Reasons for deferral or even pulling out?

Philip Grant writes:

I have just received the following email, which gives at least one "technical reason" why the two WGLC applications have been deferred from the meeting on Wednesday 13 February, although it suggests that there is still some doubt over whether the new meeting will be on Thursday 21 February.

Dear Mr Grant 

You will hopefully have been notified earlier today that both applications have been deferred for consideration tomorrow and instead will be reported to a future meeting.  The date of the meeting will be notified to all who have expressed views on the application including yourself. 

One of the consequences of deferral will be to allow amendment and updates to the reports including reference to the Secretary of State on the Conservation Consent item.  I will update you once this has been done. 

Kind regards 

Chris WalkerAssistant Director (Planning & Development)

This reply follows exchanges of emails I have had with Mr Walker since the Planning Officer's report on the Conservation Area Consent application (12/2925) appeared on the Planning Committee agenda website.

I had pointed out that the recommendation made in the report, that Planning Committee should resolve to agree the Consent application in principle was unlawful, as only the Secretary of State, not Brent's Planning Committee, has authority to give any decision on this application. This had been agreed by Mr Walker, on behalf of then Chief Executive Gareth Daniel, as far back as May 2012, and Mr Walker had confirmed in November 2012, that this still applied to the new application for consent to partial demolition of the 1894 Library building.

All that is actually needed on this application is a brief report to Planning Committee, advising them that they need to refer it to the Secretary of State, and making provision for Mr Walker to implement the SoS's decision once he has made it.

Although the meeting may only be deferred for a week, it means that the proposed redevelopment of WGLC will not have received planning permission by the first anniversary of the Development Agreement between Brent Council and Galliford Try (signed 15 February 2012). This means that either party can now cancel that agreement, as planning approval within twelve months was a "condition precedent". It does not mean that either of them will pull out, but it may be worth mentioning this to your local councillors as an option they may like to consider, to stop wasting even more money on this ill-considered project.

 

Willesden Green planning application deferred to February 21st

The Galliford Try planning application for the Wiillesden Green flats and library development has been deferred until February 21st for 'technical reasons'.  KWG campaigners have raised various issues about the legal status of the  application over the last week or so.

The email from Democratic Services to councillors on the Planning Committee is below:

Dear Member,

Due to technical reasons, the planning applications for Willesden Green Library (references 12/2924 and 12/2925) will be deferred from tomorrow night’s meeting.  As the applications will still need to be considered at the earliest possible time following tomorrow’s meeting, the Chair has asked me to confirm your availability on Thursday 21 February 2013 for the special meeting.

If for any reason you will not be able to attend the meeting please consider asking your alternate. I would appreciate it if you could respond to this request at the earliest opportunity preferably before 10:00am tomorrow morning.

Joe Kwateng

Democratic Services Officer

Legal & Procurement Department

( Direct Line: 020 8937 1354
joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk

Council says that Galliford Try's WGLC planning application is valid

Philip Grant writes:

I received an emailed letter on Monday evening from Brent's chief legal officer, Fiona Ledden, confirming the chief planning officer's view that Galliford Try's revised planning application (12/2924) is valid, despite its red site boundary line enclosing a larger area than that agreed by Brent's Executive  in January 2012, and which was the basis of the site to be used for the proposed redevelopment.

 

Her letter contains a new and interesting reason for why the site boundary was changed. She now says that: 'the Council as “Local Planning Authority” needed to re-define the site boundary due to highway considerations.' Last week Galliford Try told the local "Observer" newspaper that they had submitted new site boundary plans, at the request of council officers, because they 'will be undertaking significant landscaping improvements to the area around the cultural centre, including a section of Grange Road, to the benefit of the local community.'

 

Brent's spokesperson told the newspaper that 'the re-consultation was undertaken because of a technical boundary change' which did not actually affect the proposed works which would be carried out. Fiona Ledden added in her letter to me: 'You will appreciate it is not uncommon for an application of this type to have subsequent minor revisions where necessary.'

 

So, it was all a misunderstanding (!?). I will take this opportunity to pass on a message of reassurance that Ms Ledden gave me:

'The Council is dealing with a complex planning application. It has two distinct roles in the matter, namely as “local planning authority” and “landowner”. With reference to the former, may I take this opportunity to reassure you that as the Council’s Monitoring Officer, my role is to ensure that due process and transparency is followed by the Council throughout the planning regime having regard to planning policy government guidance and statute, namely the various provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.'

We can all go along to the Planning Committee meeting on Wednesday evening, confident that the planning application will be dealt with fairly and openly.

Willesden Town Square Inquiry opens today - public welcome

The Public Inquiry into the application to register the space outside Willesden Green Library a Town Square opens this morning at 10am on the 1st floor of the Willesden Green Library Centre.

The public are welcome to attend.

Is the proposed library building big enough?

Residents speak out on unaffordable housing and 'bogus' letters

Planning Committee site visit to WGLC on February 9th

Please note that there will be a Planning Committee site visit on Saturday 9th February at 9.45am to Willesden Green Library Centre, Public Square and Car Park. Apparently the Council has just changed the committee rules in a way that "applications may not be discussed at that time". However at the end of the visit " the applicant and a representative of the objectors may briefly draw attention to any aspect of the site that is relevant...

GT comment on 'suspicious' surge in support for their development

Kilburn Times 31.1.13

Galliford Try the soft soap on land grab

Thanks to James Thurber

 In response to our 'land grab' story below Linden Homes released the following statement:

+++STOP PRESS: Galliford Try Statement in response to recent land acquisition claim

 ‘This claim is completely misleading - Galliford Try is not receiving or acquiring any further land from Brent Council.

We were asked by officers, just before Christmas, to resubmit drawings for the planning application. Those revised drawings show an amended red line around the development site which reflects the fact that Galliford Try will be undertaking significant landscaping improvements to the area around the Cultural Centre, including a section of Grange Road, to the benefit of the local community. Consultees have been informed of this change in line with statutory planning procedure.’

 Kate Spence has issued the following rejoinder:

The original area of the WGCC site allocated for WGCC works and attendant housing scheme was clearly defined by an edged and cross-hatched area on Plan A and presented to an Exec committee in Jan 2012.

The brief from Brent Council to the tendering developers and the agreement signed with Galliford Try required the provision of an improved public realm WITHIN the constraints of this hatched area. The brief required parking spaces for 8 cars, 2 library vans and cycle parking. It also required good out door amenity for children and teens. There was never an agreement that the boundaries of the site could be expanded in order to provide these essential requirements.

Currently the play provision for younger children on the site is 50 sq m of safe, fenced play ground. The land at the end of Grange Road is a safe, calm pedestrianised highway giving the benefit of uncluttered and neutral space facilitating cohesion to the High Road.  This is now to be cluttered by cycle parking and pavement play interventions which should have been accommodated within the agreed site leaving a calm area at the High Road end of Grange Road. 

We would welcome an improved public realm. There is nothing that the adjacencies of a cycle route, pavement play interventions and reduced pedestrian highway offer as an improvement to the stretch of land at the end of Grange Road. 

If there had been a smaller area of land made available for housing, then there would have been sufficient space to include these essential requirements within the agreed red boundary.  There should also be provision for 8 parking spaces on the site. 

The brief was written to protect public interest. Surely, Brent Council cannot approve a scheme that so clearly deviates from the agreed contract and their own brief.

Formal challenge issued on validity of Willesden Green planning application

 This is the text of an email sent by Philip Grant to Chris Walker, Brent's Assistant Director Planning and Development, on 23 January 2013:-

VALIDITY OF WILLESDEN GREEN LIBRARY CENTRE PLANNING APPLICATION
REF. 12/2924

Further to my email yesterday, forwarding a copy of an email I had sent to Andy Bates,  I am writing to formally question the validity of planning application 12/2924 (made in the name of Galliford Try Plc) for the proposed redevelopment of Willesden Green Library Centre.

This application was received by Brent Planning Service on 2 November 2012, and validated on the same day, even though it took until 15 November to load all of the supporting documents onto your website. At some later stage, however, one of your Planning Officers either realised, or had brought to their attention by a comment made in respect of the application, that this application, as it stood, was not a valid one.

Having reviewed the Department of Communities and Local Government document "Guidance on Information Requirements and Validation" via the Planning Portal website, I can see why this application, as submitted, was not valid.

• Paragraph 40 makes clear that among 'the information required to make a valid planning application' is the 'mandatory national information requirements specified in the GDPO.'
• Para. 44 says: 'The GDPO requires applicants to submit “a plan which identifies the land to which the application relates”. This is interpreted as a location plan and a site plan.'
• Para. 46 states: 'The application site should be edged clearly with a red line. It should include all land necessary to carry out the proposed development – for example, land required for access to the site from a public highway, visibility splays, landscaping, car parking and open areas around buildings.'

The site plan originally submitted failed to include all of the land necessary to carry out the proposed development, because it did not, among other things, include land in Grange Road on which development forming an integral part of the application proposals would be carried out.

Having discovered that an application which had been treated as valid was in fact invalid, it appears that the applicant was invited by one of your Planning Officers to "correct" the site plan. As Andy Bates explained to me in his email of 21 January:

'I am happy to confirm that ... the revised plans amended the red line to include all the land that forms the application site. Previously, the northern end of Grange Road was shown as being the subject of future highway works that formed part of the development site, but not within the red line. Planning Officers requested that this site plan be corrected and it was on this basis that the new batch of plans was submitted.'

As a result, revised plans were submitted, including site plans with a new red line site boundary, just before Christmas 2012, with the revised site plans uploaded onto your website on 24 December 2012.  This revised application must therefore be treated as replacing the invalid application of 2 November 2012.

The question now shifts to whether this revised application is valid. On the technical grounds that the revised site plan now 'includes all land necessary to carry out the proposed development', it would appear to be valid, but my email yesterday to Andy Bates highlighted a further point. For ease of reference, I will repeat the main points of my argument on this aspect of the "site plan".

The site plan showing the site available to the proposed development partner for the Willesden Green Library Centre redevelopment was shown as plan A at Appendix 1 of the report by Andrew Donald, Director of Regeneration and Major Projects, to Brent's Executive on 16 January 2012. In that report, Mr Donald made specific reference to the red line site boundary, as follows:

4.18 Following the Executive approval of February 2011 the Council also reviewed the red line site boundary of the site. In order to maximise viability it was decided to incorporate Chambers Lane - the land marked crossed hatched black on plan C at Appendix 1 - within the WGLC site, as shown edged black in the plan A at Appendix 1. In February 2011 the Executive had previously authorised the Assistant Director of Regeneration & Major Projects (Property & Assets) to dispose of the land at Chambers Lane Willesden Green shown crossed edged black on plan C at Appendix 1 with vacant possession by way of auction.

4.19 In June 2011, having defined the site and the Council's requirements for the cultural centre, a tender process was followed in accordance with the HCA DPP Framework procurement procedures, a framework which the HCA has set up already under the EU procurement rules.

This extract confirms that the "defined" site marked by the red line (as edged and cross hatched in black on Plan A) was the redevelopment site on offer to the developer. Brent Executive's decision on this point (from item 5, Willesden Green Redevelopment Project, of the minutes of their meeting on 16 January 2012) is recorded as:

'that the Director of Regeneration and Major Projects in consultation with Director of Legal & Procurement be authorised to award and enter into a Development Agreement with Galliford Try Plc in respect of the Willesden Green Library Centre site as shown crossed hatched black in the plan A at Appendix 1; such agreement to provide for the acquisition of the land as shown edged blue and green in the plan B at Appendix 1 and the development of a new cultural centre within the land as shown edged orange in the plan B at Appendix 1.'

You will note that the Executive only authorised an agreement with Galliford Try Plc 'in respect of the Willesden Green Library Centre site as shown cross hatched black in the plan A at Appendix 1'. The original site plan submitted for this application on 2 November 2012 did show a red line boundary which matched that approved by Brent's Executive.

I am not aware of any further authority given by Brent's Executive to allow the red boundary line to be altered in order to enlarge the site. What appears to have happened is that Galliford Try Plc and Brent's Regeneration Department have failed to fit all of the "Council Works" required by their Development Agreement onto the 2170 square metres of the 7795 sqm Willesden Green Library Centre site which was allocated as the land for those works. In order to "deliver" those works, they have moved some of the proposed facilities onto public highway land at the north end of Grange Road, outside of the site boundary.

Although the "correction" to the red site boundary line contained in the revised plans brings all of the proposed development within the red line on the site plan, that site plan does not show the site boundary as put forward by the Director of Regeneration and Major Projects, agreed by Brent's Executive, and set out in the Development Agreement. I would submit that the revised application of around 24 December 2012, which replaced the invalid application of 2 November 2012, is itself invalid, because it purports to show a site boundary which is not the actual site boundary.

I will forward a copy of this email to Joe Kwateng, at Democratic Services, so that he can consider whether this is a valid application which should go forward to Planning Committee. I will also ask him to consider whether, if it is valid, it can go before that Committee on Wednesday 13 February, as Public Notice of the revised application will not be published in the local press until tomorrow, 24 January 2013, so that the extended Public Consultation Period will not end until 14 February 2013.

Galliford Try grab more Willesden land

Kate Spence writes:

The site plan below shows land to be assigned for development by a partnering developer in Willesden Greeen as agreed by the Executive Committee in February 2012. This plan was drawn up in order to define the land made available in order to deliver a new Cultural Centre at zero cost. The contracted developer, Galliford Try  agreed to provide a new Centre that would add cultural benefit to the area, the public realm was to be enhanced and at the same time Council offices would be provided to provide a South of Borough presence for Brent Council. In order to deliver the project at zero cost, a master plan was agreed by Regeneration Team and the developer to provide private housing to fund the project.

I note from Andy Bates'  letter of 27th December that, almost one year on, there is now further land required for disposal to Galliford Try in order that proposed new Planning Application 12/2924 & 12/2925 can meet Planning Regulations. There has been no question of the rear line of the Cultural Centre being adjusted to allow for public provision as this would decrease the space available for private housing and therefore reduce developer profit.

The developer has also not shown any willingness to reduce profit and include a basement to house archive and museum allowing better provision for public amenity. Instead it has been agreed, behind closed doors, that yet more Public High Road, Conservation Area open space should be assigned to Galliford Try for development purposes.

In the proposed plans the developer has failed to make space for adequate on-site car parking provision, they are also unable to deliver cycle parking.  I can see that the proposed plans for Grange Road include cycle parking and therefore a cycle route.

Currently the Grange Road area is enjoyed as a safe pedestrianised walkway. Will the inclusion of a cycle route and parking enhance this area and do the proposed children's pavement interventions really sit safely alongside the cycle access? This appears to be yet another ill-conceived plan which does not offer public benefit and will not enhance the area. 

Has the post-contractual decision to give over yet further public land to achieve a large housing development with small Cultural Centre been formally authorised by the Executive? 

Clearly the allocated site was insufficient for the proposed public facility along side the private housing and therefore yet more public land has been assigned without consultation in order to achieve a positive outcome for the applications ref 12/2924 and 12/ 2925. 

The goal posts seem to have moved in order to facilitate an untenable application and the basis on which the WGCC and housing contract was signed with Galliford Try has been adjusted in order to make the unacceptable plans viable. This alteration has been agreed by a Council who claim to be impartial in their assessment of the scheme.

I do hope that when the scheme is presented to the Planning Committee that there will be a more objective approach and the developers requirement for additional public land in order to meet their objectives, will be highlighted in the Planning officers report to the Committee.

Harrow Observer on Willesden Town Square Public Enquiry

From the Harrow Observer website:

Keep Willesden Green inquiry set for next year

Dec 28 2012 By Hannah Bewley 

AN INQUIRY in to an application to turn an area outside Willesden Green Library in to a public square has been adjourned until next month.

Martin Redston applied to Brent Council to have the public space outside the library in High Road, Willesden, to be officially designated as a public square in order to protect the building.

After being told the inquiry would take place in December, Mr Redston was given two weeks to prepare reams of legal papers to back up his case, but asked for an adjournment so he could consult specialist lawyers and prepare witness statements.

Mr Redston, who runs a civil and structural engineering business, said: “This has been dragging on since March and it is a very long process. We now have until February to prepare all the documents and our argument.”

Mr Redston’s application will be decided by Brent Council and could potentially have implications for a planning application which is lodged with the council by developers Galliford Try to demolish the southern side of the library, which was built in the 1980s, and redevelop the entire site into nine blocks of flats and a cultural centre with library.

This is the second application from developers Galliford Try after the initial application was withdrawn and revised to retain the Victorian section of the building, which sits within the Willesden Green Conservation Area.

There has been widespread opposition from users who want to retain the buildings and Sarah Teather, Liberal Democrat MP for Brent Central, has also objected.

A decision will be made on the planning application on February 13 – the same week the inquiry hearing is due to take place.

A spokesman for Linden Homes, a sister company of Galliford Try, said: “It is too early to comment on the outcome of the public enquiry.”

Two objections have been lodged against the proposal to designate the area in front of the 1983 library a public square, from Linden Homes and Brent Council.

Mr Redston, who is part of the Keep Willesden Green campaign, is hoping neighbours will back his case and will be able to prove they use the area ‘as of right’ in order to get the status.

The campaigner is not sure how much the whole process will cost, but it could run in to tens of thousands of pounds and Mr Redston said the group is considering launching a fundraising campaign to cover this, if necessary.

To have your say see www.keepwillesdengreen.blogspot.co.uk

More evidence needed as date set for Town Square Inquiry

The full hearing of Martin Redston's application, on behalf of all Willesden Green residents, to have the open space in front of the Willesden Green Library Centre registered as a Town or Village Green, will now begin on Monday 11th February 2013. It will be held in Space 2, on the first floor of the Library Centre, starting at 10am, and may last for up to four days. The independent Inspector who is holding the Public Inquiry has issued full details of how it will be organised and dealt with (see pdf link below for details).

 

Martin will be up against barristers representing both Brent and Linden Homes (Galliford Try), and has to submit all of his written evidence statements by Friday 18th January. It would help his case if he had more evidence from inhabitants of the "core" area of Willesden Green around the High Road. There are many objectors to the WGCC planning application who have put comments online, with addresses that fall within this area.

 

Roads that crop up at least once, often several times are: Brondesbury Park, Bryan Avenue, Chambers Lane, Churchill Road, Grange Road, Kings Road, Lechmere Road, Osborne Road, Peter Avenue, St Andrew's Road, St Paul's Avenue and Sandringham Road. If you are one of these people, or know them, and you or they could provide any evidence of the use of the town square for lawful sports or pastimes at any time since 1991, please let Martin have details as soon as possible. It doesn't matter if you cannot attend the Public Inquiry, or would not wish to speak at it - a simple signed written statement would be a great help.

 

Any such statement should give:

• the name and address of the person making it;
• what their connection is with the Willesden Green area, and the open space;
• what pastimes (for example, standing or sitting and talking with friends, sitting to read a book or magazine, any organised game or activity) they have enjoyed in the space, and (roughly) how often;
• what pastimes they have seen other people enjoying there, how many people, and (if known) whether or not they were local people from the Willesden Green area;
• whether anyone (Council staff or police) have ever tried to stop them or others from indulging in the pastimes they have enjoyed in this open space; and
• what periods of time (approximate start and end dates) their experience of the pastimes described covers.

Town Square Enquiry adjourned until February 2013

Cllr Muhammed Butt addresses 100 Days Of Peace Rally in the Town Square

 The Public Enquiry into the application to register the space outside Willesden Green Library as a Town Square  has been adjourned until February 2013 on the grounds that the applicant was not given enough time to prepare the case.

A preliminary hearing will be still be held on Monday December 17th, 10am Studio 2, Willesden Green Library Centre. This will hear directions from the Inspector to the parties concerned. The meeting is open to the public.

The delay has implications for the timetable for the planning application for redevelopment of the site and the building of 95 homes as the developer's plans involves building on the Town Square.

Evidence of the use of the Town Square can therefore continue to be sent to Martin Redston mredston@compuserve.com as signed PDFs with any photographic evidence.

Comments are also still possible on the planning application and can be sent to andy.bates@brent.gov.uk (Reference 12/2924 12/2925)

Revised plans submitted for Cultural Centre

Brent Council has released the following statement:

A revised planning application to redevelop Willesden Library and replace it with a state of the art cultural centre was submitted last Wednesday (31 October).

The application, which was submitted by developer Galliford Try, details proposals to deliver a brand new library and cultural centre that will act as the main service delivery hub for the south of the borough.

The proposed revised design is a result of extended consultation with the local community which took place over August and September and includes the old Victorian library as part of the plans.

Brent has secured a self-financing scheme which involves working with developer partner, Galliford Try, to deliver the new cultural centre in return for developing homes on the remainder of the current site for market sale.

For the past few month residents have met with council officers and Galliford Try to revisit the original design and discuss alternative proposals for the new centre and its design.

In response to the recent extended period of consultation Brent has made several changes to the design, including;

• completely redesigning the scheme to include the old library
• increasing the size of the new library within the centre
• creating room for more study spaces and computers
• changing the brief for the building so that it could, potentially, include a bookshop.

The proposals for the centre also include a children's library,  IT provision, museum, community gallery, archive, archive store, three community spaces (which will provide an array of programmed creative events), café/ bookshop, multi faith contemplation room and high quality public spaces designed for markets and events.

Cllr George Crane Lead Member for Regeneration and Major Projects said: "Thank you to the many residents who got involved in consultation and gave up their time to help us develop plans for this new centre."

If the project gets the green light the council hopes to build on its close working with stakeholders to develop the building proposals including how it is may be used and managed.

Link to Planning site: 12./2924 LINK   12/2925  LINK

New Willesden Green designs to be consulted about on September 25th

Following the consultations on Willesden Green earlier this month I have now received the following letter:

Dear Resident,

Following the withdrawal of the planning application for the proposed new Willesden Green Cultural Centre in July, Brent Council and Galliford Try have engaged in further consultation with the community. During this process fresh ideas and perspectives were sought for how the building should look and what role it should play in the area. This consultation process has yielded a new set of potential designs and we would like to invite you to a consultation session to view these plans.

You will be able to see the latest plans and meet with the project team to discuss them at an event to be hosted at the Library Lab on the 25^th September 2012, between 5.00 pm and 8.00 pm. Further to this, the plans will be available throughout October in the Library Lab as well as the foyer of the Willesden Green Library.  

We hope to see you at the event and look forward to discussing this latest stage of planning. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Best wishes,

The Project Team

The case for Willesden Green Town Square

Martin Redston has sent the following response to Linden Home's objection to the application to designate the area outside Willesden Green Library as a Town Square:

I have been notified of one objection to my Town Square Application. This has been submitted by Jeremy Alden of Linden Homes. I would comment as follows:

The application for Town Square status was submitted by me as a resident of Willesden Green for more than 35 years. I have always lived within walking distance of the Square and have used it at least once a week for most of each year since it was first constructed in about 1986.I use it for meeting friends, reading books when sunny, walking and attending events. As far as I am aware Jeremy Alden has no relationship with the locality as he has a home address in Guildford Surrey. I also understand that he is writing as a representative of Linden Homes, a non-trading subsidiary of Galliford Try who have a registered address in Uxbridge Middlesex. I would suggest that neither Jeremy Alden or Linden Homes were in any way interested in Willesden Green until 2011 when Galliford Try were selected by Brent Council to construct housing units on the majority of the site and construct a small library facility over the open area at the front overlooking the High Road. I would therefore question the interest that Jeremy Alden has indicated in this area and would suggest that it is motivated purely by short term financial interest rather than any long term community concern.

My detailed response to Jeremy Alden's objections are shown using his numbering:

1. My name is Martin Redston (not Michael)

2. It is a fact that the area has been used for public activities since 1986

3. A selection of names were appended to my application in order to demonstrate the continued use of the Square for more than twenty years. These are not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive.

4. This procedure is as set out in the Defra Guidance notes and indicated in my application

5.1 There are many dictionary definitions of pastime. However this has been tested in Court. Thus the case of R v Oxfordshire County Council and another ..etc clearly sets out the definition of pastime relevant to this particular issue, which includes standing and taking in the atmosphere, walking, sitting, dog walking etc. It does not have to be structured games playing.

5.2 The main use for the area is not just the holding of markets. This is one clearly identifiable pastime that can be easily documented and falls within the R v Oxfordshire etc case precedent.

5.3 If a community member attends a market, I am sure that there are plenty of opportunities to play with children, walking and the like.

5.4 Sitting, playing football and cricket are all relevant pastimes. I am sure that other people have so used the area over the last twenty years. My application only provides a few examples.

5.5 Why is petitioning not a pastime? Many people consider political activities a recreational activity because they are pursued outside their working day. I would refer to such National Open Spaces as Trafalgar Square and Speakers Corner in Hyde Park which are clearly designated for pursuing political activities, petitioning, listening to speakers and the like. The absence or otherwise of a right of way does not preclude registration, as noted in the case of Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd v East Sussex County Council.

5.6  A Right of Way is only part of a wider use for the area. However it is clear that the general public have walked across the Square ever since it was created. In fact the square was specifically created by Brent Council for this walking and gathering by the public as a general amenity. In the recent case of Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd v East Sussex County Council it was established that where no signs are in place indicating the nature of the space there can be no bar to registration.

6.1 A significant number is not defined. However It is easy to observe a continual throughput of pedestrians walking over the area on any day of the week. People are observed to be meeting each other, sitting and talking. It is important to recognise that the area is an excellent definable area for people from out of town to meet friends as it is easily seen from the High Road and can be described as a prominent location at the junction of two main roads and opposite the Post Office. It is ideal for people to wait and congregate with kids and buggies. Elderly people often stand or sit there to sort out their pension money and rest with their bags after going to the Post Office.

6.2 The area is in Willesden Green.

6.3 It is clearly demonstrated that the use of the area has been by a significant number of the locality. I have provided a small sample of pictures taken at a local event in March. There have been two events at least since that date. The objector does not have any evidence to back up his statement.

6.4 There is no necessity to produce reams of paper with names of people who have used the square over twenty years. This was tested in the Case of McAlpine v Staffordshire (2009) which helped to define the concept of significant numbers. In that case only 16 people produced evidence, but these were accepted as typical. Does the objector have any evidence that hundreds of people do not use the square each week?

6.4.1 The resident from Edgware is actually someone who lives close to the Brent border, he attends many events in the area and on the Square. He is representative of all other people who would be disadvantaged if the square were to be built over. This indicates that the area has great importance to the wider community.

6.4.2 The five people noted on the sheet all live in roads in the locality. The lack of a postcode does not invalidate their evidence. The roads noted are:

Chandos Road (NW2)

Kings Road (NW10)

Donnington Road (NW10)

Dundonald Road (NW6)

St Gabriels (NW2)

Leighton Gardens (NW10)

Perhaps the objector should have checked his facts before writing this.

6.4.3 In fact all the people that I approached (apart from Edgware) were chosen because they specifically live in the area. Many more people would be pleased to declare their use of the space. However as noted in  McAlpine v Staffordshire etc it is unnecessary and impracticable to obtain the names of everybody that may have used the area. After all it should be noted that some may have already passed away and others may have been babies or toddlers when first using the area and would not necessarily remember the details. It is only necessary to indicate that the area has been used by the public generally during the qualifying period and this is indeed the case and cannot be refuted.

6.5 Under the Defra gudelines it is not necessary to obtain evidence from all residents in an area. In fact if only one new local person each day for twenty years visited the square this would make a total of about 7000 new visitors to add to the regular attendees. Because the area is in the public domain, not fenced off and used as of right this point is clearly demonstrated by observation on any day of the week.

7.1 The period runs since the area was completed and opened to the public by Brent Council in about 1986.

7.2. It is not necessary to ensure that the same people used the area throughout. As stated above, I personally have used it throughout the period on a regular basis. Some will be new to the locality, some people may have moved away or deceased. Some have been born or moved into the area. This indicates a typical  fluid population all who have free access to the area. Many people will have moved into the area because the amenity is available, it would be a reduction in their quality of life if it were removed. However I now enclose verbatim evidence provided by a local resident indicating use for 'pastimes' throughout the period:

I grew up on Staverton Road and in the 1980s. I often waited for friends on the area at the front of the library.  As a fledgling music professional, it struck me as kind of poetic when during the late Nineties, a group of boys started hanging out at the front of the library, practising their breakdancing moves while Run DMCs It's Like That pumped out of their boombox (or did they still call them ghetto blasters back then?). It wasn't exactly to the standard of that video, but the kids provided plenty of entertainment to those of us who stopped to spectate! I continued to sit in the Town Square and when returning from music gigs I would use the area to sit, relax and read.

Six years ago, when I was on maternity leave with my second child, I would often walk down from my new home in Normanby Road with the pram and my toddler to do the shopping for the next few days. I do have a car, but when you're cooped up at home with a baby and an active toddler, you are happy to take a long time to carry out any chores that get you out of the house. 

Once you get past Willesden bus garage, the pavement is narrow and cluttered and it's a real obstacle course getting past bus queues, roadworks and even prams coming in the other direction! It's a very busy road with heavy traffic and my daughter would have to walk obediently clutching the side of the pram, under strict rules to stay out of the way of both pedestrians and traffic.

The area outside the library was like an oasis. My daughter could finally be let to run around, balance on the walls and jump from paving stone to paving stone. Routinely, this would be followed by a trip to the library, the bookshop (now gone), and then the round of butcher's, greengrocers (now gone), bakery and fishmongers (now gone). Then we would go back to the Town Square for another runaround, (often having a chat with other mums who will have seen us as they wheeled past on their own high-street shopping trip)  before setting off on the slow stroll home. A modest afternoon's activity, to be sure, but car-free and putting money in the tills of local businesses.

Its should also be noted that school groups use the space to assemble before crossing the high road after visits to sports centre and museum eg a safe gathering point. For Example St Mary Magdelene school do this all the time. 

I also enclose in Appendix A below an article by Zadie Smith who is a notable Willesden resident who spent her formative years living a few doors away from WGLC and has written this for the New York Review of books. The first seven paragraphs are relevant to my application.

7.3 There is no necessity for typical pastimes to run continuously or remain unchanged through the period. There is reference to a table to be produced by the Council...what is this please? I have not been given a copy.

8.1 to 8.10 These items all indicate continued and gradually increased use of the area for community activities. The list does not include the sizeable gathering of the community on the weekend when the library was opened 23 years ago. There has also been a more recent activity of Wassailing in 2010. 2011 and 2012, this has not been continuing for twenty years but it has demonstrated the increasing community activity in a multicultural locality. I am sure that other activities will be forthcoming in the future. 

8.11 Kids play has been continuing since 1986.

8.12 Public seating (on walls etc) has been available since 1986.

8.13. These activities have probably been going on for more than 20 years. Any open space will attract ball play activities. These are not proscribed in this area. The temporary arts installation (December 2011 to July 2012) was in a  particular area of the square and there was still plenty of adjacent room nearby, the two activities survived together without any conflict.

9. All of these activities are demonstrated to have been used continually. So the objection is wrong. The objector is exceedingly new to the area and probably has not actually attended or observed on a regular basis. He is in no position to judge.

10. All activities have been attended by the public as of right. I have never been asked to apply for a licence to walk, talk, read, sit, walk a dog, play with my children, attend an event or petition in the Square during the twenty six years of its existence. There are no notices posted in the area indication the requirement for a licence. The area is free and unencumbered for the use by members of the public. It is not fenced. It was created for public use.

10.1 to 10.15. I assume that stallholders require trading licences and/or music licences for their activities in accordance with the relevant consumer law as they would anywhere, but no licence is required by the public to attend. The objector is incorrect in using the word licence out of context here.

10.2. The Art installation may have been organised by the Council, but nobody needed permission to attend it or view it. In fact the Council clearly understood the significance of the square as a free public gathering place and wanted to provide an amenity for local people to freely view. So the objector is wrong.

10.3 These activities are typical example. It is clear that sitting has continued throughout the last twenty six years as indeed witnessed by myself over many years.The Square hosts many parades and events that could not be facilitated without the open space. It is an essential part of Willesden daily life. This is not a village green application. It is unnecessary to prove that people have been gathering to play cricket, tennis and boules in order to justify an urban town square. This was clearly demonstrrated by the Court in the recent case of Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd v East Sussex County Council. It should be noted that other events recently have included the Wassail, tree planting at the front of the library  (Appendix B), Green Fair (Appendix C), Reclaim the Streets (attended by local councillors and the council leader) and the like. The space is neutral ground and a place where paths cross genially. This is very important in an increasingly multi cultural neighbourhood. The square is very lively and active, particularly on a Friday evening when pedestrians make their way to various religious buildings in the locality. 

10.4 How can the objector state that you can play football or cricket accidentally when visiting a library? The entrance to the library is off the square, and the two activities have continued separately anyway.

10.5 It is patronising to state that there is a lack of space. In fact there is plenty of place for games if taken in the context of a crowded inner city environment. Unlike leafy Surrey, the population in this locality needs to retain every piece of open land for recreational use, not allow building to take place on it.

10.6 I do not have to prove that these activities were instigated as of right. The objector has not proved the opposite. The fact that people have freely ranged, unchallenged across this area is adequate proof of the right. There is no evidence whatever that the activities were carried out under licence. The objector is well aware of this fact.

11 The Conclusion is completely wrong as evidenced by all the points noted above. The objector has no idea about this matter as he does not live in the area and is only interested in the financial reward gained by building multi storey buildings on the site. He and his family do not have any interest in the community and really has no idea about the use of the site. Perhaps he should attend one of the events to see the very real community use of the square and understand how it is important to support community cohesion.

11.4 The application meets all the relevant tests. Brent Council has already indicated that the application has done so when they accepted the application in April. Under the Defra guidelines they could have rejected it at that stage, but did not do so due to the overwhelming evidence for its Registration. No objection has been received by Brent Council or any other person or organisation.

The Area between the two buildings should be registered as a Town Square under the legislation forthwith.

Martin Redston

28th August 2012

Linden Home's Objection to Town Green application

This is the objection to the Willesden Town Green application lodged, unsurprisingly, by Linden Homes. Linden are a subsidiary of Galliford Try the site developers. My apologies for any formatting problems. I had to convert the objection from a PDF file.

OBJECTION BY LINDEN HOMES LIMITED/GALLIFORD TRY TO THE TOWN GREEN APPLIC ATION MADE IN RESPECT OF WILESDEN GREEN LIBRARY CENTRE

h

1.            An application was submitted on the 301   April 2012 by Mr Michael Redston.

2.         11  is claimed that the area shown on the plan attached to the application has been used "as of right" since  1986  for "pastimes  and leisure  pursuits" including  walking,  meeting,  public art, French Market and the St Patricks Day festival.

3.        Signatures are appended  to the application  which purports to support the use for "pastimes and leisure pursuits" for varying numbers of years.

4.        To  establish  the  existence  of  a  Town  Green  the  test  set  out  below  must  be  applied  in accordance with section 15 of the Commons Act 2006.

4.1         Whether the land has been used to lawful sports and past times;

4.2           Whether there is a qualifying locality or neighbourhood  within a locality;

4.3        Whether any such use has been indulged in by a significant number of the inhabitants of that locality or neighbourhood;

4.4          Whether the use has continued for 20 years up to the date of the application;

4.5        Whether  it  has  been  used  "as  of right"  (that is  not  without  secrecy,  force or  with permission}.

5.           The area must have been used for sports and pastimes.

5.1      The Oxford English Dictionary definition of "pastime"  (as referred to in the case of R  v Oxfordshire  County Council  and another, ex parte Sunningwe/1 Parish Council is "an activity that someone does regularly for enjoyment, a hobby".

"Activity" is defined as a "recreational pursuit". "Recreation" is an "enjoyable leisure activity".

5.2         The main claimed "use" for the area is for the holding of markets.   The holding of a

market  does not fall within  the definition of "a pastime"  as set out above, that is, it cannot be said to be "an activity" that someone does for enjoyment", a "hobby".

5.3          Even if it could be said that the holding of and visiting markets were a "pastime", this is only the first part of a 5 part test.  As demonstrated  below, the activity fails to meet other elements of the test.

lt is clear from the case law that the type "pastimes"  envisaged are walking, playing with children and similar recreational activities (an enjoyable leisure activity).

5.4          it is noted that only two people claim that it is used for "kids play"/ "playing", only one person claims it was used for "football and cricket" and a further four people claim it is a  "seating  area".  These  activities  could  fall  within  the  definition  of  "pastime· As demonstrated below, all these activities fail to meet other elements of the test.

5.5       "Petitioning" is not a pastime. lt is not a recreational activity/hobby and therefore fails this limb of the test.

5.6       Using the area as an alleged "right of way" is not a "pastime" as it is not a recreational activity or hobby and therefore fails this limb of the test.

6.      lt must be a qualifying locality or neighbourhood within a locality and any such use has been indulged in by a significant number  of the inhabitants of that locality or neighbourhood

6.1       The second and third limbs of the test are read together in accordance with Section

15(2) of the Commons Act 2006 which states that there must be a "significant number

of inhabitants of the locality or any neighbourhood within the localfty using the area for such sports and pastimes".

6.2      The area is in a qualifying "locality" being in the administrative area of the London

Borough of Brent and the "neighbourhood" being Willesden Green.

6.3        However, it has not been demonstrated that the "use has been indulged in by a significant number of the inhabitants of that locality or neighbourhood".

6.4       The applicant has only produced 36 people to support the application

6.4.1     One person gives their address as Edgware and is therefore not an inhabitant of the locality or neighbourhood and therefore must be discounted.

6.4.2     Five People do not specify a postcode and therefore it cannot be said with any certainty that they do inhabit the locality or neighbourhood.

6.4.3     The remaining 30 people state that they either live within postal areas NW2 or NW10, both of  which  are  within  the administrative area  of  the London Borough of Brent and/or Willesden Green.

6.5        The population of the administrative area of Brent is in excess of 255,000 people. The Population of the neighbourhood of Willesden Green, although lower, is still significant and therefore the 30 people (or even the total of 35 people, if it could be shown that the other five did live within the locality and for neighbourhood) demonstrated to live within the locality or the neighbourhood, using the area for the purported use, is extremely insignificant and therefore fails both the second and third limbs of the test.

7.         The use must have continued for 20 years up to the date of the application

7.1       The Application was made on 301h  April 2012. Therefore  the 20 year period  runs from 1May 1992 - 30 April 2012.

7.2       The application purports 20 years use from 1986. None of the 30 qualifying inhabitants have stated in  what year their purported "use· of the area began. Therefore the application does not adequately demonstrate that any of the purported pastimes were

h

indulged for a 20 year period beginning on 1 May 1992 and ending on 301

April2012.

7.3         Even if all or some of the qualifying persons could demonstrate that their purported

h

use of the area began at least from 1992 and continued up to 301

April  2012, as

shown in the Table to be produced by the Council in defence of this application, none of the purported "pastimes· have actually run for a period of 20 years up to 301h April

2012.

8.        The table to be produced by the Council will show clearly that:

8.1      The French Market has been running since 2006 ( 6 years);

8.2       The Art Installations running since 2011 (1 year);

8.3       The apple tree planting running since 2010 (2 years);

8.4      The St Patricks Day Festival running since 1997 (15 years);

8.5      The Green Fayre took place once on 2011;

8.6      Brazilian Festival took place once in 2008;

8.7      The International Market took place once in 2011(1 year);

HOME.S

8.8      The Food Market, this is the World Flavours Market running every Saturday since

2011(1 year);

8.9       The Green Fayre took place once in 2011 (1year);

8.10     Petitioning - Applicant states this has been running for 12 years so this fails the test in any event (whatever the relevant penod);

8.11      Kids Play - Applicant evidence claims this use has been indulged for "20 years" however no start date is given so must be discounted as it has not been demonstrated that the stated 20 year period was between 1 May 1992-30 April2012 ;

8.12     Public Seating- Applicant states this has been running for 6 years so this fails the test of a 20 year user in any event (whatever the relevant period);

8.13     Playing Football and Cricket- Applicant evidence claims this use has been indulged for "21 years" however no start date is given so it must be discounted as it has not been demonstrated that the claimed 21 year period included the period 1 May 1992-

30 April2012;

In any event, as part of the Art Installation of 2011, a number of decorative artwork trees were planted in the application area. Since then, it has not been possible to play cricket and/or football and therefore, it would not be possible for the Applicant to show that this pastime was enjoyed continually for a 20 year period up to 30 April 2012.

9.       As stated above, none of these activities  have been shown to be used continually in the requisite period of 1 May 1992 - 301h April 2012 and therefore all the purported activities fail the fourth limb of the test

10.      Area  must  have been  used  "as  of  right" (that  is  not without secrecy, force or  with permission).

10.1     the Council's permission (by way of a licence) was required to hold:

10.11 the French Market

10.12 the International Market

10.13 Brazilian Market

10.14 the Food Market

10.15 the Green Fayre

Therefore, the holding of or the attendance at all of these markets was with permission (of the Council) and not "as of right" and therefore all of these purported pastimes fail the last limb of the test.

10.2    The Art Installation, the tree planting and St Patricks Day celebrations were all organised by the Council on Council property and therefore all visitors were there with the permission of the Council. Therefore, these three purported activities fail to meet the final limb of the test

10.3      With regard to "Petitioning" and "Public Seating", even if it could be shown that these purported activities were carried out "as of right", the Applicant by his own evidence shown they were not enjoyed for at least 20 years

10.4      With regard to "kids play/playing" and "football and cricket" it has not been adequately shown by the Applicant that these uses were indulged "as of right".  The application area is the frontage of the public library and therefore it is as likely that such use was incidental to visiting the library. These being the case, then such activities were not "as of right" but with permission of the Council - being permission to enter onto the area in order to visit the library.

10.5      There is no evidence at all to suggest that "football and cricket" have been enjoyed a significant proportion of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood (or locality) "as of right", not least because of lack of space to enjoy such pastimes to any significant degree.

10.6      lt is incumbent on the Applicant to prove that these uses were "as of right". The applicant has failed to prove this is the case.

11         Conclusion

11.1      As demonstrated above, the Applicant has failed to show that the application meets the test for establishing that the area outside Willesden Green Library should be registered as a Town Green.

11.2      Not all of the purported uses are in actual fact "sports and pastimes" as required pursuant to section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 (petitioning, claimed right of way and the holding of markets)

11.3      Of the purported uses  that could be said to be pastimes (kids play, football and cricket, seating) and those uses that some may argue to be pastimes (the markets}, it has not been demonstrated that:

11.3.1 a "significant number of the inhabitants of the locality or neighbourhood" have indulged  in  the  pastimes. The Applicant has produced  only 30 people in support (a total of 35 if  those further 5 can be shown to live in the locality and/or neighbourhood).  The  population  of  Willesden  Green  is  circa   12,000  and  the population of Brent is in excess of 255,000. No evidence has been produced to show that  a  significant  number  of  the  inhabitants of  Willesden  Green, let  alone the Administrative Area of Brent, have used the area for all or  any  of the purported pastimes.

11.3.2 the area has been used for the 20 year period 1 May 1992- 30 April 2012 . Contrary  to  the  claims  in  the  application,  as  set  out  above,  the  Council  can demonstrate (as set out above) that none of the markets/Council run events have

been running for the requisite 20 year period. The Applicant by his own evidence has failed to demonstrate that the other purported pastimes were indulged for the requisite

20 year period, as set out above.

11.3.3 the area was not used "as of right''.As set out above, all of the markets and Council run events were provided/permitted with the consent of the Council. Therefore none of these activities were enjoyed "as of right".

Of the remaining activities, the Applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate that these purported pastimes were enjoyed "as of right" rather than being incidental to visiting the library and in the case of "football and cricket", the Applicant has failed to produce any evidence that such pastime was enjoyed whether "as of right" or otherwise.

11.4     In view of the above, the Application fails to meet the test set out in the Commons Act

2006 and therefore the application to register  the area outside Willesden Green

Library as a Town Green must be rejected.

On behalf of Linden Homes Chiltern Limited and Galliford Try PLC