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.

 

Willesden Town Square Inquiry opens today - public welcome

The Public Inquiry into the application to register the space outside Willesden Green Library a Town Square opens this morning at 10am on the 1st floor of the Willesden Green Library Centre.

The public are welcome to attend.

Is the proposed library building big enough?

More evidence needed as date set for Town Square Inquiry

The full hearing of Martin Redston's application, on behalf of all Willesden Green residents, to have the open space in front of the Willesden Green Library Centre registered as a Town or Village Green, will now begin on Monday 11th February 2013. It will be held in Space 2, on the first floor of the Library Centre, starting at 10am, and may last for up to four days. The independent Inspector who is holding the Public Inquiry has issued full details of how it will be organised and dealt with (see pdf link below for details).

 

Martin will be up against barristers representing both Brent and Linden Homes (Galliford Try), and has to submit all of his written evidence statements by Friday 18th January. It would help his case if he had more evidence from inhabitants of the "core" area of Willesden Green around the High Road. There are many objectors to the WGCC planning application who have put comments online, with addresses that fall within this area.

 

Roads that crop up at least once, often several times are: Brondesbury Park, Bryan Avenue, Chambers Lane, Churchill Road, Grange Road, Kings Road, Lechmere Road, Osborne Road, Peter Avenue, St Andrew's Road, St Paul's Avenue and Sandringham Road. If you are one of these people, or know them, and you or they could provide any evidence of the use of the town square for lawful sports or pastimes at any time since 1991, please let Martin have details as soon as possible. It doesn't matter if you cannot attend the Public Inquiry, or would not wish to speak at it - a simple signed written statement would be a great help.

 

Any such statement should give:

• the name and address of the person making it;
• what their connection is with the Willesden Green area, and the open space;
• what pastimes (for example, standing or sitting and talking with friends, sitting to read a book or magazine, any organised game or activity) they have enjoyed in the space, and (roughly) how often;
• what pastimes they have seen other people enjoying there, how many people, and (if known) whether or not they were local people from the Willesden Green area;
• whether anyone (Council staff or police) have ever tried to stop them or others from indulging in the pastimes they have enjoyed in this open space; and
• what periods of time (approximate start and end dates) their experience of the pastimes described covers.

Town Square Public Enquiry needs your evidence

The three day Willesden Green Town Square Public Enquiry will begin on December 17th at Studio 2, First Floor, Willesden Green Library Centre.plicant has to establish that the space has been used for pastimes and recreation  'as of right' since it opened in 1989. These could include reading a book, drinking coffee, photography, art  as well as attending the various fairs etc.

Signed statements giving such evidence would be useful.  These should be sent to Martin Redston (e-mail addresses below).  PDFs are acceptable.

Residents are welcome to attend. Please let Martin know if you wish to speak at the Enquiry. 

mredston@compuserve.com 

martin@redston.org

Carry on commenting on Willesden Green Planning Application

In response to my query I have received the following from Andy Bates of Brent Planning regarding the Willesden Green applications and whether comments will continue to be accepted up to the date of the Planning Committee Meeting.

Dear Martin, 

Thank you for your email. I can confirm that comments will continue to be accepted. In terms of a Planning Committee date, the first meeting the applications could be considered at is on February 13th 2013. All those who have commented on the proposals will be notified once a date is fixed. 

I hope this updates you. 

Regards, 

Andy Bates
Area Team Manager (South Team)
Brent Planning & Development

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.

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

Willesden Green: incompetence can do as much damage as corruption

A local resident has written the following letter regarding today's consultation:

I very much regret that I cannot attend the 'update' on the WGLC on Wednesday 8th. August as I am working out of Newcastle all next week.

However, I would like to make a statement.

i)     It seems to me that Galliford Try are being somehow made the 'villains' in the current planning chaos.  As far as I can ascertain, all the company ever did was draw up plans according to the brief given them by Brent Council.

ii) In January of 2011 someone, or a small group within the council, decided it would be a good idea to redevelop the WGL site, given the pressure on councils to build more housing.

iii)   Without taking any meaningful survey of local opinion, the council put the project out to tender. In return for building land, the developer would build build a new 'centre'..the southern hub of the one in Wembley built at a cost of round £100,000.000. GT's tender was accepted.

iiii)  It was not possible for the developers to gain reasonable profit unless they used most of the land, so quotes were submitted which involved removing the present 23 year old library and the 1894 building, built by public subscription and a Carnegie grant, and utilising the open space around the 1894 building.
     
v)    It should be obvious to all that the scheme is not viable.  The value of the land is, I understand, around £10,500.000.  If this is all the money available to build the new WGL, it is not enough.  The 'southern hub' as the publicity puts it, is to cost about 10% of the Wembley one. It must also provide extra space for the people displaced by the closure of the Six.

Please could the council look carefully at its assets, leave the 1894 building and open space as a genuine focal point on the High Street, redevelop the existing building, put in a competent manager who will not let spaces like the cinema and cafe sit empty and dark for years, and who has a sense of what is genuinely valued by the community, ie. the Bookshop. The treatment of the bookshop is a local, national (see  the Guardian) and international (Zadie Smith in New York Review of Books) disgrace, and shows beyond a doubt that despite the council's tough talk of demanding a commercial rental for any spaces within the new WGL, the council has no idea how any commercial enterprise is run, how much notice is needed to vacate a site, or any other practical matter like re-stocking etc. 

Many have suggested to me that the council is obviously corrupt.  I have always maintained that the bad old days are over.  However, a misguided, incompetent and ill-informed council, however well-meaning, can do as much damage as a corrupt one.  

I beg GT, together with the the Council's Regeneration Team, to take a good look at council assets and come up with a plan which will not result in a really poor deal for the students, library users and citizens of Brent.

How do the spaces in the current and proposed Willesden Green buildings compare?

The developers have produced a comparison table to address questions about the spaces within the proposed new Willesden Green Cultural Centre building ('Client brief') and spaces in the present building.

Comments welcome!

This is what Galliford Try say:

In response to resident queries we have prepared a schedule of areas comparing the new WGCC with the existing WGLC. The brief has developed over the last two months in response to the consultation and design development which has taken place.

Overall the building size at Willesden Green has reduced but the reduction in useable space is only around 100 square metres. We have put together a brief for a new building where there is no wasted space, as there is in the current building. The new building will be a compact and active hub for the south of Brent.

The new building will have an open plan design which will allow the spaces to bleed into one another, whilst there is a reduction in library space in the brief there will be a variety of spaces throughout the building which users can occupy and enjoy. The total stock for the new library, including items that will be out on loan will be between 55 and 60,000. Current stock level is 60,000 books.

An evaluation of the requirements for customer services in Brent has concluded that there is a need for 60 customer services booths in the two main customer service hubs in the borough; this is where face to face enquiries for all Council services can be handled.  This provision has been incorporated into the design of both new buildings with 33 booth spaces in the Civic Centre and 27 booths within Willesden. This provision facilitates a significant customer services offer, alongside the cultural and community facilities that both buildings will offer to residents.

The new building at Willesden Green also includes office space for the councils Localities Team (social care referrals and assessment), this team provides an essential council service and is not currently located in the building, accounting for an increase in the overall office space, we have separated out these areas in the attached schedule to make this clear.