Town Square registration rejected but some crumbs of comfort

The public inquiry report into the registration of the space outside Willesden Green Library took much longer than anticipated to be completed and it is far fuller than most. However the conclusion is that registration is not recommended despite the huge efforts of Martin Redston to convince the planning inspector that residents had a case:

Martin told his supporters:

By now you will have heard that the Inspector rejected my application for registration. His report of 211 pages is exceptionally long and detailed. Having read it carefully I would confirm that I think that he has been fair and reasonable in his treatment of all sides in the matter . ...He cannot recommend registration but he is sympathetic to our community in seeking to protect the open space.

..it seems to me that there is a small crumb of comfort in that  if you read Mr Brown's various comments throughout his summary, conclusions and recommendations he considers that the square could be registered on the basis of a more defined local neighbourhood, and if free festivals (clarified by him to be a suitable pastime) in particular had been organised on a continuing basis for the entire 20 year period. He also implies that the council might like to consider the fact that they have actually increased the profile of the square in the last few years, it seems a shame to lose it now.

A report on the outcome can be read HERE on the Kilburn Times website

Is the WGLC planning decision final?

Philip Grant writes:

Although Brent (Regeneration Department?) were very quick to put out a triumphal press release last Friday, saying:

'the redevelopment of Willesden Green Library Centre (WGLC) took an important step forward last night (Thursday) when Brent Council's planning committee approved the plans,'

it is noticeable that (as at 4.30pm on Monday 25 February) neither the Democratic Services (Planning Committee) nor the Brent Planning Service  (ref. 12/2924) web pages have yet given details of any such decision.

The press release does go on to say:

'the proposals will now be put to the GLA and Secretary of State who need to give the go-ahead before Brent can formally give planning permission,'

but Galliford Try and Brent's Regeneration Department have another problem as well. At the Planning Committee meeting of 21 February there was a clear breach of Brent's own Planning Code of Practice (part of Brent Council's constitution), as a public register which Planning Officers have to sign if they have what could be regarded as a "prejudicial interest" was not available for inspection at the meeting.

I had specifically advised the Democratic Services Officer responsible for the meeting that I wished to inspect this register at the meeting, so that there is no excuse for it not being there (under the Code, it is meant to be there anyway). As a result, I complained to Brent's Chief Executive about this irregularity on 22 February, and it is currently being investigated by Fiona Ledden, Brent's Director of Legal Affairs. She has promised to report back later this week. As the Planning Committee were not made aware the possibility of "prejudicial Interest" in the reports and recommendations put before them at the meeting on 21 February, they may be asked to reconsider their decisions.

Details of further consultation on Willesden Green redevelopment

We now have fuller details of the presentations on August 8th and the meetings planned for September:

Open day on Wednesday 8 August 
 
An open day will be held at Willesden Green Library Centre in The Library Lab to give you an update on the project. There will be plenty of opportunities for you to share your ideas on the future of the WGCC.

There will be a display at The Library Lab throughout August if you are not able to attend the open day.
 
Wednesday 8 August
11am to 8pm at The Library Lab in the Willesden Green Library Centre  with presentations at 12noon, 2pm, 4pm and 7pm
 
Further workshops with the following focus groups are planned for September:
 
Tuesday, September 4 - Seniors
Thursday, September 6 - Small and medium enterprises
Tuesday, September 11- Community groups
Thursday, September 13 - Ethnic minority groups
Tuesday, September 18 - Teens
Thursday, September 20 - Families with young children

Further information
If you need more information or have any questions about the planning application please contact Galliford Try’s dedicated freephone information line on 0800 298 7040 or email 
feedback@consultation-online.co.uk. 
Web: www.willesdengreen.co.uk  Twitter: @Will_GreenCC

BKT interview with Steve Adams of Willesden Bookshop

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

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.

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.

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.

 

Statutory Notice of application to demolish 1894 Willesden Green Library

The tex below is a copy of the Statutory Notice issued on 22 May giving details of the Conservation Area Consent application which Brent Planning Service have received for the demolition of the Victorian Willesden Green Library building. It says where you can see the planning application (the One Stop Shop at Brent House),  when you can get advice from the Planning Service about it (Wednesday evenings between 4.30pm and 6.45pm) and who any written representations about the application should be sent to.

 

The time limit for objections is given as on or before 12 June 2012, but as the notice also has to be published in a local newspaper, and this will not be until 24 May, the 21 day time limit will actually expire on 14 June 2012.

Philip Grant

LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT

PLANNING (LISTED BUILDING & CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990

========================================================================


Notice is given pursuant to Regulation 5 of the PLANNING (LISTED BUILDING & CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990 that the following application has been received by the London Borough of Brent for Conservation

Area Consent as detailed below:

Location: Willesden Green Library Centre, 95 High Road, London, NW10 2SF

Proposal: Conservation Area consent for the demolition of the old library building.

Our Reference: 12/1191

A copy of the application and plans as submitted, during the period of 21 days starting with the date of this notice, may be inspected at the One Stop Shop, Brent House, 349 High Road, Wembley between 9am and

5pm Monday to Friday. We are also open on Wednesday evenings between 4.30pm to 6.45pm. to give advice to members of the public on this and any other town planning matters.

Any person wishing to make representations about the proposal should submit them in writing to the Assistant Director, Planning and Development, Brent House, 349 High Road, Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 6BZ on or before 12 June, 2012. Please quote our reference number.

Dated: 22 May, 2012

Chris Walker

Assistant Director, Planning and Development

A reminder of what we may lose...

...unless we act now.

The significance of "Significance" in the battle for the 1894 library building

When Councillor George Crane said, at the recent meeting of Brent's Executive,  that the Victorian library building had "no significance", he said it for a reason. He will be pleased that his comment has been widely reported, because that is the message he wants to get across, particularly to his colleagues on the Planning Committee. "Significance" will be a key factor when the planning application for the new Cultural Centre and the application for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the 1894 library building are considered.

Since March 2012, the official guidance for all planning matters has been the Government's new National Planning Policy Framework. It's Glossary includes the following definition:

Significance (for heritage policy): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.

The definitions also mean that the locally listed 1894 library building is a "Heritage Asset", and the Willesden Green Conservation Area is a "Designated Heritage Asset" for the purposes of NPPF.

When considering the impact of a proposed development, NPPF says that the applicant must 'describe the significance of any heritage assets affected'. The higher the heritage asset's significance, the stronger the case for conserving it, or refusing consent for the 'substantial harm or total loss of [its] significance' (i.e. its demolition!). From the point of view of the Council and Galliford Try, the lower they can make the significance of the 1894 library building and Willesden Green Conservation Area appear, the more chance they have of getting their proposals approved. So when Cllr. Crane says that the building has "no significance", or Beth Kay (Regeneration Officer) tells the Willesden ACF meeting (with several members of the Planning Committee present) that because of substantial alterations made to the original library building 'it does not retain significant architectural value', they are already preparing the ground to get the decision they want.

In our objection letters (I will be writing two, one for the planning application and one specifically for the conservation area consent application, which I hope will be considered separately on its own facts and law) we will need to get across the fact that both the Willesden Green Conservation Area and the locally listed 1894 Willesden Green Library building do have real value, and therefore a high significance for the purposes of consideration under NPPF. Here are some points worth making, but I am sure that campaigners can think of others which reflect their particular views:

• that as well as the front of the old library being a beautiful architectural building in its own right (with the 'substantial alterations' made in the 1980's being what was necessary to retain that highly valued frontage when later extensions to it were removed) it is an important landmark building and an integral part of a group of late Victorian buildings which form the core of the Willesden Green Conservation Area;
• that the 1894 library building makes a positive contribution to the character of the area;
• that the 1894 library building played a key part in the social history of the area, and rather than knocking it down, it could be conserved and put to viable use as part of the new Cultural Centre (which will contain Brent's Museum and Archives) thereby enhancing its significance;
• and if this appears to be the case when you look at the application documents:- that the Conservation Statement tries mislead the reader by understating the significance of the 1894 Library Building and/or the Willesden Green Conservation Area (giving at least one example).

The NPPF says (in para.132) 'Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.' That is a good starting point for our fight to save the 1894 library building, but only if as many people as possible make the case that it, and the conservation area it stands in, do have real value and significance.  If you would like to read the full National Planning Policy Framework guidance on "Conserving and enhancing the historic environment" (which replaced Planning Policy Statement 5 at the end of March), I have copied and pasted this section of NPPF and the relevant definitions from the Glossary into the  4-page pdf below. 

Philip Grant

Petition presented but will Council listen?

On the Town Hall steps last night

Supported by more than 60 campaigners Miki Berenyi presented Keep Willesden Green's 'Stop, Listen and Reflect' petition to the Executive last night with a cool and cogent speech detailing the Council's failure to consult, its neglect of the original building and its cinema and cafe area, and the fact that the new building has less community amenity than the original.

Cllr George Crane in response said that 'Pause and Reflect' (it is noteworthy that he left out 'listen') would perform no useful function and that the planning process would give time to reflect. He said that her understood the significance of the Old Willesden library building and suggested it could be 'celebrated' within the confines of the new building.

He said that the Council was trying to look at a space for the bookshop within what he called  the 'cafeteria' and was revising the space in the front of the building.

Two local Lib Dem councillors spoke. Cllr Gavin Sneddon in favour of the petition and Cllr Ann Hunter against. Sneddon compared the way Willesden residents had been treated to the very full consultation, from first principles, of the Harlexen Town Plan.

He asked Ann John to give residents an assurance that, in line with the law, no pressure would be put on councillors on the planning committee to approve the plans.

Ann John did not give any such assurance.

Cllr Ann Hunter in a long contribution said that she had asked for two plans - one with and one without the historic building. The previous retention of that building has been a compromise because of strong local feelings. She went on to suggest that there were other residents who thought that building had no value and that it was time to move forward with a dynamic new building that would enhance the area.

The Council response to Willesden Green library issues

Brent Council published the following response to the 18th January  Soapbox by Sophia MacGibbon in the Feedback notes  of the Willesden Consultative Forum last night:

1890s BUILDING
We note your concerns that the proposals include the demolition of the 1890s library building at the front of the site. The decision not to incorporate the Old Library has not been taken lightly. The project team has considered whether it could be retained but has concluded that, if the public realm is to be significantly enhanced and if the new Cultural Centre is to make a real connection with the High Road (unlike the existing Library Centre), then the Old Library building cannot remain.

Whilst it would be fair to say that the majority view from the consultation which has been carried out is that the new building should be retained and incorporated into the new Cultural Centre some residents have agreed with the project team and have told us you can miss the Library on the High Road and that the 'no man's land' is a haven for anti-social behaviour. In urban design terms we believe that the library does not work where it is.

The Old Library does sit within the Willesden Green Conservation Area, However, our Conservation Statement notes the results from the historic building survey: substantial alterations have taken place both to the external elevations and internal spaces to leave it with little architectural value.

Externally, it appears that much of the southern side was constructed in the 1980s when the current Library Centre was developed. At that time, the wings were truncated and the former main entrance to the south filled in. Indeed, there has been so much consolidation that the original fabric in the elevations is to be found in the facade on the High Road side. Internally, much of the original fabric, fixtures and fittings have gone and the space has been dramatically altered, with a large steel staircase leading to offices on the first floor.

The building is certainly valued by the community for its historic and aesthetic contribution to the High Road but the historic integrity has been compromised. With the interior being devoid of fixtures and fittings, and the layout having been altered so much, it does not retain significant architectural value.

CAR PARKING
The new development for WGCC will be car free. Residents and visitors will be encouraged to use sustainable forms of transport including walking, cycling and public transport. The new cultural centre will be extremely well connected, the site will be serviced by Willesden Green Tube Station and seven (7) bus routes -nos 52,98,206,260,266, 302 and 460.

A vehicular pick up and drop off bay will be provided. There will also be a small amount of designated disabled car parking spaces and baby car parking spaces.

BOOKSHOP
Some residents have expressed concern about the future of the Willesden Bookshop and a desire to see the business incorporated within the fabric of the new Cultural Centre. There are currently no plans to do this: the bookshop does not provide a core Council service. However, the project team has heard what people are saying and will be broadening the scope of what could be in the retail space so as not to exclude a bookshop. It needs to be stressed, however, that this retail space will not be providing a core Council service and would therefore be let at market rent.

Get to Willesden Forum tonight

A reminder that the Willesden Green Redevelopment is on the agenda for tonight's Willesden Area Consultative Forum. Councillors will be available and if you arrive early you can book a Soapbox slot or e-mail consultation@brent.gov.uk

From Brent Council website:

Willesden Area Consultative Forum

Next forum meeting:
7pm Wednesday 18 April 2012

Venue
College of North West London
Denzil Road
NW10 2XD

Wards covered Dollis Hill, Dudden Hill, Welsh Harp, Willesden Green

Next forum - Main presentations:
- Olympic Route Network
- Establishing Ward Working Priorities for 2012-13 - come and meet your 
  councillors and tell them about any concerns you have about your ward
- Proposed re-development of the Willesden High* Library Centre
- Brent celebrates the Diamond Jubilee

During the break, you will have the opportunity to speak to your ward councillors, the Safer Neighbourhood Team, speakers and council officers.

* We presume this is a typo and actually refers to Willesden Green NOT the high school!

Keep Willesden Green is front page news

Both the Wembley and Willesden Observer and the Brent and Kilburn Times lead on the Keep Willesden Green campaign today.

Last chance to sign 'Pause' Willesden Green Development petition

From Kilburn Times

Today is the last chance to sign our e-petition on the Willesden Green Redevelopment. Follow this LINK to sign.

THE FULL PETITION TEXT

We the undersigned petition the council to Pause the Willesden Green Library Centre regeneration plans to allow for full consultation with residents in order to ascertain their views on how the area should be developed and the amenities that should be provided or retained.

Brent Council is handing over public land worth £10.4 million to a property developer in exchange for rebuilding the Willesden Library Centre. The original 1894 library building on the High Road will be demolished, The Willesden Bookshop is likely to be driven out of business, the public car park will be reduced to 8 spaces and a children’s play area will be lost. Over 18 months, three five-storey blocks of 90+ luxury flats will be built behind the existing Library Centre.

We all want a thriving, welcoming and dynamic library and cultural centre, but the current deal has been sealed with virtually no public consultation and very little available information, ignoring the wishes of over a thousand local residents who have expressed opposition to these plans in two Brent e-petitions.

While the developers get a healthy profit from the sale of luxury flats and Brent councillors get some fancy new offices, the cultural and financial cost to rate-paying citizens is disproportionately high. It smacks of ‘profits before people’.

Borough residents need to have a say in the content and design of the library centre redevelopment, but we have not yet been given the chance to do so.

The Council says: Plans for the development of the library centre were raised at the executive committee in February 2011, and quickly followed by two public consultations to ‘test the market’. The council had to abide by commercial confidentiality, so no detailed plans could be made public until a deal was signed with the developer on 15 February 2012.

We say: Did you know about this in 2011? Not a single local resident or tradesperson we spoke to knew about the plans until Jan 2012, and only then through word of mouth. The Feb 2011 consultations were conducted with, respectively, 5 and then 7 people. One person present recounted that they were asked for their opinion, then shown plans for the centre that were drawn up before the meeting. This does not conform to the generally understood definition of a ‘consultation’

Willesden Green development a 'done deal' despite public opposition - but we can have a say about the shelving!

A member of the Keep Willesden Green Committee has written this report on the meeting with Ann John, leader of Brent Council, held at Brent Town Hall earlier this week.

Ann John, outside Brent Town Hall

Gill Wood  introduced the group, expressed our appreciation for the time that Councillor Ann John was giving to listen to our concerns and explained that we represented more than 5,700 people who signed the recent petition in good faith to keep the Old Library building.

Gill also stressed that the KWG group was not affiliated with any political party. 

We are not anti-development, Gill continued, we just want to ensure that if the WGCC development has to be built at all, that not only it will be of lasting benefit to an increased library using population, but that we also get a public amenity that Willesden deserves, showing that the architects have been sensitive to the specific needs of the community it is there to serve. 

Gill finished her introduction by saying that several of us attended the Executive Committee meeting in February seeking answers to the genuine concerns that residents had been relaying to us and were disappointed that none of our questions were properly addressed. She asked Ann John to share her vision of the Willesden Green Cultural Centre, which has so far failed to reach the larger Brent community. Gill concluded that we were gathered to listen to Councillor John and we hoped that she would listen to the views of Brent residents.

Ann John then explained the challenges of meeting the many needs within the borough including the lack of 700 school places and the increasing (normally transient) population who choose to settle in Brent.

She explained that the major refurbishment of Ealing Library had been successful and this library was now open. The Council’s intention was to offer libraries fit for the 21^st Century and that the Civic Centre in Wembley and the new WGCC in Willesden Green would meet the needs of a new generation of library users. 

The Civic Centre would return revenue, in so far as it would offer office space to replace several costly buildings across the borough and would offer facilities that would yield an income. WGCC would be financed by the sale of the land at the rear and would offer a more sustainable building with improved facility and Council offices for public interface on the top floor to replace the One Stop Shop for better local connection in the south of the Borough. Other issues were raised mainly to demonstrate the lack of public funding and the housing and education demand that the increasing Brent population are creating.

KWG made the following points:

            The lack of consultation has angered local residents. The representative group all live within close proximity of the Library and none of us had received Galliford Try’s leaflet information regarding the library development until March 2012. There had been no information posted in the library. We felt that the plans had been kept hidden.

            The scheme is predominantly a housing scheme. KWG are not anti development and understand the need for housing but if the scheme is built a healthy balance will be lost.

            KWG presented the developer’s plans overlayed on to a satellite image of the site. We demonstrated to Councillor John that the scheme illustrations are very misleading. For instance the scale has been tweaked to imply greater outdoor amenity and the position of the London plane tree is not accurate. As the plans stand the London plane will be lost.

           Similarly the open space at the back is not adequate, due to the challenge of levels which has not been factored in to the design, the rear area will simply be a shady, steeply terraced muggers paradise. This is not adequate open space

           The foot-print of the new building is 50% of the existing building. An additional floor of office space does not return the amenity that will be lost. Cllr. John  seemed surprised and concerned by all of the above. She was clearly  not fully aware of the design flaws although she was aware that the architects needed to resolve the matter of level change.

KWG presented a plan that moved the Open space to the front of the building on the High Road, added 20% more space to the footprint of the library and offered solutions for the level change while retaining the Old Library. The Housing scheme is also retained.

In response, Cllr  John said that she had been advised by a team of Architects and Consultants that the Galliford Try scheme would deliver Public benefit. We have clearly demonstrated that it will not. Cllr. John asked us to present these concerns to Galliford Try.

KWG expressed concern regarding the maintenance of the building. We can’t  trust a Council who built a library with a 65 year shelf life in 1983 declaring that it would be sustainable and reduce maintenance and heating costs, then insist 28 years later that it is no longer fit for purpose and that we need a building that will be sustainable and reduce maintenance and heating costs…..

 We also discussed the funding of the project and KWG raised a concern that the £9.4m was not sufficient to return a building of any quality. That the proposed build cost would be £180/ sq.ft. which is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Client brief and will only provide a shell Community Centre specification not state of the art library and Council offices given the requirement for on site sustaining of the demolished old libraries. The cost in 1983 of the existing library was £5,000,000. This inflation linked would be a figure of £13,900,000 today. Both these points Ann John said she would refer to the Regeneration team along with our comments regarding Consultation.

KWG then made the point that in the Executive  meeting of February 15th 2011 the Regeneration Team had stated: 

3.17 To inform the procurement process a vision statement and client brief for the Council’s new building would be developed. The documents would clearly articulate the Council's aspirations and detailed design requirements for the new building. A planning brief, draft development agreement and contract would also be developed to ensure that from the outset the potential developer partners are aware of the contractual requirements that would be placed upon them when delivering the project. 

 None of the above has happened. Why has the planning brief phase been skipped and the critical consultation following the planning brief not carried out? Cllr.John had no answers for this. Again she said that she would discuss this with the regeneration team.

With regard to the demolition of the Old Library, Cllr. John acknowledged that thousands of residents living adjacent to the High Road wished that the Old Library should be retained. Remarkable PR have published 77% as their figure. KWG have a figure of over 90% following their own survey. Ann John insisted that petitions were not reliable indicators of public need. That residents were wrong in their understanding of their local townscape and that she was best placed as a non-resident minority to decide that demolition of the Old Library would serve the Public interest best!....

KWG also mentioned that the open space outside the Old Library was an important “crossroads” and meeting point for the mixed demographic of Willesden. It is a much needed and highly valued common ground on the High Road. It is important that this space is retained.

Cllr. John could see the benefits of common ground but felt that currently, in practice, it was not a safe spot and harboured negative factors. KWG disagreed with this and offered local insight that the space on the High Road was much safer than the muggers' alley that was proposed at the rear.

The meeting was concluded by Cllr. John, declaring that the plans would not be altered for the planning application. The next consultation on 18^th April would discuss the detail of the internal fit-out. 

The situation therefore is that the previous consultation has not taken in to consideration any of the views of the Public, we are simply being served a done deal and allowed to discuss the minor detail of library shelving etc.

The Galliford Try scheme breaks all the codes of good design and shows no benefit to the local Community. We can only hope now that our Council will realise their mistakes and the acknowledge that bad advice has lead to an unacceptable development.