Sarah Teather 'Council must incorporate Old Library into their plans'

From Brent Lib Dems website:

Brent Central MP Sarah Teather has today said that Labour-run Brent Council must listen to local residents over plans to redevelop Willesden Green library after it was announced that the developers have withdrawn the planning application that would have led to the closure of the library for 18 months. Brent Council and the developers have said that they will now seek the community's views over the summer before submitting a new planning application later this year.

Since the plans were announced, thousands of local residents have spoken out against the plans, calling on Brent Council to preserve the locally listed Old Library building. Concerns were also raised after the Willesden Bookshop and the Brent Advisory Service (BIAS) were not been given space in the proposed development.

Additionally, despite the Council admitting there is a need for affordable, four bed family housing, 88 one and two bedroom flats built were included in the previous application with only four three-bed apartments. None of the proposed flats were due to be social or affordable housing.

There was also public outrage after the Labour Council Executive agreed the outline plans of the redevelopment before carrying out a full public consultation. These outline plans included the demolition of the Old Library building.

Commenting, Lib Dem MP Sarah Teather said:

"I welcome today's announcement that Brent Council are willing to work with local residents to improve the redevelopment plans for Willesden Green library. However, Labour leaders must show that this time they will listen to the concerns of the community and incorporate the old library building into their plans.

"The Council had previously vowed to permanently rehouse BIAS and the Willesden Bookshop, but have so far failed to live up their promises. Hopefully this delay will give them time to find these valuable local resources new homes.

"The previous plans were desperately short-sighted. Any new proposals must meet the needs of the community and I will be watching carefully to make sure this is the case."

Beware the stranger at your Willesden door

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


It is enough to move us to poetry:
 

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

While the petition slipped from his fingers:

No profits for Galliford Try.

Transition Willesden on Willesden Green Redevelopment plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

Housing provision

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

Green space

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

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

Impact on the local community

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

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

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

Philip Grant's Planning Law and Policy Arguments

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

Philp Grant's Harm vs Benefits Arguments

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

Martin Redston: reasons for rejecting these plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Brent Arts Council opposes Willesden Green redevelopment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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