Monday, 1 May 2023

355 new hotel rooms for Olympic Way plus 26 storey private residential block. Nearby residents complain of daylight and sunlight impact,


 The new hotel tower replacing 3 Olympic Way and the Novotel upper extension

The rattle of luggage trolleys will become louder along Olympic Way if Brent Planning Committee approves a new 23 storey hotel to replace the  current much lower 7 storey building at 3 Olympic Way  and a further 6 storey upper floor extension to the Novotel making it 16 storeys  high.

The officers' report states;

The proposed hotel accommodation would comprise of an upwards and infill extension to the existing Novotel at 5 Olympic Way, as well as separate, new hotel directly adjacent at 3 Olympic Way. The application states the new hotel would be a 3 star model and that the reception area to the existing Novotel would be transformed to create a shared reception area for the both the existing and proposed hotels, with extended restaurant offer to cater for both hotels too. The leisure facilities proposed (i.e. swimming pool and gym) at basement level below the proposed hotel will also serve the existing Novotel.

 

In apparent contradiction to this description of shared facilities the officers also state:

 

This hotel is planned to be used by a different hotel operator, (i.e. it would not constitute a further extension to the Novotel), and would have 260 hotel rooms.

The planning application is not limited to the hotels. The site includes a large car park space between Olympic Way and North End Road that will be built on. 

Plans for this space includes a 26 storey  residential building with 142 private homes named the 'Central Residence' and a 10 storey bullding of 30  apartments facing North End Road for 'affordable' housing.

The proposal goes to Brent Planning Committee at their meeting on Wednesday May 10th 6pm. Residents can apply to speak  on the proposal.  LINK

 


 The officers' report spends considerable space on the problems of 'viability of social housing provision' and ends with agreeing that despite much higher requirements in terms of guidance that 10.4% social rent and 6.97% London Shared Ownership is all that can be provided in terms of financial viability of the whole development.


 To summarise 142 homes (82.5%) will be private, 18 social rent (10.4%) and 12 shared ownership (6.97%) shared ownership.  So only 1 in 10 of the homes will be properly affordable.

As social and shared ownerships are all in one building on North End Road there is no impingement by 'affordabe residents' on the private area.

The officers' report addresses existing residents' concerns over access to daylight and sunlight  (they say Danes Court, Pinnacle Tower, Trabriz Court and Felda House are affected) with this statement:

The growth area designation which applies to this location, and which envisions significant housing growth within the locality of the site is given significant weight. The expectation for significant development within this growth area, as well as the expected high-density nature of development, would naturally reduce the expectations for full compliance with the daylight and sunlight guidance for new development in this location. As noted above, the undeveloped nature of a large proportion of the site affords some surrounding buildings access to a higher level of existing sunlight and a generous baseline scenario, however this is a location where change is expected to occur and the existing baseline conditions cannot realistically be maintained

The officers' report states that there are 22 objections to the development but there are 57 recorded (some going back to the 2021 application);

Here is a recent objection;

Danes Court resident: In response to your further letter regarding the application 3-5 Olympic Way HA9 0NP, I wish to again oppose these plans. I can see no significant change to the planning application for this site, which was first opposed by me in March 2022.

As I mentioned before, the proposal to develop and build a building on 3-5 Olympic Way of basement ground, nine, twenty two, and twenty five storeys will have a very detrimental impact on me and my family (and other Danes Court residents). I live in 22 Danes Court which faces and is adjacent to North End Road. Over a period of several years our quality of life has declined considerably due to the building of numerous very tall blocks of flats and student accommodation; Victoria Hall, Felda House, Scape, 1 Olympic Way, Anthology, and recently a vast Barrett tower block of flats. These have had a considerable impact on the light on my flat. Since these buildings have been erected and most recently 1 Olympic way where a 15 storey tower block had been built opposite our flat (to add insult to injury, this block appears to be unoccupied!), the light to my flat has almost disappeared. We now have almost no sunlight onto our flat. The days of enjoying an afternoon sitting on my balcony are a distant memory and with this proposal we will be almost constantly living in shade.

The proposal to build 9, 22 and 25 storey buildings plus add six storeys to the Novotel hotel will almost completely decimate any remaining light on our flat. This is not only detrimental to our well being, but our health as well. The reduction in light and privacy have impacted on our mental health and quality of life. Plants that used to thrive on my balcony now do not due to lack of sun (this may seem minor to you but is important to me). This proposal will significantly negatively impact on mine and others quality of life. Please consider the Right to Light Act 1959. I have lived in my flat for 28 years and enjoyed wonderful light for most of that, now it has lessened to very little and this proposal will take most of the little light we have particularly in the afternoons.

These buildings plus a supermarket will bring more people and traffic, which will also impact on the noise, litter (a huge problem since all these buildings have been erected in and near North End Road), privacy, anti-social behaviour and traffic. North End Road is a dangerous rat run of traffic, fumes and noise. It is almost impossible to cross without taking your life in your hands. Lorries, cars, vans and occasionally coaches thunder down that road. We are also often disturbed by vehicles sounding their horns in the midst of severe congestion of traffic during school pick ups and event days. Adding further congestion with traffic from these buildings will increase the nightmare of this hideous, dangerous road.


The Danes and Empire Court flats were built in around the 1930s. The recent buildings have smothered them, (they are now hidden by surrounding ugly concrete tower blocks,) and brought only negative impact on the residents.


Litter has increased substantially. Only today I watched a man empty his care boot of plastic water bottles and chuck them on the ground. Take away food containers and other rubbish had led to an increase in vermin and made the area look run down, which I am sure has contributed to an increase in crime. Ie drug dealing has become the norm.


This proposal will considerably further add to the detrimental impact on mine and other residents qualify of life. Therefore I oppose it.

And one from April last year:

Shams Court resident:  

With reference to planning application 21/2130, I would like to register my strong objections to this application as it will have a major impact on all occupants of my address, all 9 flats in Shams Court, and I believe our opinions should be counted as we have clearly been identified in the plans as THOSE MOST AFFECTED. My reasons for objecting are as below:


1. Developers have stated that they consulted us (the owners of Sham's Court). This is entirely UNTRUE and NO attempt has been made by the developers to consult any of the owners of Sham's Court. This is just one example of the falsehoods mentioned in their planning application.


2. From the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessment you can see that the 8, 22 and 25 storey buildings will completely overshadow the ENTIRE SOURCE OF NATURAL LIGHT to our kitchen and bathroom. This is our MAIN source of natural light.


3. Shams Court is a small 4 storey building, which will be engulfed in full 360degrees by extremely high towers. The image attached has a mouse which points to the EXACT location of my flat. You can very clearly see the tower would block ALL daylight through my windows and is in touching distance of the building. It is visibly engulfing my apartment and the entire Shams Court. We would be left in darkness ALL DAY- you can literally see a full shadow on the developer's image of our flat.


4. In the new report our kitchen and Bathroom windows would get 1% of daylight and with the daylight from the front living room and bedrooms would be an acceptable daylight required. I completely disagree with this. Our living room is long and hence the daylight coming in will not get to the kitchen area and we will be below the living standard acceptable daylight. Also presently we have to leave the bathroom door open to have daylight in the hallway and entrance area. Therefore when the bathroom receives 1% daylight the area mentioned will be in total darkness. This is outrageous. How can you ignore where we receive such a significant proportion of our daylight. It is false representation of the effects of this project. The developers have omitted key information in their reports.


Additionally, the costs of electricity have sky-rocketed. Once the light has been reduced to a pathetic 1%, I will have to keep my lights on constantly, using an excessive amount of energy. This is bad for the environment and will put considerable strain on my finances due to the electricity price increase. Shams Court was purpose built as affordable housing - which it will no longer be


5. The buildings will tower over Sham's Court and we will be in engulfed in darkness. Our roof garden will be overshadowed leading to no daylight/sunlight and our privacy will be entirely lost. My mother who lives with me and is a key worker from home will be working in her room in a very dark environment. This is not acceptable for mental health or working conditions.


6. This development will have detrimental effects on our living standards, privacy and health. This is going to affect every resident's privacy. All of us will be under heavy stress which can cause significant damage to our health and everyday living conditions both during construction and even more-so after completion due to significant increase in population density, noise, nuisance and anti-social behaviour. There are six young children in our block and their lives deserve better than this scenario. This development, if approved, will have an unbearable impact on the mental and physical health of every resident and child in this small 4-storey building.


7. The development of towers next to Pinnacle Tower (18 Storey tower to the South of Shams Court) and the Novotel (19 storeys to the West of Shams Court) have already left us with very little natural light and an extremely claustrophobic environment to live in. Our privacy has already been significantly reduced with existing towers. Approving this development will remove any remaining privacy that we have.


8. The layout and density of this development is clearly over-development and is overbearing in depth and height. Leading to all forms of uncomfortable situations. The construction will have detrimental effects on living standards, noise levels, cranes, dust emissions, demolition, digging and construction and trackout of materials and heavy vehicle noise will lead us to living in a terrible environment.


9. Noise levels, anti-social behaviour, disturbance and nuisance from overcrowding of a very small area with thousands of people will significantly affect our quality of life on a daily basis. We already struggle with noise in the area and this will increase it infinitely.



10. The ground stability will certainly be compromised with the large-scale excavation proposed. We share an underground basement with the existing Novotel hotel and further construction of this nature can lead to a weak structure and compromise the safety and integrity of all the surrounding buildings.


We kindly ask Brent council to understand the detrimental effects this proposal will have on the residents of Shams Court. We trust you to protect us from this loss of all natural light, increased noise pollution, disturbance, loss of privacy and increase in anti-social behavior.


We hope you will protect us from these outrageous, inconsiderate proposals.

 

 

 


 

 

 

Good Law Project plans legal challenge over voter ID rules

 


 From Good Law Project

Plans to bring forward a legal challenge over new mandatory voter ID rules ahead of the next general election were announced by Good Law Project yesterday (Sunday 30th April). This comes on the back of mounting concerns that the Government’s Elections Act 2022, which requires voters to present certain forms of photo ID, could lead to significant numbers being turned away from polling booths at this Thursday’s local elections across England.

This legislation, expected to cost the taxpayer up to £180 million over ten years, provides a list of valid Government-accepted photo IDs to vote with. However, the list has sparked significant controversy as it includes many forms of ID available to older people, such as an Older Person’s Bus Pass or 60+ Oyster Card, but disallows 18+ Oyster Cards and 16-25 railcards.

Good Law Project has been 
raising concerns about how these rules could disenfranchise young people and other communities. 

As a possible solution, the Government recently introduced ‘Voter Authority Certificates’, but the latest figures show the scheme has had a very poor take up with around 4% of the estimated 2.1 million people who do not have valid ID applying for one.

Good Law Project has taken and will proceed from legal advice from a team led by a specialist King’s Counsel to monitor the effects and impacts of the voter ID rules on the upcoming local elections and bring a case against the Government to challenge these rules before the general election.

Executive Director of Good Law Project, Jo Maugham KC, said:

The voter ID rules are a really bad thing to happen in a democracy - a needless act of sabotage against the universality of the franchise. 

On the evidence, they cannot be explained otherwise than as an attempt to deny those likely to vote against the Government the ability to do so. They need to be challenged, in court. And this is exactly what we plan to do.


Saturday, 29 April 2023

Wembley Stadium - what might have been

 A Wembley Stadium centenary guest snippet from local historian Philip Grant.

 

 

Euro 1996 football fans, heading for the future! (Image: Foster & Partners)

 

It’s 1996, and Wembley is staging the final games in the Euros football tournament. But the original stadium, built in 1923 for the British Empire Exhibition is showing its age, and it has been agreed that it needs to be replaced.

 

In April 1996, the “go ahead” Brent Council had launched its masterplan for the redevelopment of the area around the stadium, with improved public transport links and parking facilities, and more public open space around the stadium to improve pedestrian circulation. At the centre of this new Wembley Park would be ‘a world class Wembley Stadium for the 21st century’, designed by Foster and Partners for the English National Stadium Trust.

 


The logo of the old Wembley Stadium, up to 2000. (Image: Wembley Stadium Ltd)

 

But, of course, you could not demolish the iconic “twin towers”. They had been made a Grade II listed heritage asset in 1976, and English Heritage said that they must be retained. Many football fans, and many in the press and general public, agreed.

 

The stand-alone “twin towers”, in front of the new “Wembley Wave” stadium. (Image: Foster & Partners)

 

Sir Norman Foster’s solution was to demolish the rest of the old stadium, and move the twin towers northwards, by around 100metres, towards Wembley Park Station. They would still provide a gateway to the stadium precinct for spectators coming up Olympic Way, but moving them would create the space for the pitch to be turned through 90º, so that it would get the best natural light.

 

The new stadium would have a fully retractable roof, supported by a metal framework running above the top of its outer walls, and dubbed the “Wembley Wave”. It would seat 80,000 spectators for football and rugby matches, and 75,000 for athletics events (the track would be under retractable seating). The external skin of the stadium would provide a giant screen, on which pictures could be projected.  

 


The new stadium lit up at night, with a large open space to its north-east. 

 (Image: Foster & Partners)

 

Those pictures could include moving images for the benefit of spectators outside the stadium, in a large square to the north-east of the new Wembley. This open space would allow fans to circulate more freely around the stadium, and avoid congestion, both before and after matches or concerts. 

 

As we all know, this is not the new stadium Wembley actually got, in 2007. I think there are parts of the 1996 design, including the extra public space around the stadium, which would have been an improvement! [Others, like moving the “twin towers”, were probably impractical.] What do you think?

 

Philip Grant
(With thanks to Paul, for the pictures)

 

 

Friday, 28 April 2023

UPDATED with questions for the Barham Park Trustees from Cllr Paul Lorber - Brent Council on Barham Park Covenant: 'Move along, nothing to see here.'

 The is a covenant on the plot in Barham Park which is the subject of a planning application to demolish two 2 storey houses and replace with four 3 storey houses. The restrictive covenant may have to be removed to allow development, so I put in an FoI request to Brent Council on its valuation.

This is the answer received today:

 1. Please confirm if you have acquired a professional valuation of the
Covenant attached to the two  properties at 776-778 Harrow Road, Barham
Park that were sold to George Irwin.

 
Response: The Council has not acquired a professional valuation of the
covenant attached to the two properties at 776-778 Harrow Road, Barham
Park. 


2. If not, have Brent Council officers made their own valuation and
informed the Trustees of  Barham Park accordingly? 


Response: No. 


3. If either have been done, what is the valuation of the Covenant?
 

Response: This is not known as a valuation has not been carried out.


UPDATE Cllr Paul Lorber has submitted the following comment with some vital questions for the Trustees of Barham Park.

Thanks to Martin for asking for information which should not be cloaked in secrecy.

I am would be surprised if none of the Trustees (5 Labour Councillors who sit in the Cabinet) asked for a valuation of the Covenant. The 5 Trustees/Councillors have a clear fiduciary duty to protect the value of the Charity assets and the Covenant may well be the Barham Park Charity's most valuable asset.

As the applicant also confirmed that they do not currently own ALL the land to which the latest application applies there is clearly some land owned by the Barham Park Charity they wish to build or take ownership off.

If I was one of the Trustees I would certainly ask for full legal and financial advice on the implications of both the Planning Applications, The Covenants (including it value) and the land not currently in the applicants' ownership which may be lost to the Park should the application be approved.

Aside of the Panning Application we therefore have 2 very clear issues for the Trustees to consider and to be properly advised on:

1. Will the Trustees stand by the Covenant and block any expansion of building in Barham Park?
2. If not why not?
3. If not what price will they charge instead of enforcing the Covenant?
4. Will they protect Barham Park in line with Council policies in relation to Open Spaces and refuse to sell any part of the Park that the applicant clearly needs as part of the current planning permission?
5. If they are mindful to sell the extra land needed by the applicant what price will they require to do so?

The Trustees duty in this case is to the Barham Park Charity and NOT to the Council and they will no doubt be reminded of this. The Council Officers may well feel obliged to obtain expert legal advice and possibly guidance from the Charity Commission to ensure that the Trustees act in the best interests of the Charity and no one else - even if this means blocking any building in the Park irrespective of what planning permission is granted.

As the land is part of a charitable endowment there are complex issues to consider as simply granting planning permission will not be the end of the matter - after all somehow a planning permission to demolish the two houses and replace them with more slipped through in 2017 and was never implemented.

The issues of the Covenant is also not simply as there are numerous beneficiaries to whom the Covenant may relate to - including possibly all the current leaseholders of the parts of the other buildings in Barham Park.

One of those leaseholders is Barham Community Library which pays rent to the Barham Park Charity.

I am one of the Trustees of Barham Community Library and as such am especially keen to ensure that Brent Council Officers managing the Barham Park Charity deal with this matter properly, obtain all the necessary advice and be transparent in all their dealings.

Hopefully Martin's questions will now prompt Brent Council officers to obtain the Valuations and advice they and the Trustees will need.

Thursday, 27 April 2023

‘The Battle of Footerloo’ -The First FA Cup Final at Wembley Stadium, 28 April 1923

Guest post by Janet Kear

 

Some of the most iconic sporting photographs in history are of a police officer on a white horse, clearing the crowd from the Wembley pitch so that the 1923 Cup Final could take place.

 

 

 1.      PC Scorey and Billie in the middle of the crowds on the pitch. (Image from the internet)


 

PC George Scorey, with his horse Billie, would later be recognised as the man that saved the game, and it is often referred to as the White Horse Final. Although, as can be seen from this photograph of the match, there was more than one horse involved!  It was just that all the other horses were dark in colour. But this article is not intended to discuss the action on the pitch - the result is well known - but rather to look at the events leading up to and after the match.

 

 

It was the Prince of Wales, later to become King Edward VIII, who’d proposed in 1921 that the British Empire Exhibition, to be held at Wembley Park, should include ‘a great national sports ground’. The stadium would be capable of holding 125,000 spectators, and the FA had already signed a deal for its Cup Final to be played there for 21 years, commencing in 1923.  The first turf for the Stadium was cut and the foundation stone laid by the Duke of York, on 10 January 1922.  This also symbolised the start of the building work for the exhibition site.

 

 

  

2.     The Duke of York, cutting the first turf for the stadium in January 1922.

 

 

It had been intended to open the surrounding British Empire Exhibition in 1923. However, once construction started, it became clear that the 13 months was not long enough to complete the work. So the opening date was delayed until 1924. 

 

 

 

 3.     In February 1923 they still had a considerable amount of work to complete.

 

 

In April 1923 the completed stadium stood in isolation on the Wembley Park site, with building works going on around it.  You can see from the plan below that it was surrounded by a hoarding, which was only 5’ 8” feet high, with just three entry points to the circulating area, at the bottom of the steps that gave access into the stadium itself.

 

 

 

 4.     A plan of the stadium and its approaches, as it was for the 1923 Cup Final.

 

 

This was the first “National” Stadium. It was considerably bigger than any other stadium in the country, and building work had only been completed four days before the final was to be held.  Unlike the new Wembley, there had been no test events where the facilities and systems could be tested by gradually increasing crowd sizes.  Therefore, any planning work for the big match on 28 April could only be based on assumptions. That being said, a lot of planning work was undertaken. 

 

 

Documents in the National Archives demonstrate that the Stadium had prepared, what we would call today, an Event Manual.  It covered all sorts of issues including identifying people for specific roles and even detailed where to store the footballs when they were received from the FA.

 

 

The British Empire Exhibition Authority had had extensive discussions with the Metropolitan Police about the police presence at the event, both inside and outside of the Stadium.  Initially it was planned to have a total of 334 police present.  Control Staff wrote to the Police on Monday 23 April asking for more police resources as, on the previous Sunday, a number of people had been found to be ‘nearly entering the Stadium by way of the Great Central Railway Embankment’ and ‘at a few points along the temporary fencing’

 

 

They also expressed concern that there was the need to ‘make some provision in the possible event of a large number of people arriving after the Stadium is full.  It is, of course, possible that there may be 10,000 people, or more, who may have to be shut out because the Stadium is full, and the turnstiles barriers in themselves may not prove sufficient protection’. As a result of the letter an additional 56 police were provided, ‘which together with a CID contingent furnished from Scotland Yard made the total 428.’

 

 

 

 5.      Turnstiles under construction for the 1923 FA Cup Final. (Image from the internet)


 

The Stadium arrangements were inspected in the morning and afternoon of Friday 27 April and defects were noted and repaired. A third inspection took place at 9am on Saturday 28 April at which it was noted that the numbers outside the turnstiles were ‘negligible’.

 

 

The turnstiles opened at 11:30am as planned, with the match due to kick off at 3:00pm. By midday the area was packed. 45,000 tickets had been sold in advance.  The remining 80,000 tickets had been advertised for sale on the day and it seemed that everyone thought they were going to get in.

 

 

 

6.      Crowds outside the turnstiles for FA Cup tickets on the day. (Image from the internet)

 

 

There were 153 turnstiles of which 73 were for cash visitors and the remainder for ticket holders.  Boy Scouts were at each turnstile to count the numbers passing through.  It was later estimated that at one point 1,000 people were entering per minute.

 

 

People were entering the Stadium from everywhere and the staff and police were overwhelmed and helpless.  At 1:45pm, when the returns showed that the standing accommodation was nearly full, instructions were given to close the turnstiles. This then led to people breaking through the turnstiles and climbing over the hoarding, some using ladders from the surrounding building site.

 

 

 

7.      Football supporters climbing over the closed turnstiles to get to the Stadium. (From an old film)

 

 

   

8.      West Ham fans between the barriers and the Stadium before the match. (From an old film)

 

 At 2pm the police were asked to phone Scotland Yard to request a large force of mounted police.  Calls went to the local police stations to send more officers. At 2:15pm the crowd broke through all the barriers. Between 2pm and 2:45pm it was estimated that 50,000 to 100,000 entered the Stadium by climbing in. By 2:40pm the whole of the interior of the Stadium was full of people. Stadium Control had to phone the Railway Companies and ask them to stop sending trains to the area, so as not to add to the crowd that was already there.

 

 

 

9.      The packed stadium, with crowds across the pitch, before the match. (Image from the internet)


 

The King arrived at 2:45pm to a rapturous welcome and somehow the bands of the Irish and Grenadier Guards managed to play the National Anthem, which appeared to ease the tension in the crowd.  At some point the mounted police arrived.

 

 

The teams had been due on the pitch at 2:40pm but it took till 3:10pm for them to make their first appearance, they were immediately swallowed up by the crowd.  At one point the Stadium authorities gave serious thought to abandoning the game, although this was balanced against the protest that might happen if they did.

 

 

 

10.   The crowd being pushed back to the edge of the pitch. (Image from the internet)

 

 

Eventually at 3:43pm the match kicked off, but it was not without its difficulties.  Balls that would have naturally left the pitch rebounded off the spectators straight back into play.  All the corners required a path to be cleared with the help of the police, so that a run up could be taken. Thirty minutes into the game the crowd surged onto the pitch and the mounted police had to be called back into action, this caused another 12-minute delay.  At half time the players and the officials decided to stay on the pitch, leaving not really being an option. The final score was Bolton Wanderers 2, West Ham United 0.

 

 

 

11.   The Cup Final match in progress, with crowds up to the touchlines and people watching from the roof.  (Image from the internet)


 

After the event there were many reports in the press. National and local papers all had a view. The crowd was estimated in various places between 150,000 and 200,000 although the official attendance was recorded as 126,047. The Police estimate, immediately after the match had finished was 300,000!

 

 

 

12.   Headlines from The Guardian (broadsheet) and Daily News (tabloid) on 30 April 1923.


 

The Home Secretary was asked questions in the House of Commons about the adequacy of the arrangements that had been made and whether the event needed licencing, which it did not. Unlike today, where sports grounds need an individual licence and a Safety Certificate from the Local Authority in which they are located. In answer to a question about how many police were present the reply given was 12 inspectors, 53 police sergeants, and 530 police constables, more than at any other Cup Final (a considerable increase in the numbers agreed in the planning stage).

 

 

There was a lot of speculation in the press about the number of spectators that had been injured at the event.  Most reports settled around the 900 figure.  The Exhibition Authority’s report after the event states that the actual number could not be confirmed, as the Red Cross had not been counting the cases they had dealt with on the spot, which were mainly fainting.  There were 22 cases which the Red Cross sent to Willesden Hospital.

 

 

  

13.   Reports on the crush and casualties in The Times (broadsheet) and Daily News (tabloid), 30 April 1923.

 

 

Immediately after the event the FA issued a statement saying ‘The FA greatly regret the inconvenience caused to the spectators at the match, but wish to assure the public that the arrangements were not in their hands, and therefore they cannot accept responsibility.’  There was friction between the British Empire Exhibition Authority and the FA as to who was responsible for crowd control and at which point.  Letters went to and fro between the organisations, each criticising the other for the role it had played in the event.  Eventually though the FA refunded ticket holders who were not able to get to their seats.

 

 

  

14.   Who was to blame? Headlines from the Daily News, 30 April 1923.

 

It is difficult to know what caused so many people to descend on Wembley that day.  I suspect a combination of factors influenced people. The Stadium had been advertised as ‘the finest in the world’, and ‘the largest in the world, the most comfortable, best equipped’.  Did people just turn up to “see inside” as evidenced by the ones that had tried to get in the previous Sunday?  Would it have been different if there had been two northern teams? If West Ham had lost the semi-final to Derby?  Perhaps the factor that influenced people the most was the sale of tickets on the day? 

 

 

But they did turn up and the problem then became how to manage the situation. Had the Cup Final been held in a Stadium that was finished?  Were the turnstiles of a sufficient construction?  Were the stewards inexperienced? Were the police arrangements sufficient to deal with the disruption?

 

 

These are all questions we will never know the answers to.

 

 

In June 1923, a Commons Committee was formed to inquire into ‘the arrangements made to deal with the abnormally large attendances at athletic grounds.’ The resulting 1923 Shortt Report concluded it was ‘safe to leave it to the sport’s governing bodies.’

 

 

By 1924 the temporary hoarding had been removed from around the Stadium and the turnstiles had become part of the Stadium structure. The Stadium itself had become part of the wider British Empire Exhibition site.

 

 

As late as February 1924 the matter of not allowing ticket sales on the day for that year’s FA Cup was still being discussed.  The FA were against the plan put forward by British Empire Exhibition Authority and supported by the police for all tickets to be sold in advance. But eventually they conceded after receiving a letter from the Home Secretary (at the request of the Exhibition Authority), but in their acceptance they declared that they ‘accepted no responsibility for the decision.’

 

 

The British Empire Exhibition opened on 23 April 1924 and the 1924 Cup Final was held 3 days later, on 26 April, finishing Newcastle United 2, Aston Villa 0. It passed without incident.

 

 

Janet Kear,
April 2023.


With thanks to Philip Grant and Graham Cooksley (Twitter: @wembleyarchive) for their help with fact checking, pictures and editing.

 

 

Resources / References:

 

The National Archive

The Times Newspaper

Hansard

The Lads of ’23: Bolton Wanderers, West Ham United and the 1923 Cup Final – Brian Belton