right for full screen version.

Planning Officers recommend approval of Spurs' extra Wembley games

Brent Planning Officers have recommended that the January 16th Planning Committee LINK approves the application for Spurs to hold eight additional matches at Wembley Stadium between January 15th and May 12th if their new stadium is not ready. Five of the games would be capped at 62,000 and three at 90,000. Neither Brent Council, nor Quintain have been willing to comment to Wembley Matters on how these extra games would impact on the plans to remove the Stadium pedway and replace  with steps before Euro2020. LINK

Submissions from residents were 30 to 1 objecting. No submissions were received from  Barry Gardiner MP, Barnhill Residents' Association or Wembley Stadium Residents Advisory Committee. I can find no record of comments from Tokyngton Ward councillors that include Council Leader Muhammed Butt.

Wembley Central and Alperton Residents' Association acknowledged the economic benefits but stipulated that should permission be granted the sporting events should not be carried over for other events if Spurs return to their new stadium.

This is the officers' conclusion after considering the issues in detail:

The objections received indicate that there is a level of impact currently experienced by events at the stadium from Spurs matches. These mostly relate to anti-social behaviour and transport. Some impacts are expected, as it is a large stadium in a location with residents and businesses nearby. 

Additional events, limited to a capacity of 51,000, can take place at the stadium irrespective of the outcome of the application. 

The original cap on events was imposed to manage the impacts until such time as specific transport improvements had been made. Whilst most of these have taken place, not all of them have been realised. Circumstances have changed since the original planning permission in 2002, which suggest that the final piece of transport infrastructure (the Stadium Access Corridor) will not be provided in the originally envisaged form, but other changes to the road network are now envisaged. A further change is the level of development within the area, which has increased the population and will continue to do so. Therefore, the Council considers that the cap remains relevant. 

Clearly, to increase the number of events to accommodate Tottenham Hotspur would imply a commensurate increase in the impact, albeit that it is proposed to be temporary and only in relation to 8 games. 

In analysing the impacts there has been some concern about the level of economic benefit which would result, and this is primarily centred on visitor expenditure. In any event it seems common sense that there would be winners and losers on event days, dependent on the type of business. This makes it all the more important that the social impacts on event days are further mitigated. A number of additional measures have been secured to deal with some of these issues. 

Transportation issues have been extensively raised, and there are ongoing efforts to reduce the number of vehicles on a match day. A number of mitigation measures are proposed to continue this work. Some of these allow for existing work to continue, and others are new or updated. The pirate parking initiative is considered particularly important. On an individual event basis, Tottenham Hotspur do have the ability to influence their supporters’ behaviour over the course of a season, which is more difficult than for visitors on a one-off basis such as the FA Cup final. Addressing transport issues will also contribute to reducing noise and air quality issues. 

In summary, it is recognised that there is a level of impact being caused by major events now, and that this would increase with an increase in the number of high capacity major events. However, the measures proposed would ensure that this is mollified as much as is reasonably achievable. All are considered necessary to mitigate the increased number of matches which this application proposes. A further consideration is that Tottenham Hotspur could use the stadium for major events up to 51,000 now without restriction, and were they to do that then no additional mitigation measures would be formally secured. 

The proposed additional mitigation would apply to Tottenham Hotspur events, and with some of these being within the existing cap would represent a theoretical improvement for these major events. 

The proposal is, on balance, recommended for approval.

Spurs ask for up to 17 games at Wembley Stadium as contingency to May 2019 - so what about the steps project?

Wembley National Stadium Limited has applied to Brent Council for permission for Tottenham Hotspur to hold up to 17 games at the stadium between January and May 2019.  They emphasise that this is a contingency plan as completion of Spurs' new stadium is awaited.

10 of the games would be up to 62,000 capacity and 7 at full capacity.

Consultation on the application closes on December 19th 2019.

The application can be found HERE

An obvious question is how this will affect the replacement of the stadium pedway by steps which was already a very tight schedule. Work will not take place on event days so if option takes up the contingency the project will lose 17 of the 87 days scheduled for completion of the scheme.

Unfortunately the Site Management Plan for the steps project is no longer available on the Brent Council website. LINK

The pre-planning advice offered by Alice Lester, Brent Head of Planning has been redacted. I wonder if this referred to the steps?

Spurs v Barcelona road closures and bus diversions

The month is wrong but these are the arrangements for tomorrow's Spurs v Barcelona match at Wembley.

Note road closures and disruption to local buses.

Spurs have out-stayed their Wembley welcome

Tottenham Hotspur announced yesterday that they are to play two more matches at Wembley because of delays in moving into their new stadium. 

The matches are: 15^th September against Liveroool and 6^th October against Cardiff City. In addition they have rescheduled an NFL game for Wembley on 14^th October.

The club has been unable to give a firm date for their move to the new stadium.

Many Wembley residents complained about the disruption caused by Tottenham’s period at the stadium so will not be pleased by this particular guest overstaying its welcome.

In an email to Carolyn Downs Brent CEO,  former Lib Dem councillor Paul Lorber said:

Dear Ms Downs

When I raised the issue of Tottenham extending their stay at Wembley beyond their existing Planning Permission you indicated that any extension would require a new Planning Permission.

When Tottenham expected to move into their new stadium The FA accommodated their needs for one or two games by absorbing their schedule within the existing 35 large events.
Now that the opening of the new Tottenham stadium was delayed (as I anticipated would be the case) the news report simply state as fact that their games (and even an American football game) are simply reschedules at Wembley without any apparent consultation with local people or any need for a new Planning Permission.

All of this seems very odd and suggests that things are simply imposed on the people of Wembley without much regard for their concerns or their needs - or any apparent say from Brent Council.

Can you please advise me and the people of Wembley on what exactly is going and why they are not being properly informed before decisions appear in the media.

At the time of the original Tottenham Planning Permission many promises were made. Can you list all the promises and indicate the progress and delivery on those.

What has for example happened for more accurate and efficient Event Day notices as many the current flip over signs are either broken or simply do not work. 

The present situation is highly unsatisfactory and the people of Brent  and Wembley deserve better.

A spokesperson for Brent Council told Wembley Matters:

 Any Tottenham games at Wembley this season will be accommodated within the existing planning permission for the Stadium, and be part of their agreed programme of events for the year.

However, they are subject to the cap of events that was initially captured in the original consent (i.e. they don't have the additional events that were granted permission through the 2017 consent).

In a community email today the Football Association said:

You will notice on the calendar that Tottenham Hotspur FC now have three confirmed fixtures to be played at Wembley. This was always an option for Spurs due to the tight time scales involved in the development of their new stadium. Spurs will only be playing here for a limited time and will not be playing a full season at Wembley Stadium as has previously been reported in the press.

Yesterday the Sun LINK reported that Spurs had been forced to pay a 'substantial' sum to the FA in order to stay at Wembley beyond Satrurday's game.

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)

-->

Concern over safety on Olympic Way after last night's match at Wembley Stadium

Photo: Daniels Estate Agents

The photograph above was taken from a high vantage point above Olympic Way at 10pm as fans made their way to Wembley Park station from the Spurs v Manchester United match. As usual stewards held fans back (bottom centre in high visibility jackets) while the station platforms were cleared.

The match had the highest ever attendance at a premier league match which Spurs celebrated:

However, on Facebook others were concerned about such large numbers packed into a restricted space.  One person remarked, 'A tragedy waiting to happen' and another, 'Nothing learnt from Hillsborough it seems.' A Brent resident said, ' Looks scarey to me. Please remind me not to go to Wembley Stadium for an event, or on an Event Day. I forget, most of us residents that can, already avoid the entire area just in case it's an Event Day.'

A year ago today I publicised Spurs application to remove the capacity cap and increase the number of events.

 The next big match,which may record a new record attendance is Tottenham Hotspur v Arsenal on Saturday February 10th, kick-off 12.30 pm. 

I advise families not to take their children to change their  books at Wembley Library on that day!

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.

Anger as residents frustrated by Boxing Day parking restrictions as Spurs play Southampton

Twitter and Facebook were awash with complaints yesterday as the Spurs v Southampton event at the stadium meant parking restrictions were imposed.  Residents were angered that visits by relatives and friends on Boxing Day were affected with one person suggesting that Wembley had become a no-go area for those from outside the area:

I’m going to complain. Rules need to change. Don’t need whole day restriction for a 2 hour football match/concert. It’s a stupid system and unfair to residents and people who want to visit the borough. Especially on bank holidays !!!

The 12.30pm kick-off meant that traffic built up during the afternoon and the route between Wembley High Road and Forty Lane was at a stand still with tail-backs stretching into the surrounding area.

On a personal note a friend travelling to see me in Wembley Park from Alperton for Boxing Day lunch was due at 2.30-3pm and didn't make it until 4.15pm.

Anger was directed at Brent Council for approving the increase in the number of games held at the Stadium without requiring the necessary  infrastructure improvments.  This led to discussions about what had actually happened to Section 106/CiL money.

Are Spurs having trouble filling Wembley Stadium or just trying to win over the locals?

I happened to mention to someone  recently that there seemed to be an awful lot of free tickets for football matches at Wembley floating around the borough, but still empty seats at the Stadium when matches were shown on TV. Then I saw this email from Brent Council Housing Resident Involvement (never heard of them before):

Subject: FREE Tottenham Hotspur Tickets - Matches on Boxing Day, 7 January & 13 January

Dear resident,

 

Tottenham Hotspur have advised us that they are keen to ensure that local community groups around Wembley are taking up tickets at their home matches this season.

 

They have offered us tickets at each of the upcoming fixtures below.

 

If you are interested in attending, please respond back with the game you would like to attend and complete the details in the form attached with your information and that of those that will be attending with you.

 

For the game on 26^th December, you will need to be able to able to pick up the tickets on Friday 22^nd between 10am – 12pm or 2:00pm – 4pm

Upcoming Fixtures:

  

Boxing Day, 12.30pm – Southampton

Sunday January 7, time TBC – AFC Wimbledon (FA Cup Round 3)

Saturday January 13, 5.30pm – Everton

Considering how much fuss Spurs made regarding planning permission to hold more full capacity matches against opposition from many local residents LINK it seems odd that there are so many free tickets available. It could be a result of that opposition and residents' demands that Spurs give something back to the community, or is it that they miscalculated their ability to fill the stadium?

Spurs v West Ham moved to January 4th to maximise attendance at Wembley Stadium

The match between Spurs and West Ham has been moved from Sunday December 31st to Thursday Janiary 4th (K.O. 8pm) to allow maximum attendance at the match.

Spurs said:

The fixture had originally been provisionally scheduled for Sunday 31 December.
However, despite significant work by all stakeholders, the Safety Advisory Group could only recommend a maximum crowd of 43,000. This was due to transport issues, primarily at local tube stations whose resources were being deployed elsewhere across London on New Year’s Eve.

Following extensive discussions between all parties, a decision has been taken to move the fixture into the New Year so more supporters, home and away, can attend the game.

Spurs as both a Property Developer and Corporate Welfare client

I spotted the following blog on  Tottenham Hotspur's ventures into property development and given their stay at Wembley Stadium and our own experience of property developers thought readers might be interested, particularly where there are issues in common.  Thanks to Haringey Defend Council Housing LINK for permission to repost this article:

In a dramatic move, Tottenham Hotspur FC have announced plans for a new property development on land that Haringey Council promised on 9 October to the developer Lendlease.

Spurs say they want to build 330 new homes and a new public square.  Here is their promotional website: LINK

While Spurs and Lendlease scrap over development sites West of the Spurs Ground, Spurs are losing out over service charges and access to land on the East side of their Stadium, under a separate Lendlease development.

Lendlease were awarded the High Road West site at a Haringey Council Cabinet meeting on 9 October. The Love Lane council estate is to be demolished, and 2,500 high-value new homes built in the area. Lendlease are also the developer on the Eastern side, via the Haringey Development Vehicle.

Cllr Alan Strickland, Haringey’s Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Regeneration, promised at a recent Cabinet Meeting to buy Spurs’ land at High Road West, using compulsory purchase orders if necessary.  Will that promise now be carried through, we wonder?

This is the second time that Spurs has appeared as a property developer in its own right in North Tottenham, while continuing to demand ‘Corporate Welfare’ for its new Stadium.

Spurs have a major interest in the Northumberland Park school and the housing estates on the East side of the football stadium, where they are not getting their own way at all.

Their problem is that they expect Corporate Welfare: facilities for free, with added public subsidy.

The Club has a 99 year lease on a makeshift outside broadcast facility in the grounds of Dukes’ Aldridge Academy school , formerly the Northumberland Park Community School.

Spurs has aspirations for a proper, dedicated outside broadcast media facility, and also a Fan Zone, where those without tickets can watch the game on supersize outdoor display screens, and buy food and drink, etc.

Haringey Council, via the proposed HDV, which is to be half-owned and 100% managed by the developer Lendlease, proposes to move the school from behind the Spurs Ground. It is proposed to decant residents from council housing at Haynes Close, Charles Bradlaugh House and Robert Burns House, then demolish those blocks, and then build a new school there (p 1024 of cabinet papers for 3 July 2017, Public Appendices, Items 9 & 10: LINK

This is all to help Spurs out, but would take several years at least. Spurs might be thwarted, even then. A Fan Zone is currently proposed at a new Paxton Square which ‘can provide a robust and flexible paved area that would operate as a fan zone during stadium matches or events’ (p 877).

But this is a tiny area, just a few yards across, pinched between the back of the stadium and new high rise housing blocks, which could be 20 or more stories high (see image on p 1020).  It is more like a Paxton postage stamp. It is not dedicated to Spurs, but would be a public square with other suggested uses as well as the fan zone.  Presumably, makeshift barriers would be needed on match days, and its capacity would be inadequate for Spurs’ needs.

Spurs’ hoped-for Outside Broadcast Space is just an ‘Optionality’ which is ‘associated with the regeneration of Northumberland Park’… ‘The HDV will work with Tottenham Hotspur FC to find a suitable design solution for their outside broadcast space requirements. During the 100 day launch programme HDV will and consider alternative design solutions [sic].’

Nothing too definite, nothing at all on the indicative ground plans, and nothing until after the HDV has been launched.  While the HDV plans to build housing blocks right up to the back of the new Stadium.

For Spurs to have the Fan zone and the outside broadcast space they wanted, some of the developer’s proposed high rise housing could not be built, in a ‘neighbourhood that will target young professionals and creatives who are seeking a vibrant and active place to own or rent in a higher density environment’ (p 875); and p 1024 suggests that new housing built on the school playing fields would include 140 homes for tenants and resident leaseholders moving from Haynes Close/Charles Bradlaugh/Robert Burns.

Spurs wants facilities which would deny to the developer some of their potentially most lucrative residential sites.

Spurs may also have to pay hefty service charges for extra security, refuse and crowd management costs in the public realm on match days (p 945). 

These charges are  something really new – although locals have long complained bitterly about the hidden costs and inconveniences of the Spurs games. 

Spurs have erred badly by  designing a stadium which does not have the external broadcast and external fan zone facilities which they actually need.

    What next?

Maybe Spurs are using their development plan in the West as a bargaining ploy to get what they want in the East.  Maybe they do really want to build in the West. 

But either way, it is the community that will lose out from housing demolitions, and from house price and rent increases, that will drive local people from the area.

    Spurs as both a Property Developer and Corporate Welfare client  

Spurs are already acting as a property developer at the 500 White Hart Lane scheme, which gained planning consent on the casting vote of the Chair of the Committee Cllr Natan Doron (who is a leading Spurs supporter) on 12/09/16 for 144 dwellings, as well as employment and retail spaces. LINK

This Freedom of Information Request deals with Public subsidy to Spurs LINK

We know that Spurs asked Haringey Council and the GLA for £30.5 million towards the cost of the podium at the front of the new stadium, and in April this year this money was seemingly about to be made available from dedicated housing funds: LINK

The Council has denied that the money was ever paid: LINK

Leaving unanswered questions: LINK

Now Duffy asks about missing councillor and 'jollies' from developers

This is part 2 of Cllr Duffy's correspondence with Cllr James Allie who will be chairing the Standards Committee tonight:

Dear James , 

Here is part two of my concerns please ensure the co-opted member are given a copy. Also if you are not the person or committee who deals with these issues please pass them on to the CEO with the questions as a FOI .

(A) Committee attendance 

James as a member of  the Labour group you are  probably aware that I have been left off committees for the past two years. You maybe also be aware that I won an election to be on scrutiny committee but was then removed and was not placed on any committee whatsoever this year. This is in-spite of the fact that attendance at committee meetings is very  low and the recommendation from the Penn report concerning the death of CIIr Oladapo (Tayo) said under 2.

What, if any, improvements the Council should implement"

(i)consideration should be given as to whether every member of the Council should sit on a sub- committee or committee as well as Full Council to improve the potential for attendance and thereby avoid the possibility of breaching the six months rule. This could also obviate the current practice of using the substitution arrangements to enable members to avoid breaching the six months rule". 

I know you have witnessed the exchange of emails between the Labour Party chief whip Cllr Kabir and myself about this issue of me being removed from all committees. Therefore you can imagine my surprise when just before full council meeting on  last Monday! Cllr  Kabir told me that she had put me on the Licensing committee replacing another councillor, without asking my permission or my availability .I informed Cllr Kabir that I would not stand as I believe it was just cover-up to hide the fact a councillor had moved out of Brent sometime previous  and she was not willing to attend any more meetings than the bare minimum. I also told Cllr Kabir I was not good enough  for the leadership to nominate me for any committee meetings in May,  therefore what had changed by September.

I was at the time and subsequently concerned that the Labour leadership are not being transparent to residents  that  I am being brought into a deception without my knowledge. Also in the Penn report it said "consideration should be given to the way in which ‘apologies for absence’ are managed. Currently there is no requirement for the member concerned to tender their apologies directly or personally as these can be tendered on their behalf by another member or an officer". 
I am concerned that the apologies are being managed by the Chief whip in a blanket fashion and do not relate absences due to illness or any other reason , just the unwillingness of a councillor  to travel to Brent.I  wonder if under standards you would be willing to start an investigation into 

(1) When did the councillor leave Brent?

(2) Was the CEO and the Head of Legal informed ?

(3) If not why not ?

(4) Did the CEO and HOL give any advice?

(B) Hospitality 

As you know there has been a  successful planning application for Tottenham Hotspurs to play at Wembley , many people suggested Tottenham got a good deal  and many local Cllrs objected to the conditions. I have been informed by  a member of the public  both the Leader of the council Cllr Butt and lead member for Regeneration and planning Cllr Tatler have received hospitality from Tottenham since the planning permission was granted. Whereas I have some understanding that we need to keep relations open with the Wembley and their tenant Tottenham,  However I  do not understand why the lead member for planning should participate in hospitality as this could seemingly bring  the planning system into disrepute , therefore I ask you to ensure both these councillors  and any others who have participated in Hospitality declare  the reasons why they were offered hospitality and did they check it with the CEO,before excepting also if you could enquire 

(1) How many tickets were received and value.

(2) Who attended the matches with them.

(3) Reason  for the hospitality ( sometimes its OK to look at an issue of say crowd control ,traffic management, or a new street cleansing practise. However  receiving hospitality should not just be for a "Jolly Boys outing@ for them and their family that is not acceptable)

(4) Can you also enquire whether any other Councillors , Officers or relative have received hospitally from Tottenham or Wembley stadium.

In my experience its best to keep clear of hospitality from developers as ' When you dance with a developer, its always to their tune". I hope you see that a declaration alone without reason is not enough, what we must consider is what the average man /women in the street would think, that is why I ask you to look at the issue.