Wembley Stadium - what might have been

 A Wembley Stadium centenary guest snippet from local historian Philip Grant.

 

 

Euro 1996 football fans, heading for the future! (Image: Foster & Partners)

 

It’s 1996, and Wembley is staging the final games in the Euros football tournament. But the original stadium, built in 1923 for the British Empire Exhibition is showing its age, and it has been agreed that it needs to be replaced.

 

In April 1996, the “go ahead” Brent Council had launched its masterplan for the redevelopment of the area around the stadium, with improved public transport links and parking facilities, and more public open space around the stadium to improve pedestrian circulation. At the centre of this new Wembley Park would be ‘a world class Wembley Stadium for the 21^st century’, designed by Foster and Partners for the English National Stadium Trust.

 

The logo of the old Wembley Stadium, up to 2000. (Image: Wembley Stadium Ltd)

 

But, of course, you could not demolish the iconic “twin towers”. They had been made a Grade II listed heritage asset in 1976, and English Heritage said that they must be retained. Many football fans, and many in the press and general public, agreed.

 

The stand-alone “twin towers”, in front of the new “Wembley Wave” stadium. (Image: Foster & Partners)

 

Sir Norman Foster’s solution was to demolish the rest of the old stadium, and move the twin towers northwards, by around 100metres, towards Wembley Park Station. They would still provide a gateway to the stadium precinct for spectators coming up Olympic Way, but moving them would create the space for the pitch to be turned through 90º, so that it would get the best natural light.

 

The new stadium would have a fully retractable roof, supported by a metal framework running above the top of its outer walls, and dubbed the “Wembley Wave”. It would seat 80,000 spectators for football and rugby matches, and 75,000 for athletics events (the track would be under retractable seating). The external skin of the stadium would provide a giant screen, on which pictures could be projected.  

 

The new stadium lit up at night, with a large open space to its north-east. 

 (Image: Foster & Partners)

 

Those pictures could include moving images for the benefit of spectators outside the stadium, in a large square to the north-east of the new Wembley. This open space would allow fans to circulate more freely around the stadium, and avoid congestion, both before and after matches or concerts. 

 

As we all know, this is not the new stadium Wembley actually got, in 2007. I think there are parts of the 1996 design, including the extra public space around the stadium, which would have been an improvement! [Others, like moving the “twin towers”, were probably impractical.] What do you think?

 

Philip Grant
(With thanks to Paul, for the pictures)

 

 

The new face of Wembley revealed in the view from Barn Hill

 

The tower blocks around Wembley Stadium, from Barn Hill

The 'Twin Towers' on former Chesterfield House site (Park Lane/Wembley High Road) and new blocks being squeezed in next to the Chiltern Line, from Barn Hill

 

There's quite an audience for old sepia photographs of Brent and its various 'villages'. I wonder of these might be looked back on with nostalgia one day with attention drawn to the Metroland houses in the foreground, that have long-since been demolished and replaced by more tower blocks?

What's going on and off Wembley High Road? Latest photographs and some questions

From our very local correspondent

Elizabeth House work is almost complete except for a few bits on the ground floor, all the scaffolding has gone and cladding replaced.

Next door, Wembley Place (old Brent House site) was completed and signed off in Easter 2020, although no one moved in until October 2020 and that was just the Social Housing portion.  There are two retail outlets on the Ground Floor, Costa Coffee, and a Sainsbury's Local.  It was not long after Sainsbury's had been shopfitted and ready for opening that scaffolding went up outside and around various parts on the ground floor.  On asking residents and Sainsbury's recently as to why it's there, nobody seems to know!  I have never witnessed anyone working on any parts.  Rumours abound.  1) that balconies glass is not safe? 2) some cladding bricks were loose and falling off?  No one really seems to know, perhaps you can do some detective work?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our three trees have been removed from the Triangle and replaced with some large wooden planters?  What's that about?

 

Last week I saw several workmen digging out the places where trees once were on the High Road to install new ones!!! Obviously of the right kind???? and it would appear that Brent have added some new Urban Art in Electric Orange colour warning Paan Spitters that they could be fined £100.  Interestingly I spoke to Brent  Enforcement Officer  who said despite working for them for 3 years and Paan Spitting being one of his big bug bears like the rest of us, no matter that he has tried relentlessly he has never been able to catch a perpetrator in the act. LOL.  I think it mostly happens at night.

 

 

Behind the Twin Towers (developer's name 'Uncle and the site of Chesterfield House) two more blocks are going up, one of 17 storeys and 1 of 19, being constructed by Henrys (same as twin towers) with same developer "Squarestone Hub"  I think on planning it's listed as the Wembley Link, you will see from photos they continue to build on the Chiltern railway cutting as it has been purchased by them.  The view from the back of my house shows that they have built in front of the gap between the twin towers which will definitely obscure most of the sunlight when it sets in the West.  It's funny because these towers are directly behind Daniels, Nando's etc and cannot be seen if you are  on  the High Road at all.  

 

Uncle have at least 4 retail units which they appear to be struggling to let.  I have not seen any activity in any of them, perhaps they are too expensive to lease, and also they will require a full shopfit which is not cheap.  I'm surprised that one of the Coffee lot haven't taken one of them but considering there are now 3 Costa's in Wembley plus one next door called Chico Nero, and then Shakes and Bagel's across the road, perhaps too much competition.

 

On another note, what happened to the Community Centre supposed to be located at Ground Floor Level of Uncle, under the 21 storey tower.  I noticed it's now occupied by a company called Little Village which is a foodbank come recycling clothes for babies and toddlers? I  couldn't get access and couldn't find anyone to talk to.

 

Also their landscaping is looking past its sell by date, isn't planning supposed to monitor that, to ensure it's kept up to date?

 

Quintain's Build to Let estate rebadged as 'Quintain Living'

The initial 'revolutionary' marketing strategy.

Quintain, the major developer of Wembley Park, has announced that from October 5th its Build to Rent properties will be marketed as Quintain Living, rather than  Tipi.

Its image thus moves more towards selling a life style rather than independence from dodgy private landlords.

The life style approach can be seen here:

At the same time Quintain announced the appointment of a new chief operating officer for their estate. She is Danielle Bayless who is the vice president of operations for California based Essex Property Trust which has 23,000 properties.

In a further and perhaps relevant development reliable sources have told Wembley Matters that the new properties at Brent House in Wembley High Road appear to be unoccupied.  Just up the road are the many properties in the 'Twin Towers' which the developer is attempting to market under the friendly sounding 'Uncle' name.

How on earth did this monster get planning permission? Wembley's new 'Twin Towers'

With the closure of Park Lane causing traffic jams and bus diversions around Wembley High while utilities are connected to the 'Twin Towers' on the Chesterfield House site, residents are asking new questions about how such a huge building was given planning permission.

The 15 storeys that can be seen in the video are not the finished building - there are 11 more storeys to go on the highest of the two towers. This is just 3 short storeys short of the controversial West Hendon building that can be seen from all over the area and dominates the Barnet end of the Welsh Harp.

The building was given permission by 4 votes in favour, 2 against and 2 abstentions on the Brent Planning Committee of the time. The then Chair of the Planning Committee, Cllr Sarah Marquis, voted against the scheme.

People are asking, 'How can just four people make such a big decision?' The Committee of course operates on just a simple majority basis so this legally was sufficient. However if the abstentions had voted against the scheme it might have been turned down on the Chair's casting vote.

Councillors of course are not the only people involved and the recommendation of planning officers is crucial.  This is what they had to say.

The original drawing - since permission was granted new applications have been made for building behind the Twin Towers alongside the railway line

There were hundreds of objections to the development from local residents and the controversy rumbled on Council leader Muhammed Butt's  'dinners with developers' . The then Labour councillor for Kilburn, John Duffy;  Conservative leader John Warren, and Philip Grant all took up the issue fearing too cosy a relationship between the council leader and developers. SEE LINK, LINK, LINK,

It's too late for any modification now - the planning committee decision is literally 'set in concrete', but perhaps there are lessons to be learnt for future developments.

Wembley's 'Twin Towers' 11 storeys up - 15 more to come!

Shoppers in Wembley High Road, football fans and of course local residents can't fail but notice Wembley's 'Twin Towers' rising on the Chesterfield House site at the corner of the Wembley High Road. What they may not realise is that with 11 or so storeys completed that there are another 15 to be built.

It is going to be a monster.

The 'Twin Towers' encountered tremendous opposition at the planning stage and were approved on the vote of only four councillors on Brent Planning Committee. There were 4 votes for the development, 2 against and 2 abstentions.  Details HERE.

Tell Wembley Matters what you think about the Copland School & Ujima House redevelopment

I was unable to attend Saturday's consultation on the Copland School and Ujima House redevelopments as i was at the Green Party Conference but I expect attendance was not great because of the Wembley Stadium Event on the same day.

I went along on Thursday and there seemed to be better attendance from Brent councillors and the developer's PR team than the general public.

This video, taken from the upper floors of Ujima House, shows the current state of the Copland School site with demolition almost complete and demonstrates the size of the site. The new building of Ark Elvin Academy (successor to Copland) can be seen behind the site. The enormous black cube is the Ark Elvin Sports Hall.

This video shows the buildings on the Wembley High Road between Park Lane and Wembley Triangle. On the left of the screen is the Twin Towers building that is currently under construction and behind them to the right are Hub's planned two new tower blocks beside the railway line. At the centre on the other side of the road is the building on the Copland site which is much closer to the road that the schoolwas. Copland had some green space there and mature trees. Neither are shown on the model which was a matter of concern for residents on Thursday. There appeared to be space for a few saplings.

The building replacing Copland has some internal open space which developers said the public could access and the two new towers behind Chesterfield House have a green walk. The impression is given of many trees but these will clearly take a long time to grow into anything substantial.

As this is a Brent Council development I asked about the amount of truly affordable housing in the development (ie London Living Rent rather than 80% of market rent) but was told this was still to be decided - things are at an early stage.

I would welcome comments from those who went to the consultation and those who didn't about these proposals and so will the developers: 


These are the exhibition boards. Click on bottom right corner to enlarge to full size.

Invitation to comment on HUB's plans for Chiltern Rail/High Road site

Following yesterdays post on the new blocks planned for the site alongside the  Chiltern railway behind Wembley High Road and the Chesterfield House development LINK I have received this email from Kaizan Partnership who are handling the Hub's public engagement:

Dear Wembley Matters

I am contacting you as part of the community engagement for a new proposed development called Wembley Link.

Very often community members feel that they are not consulted about development in their area and so we are making an extra effort to reach out to the wider community and are hoping that you will share this email and the attached flyer with your network, so they can see the emerging designs and give their feedback on them.

The Wembley Link site is a piece of land, alongside the railway line behind Wembley High St, close to the junction with Park Lane. It is next to the former Chesterfield House where HUB are currently constructing a new building. This part of Wembley is within a Housing Zone identified by the Mayor as suitable for ‘higher density’ housing. The buildings would provide about 250 new homes as well opening up the area around them which would  be a new public green space for the whole local community.

HUB are committed to working with the local community to ensure that the ‘Wembley Link’ scheme reflects local ambitions and contributes to positive development for the area. HUB have had a relationship with this area and the local community over many years through the process of designing and now building Chesterfield House and now look forward to continuing this relationship with Wembley Link.

The design team for Wembley Link have been working up plans for the 2 new buildings with public space and you can see the emerging designs here.

HUB are really keen to hear your feedback on the emerging designs – to understand what you like and don’t like so that this can be taken on board to improve the designs before they submit them to planning. The consultation will close on July 16th so please do have a look and tell us what you think.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very best wishes

Jonny

Jonny Zander​ Director Kaizen Partnership

Consultation on more blocks behind Chesterfield House 'Twin Towers' closes on July 16th

Consultation is taking place on the building of two blocks, one of 16 storeys and another 18 storeys, behind the 'Twin Towers' (26 and 21 storey) replacement for Chesterfield House at the junction of Park Lane and Wembley High Road.

The consultation closes on July 16th. The buildings will be behind the shops on the High Road and bordered by the Chiltern railway line.  The designers make great play of a green 'Wemba Forest' corridor  around the blocks, name after Wemba who cleared a space (lea) in the forest in the area. Forest is perhaps a rather grand name for what is planned behind the shops but the artist's impression is extremely imaginative to say the least. Across the railway line there is a wooded embankment and the 2 storey houses of Park Court that will now be overlooked by four tower blocks.

I have published the design brochure below and the consultation  survey can be found HERE
Click lower right corner for full size version

London Mayor's Deputy approved 'Twin Towers' two days before election

It has emerged that Sir Edward Lister, Deputy Mayor and Chief of Staff of the then London Mayor, Boris Johnson, decided not to intervene in the 'Twin Towers' development on the site of Chesterfield House, Park Lane, Wembley. just two days before the GLA election.

The borough's decision was subject to a Stage 2 referral to the Mayor's Office.

This was one of several decisions made in the last few weeks of the previous administration.

Has the time come for a Brent Planning for People Forum?

The above statement was made by Brent Council in response to a discussion on the London Live TV channel on  the Lucozade Powerleague proposals for Kingsbury High School.

It has been received with some cynicism by local campaigners who have been at the receiving end of decisions made by the Planning Committee.

Reporting regularly on planning issues from Wembley Matters I have repeatedly seen residents go along to Planning Committee in the belief that their objections to applications will be taken seriously, only to come out having given their 2 minute speech, listened to the often barely audible proceedings, angered that the Committee had then tamely voted in favour of the developer.

Residents are now realising that the time has come to make links with others in the same predicament.

Recently there have been some more independent decisions by the Committee and the chair, Cllr Sarah Marquis, has stuck her neck out but this seems to have earned her the ire  of Muhammed Butt the Council leader.  The latest manifestation of that was his intervention to ensure that proposals from Quintain for the area around Wembley Stadium, in his own Tokyngton ward, were rushed through at two Planning Committees last week.

That doesn't sound as if the Planning Committee is 'separate from the Council' and appears to be an attempt to get the Planning Committee back into line.

One of the problems is the Council's policy of 'smoothing the way for developers' promoted by Andy Donald, former Director of Regeneration and Major Projects.

Brent Council is in effect a partner with Quintain in the redevelopment of the Wembley Stadium area through the Wembley Masterplan.  This presents difficulties for planning officers' and councillors' independence.

It was reported to me last week that one councillor had allegedly remarked, 'It's Quintain - we have to vote for it.'*

Last week Brent residents were by-standers as Brent Council, Quintain and the Football Association deployed all their resources and experts on a battle that will impact on residents for decades to come. Our voices were barely heard. When one particularly preposterous claim was made and I couldn't suppress a response, a Quintain suit turned round and told me to be quiet. I replied, 'No I won't - I live here.' The exchange summed up our powerlessness.

The Roe Green Village residents challenging Lucozade have found that their ward councillors offer no support and so have mounted their own public campaign while the rsidents challenging the Wembley twin Towers are appealing to Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor.

It is just not Quintain of course but a whole range of developers and multi-national companies as well as Brent Council itself that we are faced with - what they have in common is that they have the money, resources and time. Residents squeeze their research into spare time in the evenings and weekends and have to go through a rapid self-education process in planning law and procedures.

I think it is time to consider setting up an umbrella group that will bring individuals, residents associations and voluntary organisations concerned with these issues together so that experience and expertise can be shared and proposals made to reform the consultation and decision making processes in Brent Council.

In time the group could perhaps pool resources to get their own professional advice as well as hold a 'People's Panel' to consider particular planning applications.  It would be strictly non-party political.

What do people think?

* This is from a previous posting on changes to the Planning Committee Code of Conduct. The issue of pre-determination is particularly relevant:

-->

Members of the Planning Committee are warned:

If a member does not abide by this Code the member may put the Council at risk of proceedings on the legality or maladministration of the related decision; and the member may be at risk of either being named in a report of the Audit and Governance Committee or Council; or if the failure to abide by the Code is also likely to be a breach of the Member Code of Conduct, of a complaint made to the Monitoring Officer.

The disclosure of 'disclosable pecuniary interests' is added to the requirements and members are told that decisions should not be influenced by the interests of Councillors or because of pressure exerted by applicants, agents or third parties. A new paragraph is inserted:

Members of the Planning Committee must take decisions in the public interest and take account of only of material planning considerations. They should not allow themselves to be influenced by members of the public and applicants, agents or third parties who might approach them and they should not be influenced by party politics.

My comment: There is something rather odd about having to take decisions in the public interest but also not being influenced by the public. This is reinforced by the duty to follow the 'rules of natural justice' and give people a hearing: 

The rules of natural justice include the duty to act fairly, the duty to give all those who will be affected by a decision the opportunity of a hearing before a decision is made; and the principle that no person should be a judge in his or her own cause. That principle means that members must be and be seen to be be impartial and without bias, and that members should not take part in any decision that affects their own interests.

A section of 'Bias and Predetermination' has been added:

Members should not take a decision on a matter when they are actually biased in favour or against the application, or when it might appear to a fair and informed observer that there was real possibility of boas, or where a member has predetermined the matter by closing their mind to the merits of the decision before they come to take it.

 ...A member taking part in a decision on a planning matters must be open to any new arguments about the matters up until the moment of a decision. A member should not comment or make any commitment in advance as to how they intend to vote which might indicate that they have closed their mind. Any planning decision made by a member who can be shown to have approached the decision with a closed mind will still expose the council to the risk of legal challenge.

The section on Interests has been amended to allow a member with a disclosable pecuniary interest to have a right to attend a meeting:

...where a member of the public has the right to attend the meeting, make representations, answer questions, or give evidence, then a member will have the same right. Once the member has exercised that right then they must withdraw from the room for the rest of that item and play no further part in the discussion or vote,

At present many planning decisions are made by officers alone but Council members have the power to 'call-in' decisions so that they will be decided by Committee. The Code is amended:

A member considering using the 'call-in' power should consider whether their objective could be achieved by an alternative means, for example by discussing the matter further with the relevant officer or facilitating a meeting between the objector and an officers, bearing in mind the additional cost to the council when a matter has to be considered by Committee. 

The key issue of planning submissions where the council is the applicant or landowner is covered by this paragraph:

Where the council itself is the landowner or planning applicant then a Planning member should consider whether he or she has had such a significant personal involvement in advocating or preparing or submitting the planning proposal that the member would be likely to be perceived as longer able to act impartially or to determine the proposal purely on its planning merits. A member would not be required to withdraw simply because they were, for example, a member of both the Cabinet, or a proposing committee, as well as the planning committee, However a member with a relevant portfolio or individual  responsibility for implementing a particular policy should carefully consider whether that role makes it inappropriate for them to participate in a particular planning decision.

My comment: Does this sufficiently deal with the wider conflict of interest over the Planning Committee being the  judge of the Council's own development schemes?

Wembley Champions turn to poetry to make their point about 'Twin Towers'

Wembley Champions website LINK has published this poem about the Wembley 'Twin Towers' - it is not quite John Betjeman but shows how much they care for where they live. They are asking the Mayor of London to call in the application which was approved by Brent Planning Committee with 4 votes for, 2 against (including the Chair) and two abstentions.

Brent Council: Wembley Twin Towers 'a catalyst for further growth and investment'

This is what Brent Council Public Relations told Property Week about the 'Twin Towers' for Wembley High Road/Park Lane which Planning Committee approved on Wednesday.

A spokesperson for London Borough of Brent said: “Wembley is our biggest growth area for which we have great ambitions. We are already seeing a large amount of development and investment around the stadium but this approval sets the scene and could be the catalyst for further growth and investment on the high street.

“I am pleased to see a development come forward, which will provide affordable housing, community space, retail uses and a new public square for local people to use as well as generate over £5m to go towards local community facilities. The buildings, although tall, are appropriate in this area given that it is one of our key growth areas.”

You have been warned!

Just 4 councillors allow TwinTowers to change the face of Wembley Central

Impression from Park Lane Methodist Church/Park Lane Primary

The 26/21 storey Twin Towers block at the junction of Park Lane and Wembley High Road was given the go ahead by the Planning Committee on Wednesday evening. There were 4 votes for the the proposal, 2 against and 2 abstentions.  Sarah Marquis, Chair of Planning Committee, voted against the application.

Afterwards residents were aghast that two councillors abstained on such a major issue. If there is any committee where councillors are expected to make a decision it is planning. If you don't have enough information to make a decision you should keep on asking questions until you do.

If the vote had tied 4/4 I presume Marquis would have exercised a casting vote against the application.

Denise Cheong with just 2 minutes to represent hundred of local residents made a presentation on the impact of the high density high rise blocks on the local area, the impact on current over-crowded roads and public transport and the fact that the development did not comply with established GLA and Brent standards.

Cllr Sam Stopp (Labour, Wembley Central) appeared to have been so impressed by the developer's consultation procedures and his openness that this had persuaded him to support the development despite recognising that the building was not perfect. He would like to have seen it less high but its height was based on what officers had told the developer was possible. He thought the building's orientation was not ideal.

Stopp went to to list the positives: The excellent consultation by the developer, quality of the building design, provision of community space.

He went on to contrast the developer's consultation with that by the Council. Local residents seemed to have found out about the proposal late in the day with a rush of contacts comparatively recently. The Council needed to adopt a more open and transparent approach to consultation. As in Islington, we need members' panels which are accessible to the public so they can question developers and councillors.

David Glover, the planning officer,was faced with the task of explaining why officers were supporting the application despite it not complying with policies on density, carbon emissions, living space,  open space, play space and the proportion of affordable housing.

He claimed that although the building did not meet the standards that it could be approved by reference to the  guidelines that interpreted policy.  He echoed Cllr Stopp in praising the quality of the finish of the building and the flats.  He said that the restricted nature of the site justified the developer in building at greater height and density than set out in the local plan.  The 28% affordable hosing (rather than the recommended 50%)  had been subject to independent viability assessments. Initially the developer offered a higher proportion of affordable housing but this was limited to a 7 year period after which it would move to market rents.  Officers had negotiated a lower proportion of affordable housing but for perpetuity.

Some of the most  incisive qustioning came from Sarah Marquis, chair of the committee, who pointed out that the density was double that recommended for town centre locations and doubted that it complied with the requirement that not meeting those standards could only be supported if it was 'clearly and robustly justified by local circumstances.'  The density was that which applied to international city locations rather than a local town centre.

She went on to query the planners' claim that the development was allowed because the local plan allowed 'tall building' in the  Wembley Central vicinity. She pointed out that local tall buldings were much lower and that the previous application in the sites had been for 17 storeys. It was a big leap from the 30metre definition of tall to the 85metres of this development.

In the course of the discussion the developer confirmed that they were also seeking to purchase the green space on the embankment behind Chesterfield house and their aim would be to build residential properties there. This was not followed up by the Committee but would obviosuly add to the issues around local infrastructure including traffic density and school places. The negotiations had not got very far  and purchase of the garage space behind Chesterfield House to provide disabled parking for the new development has not been completed.

The extent of this additional land which is now subject to acquisition and development can be seen in this illustration:

Click to enlarge

There was a group of young people in the public gallery who applauded when the planning application was approved. Apparently in the wake of the closure of the Wembley Youth Centre LINK they thought they would be able to carry on their activities in the ground floor community space provided by the developer.  It is of course by no means certain that they would be chosen to occupy the space and we know from other applications that this could be a fraught process.  It feels sometimes that we grasp crumbs from the rich man's (developer's) table.

The actual process of building on a site surrounded by traffic congestion with difficult access and parking sounds as if it will be a two year nightmare for local residents not to mention the impact when crowds travel to the stadium and arena.

I am left puzzled by how the committee members who voted for the development could have felt persuaded despite all the arguments above. Does a community space and 'quality finish' really outweigh the disadvantages?

The voting details are below. A further puzzle was how Cllr Colacioco asked all the right questions, got extremely unsatisfactory answers, and then voted for the application!
 

Voting on the application was as follows:

FOR 4                           Cllrs Agha, Choudhary, Colacicco and Mahmood

AGAINST  2                Cllrs Marquis (Chair) and Cllr  Maurice

ABSTENTION  2         Cllrs Ezeajughi and Cllr Patel

Denise Cheong's speech on behalf of residents can be found HERE

New Wembley Twin Towers pic shows true impact of the 26 storey development

Click to enlarge

This illustration from the Hub Organaniation's website shows the height and mass of the proposed replacement of the 'Twin Towers' which will replace Chesterfield House if the Planning Committee grants permission on Wednesday evening.

The comparison with other buildings in the High Road and Park Lane is telling.  The Committee may be minded to lop a few storeys off the building (developers often take that into account when they submit plans) but it is doubtful that this would be enough to reduce the impact.

Residents outline their concerns on Wembley 'Twin Towers' development

The view from Park Lane Wembley. Chesterfield House is the building on the left. The highest of the Twin Towers will be 2-1/2 times the height of the flats on the right.

Only three members of the public turned up when Brent Planning Committee visited the site of the proposed 'Twin Towers' replacement for Chesterfield House on Saturday morning.

In summary concerns were:

• Although recognised Chesterfield House needed to be replaced concerns that the replacement was far too tall for the area.
• The building's height removing light from other nearby buildings.
• Concern that the extra dwellings will add to traffic congestion on Park Lane, already a problem, and as no parking on site that the new residents will park on nearby residential streets.
• Concern that vehicles servicing the flats or delivering would have nowhere to park at the busy junction as the present bays would be inadequate for the number of dwellings.
• Increased danger at the junction Park Lane/Wembley High Road which already experiences accidents.
• Concern that the increased population of children from the new flats will not be able to find places at already over-crowded local schools.

During the presentation by the developer, The Hub, we were told that they were in talks to buy the woodland site at the back of Chesterfield House beside the Chiltern Line. This was likely to be developed as more flats but the Hub confirmed that this would be a separate application and that the Twin Towers plan was not dependent on the new purchase.

The unregulated land at the back of Chesterfield House, presently garages, would be used for disabled parking bays for the flats. Woodland is to the left.

I understand that Cllr Sam Stopp (Wembley Central) will speak on the planning application at Wednesday's Planning Committee Meeting.This will be the first meeting of the Planning Committee since Steven Weeks, Head of Area Planning, left the Council.