Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has been active on Next Door, the neighbourhood website, following members expressing concern about the poor condition of road surfaces and pavements in Brent and citing the
£18m expenditure on the replacement of the Wembley Stadium Pedway by steps as wasteful when this work needs doing.
LINK.
In a message directed at me Butt states:
@Martin Francis Please take a look at this report from the councils website in relation to the money that you refer to LINK The decision to allocate the funding was taken in 2009 by full council. This was a decision taken by the administration led by Paul Lorber and Bob Blackman. It's clear that the funding would be funded by the developer funds. The decision does make it clear that the pedway removal would have to be after 2013/14.
This is the relevant extract from the report (click bottom right corner to enlarge):
I responded:@MuhammedButt I have looked at the document you cited re the Pedway. It says that the Delivery Mechanism is 'Through Developer' and the Funding source is 'By Development'. CIL was not yet implemented but other projects made it clear when Section106 (CIL's predecessor) was being used. S106 is not mentioned for the Pedway. It is unclear to say the least. Quintain's own press release (below) boasts that this is 'private investment'. I don't think CIL money, paid by a developer to a local authority, and then given back to them is 'private investment'.
I don't think this supports Butt's claim that funding was by 'developer funds' if by that he means CIL money or its Section 106 equivalent.
Interestingly I understand that the Football Association is not enthusiastic about the proposal to replace the Pedway with steps. They are said to be concerned about crowd safety when fans exit the Stadium and have engaged specialists to examine the issue. The Stadium's crowd management using the Pedway has been tuned to a 'fine art' and it is questionable as to whether the steps could operate as safely.
Meanwhile Quintain's main reasons for the change are 'aesthetic' with an emphasis on the Pedway spoiling the look of its development around the Stadium. Of course it could be counter-argued that the development spoils the aesthetics of the Stadium!
I don't think this supports Butt's claim that funding was by 'developer funds' if by that he means CIL money or its Section 106 equivalent.
Interestingly I understand that the Football Association is not enthusiastic about the proposal to replace the Pedway with steps. They are said to be concerned about crowd safety when fans exit the Stadium and have engaged specialists to examine the issue. The Stadium's crowd management using the Pedway has been tuned to a 'fine art' and it is questionable as to whether the steps could operate as safely.
Meanwhile Quintain's main reasons for the change are 'aesthetic' with an emphasis on the Pedway spoiling the look of its development around the Stadium. Of course it could be counter-argued that the development spoils the aesthetics of the Stadium!