BKT interview with Steve Adams of Willesden Bookshop

See the current issue of the Brent and Kilburn Times for this story

100% disapproval of old library demolition, 95% opposition to entire scheme

This further comment on the planning application may be of interest:

I have spent many hours talking to local residents and others about this scheme. To date I have found that there is 100% disapproval of the proposal to demolish the old 1894 Library building and probably 95% opposed to the entire scheme.Many are actively campaigning by writing objections to Brent's planning officer. It should be recognised that the Applicant's own survey implemented in April 2012 indicated more than 70% disapproval for this scheme.

On this basis alone the current plans should be rejected. The application being considered by the Planning Committee includes many unsubstantiated statements in particular in relation to the condition of the existing buildings, consultation procedures and outcomes etc. The design and access statement correctly identifies that the 1983 design was opened in 1989 as a 'marker for regeneration in the area'. Later in the same document there is justification for the new development by reference to the public spaces which are apparently neglected at the rear and steeply ramped at the front thus deterring their use as a public space and preventing access to the library.

Neither of these contentions is true, public events are often organised easily in ether position but little promotoion is implemented by Brent Council as a result of the lack of will to create public community feeling. The description of the library building is clearly inaccurate. It describes it as unwelcoming and with poor signage. The signage could easily be updated, and indeed a new matrix light sign has been erected over the frontage and provides information about current events. The two Willesden Green Library Centre signs at the front are both clearly visible from the High Road and could be enhanced with modern LED lights if necessary. Colourful flags and banners could be incorporated along the frontage and elsewhere in Willesden Green advertising the facilities. This is the approach taken by other Councils in parts of London.

 As I understand it Brent Council has Planning Guidelines for this type of public building. It is clear that the scheme does not comply with these. For example Objective 9 of the Brent sustainablity plan states that an increase of public open space is to be provided. This not the case with this scheme, where public open space is actually decreasing and being moved round to the rear, largely as a facility for the flats behind. It should be noted that there is currently a Town Square registration application for determination later in July. The Registration is necessary because the area between the Old and New libraries have been used by the Public as of right for more than twenty years, thus precluding any building work over the area.

 Public car parking is not included within the new WGCC at all. Existing loading bay provision in Grange Road is being converted to Parent/baby and disabled spaces (5 in total). This contrasts directly with the private car parking being provided for the private flats where 60 spaces are being created in an underground car park below. This will reduce use of the new Centre because public transport does not serve all areas of the borough.

 Section 106 Agreement. In discussions with many members of the Community, I have been asked repeatably about Social Housing provision as a planning gain to be provided by the developer. None has been offered. Brent Council has indicated that the construction of a new library is being offered in lieu. However as indicated above the new library will have less provision than the existing arrangement. This means that there is nothing additional offered for the benefit of the community. There is thus a lack of S 106 legal provision making the entire application invalid. Please ensure that it is rejected on these grounds

Navin Shah opposes library demolition

Last month Navin Shah, Labour London Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow wrote to Andy Bates regarding the application to demolish the old Willesden library building.. This is what he wrote:

Dear Mr. Bates,

Application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the old library building.
Willesden Green Library Centre, 95 High Road, London NW10 2SF

I am writing to you about the conservation area consent application for the proposed demolition of Willesden Green Library. I strongly object to the proposal for demolition on the following grounds.

As the London Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow I have been contacted by a number of residents in Brent who are extremely dismayed at the proposals to demolish the library. I fully share their dismay as I feel that this is a historically important building of local interest and importance which should be preserved.

As an architect by profession with special interest in listed buildings of architectural and heritage value I feel preserving Willesden Green Library is extremely important. The old building of ‘Arts and Crafts’ design contributes greatly to character of the area and should be celebrated as an iconic building, rather than be demolished.

This library building is a social and cultural tool and knocking it down would destroy the historical and architectural contribution it makes to the Borough of Brent and its special significance to the character of the area. This is a much loved building making positive contribution to the surrounding areas which is recognised by its local listing by Brent council and local people love it, as do I. So why destroy local heritage?

I’m not against the principle of regeneration for the site but there are other options available to the Council without destroying this cute little local landmark. Once a building of this character is destroyed, you will never get it back. I urge the members of planning committee to save Brent’s heritage by refusing the consent for demolition

Demolition would remove a 'good and much-cherished historic local building', Victorian Society

The Victorian Society has added its voice to the public outcry against Galliford Try's planning application to demolish the Victorian Willesden Library to make way for a warehouse style Cultural Centre. This is their submission:

Dear Mr Bates

RE: Demolition of former Willesden Green Library building (Locally listed, 1894, Newman and Newman)

It is disappointing that despite a request in March to be kept informed of developments in this case, the Council failed to notify us of this application. Instead we have been reliant on a huge number of concerned local residents to inform us that an application was submitted.

Given this application differs very little from that presented to the public a few months ago (and on the principle of demolishing the Victorian library building has not changed), I can only reiterate those objections expressed in my letter of 13 March this year.

The old Willesden library was erected in 1894 following a poll of the Ratepayers of Willesden. Built in an Arts and Crafts style, its form, unusual roof configuration and good quality decorative plasterwork are particularly pleasing. Overall it can be said to make a very positive contribution to the streetscape and the conservation area in which it sits. We disagree with the view of the applicants that this building is of “little architectural value”.

Its significance is enhanced by its prominent site, noted in the Willesden Green conservation area character appraisal as one of two principal foci of the conservation area. In the context of the consulted scheme, the historic building occupies only a small portion of the site. Moreover, it lies on the site’s fringes, not at its centre and there is thus scope to develop the site behind the library, leaving it to remain unaltered.

Proposals to demolish the old library fly in the face of the Council’s own guidelines on heritage and urban development. The conservation area character appraisal stresses the significance of the building and of preserving and enhancing the character of the conservation area. The Council has also stated the “need to conserve the best of our built heritage against pressure for redevelopment and unsympathetic alteration.”

Public consultation exercises came too late in the day to be of any real worth, with the first of two public exhibitions being held in March, and a second post-application. It is also clear that no major amendments were made to the proposals as a result of this exercise and the opposition pronounced by local people. An indication of that opposition was the 5,700-signature petition presented to the Council.

The proposed cultural centre fails to abide by the Council’s stipulation that proposals must be of “exceptionally high quality in terms of design and contribution to the streetscape”. It would see the removal of a good and much-cherished historic local building and an erosion of the character and quality of that part of Willesden.

Yours sincerely

James Hughes

Conservation Adviser

Willesden Green: Council should listen to the people

Beware the stranger at your Willesden door

Reports are reaching us of a door-to-door campaign in Willesden Green asking people to sign a petition in support of the 'lovely' new Cultural Centre. This follows hundreds of objections to Galliford Try's planning application for the demolition of the 1980s Centre, the bookshop and the Old Willesden Library.


It is enough to move us to poetry:
 

'Is there anybody there?' said the Developer,
Knocking on the moonlit door;
And his heart in the silence beat anxiously,
Would they see the fatal flaw?
And a police car sped by a-wailing
Enough to wake the newly dead;
And he smote upon the door again a second time;
'Is there anybody there?' he said.
But no one descended to the Developer;
No head from the leaf-fringed sill
Leaned over and looked into his grey eyes,
Where he stood perplexed and still.
But only a host of determined campaigners;
That dwelt in the lone house then
Stood listening in the quiet of the moonlight
To that voice from the world of men:
Stood thronging the faint moonbeams on the dark stair,
That goes down to the empty hall,
Hearkening in an air stirred and shaken
By the lonely Developer's call.
And he felt in his heart their steadfastness,
Their determination answering his cry,

While the petition slipped from his fingers:

No profits for Galliford Try.

Transition Willesden on Willesden Green Redevelopment plans

Transition Willesden is a local group offering a community-led response to the challenges of peak oil, climate change and the economic crisis.  We are not a campaigning organisation, but wish to raise the following concerns in objection to the proposals:
 
Consultation and democracy

    There has been little transparency as to why the existing building cannot be renovated rather than be demolished, and financial information as to why keeping the original 1894 building has been deemed ‘unviable’.

    It is both wrong and misleading to state that the community have been consulted all along, when only 12 people attended focus groups, their views were NOT taken into account, and they were evidently NOT kept informed of progress of the scheme subsequently.

    As a local community group, we have not been approached as a stakeholder group for our views.

    The developers were obliged to hold a 2 day public exhibition, but have so far provided only two half days.

    The consultation questionnaire provided at the exhibition was very limited – question 2 on proposals for a new public space around the cultural centre is very unclear.

Housing provision

    There is NO affordable housing – the form of housing that is most needed in the area.
    The density of units is high.
    The majority of units are one and two bed, with only four three bed flats proposed  - all meeting bare minimum standards in terms of size.  This does little to encourage families into the area.
    The housing is clearly not designed to be ‘whole of lifespan’ and as such the type of occupants it will attract are unlikely to stay long, feel part of, or contribute to the local community.
    All flats are single aspect, which neither promote much sense of space nor encourage social interaction.  It would be more like living in a barracks than a community.  What are the heights of the flats?
    The number of parking spaces provided for the flats is generous, compared to the amount provided for the cultural centre.

Green space

    We oppose the loss of green space and very concerned about the impact the proposed development will have on both the local community and the environment.
    Why is there no community food growing area within the public space?
    What will happen to the two crab apple trees planted by the community at the Willesden Green wassail?
    The loss of open space at the front of the building is not welcomed.  It leaves no clear place for the end of the wassail – a local event that has been going for three years.
    It is noted that a small orchard has been included in the plans as part of the outside space for the residential units.  Given it would be maintained by non specialist contractors, without involvement of residents and access by the local community, this is likely to be a wasted resource.  We understand this has been included to appease us, but we find it tokenistic.
    Planting that attracts pollinating insects and encourages biodiversity, such as wild flower meadows, and other features such as bee and bug hotels should be included.  These features also require less maintenance than traditional beds and cut grass.

Sustainability
·         If this is being promoted as a building fit for the 21st century, why do the plans meet only grade 4 in the code for sustainable homes?
·         Whilst we welcome the green roofs, what other water saving facilities are included in the plans, such as water butts, and use of grey water for flushing toilets?
·         Are any solar panels or other renewable energy features included?
·         What recycling facilities will be available on site – public and for residential units?
·         Could a community composting scheme be included?
·         How long is the new cultural centre designed to last?  The current building was also deemed ‘state of the art’ when built, but is now dismissed as poorly designed.
·         The scheme has come about due to the Council letting the current cultural centre run down.  What guarantee is there that the new centre will be better managed and maintained in the future?

Impact on the local community

    The library provision, in particular amount of study spaces is inadequate.  Since the library is replacing seven closed local libraries in the Borough, it should be equal to or exceed existing provision in size.
    Interim facilities are less than adequate and a cause for concern for local community.
    The loss of the existing library, bookshop, meeting rooms and other facilities will have a damaging affect on community cohesion during the closure period.
    Following the closure of other local libraries in the area, we do not consider that adequate interim facilities are being made available for local residents.
    Will the new meeting rooms be affordable for local community groups?  What charges are being proposed?
    The Willesden bookshop is a key resource for the local community, and a valuable service for schools across the Borough and beyond.  It should be included in the plans for the cultural centre.  Whereas there are plenty of cafes in the area, there is no other bookshop.  This should be taken into account.
    The loss of Brent Artist Resource and the Irish Advice centre will also have a negative impact on the community.
    The design of cultural centre is out of keeping  with the Edwardian houses that surround it.

Save our bookshop

Just a reminder of the issues from a video made in March

Willesden Bookshop selling off stock - but they haven't given up

The Willesden Bookshop has started selling off its stock at bargain prices today but owner Steve Adams is adamant that this is not the death knell for the shop. This applies to all stock, including children's books.

He said that although the council has extended the lease until the end of August, the shop will be subject to a one week notice (either way) from the beginning of August. "We simply cannot move in one week so we are beginning to clear our stock now.  We are still looking at alternatives in Willesden and hope to carry on, but we have to be practical at the same time."

He says of course that it would be wonderful if the council saw sense and by one means or another the planning application was withdrawn in the next few week.s 

The shop is hoping to be able to carry on the much-valued service to local schools, even if it is not able to have a store front for a period.  More details about this will be sent to schools over the next few days.

Willesen Bookshop is NOT subsidised

It appears that some councillors are still claiming that the Willesden Bookshop's rent in the Willesden Library Centre is subsidised. The bookshop say that a previous claim by a councillor about the subsidy had been based on the mistaken belief that the shop did not pay its own utility bills. In fact it is separately metered and pays for its own heating, lighting and water usage. They point out that they have never asked for a subsidy and Brent's own property department chose not to increase the rent on the last review date, perhaps because they were anxious to retain the bookshop's presence at the Centre, having lost the two other commercial tenants who ran the cinema and cafe. Their only subsidy has been one quarter rent's waiver during an extensive refurbishment of the Library Centre when the building was boarded up and the business suffered as a consequence.

"Why should anyone believe the barbarians ruling Brent?"

The latest edition of Private Eye contains a hard-hitting article on Brent Council's actions on libraries. A PDF of the article is available below:

Philip Grant on 'significance' of the Conservation Area and 1894 Building

Time is tight to submit your objections to the Willesden Green Library Planning and Conservation Area Consent applications, but help is at hand. If you feel that you need some help to put together your arguments at the last minute, or if you would like to read someone else's and then refer to those in support of your own objection letter, here are three detailed argued cases from the objection letters that Philip Grant will be submitting before the deadline on Thursday 14 June. They cover: The main planning policy points; The arguments about "significance" which are an important factor in applying current planning policy; and The arguments over whether the harm the proposals would do is necessary, or outweighs, the public benefits claimed by the proposed development. If you wish to save time by saying that you 'agree the arguments on [whatever aspect of the three points you wish to refer to] put forward by Philip Grant in his objection letter, which I have seen in draft form', then please feel free to do so.

Philip Grant's Planning Law and Policy Arguments

Time is tight to submit your objections to the Willesden Green Library Planning and Conservation Area Consent applications, but help is at hand. If you feel that you need some help to put together your arguments at the last minute, or if you would like to read someone else's and then refer to those in support of your own objection letter, here are three detailed argued cases from the objection letters that Philip Grant will be submitting before the deadline on Thursday 14 June. They cover: The main planning policy points; The arguments about "significance" which are an important factor in applying current planning policy; and The arguments over whether the harm the proposals would do is necessary, or outweighs, the public benefits claimed by the proposed development. If you wish to save time by saying that you 'agree the arguments on [whatever aspect of the three points you wish to refer to] put forward by Philip Grant in his objection letter, which I have seen in draft form', then please feel free to do so.

Philp Grant's Harm vs Benefits Arguments

Time is tight to submit your objections to the Willesden Green Library Planning and Conservation Area Consent applications, but help is at hand. If you feel that you need some help to put together your arguments at the last minute, or if you would like to read someone else's and then refer to those in support of your own objection letter, here are three detailed argued cases from the objection letters that Philip Grant will be submitting before the deadline on Thursday 14 June. They cover: The main planning policy points; The arguments about "significance" which are an important factor in applying current planning policy; and The arguments over whether the harm the proposals would do is necessary, or outweighs, the public benefits claimed by the proposed development. If you wish to save time by saying that you 'agree the arguments on [whatever aspect of the three points you wish to refer to] put forward by Philip Grant in his objection letter, which I have seen in draft form', then please feel free to do so.

Martin Redston: reasons for rejecting these plans

Martin Redston has sent in the following objection to the Willesden Green Planning Application: 

As a preamble to my objection to the above proposals I have written four paragraphs detailing my understanding of the process by which this scheme has been conceived. I recognise that this is not usual for a Planning submission but this scheme has been presented by Brent Council as inevitable for this site and is thus highly controversial:

It is important that the Planning Committee are made fully aware of the motivation behind this scheme. Brent Council has made it clear that a new Council Hub for the South of Brent Borough is required in order to consolidate all of the Council Services locally. Therefore It was decided to use the Library as a multi use centre. It was also noted that a degree of maintenance and upgrading was necessary to the twenty five year old building and finally the small Old library Building was requiring some maintenance since its refurbishment in the mid nineteen eighties.

Having identified the costs of basic maintenance and repair of the building, the Council then set about establishing how this could be achieved in a cost neutral way. The redevelopment of the entire site inclusive of car park and old 1894 building was identified as an income generator. Consultants and Developers were consulted to establish the percentage of residential development needed to produce funding for a replacement to the current Library Building and public spaces. 

This exercise clearly identified that the library must be on a footprint of a little more than half of the current area in order to make way for enough flats for resale at top end prices. I suspect that the financial aspects of this scheme could be considered marginal and heavily dependent on fluctuations in residential property prices in a difficult economic climate. Consequently it became clear that the Council building would need to be constructed with additional storeys in order to incorporate the public areas and council offices. Thus the plan to move the building forward to the corner of the site evolved.

Five blocks of flats were then conceived for the site configured in a manner that would provide them with the smallest of areas to maximise residential site usage.

An initial 'consultation' was held with twelve people attending focus groups run by non-Brent based consultants. This exercise included questions about requirements in a refurbished building and clearly indicated that actually the library complex would need to be larger than the current building.
A developer was chosen and from that moment it was possible for the Council to distance itself from the process by devolving all of the consultation and planning processes onto the developer. The planning application currently under consideration is the final result of all of these deliberations and machinations.

The application being considered by the Planning Committee includes many unsubstantiated statements in particular in relation to the condition of the existing buildings, consultation procedures and outcomes etc. The design and access statement correctly identifies that the 1983 design was opened in 1989 as a 'marker for regeneration in the area'. Later in the same document there is justification for the new development by reference to the public spaces which are apparently neglected at the rear and steeply ramped at the front thus deterring their use as a public space and preventing access to the library. Neither of these contentions is true, public events are often organised easily in ether position but little promotion is implemented by Brent Council as a result of the lack of will to create public community feeling.

The description of the library building is clearly inaccurate. It describes it as unwelcoming and with poor signage. The signage could easily be updated, and indeed a new matrix light sign has been erected over the frontage and provides information about current events. The two Willesden Green Library Centre signs at the front are both clearly visible from the High Road and could be enhanced with modern LED lights if necessary. Colourful flags and banners could be incorporated along the frontage and elsewhere in Willesden Green advertising the facilities. This is the approach taken by other Councils in parts of London.

The current internal spaces are criticised, especially the common walkway through the centre of the building. This is always full of people visiting the library and passing through, there is a permanent display of artefacts from the museum in cases near the entrance, there are banners hanging from the roof and there are pictures and display cases (brightly lit) provided by local artists in the foyer. At weekends there are community stalls selling popular items to the public as well as a refreshment stall. Walls are adorned with posters and announcement and there is plenty of room to wait around for your turn into the OneStop shop. 

The library seamlessly melds through light glass automatic doors, books and display stands are clearly visible and kids have easy access to a light and airy ground floor corner library area. Reference and quiet study areas are in evidence at first floor level and, indeed, have been increased during the previous refurbishment of the building. If there is any doubt about the facilities in the building there is a reception desk near the library. In recent months the cafe area has been regenerated first with a crèche and latterly with the Library Lab zone. The neglected Cinema is still used to capacity during special events such as St Patrick's Day celebrations.

As I understand it Brent Council has Planning Guidelines for this type of public building. It is clear that the scheme does not comply with these. For example Objective 9 of the Brent sustainability plan states that an increase of public open space is to be provided. This not the case with this scheme, where public open space is actually decreasing and being moved round to the rear, largely as a facility for the flats behind. It should be noted that there is currently a Town Square registration application for determination later in July. The Registration is necessary because the area between the Old and New libraries have been used by the Public as of right for more than twenty years, thus precluding any building work over the area.

Public car parking is not included within the new WGCC at all. Existing loading bay provision in Grange Road is being converted to Parent/baby and disabled spaces (5 in total). This contrasts directly with the private car parking being provided for the private flats where 60 spaces are being created in an underground car park below. This will reduce use of the new Centre because public transport does not serve all areas of the borough. In particular, apart from the High Road and Brondesbury Park Routes passing the site, there are no intersecting routes across the area, leaving a significant number of residential properties not covered. Also Bus routes become infrequent in the late evening when events are likely to terminate. For example the 206 is a twenty minute service and finishes early. This will reduce the use of the new Centre as access for the public will be severely curtailed as choices are reduced.

Section 106 Agreement. In my discussions with many members of the Community, I have been asked repeatedly about Social Housing provision as a planning gain to be provided by the developer. Obviously none has been offered. Brent Council has indicated that the construction of a new library is being offered in lieu. However as indicated above the new library will have less provision than the existing arrangement. This means that there is nothing additional offered for the benefit of the community. There is therefore a lack of S 106 legal provision making the entire application invalid. Please ensure that it is rejected on these grounds in any circumstances.

There is a discrepancy in the site area and the section of Grange Road that has been 'annexed ' into the scheme.I assume that both the trafficked section (with the loading bays) and the 'pedestrian' section of Grange Road are still designated as Public Highway and are still in the ownership of Brent Council. Thus they should not be included in the Galliford Try application. The disabled/mother and baby car parking spaces together with the play area should be moved into the site boundary in order to protect the public asset. The 1:1250 Location plan submitted for this application appears to be incorrect. The site outlined in red on site plan drawing 11034-EX-0001 P01 does not include the northern part of Grange Road where the applicant is indicating tree works to the London Plane Tree, and play space. There also appear to be highways works and landscaping proposed that are in this area, including the formation of parking spaces and crossovers, and removal of trees that presumably will also require planning approval. The land I mention is not outlined in blue on the Location plan and therefore presumably not owned by the applicant. I think this creates a technical issue with the validity of the Planning Application.

I have been provided with a copy of the maintenance plan report for the 1983 Building and this indicates that the actual structure of the building is in an excellent state. There is no masonry damage, foundation subsidence, floor or roof structural damage at any position. Some upgrading of services to make them more fuel efficient, roof and window upgrading is also required to ensure that the building is more fuel efficient into the future. This is typical for most buildings of this age and type and there does not appear to be any actual justification for complete demolition.

The Planning Committee should read this report and compare it with the applicant's design and access statement which precludes any responsibility for future maintenance.
I have also requested a copy of the Engineer's report on the Structural capabilities of the 1983 building. I have not been provided with this document and I therefore believe that it does not exist. Of particular concern is the contention that the foundations would not be able to carry a further storey if required at roof level. As a Structural Engineer, I believe that a modern lightweight framed structure would not exert significant additional loading. This would make it possible to retain the existing structure allowing it to be updated and extended at relatively low cost. This type of work could be included as part of a true S 106 agreement to the benefit of all parties.

The exclusion of the two blocks of flats (Block A) would allow the rear of the library to be retained and save the cost of rebuilding the entire structure while stlll allowing the scheme to be sustainable.

Finally, I have spent many hours talking to local residents and others about this scheme. To date I have found that there is 100% disapproval of the proposal to demolish the old 1894 Library building and probably 95% opposed to the entire scheme. Many are actively campaigning by writing objections to Brent's planning officer. It should be recognised that the Applicant's own survey implemented in April 2012 indicated more than 70% disapproval for this scheme. On this basis alone the current plans should be rejected.

 

Brent Arts Council opposes Willesden Green redevelopment

Brent Arts Council has made the following submission on the planning application for the regeneration of Willesden Green Library Centre and the demolition of the Victorian Library:

We are writing to oppose the current planning applications for the demolition of the existing library buildings and their replacement.

The Old Library. This has been well documented as an 1894 Newman and Newman building which has been extensively adapted and refurbished over its lifetime. In particular it was remodelled to allow the construction of the new Library Centre in about 1983. This included the removal of the two wing extensions along Brondesbury Park and Grange Road which had evolved as two storey structures soon after the original construction of single storey structures. In 1983 there was considerable debate about the fate of the original building and a compromise was negotiated in which the front corner landmark building be retained within the conservation area. The removal of the two rear wings necessitated the rebuilding of the remaining brickwork, remodelling of the corners and the moving of the front door to the rear for ease of access from the town square between the buildings. This was a brilliant compromise allowing the building to be remodelled and refurbished whilst retaining the external aspect of the building almost in its entirety.

In particular the roof line, pinnacle, first floor stucco and facing brickwork of the 1894 building have been retained and are a defining feature of the High Road and Brondesbury Park. Careful reference to the nearby buildings within the conservation area and, indeed beyond clearly show these to be the general vernacular. Gables and pinnacles abound on buildings such as the Post Office, St Andrews Church, Police Station etc. All buildings in the area are constructed of masonry and have been generally maintained as such. The height of local buildings are limited to three storeys.

The interior of the 1894 building has been maintained and refurbished to make it more accessible for current use. This includes the provision of a new steel staircase, plastering and other updated facilities. None of this is incompatible with the notion of conservation, bringing the facilities and access up to date for modern use, leaving the exterior of the building as a monument to the people of the area and as a landmark along the street scene. The previous removal of the two rear wings and the setting of the remaining building has enhanced its visual aspect by setting it apart in detached setting with public space abounding.

The size and the scale of the building is commensurate with the conservation ideal of the High Road and attracts the eye along the two frontages which are observed by local and casual passer by likewise. There is a rythm and flow of the building line and a human sense of scale in the context of a high street in the midst of regeneration for twenty first century use. Architecturally the building contributes generally to the sense of space and the general ambience of the locality.

1983 Library. This building has served the community well for twenty five years. Whilst the architecture is typical of its age and time, it has merit in that the architect has attempted to integrate into the High Road and Brondesbury Park ambience. The stepping back of the upper levels and the stepping in and out of the Brondesbury Park frontage creates an impression of local residential properties with bay windows. The masonry mirrors nearby buildings both within and outside the conservation area. There are spaces all around the building with raised beds for planting and paving for community gatherings and public art.

New Library Proposal. This building has no relationship with the surrounding space. It does not reflect the type of buildings in the locality. The height and scale of the building is overbearing and the architecture is generic and bland. The height of the building appears to be almost twice the height of the surrounding structures on both the High Road and Brondesbury Park. the dimensions of the new building seem to be entirely random, possibly driven by a desire to build against the backline of the pavement with no particular reference to the buildings nearby and the locality, thus destroying the current sense of space around the building on each elevation and across the site in general.

Arts Provision. The area of the current building set aside for arts and literature is actually greater than proposed in the new building. Comparison tables of floor areas have been published clearly showing these reductions. The library book provision is less than the current building and the position of various parts of the library is less convenient and illogically arranged. In particular the children's library has been moved to the first floor requiring small children and people with buggies to be forced to use the lift access, a less convenient or welcoming experience to that which is currently enjoyed at ground floor.

Performance spaces. Brent is sadly lacking in performance spaces and venues for music, drama and dance. Brent Council has now removed the Paul Daisley Hall from public use pending the closure of the Wembley Town Hall later this year. There is now no dedicated performance space. The new Civic Centre has multi-use spaces which are inappropriate for formal productions due to their layout and the sharing of facilities with commercial lettings. Any new Cultural Centre concept should incorporate proper, adequately sized performance spaces. The small rooms and spaces are not adequate for this purpose and therefore the concept of a cultural centre is incorrect. The building needs to be larger in order to incorporate such areas bearing in mind that there is already a large performance space (the cinema ) in the current 1983 building making a like for like comparison. The function room immediately leading into the terrace is small and not practical for drama or dance performances. 

Architecture. The cantilever overhang with its small terrace does not appear to have a practical function. If it is intended for it to provide a vista along the High Road, this is clearly not possible because it is angled diagonally counter to the existing street layout, the view will be into the tree canopy and will be directly pointed towards the corner of the coffee shop building. The function room immediately leading into this terrace is small and not practical for drama or dance performances. The vertical cladding shown on the plans are out of place in the Willesden High Road area which has brickwork and horizontal banding at various locations. The façade of a local derelict pub building, The Spotted Dog has been retained as part of a reconstruction as residential units, thus indicating that the conservation area is important as part of the planning environment. It is considered that the current scheme has no architectural merit and it would be better to refurbish the 1983 building and retain the 1894 Heritage Building.

Martin Redston,
Chair Brent Arts Council
(reg charity no 1028005)

Application lodged for Town Green designation of Willesden Green open space

An application has been made for the  registration of the front courtyard of the Willesden Green Library Centre to be registered as a Town Green under the Commons Act 2006.

Enjoying the potential Town Green over the Bank Holiday

The application, by Martin Redston, seeks:

....the inclusion in the register of town and village greens of the land described in the Schedule below which is claimed to have qualified for registration as a town or village green by virtue of indulgence by a significant number of inhabitants of Willesden Green Ward as of right in respect of sports and lawful pastimes for a period of at least 20 years.

Objections to registration must be received by 20th July 2012.

The Green Fair held in the open space outside Willesden Green Library in May last year:

Public rally to defence of Willesden Green Conservation area

There may be some duplication of the previous posting but here are all the on-line comment on the Willesden Green Conservation area application (12/1191) LINK  Formal closing date for comments June 12th 2012.

• 43 Balmoral Road , London , NW2 5BN : Dear sirs, I strongly object to the demolition of the period half timbered Victorian building which occupies the corner of the site on the High Road. This particular good example of a pleasing aesthetic addition to the architectural character of the High Road is in my mind, something that should be retained. Its removal is surely not necessary as the site itself is sufficient size to cope with the new propsed demands. The aesthetic contradiction in style to its new neighbour is no more a problem than it is now, which seems to work. In fact I see no reason at all for its removal. It has stood the test of time, which the current development soon wont, and who is to say that new proposal similarly will be subject to the same process in 20 years time. I hope my comments help persuade and guarantee its safe future which I'm sure Mr Pevsner would agree would regard as something of a little gem
• 16 Grange Road , London , NW10 2QU: As a resident of grange road for over 40 years and having already had to live through one regeneration of the library I firstly object greatly to the destruction of the old library building at the front of the building. this falls under english heritage and should in no way be demolished and is also not legal to do so. Secondly I object to the amount of parking that will be supllied for the new flats at the back 60 parking spaces with a possibility of up to 400 people living in these flats this does clearly not add up it also removes what is already a busy parking area for willesden high road. Thirdly my house currently has a large amount of day light in the windows adjacent to the plans for the new property which we recieve throughout the day, as per the plans this new building will greatly decrease the amount of daylight available to my property which I currently work from as a photographer and therefore greatly damages my right of light under the Prescription Act of 1832 having had over 40 years enjoyment of light through this window. As such this is therefore also illegal. I believe this new building proposal will greatly limit the amount of light coming in through my window and the level of light inside will fall below the accepted level, which then constitutes an obstruction and will leave me no option but to take legal action and request an injunction against the landowner. I do not recall anyone consulting with any residents on Grange road about this very serious matter? residents seem to have been totally ignored on all of these points? I will also be sending a copy of these points into the local and london press
• 157 Brondesbury Park , London , NW2 5JL : Whilst i do not object to replacing the existing "tired" willesden Library with a state of the art new one I do object to the demolition of the beautiful old library. The old library is a building of historic architectural importance and is the only interesting/beautiful building on the shabby high street (hence why it was listed in the first place!). Having attended a number of meetings regarding the plans for the demolition of both buildings on the site to build a new library building and 96 flats it would seem to me that Brent Council has not given any consideration to what the residents of Willesden Green want and need and has rather bowed to the demands of its chosen developer Galliford Try who will obviously profit through the sale of these unwanted flats. The development of such a large number of new properties on the exisiting library site will not benefit Willesden residents in any way and will in fact bring huge amounts of increased traffic to the area, specifically Brondesbury Park (where the entrance to these flats will be). Perhaps Brent shoud consder reducing the number of flats on the site as a means of saving the historic old library and also consider saving more open space around the area for the benefit of local resdents.
• 24B Chambers Lane , London , NW10 2RJ: I would like to strongly object to the demolition of the Old Library Building. The Old Library building, while not a perfect example of architecture, is the most attractive building on the high road - which is a conservation area. Removing it would significantly destroy the character of the area - which it was set up to specifically to prevent. It is almost certain that the new building will age badly - the old building will still be a beautiful building of interest in 100 years time, yet a new building will almost certainly not be (most probably has a designed life span of far less) and the old building lost forever. Secondly, it is not necessary to demolish the building to achieve the benefit of a new library centre, although I do agree that it would significantly reduce a developer's profit if the Old Library Building were to remain in place. As far as I'm aware, the planning guidelines state that local planning authorities should refuse consent unless "it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss.". There is no concrete evidence that benefit cannot be achieved without demolishing the Old Library Building (I very much doubt the new centre will be significantly better than the existing one - an additional coffee shop does not count). Therefore I believe the planning application cannot be granted if the guidelines are followed in letter or spirit.
• 70 Walm Lane Willesden Green , London , NW2 4RA : As both a local resident living on Churchill Road and as someone who has an office on Walm lane I would like to register my objection to the loss of the historic old library building. The locally listed Old Library has been at the heart of Willesden High Road for well over a century, it is greatly valued by the local community and it is locally listed. It would be a huge loss to the High Road as it is one of the few remaining historical buildings in the local area. If Willesden Green library is to be rebuilt then the plans should incorporate the Old Library. This objection is particularly relevant to Planning Application 12/1191, Conservation Area Consent. Brent Council have argued that the Old Library building is not of major significance. However, as well as being an intergral part of group of Victorian buildings which form the core of the Willesden Green Conservation Area, the Old Library is architecturally significant in its own right. The applicant¿s Heritage Statement argues that the significance of the Old Library has been diminished as a result of the work that has taken place on the building. This means, it is argued, that the building pays little resemblance to the original 1894 building. However, this ignores that reason for the building work that took place in the 1980s, which was to ensure that the 1894 frontage could be preserved as part of a building put to good use.
• 110 Brondesbury Park , Willesden Green , London , NW2 5JR : The old library building is an important landmark for Willesden Green. Despite some changes mostly internally to this building over the years, externally it is a beautiful and lovely local example of Victorian architecture. This building should remain as a reminder and a tribute to those those women and who ensured in the first instance that the area got it's very own library. I recall that using that small library was a total joy. Residents were deeply saddened when its use as a library ceased. Now it is very hard to contemplate the bulldozers coming in. I am yet to understand why the building cannot be incorporated into the architects design. The old library building sits on a relatively small amount of land. If it is looked after it will probably be there in a another 100 years. I wonder how long the proposed new structure will hold up? Our views matter, and it is time that those of you who we the residents elected to look after our local interest begin to take account of our serious objections to the demolition of this building. Many residents have accepted that the council will march along regardless with their plans to demolish the main library. But the council also know that residents are passionate about wanting to save the old library building. It is quite simply an important part of our heritage and to demolish it to my mind is nothing short of draconian. Along with thousand of residents in Willesden and Brent, I beg the planning authorities to look again at this application and move positively to save this locally listed building.
• 203C Brondesbury Park , LONDON , NW2 5JN : Whilst development and investment in our communities should be encouraged, it is important that the development adds more value to the community than it takes away. Upon review of the plans submitted, it appears a good balance is not achieved; they may not therefore "avoid angry site neighbours" problems. The designs do not seem in keeping with the visual environment, although it is not helped as the comparison is the current Library which is attractive and in keeping. The impact on road congestion will be very significant and parking problems for the type and number of residential units will be totally unacceptable. It may be appropriate to carefully investigate the assumptions on traffic density impact and associated potential safety matters, most particularly as this purports to cater for young people and children.These residential units, in addition to them being architecturally insensitive, will affect light into mine and other neighbouring property and remove privacy completely for many. If the plans were to be amended to reduce elevation, increase quality retail space, which encourages an upgrade of offer to the High Street, then the proposals may begin to have some merit. I would also like to see a greater emphasis from the developer on local jobs.
• 33 Gowan Road , London , - , NW10 2SH: The old library building is a beautiful and iconic landmark and is in character with the area. It was paid for by people who wanted to leave something for future residents of the area. The proposal to demolish it is motivated purely by short term profit and should not be agreed. The building which will replace the old library is ugly, too big for the area and designed merely to be an 'add-on' to the 92 unit residential development. The Planning Committee should not agree to this act of municipal vandalism.
• 26b Grange Road NW10 2QU: LOSS OF OPEN SPACE; There is an application to designate the conservation area surrounding the library as common land; used for St. Patrick's Day celebrations, French Market, etc. It's our, public land. Once lost, it will be gone forever - after our non-resident "representatives" and property developers have left for greener pastures, leaving residents behind with browner ones. UNJUSTIFIED LOSS OF THE ICONIC,VICTORIAN BUILDING - The front of the Original 1984 Library Building, built and paid for by local taxpayers will be demolished. Developer's greed for space is the only justification. UGLINESS AND SHADOW - The proposed aspect is out of sympathy with surrounding buildings. Too high and will leave adjoining gardens in longer periods of shadow, muddier and unusable for longer drying-out periods. PEDESTRIAN CONGESTION - Narrower pavements and increased traffic will result in higher local levels of stress and inconvenience. Books are heavy things to carry on public transport for people with disabilities and parents with children. Library visits and books borrowed have already decreased. The new Centre will be more congested. ENVIROMENTAL WASTE - The demolition of a sound building, 23 years old, which Brent Council has never used to its full potential, and allowed to run down. Why bother recycling? MULTIPLE CONTRAVENTION OF CLAUSES IN BRENT'S OWN GUIDELINES: 4. Environmental Protection (.pdf, 343Kb) 5. Housing (.pdf, 583Kb) 6. Transport (.pdf, 958Kb) 8. Town Centres and Shopping (.pdf, 886Kb) 9. Tourism, Entertainment and the Arts (.pdf, 207Kb) 10. Open Space and Recreation (.pdf, 810Kb) 11. Community Facilities (.pdf, 363Kb) 12. Waste (.pdf, 255Kb). All available online, and with which all Case Officers should be familiar. NO PUBLIC GAIN - the new plans offer less space and fewer resources to local residents, but free land to private developers and extra offices to even more Council "representatives". There is no planning gain under the Section 106 agreement. The interim provision for students is inadequate. There is less space for parents with small children and buggies. NO MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION - Despite the misleading information strategically issued to the media by Brent Council and developers Galliford Try, this entire scheme was orchestrated behind closed doors for one year and then presented as a "done deal", take-it-or-leave-it. I am cynically aware that there are laws for the rich and others for the poor. But can anyone imagine this arrogant proposal being dumped on the affluent and well-connected residents of Hampstead, Richmond, Kensington, etc? STRONG LOCAL OPPOSITION TO THE PLANS - 80% of local residents are against. Not including a further 10% of parents from South American, African or Asian backgrounds who regularly use the library facilities, but who do not have the linguistic levels to understand and oppose the plans. MIS-MANAGEMENT - Councillors over the last 20 years have allowed the existing Library building to run down. There is no guarantee they will not do the same with the new one. LOSS OF INDEPENDENT, MULTI-CULTURAL BOOKSHOP - perfectly in tune with the needs of our local community and schools. LOSS OF PARKING - Where will town visitors park? How much extra stress will be put on resident car-owners? The information regarding parking is misleading. Local businesses will suffer. 92 luxury flats will not compensate for loss in local trade. TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LAND TO PRIVATE SECTOR - Increasing the discrepancy between rich and poor. The development is for private housing, an excellent time to buy if you have an extra £300,000 to invest (Labour Councillors should hang their heads in shame). SECRECY - This scheme was developed behind closed doors for one year before being dumped on local residents. Constant dela
• 20A Grange Road , London , NW10 2QU: I vehemently object to this planning application (12/1190 and 12/1191) on the following grounds: 1. Having lived at my property (20 Grange Road) for 20 years, under the1959 Rights of Light Act, I have the right to continue having light through my front window. 2. The demolition of the Victorian old library building removes the only building of character in this part of Willesden. 3. The demolition of the existing library is absurd given that it is a few decades old and has recently been entirely renovated¿using money from our Council Taxes 4. The proposed new library building is extraordinarily ugly and inappropriate for its surroundings. 5. The proposed new library building is far too small for the purpose, and would represent a massive loss of functionality at a time when so many libraries have been closed. 6. The abolition of parking for the library will cause congestion on Grange Road, so that residents will be unable to park. 7. The proposed new housing does not help to mitigate the lack of affordable housing in Willeseden¿it is clearly a money-making scheme for the developer, without benefit to ordinary working people in Willesden. It will simply increase the crowding of local amenities and place further pressure on borough services. 8. Finally, I am appalled by the lack of consultation that has characterized this proposal. It has been rushed through, presumably because the developers and borough council realized that residents of Willesden¿who through their council tax pay the salaries of borough officials¿would not accept this outrageous proposal.
• 30 Linacre Road , London , NW2 5BB : It would be totally unacceptable and against the wishes of most residents if the old library were to be demolished. It is one of the most significant old buildings in the area and with a little imagination and a small extra cost, could easily be incorporated into the plans for a new centre. If Brent Planning approve this, there will no doubt be fierce opposition by various means and the decision will certainly be remembered at the next election. There is absolutely no excuse for this blatant architectural vandalism and profiteering so often seen in London and Brent have the power to ensure a compromise is agreed to keep the original small building which has graced our Willesden Green scenery since 1894.
• 142 Walm Lane , London , NW2 4RU : I stronly object to the demolition of this library. This library is the heart of our community. It has succeeded in inviting young people in as well as people of all ages and range of the community. I have never seen so many young people preferring to spend their day in this library than anywhere else. That is because the library is unique. It is truly pleasant, beautiful building, friendly atmosphere and it is also wonderfully organised. It organizes all kinds of events that interest all kinds of people. Due to this library we don't have antisocial behaviour in Willesden Green as young people prefer to spend their time in it than anywhere else. I would suggest to anyone who doubts the importance of this library, to go and spend one day in there. He or she will realize that this library is special. It is a meeting point where people can socialize and relax in a safe, pleasant and inspiring environment. This library is the heart of our community. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE IT AWAY FROM US!
• 142 Walm Lane , London , NW2 4RU : I strongly object to the demolition of this library. It is the heart of our community and a meeting point for people of all ages. It has succeeded in inviting young people in and keeping antisocial behaviour at bay. It is a beautiful building, with uniquely friendly and warm atmosphere, which organizes all kinds of interesting and beneficial events and seminars. If taken away, people will loose a vital part of their lives.
• 10 Balmoral Road , Willesden , London , NW2 5BT : I strongly object to the destruction of the original Library building , which has been an iconic landmark in the High Road for over a century. This council seems hell bent on destroying this boroughs heritage, despite the very vocal complete and united local opposition to its demolition. The local people do not want this building to disappear. It it not that long ago that the Library was rebuilt, and luckily the original entrance to the "old " building was saved and persevered for prosperity and future generations. This beautiful Victorian / Edwardian era building is a wonderful part of our borough and should be kept. Whose is to say in twenty year time you will not want to rebuild this one and waste even more of " our " money ( being the council tax payers of this borough).
• 7 Huddlestone Road , Willesden Green , London , NW2 5DL : I object to the application on a number of counts I am a concerned resident of Huddlestone Road Willesden Green. I am concerned that the proposed consultation on planning consent for the Willesden Green Library development runs contrary to Brent Councils policy on Conservation areas and would be as such a public law breach.  Although many elements of BE25 -27 apply to the proposed development I particularly want to bring your attention to BE27.  BE27 DEMOLITION & GAP SITES IN CONSERVATION AREAS Consent will not be given for the demolition of a building, or alteration involving demolition of part of a building, in a conservation area unless the building, or part of the building, positively detracts from the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. It clearly states that no consent can be given to the demolition of a building in a conservation area unless it positively detracts from the character or appearance of the conservation area. Given that the building is Victorian, and inside the conservation area, in good repair and locally listed it cannot be said to positively detract from the conservation area. Councillors should therefore not be put in the position of having to decide on its demolition. I would argue that until consultation on changing planning guidance for conservation areas takes place that this particular planning application, if it includes the Old (Victorian) Library at Willesden Green, represents a public law breach.  The loss of the building represents a loss of cultural heritage as it is a one of a small number of landmark buildings that act as the centre of Willesden Green. By removing the old library the conservation area will be markedly undermined. Secondly the proposed new building although full of council administrative facilities has less cultural amenities. The library is smaller and there is no cinema. It is unfortunate that this once vibrant building has been undermined by years of poor management. Thirdly the proposals represent a loss of gathering space. By moving the new building forward a valued public open space next to the high road will be lost. This space has been used more and more by markets and dining. Rather than taking this positive facility away from the community work should be done to increase usage.
• 9 Osborne Road NW2 5DR : The old Library is unarguably one of the most distinctive buildings in the area, and has considerable local interest for its characterful façade which provides an important focal point in the streetscape and surrounding conservation area. Its demolition will not be compensated by the erection of a new Cultural Centre for two main reasons. First, the new center fails to provide net gains for the community: residents will lose library footspace, a much-loved bookshop, a cinema, public parking, the only open public area in the neighborhood in front of the existing library. The only gains are for the Council in the form of offices and for private developers in the form of the luxury gated residential community they stand to profit from. Second, the old library is the only iconic historical building that gives Willesden Green a sense of place and identity. It plays a role akin to Harlesden Clock tower or the station parade in Kensal Rise, giving the neighbourhood a landmark building in an open area that offers residents of all backgrounds a sense of belonging, and the only breathing space on the High Road. The 1894 building represents the civic pride of Willesden Green, anchoring a historical continuity between successive communities that have come to this area to better themselves and their children. Demolishing it simply to make space for luxury flats at the rear of the new development is an insult to both the memory of working class residents who forked out to erect the library in the first place, and to current and future residents who wish to continue that legacy of collective self-improvement through learning.
• 9 Osborne Road NW2 5DR : I am writing to object to demolition of the old library. I have been a local resident for many years and have seen how this building adds to the appearance and welcome offered by the area in front of the current Willesden library. We have old and new together - symbolising for some that know- the long struggle for literacy in Brent supported by its residents. For others the Willesden Green landmark is used in local businesses on their advertising. If this building is demolished and replaced by the impersonal new Willesden library centre we lose sense of place and uniqueness that helps residents feel part of an area that is theirs and not run by big business with all the usual brand names littering where we live.
• 61 Chatsworth Rd , London , NW2 4BG : The old library building is one of the last preserved remnants of our architectural heritage left on Willesden High Rd. This characterful historic building is really the only beautiful building left in the area and it would simply be vandalism to demolish it. The hypocritical nature of the Councils proposal, that it's somehow OK for this important building to be knocked down beggars belief - it is not OK. The proposal to replace it with the new build would not only destroy the historic building with it's connection to the past, it would fundamentally change, forever, and for the worse, the character of Willesden. Currently the corner on which this wonderful building sits provides a rare and valued sense of space - it is an important open area which is vital to break up the "closed in" darkness that the rest of that stretch of High Road has. In addition, we would be left with a charmless anonymous modern building which has no architectural merit or innovative features of note - it could not possibly be said to provide an improvement of any kind to the area. I have used the library, and its excellent amenities, including the bookshop for many years and can see no valid reason for its replacement. Not only that, the current deficit of facilities caused by the shutdown of other local libraries would leave residents in this area without a valuable resource just when times are hard and access to library facilities are crucial for education and job seeking. It would be a waste of valuable resources to replace something that is very successful for the community already, with what you propose, at a time when we can't afford to make such costly mistakes. The way this project has been handled, with its sneaky introduction and continuation in the face of overwhelming public condemnation has angered many in the community. By all means build on the car park, but don't, please, damage Willesdens future by going any further than that. I object strongly to the proposal, it is simply short sighted and thoughtless for the future of Willesden and its residents.
• 8 Churchill Rd., Willesden, , London , NW2 5EA : This piece of Willesden's architectural character and history should not be destroyed.
• 51chesham street , London , London , Nw100au : Dear sir, The proposal to demolish the library cottage is not in the best interest of the area as this is English heritage site, which includes all the properties surrounding it and this includes the baptist church to the left and the police station, also those properties within site of the cottage. What would the planning committee like to de next, demolish the church and the police station ? We must conserve something of the old willedsden high road, too much demolition is not good for the generations to come. Yours sincerely Chris janes
• 40 Normanby Road , London , NW10 1BX: I object to plans to demolish the Victorian library building. The historical significance of the building stems from the fact it is a link to the area's origins and the building forms a key and integral part of the conservation area. Its significance in terms of its value to the community is clear and it is a significant and a recognised heritage asset because of its archaeological, architectural, artistic and historic contribution to the area. The building was designed by Newman and Newman, well-known architects whose London work helps define the architecture of the late Victorian period. It is original, being built at the time when Willesden Green was first developed, and it links to other notable buildings in the area (the church, the bank and the police station). On the Brent Council website the following text on Willesden Green appears (http://www.brent.gov.uk/tps.nsf/Conservation%20areas/LBB-283) in which the Council clearlystates that the Victorian library is listed as a building of note: ¿A Victorian commercial centre with buildings of note by several well-known architects: James Brooks, Newman and Newman and Gabriel contributed St. Andrews Church, the library, and the bank premises respectively.¿ It is a terrible idea to knock down preserved buildings in a conservattion area, and plans to demolish the old library building should not be approved by Brent Council.
• 79 Churchill Road , Willesden Green , London , NW2 5EG : This is one of the few distinctive and community-valued buildings in Willesden Green. It prevents the road becoming a dark corridor defined only by shadow and road traffic. The building appears is valuable to residents of all ages and backgrounds and in a democracy, their views must come first within their own community. It is an intrinsic element of the neighbourhood and the only clear landmark we in Willesden Green have. If Brent Council destroys this building, it will be clear sign that they believe heritage, community, and good architecture are for wealthy neighbourhoods only. The building could be incorporated into a 'hub' of buildings, and in this way it could continue to make a clear and valuable contribution to any library or cultural complex in this area of London. To demolish it would cause a great deal of pain to a large number of people.
• 54 Chatsworth Road , London , NW2 4DD : i wish to object. this is one of the finest buildings in the area, there are very few old buildings of character left in the area, the history of brent should be preserved not destroyed. the conservation was placed to save this and should be respected, there are many excellent new developments that integrate old interesting architecture into them rather than the lazy and unimaginative destruction. when looked at later it is always clear that the demolition was wrong, i come from a city the pulled down some of the finest victorian buildings of the industrial revolution in the 1960's and replaced them with ones that are now due for demolition, the old building left remain the citites finest. dont do this to brent deborah minchom
• 8A Harlesden Road , Willesden , London , NW10 2BX: I believe the old library is a heritage to this community and should not be demolished. I also believe the main building is too new and under developed and has not been allowed to reach its full potential. The library and archive are invaluable and not only myself but many of my friends use the existing services. The new plans are for financial gain only and not for the benefit of the "community". There are enough "multi cultural" site around here to cover the so called "minorities". The effect on traffic together with the ineffectual proposals in place will be worse. As I see it there will be no social housing provided, again a lack of investment in "council stock". There are enough problems with housing without adding more privatised households. I therefore object to the new proposals as they stand. Perhaps some Council homes to be made in the rear car park. A new initiative for the existing building, maybe the cinema being brought back to life as there is definitive need for that. Proper regeneration for the high road . Not a money making fund for the council and a private company. This is not what we pay our taxes for. It is about time OUR taxes were used for the total gain of the community not some land holders and a private company. Sincerely Paul Lovell
• 41 Staverton Road , LONDON , NW2 5HA : Well this is the 4th attempt in trying to submit an objection. Maybe it is a ruse so your passionate pleas to rethink this appalling scheme get diminished. As I wrote before Willesden Green library holds special memories for me bringing up my children in Willesden over the last 20 years. There were times when it was well run and they held poetry readings for children (I went to one with Michael Rosen it was brilliant), jazz evenings at the pub, films to be enjoyed and a fantastic selection of books/films and music. Over the years it has been run down and now I think that this was probably deliberate so as to make the passage smoother to bulldoze it down and erect a building which appears to have no soul - a design so out of keeping with our High Street. We have lovely old buildings, a few modern disasters given planning permission by previous deluded planners, and the library and old library blend into this and have become the focal point of Willesden. The proposal is appalling and you should all be ashamed of yourselves of selling our heritage for a short term return. We don't need more houses, especially as they are not being built for the young of Willesden who cannot afford them, we don't need a dated design blotting our High Street. But you got yourselves elected (narrowly) you have closed many libraries, and you feel you can do whatever you please. The consultation will go ahead - like Ken Livingstone's consultation on the extension of the congestion zone - and even if you get more people objecting you will tell us "well it was only a consultation it didn't mean we would take any notice" But please stop and think - once you pull it down you can't build it up again. Think of better usage and management - use the space well. Let us enjoy our bookshop and the amenities that could be. Be bold and stop this dreadful plan. How can you look at it and think that it is an improvement?? Another consideration is that you are going to leave this part of the borough without a library whilst you carry out this vandalism. Where are the people going to go ..... it is so central to schools, buses and has a car park ..... it is madness. How proud you will feel when your legacy is that of destroying the heart of Willesden? But you probably don't live here.
• 27 Harlesden Road , London , NW10 2BY: 1. The old library building is a unique and valued part of Willesden's history and heritage. It is also the only remaining part of the old library which was built by local people to enhance their educational prospects and stands as a tribute to working-class aspirations. It was locally-listed by Brent Council and I am appalled that elected councillors are now willing to remove this local listing and destroy our local heritage for short-term benefit. 2. The appearance of the old library building is in keeping with the rest of the High Road and is unique to Willesden. The new building does not fit in with the existing streetscape and will turn Willesden into yet another cheap and nasty town centre likely to only attract anti-social behaviour.
• 15 Grange Road NW10 , London , : I would like to bring the right to light law to your attention, as it states if you have enjoyed the right to light in front of our house for over 20 years and we also own our property. Please read below the laws regarding the rights to light and you will agree that we have a case. Regarding no 15 this building does not effect us personally now or before, but the proposal on block B directly opposite my property is set as a 5 storey building and the 5th is set back and that will tower our house and block the sun light, which we have enjoyed the sun light through the windows for over 20 years. RIGHT OF LIGHT Basic Information Detail A Right of Light is protected in England and Wales under common law, adverse possession or by the Prescription Act 1832. Unlike right to freedom from smell and noise, a Right of Light has to be acquired before it can be enforced. Natural light is a commodity that can be bought, sold or even transferred between parties. Rights can be registered, granted by deed or simply acquired by having a minimum of 20 years enjoyment of light through a window or opening. Once a window has received over 20 years of unobstructed daylight, it automatically earns itself a Right of Light. Such rights are, for Land Registration purposes, overriding interests. They are valid whether or not they are registered on the title deeds to the property which claims the right. A development may be prevented due to a Right of Light, even if Planning Permission has been granted by the Local Authority. If a new building limits the amount of light coming in through a window and the level of light inside falls below the accepted level, then this constitutes an obstruction. Unless the owner of the affected window waives his rights he would be entitled to take legal action against the landowner if he considered that his light is being blocked. To complicate matters further, the law recognises that some loss of light is acceptable and the fact that there is less light does not necessarily give a land owner a right to complain. The general rules are: 1) The reduction in light must make the property less fit than it was for its purpose. 2) The amount of "appropriate" light may vary depending upon building, use and even region. 3) The amount of light considered to be sufficient will tend to increase as standards of living and expectations increase. Any kind of 'development' can potentially block light. For instance: A new shed Garden walls Extensions Part of a new housing or commercial development. This may prevent a proposal from the erection of a building or extension that will significantly reduce the level of daylight to an adjoining window. Therefore if a neighbour has a window that might have acquired a Right to Light it is important to take this into consideration; the neighbour may have a case for compensation or for negotiating changes to the development. Most cases usually involve a combination of both. Taken to an extreme this could mean the removal of offending development. House extensions are a common cause of right to light disputes as homeowners may employ a local building firm to extend their property without appreciating the development could affect their neighbours. The most common problem is where the neighbour has a window to the side of their house to which the light is blocked by a high wall. On a small building project people rarely employ professional advisors and the first they know of a problem is when they receive a letter from their neighbour's solicitor. In any proposed development, it is vital that investigations are made to ensure that adjoining owners do not have rights which may prevent build.
• 99 Bryan Avenue , London , NW10 2AS: I do not agree with: - Demolition of the old library building - Erection of flats which leads to loss of car parking space - Loss of bookshop in the centre