Hear what Brent residents and councillors said at the Planning Commitee on Wembley Stadium application

If you missed the Brent Planning Committee that approved Wembley Stadium/Tottenham's request for more high capacity events at Wembley Stadium you can get a flavour from the sound file below.

Speakers in order were:

RESIDENTS
Dr Ruth Kosmin, Barn Hill Residents' Asssociation and an economist (0.10)
Dr Michael Calderbank, Wembley Park Residents' Association (8.40)
Denise Cheong, Wembley Champions (15.00)
Niral Babla, Wembley High Road Business Association (25.14)
Fatema Karim-Khaku, Barn Hill Residents Association  and transport consultant (30.44)

COUNCILLORS
Cllr Shafiq Choudhary (Barn Hill ward) (36.50)
Cllr Sam Stopp (Wembley Central ward) (43.40)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY COUNCILLORS
Cllr Ketan Sheth (59.50)
Cllr Muhammed Butt (102.12)

Wembley Stadium's last minute lobby of Brent councillors with glossy PR brochure on planning application

If the David and Goliath nature of the battle between local residents and Wembley stadium over the increase in the number of events and increase in capacity proposed during Tottenham Hotspur's stay at the stadium needed any further it is exemplified by a brochure that Wembley stadium has sent to all Brent councillors and Alice Lester, David Glover and Chris Heather in the Brent Planning Department.

The Stadium has full-time advisers and public relations officers spearheading their campaign while residents rely on their own resources and campaign in the free time available after they have done their jobs.

In an email to councillors and officers, Chris Bryant, Wembley Stadium head of operations says:

I contacted you on 26 January 2017 regarding our proposals and planning application for Wembley Stadium to host Tottenham Hotspur Football Club during the 2017/18 season, to enable the development of their new ground in Tottenham to be completed.

Since that time Wembley Stadium and Tottenham Hotspur (THFC) have been through an extensive period of consultation and discussion with the local community, key stakeholders and your officers. The Council itself has sent out around 41,000 consultation letters.

During our discussions we have obtained a much better understanding of the impact on local residents and businesses that additional events at the Stadium will have. Some will be negative, others positive. We recognise there are aspects of the event day management that can be improved, including closer partnership working with the Council and THFC. We have also learnt from the European games THFC has recently played at Wembley.

Consequently, as well as reducing the total number of additional games sought during the temporary period (August 2017 to July 2018) from 31 to 22 in response to public, stakeholder and officer feedback, we have also discussed and agreed with officers an extensive package of mitigation measures for all the additional full capacity THFC events. Many of the initiatives included are in addition to our existing commitments, which are ongoing. These will be secured by a legal agreement.

In addition, THFC has outlined an extensive package of community measures, which will be delivered through the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation during its tenancy. The Foundation has already made a significant positive impact in Haringey, Enfield, Barnet and Waltham Forest, and would extend its programme to Brent residents for the coming year if THFC is hosted at Wembley.  Details of the agreed mitigation measures and the work of the Foundation are provided in the enclosed brochure for your information.

Wembley Stadium has valued the longstanding support of Brent Council since before even the initial bid for the new Stadium and associated local regeneration was made in the 1990s and we welcome the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission.

We look forward to working with the Council and THFC over the coming year and beyond and will be asking the Planning Committee to support a temporary variation of the event cap. We ask you to please consider the enclosed information. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Here is the brochure sent with the email:

Planning Officers maintain their support for Stadium Planning Application in Supplementary Report

A supplementary report has been published on the eve of Thursday's Planning Committee. LINK It contains more information on mitigation. The Officers maintain their support for the planning application.

Following completion of the committee report, a further 24 letters of representation have been received. Where additional issues have been raised they are noted below, otherwise they are considered to have been dealt with in the main report.

One letter of support

The issues raised are considered to have been addressed within the main report.

23 letters of objection

Objection from one representation citing insufficient notice of the committee, and a request for an additional 3 weeks instead. Also, confusion over when the committee is due to take place. Concern that the additional number of events would result in the roads deteriorating.

The notice period given is considered reasonable and in accordance with the Council’s procedures. There was an error on the earlier communication which stated that the Committee would begin at 7pm and this was corrected last week. The proposal would result in additional journeys, but the mitigation in place is intended to reduce the number of cars as far as possible.

Request for clarification on the need for a section 106 legal agreement, and whether parking permits within the event day management zone would remain free.

A section 106 legal agreement is absolutely necessary to the acceptability of the proposal. 


The current charge for a parking permit is £10. The proposal would not change this. 


Concern about the noise from helicopters, which would be increased with a greater number of events. 


Helicopters can be associated with large events as part of the police operation. The height at which they fly or hover will inevitably vary, and hence so will the noise they generate. However, this is considered to be infrequent and for short periods of time. It is not considered that this alone would increase the level of noise to the point that it is considered unacceptable.

Other issues raised are considered to have been addressed within the main report.

Mitigation

The committee report identified a number of mitigation measures which would be secured within the section 106 legal agreement. Further detail is provided on a number of the additional measures which are proposed over and above those secured through the original agreement dated 23 August 2002. A number of them were detailed within the main report and so are not detailed further. These additional measures to cover individual events are proposed to apply only to the 22 additional major events. They are not proposed to apply to 37 high capacity (51,000-90,000 capacity ) events that can take place under the existing condition.

Event by event mitigation measures, for the additional 22 events proposed

Regulation of Public Safety – The Council’s reasonable costs would be met as part of the application on an event-by-event basis, which would be on a similar basis to what is currently done for street cleaning and the regulation of traffic management. This involves a requirement to attend pre-match meetings and monitoring safety documentation for each event. Inspections would take place (in addition to those which take place during existing major events) to monitor the measures and seek to refine the process. 


Alcohol licensing inspections – This would also be related to the Council’s reasonable costs, similar to the regulation of public safety. This involves inspecting licensed premises prior to an event and follow up visits afterwards if there have been complaints. 


Illegal street trader – This was highlighted in the list within the main committee report. This is proposed to be removed from the Section 106 legal agreement, but only because there has already been a mechanism established for the previous 4 Tottenham Hotspur events that have taken place at Wembley, which is proposed to continue. 


Anti ticket tout initiative – This would also be related to the Council’s reasonable costs, similar to the regulation of public safety. Ticket touts are a feature of many sporting events, and can lead to people being denied the opportunity to view sporting events at a reasonable cost. Touts can obstruct public areas and introduce an element of intimidation. 
One-off contribution mitigation measures: 


Pirate parking initiative – More than £47,000 has been secured to ensure that the existing scheme can 
continue. The intention is to ensure that parking on land which does not have planning permission for that purpose is addressed, so reducing the number of persons using cars and increasing the number of persons using public transport. 


Additional CCTV camera – This was detailed in the main report. The cost for this would be £22,779. 
In addition, further measures are proposed to those detailed within the main committee report. 


Litter bins – In response to a number of objections there would be a contribution of £20,000 for litter bins 
in and around the stadium and Wembley Town Centre. 


Radio system and protective clothing – This would ensure that the current equipment (which is 
leading to some problems with communication) is replaced by more advanced equipment. This would improve the event day operations, by improving communication when setting up road closures and managing traffic. Ultimately, this would assist in the safe and efficient arrival and departure from events at the stadium. This would be £50,000. 


Event day signage – Following an audit of the existing signage a contribution of £60,000 is proposed to improvements, to be secured before the 2017/18 season. This would include a more detailed audit to identify broken signage and identify where more signage is required. There would be maintenance of existing Variable-Message Signs (VMS) and event day flap signs. Additional signage would be provided in areas with insufficient signage. 
Reference has been had to the tests of whether a section 106 obligation is considered justifiable. As required by Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (as amended) a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if it is: 
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and
(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 
The obligations above, and those which are listed and detailed in the main report, are considered to pass 
these tests. They are proposed to maintain the existing levels of mitigation for the existing major events (as secured in the original section 106 legal agreement), and to go further for the additional major events proposed by this application.

Update on Tottenham Hotspur

Since the committee report was finalised there have been additional games played. As of 22 March 2017 there are 10 games remaining for Tottenham Hotspur in the Premier League. They remain well placed to be in European competition next year (specifically the group stage of the Champions League). They remain in the FA Cup, which has reached the semi-final stage. This is not considered to change the assumptions on the numbers of games they are likely to play next season.

Conclusion

The additional comments received raise some additional points, which are not considered to change the recommendation. Many of the issues have been raised previously, and are considered to have been addressed in the main report.

This supplementary report provides additional detail on some of the mitigation measures proposed, and some additional measures which go beyond what is contained within the main committee report. They are welcomed and would assist to mitigate the impacts of the greater number of major events which this application proposes.

Recommendation: Remains approval as set out within the committee report

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.

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.

Last minute deferral of Harrow School's application to build on Metropolitan Open Land

At yesterday's Harrow Planning Committee it at first appeared that the Harrow School's Planning Application to build on Metropolitan Open Land had been successful.

The Committee was tied 3-3 on a motion refusing the planning application and then the Chair, Keith Ferry, used his casting vote against the motion.  The Committee had received a petition from Harrow Hill Trust of 1,500 signatories against the proposal and a letter from Gareth Thomas MP.

Then in a surprise move Labour councillor Barry Kendler, who had opposed aspects of this particular build but was not against building on Metropolitan Open Land as such, moved a motion to defer.

Kendler had not liked the design and raised issues including the colour scheme of bricks, style, position (ie red brick, not grey slabs, on to brown site or slightly moved to see more of skyline views, etc).  The chair had indicated that would be a matter of negotiation later and not part of this decision.  Cllr Kendler said that if resolution of these planning aspects were not included in the planning decision he was not certain he could rely on Harrow School's goodwill.  He moved the motion to defer and all six councillors voted for it with the Chair against.

The Harrow School representatives, who were by far the biggest group at the meeting, conferred outside and were described by one onlooker as 'looking very serious'.

An opponent of the scheme said after the meeting:

So we live to partly fight another day, especially if Sadiq Khan makes more of the fact that Metropolitan Open Land (ie like green belt) is still allowed to be exchanged for a piece of school land they don't want to use!  The large new build will certainly make a major difference to the historic view of Harrow Church/School. 

A spokesperson for Harrow Hill Trust said:

The Harrow Hill Trust was not happy with the content of the planning officer's report on the scheme and they will continue to fight the case and to promote a brownfield option instead. Interested parties can go to www.harrowhilltrust.org.uk and click through to the petition where a wealth of information is provided including contact emails and phone numbers for the Labour Councillors who are all that is stopping this application from being refused. Lobbying would be appreciated.

Residents not happy with Brent Council's response to complaint about Ealing Road Library consultation process

Brent Council has responded to residents' complaints about the lack of consultation on the plans for the Ealing Road Library site. LINK

They have put up a second site notice which they claim should be more visible to passers by and a set of plans have been left in the library.

The planning application is due to go to the Planning Committee on December 14th and the Council have said that comments receievd up tp the day before the meeting will be taken int account when the decision is made.  The Council say that this gives more than 21 days for people to comment but advise that comments should be submitted as early as possible.

Furthermore they say that, within the normal rules, members iof the public can apply to speak at the Planning Committee meeting.

A resident has responded,

Thank you for confirming this though I believe Brent Council have a ‘duty of care’ to properly and fairly consult local residents so I’m afraid I do not think your response is really acceptable.

Can you please confirm that you will be altering the planning notice(s) to advise that comments can be made up until 13th December with the name and address of who residents can write to in Brent Council’s Planning Department if they do not have internet access?

Can you please confirm that you will be fully publicising this planning application to local residents by leafleting all houses in the roads surrounding Ealing Road Library (Ealing Road, Lyon Park Avenue, The Close, Union Road, Park Road, Copland Road, Station Grove, Montrose Crescent, Chaplin Road, Swinderby Road, Ranelagh Road) with the relevant information and confirming in those leaflets that residents can view plans at Ealing Road Library and that they have until 13th December to comment, again with the name and address of who they should write to in Brent Council’s Planning Department if they do not have internet access?

This is a major alteration to our area and we deserve to be properly consulted and with full details of how to respond - some properties in Park Road, Lyon Park Avenue and Union Road back onto the library/or are adjacent to the side boundary of the library and will potentially be most affected by noise pollution from a ‘performance space’ or an ‘outdoor cinema’ yet they have not received letters re the consultation for this development.

Any development of the Ealing Road Library space should have been drawn up in full conjunction with neighbouring residents before detailed planning applications were submitted.   The Brent Council planning department used to advise that you talked to your neighbours before applying for any planning permission to try and iron out any issues/disagreements beforehand yet local council tax-paying residents have heard nothing from their council re this matter.

So that we can fully consider the pros and cons of this planning application can you please advise what exact plans have been drafted by Brent Council for easing traffic congestion in Ealing Road, which is usually grid locked both ways at the weekend, and where all the extra visitors you want to attract to Ealing Road going to park?  Shoppers coming to buy in bulk, buy gold or buy expensive clothing will want to come by car, they will not want to come by bus or train, yet the larger Montrose Crescent Car Park is being closed to build flats and you plan to close the small Ealing Road library car park and also remove around 10 parking bays from the street/slip road outside the library?

Whether residents are in favour or against this plan a proper consultation needs to be carried out and further information re the traffic issues and parking problems needs to be supplied.

Residents call for wider and extended consultation on controversial Ealing Road Library plans

Ealing Road Library (centre) set back from Ealing Road

Residents around Ealing Road Library, Wembley, are calling for the consultation plans on the development of the Ealing Road Library site in Ealing Road to be extended on the grounds that few residents knew about the plans and the very limited circulation of letters asking for views on the plans.  In addition the notice of the planning  application posted near the library was obscured.

 The plans envisage bringing forward the boundary of the library to the pavement edge by building a community enterprise hub on one side and a 'tea house' cafe on the other  with a courtyard between the two that could be used for community events, a market or an outdoor cinema.

According to the application the aim is to bring more outside visitors into an area that residents advise is already congested.

As with many such developments residents feel that the application has been hidden from them and now that they have found out about it there is too little time to respond. They question whether the Council has fulfilled its statutory responsibilities in terms of consultation.

One of the application documents found on-line states:

The investment will deliver a new cafe, a new public space and a community and enterprise hub which will be used for gathering, extended library activities, performance, market days and other events that will attract local and London wide visitors.  The project is the first element in the wider series of Gem Chain projects which aim to attract visitors London-wide to Ealing Road and reinstate the place’s status as a premier high street place.

 Local residents concerns  are as follows:

The poorly promoted consultation with poorly sited planning notice dated 27th October which states deadline for comments on the application is 17th November - just three weeks?  Also the planning notice states docs would only available to view on line from 2nd November – so not even the full three weeks to study the docs and comment if you are able to access them on line, a lot of older residents are not?  Why such a short amount of time for local people to comment? When pushed the library finally had hard copies to view on from 11th November, over two weeks already into the consultation period.

Developing the library space and re-promoting Ealing Road as a major shopping destination could have a further serious impact on the environment for local residents who are concerned about the potential of even more traffic in grid locked Ealing Road, more pollution, more noise pollution and more rubbish on local streets.  Ealing Road is already gridlocked most weekends.  If shoppers are coming to buy in bulk or buy gold or buy expensive clothes they will want to come by car – they will not want to come by bus or tube!  Yet Montrose Crescent car park is being closed to build flats, so if they also close the small library car park and also loose around 10 spaces from the slip road outside the library due to the forecourt being extended what other parking provision is going to be offered – will they take away resident only parking bays and allow shoppers to use them?

These plans have clearly been drawn up and put together over a considerable period of time and considerable expense with no apparent consideration for these issues and their impact on local council tax-paying residents who believe the consultation needs to be re-promoted and the deadline for comments extended:

(a)       there are lot of local people who would not have seen the planning notice due to the poor location of the planning notice;
(b)      there are lot of local people who would not have heard anything about this development due to lack of information locally;
(c)       there are lot of local people who do not have Internet access to view the plans on line - if they do go to the library to view them on-line it is very time consuming to try and look through the 42 individual documents on your website, these should be printed out and put on display in Ealing Road Library;
(d)      there are lot of local people who are not able to get up to the Civic Centre to view the plans at all (lack of mobility, traffic problems, parking restrictions, etc);
(e)       there are lot of local people who are not able to get to the Civic Centre to view the plans between 9-5pm during weekdays (people who work, have childcare or family commitments etc);
(f)       some local residents don’t even know how to use a computer yet there is no address on the planning notice for people to write to should they wish to comment on the application.

The Planning Application(Ref 16/4527) can be found HERE

This is one of the main documents supporting the application:

Click bottom right for full view

UPDATE: Planning Committee refuses controversial Co-op store application

Brent Planning Committee has turned down the planning application for a Co-operative store to replace a car repair workshop on Burnley Road, opposite the north entrance to Dollis Hill station.

The application had split the local community with the majority of those who submitted an opinion against. LINK

'Angry & disappointed' Barry Gardiner refers Byron Court planning decision to Secretary of State

Following the Brent Planning Committee's decision to approve the expansion of Byron Court Primary School to accommodate more than 1,000 children, Barry Gardiner, the Labour MP for Brent North, has asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to call in their decision and recommends its overturn on the grounds that it sets a dangerous precedent for planning applications for similar sized schools and that the application has not been made in compliance with the National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF).

The Planning Committee is statutorily independent of the Council but Gardiner's decision marks a significant moment in his relationship with the Council.

Below you will find Gardiner's letter to residents and his letter to the Secretary of State.

Wembley Lycee swimming pool planning application turned down again

Brent Planning Committee refused planning permission for a swimming pool at the Wembley French School last night.  It had returned to the agenda with a report from officers that continued to recommend the granting of planning permission but gave the committee grounds on which they could refuse the application. LINK

The officer's report also contained warnings about the possibility of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

The Lycee is housed in the former Brent Town Hall building.

The planning application for a mixed redevelopment of the Red House site near Wembley Stadium station also returned to the agenda after the refusal of the planning application. This item was deferred.

Planning Committee and officers in tussle over Lycee swimming pool and Red House

The proposed swimming pool building - the bus stop is currently in front of the rectangular proposed entrance

The planning application by Lycee International De Londres Winston Churchill to build a basement swimming pool on the Grade Two listed former Brent Town Hall site is coming up again at Brent Planning Committee on January 13th. LINK

In a surprise move the Planning Committee turned down the application  at its last meeting but must now give reasons for its decision that could withstand appeal to the Planning Committee. Planning Officers stand by their decision and warn:

In making this resolution [minded to refuse permission], Members raised concerns about the development related to reasons highlighted below. No additional material or information has been submitted by the applicant for Officers to comment on. Members are reminded that any appeals are assessed by the Planning Inspectorate and that appeal performance is a planning ‘quality’ indicator. Appeals also involve costs in terms of staff time and legal advice and the appellant’s costs can be awarded if an Inspector considers that a reason for refusal to be unreasonable. The test of unreasonableness is different from not agreeing with the Council’s decision.

The Committee is reminded that both Heritage England and the 20th Century Society were consulted about the plans before officers recommended approval. Officers stand by their original recommendation to grant planning permission but give a formulation to justify refusal if the Committee decides to maintain their position.

The Committee refused planning permission on two counts - one regarding the impact on the view of the building and the other on the impact of repositioning of the bus stop that is currently adjacent to the steps up to the building.

These would be examined by the Planning Inspectorate if the application goes to appeal:

The proposed pool building, by reason of its design, size and siting and, in particular, its location within the principal frontage of the Grade II listed former Brent Town Hall, results in a detrimental impact on the setting of a Grade II listed building, reducing the visibility of the listed building when viewed from the immediate frontage of the property. This is contrary to Policy 7.8 of the London Plan (consolidated with further alterations since 2011) and the National Planning Policy Framework. 

In the absence of specific details of the proposed relocation of the bus stop and shelter, the proposal is likely to result in conditions prejudicial to the free and safe flow of traffic on a distributor road in terms of the proximity of the bus cage to the traffic signals. This is contrary to saved policies TRN3 and TRN4 of the Brent Unitary Development Plan 2004. 

The Planning Committee's less publicised rejection of the much higher value Red House planning application is subject to the same process.  This is the former Wembley Conservative Party Club close to Wembley Stadium station which was sold off  by the Tories and currently occupied by a commercial play facility. LINK

Situated between the station and the London Designer Outlet this is clearly a valuable plot and the Conservatives may be kicking themselves over the original disposal. The plans are for two buildings, one yet another hotel, 13 storeys with 312 beds, restaurant, bar, gym and offices and another of 4 storeys for A1-4 and D2 use. The development would involve realignment of the route between South Way and the Wembley Park Boulevard.

The Officers again maintain their original recommendation to approve the application, warn about the risks attached to it going to the Planning Inspectorate but give possible reasons for refusal:

-->

1) Design,siting, scale and massing in relation to adjoining buildings

The report and supplementary discussed the relationship to existing buildings, the current masterplan and proposed future changes. Officers consider that the siting and scale issues are generally appropriate to development within the wider growth area and recognise the change in the applicant's ownership. However, if Members are minded to refuse on similar grounds then the following is a possible reason for refusal which concentrates on design issues and the corner location:

The proposal provides an unacceptable response in terms of its design, detailing (including materials) and siting to its prominent corner location and to its relationship to the primary pedestrian route from the High Road, including the legibility of the London Designer Outlet centre, and in the context of the wider masterplan and other development proposals. The proposal is accordingly detrimental to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to saved policies BE2, BE3, BE7, BE9, BE10 of the Brent Unitary Development Plan 2004, policy CP5 of the Brent LDF Core Strategy 2010 and Policies WEM1, WEM2, WEM5 of the Wembley Area Action Plan 2015.

(2) Impact on Wembley Park Boulevard in terms of its width during construction and its future alignment to Stadium Station Square

The report explained the reasons for the realignment of the original route of the "boulevard" to link with Stadium Station Square to the south of South Way. Amendments were sought to the layout of the building to respond to this change and, on balance, the principle issue is the legibility of the route and its attractiveness and design for the function intended. If Members are minded to refuse on this ground then the following is a possible reason for refusal;

The proposal, by reason of the reduced width of the interim “boulevard” during construction, fails to demonstrate that the proposal will not result in conditions prejudicial to pedestrian safety during Major Events at Wembley Stadium. This is contrary to saved policy TRN10 of the Brent Unitary Development Plan 2004.

 As often stated here the Planning Committee has statutory independence from the Council and it is interesting to see how that will be maintained, particularly in the new era following the departure of Andy Donald, previously in charge of planning along with regeneration and major projects.