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:

Brent litter enforcement patrols recommended to be brought in-house

The Brent Cabinet is recommended to bring the litter patrol service, currently provided by Kingdom Limited in a pilot programme, in-house when the pilot finishes:

The pilot has been a helpful exercise and the performance has been shown to be good. Operating issues around the application of this type of service in Brent are now properly understood. The FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice) issue rate has exceeded projections, payment rates, income have been stronger than projected, and a number of ‘added value’ services have been successfully trialled. It is therefore recommended that the Council now plans to continue providing this service, beyond June 2017, on a long term basis. The review suggests that an in-house service, delivered along the same operating lines as the pilot contract, may offer the best long-term value for the council. 

Without any explicit reference to Cllr John Duffy's LINK concern that the Council was losing potential revenue through out-sourcing the service there is a recognition that, despite a greater risk to the Council, that an in-house service would generate greater income for the Council:

8. The issue is therefore to consider the likely surplus that the council would make if it ran the operation in house. Using the same figures for ticket issue and collection rates (which therefore implicitly assumes that the quality of service would be the same) the council could expect to issue 5,962 FPNs in a year (i.e. twice the amount issued in the pilot six months). The gross income for these would be £0.477m if all were paid.
   
   
9. The collection rate has been established, in paragraph 8.6, as being around 85%, so total income would be £0.405m. Paragraph 6.2 has set out that the likely cost of an in house team would be around £0.25m (£15k of which would be up-front, year 1 equipment costs only), which would imply a surplus under the in-house option of £0.155m. 
   
   
10. There is therefore a reasonable expectation of a modest additional surplus under the in-house model compared to the option of procuring a new contract. Provided that the reasonable expectation was that the operational performance of in house service would be at least as good as that provided by a private contractor then the financial evaluation would support a conclusion that the service should be provided in house.
    

0. 
   
   
   
   
   
   

New Quintain consultation on Fountain Studios site and additional proposals

Following the March consultation LINK Quintain have come back with revised plans for the Wembley Retail Park/Fountain Studios site and will be mounting a public exhibition at  the London Designer Outlet next week. The exhibition will be at Unit 71 on the first floor on Thursday 20th April 4pm-8pm, Friday 21st April 4pm-8pm and Saturday 22nd April 10am-2pm.

Quintain are calling this the 'Fulton Quarter Masterplan' and apart from new homes and commercial space are now suggesting a 'new higher education facility' . The College of North West London is next to the site.

Additionally, in what seems to be a departure from the long-term plan to make the Wembley Stadium area a 'public transport destination', they will be presenting proposals for a new coach park and multi-storey car park at VDC Careys and a build to rent development on Plot E05.

www.yourwembleypark.com  info@wembleypark.com  0800 307 7564

The updated proposals:

Labour's selection for Kenton ward

Kenton ward selection for Labour candidates for  Brent Council 2018 local elections: Syed Alam, Nyela Reid, Rajan Seelan

Northwick Park ward candidate selections

Candidates for Northwick Park for May 2018 council elections were chosen last night. Margaret McLennan, currently deputy leader of Brent Council, was selected along with Keith Perrin and Robert Johnson.

The selection assumed greater importance in the light of the One Public Estate proposal for Northwick Park LINK and it is not clear that the trio will be able to agree a common approach.

'In-house' management of council housing favoured in Brent Council survey - Full Council debate April 20th

There will be a Special Brent Full Council meeting on Thursday April 20th, 7pm Civic Centre, to consider the outcome of the survey of council tenants and leaseholders on options for the future management of council housing in the borough.

2,937 residents responded to the survey (26% return) to consider the options:

a. Continue with Brent Hoising Partnership on a reformed basis
b. Bring the service back in-house under direct control of the council
c. Enter into partnership with another organisation to provide the service

49.1% of respondents supported option b with 55.6% of lease holders and 47.3% of tenants in favour.

After debate at Full Council the proposal to bring the service in-house will go to Cabineton Monday April 24th.

The decision will be made against the background of a deficit in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and further 'savings' and 'transformation' will be necessary:

1. The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget is £56.1m and is used for the management and maintenance of the HRA stock and for the repayment of the HRA debt. The HRA is a ring fenced account. The BHP Management Fee for the current year is £7.5m. This fee is for managing and maintaining the HRA properties on behalf of the Council. Core management costs, including this fee are £12.5m per annum.
   
2. 12.2  The Housing and Planning Act 2016 will have a significant impact on Brent’s Council housing and its financial position in coming years. The implications for which are continuously being reviewed with more comprehensive analysis to follow once the details are published by Government.
   
3. 12.3  Based on current assumptions and changes in the Housing and Planning Act,
   an efficiency savings target of circa £3.6m would be required to balance the HRA if the current assumptions on changes materialise.
   
4. 12.4  The savings to the HRA upon the initial implementation of the in-house housing management service are estimated to be £1m pa. These are provisional figures and will be refined as planning for the implementation of the selected option is progressed.
   
5. 12.5  The decision to bring the housing management service in-house alone is not sufficient to cover the gap without wider transformation. This, then, reinforces the need for further transformation in the service.
   

I hope councillors will explore what 'transformation' could involve when they debate the proposal.

AGENDA For Ful Council Meeting

Background:

The Council owns almost 11,500 homes, mostly flats on small and medium-sized estates, with around 7,700 tenants and 3,700 leaseholders. Around 43,000 people live in these homes - over 1 in 8 of Brent’s population. Around a third of tenants are over 60, 4% have a disability and 8% have a vulnerability of some kind. The Council is responsible for management and maintenance services and has delegated these to BHP since 2002, under a Management Agreement. BHP is a company with a Board of 13 people comprising residents, Councillors and independent persons with an independent chair. BHP provides all landlord services, directly or through contracts, including:

Tenancy Management – e.g. lettings, rent collection, resident engagement,

Right to Buy and the oversight of two Tenant Management Organisations. 


Leaseholder Management – e.g. service charges and major works. 


     Property services – e.g. estate management, repairs and major works 


    Development services – the delivery of a new-build programme on existing estates 


Now in Willesden Green: The onward march of high rise and student accommodation

Replace this...

with this:

Brent Council has designated various areas of the borough, particularly Wembley, as suitable for high rise development but it is apparent that there is seepage into other areas. Often one high rise once approved and built enables more as a precedent is set.

In Willesden Green the Queensbury project was subject to a community campaign based both on the saving of a pub as a community resource and the unsuitability of the planned new building in a conservation area. However Electric House at the junction of Walm Lane, Willesden Lane and the High Road was approved.

Now Electric House will have a part 8 storey, part 7 storey neighbour to replace the current 'meanwhile  space' shops of Queens Parade.

The applicant argues that the Council wish to see residential use of the site, the type of residential is not specified so that student accommodation complies.

There are around 2,500 student residences built or planned in the Wembley Stadium area but one, if only for 120 units, in Willesden Green sets a new precedent.

The planning application also includes 5 commercial units and a basement warehouse area.

It is early days for public comments but several objections are along the lines of this one from a resident in the neighbouring Electric House:

I wish to raise the following objections regarding application reference 17/0322:

1) Brent's Core Strategy CP2 states "The borough will aim to achieve the London Plan target that 50% of new homes should be affordable. At least 25% of new homes should be family sized (3 bedrooms or more)." The 120 high quality student units does not meet the definition of 'affordable housing' according to gov.uk; "social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market."

2) A planning application in 2013 for 34 residential units was refused on the basis that the density of the units would exceed the London Plan and Brent Council recommendations. The 120 studio units would far exceed the density of the rejected 2013 application

3) The 7 and 8-storey proposed buildings would have scale and design that harms the character and appearance of the Willesden Green Conservation Area

4) The existing buildings according to the 2013 committee report '...are considered to make a contribution towards the character and appearance of the Conservation Area'. The demolition of these buildings will be a severe detriment to the Willesden Green Conservation Area.

5) The current amount of retail space is 590sqm, the planning application provides for 324sqm of retail space - a loss of 266sqm which would be an unacceptable threat to the high street.

6) In the absence of a legal agreement to control parking, the absence of an on-site servicing bay and a delivery and servicing plan to control servicing the proposed development will generate a demand for on-street parking and servicing that cannot be accommodated within the surrounding area and on Willesden Lane and Walm Lane, as such the development would give rise to highway conditions that would be prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety

7) The 2013 refused application suggested lack of road access to the retail units as a reason to refuse. If the proposed commercial units would be served by an access route surrounding Electric House, as a resident I object to service vehicles passing my window and causing a disturbance

8) Electric House has unresolved pest problems as evidenced by the rat traps laid out by Network Living near in the bin area. The addition of 120 students next door with will likely exacerbate the problem and create problems for the surrounding area

9) Brent have so far been unable to collect the refuse and recycling safely and on time from Electric House with only 25 units. There have been incidents of the doors being left open, and the recycling going weeks without collection. The additional 120 units will provide unwanted strain on these services.

Former Labour councillor James Powney writing about the proposal on his blog LINK says:

I think that [the development] is frankly too big.  Brent has a policy of concentrating tall buildings in its five growth areas for a reason - to protect the lower density developments in the rest of the Borough.  There is a creeping pressure on Willesden to accept bigger and bigger blocks.  Electric House was one of those, which I can accept because of its position at the head of a street.  Similarly with the Erin Court development from a much earlier time, but The Queensbury redevelopment was rightly refused as much too big. 

The provision of more student housing is also questionable in an area that already suffers from an extremely transient population.  In the past, Brent planning committee refused student accommodation at the former Spotted Dog development citing this as a reason.  The logic behind this has not changed.

So far there is only one supporting statement:

Overall I now support this revised plan as the proposed buildings will still enable the view of the Electric House clock.

I think that Westminster University would be good to approach as they have a site in Baker Street only 10 minutes away by Tube.

I would like to see that the buildings are clad in real red brick and not synthetic to match with the Conservation Area, and also would like see that the landscaping also extends to the building by providing a green roof or wall and bird boxes (swifts perhaps) in the design.

I like the idea of flexible shop space as we do lack larger shop accommodation for chains. But would like to see that the shop frontage conform to the design guide produced by Cllr Tom Miller for Willesden Green.

As for the existing tenants of the retail spaces, I would encourage the developers to find them alternative accommodation in some of the spaces that are empty along the High Road to make up for the disruption to their businesses and the fact that they are unlikely to be able to afford the higher rents that no doubt will happen.

Perhaps one of the retail spaces could be a technical hub (with cafe?)? This would be suitable for students to use and also would enable the local population to use the facilities as we have many who work from home and would welcome such an initiative. And enable them to have a meeting place with clients.

LINK to application 17/0322

Time to let the public in on Brent's plans for Northwick Park

Land and property at Northwick Park

The 'One Public Estate' (OPE) strategy adopted by the Brent Cabinet in January with little discussion (it was item number 16)  has made little impact on the public so far, but that will change as details become more widely available.

Basically all the public sector owned property in one area - council, health, police, fire, education is put into one pot and then looked at in terms of rationalising and maximising the assets. In health this overlaps with the 'delivery' of the controversial Sustainability and Transformation Plans, in education the supply of school places, and in regeneration the supply of affordable and temporary housing but prhaps 'subsidised' by some privare housing,

Although referred to as 'public sector property' perhaps it should be termed 'public property' with the public having a major say in what might amount to the privatisation and monetisation of public assets.

The Cabinet paper said:

  OPE is an initiative delivered in partnership by the Cabinet Office Government Property Unit (GPU) and the Local Government Association (LGA). It provides practical and technical support and funding to councils to deliver ambitious property-focused programmes in collaboration with central government and other public sector partners. 


Brent failed in a bid for Wembley (it was called 'unambitious') but succeeded in getting  £270,000  over three years for a 'Northwick Park regeneration programme':

Local people will be keen to get some detail, especially on how it will affect the green space in Northwick Park and other local assets:

The Cabinet Report describes the project (my emphasis):
 

-->

Northwick Park based around the agglomeration of public sector ownership at Northwick Park, delivering a wide variety of benefits including for example: growth via new homes and development; efficiencies via generation of capital receipts; and integrated services via a new energy centre. Current Partners are: London Borough of Brent, Northwick Park Hospital, University of Westminster, Network Homes Ltd, with anticipated future partners: London Borough of Harrow, Transport for London, Greater London Authority, Care and Commissioning Group (CCG) 


Northwick Park Pavilion Community Asset Transfer

It should be noted that the Northwick Park Pavilion is currently included in the Community Asset Transfer (CAT) Programme. There is potential for a joint approach to the provision of sport at Northwick Park, with considerable demand generated by the University and Hospital. The pavilion could play a significant role in such provision. Brent’s land holdings at Northwick Park are substantial, but are largely made up of playing fields, and the pavilion is one of the few pieces of built infrastructure that Brent can add to the OPE mix. Accordingly it is proposed that the Pavilion be withdrawn from the CAT programme.

The original CAT proposal was submitted by the Parnell Gaelic Football club (PGFA), and reported to Cabinet on 8^th February 2016, when it was resolved to approve the marketing of the Northwick Park Pavilion (Main Hall and Ancillary Areas) as a CAT opportunity for a seven year lease. Discussions have recently been held with the PGFA, who have confirmed their understanding that the Council’s position on the CAT is under review, and as an alternative they are prepared to submit a proposal to lease the premises, after suitable marketing by the Council. It is believed that offering a five year lease with an option to determine at the third year would provide sufficient security for the PGFA whilst at the same time ensuring its availability for the wider Northwick Park project.

Clearly residents will be interested in the proposed new energy centre and will want details of any environmental impact.

Click to enlarge

 It is also unclear whether any of these plans will impact on Northwick Park Open Space itself. The 'landmark residential development'  with shops and cafes sounds quite a major development - and will some of the homes be private and unaffordable for local people?

There's certainly scope for some key questioning of candidates at the Northwick Park ward Labour selection meeting on Monday, where the deputy leader, Margaret McLennan, is one of the candidates.

Another area that Brent Council is also sponsoring as a possible project is Vale Farm which again has a considerable amount of green open space owned by the Council.

The Brent Property and Asset Strategy 2015-19 specifically mentioned Vale Farm but also  mentioned other open spaces that are a 'maintenance liability'.  Definitely a matter of 'watch this SPACE'!

There is scope to consider the re-planning and re-provision of the combined sports facilities at Vale Farm and there may be scope to consider similar opportunities in Roe Green and King Edward Parks. In addition there are a small number of open spaces across the Borough which remain under-utilised and potentially are a maintenance liability and this strategy proposes a review of this with a view to exploring their potential for either alternative uses in line with Borough Plan and Regeneration priorities, or alternatively Community Asset Transfer.