Barry Gardiner MP joins ward councillors in opposing the loss of Samovar Space and Market Square to hotel development

 

England fans on Market Square ahead of the 2020 Euro Cup Final - July 11th 2021 

(Credit & Copyright Alamy)

 

Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) has joined Wembley Park ward councillors Cllr Ahamadi Moghaddam and Cllr Najib Warsame in opposing the building of a  hotel on Market Square and Samovar Space, currently in use as a public open space.

Barry Gardiner writes:

   

Planning Team

Brent Council

 

29 July 2026

 

To whom it may concern,

 

Objection to planning application 26/1351 for Plot NW04

 

I write to object to the above-referenced planning application for the erection of a hotel between two and 17 storeys tall on what is currently the Market Square/Samovar Space.

 

You may be aware that I do not normally intervene in planning matters except in exceptional circumstances, including if the planning application is a major infrastructural development. These developments have knock-on effects with wider political ramifications within the local community such as traffic generation, overcrowding of doctors’ surgeries, and inadequate number of spaces in local schools.

 

This application is one such exception. I have been alerted to it by my constituents and I agree with their concerns that these proposals would have severe detrimental impacts on Wembley Park, visitors, and most importantly, residents.

 

At the time of writing, the application has attracted 131 comments on your planning portal. Every single one of them objects. I note from these comments that residents have not been properly notified or consulted by the applicant. I am also aware of a Change.Org petition against the application which has almost 700 signatures to date.

 

Benefit of the Samovar Space

 

The Market Square/Samovar Space is one of the few free, open spaces in Wembley Park that people can spend time in. It hosts markets and community events and is one of the most attractive spaces in an area which is increasingly dominated by high-rise blocks. Samovar provides a free play area for local children, many of whom live in high rise flats that lack outdoor space. The plot is currently a much needed ‘third space’ in which people socialise and form community without having to patronize a business.

 

I understand that the proposals include plans for a new square. This does not afford the same community benefit as the existing space. It would likely suffer from wind tunnelling, and would effectively be the courtyard of commercial premises rather than a genuine public space. The space would also be completely lost with no alternative provision during multiple years of construction.

 

Supposed benefit of the development

 

There is already a plethora of hotels in the immediate vicinity. In Wembley Park we have two Premier Inns, a Holiday Inn, Best Western, Novotel, Hilton Hotel, Wembley International, St George’s Hotel, ARK Wembley, CityLiveIn, and the Ibis which is being refurbished. There are also a number of smaller establishments and further options in neighbouring wards.

 

A new hotel is of very little benefit to the residents who live here and does nothing to diversify the area. Residents actually benefit from community services such as the social and leisure space that already exists on the plot.

 

This is already an intensely developed area. Regeneration projects, commercial services, and the custom and footfall they create need to be balanced across Wembley and Brent, rather than further concentrated in Wembley Park.

 

Harms of the development

 

While the benefits of the proposals are extremely limited, this development would cause a range of active harms to the area, residents and visitors. On top of the loss of the community space, these harms include:

 

·     Years’ long construction causing noise and physical disruption as well as dust and debris;

 

·      Reduced sightlines and sunlight due to the huge scale of the proposed building;

 

·      Exacerbation of the Olympic Way wind-tunnel and echo effects;

 

·      Traffic from construction, hotel guests and ongoing servicing will exacerbate road congestion;

 

·      Trees are unlikely to survive relocation or, if retained, to survive the nearby construction;

 

·      Reduced attractiveness and vibrancy of the area.

 

Many of the consultation’s respondents have quite rightly raised critical safety concerns about the development.

 

Baroness Casey’s review into the disorder in and around Wembley Stadium during the Euro 2020 Final concludes that there was a series of ‘near misses’ in which serious injuries or fatalities were only narrowly avoided. She highlights issues with crowd control specifically on Olympic Way and Engineers Way, and notes that ‘excess crowds overloaded in confined spaces’ were ‘deemed to be one of the highest risk scenarios’ that day.

 

The existing plot provides much needed open space for event day crowds to gather and dissipate, as well as potential space for evacuation of the high volume of visitors we often welcome to Wembley Park. The proposals would remove the Wembley Splay route, which eases pedestrian congestion. Without this, event day crowds will be even further concentrated.

 

The Casey Review quotes a FA/Wembley official: ‘the outer perimeter [of Wembley Stadium] is hard to manage because of the residential blocks’. Constructing a further block so close to the Stadium and Arena can only exacerbate this concern.

 

Planning compliance

 

I understand that outline permission for this development was granted in 2011 under decision 10/3032. Since then, the Market Square and Samovar Space has become a well- established community facility, and Wembley Park has seen the proliferation of similar high-rise blocks. The Planning Committee must consider the site’s current use and setting rather than rely on 15 year-old proposals and assessments.

 

 

I understand that in 2018, Brent Council contributed £12.1 million to improve the site on the condition that the developer would not pursue the full outline parameters. However, I understand that this proposal of a 17 storey building does reach the full parameters. The planning committee must consider whether the approving this application would default on this agreement involving public funds.

 

The outline permission was granted ahead of various new policies such as the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the Brent Local Plan 2019 – 2041 and the London Plan 2021. Application 26/1351 must be assessed against current requirements. Particular attention should be paid to the following:

 

The National Policy Planning Framework 2012

 

Section 8: Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities

 

102. Planning policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence requirements by:

 

a. anticipating and addressing possible malicious threats and other hazards (whether natural or man-made), especially in locations where large numbers of people are expected to congregate…

 

103. Access to a network of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for the health and well-being of communities,

104. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields and formal play spaces, should not be built on unless:

 

a. an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or

 

b. the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or

 

c. the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

 

105. Planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails.

 

Brent Local Plan 2019 – 2041

 

Policy DMP1: Development Management General Policy

 

Development will be acceptable provided it is:

 

a. of a location, use, concentration, siting, layout, scale, type, density, materials, detailing and design that provides high levels of internal and external amenity and complements the locality;

b. satisfactory in terms of means of access for all, parking, manoeuvring, servicing and does not have an adverse impact on the movement network;

i. resulting in no loss of, and where possible enhancing, community facilities or other land/buildings for which there is an identified need.

 

Policy BD1: Leading the Way in Good Urban Design

 

6.1.12 The policy seeks to create buildings and places of high quality that will be appreciated by future generations. High quality design is both visually interesting and attractive and should enhance local character. Good design is not just about what things look like, it is also about how places function and how individual buildings and the spaces around them contribute to the public realm and community well-being... Good design makes places that put people first, promote health and are welcoming, feel safe, are enjoyable and easy to use for everyone.

 

London Plan 2021

 

Policy G4 Open space

 

B. Development proposals should:

1. Not result in the loss of protected open space

 

Policy S4: Play and informal recreation

 

B. Development proposals should:

1. Increase opportunities for play and informal recreation and enable children and young people to be independently mobile

5. Not result in the net loss of play provision, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no ongoing or future demand.

 

Policy S5 Sports and recreation facilities

 

C. Existing sports and recreational land (including playing fields) and facilities for sports and recreation should be retained unless:

1. An assessment has been undertaken which clearly shows the sports and recreational land or facilities to be surplus to requirements…

2. The loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or

3. The development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

 

Concluding remarks

 

It is my view that this application offers very little benefit to residents and in fact risks damaging the community, whereas the existing use of the plot as the Market Square/Samovar Space has visible and proven benefits.

Permission should not be granted without wider consultation of residents. I  support my constituents’ calls for the application to be heard at the Planning Committee with public speaking rights for local residents, and for a public explanation of how the developer has met the conditions to benefit from £12.1 million of public funds in submitting this application.

 

Nor should permission be granted prior to the publication of independent reviews on matters including wind, daylight, trees and construction impact as well as assessments from the Metropolitan Police, Wembley Stadium/the FA, the Safety Advisory Group, and any other relevant authorities.

 

I would be grateful if you could please register my objection and ultimately reject this application.

 

Yours faithfully,

Barry Gardiner

Member of Parliament for Brent West

 

To make your own comment follow this LINK Ref 26/1351 

BREAKING: Quintain defy local opposition and submit planning application for a 17 storey hotel between Brent Civic Centre and Olympic Way

 

The new hotel and surrounding area

Quintain's plans to activate 2018 planning permission to build a new hotel on the open space outside Brent Civic Centre, currently occupied by Market Square and the Samovar Space, met with stiff opposition last year, not least from current residents of the Quintain estate. They and visitors to the LDO, Arena and Wembley Stadium had got used to using the space, making it a social meeting place amidst all the tower blocks.

This afternoon Quintain released the statement below:

Quintain Submits Detailed Plans for New Development at Wembley Park

Quintain, the developer and asset manager behind Wembley Park, has submitted a reserved matters planning application to Brent Council for Plot NW04, a key site within the developer’s continuing transformation of the 85-acre estate.

Plot NW04 forms part of Quintain’s wider Wembley Park transformation, which has evolved over the past two decades into a vibrant mixed-use neighbourhood comprising homes, jobs, cultural destinations, and high-quality public spaces.

The site already benefits from outline planning permission granted in 2018 by Brent Council as part of Wembley Park’s ‘North West Lands’ masterplan. That consent established the key development principles, including the scale, height, uses and the requirement to deliver public realm, including a new Civic Square. The newly submitted application seeks approval for the detailed design of the building and surrounding public spaces within these approved parameters.

The proposals include a building ranging from two to 17 storeys, providing a 358-bed hotel alongside ground floor shops and restaurants. A central feature of the plans is the creation of a new permanent civic square, which is larger than proposed under the outline permission and designed to host markets, community events and celebrations throughout the year.

This new public square will replace the temporary “meanwhile” uses previously delivered by Quintain at Market Square and Samovar Space and will complement other nearby public areas including Arena Square, Elvin Gardens and Union Park.

Quintain has undertaken a programme of community consultation to help shape the proposals. This has included engagement with local residents, an online public consultation, and dedicated sessions with the Brent Disability Forum. Feedback gathered has informed both the building design and the public realm.

A planning decision is expected towards the end of the year.  If permission is granted, Quintain will continue discussions with potential hotel operators during 2027.

Quintain will continue to work closely with Brent Council and local stakeholders as the application progresses.

For more information about the proposals, visit: Quintain's public consultation web page or contact development@wembleypark.com.

 

 

www.quintain.co.uk

 

11 Exhibition Way
Wembley
HA9 0FA

 From the Planning Application documents (Reference number 26/1351)  LINK

Olympic Way appears more closed in

Current view of Market Square and Samovar Space play area

 

 

Proposed hotel and Civic Square

Councillors' concern at over-development in Wembley Park that prioritises private profit over community

 

The proposed new building close to Wembley Stadium station

Guest post by the Green Party councillors for Wembley Park, Cllr Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam and Cllr Najib Warsame.

 As Councillors representing Wembley Park, we are seriously concerned about the proposed construction of a new 8 to 25-storey care home/ co-living space and the wider impact it will have on residents and the local area most affected by this proposal.

What Wembley Park is truly lacking is accessible, usable community space that enriches the lives of the people who have made this area their home, especially young people and children, who are increasingly being offered less and less as development continues. Over recent years, communal and recreational spaces have steadily disappeared, replaced by private developments that do little to support the existing community. This lack of investment in meaningful community infrastructure has contributed to growing anti-social behaviour, disproportionately involving and impacting young people.

We are deeply concerned about the strain this development will place on local infrastructure and public services, which have consistently failed to keep pace with Wembley Park’s rapidly growing population. Only recently has a new GP surgery been built, and it is already approaching capacity. There remains a severe shortage of accessible community facilities and public spaces, particularly on this side of the estate.

The environmental impact of the proposal cannot be ignored. Residents are increasingly being forced to live in a concrete-jungle designed to maximise private profit while the wellbeing of the community and local environment is treated as secondary. We need more greenery and open spaces and the construction of yet another building does not help.

Traffic and infrastructure concerns in Wembley Park have not been adequately addressed. There is severe congestion around that end of Empire Way, particularly on event days, where residents regularly struggle to access their homes. The parking provision proposed for the care home appears insufficient for staff, visitors and residents with disabilities. Restricting access to personal transport in this way risks limiting independence and accessibility whilst placing additional pressure on surrounding roads and infrastructure.

We are equally concerned about the quality and condition of many existing developments in Wembley Park. Residents continue to raise serious issues relating to mould, poor maintenance, broken doors, insufficient security measures, and unclear emergency access protocols in buildings that are only a few years old. These concerns raise important questions about whether the current private-public development model is genuinely delivering safe, liveable, and affordable homes for residents.

The proposed building will significantly reduce access to natural light for surrounding homes and residential buildings. Reduced daylight sunlight negatively affects wellbeing while also increasing household energy usage and costs during an ongoing cost of living crisis. There are also serious concerns specific to the proposed care home itself. From the applicant’s own report, we understand that 32% of care home rooms will fail to meet recommended daylight standards and 54% will fail to achieve recommended sunlight levels. Access to natural light in communal areas is also inadequate. This raises significant concerns about the quality of life being proposed for elderly residents who deserve safe, dignified and healthy living conditions.

All of these concerns reflect a wider pattern of over-development in Wembley Park where expansion and private profit are too often prioritised over residents’ wellbeing, community infrastructure, environmental quality, and long-term liveability. Residents deserve to be properly heard before further irreversible decisions continue to reshape the area.

The Neighbourhood Consultation expires on Wednesday June 10th - COMMENT HERE

The application itself expires on July 17th. Comments sent to Brent Planning (Case reference 26/0967) by email should be taken into account ahead of the Planning Committee where the application is heard,

New £188.8 million of funding to Quintain's Wembley Park under the Government’s Private Rented Sector Guarantee Scheme

 From Quintain Ltd

    

New loan to Quintain to support the stabilisation of two new Build to Rent developments in Wembley Park

United Kingdom, 1st June 2026 – Venn, a leading investment manager with a strong focus on European residential real estate, together with vertically integrated owner, operator and developer, Quintain, is pleased to announce the funding of a new loan totalling GBP188.8 million under the Private Rented Sector Guarantee Scheme (“PRSGS”, “the Scheme”), which Venn manages on behalf of the UK Government.

The loan was funded through a public tap of the Scheme’s existing 2030 floating rate bond series, which is guaranteed by the UK Government. The public process attracted strong institutional demand, achieving an attractive spread of 50 basis points over SONIA. Proceeds from the bond issuance are on-lent directly to the Quintain borrower, and this funding cost contributes to an all-in interest rate that provides the Build to Rent (“BTR”) sector with cost-effective capital at scale, aligned with borrower requirements in the current market.

This transaction is the second PRSGS transaction funded since March 2026 and demonstrates the Scheme’s continued ability to provide stable funding and transaction certainty under otherwise volatile market conditions. Under the Scheme, Venn has approximately GBP1.5 billion of further lending capacity to support the sector.

The £188.8 million loan has been provided to Quintain and will finance two neighbouring BTR assets, Luna and Solar, located within Wembley Park in North-West London. The assets, which comprise in total 665 homes, form part of Quintain’s 85-acre residential-led mixed-use estate and are operated under the award-winning Quintain Living platform.

Luna and Solar represent the two most recent additions to the Wembley Park residential offering. Their delivery marked 6,000 homes of all tenures completed by Quintain across the estate, over half of which are BTR and operated by Quintain Living. As with the existing Quintain Living portfolio, these assets deliver high-quality rental accommodation within a well-established, professionally managed neighbourhood. Both assets reached practical completion in 2025 and are currently in the process of stabilisation, benefitting from the expertise of Quintain Living’s mature operational platform and strength of the wider mixed-use estate.

The buildings have strong sustainability credentials, aligned with HQM 4 Star ratings and supported by an industry-leading embodied carbon assessment that outperformed LETI benchmarks. Alongside Luna and Solar is the delivery of Wembley Park’s second performing arts-based community centre and a new headquarters for the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, with both buildings achieving BREEAM Excellent.

For further information on the Scheme and how to apply, borrowers should contact PRS@Venn-Partners.com

The PRSGS Scheme extract (Full version  on Government website HERE)  

1.  Project Eligibility

1.1 The objective of the Private Rented Sector Guarantee Scheme is to provide loans that contribute to development of (or conversion to) purpose built homes for private rent in the United Kingdom.

1.2 On application, sponsors need to set out how the PRSGS loan will promote this objective.

1.3 Loans will fund projects that deliver new build or converted private rented homes

1.4 Minimum size of project: Total project to have a minimum value of £10m. However, the “project” can comprise more than one site, which cumulatively meet the minimum value requirement.

1.5 Units must be used for private rent for the period of the debt guarantee.

1.6 Applicants will need to detail how property and tenant management services will be provided.

1.7 Borrowers will need to be classified to the private sector, or a Private Registered Provider as defined in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 Section 80(3) (or equivalent in the Devolved Administrations).

1.8  Properties will need to be located in the United Kingdom.

 

IMAGES OF LUNA AND SOLAR (See Philip Grant's comment of June 5th below) Source Quintain's Build to Rent blog.

 

 

 

 

 

Wembley Park road closures & bus diversions from 11am tomorrow for League 2 Play Off Finals

 

Proposed Stopping-up Order near Olympic Steps – here we go again, and why this reflects what is wrong with Brent Council decision-making.

  Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity 

Legal Notice from the “Brent & Kilburn Times”, 19 March 2026.

 

My guest post on 1 January opened with an image like this one, giving notice of a Magistrates’ Court hearing on 22 January at which Brent Council would be applying to stop-up (that is, to extinguish the right of pedestrians and vehicles to pass across) two areas of highway near Engineers Way, and close to the Olympic Steps at Wembley Park. An update to a subsequent article, Does Brent Council really want to embarrass itself in Court?, reported that the Council had asked for that hearing to be adjourned. 

 

Hopes that common sense would prevail were dashed when a Council Officer informed me, a couple of weeks ago, of a new hearing date on 16 April. I waited until the formal notice (above) had appeared in our local newspaper, before responding to it:

 

‘I have seen the Notice in yesterday's "Brent & Kilburn Times" about the new hearing date of 16 April at 2pm for the Council's Section 116 application. As requested in the Notice, I am writing to formally advise you that I intend to appear at this Willesden Magistrates' Court hearing, to object to the application for a stopping-up Order.

 

The grounds for my objection are that the application under Section 116 is wrong in law, because the two areas of highway shown on the Plan are not "unnecessary".

 

I will use the illustrations in the document "Brent Council’s proposed Engineers Way S.116 Stopping-up Order areas in pictures", which I supplied you with a copy of on 12 January 2026, as evidence that it is necessary for pedestrians and vehicles to pass across the areas of highway which the Council seeks to stop-up. You should ensure that whoever will be representing Brent Council at the hearing has a copy of that document.

 

Even at this late stage, it would be possible for the Council to withdraw its application, as you must realise that it has little hope of success, on the basis of the facts and law. Please let me know, as soon as possible, if the application is withdrawn. Thank you.’

 

I received two brief responses from Council Officers:

 

‘Thank you for letting me know of your intention to attend the stopping up order court hearing. I can confirm, as explained in our previous correspondences, the Council is intending to request the magistrate to approve this order under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980.’

 

‘I can confirm that we have a copy of your submission from 12th January "Brent Council’s proposed Engineers Way S.116 Stopping-up Order areas in pictures" and will ensure our barrister has sight of the document prior to the hearing.’

 

So not only are the Council going ahead with the application, they will be represented in Court by a barrister (I will be representing myself!). Hopefully, Quintain Ltd will be paying the barrister’s fee, as apparently, they were the ones who asked Brent to make the application in the first place. 

 

View from the Olympic Steps, showing that one of the areas Brent seeks to stop-up (in red)  would block the entrance to Olympic Way East, and impede pedestrians from using the Engineers Way crossing between Olympic Way and the Olympic Steps.

 

You only need to look at the areas the proposed stopping-up order would apply to, as shown by even one of the images (above) in the evidence document I supplied in January, to see that it is necessary for pedestrians and/or vehicles to pass across them. Yet Council Officers and an important Council committee are supposed to have considered the details before agreeing that an application for a Section 116 Order should be made to the Court.

 

The committee involved was Brent’s General Purposes Committee, at a meeting as long ago as 7 March 2022. This is one example, of many possibles, which illustrates how the decision-making processes at Brent Council have deteriorated over the past decade or so. This can lead to ill-considered decisions, which often end up wasting money (sometimes £millions) and to poor services. In this case, it was obvious to me as soon as I saw the plan showing the areas involved that they were not “unnecessary”, so why was it not obvious to the decision-makers?

 

I wrote in October 2016 about the way in which Brent’s General Purposes Committee, which used to be a strong group of senior “backbench” councillors, had been “hijacked”. The title of that article was: Does Councillor Butt have too much power?. Here is an extract from it:

 

‘[Brent’s] Constitution (in its own words) ‘…sets out how the Council operates, how decisions are made and the procedures which are followed to ensure that decision making is efficient, transparent and accountable to local people. Some of the procedures are required by law, while others are a matter for the Council.’

 

“Responsibility for Functions” is an important area, which should mean that there are “checks and balances” to ensure that power is shared across the Council, so that no single person or group within it has too much (to guard against that power being abused). The Constitution gives the Leader, or the Leader together with the Cabinet, considerable powers, but there are also ‘functions which cannot be exercised by the Cabinet’, ‘functions not to be the sole responsibility of the Cabinet’ and ‘functions that may only be exercised by Full Council’.

 

One area of particular concern is the General Purposes Committee, which ‘carries out a number of functions on which the Cabinet cannot take decisions, including public rights of way, setting the Council Tax base and approving staffing matters’.  The committee has eight members, and the Constitution used to say that at least one of these must be a member of the Executive (the previous title for the Cabinet). That proviso, which gave a very strong hint that most of the committee should be made up of back-bench councillors, has been removed, and for the past few years seven of the eight members have been Cabinet members, with the official Opposition Leader as the eighth.

 

Cllr. Butt is Chair of the General Purposes Committee, and of its Senior Staff Appointments Sub-Committee. This has given him considerable influence over the Council’s senior staffing structure, who is appointed to the Senior Officer posts, and the terms on which they are appointed.’

 

Whereas the General Purposes Committee used to hold “full length” meetings, when councillors would discus and decide matters publicly and transparently, they now start just half an hour before the Monday morning Cabinet meetings.  There were six substantive items on its agenda for the meeting on 22 March 2022. The minutes show that it began at 9.30am, and record that ‘the meeting closed at 9.49am’! 

 

 

I did follow-up my October 2016 guest post with an email to Brent’s then Chief Executive, who chaired the Council’s Constitutional Working Group (of which the Council Leader is also a member), suggesting that it:

 

‘should consider ways to ensure that the functions of the General Purposes Committee and its sub-committees are carried out independently of the Council Leader and the Cabinet. This is not just something which affects the present personnel, or situation on Brent Council, but a question of good governance.

 

The Leader and Cabinet already have considerable powers in those roles, and yet there are more than fifty other elected councillors whose knowledge and experience could contribute to the functions carried out by General Purposes Committee, if the majority of seats on that committee, and its Chair, were to be reserved under the Constitution for members who are not in the Cabinet. I believe that this would also ensure a better balance of power within the Council as a whole.’

 

The reply I received to my detailed email was short:

 

'Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email. The Chief Executive notes your concerns about the constitution of the General Purposes Committee. The Chief Executive and I consider that the composition of the Committee is satisfactory from both a legal and operational perspective.

 

Best wishes,

 

Chief Legal Officer'

 

Both the Chief Executive and Chief Legal Officer at that time had been chosen by the Senior Staff Appointments Sub-Committee, chaired by ………. you’ve guessed who.

 

Would a properly (in my view) constituted General Purposes Committee, which could spend more time considering reports presented to them by Officers, and would have had time to look at the plan which was one of the appendices to the Stopping-up Order Report, have agreed the recommendation ‘to approve the submission of an application to the Magistrate Court’? I can’t be sure, but I believe it was an avoidable error, which has wasted a lot of Council Officer time.

 

Willesden Magistrates’ Court. (Image from the Courts Service website)

 

We will find out whether it really was a bad decision when I see Brent Council in Court, on the afternoon of Thursday 16 April!

 

Philip Grant.

Wembley Park Green Party Councillor backs locals in opposing the building of a hotel on the Market Square-Samovar Public Space close to Wembley Stadium

 The petition LINK against building on the Savovar-Market Square Open Space currently has 314 signatures

 Quintain's Proposed hotel

   

Brent Green Party councillor Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam has come out strongly in support of Wembley Park residents who are campaigning for the retention of the Samovar Space and Market Square in the heart of the Wembley Park Quintain development.

  

He said:

 

I join with Wembley Park residents in opposing the building of a hotel on the site of the Samovar Space and Market Square beside the Brent Civic Centre and in front of the Wembley Stadium steps.

 

The space has become an integral part of Wembley Park. Residents, visitors, shoppers, concert goers and sports fans have all made it their own and it has become an organic part of the Wembley Park experience.

 

As densification of the area becomes more intense it is important to keep a breathing space at its centre, it is as important for safety during events as it is for leisure, entertainment, and its markets,

 

I believe the original reasons that Brent Council gave in 2020 for reaching a deal with Quintain on maintaining a public space on NW04 are stronger than ever. Quintain and Wembley Stadium got the stadium steps out of the deal and the steps of course remain – so should the Samovar Space and the Market Square.

 

Too often, residents are left with the impression that decisions have already been made, which is deeply frustrating. Both the council and developers must do far more to listen to residents, engage transparently, and treat public space as something to be protected, not traded away.