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.
