Agenda item

Olympic Way and land between Fulton Road and South Way including Green Car Park, Wembley Retail Park, 1-11 Rutherford Way, 20-28 Fulton
Road, Land south of Fulton Road opposite Stadium Retail Park, land
opposite Wembley Hilton, land opposite London Design (Ref.19/1387)


Approved the details pursuant to the conditions as recommended and additional conditions on signage plans and restoration of any damaged mural tiles to the original condition (like for like).


PROPOSAL: Details pursuant to conditions 19a (materials), 20e (hard lansdcape works) and 20i (maintenance of landscape works) in relation to Olympic Way, Zone B (ii) relating to Hybrid planning application reference 15/5550 dated 23/12/2016 (as amended by 17/0328 dated 26/05/2017), accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment, for the redevelopment of the site


RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee resolve to approve the details submitted pursuant to conditions 19a, 20e and 20i of planning consent reference 15/5550 as varied by consent reference 17/0328 in relation to Olympic Way Zone B (ii).


That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the decision.


That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to add informatives or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, 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.


The Committee agreed to receive representations for this and application reference 19/1474 simultaneously but to decide on them separately. Ms Hilary Seaton (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the applications and answered Members’ questions.  She clarified that as planning consent had already been granted, this application related solely to the approval of details pursuant to conditions attached to the consent, namely the materials, hard landscaping works and landscape maintenance. She continued that the installation of the light boxes on the walls of the underpass and the installation of advertising panels on the northern and southern parapets of Bobby Moore Bridge have also been previously consented. The principle of installing the light boxes and parapet advertising panels in their current proposed positions have therefore already been established and approved.


Ms Seaton also clarified that the current application provided further details of the materials to be used and the construction methods to be employed in installing them.  She noted that objectors had expressed concerns that the installation of the light boxes could damage the tile murals underneath however, officers were satisfied that adequate measures would be put in place to ensure that the tiles were protected. The details of the materials and the maintenance regime were also considered to be acceptable and suitable to ensure that the appearance and maintenance of the approved development will be of a high standard.  Ms Seaton then referenced the supplementary report which also set out officers’ responses to the following additional issues raised; the murals as a heritage asset and public art, the effect of the proposals on the heritage asset, amenity and protected views of the stadium from Bobby Moore Bridge.


Mr Phillip Grant of Wembley History Society (objector) addressed the Committee and answered Members’ questions. Mr Grant stated that both applications related to heritage assets and as irreplaceable resource, they should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.  He continued that the reports were flawed in that they failed to identify and assess the impact of the proposals on the significance of the heritage assets and added that if the application was approved, the murals could be lost forever.


Ms Jaine Lunn (objector) speaking in a similar vein added that the applications constituted a breach of policies as set out in the Wembley Area Action Plan (WAAP) which recognised the importance of public art.  She added that there was every need to protect the public view of the murals which were not only attractive but also an integral part of the visitor experience of Wembley Stadium. 


Messrs Brett Harbutt and Julian Tollast (agents) addressed the Committee and answered Members’ questions. Mr Harbutt explained the methodology of the proposed works and added that maintenance would be undertaken by specialist lighting contractors on behalf of Wembley Estates, so would not become a burden to Brent Council.  He added that the physical works for this and the related application for advertisement (ref no 19/1474) had been carefully designed and would be closely monitored to ensure that physical damage to the tiles would not occur.  He continued that the applicant would repair any damage caused during the installation of the light boxes, should this occur.


In response to Members’ questions, the agents stated that the applications would not harm the protected views or cause any detriment to highway safety.  He continued that the Chair of the Wembley History Society had written to the Council specifying the Society’s overwhelming support to and its agreement to the proposals.


Mr Mark Price (Heritage Officer) advised that as the murals were less than 30 years old, they were not of heritage status and whilst they can be locally listed, that in itself would not afford any degree of protection.


In the ensuing discussion, some members expressed concerns over signage and potential damage to the tile murals which were within the ownership of the Council.  It was expressed that condition be imposed to require the applicant to replace any damaged tile for like tile.  Ms Seaton responded that a statement of significance had been received from the applicant together with details and drawings, Construction Method Statement and a commitment to repair any damaged tile. In response to a Member’s enquiry about the legal aspects of the applications, Ms Marsha Henry (Senior Legal Adviser) advised that the reports were thorough and from a legal standpoint, she felt comfortable with them.


DECISION: Approved the details pursuant to the conditions as recommended and additional conditions on signage plans and restoration of any damaged mural tiles to the original condition (like for like).

(Voting on the recommendation was: For 5, Against 2, Abstention 0).

Supporting documents: