Residents issue plea to Preston Ward councillors on Stadium planning application

Dear Cllrs Jean (Hossain), Matthew (Bradley) and Patricia (Harrison)

Please may we ask that you help us Preston ward residents (and residents and business friends across Brent). We really need your help.

You helped us in 2015 when we were faced with the London Welsh School's planning application to occupy the Bowls Pavilion in King Eddie's Park. (Very pleased to be able to inform you that we are in negotiations with Brent Council to finally finalise lease of this for much needed community space).

We have read the 44pg planning committee report and there is nothing to safeguard us Brent residents and local businesses. The document states "atmosphere" as being a key reason why Tottenham Hotspurs do not want less than 90,000 seats. This is not a material planning consideration. The works to the stadium access corridor have only partially been completed and we've been informed that the Council has spent all the £18million originally assigned to that. The report notes there will be no improvements to our road network during the period of this proposed temporary variation of condition. The Environmental Statement is far from robust.

We understand that works will commence at the Chesterfield House site likely end of this month. This 26 storey development will put added strain on an already congested Park Lane and High Road for the next few years. Without supporting infrastructure improvements, the high rise high density developments being granted permission are already and will further affect our road network; Impeding on our quality of life.

Cllr Jean - you and Cllr Sam attended the planning committee for the Chesterfield House site last year. The applicant sought to assign a huge portion of s106 monies to our King Eddie's Park, yet half our park was fenced off for over a year. A recent site visit showed the grass to be water logged. Quite simply we are not seeing the monies being spent on our Wembley resident needs. Friends of King Eddies Park  sent a series of emails to Parks and Regen, over many months, which I will forward on to you. Parks and Regen were very helpful, but it is alarming that it took such a lengthy period of time to complete the parks works. Whilst site visits to Barn Hill Park, Fryent Park, Gladstone Park and Woodcock Park show beautifully maintained public green spaces. Why is our King Eddie's park not in an equal state of kemptness?

Granting permission of this planning application would impede the quality of life of a wide reaching radius of Brent residents and local businesses. Our friends on Preston Road as well as Wembley High Road Business Association note that they also lose trade on Event Days.

There are known issues of anti-social behaviour, litter, alcohol consumption despite the whole of Wembley being a no alcohol zone. Our petition notes that "there were proven irregularities towards the implementation of effective control of traffic leaving the stadium by appointed CSP personnel causing heavier flows of vehicles within the vicinity, causing increased pollution and lessening quality of life. Observed drinking, urinating and defecating on residential streets, not only within Wembley but broader location."

Whilst we appreciate the many benefits our National Stadium affords us, Brent Council has a responsibility and duty of care to it's residents which it needs to safeguard. The committee report simply does not do this.

We, the little people, need your support. Please can you help us?

With kind regards
Denise
on behalf of Wembley Champions

Denise Cheong
Wembley Champions

Butt to speak at Wembley Stadium Planning Meeting

I understand that Cllr Butt, leader of Brent Council, has requested to speak on the Wembley Stadium planning application at Thursday's Planning Committee.

Although he is likely to claim that he is speaking in his capacity as a ward councillor for Tokyngton, the ward in which the stadium is situated, he is also leader of the Council.  The Planning Committee is supposed to be statutorily independent of the Council and cannot be whipped or directed to vote in a particular way.

However, when the Leader of the Council and the Labour Group makes his views known on a very controversial issue that has pitched Wembley Stadium, Tottenham Hotspur and Brent Council against residents and local businesses the question must arise as to whether this constitutes the potential exerting of undue influence on Committee members - especially Labour ones.

I await the response to a query I sent on this to the Brent CEO with interest.

Apparently there are many requests to speaks from residents and local businesses and a list is currently being drawn up. It is usual to give precedence to those who live nearest or who represent a group of residents such as a residents' association.

We will be very interested in who is allowed to speak and who is excluded...

Brent Council apologises for misinformation on Wembley Stadium planning application

I posted a story on Saturday about the incompetence surrounding the management of the Spurs/Wembley Stadium planning planning application to increase the number of events and increase the crowd capacity at the Stadium LINK 

Some residents who had made submissions on the application received the following email from Brent Regeneration and Growth.

You will recently have received two separate pieces of information about the planning application submitted by Wembley National Stadium Limited to vary the cap which restricts the number of major events held at Wembley Stadium. We wrote to you because you commented on the application, and we now want to let you know about the next steps in the process.  

The first communication, sent on 16th March 2017 by either email or letter was a repeat of an earlier consultation letter giving you 21 days to comment, rather than the committee notification letter. I do apologise for this and would like to reiterate that the consultation period has now closed – please disregard this communication.  

 The second communication stated that the Planning Committee will meet to consider the application on Thursday 23rd March 2017 is correct, however, the meeting will COMMENCE AT 6.30pm – not the usual Committee starting time of 7pm, as stated as the default time, in the communication sent on 17th March 2017.  

Please treat this as the correct information:  

That the above application 17/0368 will be heard at Planning Committee on Thursday 23rd March 2017 and the meeting will start at 18:30 / 6:30pm at Brent Civic Centre.

Please accept our apologies for any confusion this may have caused.

This still leaves the problem of the frequency of occasions when the Brent Planning Portal was down and the erroneous classification of Objections to the planning application as 'Neutral' to be addressed.

More residents associations oppose Spur's Wembley Stadium application

Wembley Park Residents' Association is oppposing the Spur's planning application to increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium. This is noteworthy as it covers many residents of flats recently built in the Quintain regeneration areas around the stadium.

Residents in Kings Drive, Wembley (next to the old Brent Town Hall) have added their voice to the objections:

Objection on behalf of Kings and Carmel Courts Residents' Association (170 Flats on Kings Drive Wembley)

Kings and Carmel Courts Resents' Association object to the planning application 17/0368 on the following grounds:

1) Parking: Kings Drive is in the Event Day Parking Zone and whilst the permits required to park in the road limit the cars parked on event days it is becoming apparent that more cars have permits during recent events. The number of cars parking is steadily increasing and the application does not address this important issue which impacts on the daily lives of those living on Kings Drive. Consideration should be given to permits having an expiry date and residents having to reapply to ensure that those parking are doing so on a valid permit. The cost of this must not be passed on to the local residents and should be borne by the Stadium or Council.

Kings Drive is already used for daily commuter parking, the new local schools and ASDA shoppers which impacts heavily on residents who wish to park close to their home. Event Day parking used to weed out these users allowing residents to park easily but this is no longer the case.

2) Anti-social behaviour: Kings and Carmel Courts have extensive gardens adjoining the corner of Forty Lane with Kings Drive. Fans use these private grounds to throw litter, picnic, drink and urinate in. This is unacceptable behaviour and furthermore the Leaseholders of Kings and Carmel Court then have to pay for the clean-up operation after event days. This is particularly bad when rival teams are playing against each other and customers from the Torch and local supermarkets selling alcoholic drinks sit along the walls and grass banks on Kings Court.

The planning application does nothing to address the disruption to local people yet it seeks to impose further disturbance and expense to residents.

Residents need to be protected from the invasion of drunk fans who have little care for other peoples' property and the Stadium/Council need to take responsibility protecting private property from trespassers and cover the cost of all associated cleaning.

Please note that Kings and Carmel Courts Residents' Association is known to Brent Council however it was not consulted on this proposal.

We are happy to meet with the Council or Stadium to suggest ways in which Event Days can be managed in an acceptable way to the residents of Kings and Carmel Courts.

Transport planner critiques Planning Officer's report on Spur's application

From the comments on Brent Council Planning Portal made by a local resident:
 

-->

I am a local resident and am a transport planner/modeller by profession (hence the detailed questions).

I strongly oppose this application and appeal to all on the committee to consider the people they are representing. I went to the community engagement session with the FA & Wembley Stadium (which was very POORLY advertised just fyi) and met the officials. They were quite blunt and open with the fact that this was a purely commercial deal for them. They struggled to explain any benefits to the local community, didn't propose any reasonable solutions (apart from improved signage) and at that point in time, the application documents were not online for my scrutiny.

The documents are now available and here are some comments and questions from me to the applicant and their consultant;

With reference to the Environment Statement, Chapter D (Transport):

D5.23 - I note that the applicant says there will be a 'negligible' effect on the London Underground. I would like to challenge that.

D5.20 says that events will take place outside peak hours on a weekday. This is usually kickoff at 7:45pm according to my knowledge of football. Earlier on in the chapter, it was found that spectators "make their way to the event 2 hours before" - this means between 5:45pm and 7:45pm i.e. the PM peak hours. I have personally been travelling home from work in the city in the PM peak hour during a midweek THFC match and to say additional midweek matches will have a negligible impact on the tube is grossly incorrect. There is no data or modelling or criteria that I can see that defines this 'negligible effect' conclusion. Have any station crowding, egress, ingress models been developed? Have any general Railplan model's been run? If so I would like to see the results and the accompanying criteria.

(And to echo other comments from neighbours, the LU network just about copes in the AM & PM peaks on normal days let alone weekday PM peak event days! The Transport Chapter emphasises the push for people to use PT to get to the games...but this is inherently flawed as the PT network is already heaving).

D5.28 - I quote: "However, as the period of time where Olympic Way will be congested will likely be limited to one hour and 30 minutes for an average of three additional days per month, it is considered that this is a negligible effect." The ingress 1hour 30minutes of congestion has been ignored here. This brings the total congestion to 3 hours per event. When we spoke to the Wembley Stadium rep at the community engagement session, they said there would be measures in place to allow this north/south movement for residents and locals to be improved. I have personally be stuck several times trying to just get from Lidl to my home.

D6.36 - "To promote and support the use of measures which reduce the need for travel, like video-conferencing and flexible working" - what? This doesn't really apply to Wembley Stadium spectators (and probably 90% of staff who need to be there physically!)

D.39 - You need to get Google Maps and Waze on board because lots of people use their phone applications for navigation rather than TomTom these days. Getting TomTom on board simply isn't enough.

There are no numbers to quantify the delays to buses and the local baseline traffic. Has modelling been undertaken and can I see the results, please?

The metric used in the ES to identify minor/major/adverse/beneficial isn't clear. Please provide this. We also need to see the empirical modelling evidence.

With the Brent/Quintain regeneration plans, the numbers are probably far higher than when Wembley Stadium got approval many years ago. This needs to be taken into account before any cap is lifted.

As a local resident and a transport planner, I am abhorred by this application. We manage as residents with the current number of event days as they are sporadic (maybe twice a month?) and varied. Regular football matches will change this completely. I won't repeat in detail what others have said about anti-social behaviour, litter, drunkenness, transport pressures, safety, children, no 'home' affiliation etc but I echo those points as well.

There is no mention of Chelsea wanting the stadium for 2018/2019 in this application but rumours are already going around about this. Approving THFC this would set precedent and it would be a disaster for the up-and-coming regenerated Wembley Park/Brent.

I urge the council to reject this application and to apply pressures to Wembley Stadium & THFC to mitigate the 50,000 spectator matches that are likely to still be held.

Residents, locals and family need to come above corporations, money and commercial pressures.

I and many other will be attending the committee meeting.
In addition to my previous comments on the Transport Statement, I wanted to add that if their current/old stadium has a capacity of around 36,000 and their new one is "only" going to seat around 61,000 they can surely manage with the current limit of 50,000.

Pure profit for a few at the detriment of a whole community and area is unjustifiable.

I have already raised my concerns regarding this application and the Environmental Statement in a previous comment.

I am trying to get hold of the case officer to raise the issue that none of us at Danes and Empire Court have received letters about this application. Brent Planning told me on the phone that 20,000 letters have been sent out to neighbours. We have over 300 flats on North End Road, less than 5 minutes walk from the stadium and we have NOT received letters about this application. I found out about this through curiosity and some Google searching about why Spurs were playing here this season, because of all the grief it was causing us.

The neighbourhood consultation closes in less than ONE week, and it is unacceptable that we were excluded from being informed about it. I appreciate there is no restriction in making a comment on here, but how are my neighbours supposed to make their comments if they HAVEN'T been informed about the application in the first place?

Unacceptable.

I look forward to hearing from the case officer, and to receiving letters from the Council/Applicant very soon. The neighbourhood consultation will probably need to be extended to allow residents on North End Road to comment.

Incompetence dogs Brent Council's management of Tottenham Hotspur's planning application

Confusion or incompetence has continued to dog the Spur's Wembley Stadium planning application which is due to be heard on Thursday.  Readers will already know that the Council's planning portal for this application has been down several times leaving residents unable to submit their applications, when it was working many 'Object' comments were classified as 'Neutral' by the software and had to be corrected, many residents claimed not to have received letters from the Council about the application.

 On Friday I received a letter from Regeneration and Growth posted on 16th March which told me that planning documents for the application should be available on the Council website by February 7th.  Later that day I received an emailed letter from Regeneration and Growth which included details about Thursday's meeting:

The application will be formally considered at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 23 March, 2017. The meeting will be held at Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ starting at 7.00pm. You are welcome to attend the meeting and listen to the proceedings. It is possible to speak to the Committee subject to the restrictions set out in the Council's Standing Order. These provide for one objector and/or one supporter of the application to speak. The Chair has the discretion to increase this to two people from each side. In doing this, the Chair will give priority to occupiers nearest to the application site or representing a group of people. To address the committee you must speak to Democratic Services at least one clear day before the meeting and arrive at the Brent Civic Centre at least 15 minutes before the meeting starts. Please telephone the Democratic Services Officer, Mr Joe Kwateng, on 020 8937 1354 during office hours. 

On the Council website Planning Committee agenda Mr Kwateng is given as the contact but no email or telephone number is given. LINK

The only problem with all this is that Mr Kwateng is on leave until Wednesday, the day before the meeting. Will a 9am phone call on Wednesday qualify as one clear day?  Additionally the Council website advertises the Planning Committee as starting at 6.30pm not 7pm. There is a pre-meeting for councillors at 6pm. When I emailed the officer named as the author of the letter about this discrepancy on Friday I got this response:

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I need to first identify what the correct time of the meeting is, and we will then send out clarification to all those who have been invited.

I have heard nothing further...

Remember, this is an application involving a Premier League football team and the country's National Stadium which will have a profound impact on the quality of life of local residents. Doesn't look good does it?

It now seems likely that, as with other Wembley planning applications that the Chair, Cllr Sarah Marquis, will step down on grounds of having an interest (Marquis represents residents in Barnhill ward which is close to the stadium) and her place will be taken by Cllr Agha (Welsh Harp ward).

An issue that emerged at today's residents' meeting with Barry Gardiner (MP for Brent North) is the claim that agreeing to remove the cap on attendance at stadium matches will be to the advantage of Brent Council and council tax payers because Tottenham will then be liable to pay for the additional policing and litter clearing involved. If the cap remains those costs for the 22 extra events will remain with the Council.  This is not a material planning consideration so will not come up on Thursday but clearly more detail on this would be of great interest to residents when they weigh up the pros and cons.

I have heard that Cllr Butt, Leader of Brent Council, and councillor for Tokyngton ward in which the stadium sits, wanted events to be capped at 61,000, the capacity of Tottenham's new stadium at White Hart Lane, but this was turned down by Tottenham:

The Council initially suggested that the maximum capacity of the proposed additional event is reduced to 61,000 (the capacity of the new stadium at White Hart Lane). However, the applicant was not willing to propose reduction as this would result in a part-full stadium with only parts of the upper tier being occupied by fans, which they did not consider would achieve an appropriate atmophere(sic). Instead, following discussions with Council Officers, the total number of additional high capacity (up to 90,000 people) events has been reduced from 31 to 22 in order to reduce the number of instances where additional impact will occur.

I understand that the deadline for Tottenham to sign up for the stadium deal is at the end of March so things are looking very tight, especially as the many omissions and claimed lack of due diligence in the officers' report as well as the problems referred to above, could give grounds for the Committee to defer the application.

It is clear that mitigation of the impact on residents will feature on Thursday and there are likely to be demands for strict conditions to be attached to any planning consent regarding crowd control, traffic regulation, public transport over-crowding (including actual trains rather than just station access and egress), effective policing - including enforcement of the drinking ban, provision of temporary public toilets, and clean up of local streets after events (not just those nearest the stadium).

It is interesting to note that the Metropolitan Police made no comment on the planning application but the British Transport Police raised concerns based on the increased number of supporters compared to Tottenham's existing ground. They cited the number of away fans and the potential extra policing requirement was estimated at £58.3k.

Brent Planners recommend approval of Spurs' bid to increase number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium

Brent Planning Committee will decide the application to increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium on Thursday March 23rd. The planners recommend approval 'on balance' and in the face of opposition from local residents and Barry Gardiner MP and Bob Blackman MP. After discussions the number of additional major events proposed has been reduced from 31 to 22. The planning commitee will be held at the earlier time of 6.30pm at Brent Civic Centre.

This is the officers' conclusion:

-->

123.    The objections received indicate that there is a level of impact currently experienced by events at the stadium. Comments received suggest that these mainly fall under the headings of anti-social behaviour and transport. Some impacts are expected, as it is a large stadium in a location with residents and businesses nearby.

124.    Additional events can take place at the stadium irrespective of the outcome of the application. However, those events that are beyond the existing cap would be limited to a capacity of approximately 51,000.

125.    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 will be a variant of this. 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, and any further impact associated with the additional events must therefore be assessed.

126.    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 for 12 months. In addition, following discussions the number of additional major events has also been decreased from 31 to 22, which would reduced the number of instances within which those impacts are apparent over that 12 month period.

127.    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.

128.    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 year, 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.

129.    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.

130.    The proposal is, on balance, recommended for approval. 

Full Report HERE

Barry Gardiner MP to meet with residents on Wembley Stadium controversy - Saturday

Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) has arranged to meeting with residents concerned about the potential impact of the proposal to increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium. The application goes to Planning Committee on Thursday March 23rd.

The meeting will take place at St Cuthbert's Church 214 Carlton Ave West Wembley HA0 3QY on Saturday at 10.30am.

Capacity is limited (unlike the Stadium) to the first 30 residents or representatives to respond by emailing this blog with name/s at martinrfrancis@virginmedia.com (I will pass on to the organiser) or commenting on the NextDoor website LINK 

 

182 bus stops nearby

Barn Hill Residents comprehensively oppose Wembley Stadium planning application

This is the submission made by the Chair of Barn Hill Residents Association (BHRA) to the Planning Department on the Spurs bid  to hold more events and lift the capacity cap at Wembley Stadium:

Planning Application ref: 17/0368

Wembley Stadium

We wish to make the following comments on this Application:

Proposed variation of Condition 3

Condition 3 of the original Wembley Stadium Planning Consent has not yet been fully complied with.  This Condition restricts the number of full capacity events at the Stadium until various transport improvements have been put in place. These include the upgrade of one section of road within the Wembley Industrial Estate which requires the purchase of a significant amount of land. This purchase has not yet taken place, despite Wembley Stadium having given Brent Council millions of pounds to facilitate these works.

We believe that until such time as these works are completed in their entirety, this Application should be refused.

It is not at all clear why the Stadium feels the need to increase the number of full capacity Event Days. There is no restriction on the number of events using only the lower and middle tiers of the Stadium which can accommodate up to a total of 51,000 spectators. 

The pretext for increasing the number of Event Days is that Tottenham Hotspur will be using the Stadium from 1^st August 2017 until 31^st July 2018 while their own stadium is being rebuilt.

However, Tottenham’s current average home attendance of 36,824 falls well short of the capacity figure of 51,000 for normal Event Days. The 31 additional planned events could therefore go ahead without any variation to the existing planning consent.

Although this proposal purports to be a temporary arrangement to accommodate Tottenham, we strongly suspect that, if approved, it would pave the way for Chelsea Football Club to use the

Stadium for a further three years while their stadium is also being rebuilt.

Proposed removal of Condition 33

We do not agree with the lifting of this Condition as we believe that many fans of Tottenham will travel to Wembley via the North Circular Road despite it already being heavily used and subject to constant traffic jams.

Other issues

We believe that Brent Council is not fully taking into account the detrimental impact that approving this Application would have on the local environment and residents. Even without any increase in the frequency of matches and the numbers of spectators, it is evident that Police resources are totally inadequate when it comes to enforcing the law on match days. 

In flagrant disregard of the regulations in the local Controlled Drinking Zone, there is widespread and excessive consumption of alcohol in the streets, especially when large numbers of fans are turned out of the local hostelries one hour before kick-off, while Police officers look on, apparently powerless to act.

This inevitably leads to the public nuisance of widespread urination not just in the streets but also in residents’ gardens, or even behind the Civic Centre.

The other unwelcome by-product of match days is the sea of litter left behind in the streets.  Fans discard food packaging with impunity, an offence which in other circumstances might attract a fine of £80. Sadly, Veolia (Brent Council’s contractor) are failing to maintain their previous standards of rubbish collection.   

This is to say nothing of the massive disruption suffered by local residents in many other ways on Event Days, what with overcrowded buses and trains making normal travel by public transport very difficult, and parking restrictions inconveniencing family and social events in residents’ own homes. 

Any increase in Event Days would seriously impact the right of residents to the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their properties.  In addition, other local activities would increasingly have to be curtailed at short notice, with venues such as church halls suffering a serious loss of income.

I believe that, before attracting ever larger crowds to Wembley on match days, measures should be taken to alleviate existing problems, whether that involves a large increase in Police resources or perhaps the Council reviewing the licences of local pubs.

Local residents suspect that designating many more match days as full Event Days when this is not warranted by the likely numbers attending, is a kind of 'Trojan Horse' strategy to increase the full Event Days to 68 on a long-term basis, to continue long after Chelsea and Tottenham have returned to their rebuilt stadiums.

If, as we have been told, the local Police already have insufficient resources to enforce the widely-flouted ban on drinking in the streets around the Stadium, what hope is there that they would be able to cope with extra Event Days?

Even if there were to be no increase in Event Days, we strongly believe that extra Policing is essential and suggest that the costs should be borne jointly by Wembley Stadium and the clubs involved.

For the reasons given above, we strongly object to this Application.

Cllr Duffy's view on Spurs Wembley Stadium application

Back in December 2016 Cllr John Duffy warned fellow councillors about the Wembley Stadium planning application that would increase the number of events and lift the capacity cap.

All Brent Councillors,

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

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

Firstly you have to consider does Brent want Wembley Stadium to be a home ground for a Premier League Club and do we want the extra congestion, nuisance and general disruption. Unless we get real investment  from the FA, Premier League and Spurs, I believe the answer is NO.

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

Earlier Duffy had written to Labour Group councillors in more detail:

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

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

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

(1) Environmental improvement.
I would expect extra resources( to many options to go into) plus investment into plant. I have not looked at other Boroughs but I am aware of some who get a massively enhanced service for match day.

(2) Parking.
Increased protection/enforcement of the neighbouring area.

(3) Sports Education.
Ensure Investment in equipment and sports teaching in our schools including visits from football stars.Its important both the FA and PremierLeague show their commitment to grass roots football.

(4) Community Support .
Financial support for community activities,including , local R/As ,St Patricks day,Eid and Navratri and maybe support for local group who participate in the Notting Hill Carnival.

(5) Employment strategy.
Ensure that Brent residents get their fair share of any new jobs/ training arising from  the extra games. Also local firms should get a fair share of the increased supply chain for contracts

(6) Compensation for local Business and residents.
Whereas the some businesses will benefit many other will lose (who would travel to Wembley to shop on a match day) so its important we look at high street improvements. The new games coming to Wembley will not only be on a Saturday they will included Sundays and weekdays at various kick off times.

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

It would seem that some of the cabinet wish to treat the FA, The Premier League and Tottenham Hotspur  as " partners" whereas I see them them as people who wish to make a lot of money while using the facilities of  Brent which I have no problem with. However I believe this should be reflected in how we support our residents.So hopefully the cabinet have an agreed strategy about what we need from the richest sport in the world and the most famous football venue in the world.

    And Brent should not be short changed for all the inconvenience 

Rubbishy aftermath of Sunday's Spurs match at Wembley Stadium

This is published with the permission of the author who outlined the impact of the recent Tottenham match.  First published the website NextDoor:

This morning after Sunday's event I got my picker stick out, didn't need a carrier bag as one had thoughtfully been left in my hedge and started picking up the rubbish left by yesterdays fans. I had 3 beer cans, three coffee cups, Lucozade bottle, 2 cigarette packets, a half eaten sandwich, half a kebab left in it's box and a half filled plastic beer mug. 

All this was strewn alongside my hedge or in my front garden. I also had a large black plastic bag half filled with beer cans left on the corner of my property, which I suppose is better than being left individually. So from 2 events in one week I've collected two carrier bags full of rubbish and a black plastic bag full of beer cans. Living on a corner I've collected all this just from the front and alongside my property. And this is only outside one house a stone's throw away from the stadium. So much for Brent's extra rubbish collections on event days!

PS I don't get this usually from American football fans or concert goers, only football supporters.

PPS No I don't dislike football, I support a club, it's just football attracts the worst fans and sadly it's football fans that are going to be coming to all these extra events.

Maybe if this is going to be the norm I should ask Brent Council to supply me with plastic bags.

 

Dodgy goings on with Spurs application to increase events & capacity at Wembley Stadium?

Residents have been in contact about two aspects of the on-line consulation on removal of the cap on the number of events held at Wembley Stadium and more full capacity events LINK.

The first is the fact that on at least two occasions the link has been unavailable clearly affecting the public's ability to comment.

The second is puzzlement that submissions by the public that clearly object to the proposal are classifed as 'Neutral' - see below:

Please see comments below one of which suggest that if you do not choose Support, Object, or Neutral when submitting a comment online the system defaults to Neutral to the Neutral category. If this has happened to your comment it might be worth contacting the Planning Officer to state your position.

4 Park Lane, Wembley, HA9 7RZ (Neutral)

I strongly object to the proposals. It would add to the traffic gridlocks, sometimes hooting of horns late in the evening - not to mention increased air pollution! And difficulty using public transport. Also, residents having the nuisance of having to plan theirs lives around the events. The behaviour of hooligans is also unbearable - I came home once to find a brick had been thrown through my bathroom window! A small tree got broken in half once on an event day - and then there is urinating everywhere. And parking becomes impossible of corse. - As the stadium is a national stadium it should not be used for anything else. - I therefore strongly object to the variation of condition 3 and the removal of condition 33 of 17/0368.

8 Village Mews, London, NW9 8SZ (Neutral)

I strongly object to this and don't think residents have been taken into consideration here.

Roads are already highly congested and Brent should be thinking about minimizing this instead of making matters worse. Whether I drive or take public transport on an event day my journey time is doubled sometimes tripled. I am unable therefore to travel within the local vicinity on event days.

Looking at other comments it is clear there is strong opposition, so it is hoped you take these concerns into consideration and think again of the impact this will have to residents, roads, traffic and the environment.

15 Hillside Drive, Edgware, HA8 7PF (Neutral)

We live and work very near to Stanmore and Cannons Park Underground Station, the A41 and the M1 Edgware exit. Whenever there is any event on at Wembley Stadium, the whole area grinds to a halt. The roads become impassable and journeys around this area almost impossible. There is just not enough space for the amount of cars on the road to travel or the availability of parking places. Together with the noise and nuisance levels of hundreds of various football or rugby fans, the request for additional events is unacceptable for the residents living anywhere near Stanmore or Cannons Park Underground stations or the M1/A41 or A1. If there are visiting fans from the North of England, then the additional traffic on the M1 turns the area to one large car park - absolutely nothing moves and a 10 minute journey can turn into an hour.

We already have to contend with additional traffic and congestion when there are any events on at Allianz Park in Copthall Stadium Mill Hill and any events at The Hive in Edgware.

Therefore we strongly object to any additional usage of Wembley Stadium and to any football club having their games held there or having a residency there.

68 Beverley Gardens, Wembley, HA9 9RA (Neutral)

'Condition 3' was put in place for a reason - to prevent local residents from suffering the great disruption and inconveniences caused to local residents when up to 91,000 people descend on Wembley Stadium. Yet it is now proposed that an extra 31 such events are allowed to take place. And not just any events, but football matches, with their supporters, some of whom have a tendency towards rowdiness, drunkenness and anti-social behaviour.

WNSL has tried to say that it will try to mitigate any problems by 'working closely' with TfL and the Met Police etc. But with a large football crowd those problems can only be 'managed' not removed completely. On match days, residents will still have problems getting home (or leaving it) by train or car, problems picking up their children from school, problems accessing the Civic Centre, or be unable to have friends round.

I therefore object to this application. At the very least, THFC matches should be restricted to 50,000 seats. After all, their existing stadium only accommodates 36,800 and their new one will only be a 61,000 seater.

I also feel that by allowing this application for THFC to use the Stadium, a precedent will have been set that will allow future applications to be 'nodded through'.

49 Linden Avenue, Wembley, HA9 8BB (Neutral)

I feel that the application is not pragmatic to the overall functions of Wembley. I believe that the current situation is bad enough and does not need to be exacerbated any further. There is enough congestion in Wembley on event days. We as residents of Wembley do not feel any benefit from the stadium events. We feel that we are made to surrender our parking spaces to people who do not live in Wembley. We cannot have visitors around because of the congestion. Life in Wembley is already bordering on depressing. Please do not make it worse. I strongly object!

99 Grasmere Avenue, Wembley, HA9 8TG (Neutral)

This area is already very busy and too much traffic.

I object.

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS THURSDAY MARCH 2ND

Wembley residents rise up against Spurs plans for increased matches and capacity

Traffic flow: Red-not good, Yellow-slow, Green-OK (16.51 Feb 21st)

After a poorly attended and advertised consultation event at Challkhill Community Centre earlier this month, attended by Tottenham Hotspur and the Football Association, it appeared that there would be little opposition to plans to increased the number of major and full capacity events at the Stadium during Spurs' tenure:

 As approved, [planning] condition 3 stated that for two years following completion of the stadium, subject to the completion of specific improvement works to Wembley Park Station and construction of roads known as Estate Access Corridor and Stadium Access Corridor, the number of major sporting events held at the stadium in any one year was restricted to no more than 22 (to exclude European Cup and World Cup events where England/UK is the host nation), and the number of major non-sporting events to 15. After this, additional events over and above this were permitted subject to the number of spectators being limited to the capacity of the lower and middle tiers of the stadium. 

The proposal would allow for up to an additional 31 major sporting Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) events between 1 August 2017 and 31 July 2018. A major event (which may or may not include THFC) would be considered to be an event in the stadium bowl with a capacity in excess of 10,000 people

A glance at the consultation page LINK now shows that opposition is building. Most of the objections centre on the impact on the quality of life of nearby residents of increased number of events and capacity in terms of traffic density and pollution, crowded buses, overground and tube lines - basically a curtailment of residents' freedom to move easily around their own area. A particular concern is congestion between Forty Lane/Wembley Park, Wembley Hill Road and Wembley High Road where traffic often grinds to a halt.   Other concerns are over littering and the alleged anti-social behaviour of Spurs fans.  In answer to the suggestion that 'you have chosen to live near a major international stadium - it goes with the territory' residents respond that they acknowledge the contribution the stadium makes to the vitality of the area, a reasonable amount of disruption is to be expected but that these proposals go too far and breach undertakings previously given.

I sense that there are wider concerns underpinning some of the objections. Residents feel out of control of the development of their locality and, moreover, that when they do express a view they are ignored. Residents are pitted against an alliance of the Football Association, anxious to maximise income to pay off the costs of the new Wembley Stadium, Spurs keen to finance their new stadium, US owned Quintain  wanting to maximise profit from what increasingly looks like speculative and unfettered development and Brent Council wanting to maximise income to make up for the local government cuts imposed by central government.

Brent Council fails to champion the needs and interests of local residents and instead is an ally of the football and developer 'big boys'.  This was not helped recently when Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, and Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, took part in Quintain's public relations blitz over the Tivi private rent build at Wembley Park  - ignoring the fact that the apartments are in no way affordable to local people.


How can the Council make balanced decisions on behalf of residents if they are firmly in the arms of Spurs, the FA and Quintain? How can Sadiq Khan make balanced decisions using his call-in powers over major developments?

I publish below just one of the contributions to the consultation site. Consultation closes on March 2nd 2017.

-->

1. There is already substantial disruption to the area surrounding Wembley Stadium caused by the large numbers of people that descend on the area, especially during football matches. It stands to reason that almost doubling the number of events would result in a substantial INCREASE in disruption to the immediate and surrounding areas.

2. When football events are held at Wembley Stadium, fans do not respect the area, local shopkeepers or residents, leaving the area considerably dirty with excessive littering that isn't cleared up for several days following any event.

3. Traffic disruption caused by events is already difficult to bear, both in the immediate Stadium area and in adjacent areas such as Kingsbury, Blackbird Hill, A406, etc. The area and the existing road transport infrastructure just cannot cope with more events. Brent Council has failed to improve this - there's no money left.

4. Public transport is not usable on match days. Trains are packed (i.e. passengers cannot get on trains until matches have started) and fans are often drunk or behave badly (personally witnessed a drunk fan urinating on a Jubilee line platform). Regular users of public transport are shut out by hoards of fans who don't really show any consideration for local residents using public transport regularly. Over 50% of visitors to Wembley Stadium events (higher for football events) use LUL and Mainline Rail services - the existing infrastructure can barely cope on non-event days, let alone on event days.

5. The report states that THFC fans are "generally well behaved with no history of regular fan related violence at home or away over the past 10 years in domestic and European competition." This is simply INCORRECT. See here: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/429227/football-hooligan-racism-abuse-chelsea-tottenham-wembley-tube-station-capital-one-cup
I do not wish to have more events that create opportunities for further bad behaviour, especially for fans that have no affinity for Wembley or consider this their "home" base.

6. Air quality - all air quality monitoring locations are some distance away from the stadium, presumably to skew the results and provide a favourable outcome for THFC. It would be better if some monitoring sites were closer to the stadium.

7. Noise pollution - I simply disagree with the assessment that because the proposed changes are only for a year or so, the increase in overall noise pollution should be borne by residents. This is just silly. More events = more noise. There's no justification for that. The absence of mitigates beyond "continued monitoring" is equivalent to kicking the can down the road when nobody will pay attention. Locals are not stupid so show greater consideration please.

8. The assessment of the effects of the proposed changes (Socio-economics: moderate beneficial; Transport: minor adverse; Air Quality: Not significant; Noise: negligible) and the judgement of their cumulative effects as "no change" is purely subjective. There is simply no empirical evidence carried out by INDEPENDENT assessors to verify these. If you are paying the so-called experts (for the avoidance of doubt, Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners is acting on behalf of the applicant), of course they'll give you the answer you want! Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Furthermore, the additional creation of c.31k jobs is highly speculative and there is no guarantee that these would be filled by local residents or if there's any local benefit whatsoever. Many of the companies used to provide catering and stewarding services bring in staff from other areas of London/the UK so there's NO BENEFIT whatsoever to the local economy.

9. The benefits of the proposed changes do not pass onto local residents. c.67% of the anticipated additional expenditure would be on travel and transport in getting to/from the stadium. Only 1/3 of the anticipated benefits would likely accrue to the local area, of which Wembley Stadium would stand to gain a large share. I'd be interested to learn more about how the £43.5m and £14.5m figures area arrived at and the assumptions behind them which, interestingly, are nowhere to be found in the report(s) made available.

10. Brent Council should conduct its own in-depth report to verify each and every claim made by the applicant. This should be made available to all Brent residents to read and then make their own minds up.

I would also highly recommend holding a public meeting for residents to ask questions of the applicant and the Council before a decision is made.

Then of course there is the expectaion that Chelsea will follow Tottenham at Wembley - the precedent will have been set.