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.

Willesden Green Planning Application from fiasco to farce

 I got a Brent Council e-mail alert overnight which seemed to say that the Willesden Green development had been approved by the Planning Committee last night. The links led to the pages above and below. I rang Democratic Services at 9am this morning and they said the announcement was a mistake and had been withdrawn. I was amazed when I got the message that the Planning Committee would have the audacity to consider the application after announcing the items deferral.

This is developing into a farce!

Decision details

Willesden Green Library Centre, 95 High Road, London, NW10 2SF (Ref. 12/2924)

• Find out more about this issue

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decision:

Grant planning permission in principle but delegate final determination of the application to the Assistant Director (Planning & Development) subject to conditions and informatives and;

(a)       taking into account any further representations received on or before the 14th February 2013;

(b)       any direction by the Mayor of London to refuse the application. In accordance with Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 following the Council’s determination of this application, the Mayor is allowed 14 days to decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged or direct the Council under Article 6 to refuse the application;

(c)       satisfactory prior completion of a Section 106(s) under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and/or other form(s) of agreement/undertaking in order to secure the S106 matters as detailed in this report.

Publication date: 13/02/2013

Date of decision: 13/02/2013

Decided at meeting: 13/02/2013 - Planning Committee

Accompanying Documents:

• 06-Willesden Green 2924 PDF 1 MB

Reasons for deferral or even pulling out?

Philip Grant writes:

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

Dear Mr Grant 

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

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

Kind regards 

Chris WalkerAssistant Director (Planning & Development)

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

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

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

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

 

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.

Residents speak out on unaffordable housing and 'bogus' letters

Planning Committee site visit to WGLC on February 9th

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

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

Kilburn Times 31.1.13

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.

Willesden Green planning application delayed further - more time for your comments

The details for application 12/2924 on the Brent Planning website have been amended today, and now state:

This application was advertised on 24/01/2013 for the following reason:
Departure & affecting conservation area.

This case will be decided no earlier than 14/02/2013

It appears that, despite issuing a consultation letter on 27 December 2012 advising of the "Revised Proposal" it had received with a changed site boundary line, the Planning Service did not place a newspaper advertisement or on-site notices about it. This will now be advertised next week, with the consequence that the revised public consultation period will end on Thursday 14 February. This is the day after the Planning Committee meeting on 13 February, so that the planning application cannot now be considered until March 2013 at the earliest, and residents are free to carry on submitting comments.

There has been a further development on the Brent Planning website, with a whole batch of new "Revised Documents", mainly plans including detailed landscape plans for the Grange Road part of the enlarged site, attached to the planning application 12/2924 page. The conservation area consent application is also affected, with public consultation period also now extended until 14 February. Although no new application documents have been added to the 12/2925 page on the website yet, there is a copy of a new site notice

Willesden Green Library Centre – some New Year thoughts

Philip Grant has asked me to post this article:-

 

If Brent’s Regeneration Department had got their way, Willesden Green Library Centre would now be an empty building site, and the 10,000 local people who used its former building every week would be making do with small temporary facilities spread across the borough. The thousands of local residents who signed petitions, and the hundreds who have put in a lot of time and effort to fight the proposals, have ensured that this has not happened yet, and that even if the Cultural Centre plans go ahead, the 1894 library building will be retained. 

We can look back on 2012 with some satisfaction, but as we look forward to 2013 the key battles will come in the next few weeks. In order for the Cultural Centre scheme to go ahead, Brent’s Regeneration Department and Galliford Try Plc have three hurdles to overcome. I hope that these notes, and your own ideas and comments resulting from them, will help us to understand what needs to be done in order, hopefully, to see the scheme fall flat on its face.

1. The Town or Village Green application

The Public Inquiry on Martin Redston’s application to have the public square in front of the Library Centre registered as a Town or Village Green will begin on Monday 11 February. In my view, the square could meet all of the legal tests necessary for registration, and current chances of success are around 50/50, but it is up to the Applicant to produce the evidence necessary to prove his case. That is why Martin needs witness statements from as many people living within the Willesden Green area (the “neighbourhood within a locality” on which the application is based) by Monday 14 January at the latest, giving evidence which shows that they have used the square for leisure activities during the period from 1991 until May 2012 (or for whatever part of that period they have done so). It is very important that only genuine information and details are given, and that no one “invents” evidence thinking that this will help. Any statement which the objectors can show to be false, or the Inspector conducting the Public Inquiry considers likely to be false, will undermine Martin’s case by raising doubts about the validity of all his evidence.

Anyone is welcome to attend the Inquiry (from 10am each day in Space 2 on the first floor of the Library Centre – via the lift opposite the BAR Gallery). I hope that any supporters of the application will treat the proceedings with respect, as any placards or noisy demonstration would probably do more harm than good. From what we saw at the preliminary hearing, the Inspector appears likely to handle the Inquiry properly, and to consider the evidence and arguments of both sides fairly before reaching a conclusion. He hopes to produce his report and recommendation by the end of February. If he decides that the case for registration has not been sufficiently proved, I cannot see any point in trying to pursue this application any further. If he recommends that the square should be registered, Brent Council are not obliged to accept his recommendation, and could just sit on his report without taking any action on it. In that case it will be necessary to campaign publicly to shame Brent into registering this open space as a Town or Village Green, because it is only actual registration which protects the land from being built over.

2. Planning Application ref. 12/2924

Brent’s Planning Committee is likely to consider this application at its meeting on Wednesday 13 February at 7pm. The Planning Committee are not “the enemy”. They are independent of Brent’s Executive, and have a duty to decide applications on proper planning grounds and in accordance with Brent’s stated planning policies (unless material considerations indicate otherwise). There is a reasonable chance that they will reject the application, if the defects of the application are put before them.

Many of us will want to be there, and anyone who has commented on the application should receive notification of the meeting from Brent Planning Service. People should attend as individuals, carrying their notification; this is not the occasion for crowd action, placards or anything that could justify officials at the Town Hall barring the public from the meeting. We need to respect the committee proceedings, so that our views as well as those of the applicant and the Planning Officer receive a fair hearing.

The Planning Officer’s report and recommendation will be very important. It should be available to view online, as part of the meeting agenda documents, about a week beforehand. It will be a long and detailed report, and it needs to be studied very carefully. All of the points showing that planning policies have not, or not fully, been complied with need to be noted and referred to in objectors submissions to the committee, and any points where we disagree with the report over whether a planning policy is satisfied also need to be identified and brought to the committee’s attention. I think it would be a good idea if an individual or small team began listing these planning policy points now (from objections and comments already submitted), so that the list is ready to check against the Planning Officer’s report and be available to the KWG representatives who will speak as objectors at the meeting.

It is likely that a maximum of only three members of the public will be allowed to speak at the Planning Committee meeting, and probably for only two minutes each (one may be allowed three minutes). It is probably safe to assume that only two objectors will be allowed to speak, and to identify who would be the best two (with one “in reserve”) to speak clearly, concisely and confidently as to why, on proper planning grounds, the application should be rejected. Those two should notify the committee’s Democratic Services Officer, Joe Kwateng, at: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk that they wish to speak as objectors as soon as possible after the date for hearing of the application is confirmed, with the “reserve” sending an application as soon as those two requests to speak have been acknowledged. [I will not be putting myself forward as a speaker, as I think local people from Willesden Green would carry more weight – I will do what I can to ensure that several procedural matters are dealt with properly, including that of Cllr. Ann John as a member of the committee].

As indicated above, the key points to get across are why the application should be rejected on planning grounds. It might be best for one speaker to deal with the housing part of the application, and one to deal with the Cultural Centre points. They will need to work together to see who will have room in their two (or three) minutes to also include the planning policy failures on consultation, the fact that unlike the Civic Centre, WGLC is not in a regeneration area but in a district centre whose suburban character is meant to be protected under Brent’s own policy CP17, and the points arising from part of the site being in a conservation area (with the rest within that area’s “setting”). It will be a tall order to get everything into such a short time, by with careful preparation I think it can be done.

It will not be possible for the Planning Committee to grant full planning permission to this application at their meeting. If they are “minded to accept” the application, it will have to wait while the linked conservation area consent application is referred to the Secretary of State (see below). If the Planning Officer’s report recommends granting planning permission, the committee will not be able to reject the application at their meeting – they will have to record that they are “minded to refuse” the application, set out their grounds for this view, and then adjourn hearing of it to a later meeting. The only way that the application can be refused outright at the meeting is if the Planning Officer recommends refusal and they are satisfied that he is correct to do so. We do not yet know the recommendation will be (or whether, exceptionally in the particular circumstances of this case, there will be no recommendation) but the more proper planning grounds for refusing the application we can draw to the Planning Committee’s attention at the meeting, the better for our case.

3. Conservation Area Consent Application ref. 12/2925

This application cannot be decided by Brent’s Planning Committee, as despite its attempt to hide behind Galliford Try as the “sole applicant”, Brent is legally the joint applicant, at least as far as the proposed Cultural Centre is concerned. The conservation area consent application will only be considered by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (or the planning advisors which recommend what decision he should make) if Brent’s Planning Committee are “minded to accept” the planning application. 

Brent’s Planning Service will have to submit all of the documents in respect of this application, including all of the objections and comments made on it, for consideration. There is nothing further that we can do to influence the outcome, and there will be no public hearing. The usual time for such consideration before a decision is given is, apparently, between 16 and 20 weeks, but can occasionally exceed six months in a complicated case. If the decision is to grant the application, this would then allow Brent’s Planning Committee to grant full planning consent.

Because the two applications have been combined in a single form and set of documents, it is difficult to work out what the conservation area consent application part of it actually consists of. When I managed to do so, in order to submit my detailed comments, I discovered that it is a total mess! The application form seeks permission for the partial demolition of just the southern extension of the 1894 library building, confirming this in its proposed demolition plans and Town Planning Statement, then puts forward plans for work involving the complete demolition of all internal walls and floors within the locally listed building. This and other contradictions in the documents, together with a failure to actually consider the tests which the application needs to pass before it could be accepted, means that the Secretary of State would have little option but to reject it.

Brent’s Regeneration Department are aware of my detailed comments on this conservation area consent application, and if they have any sense, they and Galliford Try will withdraw it and submit a fresh application in place of 12/2925. This would mean another public notice, providing a further 21 days to consider, comment on or object to their consent application. If they press ahead with the existing application, they may well trip over this hurdle, even IF they manage to clear the first two. That is a big “IF”, and something which is far from certain as long as we organise and prepare properly the cases in favour of the Town and Village Green and against the planning application.

Town Square Enquiry adjourned until February 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

Willesden Green consultation process a misleading travesty says local resident

A local resident has kindly consented to share her submission regarding the Willesden Green planning application with readers:

Objection to Planning Applications 12/2925 and 2924,

Willesden Green Library Centre, 95 High Road, London, NW10 2SF Associated application for Conservation Area Consent

I object strongly to the above proposals for a major project to construct 92 flats and a small library building on the above site.

·        The replacement library has been misrepresented as a “benefit” to the community when in fact it is diminishing the facilities which are currently available to the public.

·        The proposals do not respect the character of the conservation area

·        The proposed replacement buildings are not of the highest architectural quality or design - they are an over-scaled and insensitive intrusion  which will destroy and dominate the High Road’s sense of place.

·        The proposed blocks of flats in the new housing scheme constitute a form of town cramming. On height alone they are unacceptable, breaching  SPG17 guidelines that  residential development should be no higher than 2-3 stories.

The Council is breaching its own policy commitments, national policy and GLA guidelines; in so doing it is betraying public trust.

BREACH OF BRENT'S PLANNING CODE OF PRACTICE AND DUE PROCESS.

Misrepresentation

The Council has sought throughout, to misrepresent its role in this matter, trying to pretend that the developer is the sole applicant for this planning permission.

Both the site and the buildings on it are council owned and therefore Brent is a joint "applicant" and an "interested party" in the application.

It is clear that this is a Council project from every statement made by the Council, from the  announcement in the 2010 Corporate Strategy that “we will be redeveloping Willesden Green Library”, and all subsequent committee reports.

The Council is, in truth,  seeking to grant itself planning permission to develop this land.

Breach of Brent's Planning Code of Practice.

The conduct of both officers and councillors is in breach of Brent's Planning Code of Practice. (see item 12 in respect of officers)

The Planning Code of Practice is also relevant to the conduct of the planning committee: if any member of the Committee has 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 is therefore partial and should be barred from discussion of the plans, or voting on them.

MISREPRESENTATION of  “PUBLIC BENEFIT”

The proposed replacement buildings offer no benefits to the local community that it does not already enjoy. The proposed redevelopment will seriously reduce public benefit.

The Council and its partners have persisted in misleading the public with false statements.

·        The proposed scheme represents a net loss in square footage of Publicly owned land and a reduction of amenity in a public amenity building,

·        The new public open space will be much worse, hidden away at the back of the building in a shady, steeply terraced passage-way which compromises public safety.  The change of ground levels has not been factored in to the design. The scale on the drawings has been misrepresented to imply a larger outdoor amenity.

·        Loss of parking

·        Detriment to a much-loved historic building.

With the closure of  6 libraries in Brent any replacement of the Willesden library needs to offer  a much larger building.  This proposal barely offers the same amount of library space as is already there and expects to cram in several other uses, such as increased council offices, onto a smaller site. The proposals are dense, cramped, and over-scaled in relation to neighbouring properties. The proposed architecture is at odds with the surrounding Edwardian neighbourhood.

BREACH OF GOOD PLANNING PRACTICE

The Council has failed to follow due process at every stage of this application:

·        to develop an LDF for Willesden Green, although this is an essential part of Town Planning and Spatial Strategy 

·        to produce a planning brief for the project, despite a written commitment to do so

·        to observe government constitutional guidance, Local Gov Act 2000, on “Key decisions”

·        to abide by the Willesden Green Conservation Area Character Appraisal/Management Plan 2006,

“There is a need to conserve the best of our built heritage against pressure for redevelopment and unsympathetic alteration”.

·        to abide by the Council’s UDP on Conservation-Led Regeneration and preservation of locally listed buildings and conservation areas, policies:

            BE24 LOCALLY LISTED BUILDINGS,

            BE25 DEVELOPMENT IN CONSERVATION AREAS

·        to abide by guidance in the new National Planning Policy Framework

o  in creating a strong sense of place

o  promotion of design that responds appropriately to local context.

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.'

·        to abide by London Plan policy 3A.18

o  it will not provide equal or enhanced community use floorspace.

o  The facilities will not be of equal or better quality to those that are being demolished,

o  It will not improve the existing offer to local people.

The Council accepted a planning application without uploading any of the details or drawings onto the Planning Web portal, thus making it impossible for the pubic to inspect the plans, thereby denying the public the right to the statutory period of reply.

CONSULTATION

The Council has flouted every single possible duty and commitment to properly consult on this scheme, and has attempted to mislead the public at every stage, by misreporting and misrepresenting such consultation as has taken place. 

This began with its first public announcement in Brent Council Magazine, issue 107, October 2010,  which misrepresented the Corporate Strategy announcement for Willesden as: "improve Willesden Green Library Centre providing more community facilities", when in fact the Corporate Strategy 2010-2014 itself states: “we will be redeveloping Willesden Green Library”

This was fundamentally misleading.

All subsequent consultation has been no more than a box ticking exercise outsourced to private companies.

The most recent in August / September this year was run by a private company calling themselves  the Library Lab, thus misleading residents into supposing that they were connected with the Brent Library service.

The people running the meetings tried to control  what was said; to stop people from asking questions or expressing their point of view, and even told questioners 'not to be disruptive'.  

The numbers attending the meetings were derisory: barely 200 out of a population of potentially 130,000 or so who live in the South of the borough,  or 13,000 who live in Willesden; certainly far fewer than the  number who wrote letters of objection. 

The reports of these meetings put out by this company are a shameful travesty of the truth. 

The whole exercise has been in breach of  Brent Council Constitution:

“The purpose of the Constitution is to support the active involvement of citizens in the process of local authority decision-making;”  and  “create a powerful and effective means of holding decision-makers to public account;”

FIDUCIARY DUTY

It is not the role of a democratically elected Local Authority to sell public assets cheap to facilitate profits for commercial developers on publicly owned land. A case could be made that Brent will be in breach of its fiduciary duty to the tax-payer in encouraging the developer to shortchange the public with reduced and inferior public facilities in return for large profits at the tax-payers expense. Councillors have endorsed plans that mislead the public.

There is also a question to be answered as to why the current, relatively new building was allowed by the Council to deteriorate to the point where it is claimed it is beyond repair.

For all these reasons these proposals should be rejected.

In by-passing all due process in this matter the Council has tainted the planning process.

There is little point in having any planning policies at all if they can be broken so easily.

The Council should prepare a proper planning brief for the site, which will be properly consulted on, and provide real benefits for the borough, rather than maximum profit for the developer.

Time to submit your comments on Willesden Green planning application

The above flyer is being distributed in Willesden Green and you can run off your own copy by clicking on the PDF below. The closing date for submissions is now likely to be DECEMBER 6th.

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.