Why has Brent Council failed to protect the iconic view of Wembley Stadium?

'...The council will therefore protect a range of short, middle and long distance views of the National Stadium.' 2015

2018

 I reproduce below Philip Grant's recent letter to the Kilburn Times LINK

Your article “Wembley Arch Vanishing?” (23 August) LINK makes a very important point about Brent Council’s lack of compliance with its own planning policies.

In January 2015, a meeting of Brent’s Full Council adopted the Wembley Area Action Plan, drawn up after public consultation, to be part of the policies which were supposed to be applied in deciding whether planning applications should be accepted. The action plan included a section on “Protection of Stadium Views”, with policy statements such as:

‘Views of the Stadium contribute a significant amount to the perception of Wembley as a whole, performing a range of functions that add a layer of depth to the visual experience of the area.’ and
’The council will therefore protect a range of short, middle and long distance views of the National Stadium.’

In the related section of the action plan on “Protecting the Special Character of Olympic Way”, the protection to be given was spelled out with further policy statements, including:

‘In line with policies WEM5 and WEM6, proposals for tall buildings must demonstrate that they have no adverse visual impacts on views of the stadium from Olympic Way.’ and (in policy WEM7)
’Proposed Development on Olympic Way must be carefully designed and scaled to respect the predominance of Wembley Stadium and its arch.’

Picture 4.39 (above) is an illustration from the 2015 action plan, showing the main view that these policies were supposed to protect. Unfortunately, the reality of what has been allowed to happen can be seen in a photograph which I took, from the same spot, in July 2018. 

Brent has allowed many “minor” bites to be taken out of the view, by approving successive planning applications for tall buildings along Olympic Way over recent years, and there are more to come.

In June 2018, a report to Planning Committee, which approved changes to the plan for a tall block next to the Civic Centre, mentioned some of the earlier concessions made:

‘The top of the new tall building would obscure an additional small part of the stadium arch ....’ and
’Whilst the current proposals would slightly reduce the amount of the arch that is visible at present, this is not significantly more than the degree to which the Barratt and Unite housing schemes on the eastern side of Olympic Way infringe on the view of the arch from Olympic Way ....’

In July 2018, when recommending approval for a development by Network Homes of up to 21 stories, the planners said:

‘...  it is considered that the small reduction in the visibility of the eastern part of the arch is an acceptable consequence of this development and it is noted that the western part of the arch is already obscured to broadly the same extent, helping to bring symmetry to the view of the Stadium along the Olympic Way corridor.’ 


Brent Council should explain why it has allowed its own planning rules to be broken by its planners and Planning Committee, and why it has failed to protect the iconic view of Wembley Stadium, despite its promise to do so.

Philip Grant

The future of children's play facilities in Quintain's Wembley development

There have been rumours circulating about the loss of a 'park' in Wembley. Some said that flats were to be built on Chalkhill Park which has only been open for a few years.

On investigation I realised that it was the children's playground opposite the London Designer Outlet where the building of flats was to take place. The playground has been very popular with local parents as a source of relief and relaxation when shopping with young children. It was always envisaged as a 'meanwhile' facility, meaning it occupies the site temporarily prior to development.

It is to be hope that the fact that it is valued as a community asset and one where parents and children representing a cross-section of Brent's diverse population can mix freely will encourage Brent Council and Quintain to consider alternative provision.

Amar Dave, Brent Council's Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment told Wembley Matters:

In 2014 Quintain proposed the provision of the children’s play area together with some other public realm improvements as a “meantime” use of the land before it comes forward for development (through the existing outline consent) in the future.  The reference number for that application is 14/1089 [ LINK ]. 

Play and recreational facilities had been secured in other consents but hadn’t come forward yet.  Some have now been delivered (the smaller play area in the park to the north of the Civic Centre) and others are to be delivered later. 

We were very supportive of the provision of the play area as an interim use of the site – much better than keeping it hoarded up until the development comes forward. 

In terms of future provision other play areas are to be provided.  The Southern part of the new larger park (towards the eastern end of Engineers Way) includes a play are of commensurate size to the existing play area.  It also includes a Multi-Use-Games Area.   

When the plot within which the meantime playground is developed, a smaller play area will be incorporated in this location.

-->

UPDATE: ESFA visit Woodfield School on compliance matters

I understand that the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) LINK have visited Woodfield School, Kingsbury, an academy, to investigate compliance issues.  This follows a request by the National Education Union (NEU) in May  asking Secretary of State Damian Hinds and Brent Council for an investigation by a relevant financial watchdog.

The investigation is thought to have centred on allegations regarding a consultant being paid almost £240,000 over 2 years* for around 8 days work a month. Shortly before taking up the post it is claimed he had been a trustee overseeing financial decisions by the academy. LINK

There was a long dispute between staff at the Village School and its governing body over plans to form a Mult Academy Trust with Woodfield School.

The publishing of a report by the ESFA on their investigation is awaited with great interest. I am told that neither the NEU nor staff have as yet seen evidence that the MAT has actually been approved.

*Corrected from initial version which stated one year. Apologies for wrong information.

UPDATE Friday September 7th
Usually well-informed sources say that the EFSA arrived at Woodfield today giving the school 5 days to response before the Agency decides whether to serve a financial notice to improve.

Screening of 'A Plastic Ocean' by Brent FOE September 11th

From Brent Friends of the Earth

Tuesday 11^th September 2018; 7:30pm

Plastic Ocean Screening

All welcome

Meeting room, Watling Gardens Estate 

97 - 135 Shoot-Up Hill, London NW2 3UB 

The meeting room is near the playground which can be seen from the street. Disabled access is via the back door ramp. See here for more info on the venue and how to find it.

Elizabeth line delay impact on proposed bus service changes

Transport for London are discussing the impact of the Elizabth line delay on proposed changes in local bus services. The preliminary date for the controversial curtailment of the 223 bus route at Northwick Park was the end of 2019.

Geoff Hobbs, Director of Public Transport Service Planning at TfL, said:

Last year we consulted on changing buses near the Elizabeth line to reflect how demand for buses in London has changed and will change in the future. Now that Crossrail Ltd has confirmed that the Elizabeth line will launch next autumn we’re now reviewing the timing of these changes to ensure they are as beneficial as possible.

Brent Momentum backs lobby of Labour NEC on IHRA

Brent Momentum is supporting the lobby of the Labour NEC today urging it not to adopt the full IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and its examples. The lobbying initiative was agreed at an emergency meeting organised by  Camden Momentum attended by more than a 100 people who were members of 17 Momentum groups.

No to IHRA, Yes to BDS

ALL WELCOME TO JOIN THE MASS LOBBY OF LABOUR’S NEC
 where the IHRA definition of antisemitism and its examples will be discussed

from 9am, Tuesday, 4 September, 105 Victoria St, London SW1E 6QT

Camden Momentum has launched a petition calling for a vote of all Labour Party members on the issue.

IHRA: We the members must decide not the Israel lobby

SIGN THE PETITION

WE DEMAND
The members elected Jeremy Corbyn. The IHRA definition would return the party to the right which we voted down by a large majority – twice. Therefore, the members, not the NEC, nor the PLP, must decide whether or not to adopt the IHRA examples. We demand that the decision be put to a vote of all Labour Party members. 

Background
This petition was agreed overwhelmingly on 20 August 2018 at an emergency meeting called by Camden Momentum and attended by over 110 members from 16 Momentum groups. Please sign and circulate widely.

We, members of the LP, elected Jeremy Corbyn leader because he is a socialist, an antiracist and stands for an ethical foreign policy based on human rights, including the rights of Palestinians living under Israeli apartheid.

Corbyn has been under mounting pressure from right-wing Labour MPs, Zionist organisations and the mainstream media determined to remove our elected leader, to adopt all the examples in the IHRA definition. The heads of Momentum and some unions, without consulting their members, have also accepted this. 

Palestinians, other people of colour and other antiracists, including Jewish people who oppose Israeli apartheid, have said that the IHRA examples would censor Palestinians’ right to self-determination, criminalise the BDS movement and pose an existential threat to free speech on Israel.

In March 2018, a poll of Labour Party members found that 77% believe the charges of antisemitism in the Labour Party are ‘being deliberately exaggerated to damage Labour and Jeremy Corbyn, or to stifle criticism of Israel’.

Three pro-Israel newspapers, The Jewish Chronicle, the Jewish Telegraph and Jewish News, accuse Labour under Corbyn of ‘political antisemitism’ because it criticises Israel, the Jewish State. The three papers say, ‘Had the full IHRA definition with examples relating to Israel been approved, hundreds, if not thousands, of Labour and Momentum members would need to be expelled.’ This presumes that the LP must be purged of its Palestinian and pro-Palestinian members, including Jewish ones, and that the IHRA definition is a means to this end. Many Corbyn supporters have already been expelled, suspended or blocked from standing for office, and some have resigned.

The extreme right is on the ascendant in the Tory party, in Trump’s US, in Netanyahu’s Israel with the recent killing and maiming of unarmed Palestinian protesters and a new law institutionalising apartheid, and in Europe with a number of anti-immigrant, Islamophobic and antisemitic governments. Only a socialist Corbyn government and the movement it represents can stop the extreme right in the UK.

Momentum Camden

Jewish Voice for Labour have submitted a paper to the Labour Party Consultation on the definition of anti-Semitism HERE

Kilburn Labour Party is standing up for democracy on behalf of local people

There was a pretty astonishing letter in last week's Brent and Kilburn Times. It came from Paul Scott, Secretary of the Kilburn (Brent) Labour Party and was about the sacking of Cllr Abdirazak Abdi, a Kilburn Labour Councillor, from the Brent Planning Committee.

Scott pulled no punches:

Cllr Abdi Abdirazak, a newly-elected Kilburn councillor, was sacked from Brent Planning Committee on July 9 by the Brent council leader (“Sacked for voting the wrong way”).

Cllr Abdi and the Kilburn Labour Party believe this happened because he “voted the wrong way” on a number of planning applications, but our attempts to find out more have failed because the council leader Cllr Muhammed Butt has refused to answer questions at local meetings, and has so far not responded to my invitation to discuss the background.

Instead he has ducked, dived and backtracked (at one point asserting that Cllr Abdi was on another committee – not true).

The bigger issue here is not how one council leader can avoid accountability, but about ensuring Brent’s committee appointments are transparent and accountable to the electorate.

If an elected councillor, representing local residents can be removed from a committee against his will and with no satisfactory explanation, how can we be sure this isn’t how many our Brent committees are managed – with a disregard for accountability and due process?

Clearly the whole Brent committee system needs a close look – this latest incident is worrying for local democracy.

I warned before the local election that Brent was in danger of becoming a 'one party state' with Cllr Butt gathering even more power to himself.  His antipathy towards Kilburn showed itself in his dealings with Cllr John Duffy who asked too many well-researched awkward questions about the running of the council's waste services and Cllr Butt's dealing with developers and he has been impatient with Labour Party members who lived on South Kilburn Estate who pursued issues over the regeneration and in particular the Council's decision to persuade HS2 to locate a vent shaft next to housing and a primary school, rather than on more suitable land next to Queens Park station.

Although Paul Scott says the bigger issue is not how one council leader can avoid accountability,  his description of Cllr Butt's ducking, diving and backtracking is exactly what Brent residents have encountered, particularly notable in his dealings with the Stonebridge community over the closure of Stonebridge Adventure Playground.

Butt looked unassailable after his crushing of other parties at the Council election  and it is to the credit of Kilburn Labour Party that there are at least some members who are prepared to talk truth to power.  They deserve our support whether we belong to another political party or are not a member of any. 

In the absence of any effective opposition on the Council they are standing up for us.



 

Public Inquiry to be held after Harrow School appeal planning refusal for new sports building

Image from Harrow Hill Trust

The Planning Inspectorate today announced that following an appeal by Harrow School a three day Inquiry will be held into the school's plans for demolition of some existing buildings and the building of new sports and science buildings in the school grounds.

The plans were contested by the public and turned down by Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor using his powers under the Town and Country Planning Act to direct Harrow Council to refuse planning permission.

Mayor Khan said that the proposed footprint and location of the proposed sports building would result in unacceptable sprawl of inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land.

Those  contesting the appeal have until October 1st to make a submission to the Planning Inspectorate but are currently handicapped because Harrow School's grounds for appeal have not yet been published on the Harrow Council website.

Planning Inspectorate letter below. Click bottom right for full size version.