The Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals – what do you think?

Guest post from Philip Grant

Last month, I wrote about a presentation to Wembley History Society on Quintain’s proposals for the future of the tile murals in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway. LINK  I am writing this follow-up article so that “Wembley Matters” readers are aware of what is being proposed, and the suggested options.

Wembley History Society’s committee was due to decide on its response, to Quintain and Brent Council, about the proposals last Friday evening. Any views which I express here are my own, and not those of the Society. But I would like to know what you think, so please add your views as comments below. If you wish to comment anonymously, please at least give a brief description of yourself (for example: local resident, councillor, Quintain or Brent employee). (Editor's note: If you find using the comment facility difficult you can email me with your comment at martinrfrancis@virginmedia.com and I will post it for you.)

Last April, the history society wrote to Brent Council and Quintain, asking that the tile murals, which have been covered up with vinyl sheet adverts for the past five years, should be put back on public display LINK . At the presentation on 19^th October, we were shown a “collaged” photograph of the tile murals along the east wall of the subway:

Quintain’s proposals for improvements to the subway (some of it funded out of the £17.8m Community Infrastructure Levy money which Brent’s Cabinet agreed to give them last year?) include better lighting in the subway. Some of this would be provided by strips of LED lights across the ceiling, but some by covering the whole of the walls of the subway with light boxes (illuminated panels). Their lead architect on the project said that these would be similar to those used in a subway at Kings Cross underground station, illustrated here

                                Light boxes in a subway at Kings Cross

The fixings for the light boxes would be positioned over joints between the tiles of the murals, so that the tile murals would not be damaged. The lighting could be left white, or could be used to display advertisements:

The light boxes at Kings Cross,
being used for advertising

Julian Tollast, Quintain’s Head of Masterplanning and Design, set out four options for the future of the tile murals, which could be included in their plans for the subway:

1.    The murals could be moved to a new location – although his view, and the general feeling at the meeting, was that this risked damaging or destroying the tile murals. It would also take them from their “spiritual home”.

2.   A facsimile of the murals could be created in a different location – His suggestion was that under the new Olympic Steps (replacing the pedway) might be a suitable location, but the downsides were that they would not be the originals, and not in their “spiritual home”.

3.   Preserve the murals in situ, with part on permanent display – It became clear in discussion that his suggestion was that all of the subway walls would still be covered by light boxes, but that the lights could be turned off in front of the section of the mural showing the old stadium and footballers (Bryan Robson and John Barnes?):

He said that this would not be ideal, as it would reduce the light levels in the subway, and there would be reflected light from the ceiling, off of the glazed light boxes, so that the view of the mural would be impaired.

4.   Preserve the murals in situ, with periodic display – Periodic display of the murals in the subway did not seem probable, because of the difficulty of removing the light boxes. He suggested that it would be possible to display the mural sections to the south of the subway (American football / Rugby League / Ice hockey on the east side, and a rock music drummer on the west) for short periods when the “Spiritflex” vinyl adverts were being changed.

One option which was not suggested by Quintain (but which was suggested from the floor of the meeting) was not to install the light boxes at all, but provide the better lighting instead just from redesigned lighting from the ceiling. The following slide was shown to justify Quintain’s right to install light boxes over the tile murals:

I have followed up on this planning process, and this is what I have found:-

·      15/5550 was a massive “Masterplan” outline application.

·      Although there is a brief mention of some improvements to the section of Olympic Way between Fulton Road and the foot of the Wembley Park Station steps, I have found no reference to ‘light boxes or adverts under Bobby Moore Bridge’ in that application.

·      There is no mention of these items in the 94 page Officers’ Report to Planning Committee (11 May 2016), or the December 2016 decision letter.

·      In amongst the wide-ranging detailed (reserved matters) application 17/3840, there is no mention of lighting in the subway in the planning submission.

·      There was a plan showing “illuminated panels”, which would cover all of the walls of the Bobby Moore Bridge subway. This is an extract from the relevant plan, which does not show the existing features on that wall, or that the lighting would cover tile murals:

·      Application 17/3840 was decided by planning officers, not Brent’s Planning Committee. In the “Delegated Report” there was no reference at all to the lighting proposals anywhere in the detailed considerations. On the basis of that report, the application was approved on 31 January 2018. 

Planning permission for the light boxes on the walls of the subway, which if installed will permanently conceal the tile murals, was therefore given by default, without the effect on the murals, and the loss of this asset to public view, ever being considered.

As shown by the meeting on 19^th October, and the options put forward at it, Quintain are willing to engage over ideas which could mitigate the damage to, and loss to public view of, the tile murals. However, as things stand, there is nothing to stop them from installing light boxes on the walls of the subway, which would permanently hide the main sections of the murals, if they decide to “just do it”.

Brent Council own the Bobby Moore Bridge and its subway. They are responsible for the murals, a major piece of public art illustrating a range of past famous events at the Stadium and Arena, which were installed in 1993 to be part of the Wembley atmosphere for the millions of people coming here.

Isn’t it time that Brent Council accepted that they have failed to give any proper consideration to what is happening to the tile murals, and intervene to broker a solution to the lighting in the subway, which not only preserves the murals, but paves the way for them to be returned to public view?

Philip Grant
(with thanks to Julian Tollast for all of the illustrations, from his presentation, used above)

Wembley traffic jams for residents today - any jam tomorrow?

Following a discussion on  the Next Door forum LINK Gary Holmyard has given me permission to adapt his comments for a Guest Post on Wembley Matters. Publication does not imply approval of all Gary's comments but is aimed at stimulating wider debate.
 
Yesterday’s news was all about Wembley Stadium potentially being sold to Shahid Khan as the home ground for the Jacksonville Jaguars.... I for one can only think that this is going to cause continual chaos on our roads and surrounding infrastructure, increased littering, traffic jams, while the coffers of the stadium owners increase... residents never have a say, we bought our houses and chose to live here when it was a National Stadium with occasional matches and concerts, now we are subjected to weekly or bi-weekly games disrupting our every day lives and movements.

Had I chosen to live near White Hart Lane or Highbury, then I would have no cause to complain, but I didn’t... and when the old twin towers stadium was demolished to make way for the new national stadium it was, in essence, a like-for-like replacement. This will be permanent, on top of the 1,000’s of flats being built I cannot help but believe that this is total overkill, and the companies, council and developers are milking every square inch of ground to make money for themselves and not caring about the people who actually have to live here.

My family have been resident for over 20 years… way before any total redevelopment plans were even on the table, so we did not move to the area to make money in the hope that our property would rise in value, and could move on to somewhere else. We moved here because we liked the area and it’s location for getting into town / access to motorways etc. We have spent that time working hard on our house and garden getting it to how we want, and to move now would be an enormous upheaval, and would involve finding new schools, work place consideration etc, so yes, I accept that property prices have increased, but do not agree that the only solution is to move.

Wembley still could be a wonderful place to live, if only developers and councils had long term thinking of how it all comes together. I am all for bring trade into an area, being an ex-restaurateur in Wembley Park myself, I am aware more than most as to the additional revenue match days can bring, however, I am also aware that regular clientele were turned off from travelling as they cannot park anywhere unless they want to fork out £10, £20 or £30.

My biggest concern is not so much how many flats are being built, or matches that are played, but the actual infrastructure that is not being updated / adapted to suit the additional thousands of new residents coming into the area, on top of weekly / bi-weekly matches being held at the stadium. On a normal Saturday afternoons the Harrow Road from the A406 towards Wembley is one continual queue due to matches being played and / or LDO shoppers, locals trying to go home of course compounds this!

To relieve some of the queues, it would make sense to lift the time restrictions on the bus lanes to peak times only to allow traffic to flow that more easily, plus encourage people to return to the LDO instead of saying ‘never again’! I am all for one for traffic control but with another 5,000 homes planned between now and 2020 (from wembleypark.com) this problem is going to manifest into complete meltdown. With 1,000’s of new jobs created, PLUS 1,000’s of new residents (11,500 total flats envisaged if I am not mistaken in total) it does not take long to work out the additional traffic and people movements each and every day, on top of those visiting the stadium, LDO and SSE arena.

We as locals are used to avoid peak times on event days, but it could potentially be that every day could be like an event day with the amount of additional people coming / leaving the area each day. If each flat houses 3-4 people, that is 34-46,000 people, if a quarter of those use a car, that is almost 10,000 additional car movements each day. If half go to school or work, that is around 20,000 people movements each day. This is every day, and excludes LDO shoppers and employees! I have also noticed the re-timing of the traffic lights since the LED types have been installed these have compounded the problem! A total re-think of the Harrow Road, and A406 trunk roads needs to be carried out. I know parking restrictions for event days are in place to encourage people to use public transport but we are not talking about event days, but each and every day.

SOLUTION: Have Park and Ride schemes been considered? Bicester village and many others have such a scheme, which eliminates traffic problems in the village yet gets shoppers into the shopping areas quickly and safely. The two high rises at the Harrow Road / A406 junction have been empty for many years and is the first thing that new shoppers see when visiting Wembley! If these two monstrosities were two multi storey car parks with a Park ‘n Ride scheme (with a minimal cost to the customer) it would eliminate the vast majority of congestion on the Harrow Road at a stroke! The scheme would be open for shoppers as well as football / concert goers and would enable traffic to disperse EASILY and QUICKLY at the end of a match or concert instead of all the road closures and coned re-directions that currently happens and make traffic dispersal ten times worse!

If people paid less for this scheme than parking in the car parks nearer to the “event” then this would encourage people to use it. I am sure that there would be many companies willing to sponsor the scheme also thus brining in even more revenue! I am confident that not only would this suggestion work, it would greatly improve the A406/Harrow Rd junction as well as encouraging people to return! I have thought about this idea for a long time and would like to think that someone somewhere within the Council would have put it forward for consideration, something needs to be done, and this is something that could work! However, this was turned down by the Council….

If Mr Shahid Khan can afford £900mill for the stadium, I am sure he could afford to get this scheme or something similar underway to encourage more to attend his stadium, and gain greater respect from the locals and his team’s supporters! This is my opinion, and as this is an open forum, I can suggest solutions, who knows, someone’s may be realised as ideal, in which case this would all be worth it! ‘My views’ only people! I do not expect everyone to agree, but it’s good to vent off sometimes!

-->

'Remind me, please, who is our local Council meant to serve?' - Brent Council propaganda on Wembley Stadium condemned

Brent Council's celebratory announcement of the approval of the Wembley Stadium - Tottenham Hotsput planning application to increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium has drawn stinging criticism.

Cllr John Warren has written to fellow councillors:

Am I the only member appalled at the "celebratory " tone of the Your Brent piece on the Wembley Stadium / Spurs planning approval on the Brent website?

The piece mentions the "extensive consultation process, "but is completely silent on the results of that consultation! Our intelligence is then insulted by a quote from a Brent Council spokesman, who speaks about a " balance being struck." What balance?

It is complete propaganda...and why are we celebrating a decision which offends a very large number of our residents? The phrase "rubbing salt in the wound " springs to mind.

Cllr John Warren

On Friday Philip Grant on a comment on this  blog wrote:

It is sickening that, this morning, Brent Council's website has a banner headline celebrating Spurs being given full capacity use of Wembley Stadium, linked to a Council press release about the Planning Committee decision which does not mention the objections made by local residents and businesses:
https://www.brent.gov.uk/council-news/press-releases/pr6556/

Remind me, please, who is our local Council meant to serve?

... and then, to add insult to injury, at 1pm today the Council emailed me "Spurs are on their way to Wembley!", a copy of the latest "Your Brent" digital news-sheet, with the same banner headline celebrating the Planning Committee decision.

But this is a very distorted news report, because it makes no mention of the very valid objections put forward to the committee, by local people and some councillors on behalf of their residents.

It is as if the Council's press release reporting the decision was prepared before the Planning Committee meeting took place, which it probably was!

Philip Grant

This is the Council's statement. complete with an image of celebratory fountains, posted on its website on the evening of March 23rd - the day of the Planning Committee:

Temporary increase to full capacity events at Wembley Stadium approved

23 March 2017

An application from the FA/Wembley National Stadium Ltd to temporarily increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium has been agreed by Brent Council's Planning Committee this evening (March 23).

The decision, which follows an extensive consultation process, paves the way for 22 additional full capacity events for Tottenham Hotspur Football Club matches, of up to 90,000 fans to take place at the stadium between August 2017 and July 2018.

Under current rules there is no limit on the number of events that can be held at a maximum capacity of 51,000.

It is understood that Tottenham Hotspur are set to make the national stadium their temporary home while their new ground at White Hart Lane is developed.

Wembley had originally requested permission for an additional 31 full capacity events but this was reduced to 22 prior to the application coming to committee. The application has now been approved subject to a number of additional measures being put in place, including ones designed to deal with the impacts of increased numbers of people in the area. These include controlling parking and traffic, signage, street cleaning, event management and control of public safety including aspects such as alcohol sale and street trading. The Committee heard from objectors and the applicant before making their decision.

A Brent Council spokesperson said: "Wembley Stadium is a highly valued part of our borough bringing visitors from around the world. We are pleased that a balance has been struck between recognising the impact on local residents and businesses whilst enabling the Stadium to make good use of its facilities and support a London club to operate in the capital while their ground is being redeveloped."

"We look forward to working closely with the Stadium, the Football Association and Tottenham Hotspur Football Club in the forthcoming year both on the management of events and their work in the local community that they outlined in their application."

Transport planner critiques Planning Officer's report on Spur's application

From the comments on Brent Council Planning Portal made by a local resident:
 

-->

I am a local resident and am a transport planner/modeller by profession (hence the detailed questions).

I strongly oppose this application and appeal to all on the committee to consider the people they are representing. I went to the community engagement session with the FA & Wembley Stadium (which was very POORLY advertised just fyi) and met the officials. They were quite blunt and open with the fact that this was a purely commercial deal for them. They struggled to explain any benefits to the local community, didn't propose any reasonable solutions (apart from improved signage) and at that point in time, the application documents were not online for my scrutiny.

The documents are now available and here are some comments and questions from me to the applicant and their consultant;

With reference to the Environment Statement, Chapter D (Transport):

D5.23 - I note that the applicant says there will be a 'negligible' effect on the London Underground. I would like to challenge that.

D5.20 says that events will take place outside peak hours on a weekday. This is usually kickoff at 7:45pm according to my knowledge of football. Earlier on in the chapter, it was found that spectators "make their way to the event 2 hours before" - this means between 5:45pm and 7:45pm i.e. the PM peak hours. I have personally been travelling home from work in the city in the PM peak hour during a midweek THFC match and to say additional midweek matches will have a negligible impact on the tube is grossly incorrect. There is no data or modelling or criteria that I can see that defines this 'negligible effect' conclusion. Have any station crowding, egress, ingress models been developed? Have any general Railplan model's been run? If so I would like to see the results and the accompanying criteria.

(And to echo other comments from neighbours, the LU network just about copes in the AM & PM peaks on normal days let alone weekday PM peak event days! The Transport Chapter emphasises the push for people to use PT to get to the games...but this is inherently flawed as the PT network is already heaving).

D5.28 - I quote: "However, as the period of time where Olympic Way will be congested will likely be limited to one hour and 30 minutes for an average of three additional days per month, it is considered that this is a negligible effect." The ingress 1hour 30minutes of congestion has been ignored here. This brings the total congestion to 3 hours per event. When we spoke to the Wembley Stadium rep at the community engagement session, they said there would be measures in place to allow this north/south movement for residents and locals to be improved. I have personally be stuck several times trying to just get from Lidl to my home.

D6.36 - "To promote and support the use of measures which reduce the need for travel, like video-conferencing and flexible working" - what? This doesn't really apply to Wembley Stadium spectators (and probably 90% of staff who need to be there physically!)

D.39 - You need to get Google Maps and Waze on board because lots of people use their phone applications for navigation rather than TomTom these days. Getting TomTom on board simply isn't enough.

There are no numbers to quantify the delays to buses and the local baseline traffic. Has modelling been undertaken and can I see the results, please?

The metric used in the ES to identify minor/major/adverse/beneficial isn't clear. Please provide this. We also need to see the empirical modelling evidence.

With the Brent/Quintain regeneration plans, the numbers are probably far higher than when Wembley Stadium got approval many years ago. This needs to be taken into account before any cap is lifted.

As a local resident and a transport planner, I am abhorred by this application. We manage as residents with the current number of event days as they are sporadic (maybe twice a month?) and varied. Regular football matches will change this completely. I won't repeat in detail what others have said about anti-social behaviour, litter, drunkenness, transport pressures, safety, children, no 'home' affiliation etc but I echo those points as well.

There is no mention of Chelsea wanting the stadium for 2018/2019 in this application but rumours are already going around about this. Approving THFC this would set precedent and it would be a disaster for the up-and-coming regenerated Wembley Park/Brent.

I urge the council to reject this application and to apply pressures to Wembley Stadium & THFC to mitigate the 50,000 spectator matches that are likely to still be held.

Residents, locals and family need to come above corporations, money and commercial pressures.

I and many other will be attending the committee meeting.
In addition to my previous comments on the Transport Statement, I wanted to add that if their current/old stadium has a capacity of around 36,000 and their new one is "only" going to seat around 61,000 they can surely manage with the current limit of 50,000.

Pure profit for a few at the detriment of a whole community and area is unjustifiable.

I have already raised my concerns regarding this application and the Environmental Statement in a previous comment.

I am trying to get hold of the case officer to raise the issue that none of us at Danes and Empire Court have received letters about this application. Brent Planning told me on the phone that 20,000 letters have been sent out to neighbours. We have over 300 flats on North End Road, less than 5 minutes walk from the stadium and we have NOT received letters about this application. I found out about this through curiosity and some Google searching about why Spurs were playing here this season, because of all the grief it was causing us.

The neighbourhood consultation closes in less than ONE week, and it is unacceptable that we were excluded from being informed about it. I appreciate there is no restriction in making a comment on here, but how are my neighbours supposed to make their comments if they HAVEN'T been informed about the application in the first place?

Unacceptable.

I look forward to hearing from the case officer, and to receiving letters from the Council/Applicant very soon. The neighbourhood consultation will probably need to be extended to allow residents on North End Road to comment.

Cllr Duffy's view on Spurs Wembley Stadium application

Back in December 2016 Cllr John Duffy warned fellow councillors about the Wembley Stadium planning application that would increase the number of events and lift the capacity cap.

All Brent Councillors,

I am very concerned that the Wembley Stadium and Spurs planning application is being guided and manipulated by both officers and Cabinet members.It would seem they seek a solution, that will not fully benefit Brent residents . 

All Councillors are Independent on this issue and Councillors should not be influenced by either Cabinet members or officers on a pre-agreed application and should seek to ensure and maximised the benefits for Brent.

Firstly you have to consider does Brent want Wembley Stadium to be a home ground for a Premier League Club and do we want the extra congestion, nuisance and general disruption. Unless we get real investment  from the FA, Premier League and Spurs, I believe the answer is NO.

It is clear that the Cabinet are unaware of the potential of ensuring the investment to alleviate the problems caused by Wembley hosting Spurs and have not negotiated a reasonable deal for the residents…..I am tired of Brent residents being short changed, therefore I  believe Councillors should oppose the application as it stands.

Earlier Duffy had written to Labour Group councillors in more detail:

As it is 99% definite,Tottenham Hotspur will be moving to Wembley and its also likely that Chelsea (they may go to Twickenham)will moving in the following year.Its time we sorted out a strategy to protect and improve our Environment, Sports Education , parking ,community and employment strategy, together with compensation for Brent  residents.

As Chair of planning when we knocked down the old Wembley stadium and a member of the Task force for Wembley Stadium regeneration I have seen negotiations close up with the FA and they will be tough and we need a clear strategy.

From memory Wembley were allowed 22 sporting advents and they were no envisaged to be the home venue for any football club.Therefore at this point I would advise not to accept a season long deal but to treat every game as a FA cup Final and expect resources to reflect this .There Are many safeguards we  need for residents.I will outline the basics without the detail.

(1) Environmental improvement.
I would expect extra resources( to many options to go into) plus investment into plant. I have not looked at other Boroughs but I am aware of some who get a massively enhanced service for match day.

(2) Parking.
Increased protection/enforcement of the neighbouring area.

(3) Sports Education.
Ensure Investment in equipment and sports teaching in our schools including visits from football stars.Its important both the FA and PremierLeague show their commitment to grass roots football.

(4) Community Support .
Financial support for community activities,including , local R/As ,St Patricks day,Eid and Navratri and maybe support for local group who participate in the Notting Hill Carnival.

(5) Employment strategy.
Ensure that Brent residents get their fair share of any new jobs/ training arising from  the extra games. Also local firms should get a fair share of the increased supply chain for contracts

(6) Compensation for local Business and residents.
Whereas the some businesses will benefit many other will lose (who would travel to Wembley to shop on a match day) so its important we look at high street improvements. The new games coming to Wembley will not only be on a Saturday they will included Sundays and weekdays at various kick off times.

There are many ways to negotiate and you should not look at only the time the football club is there, you should seek a 2/3 year deal on things like sports education and community support.I think you should have a local councillor on the negotiations ( seems unlikely as the leadership reject a task force for Kilburn Regeneration and now all decisions are made by the Lead member ) so local input will be represented.In my opinion we should not over engage in the - presentations- Vol-au-Vonts  and vanity projects system which some members of the Cabinet prefer. We should also not going in asking for jobs at LLW ( getting employers to pay LLW is a failure ) we should be looking better jobs in supervision and management training. Finally do not over rely on Officers who will seek a deal that suits them as administrators.

It would seem that some of the cabinet wish to treat the FA, The Premier League and Tottenham Hotspur  as " partners" whereas I see them them as people who wish to make a lot of money while using the facilities of  Brent which I have no problem with. However I believe this should be reflected in how we support our residents.So hopefully the cabinet have an agreed strategy about what we need from the richest sport in the world and the most famous football venue in the world.

    And Brent should not be short changed for all the inconvenience 

Brent getting a poor deal in Spur's Wembley Stadium deal, claims councillor

Tottenham Hotspur's win against CSKA Moscow last Wednesday may have done something to allay fans' doubts about the move to Wembley but Cllr John  Duffy has voiced doubts about the Council's capacity to achieve benefits to Brent residents.

In an email to all Brent councillors Cllr Duffy said:

To All Brent Councillors,

I am very concerned that the Wembley Stadium and Spurs planning application is being guided and manipulated by both officers and Cabinet members.It would seem they seek a solution, that will not fully benefit Brent residents . 

All Councillors are independent on this issue and Councillors should not be influenced by either Cabinet members or officers on a pre-agreed application and should seek to ensure and maximise the benefits for Brent.

Firstly you have to consider does Brent want Wembley stadium to be a home ground for a Premier League Club and do not we want the extra congestion, nuisance and general disruption. Unless we get real investment  from the FA, Premier League and Spurs, I believe the answer is NO.

It is clear that the Cabinet are unaware of the potential of ensuring the investment to alleviate the problems caused by Wembley hosting Spurs and have not negotiated a reasonable deal for the residents…..I am tired of Brent residents being short changed, therefore I  believe Councillors should oppose the application as it stands.

Please find an edited email I previously sent to the Labour Group, which outlined my concerns about the planning application and the lack of benefits for Brent.

The earlier email, sent only to the Labour Group of councillors, said:

Dear All,

As it is 99% definite,Tottenham Hotspur will be moving to Wembley and its also likely that Chelsea (they may go to Twickenham) will moving in the following year.Its time we sorted out a strategy to protect and improve our Environment, Sports Education , parking ,community and employment strategy, together with compensation for Brent  residents.

As Chair of planning when we knocked down the old Wembley stadium and a member of the Task force for Wembley Stadium regeneration I have seen negotiations close up with the FA and they will be tough and we need a clear strategy.

From memory Wembley were allowed 22 sporting advents and they were no envisaged to be the home venue for any football club.Therefore at this point I would advise not to accept a season long deal but to treat every game as an FA cup Final and expect resources to reflect this. There Are many safeguards we  need for residents.I will outline the basics without the detail.

(1) Environmental improvement. 
I would expect extra resources ( too many options to go into) plus investment into plant. I have not looked at other Boroughs but I am aware of some who get a massively enhanced service for match day.
(2) Parking. 
Increased protection/enforcement of the neighbouring area. 
(3) Sports Education.
Ensure Investment in equipment and sports teaching in our schools including visits from football stars. Its important both the FA and Premier League show their commitment to grass roots football.
(4) Community Support .
Financial support for community activities,including , local R/As ,St Patricks day,Eid and Navratri and maybe support for local group who participate in the Notting Hill Carnival.
(5) Employment strategy.
Ensure that Brent residents get their fair share of any new jobs/ training arising from  the extra games. Also local firms should get a fair share of the increased supply chain for contracts 
(6) Compensation for local Business and residents.
Whereas the some business will benefit many other will lose (who would travel to Wembley to shop on a match day) so its important we look at high street improvements. The new games coming to Wembley will not only be on a Saturday they will included Sundays and weekdays at various kick off times.

There are many ways to negotiate and you should not look at only the time the football club is there, you should seek a 2/3 year deal on things like sports education and community support.I think you should have a local councillor on the negotiations ( seems unlikely as the leadership reject a task force for Kilburn Regeneration and now all decisions are made by the Lead member ) so local input will be represented.In my opinion we should not over engage in the - presentations- Vol-au-Vents  and vanity projects system which some members of the Cabinet prefer. We should also not going in asking for jobs at LLW ( getting employers to pay LLW is a failure ) we should be looking better jobs in supervision and management training. Finally do not over rely on Officers who will seek a deal that suits them as administrators. 

It would seem that some of the cabinet wish to treat the FA, the Premier League and Tottenham Hotspur  as " partners" whereas I see them them as people who wish to make a lot of money while using the facilities of  Brent which I have no problem with. However I believe this should be reflected in how we support our residents.So hopefully the cabinet have an agreed strategy about what we need from the richest sport in the world and the most famous football venue in the world.
    And Brent should not be short changed for all the inconvenience