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 CEO confirms Cllr Butt's right to speak on Wembley Stadium Planning Application tomorrow

Carolyn Downs, Brent Council CEO, has responded to my request for clarification on the Council Leader’s right to speak on the Spur’s/Wembley Stadium Planning Application tomorrow evening:

Cllr Butt is entitled to speak at the planning committee in his role as a ward member representing the views of the residents of Tokyngton ward on this planning application.

The issue was also taken up with Carolyn Downs by Cllr John Warren, Brent Conservative Group:

I understand that Cllr. Butt intends to address the meeting in support of the application from Spurs re.Wembley Stadium .

If true, I find this outrageous and is a clear conflict of interest.  I recognise that he is a Tokyngton ward councillor, but there are two other members of his ward. I do not believe that Cllr.Butt has spoken in the past few years at planning  on the numerous Quintain applications that have been made in his ward.....for obvious reasons. As a cheer-leader, and leader of Brent Council, it would be totally inappropriate for any involvement from him at planning.

Brent was recently on the receiving end of a savage report from PWC regarding all aspects of the planning process. Surely, Brent should be conscious of the need to have a process that is  not only  totally fair and even- handed  but seen by a “reasonable person “ to be fair and even-handed.

I believe that Cllr.Butt speaking at the meeting would jeopardise any belief  that this controversial planning decision will be dealt with fairly....having the Council leader attempting “ undue influence “ on the committee members is hardly a fair approach.

Carolyn Downs replied:

As you know Cllr Butt is entitled to address the planning committee as a local ward member and raise issues that are specific to his role as a local member representing the views of the residents in Tokyngton ward.

It will be interesting to see how Cllr Butt maintains the separation between representing the views of residents, his own views amd his views as Council and Labour Group leader tomorrow evening.

This is what the Brent Constitution says about the Committee’s deliberations:

36.         When the Planning Committee vote to refuse an application contrary to the recommendation of officers, the Chair shall put to the meeting for approval a statement of the planning reasons for refusal of the application, which if approved shall be entered into the minutes of that meeting. Where the reason for refusal proposed by the Chair is not approved by the meeting, or where in the Chair’s view it is not then possible to formulate planning reasons for refusal, the application shall be deferred for further consideration at the next meeting of the Committee. At the next meeting of the Committee the application shall be accompanied by a further written report from officers, in which the officers shall advise on possible planning reasons for refusal and the evidence that would be available to substantiate those reasons. If the Committee is still of the same view then it shall again consider its reasons for refusing permission which shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. 


37.        Members of the Planning Committee shall refrain from personal abuse and party political considerations shall play no part in their deliberations. Members of the Planning Committee shall be respectful to the Chair and to each other and to officers and members of the public including applicants, their agents and objectors and shall not bully any person. Members of the Planning Committee should not make up their mind before hearing and considering all relevant information at the meeting and should not declare in advance of the vote, how they intend to vote on a particular application or other matter. 


38.        Members of the Planning Committee should not speak to members of the public (including applicants, agents and journalists) during a meeting of the Planning 
Committee or immediately prior to or after the meeting concerned, other than where permitted by this Code or Standing Orders. 

41.        When questioning members of the public or the applicant who have spoken at a meeting of the Committee, members of the Planning Committee shall ensure that their questions relate only to planning matters relevant to the particular application, and the question should not be party political. 


Merged teacher amalgamation will be 'a mighty force for progress'

Later today the ATL and NUT will officially announce the results of their unity ballots to amalgamate the two unions and to create of the National Education Union (NEU).

UNIFY, a cross union body, is confident that the majority of teachers and support staff recognise the need for, and support, greater unity and that the results will be a decisive YES.

Hank Roberts, Organising Secretary of UNIFY said:

We have been campaigning for a massive advance like this for 20 years. It will change the face of education in our country. It will not be panacea, but it will make us seriously stronger and better able to challenge the Government’s planned continuation of the privatisation of our state education system and the huge funding cutbacks currently proposed.

Our next step has to be to move to take this burgeoning unity further. The NEU union will be over 400,000 strong. A union of all education workers would be one million strong. A mighty force for progress.

Our congratulations to all the members, Officers and Officials of both unions who made it happen. And also to our own activists and supporters for all their efforts over the years. Time to move forward. A new dawn awaits.

Residents issue plea to Preston Ward councillors on Stadium planning application

Dear Cllrs Jean (Hossain), Matthew (Bradley) and Patricia (Harrison)

Please may we ask that you help us Preston ward residents (and residents and business friends across Brent). We really need your help.

You helped us in 2015 when we were faced with the London Welsh School's planning application to occupy the Bowls Pavilion in King Eddie's Park. (Very pleased to be able to inform you that we are in negotiations with Brent Council to finally finalise lease of this for much needed community space).

We have read the 44pg planning committee report and there is nothing to safeguard us Brent residents and local businesses. The document states "atmosphere" as being a key reason why Tottenham Hotspurs do not want less than 90,000 seats. This is not a material planning consideration. The works to the stadium access corridor have only partially been completed and we've been informed that the Council has spent all the £18million originally assigned to that. The report notes there will be no improvements to our road network during the period of this proposed temporary variation of condition. The Environmental Statement is far from robust.

We understand that works will commence at the Chesterfield House site likely end of this month. This 26 storey development will put added strain on an already congested Park Lane and High Road for the next few years. Without supporting infrastructure improvements, the high rise high density developments being granted permission are already and will further affect our road network; Impeding on our quality of life.

Cllr Jean - you and Cllr Sam attended the planning committee for the Chesterfield House site last year. The applicant sought to assign a huge portion of s106 monies to our King Eddie's Park, yet half our park was fenced off for over a year. A recent site visit showed the grass to be water logged. Quite simply we are not seeing the monies being spent on our Wembley resident needs. Friends of King Eddies Park  sent a series of emails to Parks and Regen, over many months, which I will forward on to you. Parks and Regen were very helpful, but it is alarming that it took such a lengthy period of time to complete the parks works. Whilst site visits to Barn Hill Park, Fryent Park, Gladstone Park and Woodcock Park show beautifully maintained public green spaces. Why is our King Eddie's park not in an equal state of kemptness?

Granting permission of this planning application would impede the quality of life of a wide reaching radius of Brent residents and local businesses. Our friends on Preston Road as well as Wembley High Road Business Association note that they also lose trade on Event Days.

There are known issues of anti-social behaviour, litter, alcohol consumption despite the whole of Wembley being a no alcohol zone. Our petition notes that "there were proven irregularities towards the implementation of effective control of traffic leaving the stadium by appointed CSP personnel causing heavier flows of vehicles within the vicinity, causing increased pollution and lessening quality of life. Observed drinking, urinating and defecating on residential streets, not only within Wembley but broader location."

Whilst we appreciate the many benefits our National Stadium affords us, Brent Council has a responsibility and duty of care to it's residents which it needs to safeguard. The committee report simply does not do this.

We, the little people, need your support. Please can you help us?

With kind regards
Denise
on behalf of Wembley Champions

Denise Cheong
Wembley Champions

Butt to speak at Wembley Stadium Planning Meeting

I understand that Cllr Butt, leader of Brent Council, has requested to speak on the Wembley Stadium planning application at Thursday's Planning Committee.

Although he is likely to claim that he is speaking in his capacity as a ward councillor for Tokyngton, the ward in which the stadium is situated, he is also leader of the Council.  The Planning Committee is supposed to be statutorily independent of the Council and cannot be whipped or directed to vote in a particular way.

However, when the Leader of the Council and the Labour Group makes his views known on a very controversial issue that has pitched Wembley Stadium, Tottenham Hotspur and Brent Council against residents and local businesses the question must arise as to whether this constitutes the potential exerting of undue influence on Committee members - especially Labour ones.

I await the response to a query I sent on this to the Brent CEO with interest.

Apparently there are many requests to speaks from residents and local businesses and a list is currently being drawn up. It is usual to give precedence to those who live nearest or who represent a group of residents such as a residents' association.

We will be very interested in who is allowed to speak and who is excluded...

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.

Brent approves more high rise flats at Wembley Stadium

I wasn't able to attend last week's Planning Committee so I am afraid you will have to make do with Brent Council's PR gloss on the latest approval of tower blocks at Wembley Stadium.  As usual the 'affordable' designation remains unexplored. 'Affordable' for whom?

 Brent Council's planning committee last night (Wed 15 March) gave approval for the development of 743 new homes for rent on the doorstep of the iconic Wembley Stadium, part of 5,000 new homes to be built over the next seven years.

When completed the homes will be part of the largest new build rental-only scheme in the UK, surpassing the current biggest in East Village, Stratford which has 3,000 properties. The homes will be available through developer Quintain's build to rent business Tipi, which was launched last year.

Of the 733 residential rental units, 42 per cent (303) will be offered under the affordable housing scheme and the remaining 58 per cent (440) available for market rent.

The new dwellings will range from 12 to 26 storeys in height and will include residential landscaped gardens, a clubhouse, energy centre, 91 coach parking spaces to support Stadium event days, and 569 square metres of commercial space.

The approval comes as part of the regeneration of the area around the stadium by Quintain which includes 11,500 new homes.

The 25-year project will also create 10,000 new jobs, apprenticeships and business opportunities. By the end of 2017 there will be 3,000 homes under construction in the Wembley Park area within a development containing a new seven acre public park, a new landscaped London square, a primary school and a wide range of shops, restaurants and workspaces.

Cllr Shama Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills said:

We know that buying in London is out of reach for many and with rising rent costs we are pressing developers to deliver as many affordable units as possible. We are committed to raising standards in our private rented sector and these newly built and professionally managed homes will provide high quality and safe places to live.

The vision for this vibrant new residential area in Brent will take some years to deliver, but work is well underway. Innovative architecture and design combined with retail, green spaces and excellent transport links create a great place to live and work.

Brent Labour starts short-listing for 2018 Council Election

Short-listing for the selection of Labour candidates for Brent Council to stand in May 2018 is underway and there are a titbits of information already.  I understand that Cllr Margaret McLennan , deputy leader (currently Northwick Park)and  Cllr Wilhelmina Mitchell Murray (currently Wembley Central) both want to transfer to Stonebridge ward. Cllr Joshua Mitchell Murray (Northwick Park) is also heading south but this time to Harlesden.

Unconfirmed reports suggest that there are a number of current councillors who do not intend to stand again but it's early days and they may yet have temptation put in their way. The list includes veterans Bobby Thomas (Harlesden), Ruth Moher (Fryent), Jean Hossain  and Pat Harrison (Preston) and a more recent cohort including Bernard Collier (Willesden Green), Sam Stopp (Wembley Central) and Sabina Khan (Stonebridge). I was surprised at the suggestion that Kilburn by-election winner Barbara Pitruzzella would not be standing again.

The outcome will give some indication of the degree of support that Cllr Muhammed Butt commands although as one member said there is not much appetite among the more astute members of the Labour Party to become members of a Labour group with so little power. They are aware that Cabinet makes all the key decisions.

However candidates are likely to face some searching cross-examination from the more recent recruits to the Labour Party focusing on some of the controversial issues around the Sustainability and Transformation plan for the health servce and social care, education cuts, Prevent and probably most prominently affordable housing and regeneration.

Cllr Tom Miller has made his pitch for re-selection HERE

Inspiration and solidarity: Durham Lions pay tribute to the Grunwick Lions

Pictures courtesy of Grunwick 40

Amazing how the Grunwick dispute that took place 40 years ago is inspiring struggles today. All credit to the local activists here in Brent who got together to organise an exhibition, a mural and other events to commemorate the Grunwick workers' strike with the intention of making it relevant to current struggles around working conditions, women workers, migration and race - not just dry history.

Their success in doing so was summed up when the exhibition was visited by the Durham Teaching Assistants who are mounting a terrific campaign of their own LINK. They have spoken of how their struggle has been inspired by Jayaben Desai and her fellow workers and they deserve Aditya Chakrobortty's LINK description of them as the 'Durham Lions'. The photographs speaks for themselves - pride and solidarity.

The exhibition finishes on Sunday March 26th (closes at 5pm) so if you haven't seen it get down to Willesden Library as soon as possible.

Link to other Wembley Matters coverage of Grunwick HERE

Social care in Kingsbury...200 years ago

As well as looking at how social care was provided to the poor of Kingsbury Parish in the early 19th century, using examples of real people from original hand-written records now held at Brent Archives, this illustrated talk may help listeners to consider how attitudes to the poor have (or have not) changed since then.

Groups combine to discuss solutions to air pollution menace - Barnet March 23rd

Great to see a cross-party event supported by so many other organisations - an example to other areas.

The speakers are :

*  Jean Lambert Green Party MEP

Jean is a founder supporter of Clean Air in London , and as an MEP has pressed the European Commission to take action against the UK government for failing to meet legally binding EU air quality standards. She has also made numerous air quality consultation responses to the London Mayor and the UK government, and has published the pamphlet Air Pollution, London's Unseen Killer, which was widely distributed across London.

* Aaron Keily from Friends of the Earth England , Wales and Northern Ireland 

Friends of the Earth are currently running a campaign called Ditch Diesel

* Paul Drummond from UCL.

Paul has led work on looking fiscal ways of how a move away from diesel vehicles could be encouraged by taxation methods.

*    Andrea Lee from ClientEarth.

ClientEarth have successfully sued the UK Government for lack of action on implementation of measures to combat air pollution.

Each speaker will give a short talk, and afterwards there will be a Q & A session/discussion.

This meeting has the support of Barnet Residents’ Association, Barnet Trades Council, Barnet Alliance for Public Services, Barnet Friends of the Earth, Barnet LibDems, Barnet Labour Party and  Barnet Green Party.

Whilst entrance is free donations would be most welcome via this LINK
or ring 0800581051

This fund-raising action will be carrying on after the Barnet FoE Air Pollution Meeting.

When donating please mention “Barnet Air Pollution Campaign”.

Eventbrite link

Kids sing against school funding cuts - 'Schools just wanna have funds'

More residents associations oppose Spur's Wembley Stadium application

Wembley Park Residents' Association is oppposing the Spur's planning application to increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium. This is noteworthy as it covers many residents of flats recently built in the Quintain regeneration areas around the stadium.

Residents in Kings Drive, Wembley (next to the old Brent Town Hall) have added their voice to the objections:

Objection on behalf of Kings and Carmel Courts Residents' Association (170 Flats on Kings Drive Wembley)

Kings and Carmel Courts Resents' Association object to the planning application 17/0368 on the following grounds:

1) Parking: Kings Drive is in the Event Day Parking Zone and whilst the permits required to park in the road limit the cars parked on event days it is becoming apparent that more cars have permits during recent events. The number of cars parking is steadily increasing and the application does not address this important issue which impacts on the daily lives of those living on Kings Drive. Consideration should be given to permits having an expiry date and residents having to reapply to ensure that those parking are doing so on a valid permit. The cost of this must not be passed on to the local residents and should be borne by the Stadium or Council.

Kings Drive is already used for daily commuter parking, the new local schools and ASDA shoppers which impacts heavily on residents who wish to park close to their home. Event Day parking used to weed out these users allowing residents to park easily but this is no longer the case.

2) Anti-social behaviour: Kings and Carmel Courts have extensive gardens adjoining the corner of Forty Lane with Kings Drive. Fans use these private grounds to throw litter, picnic, drink and urinate in. This is unacceptable behaviour and furthermore the Leaseholders of Kings and Carmel Court then have to pay for the clean-up operation after event days. This is particularly bad when rival teams are playing against each other and customers from the Torch and local supermarkets selling alcoholic drinks sit along the walls and grass banks on Kings Court.

The planning application does nothing to address the disruption to local people yet it seeks to impose further disturbance and expense to residents.

Residents need to be protected from the invasion of drunk fans who have little care for other peoples' property and the Stadium/Council need to take responsibility protecting private property from trespassers and cover the cost of all associated cleaning.

Please note that Kings and Carmel Courts Residents' Association is known to Brent Council however it was not consulted on this proposal.

We are happy to meet with the Council or Stadium to suggest ways in which Event Days can be managed in an acceptable way to the residents of Kings and Carmel Courts.

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.

Community organisation sets up school patrols after recent killings

This is an interesting development after the recent deaths of young people amidst much concern in the community about the need for action.