Quintain's Fulton Quarter Masterplan - can we save some more "Wembley Lions"?

Guest post by Philip Grant

In a blog last week (LINK) ) Martin drew our attention to Quintain's latest consultation on the redevelopment of the "Fulton Quarter" at Wembley Park. This includes the former Fountain TV Studios, whose fascinating story I wrote a guest blog about when it closed last December (LINK) 

Although Wembley has lost a fantastic high-tech business, there is something from our local heritage which can be saved when the studio building is demolished. Two lion head architectural ornaments, from the British Empire Exhibition building which was converted to film studios in 1928, were preserved when that building was demolished in 1989. They were re-used to embellish the walls outside a new entrance to the remaining "Studio 5", which became Fountain TV. 

The lion was the emblem for the BEE, and it was adopted as a popular symbol for Wembley itself, with both the stadium's speedway team (from 1929) and the arena's ice hockey team (from 1934) known as the "Wembley Lions". Through Wembley History Society, I worked with Brent Council and Quintain to put one concrete lion head (from the Palace of Industry building) on permanent public display in 2014, to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the British Empire Exhibition. 

Now I am hoping to persuade Quintain to recycle the two "Wembley Lions" from Fountain Studios, as part of their landscaping plans for the Fulton Quarter. As well as providing an attractive feature in the public spaces which the proposed development promises, this would help to share the stories of Wembley Park and the Wembley Park Studios with future residents and visitors.

I hope that Martin will be able to put a copy of my comments document (submitted to Quintain's consultation) below, so that you can read what I have in mind, if you are interested. If you think my suggestion is a good one, please send your own "comments" on the Fulton Quarter Masterplan, including your support for Philip Grant's ideas for incorporating the BEE / Fountain TV lions into the landscaping scheme, to Quintain at the consultation email address: info@wembleypark.com . Thank you.

Is Brent Council using Sadiq's or Boris's definition of 'affordable' homes

Brent Planning Committee at its meeting on April 26th will be hearing two pre-application presentations from Quintain and making a decision on two planning applications from them. All contain references to 'affordable' housing.

Over the weekend my attention was caught by a tweet from Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, publicising his draft affordable housing and viability supplementary planning guidance (November 2016 LINK)

As I have long had a gripe with Brent Planning Officers over their failure to explain what they mean by 'affordable' housing in their reports to Planning Committee (usually 80% of market ents which are not affordable for local residents) I thought it was worth looking at what the Mayor had to say.

The supplementary guidance states:

The Mayor strongly encourages LPAs (local Planning Authorities) to apply the affordable housing threshold approach to applications for sites which are capable of delivering ten or more units. In addition, when developing future affordable housing policy (and other policies on planning obligations and CIL levels) LPAs are strongly encouraged to take account of this Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and the importance the Mayor places on increasing the numbers of affordable homes

Central to this is the London Living Rent capped at one-third of the median gross household income for the borough:

Definition of London Living Rent

London Living Rent is a new type of intermediate affordable housing that will help, through low rents on time-limited tenancies, households with around average earnings save for a deposit to buy their own home. Eligibility for London Living Rent is restricted to existing tenants with a maximum household income of £60,000, without sufficient current savings to purchase a home in the local area.

It is aimed at single people, couples and other households with more than one person, but is unlikely to be suitable for house shares of multiple adults due to the household income limit. Any update to this criteria will be provided through the GLA’s annual monitoring reports. The GLA has calculated ward-level caps for London Living Rent homes based on one-third of median gross household income for the local borough.  

The cap varies from the Borough median by up to 20 per cent in line with house prices within the ward. The caps have further variation based on the number of bedrooms within the home. Registered Providers (RPs) have the flexibility to let homes at lower rents if they wish. 

RPs are expected to actively encourage London Living Rent tenants into home ownership. They will be expected to assess the ability and inclination to save of prospective tenants and, where part of mixed-tenure schemes, offer tenants
the right to purchase their London Living Rent home on a shared ownership basis.  Further information on this product is available in Homes for Londoners: Affordable Housing Programme 2016-2021. As set out in the current annual monitoring report, for intermediate dwellings
 to be considered affordable, annual housing costs, including mortgage (assuming reasonable interest rates and deposit requirements), rent and service charges should be no greater than 40% of net household income.(My emphasis)

Importantly in the light of Quintain's entry into the Build to Rent market the guidance says these should 'preferably' be at London Living Rent levels:

Affordable housing tenure: the pathway recognises the need for all homes on the Build to Rent development to stay under single management and as such will encourage affordable homes on the development to be delivered as discounted market rent (preferably at London Living Rent levels), managed by the Build to Rent provider (or possibly via another designated manager). 

At the very least Planning Committee members should establish with officers whether they are using Sadiq Khan's definition of 'affordable' based on the median borough income or Boris Johnson's 80% of market rent.


 

Protest over Donoghue's Cricklewood waste facility April 28th

From a group of local residents and community groups campaigning for the urgent relocation of overgrown P B Donoghue waste management site in residential Cricklewood

Twitter @DumpDonoghue 

Brent 'one of the worst councils for trying to force families out of London' report claims

Over the holiday weekend Brent Council has become the focus for attention over its housing policy. A report by Housing Action Southwark and Lambeth claims that Brent Council is one of the worst London boroughs in forcing families out of London:

  Not all London boroughs force homeless families into the private sector (for example Southwark and Islington), but out of the 23 that have in the last year, 75% have tried to force homeless families out of London. However, some are worse than others, with the Labour ran councils of Brent and Newham accounting for two-thirds of the out-of-London placements.

Brent council tried to move 112 families to the West Midlands last year alone, with 65 refusing and likely facing further homelessness. This is from a total of 139 out-of-London offers made by Brent council, meaning that 80% of the time that Brent council offer someone private rented accommodation out of London it is in the West Midlands. Very clearly Brent are not trying to find the nearest suitable accommodation to Brent as the Nzolomeso ruling requires LINK.

Nearly all of the households (95%) that Brent and Newham councils have tried to move out of London have children. These out of London placements will seriously disrupt their childhood and education. The councils will probably argue that families with children are the households that they struggle most to house in London due to the effects of the benefit cap. However, the case of the Telford placements (see below) shows that out-of-London placements are being used for families who not affected by the benefit cap. The fact that 29 other London boroughs can house homeless families without moving any, or many, families out of London shows that what Newham and Brent are doing is not necessary. Due to the massive difference in behaviour and use of private sector placements across London boroughs, the actions of Brent and Newham can therefore be seen as ideological.

The report gives a case study of Brent Council's moving of families to Telford in Shropshire:

As Brent were the worst council for trying to force families out of London we decided to look in detail at their use of out-of-London private sector discharges. We took the case study of the 11 households that Brent had tried to force to move to Telford, Shropshire. All 11 of these households had refused Brent council’s offer, likely facing further homelessness as a result. According to the council none of these 11 families reviewed the decision to be moved to Telford or approached social services for help under the Children’s Act. This means the families would have had to have found accommodation themselves or stayed with friends or family.

FOIs revealed that all private sector discharges were to the same property that the council kept re-offering to household after household. This means that one house in Telford resulted in further homelessness for 11 families. No family viewed the property but it also appears from the notice given to these families explaining the offer and its consequences (see below) that no expenses were offered to view the property and they were only given 24 hours from receiving the letter to decide whether to accept the offer. All 11 families obviously decided the property was unsuitable, but Brent did not get the message. It is worrying that Brent kept offering this property, which very quickly they knew was going to be rejected. The later offers of this house in Telford are not done by a council who are trying to house homeless families, but rather one who is trying to end any responsibility they have towards homeless families as efficiently as possible.

The suitability assessments that Brent carried out for each family were also obtained through FOI (summary of the assessments is in the Appendix). The questionnaires asked basic facts such as the age of children, work details and medical needs. The assessments showed that across the 11 families there were 35 children, 29 who were school age. The offers therefore would have had serious disruption to many children’s lives. 9 of the 11 families also had parents in work. This means that the offers were potentially breaking the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012 which requires local authorities to consider the disruption caused by the location of accommodation to a household’s employment. It also means that most of the families would not have been subject to the benefit cap, meaning there would be far more available and affordable areas in which the council could place them, making the decision to place the families in Telford even more worrying.  

One possible reason why this Telford house was deemed so unsuitable by the families (even more so than offers to Birmingham, which more Brent families accepted and is a similar distance from London) is because it is a much less culturally diverse place. Our FOIs revealed that of the 8 families Brent council attempted to send to Telford which they had ethnicity data on, half were not white, and the 4 who were recorded as white were not necessarily white British (a County Court case here against Brent is by a Polishwoman for example). From the 2011 Census Telford is 90% white British compared to 53% for Birmingham and 18% for Brent.

Even though Brent Council said none of the 11 families reviewed the private sector discharge there was one court case reviewing the suitability of an offer in Telford by Brent council covered on the Nearly Legal blog. This means that either Brent Council were not accurate in their FOI response or that they were still making private sector offers to Telford after the time period for which the information they gave us covered. This court case shows how even though the person was actually trying to accept the Telford offer, Brent were clearly just using the offer to try and end a homeless duty to the family as they turned the parent’s temporary illness into a rejection of the offer.

 All this is happening while Brent Council is approving planning applications by Quintain for developments that are unaffordable for local people.

This is the full HASL report (Click bottom right for full size version):

Cut Tory education policy waste - not school funding

With education in the news over the weekend as the teaching unions meet I was interested in this information from Janes Eades of Wandsworth NUT and CASE (Campaign for the Advancement of State Education).
 

Much has been in the news about the cuts which will be taking place in schools, forcing many schools to cut staffing.  However, there has been virtually no coverage of the waste of money as a direct result of the implementation of the Government policy of opening 'free' schools, UTCs and studio schools, combined with the conversion of schools into academies, controlled by trusts which are often not up to the job or which are financially irresponsible.

The NUT/ATL have put together information on how different parts of the country will be affected and this can be seen on the School Cuts website.

However, I have looked at ways in which the Government have been wasting millions:

Sorting out Old Oak and Park Royal regeneration - lessons for Wembley?

Vision...

... and reality (Schedule of Board meetings)

The Brent and Kilburn Times has an interesting front page story today on the multi-million Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) plan. London Mayor Sadiq Khan following a review of the project which criticised former Mayor Boris Johnson for rushing into an agreement withe the government on unfavourable terms and leaving the project 'in a mess',  has appointed a new chair, Liz Peace, former CEO of the British Property Federation.

Presumably sorting out the mess may also involve sorting out the OPDC Board which should have been scrutinising the project along with GLA members.  Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, is a member of the Board.

These are the Board's functions:

The OPDC Board is responsible for governing the OPDC. Their responsibilities include:

• providing leadership, advice and support
• setting strategic direction and overall policy
• monitoring standards, performance and corporate governance
• representing the OPDC with other stakeholders

Cllr Sarah Marquis is a member of the Board's Planning Committee.

What I found particularly interesting, after the controversy over Quintain's high rise developments around Wembley Stadium and elsewhere in Brent, was Navin Shah AM's statement in the Kilburn Times article that he was concerned about the number of 'excessively tall buildings' planned for Old Oak/Park Royal.

Clearly he has a role as GLA member for Brent and Harrow to scrutinise a Mayoral project but it seems odd that he has been silent on the high rise developments in Wembley, including the 26 storey 'Twin Towers' at the junction of Wembley High Road and Park Lane. In his statement to the Kilburn Times he also spoke about engagement with local residents and businesses, something that was sadly lacking in the recent Wembley Stadium/Spurs planning application:

Old Oak Common and Park Royal don't need 'mini Manhattan' like glass and steel towers. The development corporation must actively and genuinely engage at all stages with local residents, businesses and stakeholders to ensure their aspirations are taken into account.

Nor do we and yes, Brent Council must.

The OPDC is holding a consultation on Regulation 19 of the draft Local Plan on Wednesday 26th April at 7pm, at the CoClub, 140 Wakles Far, Road, London W3 6UG 

The OPDC say:

The nature of the next stage of consultations is very different to last year Regulation 18 draft Local Plan, so we’re holding an event to go through the differences. This will enable you to have your say in the future of Old Oak and Park Royal once the consultation is launched.

Teachers invited to celebrate Welsh Harp Centre & find out about its outdoor learning programme

Teachers and pupils in Brent fought hard against the proposed closure of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre and it was saved when the Thames21charity took it over from Brent Council.

This is a message for Brent teachers and educatiors from Thames21

Teachers and Educators – join us by the campfire!

Thames21 is hosting an open afternoon at the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre in Brent, for teachers and educators.

This get together is being held to celebrate our first anniversary of managing the site and to share our outdoor learning programme.

There are a wealth of opportunities for developing the centre and we’re really keen to hear what other ‘outside of the classroom’ learning activities people are interested in attending there.

We’ll host a tour of the site and give a camp fire lighting demonstration after which you can cook up your own tasty treats.

We’re meeting from 4.30pm – 6pm, so feel free to drop in at any time.

To book your spot, please get in touch with Edel Fingleton, Thames21’s Education Coordinator, at edel.fingleton@thames21.org.uk or by telephone on 07734 871 728 to book your spot.

Residents' views absent from offical record of Wembley Stadium Planning Committee meeting

Residents' claims that they were not being heard over the issue of the Wembley Stadium/Tottenham Hotspur planning application to increase the number of full capacity events at the stadium appear to have been borne out by the minutes of the Planning Committee published today.

The minutes merely list the names and organisations of those who made detailed and well-researched presentations to the Planning Committee with not even a summary of what they had to say.The presentations of Chris Bryant for Wembley National stadium Limited and Donna-Maria Cullen of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club are treated in a similar way.

This means that there is no official historical record of both the objections and the undertakings given by the applicants.

I think it is also noteworthy that the written representations of Cllr Butt,  leader of the council and Cllr Ketan Sheth, are not recorded.  As Planning Committee is not livestreamed this means that local residents have no access to what they wrote although they may have influenced the Planning Committee's decision.

These are the minutes as they appear on the Council website LINK:

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.

Supporting documents: