Willesden Green Redevelopment: What the by-election candidates say

BNCTV  have uploaded two videos of our recent Hustings for the Dollis Hill by-election. Voting is on Thursday March 22nd.

George Crane defends Willesden Green regeneration project

Cllr George Crane, the lead member for the Willesden Regeneration Project defends the development in a guest posting on Cllr Krupesh Hirani's blog. He claims local Liberal Democrat councillors are fully behind the plans.

Follow the link HERE

Brent Council's response to 'Frequently Asked Questions'

The Council has published a 'Frequently Asked Questions' document on its website on the Willesden Green Library Project making the case for demolition.  It fails to make the case for not offering the Willesden Bookshop or BIAS in the new scheme.  One overlooked aspect of the new development seems to be that there is not provision for public  meeting rooms at the library.  The current ones have been used frequently by campaign groups and have been a focus for community activity in the south of the borough. As Alice would have said, confronted by Brent Council's action, "It all gets curiouser and curiouser". A community hub without space for the community to meet...


LINE TO FAQ ON WILLESDEN GREEN LIBRARY PROJECT

More questions for Brent Council and the Regeneration team

I have been asked to post the following:

Some more questions…..

Brent Council’s own Policy regarding Area Consultative Forums is as follows:. “To give the local community a full voice in the planning and other local government priorities in an area”.

 

Why is it then, that as the plans for the new Willesden Library and Cultural Centre come to light, it is becoming clear that we are being served a “done deal”? The intended placement and envelope of the proposed building has been decided. The positioning of the building and its relationship to the High Road and surrounding neighbourhood is set. There seems to be an assumption from Brent Council and the Regeneration team that Consultation will only need to be a matter of presenting the scheme as a given, telling us that it will meet their “vision” for the site and discussing the detail of the building use so that we, as a neighbourhood, can feel involved. This does not give us a full voice. Yes, of course we will have opportunity to object when an Application is submitted but what are our chances of being heard when the Council are Applicant, Judge and Jury.

 

The plans are being currently developed for a Planning Approval  by the partnered Galliford Try alongside Brent’s Regeneration team and there will be considerable work going on to meet the Councils deadline of a submission in April, in order to demolish by September 2012. 

 

This process is far from democratic. The Council have very successfully managed to exclude the stakeholders and have kept the information regarding the proposed development from the public domain until 18^th January 2012. My guess is that the feasibility plan has been on the drawing board for at least 2 years in order to reach the highly developed master plan that is being presented. As residents living within 200 yards of the library, I, and all my neighbours, would not have given the proposals our blessing had we been informed. We all recognise the need for an efficient and well run building to meet the needs of future generations and perhaps demolishing the 1983 building is the best option, but did anyone ask us if we would like to have the Old 1896 Willesden Library demolished? NO.

 

The 1983 Library Centre, with a footfall of almost 500,000 a year, is well-used and in many ways serves the “vision” that Brent has laid out for the future. The building was overhauled and upgraded 5 years ago at a significant cost to the rate payer. Yes, the existing Centre is not ideal and the needs of future generations could be better met with improved technology and a more sustainable building, but the building is well-used, it works, why rush? Why not improve the status quo by better managing the existing building and create a fund with a longer-term plan to retain the entire site. So little effort has been made to maximise the existing and previously well-loved facilities such as the Cinema, Bookshop and Café. The Cinema and Cafe have been allowed to decline by the Local Authority and the Bookshop has been asked to relocate. 

 

The phrase “constructive dismissal” springs to mind when I think about these spaces. It is hard to agree that we need a large housing development with a “compact” and ill-conceived Cultural Centre attached. What we really need is good and properly administered Public amenity and a Regeneration Team that is happy to listen to the local Community to deliver a Cultural Centre that will genuinely meet the needs of Willesden Green.

So what is the hurry? 

 

Brent Council needs to raise cash. They have therefore (behind closed doors) worked up a master plan and consulted with three property developers. These developers have told them that a scheme to rebuild the library would not be viable without the demolition of the Old 1896 Library, to facilitate the construction of private housing units, which could then be sold by the appointed developer for mutual financial benefit. So, the fate of our Community amenity has been decided by the opinions of Brent’s three chosen Property developers, who have been asked to submit bids to develop the land to maximise financial benefit. Not surprisingly, Brent has told us that in the opinion of these three property developers, the site is not financially viable without demolishing the Old 1896 Library. There are no facts and figures publicly available to back this up. There is no evidence of feasibility studies with input from Quantity Surveyor and property valuation. We are simply expected to accept that, for financial reasons, agreed behind closed doors, there are no alternatives.

 

The truth is, Public Space is being squandered in a rush to do a deal with cash-ready developers to meet the short-sighted ambition of a Regeneration team.

 

The building sits in a Conservation Area defined by Brent Council as follows:

The Willesden Green Conservation Area has a linear form running along the High Road and Walm Lane. The junction of these two roads and the junction at the original library are foci within the Area; whilst the St Andrews group of buildings and Willesden Green Tube Station mark the boundaries of the Conservation Area. The Heathfield Park Estate has a somewhat different leafy, residential feel from the much busier main roads.

 

The main Victorian commercial centre contains many significant buildings by several well-known architects. James Brooks, Newman and Newman and Gabriel contributed St Andrews Church, the Old Library and the bank premises respectively. Sexton's Spotted Dog (1881) and Clark's faience-tiled Met. Station of 1924 are also worthy of note.

 It is locally listed as a significant building within the High Road Conservation Area. The Brent Conservation Officer has been consulted so why has there been no mention of the Conservation Area Application that will be required alongside a Planning Application?

 

Excerpts from Brent’s Conservation Area Policy follows:

 

BE25 DEVELOPMENT IN CONSERVATION AREAS

Development proposals and new uses in Conservation Areas, or outside them but affecting their setting or views into or out of the area, shall pay special attention to the preservation or enhancement of the character or appearance of the area.

 

New development and enhancement proposals in Conservation Areas shall have particular regard to any specific design policies as may be prepared by the council, in co-operation with the local community, to ensure that the scale and form of new developments consistent with the preservation or enhancement of the character or appearance of the area.

 

BE27 DEMOLITION & GAP SITES IN CONSERVATION AREAS

 

Consent will not be given for the demolition of a building, or alteration involving demolition of part of a building, in a conservation area unless the building, or part of the building, positively detracts from the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

 

Where demolition in a Conservation Area is acceptable and this would form a gap site, then a full planning application will be required to accompany the application for Conservation Area Consent, showing details of what is to be substituted.

 

Replacement buildings should be seen as a stimulus to imaginative, high quality design and an opportunity to enhance the area.

 

The Brent Strategy for Development says:

 

2.5.16 The Council is committed to ensuring that new development contributes to preserving that which is environmentally pleasing in the Borough and improving those parts of Brent which are less attractive…….Wherever possible, schemes to upgrade the environment will be undertaken with the full involvement of the local community.

 

STR 15

Major development should enhance the public realm, by creating or contributing to attractive and successful outdoor areas. 

 This rare building is so important to the context of the High Road. It’s presence defines the Architectural Character of the area. The new scheme proposes to demolish this gem and gives us a South facing, glass-fronted monstrosity which sits hard up against the reduced pavement and eliminates the gathering space that currently defines the location.

Would a Conservation Officer see the demolition of this landmark and defining historic building in favour of a dense housing scheme as justifiable?

My biggest fear is that the ambition has eclipsed morals. There seem to be no obligations to the existing stake-holders and no intention of listening to the views of anyone other than hand picked property developers”. Are Galliford Try aware of all the Planning issues here or are they agreeing to a deal on the understanding that all Planning issues are already mitigated? If Brent Council are standing by the guidance set out in their own and Central Planning Policy, this situation presents risk for all parties concerned.

Executive asked to reconsider Willesden Green interim arrangements

The Call In and Scrutiny Overview Committee tonight passed a motion that  called on the Executive to reconsider their interim service plan for the period of the Willesden Green redevelopment to include the possibility of using existing closed library buildings in order to provide a comprehensive and financially viable library service.

Amid chaotic scenes Brent legal officers present appeared to indicate that the effect of this was to postpone any signing of an agreement with the developer until the Executive had considered the motion from Scrutiny. This will put back the timetable for the regeneration which is already running behind schedule.The anticipated signing date of February 2nd  was only revealed after the vote.

The next Executive is on February 13th and will already have a full agenda which includes the budget. Although the Executive routinely votes down referrals from Scrutiny Committee there will be a further chance for the public to make representations.

Eleven members of the public spoke tonight.

Much of what they had to say was concerned with the poor consultation over the plans.  It emerged that the 'stakeholder consultation' consisted of two evening focus group meetings attended by 5 and 7 people respectively who were unrepresentative of Brent's population. Several complained that there had been no mention of the Willesden Green closure when the Library Transformation plans were discussed and users of the closed libraries had been told that Willesden Green was their nearest alternative,

There were pleas from several different library campaigners for the closed down libraries to be reopened to provide an interim service. If Willesden Green had been near enough to be an alternative for their closed library then the reverse must also be true. A Kensal Rise campaigner argued that there was no justification for paying rent on temporary buildings when that purpose built library was available rent free and had enough space for the Brent Archives.

Nicolette McKenzie from Mapesbury Residents  made an impassioned plea for the Willesden Bookshop. She said that most cultural centres have a bookshop.  Although the bookshop was not part of the council's core service it was part of the bigger moral contract between the council and local residents. She said that the council needed to make some compromise and show goodwill towards residents.

Alison Hopkins for Dollis Hill and Neasden residents reminded the council that they had spent £300,000 on refurbishment of Neasden and were paying rent of £55,000 plus security costs on a building that could be put to use. The area was one of high deprivation and badly need the library..

Jacky Baines said that there had been no consultation over the of the old Willesden Library building and called on the council to listen to residents. She said that an epetition had been launched on the council website. (Available HERE)

Simon Hawkins, speaking for Brondesbury residents said that the first they had heard of the proposals was on January 16th. On the  focus groups he said it was wrong that so much was decided by so few. Consultation was now available only when detailed plans existed and decisions were being made by small groups behind closed doors. He said interim arrangements were incoherent and residents needed reassurance that the project was not a housing scheme with a small ill-thought out library space. He asked what justification there was for removing the cinema. Contrasting the success of the Tricycle he said that the Willesden Green Library Centre had been badly managed and needed a manager of real calibre.

Responses from Cllr Crane (leader member for regeneration and major projects) and Andy Donald, the officer concerned, reiterated that the present building was not fit for purpose and would cost too much to refurbish and anyway the council did not have the money. A developer partnership meant that the project was cost neutral with the council gaining the freehold of the new building by handing council land (the library car park and a section of Chambers Lane) over to the developer for housing.

Fuller version of this post available HERE

Give Brent children the chance to be inspired

The following comment by the mother of Zadie Smith has been posted on Wembley Matters:

The current Brent Library Centre may not be one of the most attractive buildings, but it has provided residents from across Brent with a place to study, work and play for well over 20 years. It’s a place to just sit and read a good book. It is highly accessible for both young and old and for those with disability issues.

Over the years it has attracted a number of celebrity writers who have come along and inspire would be writers. It has hosted a number of cultural events/music festivals, the French market etc. It has attracted educators and community speakers. Local artist display their work. Would be local entrepreneurs test the waters there.

The children's library and various creative activities all offer much needed space for many families who live in overcrowded or otherwise inadequate homes. The wonderful Willesden Bookshop brought something unique to the area, and is well used by Brentites and schools.

 I am privileged to be the mother of the internationally acclaimed novelist Zadie Smith. Zadie and her brothers are all university graduates who have pursued careers in the arts. A major inspiration for all of them was the fact they had access to local libraries, the Kilburn Bookshop in the first instance and then to all our joy, our very own Willesden Bookshop.

Steve the owner of the bookshop has always been happy to have the youngest of children thumb through the books. 25 years later and my gorgeous granddaughters are enjoying the same privilege.

Please do not further reduce opportunities for Brent children to be inspired. Communities all over our towns and cities are becoming less and less cohesive. We want Willesden Green to keep its sense of community as far as is possible. Our Library Centre is a major way of encouraging this. It is the heart of our community bringing as it does people from across all ethnic, religious and class groups. It is a warm and safe place for people to spend time.

Rebuild by all means. But do not leave us with less than we had. And surely a special plea for our locally listed beautiful little library building not to be demolished. How can the architects say it cannot be incorporated! They are architects. They usually do what they are commissioned to do, don't they?

Why I am worried about the regeneration proposals

The Library and Bookshop due to be demolished

 Guest posting  from Sophia MacGibbon, a Willesden resident who spoke at the recent Willesden Area Consultation Forum. There will be an Executive report on the Willesden Green Library Regeneration at tonight's Council Meeting, 7pm, Brent Town Hall

I have a number of concerns about the Willesden Green Regeneration proposal as outlined by the Council

I find it hard to see what exactly is being proposed. The document is full of good sounding phrases, but short on what they actually mean. Because of that I cannot see whether the proposed development is going to give the people of Brent more than they are getting now. In fact all the vague proposals could be delivered in the existing structure with better management and some investment in improved technology. 

I am worried about the proposal for a number of specific reasons:-

1 The proposal will, I believe result in the demolition and loss of the original library building, currently housing an Irish Advice centre. This building is an historical and architectural gem and these are in short supply in Brent. It would be an act of vandalism to destroy it      

 2. The loss of car parking space. I know it is environmentally fashionable to knock car use and proposals that appear to make bringing cars into the town centre more difficult should be the current good thing to do. However I believe the councillors should study the finding of the survey undertaken for the Government by Mary Portas.  She argues strongly that for local high roads to stand a chance against shopping centres etc, there has to be parking provided at minimal cost. While it is possible to park at Sainsbury’s, the space is limited and I fear that many of the shops further along the High Road will lose custom if the car park at the library were to go. Many people park, use the Library centre and then nip out to the local shops. What rate benefit the council might accrue from residential development of the parking space may well be offset by the loss of business rates if yet more shops close down. And the negative impact on the High Road could be devastating.

The closure of 6 of the borough’s libraries has meant that may people have to travel considerable distances to get access to a library. The loss of the car parking facility will hit the elderly and people bringing young children to the library to enjoy the under5s sessions, etc. These sessions are an important way of developing a love of books and a confidence in using libraries. The closure of the car park could be argued as discrimination as it will impact on some sections of the population more than others

3. The loss of the open space at the front of the library centre will be a shame, especially as there is beginning to be a real effort to use the space more frequently and imaginatively. There is an ongoing attempt to establish a regular market there that has the potential to become successful, there things take time, and the current sculptural art work is a delight.  The High Road is mainly narrow and quite dark, the open space around the library is a welcome break of light and air.

4. What is wrong with the current building? I read in the proposal document that it is expensive and not fit for purpose. In what way is it not fit for purpose? Everything that seems to be being proposed could go on in the existing centre if it was properly managed. Currently many of the features of the current building are idle. Why? How come people have been able to establish a successful cinema in most unlikely premises in Kensal Rise, (The Lexi) while the purpose built cinema with a car park is unused? Good management should have dealt with that in a way that could have been profitable to the council. Likewise the bar/cafe area.  Cafe culture is rapidly growing all round the borough and that cafe should have been a successful and profitable business, bringing rent revenue in for years. A recent successful art/craft project showed the real potential of the space. The underused upstairs spaces could have been utilised in ways envisaged in the proposals for redevelopment.  The current centre is expensive because it is underused and little imagination has been shown both to exploit the space and make money out of it. If a new centre is built what guarantee is there that it won’t be poorly, expensively and unimaginatively managed.

5. The loss of the bookshop. Bookshops are struggling across the country and having one still surviving on the High Road is to be applauded. The High Road is increasingly reducing to pound shops, all hours’ grocers and fast food outlets. Any shops that provide variety and in the case of the bookshop, culture should be encouraged and supported. While attempts to get current unused shops available at reduced rents, there are only to be for a limited period and this proposal is not a permanent solution for a shop such as the bookshop. The shop provides an invaluable service to many local schools as it deals with their book orders. The schools will struggle if the shop goes.

6. I fear for the future of the library aspect of the proposed centre when I see the current provision described as “warehousing books”. What is being proposed, a library without books? Already much of the library space is taken up with the provision of a free internet cafe. While I think the provision for study space, including internet provision is invaluable, much of the current space is not used for that, but by people sending emails. Moreover student study space is not the only use of the library and despite the increasing use of eBooks; hard copy books are still the central purpose for libraries and will be for many years to come. If in the future technology proves me wrong, it will require a small investment to upgrade the provision.