Planning officers back developer's application to squeeze an extra 6 private units out of Willesden Green Garage development

 

View from Park Avenue

"The proposal is considered to have a high quality design that has regard to the character of its surroundings and would have an appropriate relationship with the surrounding buildings and would not result in harm to the setting of the Grade II Listed Building."  Officers' Report

Kingsley Court the Grade II Listed Building opposite the site

 

 The garage site

Brent Planning Committee will decide this afternoon whether to accept changes to the extant planning permission for the garage site at the junction of St Pauls Avenue and Park Avenue, Willesden Green. There is likely to be discussion about whether the changes amount to a 'minor amendment'  to the planning permission already granted or necessitate a new application. Committee members will be aware that a previous planning appeal against refusal of planning permission succeeded.

The main change is the addition of 6 private flats for sale at market rates requiring changes in the internal layout.:

     PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

 The 6 extra units obviously means some changes in the internal layout. This includes multiple flat entrances from landings. I suggest that this level of traffic is worth looking at in the context of Covid19  contagion  as well as the reduction in size of the units.

Five of the private floors would exceed the Housing SPG target of 8 homes per floor per core (with 2 x 9, 2 x 10 and 1 x 12 homes per core on the respective cores). However, this is not considered to have a significant impact on the quality of accommodation or levels of social cohesion.

There are 13 comments about the development on the Planning Portal, all of which are objections from neighbours. Some refer to the extant application rather than the revisions. This comment is about the revisions:

 I am concerned that in increasing the number of units this will have several adverse impacts, and would like to raise the following issues:


1. The increase in units has not led to a change in the number of affordable units. why not? A revised Financial Viability Appraisal should be submitted to ascertain whether further affordable units would have to be incorporated due to the improved viability.

2. More family units are not being added, as obviously this is an attempt to squeeze more out of the site.

3. Disabled bays are being lost. Changes to basement car parking do not offer a more efficient layout but do fail to meet either the London Plan requirement of space for 10% of the flats or Condition 6 in respect of spaces for disabled parking (7 not 8).

4. The reduction of landscaping elements does not help mitigate noise levels in the amenity spaces.

5. The provision of outdoor amenity space ("winter gardens") does not come up to the standard aimed for by Brent. There is a bigger overall shortfall and 5 units would fail to meet the London Plan's minimum of 5 SQM.

6. The iron railings with vegetation behind in the approved scheme are apparently to be replaced by a solid brick wall along St Pauls Avenue which would have a detrimental effect on the street scene especially with the removal of the green roof over the ramp.

7. As another resident has commented: the changes in palette and landscaping mean the proposed amendment is no longer "in keeping with the urban character and appearance of the area".

8. Since the last application, COVID-19 has led to major changes in peoples lives - with workers/residents spending more time at home - is now the time to approve smaller flats?

9. Issues around parking, servicing and deliveries associated with the proposed development have not been further considered in the latest documents. This is particularly relevant due to the continuing increase in on-line sales and home deliveries.

11. Near neighbours have concerns that: Aspects of the proposed changes that would worsen the situation are the omission of the landscaping features which were in the central space as well as around the perimeter and the large open spaces on the 3rd and 4th levels which are particularly concerning to neighbours.

10. The additional 6 self-contained units, enlarged external floor space and repositioned and redesigned ramp constitute a proposal that is significantly different.

11. Para 17 of the Committee Report confirmed that the scheme now approved would result in a density above the London Plan matrix range . The further intensification now proposed does not represent sustainable development and there is no justification for the significant harm that would result.

12. The significant changes to the internal layout and the increase in units beyond the reduction to 70 originally approved by the planning officers exceeds the scope of a 'Minor Amendment' and requires a new planning application.

 

The application will be heard this afternoon at 4pm.  View live HERE

GLA say Woodfield Nursery development at Welsh Harp does not conform with the London Plan

The GLA have raised objections to the controversial plan LINK to build on the Woodfield Nursery site, Cool Oak Lane, Barnet, near the Welsh Harp Metropolitan Open Land. This means that if Barnet Council make a draft decision in favour of the planning application they have to give 14 days to allow the Deputy Mayor for Planning, Jules Pipe, to decide whether to allow the application to proceed unchanged, direct the Council to refuse the application, or to take over as planning authority himself.

The conclusions of a much longer report (available BELOW) are:
 

London Plan and the Mayor’s Intend to Publish London Plan policies on Metropolitan Open Land is the key strategic issue relevant to this planning application. The development constitutes inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land and very special circumstances have not been demonstrated in this case. The application therefore does not comply with the London Plan as set out below:

• Principle of development: The proposed residential development in an inaccessible location constitutes unsustainable development contrary to London Plan and intend to publish London Plan
  
• Metropolitan Open Land: The development would have a substantial impact on the openness of the MOL and would be inappropriate development; the development does not therefore meet the NPPF exceptions tests and no very special circumstances have been demonstrated. The proposals thus fail the requirements of Policy 7.17 of the London Plan, Policy G3 of the Intend to Publish London Plan and the NPPF.
  
• Housing and affordable housing: 41 units proposed. Notwithstanding the objection to the unsustainable location of the housing proposals, the principle of 35% affordable housing is supported, but this provision does not constitute ‘very special circumstances’ that would justify the development with substantial impact on MOL. The application currently does not fully comply with Policy H5 to be eligible for a Fast Track Route. The applicant should clarify the affordable housing offer by habitable room, and appropriate tenure split in favour of affordable rent. The on-site playspace provision should be appropriately demonstrated and secured by condition.
  
• Urban design: The development would significantly reduce the openness of MOL and is thus inappropriate in principle. Notwithstanding this, the applicant should provide information on equal distribution of affordable and market units within the site to avoid segregation. The application should re-consider the positioning of single aspect north facing units.
  
• Climate change: Further information has been requested on the energy strategy, urban greening and air quality.
  
• Transport: An entirely car dependent development in a PTAL 0 area is unsustainable and contrary to London Plan and Intend to Publish London Plan policy. 

Click on bottom right corner to enlarge document

Appeal from Rumi's Cave on Carlton Centre Planning Application

Message from Rumi's Cave

Dear All,

Although the consultation period has now ended, we can still send in concerns and objections as we uncover new facts.

The building where we are homed, the Carlton Centre, has been regarded as D1 use and this is identified as 'Class D1. Non-residential institutions':

Any use not including a residential use —

(a)for the provision of any medical or health services except the use of premises attached to the residence of the consultant or practitioner,
(b)as a crêche, day nursery or day centre,
(c)for the provision of education,
(d)for the display of works of art (otherwise than for sale or hire),
(e)as a museum,
(f)as a public library or public reading room,
(g)as a public hall or exhibition hall,
(h)for, or in connection with, public worship or religious instruction.

Putting offices in these buildings requires a change of use, even if the offices are for social enterprises and startups.

The Council have not applied for change of use on the latest planning permission application and therefore the planning application is not valid.

Keeping this in mind, please email your objections to patrick.Doyle@brent.gov.uk (Planning ref# 19/2378)

Thank-you for all your support.

---

Michaela seeks permission for a gigantic new school sign

The current school sign

The proposed new sign

A comparison of the two signs from Bridge Road

Michaela Free School in Wembley Park which already has a large school sign that hits you eye in the eye as you cross Bridge Road from Wembley Park station has applied to Brent Council to erect a new. much larger replacement sign on the same posts as the current sign.

As the architect's drawing shows the sign against the full height of the Michaela building it is not easy to gauge the impact of the change at human eye level so I have reproduced them  below for comparison. It is almost as if the application seeks to minimise the true scale.

Present sign

Proposed sign

As far as I can see the planning application does not give the dimensions of the present sign.  The replacement sign is 3.6 metres x 2 metres ( approx 12 ft by 6-1/2ft) - much larger than any school sign I know and in my view more suitable for a commercial premises.  

Readers can comment on the application18/2675 before August 21st. The application seeks permission until July 2032. 

Comment HERE

Butt attempts to answer questions about his meetings with developers and ex Council leader poses some of his own

Kilburn Times front page last week

Cllr John Warren has received answers to the questions he sent to Cllr Butt, Leader of Brent Council, over Butt's meetings with developers. This is what Butt had to say about the issues raised on Wembley Matters and in the Kilburn Times. Note the claim that the FoI response was erroneous:

I’m sure you’ve already seen Debra Norman’s response to Phillip Grant. Please find a copy attached, just in case.

As suggested therein, if you have a complaint you should contact the borough’s chief legal officer immediately. If that is not the case then I’ll kindly ask for confirmation at your earliest convenience that you do not in fact endorse these baseless accusations. Until then, answers to your questions are as follows:

1. What was the purpose of these three meetings,and in broad terms what was discussed?

•    An error was made in responding to the FOI on which your questions are based. The meetings to which you refer occurred at least a year earlier than reported. Clarification and an apology is in the process of being issued. Nevertheless, those meetings were to discuss much needed inward investment and the building of essential new homes.

2. Why were no minutes of these meetings taken - so as to follow LGA guidance?

•    I have attached the relevant information so you can read for yourself what is recommended for which type of meeting.

3.What meetings have you held with other developers in Brent -particularly Quintain- since 2014?

•    With regard to Quintain, we meet and correspond at a range of levels on a number of issues on a regular basis. More generally, I along with officers, meet and communicate with numerous active and potential developers on a regular basis regarding, as above, inward investment and the building of new homes.

4. Please confirm , for the record, that you have not attempted to influence the votes of any member of the planning committee ?

•    Whether as a member of cabinet, or as a local councillor, joint working, both formal and informal, and dialogue with members of the planning committee is recognised as a legitimate reality of local government life. For the avoidance of doubt I can confirm that I have done just that as both leader of the council and ward councillor.

With regard to the final question, are you suggesting that it’s not a part of our role to comment on, support, or oppose relevant applications? Either way, are you saying that you’ve never sought to influence a planning decision?

I have also asked Debra Norman the chief legal officer to make some additions to the planning code of practice to reflect current guidance and practice in respect of s not on the planning committee which will help clear up any confusion ,  a copy of which is attached.

Muhammed Butt

Former Liberal Democrat and Brent Council leader Paul Lorber has also waded into the issue in a letter sent to Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive:

 Dear Ms Downs

I am extremely concerned at the front page story about the unminuted Meetings between the Leader of a Brent Council and a large developer who was in the process of having their Planning application considered.

Were you aware of these meetings, did you attend and did you authorise them?

You will be aware that the Alperton Masterplan was subject to public consultation, including with residents, and that the height of the buildings in the area were restricted "to up to 17 storeys".

When did the Council change the Masterplan or its policies to breach this commitment to local people and allow buildings of 26 storeys?

What exactly was the purpose of the meetings with the developer, who initiated them and was the height of the buildings they propose and any financial contributions discussed?

You will be aware that Brent Council subscribes to Open Government and that involvement of the Leader of the Council with Developers at a time when their Planning application, in breach of the Masterplan height limits, is being considered is of justified public interest.

What discussions about this Developers Plans took place in the regular Leadership/Officer meetings and how did any of these influence the planning process? Did any officers from Planning or any Councillors on the Planning Committee attend any of these meetings?

Please set out the protocol dealing with the issue of the Leader or any Councillors meeting Developers at a time when their major Planning applications are under consideration.

There is now a new Planning application for a 28 storey building on the site of the Boat pub in Bridgewater Road/Ealing Road. Can you advise what meetings involving Councillors or Officers took place discussing a proposal over 50% taller than the 17 storey Alperton Master Plan limit?

I would appreciate a full and early reply hopefully without the need to invoke a Freedom of Information.

Yours sincerely

Paul Lorber

Sink the Ark! Hendon Town Hall October 25th

From Barnet Parents Defending Education

ARK want the old Barnet football ground at Underhill, for a computer-based learning system which reduces the need for teachers so the academy chain makes savings by staffing cuts and supersize classrooms. 

Blended learning technology was commissioned by venture capitalists in the USA who hope to see ARK trial it in a London school. 

Is this what we want for our young people and staff?

• Residents are seriously concerned about the narrow, bendy, country roads around Barnet Lane and Mays Lane which become congested as it is.

• Two large secondary schools opposite each other is unwelcome. The Totteridge Academy is rapidly improving and is linked to the community.

Why sell our Greenbelt? 

• Barnet Council sold our Greenbelt land, to Tony Kleanthous, of Barnet Football Club for the price of a basic car - 14 years ago.

Government Education Dept. paid Tony £14.2 Million to buy it!

• Why was public money spent before planning permission was granted and at a time when existing schools are suffering cuts and have had cuts year on year, to their education budgets?

• Now ARK Pioneer propose to change the roads to two lanes which overall is unlikely to help and costs Millions from the Education budget and Barnet Council will have to pay almost half of the costs. Is this what local residents want? Is this best for our Borough?

Come to Hendon Town Hall on Wed. 25^th Oct

The ARK PIONEER planning permission meeting is

on: Wednesday 25^th Oct. 2017.

Start:7.00pm. But even 8ish will show you care. All Welcome. 

It is your right to attend and hear what is planned.

They Hoped YOU would not find out that this was coming to the Town Hall on Wed.

Even the local Councillors were only informed a few days ago about Wed. 25^th Oct

Show you care about a residents voice and education across the whole borough.

500 responses to the consultation on Ark Pioneer only 35 in support.

Contact: Barnet Parents Defending Education at: b.p.d.education@gmail.com

 The Council are proclaiming a need for more school places but this is related to the whole Borough in the future.

There is no need for a new school in Underhill and the seven surrounding Wards.

Over the whole borough, several schools have spare places, including Bishop Douglas and Christ College in Finchley as well as Whitefields and others.

 

Saracens have land and will shortly open through school in Mill Hill/Colindale area.

The Totteridge Academy last year raised exam results by 20% so that 67% of pupils got 5 A - C grades. But this school needs continued support NOT competition from ARK pioneer.

The Borough of Barnet has 10 academy companies currently. Most are small and some have excellent policies. But Ark are so powerful it will greatly distort and damage current and future relationships between schools and the Council.

Let us know if you want info regarding how ARK plough extra private funding currently into some of their Ark schools to raise exam results. Additionally exclusions are higher than usual in Ark schools. 

But Ark Pioneer is not related to extra private funds but starts a trend towards fewer teachers and the disruption of classroom structure..

Surely, Barnet would  be better off without an 11th Academy Company.

Decision deferred (again): Harrow Council debacle over Harrow School planning application

There will be red faces at Harrow Council over a mess up that means that Wednesday's planning application by Harrow school has been deferred.
The application involving building on Metropolitan Open Land had already been deferred last November.

  Manize Talukdar, Democratic & Electoral Services Officer at Harrow Council informed Harrow Hill Trust, who have campaigned against the proposals:

Please note that officers will be asking Members to defer this application as an incorrect version of the report was published in the agenda, in error.

Harrow Hill Trust notified supporters of the deferral on its Change Petition website LINK and commented:

So although it [the planning application]  will be raised at the meeting it will be deferred. Unfortunately as it is being raised, the constitution does not allow us to raise a question even though it is not going to be discussed! 

We have clearly shown many mistakes in the applicant's documentation and the subsequent Case Officer's report, as set out in our letters of 11th June 2016 and 27 February 2017, we noted that the latest Officer's Report published unilaterally scrapped the MOL swap in favour of building on MOL and having an MOL extension. This being in conflict with the application as published and the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). 

This is all very worrying when we are relying on our Council's planning department to serve the residents.

It seems that Brent is not the only council having problems with its planning department!

For the record these are the recommendations as currently posted on the Harrow Council Planning Committee agenda page:

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Committee is asked to:
·      agree the reasons for approval and the conditions as set out in this report in appendix 1; and 

·      refer this application to the Mayor of London (the GLA) as a Stage 2 referral; and 

·      subject to the Mayor of London (or delegated authorised officer) advising that he is content to allow the Council to determine the application and does not wish to issue a direction under Article 7 that he does not wish to direct refusal, or to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purposes of determining the application, delegate authority to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the continued negotiation and completion of the Section 106 legal agreement and other enabling legislation and issue of the planning permission and subject to minor amendments to the conditions (set out in Appendix 1 of this report) or the legal agreement. The Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms would cover the following matters:
.        a)  The area to the west of the application site shown on Plan P.05.12 delineated in black and coloured light green (referred to below as “the MOL extension land”) shall remain permanently open and not be developed at any time in the future except for landscaping purposes approved by the authority or in accordance with policy relating to MOL as set out in London Plan Policy 17.7 or a revision thereof. 

.        b)  The existing buildings which are within the MOL extension land and also those within the area delineated in blue on Plan P.05.12 shall be demolished no later than 15 months after first occupation of the proposed new Sports facility building the subject of planning application P/1940/16. 

.        c)  The area of land delineated in blue on Plan P.05.12 shall thereafter not be developed at any time in the future except for landscaping purposes approved by the authority or in accordance with the policy relating to MOL as set out in London Plan Policy 17.7 or a revision thereof. 

.        d)  Community Use Agreement to be implemented; 

.        e)  Implementation of the Sustainable Travel Plan; 

.        f)  Undertaking that the applicant will work with Harrow Council on Employment and 
Training Initiatives including apprenticeships associated with the proposed 
construction;
g)  Additional Tree Planting; 

.        h)  Local goods and services; and 

.        i)  Monitoring fee - £5,000.00 


RECOMMENDATION B

Appendix 1 - Plan P.05.12

That if the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 14^th June 2017, or as such extended period as may be agreed by the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee, then it is recommended to delegate the decision to REFUSE planning permission to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning on the grounds that:
The proposed development, in the absence of a Planning Obligation to secure necessary agreements and commitments in relation to the development, would fail to mitigate the impact of the development upon infrastructure and the wider area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies 3.19, 6.3, 7.14 and 8.2 of the London Plan (2016), Policies CS 1 G and Z of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policies DM 43, DM 46 and DM 50 of the Local Plan (2013), and the provisions of the Harrow Planning Obligations supplementary planning document.

REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Whilst noting the harmful impact on the Conservation Area, the wider benefits to both Harrow School and the wider community are considered to override these concerns in this instance. Notwithstanding this, there are improvements to the Conservation Area and the setting of Listed Buildings, notably:
·      The implementation of high quality landscaping within the area to the south of Football Lane both within the application site and the areas adjacent the subject of the s106 obligation. 

·      The enhancements to the setting of listed buildings including in particular the Head Master’s, Vaughan Library, the Chapel, New Schools and Butler building by reason of creation of openness adjacent to them and by reason of the landscaping proposed, in accordance with covenants in the s106 obligation 
Furthermore the application has demonstrated very special circumstances in accordance with policies relating to development within Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), notably: 

·      The site circumstances, including the significant planning constraints experienced across the School’s estate and the lack of alternative suitable land; 

·      The pressing academic curriculum needs for sports and science; 

·      The very significant sports benefits of the proposal, providing sports facilities in a sustainable location which are of very high quality and sports training facilities for 
young persons in particular; 

·      The provision of significant shared access to very high quality sports and leisure 
facilities for the local community and local schools at no charge to the public purse in an area of high deprivation and need for sports facilities, where there are no comparable sports facilities in the area of such quality. 
 


Residents' views absent from offical record of Wembley Stadium Planning Committee meeting

Residents' claims that they were not being heard over the issue of the Wembley Stadium/Tottenham Hotspur planning application to increase the number of full capacity events at the stadium appear to have been borne out by the minutes of the Planning Committee published today.

The minutes merely list the names and organisations of those who made detailed and well-researched presentations to the Planning Committee with not even a summary of what they had to say.The presentations of Chris Bryant for Wembley National stadium Limited and Donna-Maria Cullen of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club are treated in a similar way.

This means that there is no official historical record of both the objections and the undertakings given by the applicants.

I think it is also noteworthy that the written representations of Cllr Butt,  leader of the council and Cllr Ketan Sheth, are not recorded.  As Planning Committee is not livestreamed this means that local residents have no access to what they wrote although they may have influenced the Planning Committee's decision.

These are the minutes as they appear on the Council website LINK:

PROPOSAL:  Proposed variation of condition 3 (event cap, to allow 31 additional full capacity events) and removal of condition 33 (temporary traffic management) of planning permission reference 99/2400, which was for:

Full planning application to consider the complete demolition of Wembley Stadium and clearance of the site to provide a 90,000-seat sports and entertainment stadium (Use Class D2), 4750m2 of office accommodation (Use Class B1), banqueting/conference facilities (Use Class D2), ancillary facilities including catering, restaurant (Use Class A3), retail, kiosks (Use Class A1), toilets and servicing space; re-grading of existing levels within the application site and removal of trees, alteration of existing and provision of new access points (pedestrian and vehicular), and parking for up to 458 coaches, 43 mini-buses and 1,200 cars or 2,900 cars (or combination thereof) including 250 Orange Badge parking spaces.

As approved, condition 3 stated that for two years following completion of the stadium, subject to the completion of specific improvement works to Wembley Park Station and construction of roads known as Estate Access Corridor and Stadium Access Corridor, the number of major sporting events held at the stadium in any one year was restricted to no more than 22 (to exclude European Cup and World Cup events where England/UK is the host nation), and the number of major non-sporting events to 15. After this, additional events over and above this were permitted subject to the number of spectators being limited to the capacity of the lower and middle tiers of the stadium. The proposal would allow for up to an additional 22 major sporting Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) events between 1 August 2017 and 31 July 2018.

A major event (which may or may not include THFC) would be considered to be an event in the stadium bowl with a capacity in excess of 10,000 people.

The application includes the submission of an Environmental Statement.

RECOMMENDATION:

Resolve to grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a satisfactory deed of variation to the existing Section 106 legal agreement to achieve the matters set out in the report, delegate authority to the Head of Planning to make minor changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives) prior to the decision, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the committee.

David Glover (Area Planning Manager) introduced the proposal and responded to members’ questions.  He referenced the supplementary report which provided additional detail on some of the mitigation measures proposed, and some additional measures beyond what was contained within the main committee report. In his view the measures amplified in the main and supplementary reports would assist to mitigate the impacts of the greater number of major events which the application proposed. He added that Section 106 financial contributions were secured in the original planning consent. 

Dr Ruth Kosmin spoke on behalf of Barnhill Residents’ Association (BHRA) objecting to the proposal.

Dr Michael Calderbank objected to the proposal on behalf of Wembley Park Residents’ Association.

Denise Cheong representing Wembley Champions also spoke in objection to the proposal.

D Bablas on behalf of Wembley High Road Businesses Association also spoke in objection to the proposal.

Fatima-Karim Khaku representing BHRA also spoke in objection to the proposal.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Choudhary, ward member, stated that he had been approached by members of BHRA. Councillor Choudhary objected to the proposal on the grounds that it did not contain adequate information to assess the environmental, transport and business impacts.  He added that in addition to increased anti-social behaviour, the proposal would put a strain on the road network in the area.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Stopp stated that he had been approached by local residents. Councillor Stopp stated that the potential benefits of the proposal would be outweighed by the costs to the area including fear of anti-social behaviour and increased litter (evidenced by the increase in the caseload from his constituents) and undesirable precedent.

Alice Lester (Head of Planning) read out in full, the written statements submitted by Councillors Butt and Ketan Sheth (ward members).

Chris Bryant representing Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) addressed the Committee, answered members’ questions.

Donna-Maria Cullen on behalf of THFC addressed the Committee in similar terms and answered members’ questions.  

In the ensuing discussion, members questioned the applicants on a number of issues including search for alternative venues, the weight placed on residents’ views, measures they would take to reduce impact on local traders, transport and amenity impacts and the cost of policing.  Members heard that following a wide ranging search, Wembley Stadium was identified as the most preferred site that would suit the needs and aspirations of THFC.  The applicants continued that as a direct result of local views, full capacity events had been revised to 22 and that attending fans would be given a directory of local traders where they could shop.  They reiterated the mitigation measures to address the transport and amenity impacts.

Tony Kennedy and John Fletcher from the Council’s from Highways and Transportation outlined additional measures to reduce transport impact.   

DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended.

(Voting: For 6; Against 1; Abstention 0)

Note:  The Committee voted to disapply the guillotine procedure to enable members to continue consideration of the application beyond 10:00pm.

Supporting documents:

'Remind me, please, who is our local Council meant to serve?' - Brent Council propaganda on Wembley Stadium condemned

Brent Council's celebratory announcement of the approval of the Wembley Stadium - Tottenham Hotsput planning application to increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium has drawn stinging criticism.

Cllr John Warren has written to fellow councillors:

Am I the only member appalled at the "celebratory " tone of the Your Brent piece on the Wembley Stadium / Spurs planning approval on the Brent website?

The piece mentions the "extensive consultation process, "but is completely silent on the results of that consultation! Our intelligence is then insulted by a quote from a Brent Council spokesman, who speaks about a " balance being struck." What balance?

It is complete propaganda...and why are we celebrating a decision which offends a very large number of our residents? The phrase "rubbing salt in the wound " springs to mind.

Cllr John Warren

On Friday Philip Grant on a comment on this  blog wrote:

It is sickening that, this morning, Brent Council's website has a banner headline celebrating Spurs being given full capacity use of Wembley Stadium, linked to a Council press release about the Planning Committee decision which does not mention the objections made by local residents and businesses:
https://www.brent.gov.uk/council-news/press-releases/pr6556/

Remind me, please, who is our local Council meant to serve?

... and then, to add insult to injury, at 1pm today the Council emailed me "Spurs are on their way to Wembley!", a copy of the latest "Your Brent" digital news-sheet, with the same banner headline celebrating the Planning Committee decision.

But this is a very distorted news report, because it makes no mention of the very valid objections put forward to the committee, by local people and some councillors on behalf of their residents.

It is as if the Council's press release reporting the decision was prepared before the Planning Committee meeting took place, which it probably was!

Philip Grant

This is the Council's statement. complete with an image of celebratory fountains, posted on its website on the evening of March 23rd - the day of the Planning Committee:

Temporary increase to full capacity events at Wembley Stadium approved

23 March 2017

An application from the FA/Wembley National Stadium Ltd to temporarily increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium has been agreed by Brent Council's Planning Committee this evening (March 23).

The decision, which follows an extensive consultation process, paves the way for 22 additional full capacity events for Tottenham Hotspur Football Club matches, of up to 90,000 fans to take place at the stadium between August 2017 and July 2018.

Under current rules there is no limit on the number of events that can be held at a maximum capacity of 51,000.

It is understood that Tottenham Hotspur are set to make the national stadium their temporary home while their new ground at White Hart Lane is developed.

Wembley had originally requested permission for an additional 31 full capacity events but this was reduced to 22 prior to the application coming to committee. The application has now been approved subject to a number of additional measures being put in place, including ones designed to deal with the impacts of increased numbers of people in the area. These include controlling parking and traffic, signage, street cleaning, event management and control of public safety including aspects such as alcohol sale and street trading. The Committee heard from objectors and the applicant before making their decision.

A Brent Council spokesperson said: "Wembley Stadium is a highly valued part of our borough bringing visitors from around the world. We are pleased that a balance has been struck between recognising the impact on local residents and businesses whilst enabling the Stadium to make good use of its facilities and support a London club to operate in the capital while their ground is being redeveloped."

"We look forward to working closely with the Stadium, the Football Association and Tottenham Hotspur Football Club in the forthcoming year both on the management of events and their work in the local community that they outlined in their application."