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

Galliford Try grab more Willesden land

Kate Spence writes:

The site plan below shows land to be assigned for development by a partnering developer in Willesden Greeen as agreed by the Executive Committee in February 2012. This plan was drawn up in order to define the land made available in order to deliver a new Cultural Centre at zero cost. The contracted developer, Galliford Try  agreed to provide a new Centre that would add cultural benefit to the area, the public realm was to be enhanced and at the same time Council offices would be provided to provide a South of Borough presence for Brent Council. In order to deliver the project at zero cost, a master plan was agreed by Regeneration Team and the developer to provide private housing to fund the project.

I note from Andy Bates'  letter of 27th December that, almost one year on, there is now further land required for disposal to Galliford Try in order that proposed new Planning Application 12/2924 & 12/2925 can meet Planning Regulations. There has been no question of the rear line of the Cultural Centre being adjusted to allow for public provision as this would decrease the space available for private housing and therefore reduce developer profit.

The developer has also not shown any willingness to reduce profit and include a basement to house archive and museum allowing better provision for public amenity. Instead it has been agreed, behind closed doors, that yet more Public High Road, Conservation Area open space should be assigned to Galliford Try for development purposes.

In the proposed plans the developer has failed to make space for adequate on-site car parking provision, they are also unable to deliver cycle parking.  I can see that the proposed plans for Grange Road include cycle parking and therefore a cycle route.

Currently the Grange Road area is enjoyed as a safe pedestrianised walkway. Will the inclusion of a cycle route and parking enhance this area and do the proposed children's pavement interventions really sit safely alongside the cycle access? This appears to be yet another ill-conceived plan which does not offer public benefit and will not enhance the area. 

Has the post-contractual decision to give over yet further public land to achieve a large housing development with small Cultural Centre been formally authorised by the Executive? 

Clearly the allocated site was insufficient for the proposed public facility along side the private housing and therefore yet more public land has been assigned without consultation in order to achieve a positive outcome for the applications ref 12/2924 and 12/ 2925. 

The goal posts seem to have moved in order to facilitate an untenable application and the basis on which the WGCC and housing contract was signed with Galliford Try has been adjusted in order to make the unacceptable plans viable. This alteration has been agreed by a Council who claim to be impartial in their assessment of the scheme.

I do hope that when the scheme is presented to the Planning Committee that there will be a more objective approach and the developers requirement for additional public land in order to meet their objectives, will be highlighted in the Planning officers report to the Committee.

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.

Revised plans submitted for Cultural Centre

Brent Council has released the following statement:

A revised planning application to redevelop Willesden Library and replace it with a state of the art cultural centre was submitted last Wednesday (31 October).

The application, which was submitted by developer Galliford Try, details proposals to deliver a brand new library and cultural centre that will act as the main service delivery hub for the south of the borough.

The proposed revised design is a result of extended consultation with the local community which took place over August and September and includes the old Victorian library as part of the plans.

Brent has secured a self-financing scheme which involves working with developer partner, Galliford Try, to deliver the new cultural centre in return for developing homes on the remainder of the current site for market sale.

For the past few month residents have met with council officers and Galliford Try to revisit the original design and discuss alternative proposals for the new centre and its design.

In response to the recent extended period of consultation Brent has made several changes to the design, including;

• completely redesigning the scheme to include the old library
• increasing the size of the new library within the centre
• creating room for more study spaces and computers
• changing the brief for the building so that it could, potentially, include a bookshop.

The proposals for the centre also include a children's library,  IT provision, museum, community gallery, archive, archive store, three community spaces (which will provide an array of programmed creative events), café/ bookshop, multi faith contemplation room and high quality public spaces designed for markets and events.

Cllr George Crane Lead Member for Regeneration and Major Projects said: "Thank you to the many residents who got involved in consultation and gave up their time to help us develop plans for this new centre."

If the project gets the green light the council hopes to build on its close working with stakeholders to develop the building proposals including how it is may be used and managed.

Link to Planning site: 12./2924 LINK   12/2925  LINK

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

Vague vagaries on Willesden Green consultation

The August 8th 'consultation' has now been belatedly advertised on the Brent Council and Linden Homes/Galliford Try websites.  Still remarkably vague (are Remarkable PR still involved?)about content, future events and even end date....

It looks as if we will have to visit the Library Lab to find out timings for the 8th and what is organised for September.

From Brent Council website:

Willesden Green Cultural Centre

Who is consulting?

Regeneration and Major Projects

Why are we consulting?

The planning application for the proposed new Willesden Green Cultural Centre was withdrawn by Galliford Try at the beginning of July.

The Council and Galliford Try are now proposing some further engagement activities with local people and other stakeholders to explore the design for the Cultural Centre including what the building will look like and also what activities will take place in and around the building.

How can you take part?

An open day will be held on 8 August 2012 at the Willesden Green Library Centre in the Library Lab to update all stakeholders. You are welcome to drop in at any  time during the day and we will be available to answer questions. There will be presentations at set times during the day and further information on this will be available at the Library Lab.

Thursday 8 August

11am to 8pm at the Library Lab at the WGLC

Please note we will be holding further events in September, more details on these will be available at the Library Lab over the next few weeks.

When is the consultation taking place?

Start:     August 2012                    End:     September 2012

Who is being consulted?

Target Group:                    All residents and local stakeholders and businesses in Brent and all users of the Willesden Green Library Centre

Geographic:                       Willesden Green

Powerful presentations on Willesden Green at Brent Executive

Brent Executive tonight approved the report on Willesden Green Regeneration and will go ahead and sign the agreement with the developer. Cllr Crane assured the public that there will be developer consultation over the next 3  or 4 months and further consultation when the plans go to Planning Committee.However it appears that this consultation does not include finding space for Willesden Bookshop in the new Cultural Centre or saving the Victorian Old Willesden Library building.

Powerful presentations were made by the public and two of them are reproduced below:

One of the key weaknesses in the consultation process thus far has been the absence of, to quote Council’s own web pages ‘information materials written clearly and simply’ on the substance of the redevelopment project. ‘The Vision in Detail’ document produced by the Council offers nothing but platitudes and fluffy, uncontroversial aspirations. I think, for instance, we can all agree that a public building requires, again, I quote, ‘a clear and fully accessible entrance’. But that is plainly not what’s at stake in this redevelopment. Instead, the public needs a much more detailed and substantive account of the plans and how they were arrived at.

Looking at the plans, it seems like the new cultural centre will cover less space than that the current complex. The plans state that the new complex will consist of 4,000 square metres. What does the current space measure? The Brent Museum has to be allocated the same space it currently occupies. How much of the space will be allocated to Council offices? Is the new Children’s Library being housed within the General ‘improved’ library or is it separate? How will the size of the space allocated to the new library compare with that of the current library? And once these areas are added up, how much space is actually left over for ‘flexible spaces in a range of sizes’? Will these be able to accommodate public meeting spaces as they do now, so  important for local democracy? And what criteria have been used for the allocation of indoor space other than the Library and Museum?

All these questions raise my fundamental concern about the process thus far: the fate of our Community amenity has been decided by the opinions of Brent’s three chosen Property developers. The publicly- elected authority of the Council is being trumped by the private commercial interests of the developers who, logically enough, are presenting plans that will maximise their profits, not the requirements of the local community.   In sum, there is  a woeful dearth  of facts and figures publicly available on a whole range of critical issues relating to this re-development project:

There is no evidence of feasibility studies with impartial input from a Quantity Surveyor and property valuation.

We are simply expected to accept that, for financial reasons, agreed behind closed doors, there are no alternatives short of the wholesale demolition of the new and old libraries in order to rehabilitate our flawed but highly- valued Library centre.

I, together with over a thousand other local residents who have thus far signed  relevant epetitions, do not believe this to be the case, and expect a democratic Council to extend and publicise more effectively the consultation process, and fill in the huge gaps in the detail of these proposals before it steam rolls ahead with the redevelopment agreement without the backing of local residents. 

Dr Ishani Salpadoru

Another unseemly aspect of the process thus far is the haste under which it’s being undertaken. The client design brief was issued in June 2011  and the council documentation from January this year claims that ‘officers  have spent the last 12 months successfully firming up the proposal ensuring the project is feasible’. Yet the public has only been given a couple of weeks to see and digest the first (vague) details of the actual redevelopment plans  before the deal is signed with Galliford Try. Why the haste? And how exactly are any of the substantial concerns raised by local residents – over the 1894 Library, over the bookshop, over parking, over the internal distribution of space – going to be seriously considered before the Library closure in July and its demolition in September?    

These are not merely technical issues requiring a click of the mouse here or there to change the layout.. The design and content of the Library Centre touches on many critical aspects of our neighbourhood, from literacy and diversity promoted by our bookshop, to questions of high street  retailing tied, as Mary Portas has recently pointed out, to availability of parking space. These are issues that need substantive, qualitative public consultation and a time-frame that allows not only widespread deliberation and deeper assimilation of what is being proposed but, crucially, reasonable lead-times to the enact changes issuing from the consultation. In other words, not a mere public engagement exercise geared to fobbing us off with minor changes but a consultation with detailed outcomes and the potential to alter existing design.

The Council and its partners rightly took their time when delivering their project. Now they owe Willesden Green residents the democratic courtesy of letting us  mull over, debate and disagree on what is being proposed to us. I would therefore  Why delay the signing of the final agreement with Galliford Try and extend the early stages (A and B-) of the consultation process, so residents can arrive at a calm and considered view on the plans for a building , it is hoped, will, like the Old Library this time survive a bit longer than thirty years before it’s demolished?

Alejandro Colas

First can I say thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you about this redevelopment of Willesden Green, and about the future of Willesden Bookshop in particular. I would also like to thank Councillor John for taking time out of her weekend to contact me at my home. We agreed that there has been some misreporting of aspects of this development, and I hope that this evening we will finally get some clarity from all sides and for us to deal only in facts, particularly from Councillor Crane.

Cllr John told me that “an exception can’t be made for one business” in the cultural centre – but for a business with such obvious benefit to the community, why not? It’s worked up to now – and in fact, they are the only tenants who have stayed the course in that development.  Moreover, the very little detail available for these plans already specifies retail space for a café, which surely contradicts the Council’s argument.

Their survival up to this point has been helped by this relatively reasonable rent. Commercial rents for the smaller premises in the High Road are almost twice the rent that the bookshop currently pays, and unless the Council can agree a similar rent for them with one of the landlords in the High Road, its survival prospects are bleak, given the current financial climate.

Has the manager of the bookshop been asked whether he would consider relocating temporarily for 18 months while the rebuild takes place if space can be made for them within the new centre?

Today the bookshop received an email from the council’s property services with a list of possible properties, all of which the manager had previously seen and rejected for either being too small or too expensive. Although Councillor John told me this weekend that they are being helped to relocate, this is the FIRST such email of its kind he has received. The Council’s Head of Property Management has said that he has not been instructed to help the bookshop relocate, so who has?

Councillors have suggested to the manager that The New Windows on Willesden Green Project may be of some help. On enquiring he discovered it is designed to provide a safe space for entrepreneurs to try out fledgling business ideas for three to six months with a view to extension should their enterprise be successful.  Hardly appropriate for an established business with a proven track record of more than 20 years.

Has the contract already been signed by the Executive for this development to go ahead, or is there still time for a proper consultation to take place with Brent residents who will be using this space? As the clients to this development, isn’t it for the Council and Brent residents to specify the remit for the rebuild?

As things stand, we are losing a building of historical interest, a bookshop with obvious benefits, the only open space on the High Road for markets and other events and much needed car parking space and gaining office space and a café that we don’t want. How exactly will this development enhance the provision we currently have, and how much of a profit will the developers make on this?

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing your responses to these and other questions.

Gill Wood

 A fuller report on the Executive meeting can be found on Wembley Matters

Speakers on Willesden Green development at Executive tomorrow

Several local residents have requested permission to make 3 minute presentations at the Brent Executive meeting on Monday evening. They are likely to be taken at the beginning of the meeting after apologies and minutes.

The meeting begins at 7pm on Monday 13th February in Committee Rooms 1,2 and 3 (at the top of the stairs).

The members of the Executive are:
Cllr John (Chair) Leader/Lead Member for Corporate Strategy and Policy
Co-ordination
Cllr Butt (Vice-Chair) Deputy Leader/Lead Member for Resources
Cllr Arnold Lead Member for Children and Families
Cllr Beswick Lead Member for Crime and Public Safety
Cllr Crane Lead Member for Regeneration and Major Projects
Cllr Jones Lead Member for Customers and Citizens
Cllr Long Lead Member for Housing
Cllr J Moher Lead Member for Highways and Transportation
Cllr R Moher Lead Member for Adults and Health
Cllr Powney Lead Member for Environment and Neighbourhoods

Cllr George Crane will probably comment on the regeneration  proposals with possible additional comments from Cllr James Powney who leads on libraries.

Among the issues that have emerged about the regeneration proposals are:

• Lack of consultation over the original proposals and the 'offer' to be made in the proposed Cultural Centre
• The handing over to developers of council land to finance the development with all profits from housing going to the developer
• The Council-Private Partnership which leaves a lot of decision making to the developer
• The developer's apparent decision that retail in the Centre would not be viable (despite provision for a cafe when there are many available in the vicinity)
• The subsequent loss of premises to the much valued Willesden Bookshop
• The developer's advice that the historic old  locally listed 1894 Willesden Library could not be accommodated in the new plans
• The subsequent loss of  a base for the Brent Irish Advisory Service
• The apparent lack of public meeting rooms in the new Centre when the current rooms have been well-used and are essential to local democracy
• Provision for council offices in the new building when other offices are being closed and moved to the new Civic Centre
• The adequacy of the council's alternative arrangements during the 18month-2 year building period and proposals to reopen some of the closed libraries instead
• Loss of the open space in front of the library
• Lack of parking spaces for disabled visitors

Image and Plan for proposed Willesden Cultural Centre

The proposed Willesden Cultural Centre (minus new flats)

Statement from the architects:

Allford Hall Monaghan Morris and Architecture 519 are pleased to announce they have been selected for the Willesden Green Cultural Centre Redevelopment in Brent with Galliford Try Regeneration.

AHMM are leading the masterplan, which incorporates a new 4,000+ sq. m. library and cultural centre, with approximately 90 residential units by Architecture 519. A compact, atrium-centred scheme with a dramatic presence on the High Road will replace the existing 1980’s library, creating a community landmark in Brent. Activating the ground floor will be a café, children’s library and ‘creative cluster’ of large spaces tied into the masterplan through a significant new public space by Gillespies Landscape.

The team, supported by URS Scott Wilson for structure and services, expect to submit a planning application in the spring, with completion in 2014 for the entire site.

Brent Council's Plan (yellow is the Cultural Centre site - rest housing)

Happy images from the Green Fair outside Willesden Green Library

The open space outside the Willesen Green Library has begun to be used and livens up the town centre. This picture is from the Green Fair when local councillors joined in parachute games with the children. Public space is much  needed in a crowded area.

Why you must accommodate the Willesden Bookshop in new Cultural Centre

Before the Executive meeting  on January 16th a Willesden Bookshop customer sent this message to Brent Executive members:

Dear Councillor,

As a member of the Executive who will be attending this evening's meeting I am writing to you to register my dismay at the proposed redevelopment plans for Willesden Green, which currently do not accommodate The Willesden Bookshop. 

As a Brent resident for the last ten years I have valued this establishment and with each year I use it more and more.

I am not sure if you are aware of the invaluable resource that the bookshop provides, supplying stock to countless individuals and schools in the borough and beyond, cognisant of the diverse cultural community which it serves and reflecting those needs in the books that it sells. The depth of knowledge of the staff there is comprehensive impressive and provides a great service for those of us who prefer to browse and have a face to face conversation about a title or genre with someone whom we know will help us. It is efficient in ordering books for customers when they do not carry the titles on their own shelves, and are always courteous and helpful. My primary school aged children and secondary school aged son spend hours selecting books there and would be devastated not to be able to couple their visits to the library with one to the bookshop. There are numerous local authors whose work is regularly and prominently displayed. It's one of the few beacons of cultural success in Willesden Green and is a successful small business that we as individuals as well as local and central government should be championing. 

The current cafe space in the Library Centre area has always been unsuccessful. This may be down to the fact that there is a great deal of competition when it comes to cafes in the High Road and yet the redevelopment has plans for one. Willesden doesn't need another cafe. It needs to keep its only general bookshop, and I would like the developers to explain to Brent residents how one can have a Cultural Centre without having a bookshop, reflecting the culture of the area and the needs of its residents, at the heart of it.

I would please ask you to reconsider the plans in order to accommodate the Willesden Bookshop. It would be a tragedy for it to be lost.

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.