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.

Planning Committee will only consider the planning application tomorrow - no powers on conservation consent

Philip Grant writes:

 

Anyone preparing for / attending the WGLC Planning Committee meeting on Thursday evening (21 February, 7pm at the Town Hall) need only concentrate on the planning application, ref. 12/2924, at item 2 on the agenda. No action needs to be taken on the conservation area consent application, ref. 12/2925, which is listed as item 3.

 

Chris Walker, the head of Brent's Planning Service, has now confirmed to me that a revised resolution will be put to the committee, if they decide to grant provisional consent to the planning application. This will simply refer the consent application to the Secretary of State for a decision, and will not claim in any way that Brent's Planning Committee is giving consent to that application, provisional or otherwise.

 

As I have written previously, and Mr Walker accepts, the only person who has authority to grant, or refuse, consent on application 12/2925 is the Secretary of State. Even to present arguments to Brent's Planning Committee against the conservation area consent application would be to suggest that they have a power in that matter which they do not actually have! If the application is referred to the Secretary of State, copies of all online or written comments on  both applications, whether for, or against, or general comments, will be forwarded to the National Planning Casework Unit, so that they can prepare a report for the SofS on which he can base his decision.

Public Inquiry Report ready in '7-10 days'

The Public Inquiry into the application for registration of the open space outside Willesden Green Library as a Town Square finished this afternoon.  Martin Redston and Philip Grant summed up with a detailed response to this morning's submission by Counsel for Galliford Try/Linden Homes and Brent Council.

Concluding Martin Redston said, "(In the 1980s) Brent Council wanted to put the Green back into Wiillesden. Brent residents embraced it."

Paul Brown QC, the inspector who held the inquiry said that he would  priortitise the report and expected his writing up to take 7-10 days and commented that he couldn't guarantee it by Friday of next week, "If it takes longer it is because I want to get it right."

The Special Planning Committee considering the Willesden Green Planning Application has been scheduled for Thursday 21st February, before the report is likely to be ready.

Brown commended the public, who had attended every day of the 4 day inquiry, for sticking it out.

In turn I would commend Martin and Philip for the enormous amount of work they have done in preparing the case and presenting it to the Inquiry. As Paul Brown said they were doing it in their own time and were up against people whose paid job it was to represent objectors.

The Planning Committee Agenda is now on the council website. I suggest that anyone who was planning to speak should resubmit their request. LINK

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.

Validity of Galliford Try planning application site still an open issue

Wiembley and Willesden Observer February 7th 2013

Philip Grant writes: 

Despite Galliford Try saying that 'this claim is completely misleading', and a Brent Council spokesperson saying 'we regard the application as valid', the issue highlighted in yesterday's "Wembley & Willesden Observer" (above) has not gone away.

 

When Brent Planning Service sent a response (see: "Formal challenge issued on validity of Willesden Green planning application", 23 January, below) earlier this week, they would not even acknowledge that the application which they validated on 2 November 2012 was, in fact, invalid. Although they said that the revised plans which Galliford Try submitted to "correct" the application were now valid, they did not answer the point which was raised, that the site plan includes a larger area than that actually agreed by Brent's Executive and included in the Development Agreement.

 

Dissatisfied with that reply, I referred the matter to Brent's Acting Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, on Wednesday, as the matter is too important to allow it to be swept under the carpet. As far as I am aware, Brent's Executive has not agreed that the site boundary can be extended. If any Council Officer has agreed it, or has allowed it to be done without raising any objection, what authority do they have for this? It will be interesting to see whether the Executive is asked to approve the larger site, by way of an emergency item at the end of next Monday's already busy agenda, "just to be on the safe side".

 

The extra 1180 square metres added to the Willesden Green Library Centre development site is not a "land grab", in as far as the land will remain in Brent's ownership, but the fact that Galliford Try are now showing a larger site than that agreed by Brent's Executive is there for all to see, in black and red. There needs to be transparency about what is going on here, and whether or not it has been validly authorised. If it has not, then proper procedures need to be followed.

Plan A, Site Plan,Brent Executive Jan 2012        Plan B, Revised Site Plan, Galliford Try Dec 2012

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.

Press letter on Willesden Town Square battle

Willesden and Wembley Observer 10.1.13

POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS TO THE HOUSING PROPOSALS IN THE PLANNING APPLICATION

Philip Grant has asked to have the following two comments he has submitted to Brent’s Planning Service on the Willesden Green application (12/2924) posted on the blog. This is for the information of other people interested, and to make these comments easier to read, as the Council’s system packs the text together, and inserts upside-down question marks where quotation marks have been used, which will make the points more difficult to follow when they do appear on the Brent Planning website. The comment on affordable housing also had to be edited slightly in the version submitted, as that shown below contained too many characters.

DEPARTURE FROM BRENT’S CORE POLICY CP17

The Town Planning Statement submitted by URS on behalf of Galliford Try Plc makes much of the fact that the proposed building is designed to be Brent Council’s southern hub (at para.1 – Introduction): 

‘The proposed new Cultural Centre represents a flagship scheme for Brent Council, to act as a southern counterpoint to the new Civic Centre in Wembley to the north.’ 

This approach appears to have blinded both Brent’s Regeneration Department and the developer to an important difference between the Wembley and Willesden Green sites.

Under the Brent’s LDF Core Strategy for planning, Wembley is the main growth area (of five such areas) in the borough, and the site of the major Wembley City redevelopment within which the new Civic Centre is under construction. Willesden Green is not one of the Core Strategy’s growth areas, but a District Centre, where Brent’s ‘Protection and Conservation’ policy applies. At para.5.12 the Core Strategy says: 

‘As well as areas where growth and change can be focused and encouraged, there are also extensive parts of the borough that need to be protected and conserved, especially the suburban character. This relates largely to the character of particular built areas, such as the borough's 22 designated conservation areas ....’

The Core Policy which sets out to maintain ‘the local character of Brent’ is CP17. In particular, this states: 

‘The distinctive suburban character of Brent will be protected from inappropriate development.’ 

Policy CP17 is not referred to in section 5.3 of the URS Town Planning Statement among ‘Those Core Strategy policies which are considered relevant to the development proposals’. Given the care which URS appear to have taken to mention any core policies which might possibly appear to support their client’s proposed development, this suggests a desire not to bring this particular relevant policy to the attention of the Planning Committee.

One of the important points which must be put to Brent’s Planning Committee for them to consider and decide is whether the proposals in this planning application amount to ‘inappropriate development’. It is difficult to justify the proposed building of 95 new homes, in blocks up to 5 storeys high, on a site of only around half an acre, as protecting the ‘distinctive suburban character’ of Willesden Green.

FAILURE TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE OR FAMILY HOUSING

Brent Council’s Core Strategy for planning includes Part 5 “Planning for More and Better Housing”. At para.5.72 this states: ‘Maintaining and providing a balanced housing stock is a key Core Strategy housing objective’, which is set out in Core Policy CP21 as including:

‘An appropriate range and mix of self contained accommodation types and sizes, including family sized accommodation (capable of providing three or more bedrooms) on suitable sites providing ten or more homes’.  

Part 5 of the Core Strategy goes on to look at affordable housing, showing that affordable housing is much needed in the borough, and that: 

‘Brent has a particular need for larger family affordable housing, particularly for social rental, as the Brent Housing Needs Survey 2004 indicated that 43% of the affordable housing requirement is for 3-4 bedrooms.’

Brent’s Core Strategy acknowledges that targets for affordable housing come under the Mayor of London’s London Plan. It notes that: 

‘The Examination in Public of the London Plan concluded that  the expectation that all sites in London with a capacity for 10 or more homes should contribute to the overall strategic objective that 50% of London's new housing should be affordable was a robust policy assumption applicable to all boroughs.’ 

Section 3 of The London Plan (2011) deals with housing, and at para.3.9 it sets out a strategic target that 50% of new housing in developments of 10 or more homes should be affordable, and that 70% of affordable housing should be social housing.

Galliford Try’s original planning application (ref.12/1190) in May 2012 included 92 new homes, none of them affordable homes, comprising 40 x 1-bed, 48 x 2-bed and 4 x 3-bed units. This revised application is even further away from both Brent’s own housing and planning policies, and from the London Plan, because as well as again proposing no affordable housing it includes 95 new homes with none of them family sized ( 46 x 1-bed and 49 x 2-bed).

The reasons put forward as to why the planning application (ref.12/2924) should be accepted despite failing to meet planning policies on both affordable housing and providing family sized homes are claimed to be given in the Town Planning Statement submitted by URS (Galliford Try’s planning agents) in support of the application. 

At para.6.1, on affordable housing, this says: 

‘In this particular case, the objective is to deliver significant public benefits that consist principally of a new cultural centre in a building of a design that will make a substantial improvement to the local townscape and surrounding public realm, all at no cost to the taxpayer. In these circumstances it will not be possible to provide affordable housing within the scheme. A Viability Assessment, demonstrating as much will be submitted in support of the application in due course.’

On the family sized accommodation point, para.6.1 says: 

‘The proposed development seeks to provide 95 dwellings within attractive blocks comprising 1 and 2 bed apartments. As the Cultural Centre is to be funded entirely by the sale of the residential units, no 3 bed apartments are provided within the scheme due to viability issues’.

Before Brent’s Planning Committee could consider approving proposals which so clearly breach planning policies, they would need to see in full, and be satisfied by, an independent Viability Assessment which URS promised to submit. What they have actually received is a Viability Statement dated 13 November 2012 prepared by URS themselves (see “WGCC-ViabliityExecSummaryNov2012” near the bottom of the online document menu). This states that: 

‘A Financial Viability Assessment has been carried out by specialist assessors BNP Paribas Real Estate, at the request of the Greater London Authority. The financial results are confidential and, therefore, cannot be circulated publicly.’ 

URS then go on to give a brief summary of what they claim the assessment contains, saying that:

‘The report concludes that the development cannot provide both the cultural centre as well as affordable housing, as this would render the scheme unviable.’

What has been supplied is not an independent assessment, and not even a statement made by the specialist firm who are said to have made that assessment. Brent’s planners and Planning Committee should not accept the assurances of URS on this matter. In the absence of clear and convincing justification, the application fails to meet key planning policies on housing, and should be rejected.

Brent challenged on Willesden Green planning process

Philip Grant writes:

The online copies of plans and supporting documents for the Willesden Green Library Centre applications (12/2924 and 12/2925) have finally appeared on Brent's Planning website (late on Thursday 15 November). They can be accessed at:

https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=101150&reference=109728&st=PL .

Comments and objections have also started to be posted, but the way these remove paragraph breaks, and substitute upside down question marks for apostrophes and quotations, makes any long comment very difficult to follow. A comment which I sent in on 12 November is an example, and as this raises an important issue for the way in which the planning application should be dealt with in practice, I am asking the hosts of the KWG blog to re-publish it here:

I am still unable to comment on the details of the planning application, because the plans and supporting documents are not yet available to view online. I am, however, writing to make clear that although the application is shown as being in the sole name of Galliford Try Plc, this is, in law, a joint application with the London Borough of Brent, and should be treated accordingly when considered by Brent's Planning Committee.

I have previously (in respect of the withdrawn application ref. 12/1190) put this point in writing to Brent's chief legal officer, Fiona Ledden. On 1 June 2012 she replied that:

'It is a requirement of the Development Agreement that Galliford Try Plc submits a planning application to the Council in respect of the proposed scheme and if planning permission is granted to carry out the development. In the circumstances it is not correct to say that the Council should be a party to that application.'

However, it is under that Development Agreement of February 2012, and all of the other surrounding facts and evidence, that Brent and Galliford Try are clearly engaged in a joint development project, whereby Galliford Try will build a new Cultural Centre for Brent in return for Brent giving Galliford Try the land on which to build flats for sale at a profit. The Development Agreement is a contract, but the requirement of that contract referred to by Ms. Ledden cannot over-ride the factual legal relationship between them which is that they are jointly engaged in the development. In law, both parties to a joint development should be named as "applicant" in planning applications in respect of that development.

The fact that Brent is a joint "applicant" (or even if this is still disputed, is at the very least an "interested party" in the application) means that item 12 of Brent's Planning Code of Practice applies. This states that:

'If any officer of the Council who is involved in making recommendations or decisions on planning applications has had any involvement with an applicant, agent or interested party, whether or not in connection with the particular application being determined, which could possibly lead an observer with knowledge of all the relevant facts to suppose that there might be any possibility that the involvement could affect the officer's judgement in any way, then that officer shall declare a prejudicial interest in the public register held by the Director of Regeneration and Major Projects and take no part in the decision making process. This public register to be available for inspection at Planning Committee meetings.'

Brent's Director of Regeneration and Major Projects, Andy Donald, is the person responsible for Brent Council's role in this planning application, and also the head of the department which includes Planning and Development. Therefore: 'any officer of the Council who is involved in making recommendations' on these applications has an 'involvement' with Andy Donald, and must declare a 'prejudicial interest' in the public register in connection with the application, 'and take no part in the decision making process'.

In another letter to me, of 27 June 2012, Fiona Ledden assured me that, whatever their personal views, members of the Planning Committee must approach their decision making with an open mind. She explained that:

'What in practice this means is that members of the planning committee are bound by the Council's Planning Code of Practice and if they have been involved in any way with promoting the scheme for Willesden Library they will be unable to vote on the planning application.'

As Planning Committee member Cllr. Ann John was clearly involved in promoting this redevelopment scheme, she will presumably be barred from voting on it.

The Planning Process for the new Willesden Green Library applications

Philip Grant Writes:

 

On Saturday 10 November I received a duplicated letter from Andy Bates, Brent's Planning Officer dealing with the Willesden Green Library Centre applications, giving details of them and how to comment on them. Mine was one of about 2,750 such letters, sent to "consultees and neighbours". It includes the statement:

'If you wish to comment on these applications against reference 12/2924, your views will be taken into account on BOTH applications provided they are received online or via post, within 21 days of the date of this letter.'

As the date of the letter is shown as 7 November 2012, this effectively says that I have to submit any objections or other comments by Wednesday 28 November 2012 at the latest if they are to be taken into account in deciding both the planning (ref. 12/2924) and conservation area consent (ref. 12/2925) applications. This is no doubt why the Full Details page for application 12/2924 on the Brent Planning website says: 'This case will be decided no earlier than 28/11/2012'.

 

Although I have already posted the first online "comment" on this application, I cannot really consider what my objections or other comments might be until I can see the plans and read the, no doubt voluminous, documents which make up the application. Both the letter and website say that these 'should be available to view by 13 November 2012'. Two weeks to read and digest all of this information, then submit detailed and well-argued views on the application is a tall order, but this is what anyone who wishes to put in an objection to the planning application within the Statutory Consultation Period will have to do.

 

Brent has its own statutory responsibilities in respect of Galliford Try's planning application. Because of the number of housing units involved, it counts as a "major development", but as long as it is a valid application, Brent has to determine it within 13 weeks of the date the application was received. This would be by 1 February 2013, but in practice the decision would have to be taken at the Planning Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday 16 January. What with such a complex planning report to write, and the Christmas / New Year holiday period, it is no wonder that Andy Bates wants any comments by 28 November.

 

Despite the impression given in the letter, there is a different situation for comments on or objections to the Conservation Area Consent application (ref. 12/2925). Public Notice has not yet been published about this application, and the time limit for objections etc. will be 21 days after the later of the posting of notices near Willesden Green Library or advertising details of the application in a local newspaper.

 

The Consent application for partial demolition of the 1894 library building will not be decided by Brent's Planning Committee, but will be referred to the Secretary of State for a decision in the event of the Council being minded to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of the existing Library Centre site. This has been confirmed to me by Chris Walker, Brent's Assistant Director (Planning & Development), in an email of 9 November (copied to Andy Bates):

'As the revised application still involves a partial demolition of the library building within the conservation area it would remain my view that the application should be referred to the Secretary of State.'

Any comments made on the consent application have to be passed on to the Secretary of State (in practice, to the Communities and Local Government Department's National Planning Casework Unit). If Andy Bates is advising people to make a comment covering both applications, this suggests that the full text of all comments or objections on the applications will be forwarded to the Secretary of State, as well as being taken into consideration on the planning application. I will check this point with him.

Philip Grant's latest submission on Willesden Green proposals

Although Philip Grant is not a member of Keep Willesden Green he has made a number of thoughtful and trenchant contributions to the consultation process as an individual.  This is his latest submission. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Keep Willesden Green or individual members:

Willesden Green Library Centre redevelopment – Philip Grant’s views as part of the further consultation exercise, September 2012.

The way that the views of many members of the public were ignored and misrepresented in earlier consultations up to April 2012 has left a deep suspicion of Brent Council, Galliford Try Plc and their agents in the minds of local people. We have been assured that this further consultation exercise will be a genuine one, and I sincerely hope that this will prove to be the case. I will set out my views under two headings, one dealing with a fundamental issue and the other on a detailed design including the 1894 Willesden Green Library building.

1.  Should the existing Willesden Green Library Centre be demolished?

The current proposals from Brent’s Regeneration Department and Galliford Try are drawn up on the basis that the existing WGLC should be demolished, and replaced by a new Cultural Centre on a smaller site and a development of 90+ private homes. There are several reasons why this approach is not the best one to follow.

1.1  Although the existing WGLC needs some refurbishment (toilets and plant need updating, in particular), it is only 23 years old, and was planned to last for at least sixty years. Knocking it down would be both costly and wasteful. It would surely be possible to redevelop the existing building, retaining those parts (like the library, Museum and Archives and their education room, special exhibitions space and art gallery) which still work, and to redesign the rest of the space (adding an extra “light weight” floor if necessary) to provide the extra One-Stop-Shop and Council offices necessary for the proposed “hub” for the south of the borough. Most or all of the cost of this work could be funded from a smaller private housing development built on most of the existing car park.

1.2 The current proposals would mean building over the existing open space situated between the remaining section of the 1894 library building and the front of WGLC. That space is the subject of an application for registration as a Town Square, which would mean that this land cannot be built on. Galliford Try (and Brent?) have objected, but the application appears to be valid and well-founded. The open space is much more relevant to Willesden High Road than the planned space at the back of the proposed new Cultural Centre would be. It would be better for Brent and their development partner to accept the continued existence of this public open space, and proceed on the basis of retaining the existing WGLC building, rather than facing further delay and uncertainty by fighting the wishes of the local community again (as they did unsuccessfully with their original plans to demolish the 1894 Willesden Green Library).

1.3  I realise that this major about-face in the plans for redeveloping Willesden Green Library Centre is not what Brent and Galliford Try had in mind when they entered into their Development Agreement in February 2012, so that the terms of their relationship would need to be renegotiated. I believe that this would be the best option, and hope that it will be given serious consideration. If the Town Square application fails, and the two parties go ahead with plans to demolish the existing WGLC and build a new Cultural Centre, then my second section below applies.

2. Detailed design including the 1894 library building.

I hope that all parties are now clear that the section of the 1894 Willesden Green Library which was retained as part of the 1980’s library redevelopment should not, and cannot in law, be demolished. If a new Cultural Centre is built, it must retain at least the original walls and roof of the Victorian building. Here are my views on the details of such a design.

2.1  Several sketches showing possible ways of connecting the original and new buildings were displayed at WGLC during August 2012. I think that the idea which works best visually is the one labelled “Gallery”, showing a glass roof sloping down from the new building to the back of the 1894 library. There are two possible problems with this which I would mention, which will need to be addressed in the detailed design. The first is the need to deal effectively with the large amounts of rainwater which would run down the glass during a heavy “cloudburst” shower; the second is the need to be able to keep the glass clean, and to remove leaves (from the plane tree) and other debris, to allow good natural light from the glass roof into the entrance foyer below.

2.2  I believe that the best use for the 1894 library building as part of a new Cultural Centre would be as a community gallery. Part of this (perhaps alongside, and viewed from, the entrance foyer) should be a small permanent display from Brent Archives and Museum showing the history of Willesden Green Library, and of this part of Willesden High Road from Victorian times, so that the significance of the old building and the continuity of public services here from the 1890’s to the present is introduced to the Centre’s 21^st century users. Most of the gallery space would be used for temporary exhibitions, which visitors could enjoy in their own right or during their visits to the Centre for other reasons. These would need to be co-ordinated by a pro-active overall manager of the Centre, but could include displays by local artists (BAR, or other exhibitions as currently staged at WGLC), small “taster” exhibits to draw attention to larger exhibitions available in the Museum, Archives or other galleries upstairs, displays linked with Library activities (such as author talks, which could actually be held in the community gallery) etc.

2.3  One of the reasons given for not retaining the 1894 library building in the original plans was the need to “connect” the new Centre with Willesden High Road. I have mentioned this idea before, but would repeat my suggestion that the original doorway into the 1894 building should be “un-bricked”, and the door reinstated with a plate glass window which would give a full height view from the High Road, through the community gallery and into the main Centre building. The design (aside, from the 1893 elevation drawing) of the doors could be printed on film and attached to the window, as if etched, to give an impression of the original building, and for safety reasons. I believe that this would help to attract passers-by to come in and discover what was on offer to them at the Cultural Centre.

Philip Grant
19 September 2012

Brent Council wanted a Willesden Town Square in 1984

Wassail at Willesden Town Square 2010

 Philip Grant has sent us the following comment on the Willesden Town Square application:

Martin Redston's application for Town Square status to be given to the space between Willesden Green Library Centre and the original 1894 library building actually fits in with what Brent Council  wanted when they planned the 1980's redevelopment of Willesden Green Library.

 

In a document produced by Brent's Development Department (the forerunner of the present "Regeneration and Major Projects") in December 1983, an annotated plan of the site stated: 'The Council intend to preserve the little building on the corner with its turret and decoration - the wings behind are later additions, and these will be removed to provide some much-needed open space.'

 

Some councillors wanted to save money on the project, and demolish the whole of the old (Victorian) Willesden Green Library, replacing it with a public square which would run from the new Library Centre right down to the High Road. In a Council debate, reported in the "Kilburn Times" on 20 April 1984, Councillor Len Snow said that this 'would be a sad mistake', leaving 'a gap here, which will be open to wind and traffic noise'. He went on to say: 'If the square was protected by an interesting frontage it would be a haven of peace and on a sunny day a delight to sit in.' 

 

Len Snow's view, and that of like-minded Councillors, eventually prevailed, giving Willesden Green the public square that local people have enjoyed for more than 25 years, and still enjoy.

 

Willesden Green: Council should listen to the people

Pickles to decide on fate of 1894 library

Philip Grant has received a reply to his letter of 17 March. 

 

Eric Pickles passed it to his National Planning Casework Unit, who have discussed the matter of who has authority to give consent for the demolition of the 1894 Willesden Green Library building with Brent Council. 

 

The letter confirms that if the planning application for the new Cultural Centre includes demolition of the Willesden Green Library (which we now know that it will), and if the Council are minded to approve that application, Brent intend to refer the Conservation Area Consent application to the Secretary of State for his consideration under Section 74, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990. 

 

 

Keep campaign alive with this poster

Philip Grant says: The attached A4 poster is a document that can be used to help get the message across in the community that local people still have a chance to help save this much-loved building. The idea is that it can be displayed in shop windows, or on notice boards, anywhere that people are willing to put it up legally. I would not want it to be flyposted, particularly as I have put my name on it. Lorraine King, editor of the Brent & Kilburn Times from whose 19 April edition the letter has been copied, is aware of the poster, and I have told her that I'm not sure of the exact copyright position, but hope that no one will object.