PROPOSAL:
Proposed variation of condition 3 (event cap, to
allow 31 additional full capacity events) and removal of condition
33 (temporary traffic management) of planning permission reference
99/2400, which was for:
Full planning application to
consider the complete demolition of Wembley Stadium and clearance
of the site to provide a 90,000-seat sports and entertainment
stadium (Use Class D2), 4750m2 of office accommodation (Use Class
B1), banqueting/conference facilities (Use Class D2), ancillary
facilities including catering, restaurant (Use Class A3), retail,
kiosks (Use Class A1), toilets and servicing space; re-grading of
existing levels within the application site and removal of trees,
alteration of existing and provision of new access points
(pedestrian and vehicular), and parking for up to 458 coaches, 43
mini-buses and 1,200 cars or 2,900 cars (or combination thereof)
including 250 Orange Badge parking spaces.
As approved, condition 3 stated
that for two years following completion of the stadium, subject to
the completion of specific improvement works to Wembley Park
Station and construction of roads known as Estate Access Corridor
and Stadium Access Corridor, the number of major sporting events
held at the stadium in any one year was restricted to no more than
22 (to exclude European Cup and World Cup events where England/UK
is the host nation), and the number of major non-sporting events to
15. After this, additional events over and above this were
permitted subject to the number of spectators being limited to the
capacity of the lower and middle tiers of the stadium. The proposal
would allow for up to an additional 22 major sporting Tottenham
Hotspur Football Club (THFC) events between 1 August 2017 and 31
July 2018.
A major event (which may or may
not include THFC) would be considered to be an event in the stadium
bowl with a capacity in excess of 10,000 people.
The application includes the
submission of an Environmental Statement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Resolve to grant planning
permission, subject to the completion of a satisfactory deed of
variation to the existing Section 106 legal agreement to achieve
the matters set out in the report, delegate authority to the Head
of Planning to make minor changes to the wording of the
Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add
conditions, informatives) prior to the decision, provided that the
Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not
reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of
the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could
reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by
the committee.
David Glover (Area Planning
Manager) introduced the proposal and responded to members’
questions. He referenced the
supplementary report which provided additional detail on some of
the mitigation measures proposed, and some additional measures
beyond what was contained within the main committee report. In his
view the measures amplified in the main and supplementary reports
would assist to mitigate the impacts of the greater number of major
events which the application proposed. He added that Section 106
financial contributions were secured in the original planning
consent.
Dr Ruth Kosmin spoke on behalf
of Barnhill Residents’ Association (BHRA) objecting to the
proposal.
Dr Michael Calderbank objected to the proposal on behalf of
Wembley Park Residents’ Association.
Denise Cheong representing
Wembley Champions also spoke in objection to the
proposal.
D Bablas on behalf of Wembley High Road Businesses
Association also spoke in objection to the proposal.
Fatima-Karim Khaku representing BHRA also spoke in objection to
the proposal.
In accordance with the
provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Choudhary,
ward member, stated that he had been approached by members of BHRA.
Councillor Choudhary objected to the proposal on the grounds that
it did not contain adequate information to assess the
environmental, transport and business impacts. He added that in addition to increased anti-social
behaviour, the proposal would put a strain on the road network in
the area.
In accordance with the
provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Stopp
stated that he had been approached by local residents. Councillor
Stopp stated that the potential benefits of the proposal would be
outweighed by the costs to the area including fear of anti-social
behaviour and increased litter (evidenced by the increase in the
caseload from his constituents) and undesirable
precedent.
Alice Lester (Head of Planning)
read out in full, the written statements submitted by Councillors
Butt and Ketan Sheth (ward members).
Chris Bryant representing
Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) addressed the Committee,
answered members’ questions.
Donna-Maria Cullen on behalf of
THFC addressed the Committee in similar terms and answered
members’ questions.
In the ensuing discussion,
members questioned the applicants on a number of issues including
search for alternative venues, the weight placed on
residents’ views, measures they would take to reduce impact
on local traders, transport and amenity impacts and the cost of
policing. Members heard that following
a wide ranging search, Wembley Stadium was identified as the most
preferred site that would suit the needs and aspirations of
THFC. The applicants continued that as
a direct result of local views, full capacity events had been
revised to 22 and that attending fans would be given a directory of
local traders where they could shop.
They reiterated the mitigation measures to address the transport
and amenity impacts.
Tony Kennedy and John Fletcher
from the Council’s from Highways and Transportation outlined
additional measures to reduce transport impact.
DECISION: Granted planning
permission as recommended.
(Voting: For 6; Against 1;
Abstention 0)
Note: The Committee voted to disapply the guillotine procedure to enable members
to continue consideration of the application beyond
10:00pm.
