Wembley Stadium bids for planning permission for up to 54 major events (each 60,000+ attendance) a year

Wembley National Stadium Ltd has applied for a change in the cap on the number of events held at the stadium annually:

The variation of Condition 1 will allow the use of the Stadium for up to 54 major events per calendar year (an additional 8 events), with a major event considered as one with an event capacity in excess of 60,000 people.

 

The variation proposed also includes other changes to modernise the Event Cap as set out below. This variation is required to the Event Cap to ensure it is fit for purpose in response to industry change and an increasingly competitive market. Whilst the revised Event Cap could be taken up in full, in practice WNSL are unlikely to host this number of major events, with the additional events sought principally to ensure sufficient ‘headroom’ is available to support the booking process for artistes.

 

An amendment to Condition 2 is sought to enable the implementation of temporary traffic measures for up to 54 major events.

Concerts earn more income than sporting events and the application is for the ability to hold more  of them.

The higher direct economic impact associated with non-sporting events was due to a range of factors, including longer dwell times in and around the stadium and greater number of long distance domestic and international visitors, resulting in longer trip durations and more overnight stays. In particular, average expenditure per head was 120% higher for accommodation (£22 compared to £10) and 50% higher for food and drink (£12 compared to £8).

The non-sporting event timetable:

You might be forgiven for thinking that WNSL assume the result of the application, which has to go to Brent Planning Committee, is a foregone conclusion:

       WNSL has conducted pre-application discussions with the Leader and Chief Executive of Brent Council where the proposals in this application were presented. Following that meeting it was agreed between the attendees that:

    “The proposals presented were positively received and WNSL were commended for their professional delivery of stadium event operations to date. It was recognised that the flexibility built into the application to provide a range of dates to promoters and artists is a necessary requirement for WNSL to continually deliver global event success and retain Wembley Stadium’s world class status as an iconic venue for the delivery of sporting and non-sporting events. The benefits of retaining high quality acts at the stadium also reap great rewards for the borough of Brent through the growth of the local community, businesses, economy and tourism.”

There is no mention in the Planning Statement of mitigation for the impact of an increased number of events on local people.  Residents' ability to move around the area, especially by public transport, is directly impacteded. Some bus routes are doverted and others, such as the 206 curtailed completely.

For several weeks running now there has been next to no 206 bus service between Brent Park and The Paddocks in Wembley at the weekend. Yesterday I found a 3 generation family waiting in vain for the 206 at The Paddocks to go to the Swaminarayan Temple in  Brentfield Roadm Neasden. They had to abandon their outing.

Local resident Peggy Wylie asked in November 2023 when full-working on event days would be restored for the 206 following earlier promises that this would happen once North End Road was connected with Bridge Road. This was completed several years ag but the 206 still doesn't run and the elderly and infirm on the Pilgrims Way estate are cut-off on event days.

The latest statement from Brent Council earlier this month gives some hope:

We have been working with TfL Buses and projects in the Wembley area including Two Way working phase 2 which includes the provision of bus stands and us driver facilities on Great Central Way and making First Way two way. The scheme is at detailed design stage and we envisage that it will be delivered later this financial year.

The North End Road / Bridge Road junction has been enabled for future signalisation, with ducts and chambers already constructed. However, highway work is required for providing tactile paving at pedestrian crossings, reconfiguring road markings, assisting TfL’s signals contractor in pulling cables etc. We are now awaiting a cost estimate and provisional programme date from our term contractors GW Highways. We anticipate the work to take approximately 2 weeks and when programming we will of course need to consider the events programme for Wembley Stadium to minimise any congestion and inconvenience.

Once we have a provisional programme date agreed, we will coordinate with Transport for London traffic signals team who will programme with their contractors.

So far there are only 3 residents' comments on the Planning Website (Ref 24/1329) all oppose the increased cap and two are from residents of new blocks close to the stadium.

The information on Statutory Consultees comments on the Brent Council site are remarkably uninformative.

WNSL claim to have consulted with the following bodies:

WNSL has continued to organise regular Business and Residents Liaison Committee meetings which provide an opportunity to discuss operations with a number of groups including:

1.     Cairnfield Residents Association

2. Wembley Park Traders Association

3. Chalkhill Residents Association

4.  Wembley Park Residents Association

5.   Princess Court Residents Association

6.    Barn Hill Residents Association

7.     Brentfield Community Group

8.   Danes/Empire Court Residents Association

9.   Eskdale & Loweswater Close Residents Association

10.  Metropolitan Police

11.  Chichester House Residents Association

12.  Wembley Champions Group

13.  Ealing Road Traders Association

14.  Wembley Central & Alperton Residents Association

  The application Reference is 24/1329 on the Council Website

Comment HERE

 

Fryent Way closed on Saturday June 1st for Champions League Final coach parking

 

I asked Brent Council about this notice as the number given was not responding. This is their information for residents:

On the 1st June Wembley stadium will be hosting the Champions League Final. There are two foreign teams in the final Dortmund and Real Madrid. UEFA have taken over all the official car parks for the event. Therefore, approximately 113 coaches will need to be parked on Fryent Way. Dortmund will park on Fryent Way, and to enable this to take place, the road will be closed to through traffic from around 23:00 on the 31st May to around 2am on the 2^nd June.* Traffic are to follow the diversion routes that will be signed. 

 

Fryent Way Car Park will be for staff parking only. All pre-booked.

 

* Note the timings given by the council for the beginning of the closure are different than those on the sign.  The closure of Fryent Way often results in long queues of traffic accessing Salmon Street through the restricted width entry point on the roundabout.

Philip Grant took this photograph 2011 when it was Barcelona that used Fryent Way for coach parking. Some came all the way from Spain while others picked up fans at the airport.

 

Was the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease bidding process fair?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

I’ve already written about my open letter to the Council Leader, seeking to ensure that voting on Brent’s award of a new advertising lease for the Bobby Moore Bridge at next week’s Cabinet meeting is fair, between the two options that bids were sought for.

 

In this article, I will share my concerns over whether the way in which the Council carried out the process for awarding this contract gave a fair chance to advertising companies other than the existing “supplier”, Quintain Ltd (or its Wembley Park subsidiary).

 

The new lease was published as an open Invitation to Tender (“ITT”) on the Contracts Finder website on 15 February 2024, just as any other similar procurement opportunity would be. As the Officer Report to the 28 May Cabinet meeting shows, it produced 18 expressions of interest from organisations who might consider bidding:

 

 

The Report does not go on to say how many of the 18 organisations actually made a bid! This seemed odd, so I wrote to Brent’s Chief Executive, and the Corporate Director (Partnerships, Housing and Resident Services) who had signed off the Report, late on Friday afternoon, and asked them to let me know the number of bids received, saying this ‘is surely not "exempt information"!’

 

I received a reply, although not the answer, from the Corporate Director on Tuesday afternoon. In brief, it said:

 

‘On this occasion, the number of bidders and the sums bid are commercially sensitive and therefore cannot be disclosed. … Sharing the number of bids received regarding this tender process could risk prejudicing this particular procurement …. I apologise that on this occasion we cannot disclose more information.’

 

Ever since I obtained copies of the tender documents back in February, I have felt that the answer, the number of bids, might be just one (or only one which successfully made it through the vetting process which the Council had set out in those documents for bids received). It now seems that I will never know for sure.

 

The publicly available Report recommends that Cabinet: ‘Approve the award of a contract for Bobby More Bridge Advertising … to Quintain Ltd.’  As Quintain’s Wembley Park subsidiary already has the current advertising lease, and the advertising display screens in place, it was always unavoidable that they would have an advantage in the bidding process. But did the process reinforce their advantage, and if so, was that by accident or design?

 

I have taken a close interest in this matter, as I was the person who in early 2021 suggested to the Council Leader and then Chief Executive that when the advertising lease came up for renewal it should be by competitive tender. That should ensure the Council received the best possible income from advertising on its Bobby Moore Bridge asset, which in turn would make it possible to consider an option that would allow the heritage tile murals in the subway to be put back on public display. Carolyn Downs agreed my suggestion in March 2021.

 

I exchanged emails with Brent’s current Chief Executive earlier this year, to check that the competitive tender process agreed with her predecessor was going ahead. When she confirmed that was the case, I wrote:

 

‘Can I suggest, please, that the term of the lease for which bids are invited should be five years from 31 August 2024.

 

There are two reasons why I believe that this makes sense:

 

1. The existing advertisement consent (necessary to be able to advertise on the Bobby Moore Bridge) runs until 16 September 2029, so that five years from 31 August 2024 would be covered by that consent.

 

2. The reason why the four year lease to 30 August 2021, as approved by Cabinet, was extended by three years (at the request of the leaseholder, Wembley Park Ltd), was to allow five years use of the new advertising screens which the leaseholder installed in 2019. It was said that being assured those screens could be used for five years would make their installation commercially viable.

 

If any new advertising leaseholder needs to install their own new equipment, or purchase the existing equipment from the current leaseholder, a five year term would be more commercially attractive than a shorter term, and make it more worthwhile to offer a good price in the tender process.’

 

Kim Wright replied: ‘Thank you for your suggestion and we will consider this as part of our thinking.’ But when the ITT documents were published, this is what they said about how long the advertising lease would be for:

 

 

One of my concerns is that the Council Officer(s) who handled this bidding process were the same ones who handled the “secret” 2019 lease extension, using the commercial need for five years use of the LED advertising screens that Quintain installed as justification for changing the August 2021 end date, on the lease which Brent’s Cabinet had approved, to August 2024! They would understand the importance of that fifth year to potential bidders, and yet ….

 

When my enquiries in 2021 uncovered this lease extension, and some “very dodgy” features of it (especially over “proving” that the rent to be paid was best value), I complained to the then Chief Executive that there appeared to be “too cosy” a relationship between Quintain and the Council Officers involved. Were their actions here affected by that cosiness?

 

If potential bidders were not put off by only having four years to generate a profit from advertising on the Bobby Moore Bridge, after paying Brent a guaranteed minimum annual rent, they faced completing a number of detailed forms, and doing so within a tight time frame (by noon on 18 March). One of the most complex was the Quality Statement, with separate forms to be submitted for each of the two options. This was the introduction and first question on the Option A sheet:

 

 

 

 When you had worked your way down the form, this is what you would find at Question 5:

 

 

Quintain would definitely have an advantage in answering this question, as they had already installed this infrastructure in 2019. New bidders would have to do site visits, and research about local electricity supply, before they could start to prepare this detailed implementation plan. Yet all six of the questions had to be answered, and all of the other forms completed as well, otherwise your bid would be invalid (not a ‘compliant Tender response’). And then your answers would be evaluated, by Council Officers.

 

I was surprised when I saw the weighting which was being applied to the various aspects of the bids:

 

 

As the Council was supposed to be seeking the best economic return from advertising on its Bobby Moore Bridge asset, only giving the amount offered 35% of the overall score seemed rather low (although I don’t claim to be an expert on procurement!). As indicated above, Quintain’s prior experience of installing and operating advertising at the site would appear to give it a big advantage in the Quality/Technical section, which accounted for more than half the total score. And even though Social Value only counted for 10% of the weighting, this included features such as local employment (I’m sure you can guess where Wembley Park Ltd’s employees work).

 

I asked in my title: ‘Was the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease bidding process fair?’ I still can’t answer that question, but you will understand that I have my doubts about it.

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

On the third strike day Byron Court strikers and supporters are in good heart and voice

 

Outside theBrent Civic Centre...

 and inside

Byron Court strikers and their parent and community supporters took their protest from the picket line to Brent Civic Centre this morning. Their energery remains undiminished on the third strike day against forced academisation and determinations has, if anything, increased.

Daniel Kebede, NEU General Secretary joined the picket line and congratulated the campign on their 'push back' on forced academisation that would stand as an example to others:

 

 

Buoyed by the support, including that of three Brent councillors, the strikers and supporters were in good voice on the picket line and at the Civic Centre. 

 

 

 

Yesterday one of the Byron Court NEU representatives, Alice Butterton, told Wembley Matters about the impact of the Ofsted judgement on staff and parents. (The Byron Court girls cricket team won their cricket tournament!) 

 

Brent Council Cabinet and Committee appointments for 2024-2025

 Brent Council Cabinet and Committee appointments have been published ahead of the AGM tomorrow evening where Cllr Tariq Dar will be installed as Mayor.

Cabinet and other appointments/nominations are all made by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt. Note that on the Barham Trust Committee the Cabinet have to approve their own appointment!

The two Scrutiny Committees are important to ensure there is careful consideration of Cabinet decisions and initiatives. I do not know if there is any significance in the word 'Scrutiny' missing from Resources and Public Realm. Note that chairs and vice chairs of both committees are from the Labour Party. This will change if the Liberal Democrat constitutional amendment is passed.

Given the amount of development in Brent the 'non-political' Planning Committee is of particular significance. Again Chair and Vice Chair are Labour nominations.

 There are several fairly independent Labour councillors on the Audit and Standards Committee:

 

Other Committee appointments are Labour only. Note the appointment of Cllr Saqib Butt, Vice Chair of Planning and brother of Muhammed Butt the Council Leader, To the First Wave Housing Board, 14B Board and deputy to Cllr Kelcher (Chair of Planning) on Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation Planning Committee.

For other appointments see LINK.

Lib Dems make AGM bid for Scrutiny changes to ensure 'healthy and functioning' governance

 Brent Liberal Democrats are making an attempt to enhance scrutiny in Brent Council with a raft of constitutional amendments to be put to the Annual General General Meeting of the Council on Wednesday.

Their first amendment to Item 7 sets out their case for Opposition chairs of Scrutiny:

Democratic scrutiny is a pillar of healthy and functioning governance. To ensure it is effective there should be a clear separation between Councillors who lead Scrutiny Committees and the governing party in the borough.

Changes made by the current Labour Administration in Brent to the way the two Scrutiny Committees are chaired and Vice-Chairs are appointed have effectively locked Opposition Groups from having a meaningful say in the way scrutiny is led.  This includes in the setting of the work programme for each of the Committees.

 

To ensure renewed confidence in the scrutiny process in the borough it is important that the two Chairs of the Scrutiny Committees in the borough are appointed from the Opposition Groups.

 

To safeguard the effectiveness and independence of Brent’s Scrutiny Committees we therefore propose the following change to Standing Order 49 relating to the appointment of Chairs for the scrutiny function:

 

(1)    Standing Order 49 (ii) be amended to require that the Chairs of the existing Scrutiny Committees are Opposition Group appointments (in order to emphasise the independence of Scrutiny from the Executive).

 

(2)    That Standing Order 4 in Part 1 of the Constitution be waived in order to enable the above changes to come into immediate effect during the meeting.

 If that amendment is not approved they propose that Vice-Chairs are members of the Opposition Groups:

 

(1)    Standing Order 49 (ii) be amended to require that the Vice-Chairs of the existing Scrutiny Committees are Opposition Group appointments (reverting to the previous arrangements for appointments to these positions)

 

(2)    That Standing Order 4 in Part 1 of the Constitution be waived in order to enable the above changes to come into immediate effect during the meeting.

 

 Under Item 11 Review of Call-in Arrangements where the Labour Group want to make any call-in subject to a rule that call-ins must be made by 5 councillors of more than one political group (See LINK for explanation) they submit the motion below:

 

Review of Call-In Arrangements

 

The replacement of the Committee System of decision making by Local Councils with a Cabinet/ Executive system was made by the Blair Labour Government.

 

The then Labour Government recognised that handing decision making power to a small group of councillors had to be balanced by a strong and effective scrutiny function.  As part of this there had to be a meaningful ability of any councillor or Political Group to call-in decisions for review.

 

To ensure effective democratic practices in the London Borough of Brent it is essential to ensure that:

 

1.         The Cabinet can make decisions based on sound information and advice; and

 

2.         That Cabinet and their decisions can be held to account through an effective scrutiny process.

 

To maintain the objectives of effective democratic scrutiny, as intended by the Labour Government which introduced the current decision making process, we therefore propose, having taken account of the current review of arrangements for call-in:

 

(1)    That any Cabinet decision which has implications for the whole or a large part of the borough can be called in by any three Councillors (for the avoidance of doubt these can be Councillors of one or more than one group).

 

(2)    That any Cabinet decision which has implications for just one ward within the borough can be called in by any one councillor.

 

(3)    That’s subject to the approval of (1) and (2) above the necessary amendments are made to Standing Order 14 (Call In of Cabinet, Cabinet Committees and Officer Decisions) to reflect the change in arrangements.

 

(4)       To confirm, the current arrangements for review by officers of any call-in to ensure that it is relevant and justified will remain in place.

Walney report: Government is seeking to ban groups it disagrees with, says Good Law Project

 

Responding to Lord Walney’s review of protests, Good Law Project executive director Jo Maugham said: 

We are firmly into the territory of our government banning organisations whose politics it disagrees with. This is a sinister and shameful development, which moves us closer to the plastic democracies of Turkey and Hungary and further from our peers.

Clamping down on dissent does not make issues like global conflict and the climate crisis go away. A competent government that values freedom of speech would be trying to solve the big issues, not criminalise the messengers.

The man responsible for this report, Lord Walney, has links to an arms manufacturer supplying weapons to Israel which has been targeted by Palestine Action and he has close links to the oil and gas industry whose ecocide Just Stop Oil targets. LINK

What really motivates this report - the public interest or money?

Cost of Brent Civic Centre redesign rises by £67,744.93

 

 

Extract from Wilmott Dixon Design Statement

 

The redesign of Brent Civic Centre has met rising costs. The redesign 10 years on from the opening of the new £90m (£100m by some accounts) Civic Centre has been vigorously opposed by the Liberal Democrats who argued that the £2m could be better spent on more urgent issues affecting Brent residents. LINK

 The cost has now gone up by £68,000 despite some efforts to find savings in the quality of fittings and fixtures.

The decision is made by council officers in consultation with the  Cabinet Members  who 'have been engaged throughout the project and are supportive.'

As such the decision is not subject to call-in.

The Decision

To approve the triggering of the second stage of the design and build contract with Willmott Dixon Construction Limited for the redesign and refurbishment works at Brent Civic Centre for a sum contract value of £2,087,744.93 (an uplift of £67,744.93).

 

Reasons for the decision:

The Council requires works to be undertaken to customer-facing spaces in Brent Civic Centre following completion RIBA Stages 3 and 4 of the project, including the detailed technical design by Wilmott Dixon Construction Ltd (WD), a single contractor appointed under Lot 2 of the Major Projects Framework established by the Procurement Hub. The commencement of the second stage of the contract by Wilmott Dixon Construction Ltd is recommended as it will enable the Council to manage any potential risks, and will provide efficient and consistent delivery of the works, as the redesign and associated services were undertaken by Wilmott Dixon. This will ensure that the anticipated improvement works are carried out to schedule, with completion by autumn 2024.

Alternative options considered:

Brent Council has worked with Willmott Dixon Construction Limited since 2022 to develop a feasibility study for the redesign works, followed by RIBA Stages 3 and 4 from 2023-24. Over the past two months, Brent Council has worked closely with WDI to amend the design plans in order to bring the costings in line with agreed budgets. Through a value engineering process, changes to fixtures and fittings have been agreed to minimise costs. Key internal stakeholders have suggested that further amendments to the design will compromise the benefits of the project to residents and customers. It is therefore considered that the increase in the contract value of around £67k is reasonable.

 

Brent Council outlined what they see as the necessity of a redesign in an earlier press release:

Work to revamp Brent Civic Centre and improve access for residents gets underway.

The transformation follows an extensive review into the evolving needs of residents and customers and aims to create a more accessible, welcoming and functional space for all visitors to the building.

The redesign will see changes to Wembley Library, the Community Hub, the Customer Services Centre and the Registration and Nationality space.

The benefits for residents include:

• Improved accessibility: A new welcoming main entrance on Exhibition Way (next to Sainsbury’s). The building will be more accessible for visitors with wheelchairs, pushchairs, and complex needs, ensuring inclusivity for all
• Dedicated customer area: The ground floor will have a brand-new customer area, including a digital hub for support with accessing online services
• Community hub: The Wembley Hub will have a new space on the ground floor equipped with meeting rooms for private and confidential conversations

• Enhanced library: A new purpose-built and enclosed children’s library, a repurposed mezzanine floor with flexible library spaces and increased study areas
• Registration and Nationality space: A new flexible space that customers can hire to Work is now underway with completion expected in autumn 2024. Throughout this period, all services will remain operational. A temporary library service will be available on the first floor of the civic centre. All library services will be available, but events will take place at other library locations.

 

As with many changes in Brent, members of the public talking to Wembley Matters on a recent visit appear to have been taken by surprise  by the changes. Often the first they knew was when they visited the Civic Centre to change their library books and found the library had been moved from the ground floor to temporary accommodation alongside the Wembley Hub on the first floor.  The temporary library has only a few shelving units and no electronic return and borrowing machines. 

 

Jaws dropped when they were told the new main entrance would be situation between the pasty shop and Sainsbury's: 'But wasn't the current entrance designed to lead to the impressive atrium and wide wooden staircase?'

 

Some questioned how a modern purpose-built building could have proved inadequate for purpose 10 years on but that doesn't take into account the huge increased resident demand for face to face meetings with council officers as a result of austerity, the pandemic and rising homelessness. Now most of the ground floor will be given over to customer services.