Quintain and Brent Council unwilling to help Wembley visitors to spend a penny so residents suffer

Local residents have sent this letter to Brent Council and call on other residents to support them:

Wembley Stadium, our national treasure and home of football (probably better known around the world than the Taj Mahal!) has no public toilet facilities in the area surrounding it. So what do people do when they need the toilet?

A recent residents meeting with the Met. Police revealed that local residents whose houses are near the Stadium have to suffer people urinating and defecating in their front gardens and also on the streets. This disgusting practice has been going on for a long time and no-one has done anything about it, despite constant complaints.

The Met Police have done their best by apparently first contacting Brent Council, who claimed it was not their responsibility, as the land is privately owned by Quintain. They are a large company which is undertaking the building of Wembley City, which will be a whole new town around the Stadium.

The Police then apparently approached Quintain themselves, who flatly refused to put any toilets on the grounds around the stadium as they claim they needed the space for more vending kiosks, which of course will bring them extra revenue, (at the expense of the residents). The few existing toilets have been damaged and are now closed. Quintain are always claiming they want to work with the residents, so this is hardly an example of their good intent.

Finally, the Police went to the London 2012 Committee, who said they would be pleased to fund the cost of the toilets, as they obviously have a vested interest. Quintain was informed that London 2012 would fund the cost of these toilets, but they still refused to have them on their land!

This is a ridiculous and intolerable situation and as residents of Brent, we feel it is incumbent on the Council to take action and mediate between the parties, so that this matter can be resolved immediately, as it is a mere 4 months before the Games begin.

It is also an Health and Safety issue and it is the duty of the Council to care for and to protect its residents from contamination and infection due to a lack of hygiene. Children play in these self same gardens and on the streets, which people have used as a toilet.  Also residents and the many visitors we have, walk on these streets, which have been contaminated with urine and faeces and worst of all, the council workers actually have to clean up the mess, which also puts them at risk.

Surely it is a basic human right for residents to expect to be provided with an adequate number of public toilets, especially as some of the thousands of visitors who so often descend on this world famous venue, are the main cause of this revolting behaviour.  Dog fouling is against the law and yet the Council is willing to turn a blind eye when humans do the same! What will the visitors to the 2012 Olympics, (who come from all over the world) think if there are no public toilets provided for them once they leave the Stadium?

Quintain and Brent Council have a very close and long-standing partnership and we have no doubt that the Council can persuade Quintain to do the right thing and allow London 2012 to put as many toilets as necessary on their land for the Games, at least as a temporary measure. As time is short, installing an adequate number of portable toilets is a possible solution.
Once the Games are over, it is Brent Council's duty to ensure that some permanent solution to this unacceptable  problem is found. Some residents are very angry for having to put up with this for so long and still be ignored. Consequently, they have been forced to consult a solicitor with a view to suing the Council for compensation, if a permanent solution to this problem is not found.

Residents who live around the Stadium have been very patient and tolerant for years. Our lives are blighted in some way almost every day, as there are also many events at the Arena and now at the Fountain Studios. We are greatly inconvenienced and have to plan our lives around Stadium events and we certainly do not get any Council tax rebate for all this disruption! To add insult to injury, we are also expected to put up with the results of a lack of public toilet facilities.

 I have been asked to contact you by residents of Empire Way, Dagmar Avenue, Linden Avenue and Mostyn Avenue, who are the most affected.   Many have lived in Wembley most of their lives and some are elderly and infirm and are very distressed and ashamed by this, as we all should be. I ask you, would you put up with people urinating and defecating in your front garden?

We look forward to hearing from Brent Council and expect the Council to accept our reasonable request for adequate and permanent toilet facilities around the Stadium area, to cope with all the visitors.

Zerine Tata
On behalf of the residents who live around the Stadium.


If you agree write to the following with a short note saying that you endorse the above letter: 

gareth.daniel@brent.gov.uk
comms@quintain.co.uk
info@gamesmaker.london2012.com
 

Consultation: Kilburn Times hits nail on the head

Hats off to the editorial team at the Brent and Kilburn Times. This editorial sums up what many Brent residents are feeling at the moment:

Livingstone supports fight to keep Cricklewood Library Open

This is an extract from the Q and A session at the London Federation of Green Parties meeting on Monday when we discussed whether to urge voters to give Ken Livingstone their second preference mayoral vote. At 14.00 mins I ask Ken, noting Brent Council's library closures, whether he will provide leadership to London councils, and particularly Labour London councils, on the cuts issue:



All the videos from that meeting can be found HERE

Ann John to meet with Keep Willesden Green campaigners

The Keep Willesden Green campaign, which has been very successful in gaining broad public support over its opposition to the Willesden Green Redevelopment has arranged a meeting with Cllr Ann John, leader of Brent Council on Wednesday April 4th. The campaign will be represented by members of its committee.

Campaigners are opposed to the loss of the Old Willesden Green Library building and the loss of the open space in front of the current library, want to see the Willesden Bookshop relocated in the proposed Cultural Centre and most importantly want the Council to call a halt to the development while a full consultation, involving the full participation of local people, takes place.

Child Prisoners meeting on Thursday

Ken 'far from perfect' but we must prevent four more years of Boris

Green Party Mayoral candidate Jenny Jones said: "The voting system gives Londoners a chance to make a positive Mayoral first choice for a more equal, healthier and affordable London.

“However, should I not be counted among the top two candidates after the first round, then I want a Mayor who will work with Green Party Assembly Members to deliver on pay equality, less pollution and cheaper fares.

“Ken Livingstone is far from perfect, but we know from his last time as Mayor that we can work with him to make positive changes in a way that would be impossible with either Boris Johnson or many other senior Labour politicians.”

Livingstone said: ”What we are seeing is that as we get closer to the election a broadening alliance of people wants a fairer London.

“The Green endorsement for second preferences is a key building block to winning change on May 3rd. I am very pleased that the Green Party has decided to encourage their supporters to cast their second preference votes for me.

“I look forward to working again with Green Assembly Members, including tackling air pollution, creating a fairer London, and improving pedestrian and cyclists’ safety.”

Discussions focused on the clear desire among members to help prevent a further four years of Boris Johnson’s Mayorship, and the clear differentiation between recommending the Labour Party and Livingstone as a candidate, the man himself frequently opposing Labour Party policy.

Members emphasised that the priority of the campaign was to increase the number of Greens elected to the London Assembly in order to best hold the successful Mayor candidate to account.

Members raised particular concerns over Livingstone’s record on road building, the poorly regulated financial sector and air pollution.

However, the meeting meeting voted to support the recommendation after hearing pledges to curb top pay at City Hall, help the lowest paid workers, end cheats and evasions over air pollution used by the current Mayor and Government and financially support boroughs wanting to introduce 20mph zones.

Greens make Livingstone second preference for London Mayor

Following an address by Ken Livingstone on Monday evening at the Federation of London Green Parties and a full, good-natured debate, London Greens voted to recommend a second preference vote for Livingstone by 45 votes to 19.

I am quite sceptical regarding Ken and totally disenchanted with Brent Labour's performance over cuts, but in the end was swayed by the argument that Ken's election would provide some political space for Green and progressive policies.

During the Q and A I asked Livingstone about the cuts and whether he would provide leadership for London councils in opposing them. He distanced himself from Brent Labour stating that he was opposed to the library closures and spoke about the disproportionate cuts to London council funding. I was not left convinced that he would lead a huge campaign on the Save the GLC model but would hope that the left of the Labour Party would put additional pressure on him during his mayoral campaign.

There was not time in the debate to examine in depth the financial implication's of Livingstone's policies and I still have to be persuaded about their viability - particularly the details regarding the funding of a revived Education Maintenance Allowance.

Among the arguments against endorsing Livingstone were the toxic impact of Labour's cuts in London, the public asking if we were giving Ken second preference and the Green's had no chance of winning why not make him No.1, his cosiness with the city in his previous administration, his continuing commitment to road building, and his questionable support for reactionary homophobic clerics. It was also argued that the Greens with their own MP and a Green led council, were strong enough to stand on their own record without reference to Labour.

Should London Greens endorse Livingstone as second preference candidate? Decision on Monday.

The London Green Party will on Monday evening decide whether to recommend Ken Livingstone as their second preference candidate in May's Mayoral election.

The decision will be informed by an analysis by the Green campaign on how Livingstone's pledges and record tally with the Green vision for London.

In the analysis, the former Mayor was awarded a score of 5 out of 10. A summary can be found at: www.jennyforlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Candidates-comparison.pdf
 
Campaign Manager and London Assembly Member, Darren Johnson, said: On Monday, the London Green Party will democratically decide whether Ken Livingstone's policies and record warrant the Party's endorsement as our second choice for Mayor.

"Our campaign is focused on getting Jenny Jones elected Mayor and ensuring as many Green candidates as possible are elected to the Assembly.

"Our objective is to ensure that after the election City Hall is as Green as possible, tackling issues like fair pay, safer roads and improving air quality. The supplementary vote system allows voters to make a second choice for their Mayoral candidate. We are happy to work with other parties and groups wherever their policies will address the needs of ordinary Londoners."

The decision will be made by a special meeting of the London Green Party on Monday evening.

Representatives from local Green Parties in each borough as well as any other members in attendance will vote on the decision.

The analysis of Livingstone focused on key areas of policy for London. While receiving full marks on opposing aviation expansion and housing, he received nothing on the areas of policing and crime because of his ‘simplistic focus on police number officers' rather than ‘civil liberties or community relations' as well as 0 on road building owing to his championing of the failed Thames Gateway Bridge scheme.

Livingstone received half marks on pay inequality, Green jobs and local business, health, traffic reduction, walking and cycling, fares and transport investment and the environment and climate change.

By comparison, current Mayor Boris Johnson received just 1 out of 10, receiving half marks on health and Green jobs and local business.