UPDATE-STEPS PASSED Revealed - the consequences of removing the Wembley Stadium Pedway

UPDATE WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 12TH

Brent & Kilburn Times‏Verified account @bktimes 31m31 minutes ago

Brent’s planning committee unanimously approve that the Wembley Stadium pedway ramp is demolished and replaced with steps

The footage above shows fans exiting Wembley Stadium via the soon to be replaced pedway. It is a foregone conclusion that tomorrow (Wednesday) Brent Planning Committee will approve plans to demolish the pedway and replace it with steps - after all the plan was approved by the Brent Cabinet using £8.4m of Quintain's infrastructure payment to the council for a project which will benefit Quintain who claim steps will be more in keeping with their multi-million high rise empire.

The new steps will be of little benefit to Wembley residents who may well prefer the monies to be spent on repairing the borough's crumbling infrastrucure away from Wembley.

Apart from the steps themselves the project will also involve cutting in two the unadopted road, Perimeter Way, that runs beneath the pedway as the space beneath the steps, the under-croft, will be used for other purposes.

Two new roads, legs of Perimeter Way, will join up with Engineers Way:

Quintain will be pleased with the officers' report which states about the pedway  (note passive voice):

It is considered to exhibit poor design and does not contribute positively to the character of the area and is therefore contrary to DMP1 of Brent’s Development Management Policies 2016. As such, its removal is considered acceptable in design terms.

They quote DDA requirements but of course it was not built when these were current:

The existing Pedway structure does not meet the principles of inclusive design, nor would it comply with current building regulations or the previous guidance as contained within the Disability Discrimination Act due to an unacceptably steep gradient.

Responding to claims that the pedway is safer than steps for those with restricted mobility they state:

An application for an additional 4 lifts has previously been approved (reference 18/1634). These additional lifts are expected to alleviate queuing pressure before and after an event. In the event the application to demolish the Pedway is approved a condition will be attached to any subsequent approval to ensure the additional 4 lifts are installed prior to the demolition work commencing.

The Crowd Movement Report is quoted as improving crowd control:

The report demonstrates that all current access is maintained and ease of movement at ground level (Level B2) is improved. The Olympic Steps work safely and efficiently for access, egress and evacuation from the Stadium. The assessments undertaken have shown that there is the capability to maintain the overall capacity of the system during ingress, egress and evacuation even with the reduction in the number of available channels at the stairs and head of stair barriers from 16 to 12, or an operational scenario where the Spanish Steps and Ginnels are unavailable. This is considered to be acceptable, and appropriate in the context of the application currently under consideration. 

The proposed Olympic Steps would provide more resilience than the existing arrangement where it may be necessary to close all or part of the ramps to manage a situation where this is necessary, for example crowd separation or crowd control. There are also potential operational benefits in terms of ease of access and ability to segregate the incident from the remaining and/or other crowds. In summary, the replacement steps have been designed to maximise the safety of users of the staircase and is best suited to accommodate the arrival and departure of high pedestrian flows on event days.

The replacement of the pedway with steps will mean the closure of Engineers Way for two hours before and after stadium events:

The removal of the Pedway and its replacement with steps on the southern side of Engineers Way would mean that in future all pedestrians travelling to and from the Stadium on an event day would need to cross Engineers Way at carriageway level. This would in turn require Engineers Way to be closed for about two hours before all events as well as after events, as is currently the arrangement with Fulton Road. 

This would result in all east-west routes across Wembley Park being closed for significantly longer periods of time than the current arrangement on Stadium event days. At present, the closure of all three east-west routes is only required at the end of events (except for NFL American Football events). In general, this is for a 60-90 minute period towards the end of the afternoon at weekends (for afternoon sporting fixtures) or at night for evening sporting fixtures or concerts.

More inconvenience for residents but the report promises respite when North End Road is eventually reconnected with Bridge Road:

The transport infrastructure improvements proposed are a new road connection between the western end of North End Road and Bridge Road (opposite Wembley Park station) for use by traffic and pedestrians. This would be achieved by removing pedestrian steps and ramps between North End Road and Bridge Road and by raising the level of the road over a distance of about 60m. 

The future proposed scheme means that on Wembley Stadium event days there would be a replacement east-west route across the Wembley Stadium area that does not cross Olympic Way and therefore would not need to be closed to maintain pedestrian and crowd safety.  

Brent Council has financially committed to delivering an east-west route through the North End Road connection which would therefore further support the road network on event days. 

Local residents and businesses would therefore have an alternative route that could remain open throughout an event day to allow them access to and from their properties. In addition to this, bus routes 92 and 206 would not need to divert completely away from Wembley when events are taking place. The applicant has confirmed that there will be ongoing communications with Transport for London to facilitate where the diverted buses will alight.  

It is worth noting that if there are possible delays with the delivery of the North End Road connection, the modelling that has been provided demonstrates a worst case scenario of a weekday evening peak hour. The road network would be less affected at the weekend as the volume of traffic associated with businesses in the Wembley Industrial Area would be far lower and the residential traffic would naturally be more evenly spread across the day.

North End Road may be a bit of a nightmare on event days for residents of Empire Court and Danes Court so what will all this do for/to other local people as they try and move around the borough on event days?

The Forty Lane corridor modelling shows that the corridor would experience a greater increase in flows, however, the modelling shows that it has sufficient spare capacity to accommodate this without significant detriment to travel times or delays. 

The modelling demonstrates that the delay between the Forty Lane corridor, North Circular Road and

Bridge Road would amount to less than 30 seconds, whilst along Harrow Road between North Circular Road and Wembley Hill Road a delay of between 45 seconds to 1-1⁄2 minutes would be added to journey times. This is not expected to cause detrimental inconvenience to residents or drastically increase the potential traffic.

Following the submission of the addendum to the modelling, the impacts on Harrow Road and Forty Lane corridors are likely to be less pronounced than had previously been assumed, partly due to traffic being delayed along the Great Central Way corridor and partly due to traffic redistributing itself over a wider area to avoid congestion close to the Stadium. 

Flows along Harrow Road are therefore forecast to barely change, largely due to the road being congested already. Traffic diverted away from Engineers Way looking to travel to the southwest would therefore look for a less congested route.  

The modelling also shows that roads to the west of the Stadium would experience a reduction in traffic flows and an improvement in traffic conditions as a result of the closure. Most notably, Empire Way and Wembley High Road would see significant falls in traffic flow as traffic cannot travel west from Engineers Way and this would cut journey times along the Empire Way corridor by up to 30 seconds. 

The North Circular Road corridor including Great Central Way and St Raphael’s Way would experience temporary congestion and delays on event days, however, the proposed North End Road connection would alleviate any concerns over traffic in these areas.  

The Head of Highways & Infrastructure has accepted that the predicted additional disruption to the highway network on Wembley Stadium Event Days can be accepted for the temporary period before the delivery of the North End Road connection. The road network will be managed as well as possible during the interim to minimise inconvenience and delay to local residents and businesses, until such time as the North End Road scheme is delivered.

Let's wait and see...

More questions than answers in Brent planners' report on Cricklewood's Windmill Hotel

Brent Planning Committee will be deciding whether to approve planning permission for the Windmill Hotel, Cricklewood Broadway tomorrow. This involves the retention of the facade with redevelopment into 5 flats behind the facade as well as the retention of a pub. The pub garden would be converted into garden space for the flats.

However, members of the Committee may well be perplexed by the Officers' report...

Rather extraordinarily the officers seem to have been unable to establish whether the hotel has been used as a pub recently. Surely gathering evidence on that is a relatively simple matter?

1.6 It is claimed by the applicant that the bar at ground floor level has not been in use a public house since a fire in 2007, and has instead been mostly used as a lounge/breakfast area by hotel guests, with the bar occasionally rented out for private functions. The applicant has submitted a number of documents to demonstrate this including statutory declarations and company accounts. However this information does not correspond with other details that have been provided during the course of the application.

1.7 Officers acknowledge that there has been a strong interest from the local community in regards to the use of the premises at ground floor level, with numerous objections over the proposed loss of the ‘public house’ and questions raised over the validity of the evidence supplied by the applicant. A number of objectors have also claimed to have personally frequented the pub on occasions in the recent past

1.8 Regardless of whether the premises has been used as a public house or a breakfast bar within the last few years is not a determining factor to this proposal. It has not been demonstrated that the site does not accommodate a public house so policy DMP21 is relevant. However, this application does not propose to reduce the internal floor area of the public house premises. Planning applications from almost a decade ago (ref: 09/1456) show the size of the ‘pub’ being exactly the same size as the current proposal. The only loss to the pub with this scheme is to the beer garden at the rear, which is proposed to be transformed into private gardens.

I would think the loss of the beer garden, which I would see as an integral part of a pub, does not merit being described as the 'only loss' it is something that would contribute to the financial success of the enterprise.

There is more in a Supplementary report after the receipt of a further objection claiming that the bar had been open to the public recently and that the owners had not accepted offers to lease the pub. Officers comment:

It is quite possible (if not likely) that the bar has been open to the public - at least sporadically - until very recently. Moreover, there are sporadic responses on websites such as Trip Advisor from users of the hotel complaining about the bar being noisy, closed to the public and only open for private functions. However, as discussed in the committee report, the internal space for the pub is being retained within the site and a change of use is not proposed for the public house.

The public have raised questions about the viability of the pub if it does not serve hot meals, a deciding factor for the survival of may pubs that generate income from food sales. The report is confusing. See highlighted remarks:

3.5 As an aside, it is important to note that the pub would does not (sic) include a kitchen and would not serve hot food. It would therefore not require additional flues or vents to the rear elevations. Planning permission would be required for the installation of external flues should these be proposed in the future. 

Informative note on the report: 

6  The premises shall only be open and used for the preparation or sale of hot food or for the sale of alcoholic liquor: 
Sunday to Thursday: 10:00-00:00 Friday and Saturday: 10:00-01:00 
And shall be cleared, with all ancillary activity completed, within 30 minutes of closing time, and the premises shall not be open outside of these hours. 


 No beer garden, no hot food - is the pub being set up to fail  and converted into a tenth flat?

Northwick Park Regeneration: Does 'appropriate consultation' mean 'No public consultation'?

Gaynor Lloyd asked a number of questions at the August 13th Cabinet Meeting regarding the proposed One Public Estate development at Northwick Park. Philip Grant left a comment on my original post on this issue LINK but I think it is worth publishing in its own right:

The Minutes of the 13 August Cabinet Meeting are now available on the Council’s website. This is how they report the item on which Gaynor spoke:

’Councillor Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, welcomed Ms Elizabeth Lloyd, a Northwick Park resident, to the meeting. In accordance with Standing Order 13 Cabinet heard a public question from Ms Lloyd on the matter of the housing infrastructure bid relating to the Northwick Park Regeneration Programme as set out in the report.

Ms Lloyd stated that Northwick Park was a much loved and well used local facility, highlighting, at the same time, that it had been recognised Brent was deficient in all types of open space and recreation grounds. She felt that the Council therefore had an obligation to protect these areas from inappropriate development, with the report not clearly demonstrating the extent of the regeneration area which would be affected by the project, or seeming to take into account any planning protection designations.

Ms Lloyd felt that there had been insufficient public consultation on the programme to date and noted that there was a growing concern amongst local residents on the likely impact of any proposed development in Northwick Park. As a result she asked for clarification on the following issues:

(a) the boundaries of the regeneration area subject to the grant application,
requesting publication of a plan;

(b) for clarification on the evidence in support of the criteria met under the terms of the grant application; and

(c) an indication of the alternative routes being considered for any access road to the regeneration area.

In response, Councillor Shama Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Planning
and Highways thanked Ms Lloyd for her contribution at the meeting. She stated that the report was part of a wider project seeking to unlock more housing opportunities and improve the local infrastructure. She acknowledged the importance of protecting open spaces in Brent, as set out by the Greater London Authority and reassured Ms Lloyd that no action would be taken without appropriate public consultation.’

However, it appears that Cllr. Tatler’s “reassurance” was rather hollow, as the very next action which Cabinet took was: 

’RESOLVED:-
i. Cabinet agreed to receive grant funding and enter into grant agreements with the Greater London Authority for two Housing Infrastructure Fund bids relating to South Kilburn and Northwick Park regeneration Programmes.’

That means that the Cabinet committed Brent Council to a funding bid grant for a “Northwick Park regeneration programme” on which there has been NO public consultation!

The only reason I can see for why the Lead Member might believe the “reassurance” she gave is that Cabinet thinks ‘appropriate public consultation’ means ‘no public consultation’. 

Wembley Stadium's 'public transport venue' status undermined by huge coach/car park

Impressive impression?

Readers may remember the boast when the new Wembley Stadium opened that it would be a public transport venue with restrictions on the use of parking spaces. Indeed Brent Council has recently taken planning enforcement action against local schools that supplement their budgets by letting their playgrounds out for event day parking. Budgets which are of course very tight at present and cash which would be used to improve children's education.

So it is ironic then that Quintain have issued a press release announcing a huge (and rather ugly) coach and car park at the Stadium.  This is of course in addition to the multi-storey car park close to the LDO.

I will let Quintain's press release speak for itself:

Quintain have announced details of Europe’s first multi-storey coach parking complex being built on plot SE01, located in the south east end of the Wembley Park development.

The purpose built multi-storey coach parking complex will be the first of its kind and will deliver 290 dedicated coach spaces park over two levels. In addition, a five-storey 734 space car park will be provided above the coach complex, creating revolutionary parking provisions.

In order to manage the unique project, Huber, the German car park Design & Build specialist have been awarded a £41m contract to work alongside O'Keefe to deliver the project and act as the project manager and principle designer. With the groundworks now completed by O’Keefe (£13 million contract value), Huber (£28m contract value) will lead on the above ground construction of the structure through to completion.

At full capacity, the parking complex will accommodate up to 16,500 visitors, representing a major investment in infrastructure and innovative car parking solutions for Wembley Stadium and the SSE Arena, Wembley, as well as the surrounding 85-acre development taking place at Wembley Park.

The coach park will be laid out over two levels, each level with its own entrance. The five-storey, 734 space car parking structure, being built above the coach park, will also have its own entrance. Coaches will be organised according to length, height and weight and when fully utilised the entire structure will be able to accommodate over 1,000 vehicles.

The design has taken inspiration from the Rubik’s Cube, by using innovative engineering and bespoke design to ensure coaches, cars and pedestrians are able to co-exist harmoniously.

Speaking about the Pink car park, Matt Voyce, Executive Director (Construction) of Quintain, said:

“We are very proud to be able to bring forward such a unique and innovative project at Wembley Park.  Working closely with Huber, who has an excellent track record of delivering large scale parking solutions, we very much look forward to welcoming thousands of visitors to Europe’s first multi-story coach parking complex.”

Adding to this, Markus Lauble (Managing Director) of Huber, said:

“Huber Car Park System is a multi-storey car park design and build contractor, this is a unique project within our portfolio and we are delighted to have developed it in very close cooperation with Quintain. It is the vision of Quintain team with the technology of Huber Car Park Systems that have made this project possible.”

Once the parking complex is completed, the operational management of the space will be handled internally by the Wembley Park estates team and will include a bespoke vehicle management and movements plan to ensure smooth parking placements within the structure.
The architectural design of the parking complex was undertaken by Potter Church and Holmes and the project is expected to complete in autumn 2019.

Brent Green Party's Shaka Lish on 'War and the Environment'

Welsh Harp SSSI threat covered in ITV News at 10

UPDATE: Disabled man's 'bitter experience' as he has to don wellies to enter flooded kitchen following Brent Council's failure to act

 UPDATE SEPTEMBER 12TH

Since this article was published a Brent housing officer has been in contact with John regarding his situation and has said she wants to arrange an appointment to restore power to his flat. No date yet. It has emerged that the flooding source is a different flat to the one first suspected.

John Healy, a Brent Council tenant in South Kilburn, has been left having to put on wellies to wade through his flooded kitchen after Wates, Brent Council Housing's out-sourced repair service, deemed the flat that was the source of the flooding unsafe for their employees to enter as the tenant is 'too dangerous.'

John has been waiting for action since last Wednesday. He told Wembley Matters:

Because of the flood in my kitchen, I have been left with no lights, heating, hot water microwave and worst of all having to throw out all of the from my full fridge that has gone off, as there is no power for it along with everything else. I have to put on wellies to enter the kitchen because there is so much water on the floor.

I informed them that I am a disabled 67 year old man with a mobility impairment and I was worried about slipping on my saturated carpets. This did happen but fortunately I was not injured.

Brent Council Housing's mission statement says 'A better experience for residents' unfortunately for be it is ' a bitter experience'. They say they are 'taking a holistic experience with Wates', for me it is more like 'taking the **** approach.'

John visited the South Kilburn repair office yesterday and was told they were dealing with source of the leak but in the evening Wates called in on John with a security officer and told him they could not enter the flat which is the source of the flat. His power cannot be restored because of the flooding.

The Wates officer suggested John  was entitled to be accommodated in bed and breakfast by Brent Council until the issue has been dealt with but the Council has not offered this option. He has submitted a complaint to the Council but this could take up to 20 days to be dealt with.

Wembley Matters has requested a comment from Brent Council.

Five MPs to represent Brent residents under Boundary Commission's final recommendations

Brent will have two main constituencies under the Boundary Commission proposals. Residents in some wards will be in a minority with an MP mainly representing people in a neighbouring borough. It is noteworthy that in some ways the boundaries divide Brent into the old Willesden and Wembley council areas which preceeded the unified borough.

Wembley's dominance of the borough would be reinforced as it is the only constituency which only consists of Brent wards. A consultation is currently in progress to reduce the number of wards by two.

Brent will disappear as a constituency name.

Given the present narrow parliamentary majority of the Tories and the DUP's unhappiness at the proposals for their region it appears by no means certain that parliament will approve the proposals.