Butt: developers will deliver a better and brighter Brent

Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, was questioned last night at the Town Hall meeting about the Willesden Green development. He was asked about the Council's close relationship with developers and the statement that there was a 'presumption in favour of development.'  Furthermore, wasn't Brent Council the co-developer with Galliford Try at Willesden Green?

He replied:

It's the developers who will help us deliver our vision for Brent:  a better and brighter Brent.

Fiona Ledden, director of Procurement and Legal, said that she was confident that Brent has a robust Planning Committee.

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

Many questions left unanswered at today's Willesden Green consultation

Consultation presentation at 2pm today

I started out feeling sorry for Beth Kay from the Brent Council Regeneration Team today as she was once again the council's 'messenger' under fire from many quarters at the latest 'consultation'. .This sympathy was reduced somewhat when I heard the presentation and some of her answers to questions.. The Q&A would have gone much better if there had been a neutral chair to keep order and make sure that full answers were provided.

The main feature was the exhibition showing a possible scheme incorporating the 1894 Library. However Beth gave mixed messages about this. At one stage she had been talking about dialogue being frustrated by the issue of the the Victorian library and said, "Now the Old Library has been saved we can have conversations about what we want in the new library". However later she said that the retention of the Old Library compromised the scheme, presented challenges and made her nervous in planning terms.

In presenting the results of the top  consultation concerns (Loss of Old Library 45%, Loss of Wiilesden Bookshop 22%, Inadequate parking 18%, Renovation rather than redevelopment 17%, Dislike of design 16%, Insufficient consultation 16%, New building too small 14%, Loss of public space at front of building 14%) she referred to three petitions.  However for the 'Retaining Bookshop' petition and the 'Pause, Listen and Reflect' here presentation only gave the figures for the e-petition, rather than the much larger (sometimes 10 times larger) paper petitions. For the 'Oppose Demolition of the Old Library' petition  the presentation gave both the e-petition and paper petition figures.

I protested that this seriously misrepresented the number of people supporting the first two petitions and she undertook to amend the presentation.

Another conflict arose over the Willesden Bookshop. Beth claimed once again that the bookshop's rent had been subsidised (despite the owner Steve's denial on this blog) and that all bookshops were in crisis. She further claimed that the Bookshop itself had admitted it was not viable. However she said that (yet another) consultant had been appointed to look into the viability of a combined cafe/bookshop.

When it was pointed out that the Willesden Bookshop had now closed despite her presentation stating that the Council was trying to continue non-core services in the interim, she said that the Council was trying to find them premises on the High Road.

Challenged by another member of the audience on the total amount of  money that had been spent on consultants she was unable to provide an answer but implied that Galliford Try was footing the bill.

Questioned about why the planning application had been pulled Beth said this was due to the widespread opposition to the demolition of the Old Library. She did not mention that GLA planners had raised concerns that the proposals did not meet London Heritage policies in meetings with Brent Council officers. With a straight face she stated, "By withdrawing the planning application we have shown it is not a 'done deal' ".

During discussion about why refurbishment of the 1989 hadn't been considered, and when the audience laughed when someone asked 'Who built it if it's no good?" and was answered, to laughter "Brent Council!", Beth claimed that the Chalkhill Estate had been rebuilt and that was the same age as the current library. In fact the old Chalkhill Estate was built in several phases between 1966-70, 20 years earlier than the library.

I did not receive a satisfactory answer to a question about possible conflict over Brent Council's role as instigator of the project, point partner with the developer, conductor of post partnership public consultation, and decision maker on the planning application. I pointed out that our objections were not just limited to the retention of the Old Library but also concerned the loss of open space, the fact that the housing was unaffordable, loss of bookshop and the provision of council offices, none of which were to be consulted on. We wanted the Council to start again from scratch involving local people from the beginning. Beth angrily stated that the provision of council offices was a matter for the council and nothing to do with the  public, only the Council knew what they needed.

In the light of the above I asked that Keep Willesden Green be given the space to make their case to the public in the interests of openness and democracy. . To rumbles of disagreement she said that she did not think KWG was representative but added that it had been added to the list of special interest  groups to be consulted in September.   She responded more positively to a suggestion that there should be an ongoing  group to work on the proposals, possibly as part of the Willesden Town Team, or as a separate group.

I recognise this is a personal and subjective account and will happily post other views if they are sent to mafran@globalnet.co.uk

Martin Francis

Application lodged for Town Green designation of Willesden Green open space

An application has been made for the  registration of the front courtyard of the Willesden Green Library Centre to be registered as a Town Green under the Commons Act 2006.

Enjoying the potential Town Green over the Bank Holiday

The application, by Martin Redston, seeks:

....the inclusion in the register of town and village greens of the land described in the Schedule below which is claimed to have qualified for registration as a town or village green by virtue of indulgence by a significant number of inhabitants of Willesden Green Ward as of right in respect of sports and lawful pastimes for a period of at least 20 years.

Objections to registration must be received by 20th July 2012.

The Green Fair held in the open space outside Willesden Green Library in May last year:

Potential bombshell on Willesden Green

A potential bombshell was partially revealed at the Willesden Area Consultative Forum tonight when Richard Barrett  said that he understood that local historian Phil Grant had been in contact with the Secretary of State for Communities over whether Brent Council was the appropriate body to make the planning decision on the Willesden Library Regeneration. He said Brent Council thought they were but would find out more. Phil said that the issue revolved around Conservation Area Consent which would possibly make  Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State,the appropriate authority.  He predicted that the Council would not have a smooth ride with its planning application . He called for no amenities to be closed until full planning consent had been obtained.

Speaking about the regeneration Elizabeth Proud said that if people wanted to comment on more that cosmetic details of the proposals they were effectively told to 'shut up'. She spoke about the loss of open space, the Victorian building and the reduced size of a replacement building that looked like an airport building or a warehouse: 'We know an eyesore when we see one'.

Indeed when Beth Kay and Richard Barrett presented the revised plans the building looked worse than in the earlier artist's impression and there were little more than cosmetic changes to the internal layout and the floor plan. There was slightly more space between the building and the High Road and an indication that the cafe area might include retails space, that 'could' be a bookshop, but would be let at market rates.

One resident said that the plans had been underhand and imposed on residents. The Victorian Library and the open space were part of Willesden. She claimed the Council had deliberately run down the cafe and cinema and the 80s library had only been refurbished 5 years ago. She said that the way the Council had behaved was more like something from the old Soviet Union.

She was followed by a woman who said that the Victorian Library and open space were the heart of Willesden and in  response to Richard Barrett's claim that the landmark Victorian Library would be replaced by a new landmark building, the Cultural Centre, she said something that looks like a circus marquee will never be a landmark building. Warming to her theme she said that in removing the open space the Council were not getting rid of anti-social behaviour but of social behaviour: it was a space where people could congregate and mix in all their diversity and one where people new to the area could observe local life and feel part of the community. The  Neighbourhood  Bulletin from Brent ward working had said that (contrary to the Council's claim that the space encouraged ant-social behaviour)  'the area outside Willesden Green library is no longer a haven for anyone causing anti-social behaviour' because 'a dispersal order is now in place...'

She said that the real failure had been one of 'management and marketing' and the problem could have been solved with a proper management plan.

In a corrective to the presenters' statement that local councillors had been consulted, Liberal Democrat councillor Gavin Sneddon said that they had warned officers that demolition of the Victorian Library would be controversial and that his colleague Ann Hunter had asked for two plans, one with the Victorian Building and one without. The decision to proceed with the plan for demolition did not involve local councillors.

No member of the public spoke in favour of the proposals, if anything the opposition has broadened and deepened.

3,600 ask Brent Council to 'Pause, Reflect and Listen' on Willesden Green

On Shakespeare's birthday on April 23rd, Keep Willesden Green campaigners will be asking the Brent Executive to 'lend us their ears' when we present the petition asking the Council to 'Pause, Reflect and Listen' on the Willesden Green Regeneration plans.

3,600 local people have signed this latest petition which follows other petitions on the retention of the Old Willesden Library building and allocation of space in the new development for the Willesden Bookshop.

Are our councillors going to ignore this petition as they have sought to do with the others?

We should remind the Executive that Antonius went on:

The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones

 The Executive meets at 7pm at Brent Town Hall. AGENDA

Willesden Green development a 'done deal' despite public opposition - but we can have a say about the shelving!

A member of the Keep Willesden Green Committee has written this report on the meeting with Ann John, leader of Brent Council, held at Brent Town Hall earlier this week.

Ann John, outside Brent Town Hall

Gill Wood  introduced the group, expressed our appreciation for the time that Councillor Ann John was giving to listen to our concerns and explained that we represented more than 5,700 people who signed the recent petition in good faith to keep the Old Library building.

Gill also stressed that the KWG group was not affiliated with any political party. 

We are not anti-development, Gill continued, we just want to ensure that if the WGCC development has to be built at all, that not only it will be of lasting benefit to an increased library using population, but that we also get a public amenity that Willesden deserves, showing that the architects have been sensitive to the specific needs of the community it is there to serve. 

Gill finished her introduction by saying that several of us attended the Executive Committee meeting in February seeking answers to the genuine concerns that residents had been relaying to us and were disappointed that none of our questions were properly addressed. She asked Ann John to share her vision of the Willesden Green Cultural Centre, which has so far failed to reach the larger Brent community. Gill concluded that we were gathered to listen to Councillor John and we hoped that she would listen to the views of Brent residents.

Ann John then explained the challenges of meeting the many needs within the borough including the lack of 700 school places and the increasing (normally transient) population who choose to settle in Brent.

She explained that the major refurbishment of Ealing Library had been successful and this library was now open. The Council’s intention was to offer libraries fit for the 21^st Century and that the Civic Centre in Wembley and the new WGCC in Willesden Green would meet the needs of a new generation of library users. 

The Civic Centre would return revenue, in so far as it would offer office space to replace several costly buildings across the borough and would offer facilities that would yield an income. WGCC would be financed by the sale of the land at the rear and would offer a more sustainable building with improved facility and Council offices for public interface on the top floor to replace the One Stop Shop for better local connection in the south of the Borough. Other issues were raised mainly to demonstrate the lack of public funding and the housing and education demand that the increasing Brent population are creating.

KWG made the following points:

            The lack of consultation has angered local residents. The representative group all live within close proximity of the Library and none of us had received Galliford Try’s leaflet information regarding the library development until March 2012. There had been no information posted in the library. We felt that the plans had been kept hidden.

            The scheme is predominantly a housing scheme. KWG are not anti development and understand the need for housing but if the scheme is built a healthy balance will be lost.

            KWG presented the developer’s plans overlayed on to a satellite image of the site. We demonstrated to Councillor John that the scheme illustrations are very misleading. For instance the scale has been tweaked to imply greater outdoor amenity and the position of the London plane tree is not accurate. As the plans stand the London plane will be lost.

           Similarly the open space at the back is not adequate, due to the challenge of levels which has not been factored in to the design, the rear area will simply be a shady, steeply terraced muggers paradise. This is not adequate open space

           The foot-print of the new building is 50% of the existing building. An additional floor of office space does not return the amenity that will be lost. Cllr. John  seemed surprised and concerned by all of the above. She was clearly  not fully aware of the design flaws although she was aware that the architects needed to resolve the matter of level change.

KWG presented a plan that moved the Open space to the front of the building on the High Road, added 20% more space to the footprint of the library and offered solutions for the level change while retaining the Old Library. The Housing scheme is also retained.

In response, Cllr  John said that she had been advised by a team of Architects and Consultants that the Galliford Try scheme would deliver Public benefit. We have clearly demonstrated that it will not. Cllr. John asked us to present these concerns to Galliford Try.

KWG expressed concern regarding the maintenance of the building. We can’t  trust a Council who built a library with a 65 year shelf life in 1983 declaring that it would be sustainable and reduce maintenance and heating costs, then insist 28 years later that it is no longer fit for purpose and that we need a building that will be sustainable and reduce maintenance and heating costs…..

 We also discussed the funding of the project and KWG raised a concern that the £9.4m was not sufficient to return a building of any quality. That the proposed build cost would be £180/ sq.ft. which is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Client brief and will only provide a shell Community Centre specification not state of the art library and Council offices given the requirement for on site sustaining of the demolished old libraries. The cost in 1983 of the existing library was £5,000,000. This inflation linked would be a figure of £13,900,000 today. Both these points Ann John said she would refer to the Regeneration team along with our comments regarding Consultation.

KWG then made the point that in the Executive  meeting of February 15th 2011 the Regeneration Team had stated: 

3.17 To inform the procurement process a vision statement and client brief for the Council’s new building would be developed. The documents would clearly articulate the Council's aspirations and detailed design requirements for the new building. A planning brief, draft development agreement and contract would also be developed to ensure that from the outset the potential developer partners are aware of the contractual requirements that would be placed upon them when delivering the project. 

 None of the above has happened. Why has the planning brief phase been skipped and the critical consultation following the planning brief not carried out? Cllr.John had no answers for this. Again she said that she would discuss this with the regeneration team.

With regard to the demolition of the Old Library, Cllr. John acknowledged that thousands of residents living adjacent to the High Road wished that the Old Library should be retained. Remarkable PR have published 77% as their figure. KWG have a figure of over 90% following their own survey. Ann John insisted that petitions were not reliable indicators of public need. That residents were wrong in their understanding of their local townscape and that she was best placed as a non-resident minority to decide that demolition of the Old Library would serve the Public interest best!....

KWG also mentioned that the open space outside the Old Library was an important “crossroads” and meeting point for the mixed demographic of Willesden. It is a much needed and highly valued common ground on the High Road. It is important that this space is retained.

Cllr. John could see the benefits of common ground but felt that currently, in practice, it was not a safe spot and harboured negative factors. KWG disagreed with this and offered local insight that the space on the High Road was much safer than the muggers' alley that was proposed at the rear.

The meeting was concluded by Cllr. John, declaring that the plans would not be altered for the planning application. The next consultation on 18^th April would discuss the detail of the internal fit-out. 

The situation therefore is that the previous consultation has not taken in to consideration any of the views of the Public, we are simply being served a done deal and allowed to discuss the minor detail of library shelving etc.

The Galliford Try scheme breaks all the codes of good design and shows no benefit to the local Community. We can only hope now that our Council will realise their mistakes and the acknowledge that bad advice has lead to an unacceptable development.

Library plans "leave nasty taste and room for suspicion"

This is the Letter of the Week in the Brent and Kilburn Times. It is also worth reading their Editorial on Consultation.

Click on image to enlarge

What really happened at that consultation meeting

The following letter was published in this week's edition of the Brent and Kilburn Times:

In last week's issue (8 March) you published the response from a Brent spokesman to criticism that the Council had not consulted local people about plans to demolish the 1894 Willesden Green Library building. He claimed that the plans were made public in February 2011, and that:

"Consultation was carried out last year to develop the brief for the new building with councillors, staff and a small number of library users."

I was among seven library users invited to a focus group meeting with one of Brent's Regeneration Officers (and an outside consultant) on 28 February 2011, and am writing to make clear what happened at that consultation.

We were told that although the 1980's Willesden Green Library Centre building was "a much valued and well used local resource" it was no longer "fit for purpose" and was "inefficient to run". It was explained to us that there were five "options" for dealing with the current position, ranging from just dealing with "essential repairs and maintenance" to a "major mixed use new build development". We were advised that Brent's Regeneration Department favoured the complete redevelopment option, if it could be "delivered at zero cost to the council".

 

In the discussions which followed, we found out that what they had in mind was not just the demolition of the 1980's Willesden Green Library Centre building, but also the original Victorian library building. All seven members of the focus group made clear to the Regeneration Officer that if the redevelopment option was taken, the original 1894 library building fronting the High Road must be retained, both for its importance to the streetscape and because of its key part in Willesden's heritage.

 

Focus group members were invited to join "a user group that can be regularly consulted throughout the project". I am sure that I agreed to join that group, but I have never been invited to another meeting of it. The advice that we, as local people and users of the library centre, gave about not demolishing the 1894 library building was clearly ignored when Brent's Regeneration Department came "to develop the brief for the new building".

 

Your readers will understand why I feel aggrieved that a Brent spokesman is now using the February 2011 "consultation" with myself and other library users to try to justify the proposals which were displayed at the library centre last week. Hopefully, the strength of feeling expressed by the hundreds of people who attended that event will make Brent Council and their development partner realise that they must change their plans, and retain the Victorian library building.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Philip Grant.

Kilburn Times gives a voice to Keep Willesden Green campaign

There is great coverage of the Willesden Green Regeneration issue in the Brent and Kilburn Times this week. It is heartening to see a local newspaper so committed to covering the community's concerns. LINK TO KILBURN TIMES

Brent Council must PAUSE, LISTEN AND REFLECT: new epetition now available

Keep Willesden Green have launched a new petition asking Brent Council to PAUSE, LISTEN AND REFLECT on their proposals to redevelop the Willesden Green Library Centre.

The text of the Petition is below. You can sign the epetition version HERE and paper versions will be available outside the Exhibition at Willesden Green Library on March 9th and 10th.

We the undersigned petition the council to Pause the Willesden Green Library Centre regeneration plans to allow for full consultation with residents in order to ascertain their views on how the area should be developed and the amenities that should be provided or retained.

Brent Council is handing over public land worth £10.4 million to a property developer in exchange for rebuilding the Willesden Library Centre. The original 1894 library building on the High Road will be demolished, The Willesden Bookshop is likely to be driven out of business, the public car park will be reduced to 8 spaces and a children’s play area will be lost. Over 18 months, three five-storey blocks of 90+ luxury flats will be built behind the existing Library Centre.

We all want a thriving, welcoming and dynamic library and cultural centre, but the current deal has been sealed with virtually no public consultation and very little available information, ignoring the wishes of over a thousand local residents who have expressed opposition to these plans in two Brent e-petitions.

While the developers get a healthy profit from the sale of luxury flats and Brent councillors get some fancy new offices, the cultural and financial cost to rate-paying citizens is disproportionately high. It smacks of ‘profits before people’.

Borough residents need to have a say in the content and design of the library centre redevelopment, but we have not yet been given the chance to do so.

The Council says: Plans for the development of the library centre were raised at the executive committee in February 2011, and quickly followed by two public consultations to ‘test the market’. The council had to abide by commercial confidentiality, so no detailed plans could be made public until a deal was signed with the developer on 15 February 2012.

We say: Did you know about this in 2011? Not a single local resident or tradesperson we spoke to knew about the plans until Jan 2012, and only then through word of mouth. The Feb 2011 consultations were conducted with, respectively, 5 and then 7 people. One person present recounted that they were asked for their opinion, then shown plans for the centre that were drawn up before the meeting. This does not conform to the generally understood definition of a ‘consultation’

Residents' representations to January 16th Executive

These are the Minutes of  residents' representations made at the January 16th Brent Executive Meeting

Dilwyn Chambers spoke as a local resident on the Willesden Green Redevelopment Project.  Dilywn Chambers expressed concern about an apparent lack of details regarding responses from consultation in the report.  He felt that the art gallery, bookshop and Brent Irish Advisory Service (BIAS) had been given due notice that there would be no space for them at the new site as opposed to being properly consulted and he suggested that neither library staff nor users had been consulted about the proposals.  The Executive heard that the Valued Customer Panel set up in February 2011 was yet to meet.   Dilywn Chambers contested the accuracy of paragraph 4.14 in the report.

Martin Francis, speaking as a local resident, addressed the Executive over his concern about there being no provision for the Willesden Green bookshop in the proposals.  He commented that the bookshop stocked a wide range of books and provided an important educational role in the local community, including providing discount books for local schools.  The Executive heard that the bookshop had been praised in The Guardian newspaper.  Martin Francis stated that although the report had mentioned that there was no space available for the bookshop at the new site, it had not given the reasons as to why and he felt that the bookshop would provide a welcome attraction for the new site and provide community cohesion.  Furthermore, the bookshop was up to date with rent payments.  Martin Francis concluded by asserting that the council should be championing successful local businesses such as the bookshop and he requested that space for it be provided.

Philip Bromberg addressed the Executive speaking as a representative of Brent SOS libraries.  He stated that Brent SOS libraries had sent a letter to the Head of Libraries suggesting that Cricklewood and Kensal Rise libraries be kept open during the redevelopment of the Willesden Green site, which would be at no cost to the council and provide an ideal solution, whilst Brent SOS libraries would be willing to work with the council on this matter.  Philip Bromberg felt that there was not sufficient information for a decision on the proposed interim service delivery to be decided and further information from library staff was required.  Furthermore, the costings for Grange Road and the second additional temporary location were not known, whilst the locations for alternative sites for study spaces remained unspecified.  He asked that any decision be deferred before this information was known and to keep Crickewood and Kensal Rise libraries open during the Willesden Green redevelopment project.

Edward Lazarus, a resident of Cricklewood, also addressed the Executive.  He began by stating that the closure of Cricklewood and Neasden libraries, along with the redevelopment of Willesden Green library, meant that some 200 study spaces had been lost and that this meant that effectively only ten study spaces remained to cover a large area.  These study spaces played a vital role for some school children, particularly those in deprived areas who may come from overcrowded homes and the loss of the spaces meant they would have no other place to go and impact upon the education of those who needed it most.  Edward Lazarus asked that Cricklewood Library re-open for two years whilst the Willesden Green Redevelopment Project was being undertaken.

Councillor John (Chair and Leader of the Council) thanked Dilywn Chambers, Martin Francis, Philip Bromberg and Edward Lazarus for their contributions.

The case against Brent Council on Old Willesden Library

Brent and Kilburn Times, February 16th 2012

Community rallies to the Keep Willesden Green cause

The campaign hits the front page of the Brent and Kilburn Times this week

There was standing room only at the Kings Hall, Willesden last night at the inaugural meeting of the Keep Willesden Green campaign. The meeting heard from local residents concerned at various aspects of the development and had a chance to see details of the proposed Cultural Centre and associated new housing for the first time.

Andy Donald, Brent Council's Director of Regeneration and Major Projects put the case for the new Centre and why it had not been deemed feasible to refurbish the current building. He told the meeting that the agreement with developer Galliford Try had been signed on Wednesday and that it did not include any options for the incorporation of bookshop space or the historic old Willesden Library building. He explained the minimal consultation and lack of detail on the original proposal as due to the constraints of 'testing the market' with developers for the new building.

He showed the audience the 'indicative' images below of the proposed Cultural Centre as well as some plans of the surrounding 94 units of new housing which would be up to 4 or 5 storeys high. He confirmed that the units would not be affordable housing but for sale at market rates. The new Centre would front the High Road and a public space would be provided behind the new Centre between that and the housing that will be built on the present library car park.

High Road frontage

From Brondesbury Park showing the open space

The aim of the meeting was to make local voices heard  the main messages repeatedly coming from the audience was that their voices had not been heard at the commencement of the project and that now consultation was happening they were merely being asked to comment on a 'done deal'.

One speaker brandishing the Newsletter that will be circulated to residents asked if the same sort of glossy image had been circulated 20 or so years ago when the present building had been planned with another council officer speaking persuasively about its merits.

She asked if history would be repeated with the new 'plastic' building being denounced in subsequent years as poorly built and unsustainable. Brent Council were accused of deliberately letting the present building run down and doubts were raised about the future of the Cultural Centre if management was as poor as that for the Willesden Library Centre.

Another speaker expressed doubts about the planning consultation process as Brent Council were the proposers of the private partnership development and Brent councillors would make the decision on the planning application.

There were many contributions extolling the importance for the community of the Willesden Bookshop and its particular role in providing multicultural books and study materials to local schools. The audience treated with derision Andy Donald's statement that in the end it was just another commercial enterprise. The proposals for a revenue earning cafe in the Centre also received short shrift and reinforced the audience's suspicion that the developer was dictating the project rather than the needs of local people.

Cllr Barry Cheese (Lib Dem, Brondesbury Park) and Cllr Lesley Jones (Labour, Willesden Green, and Lead Member for Customers and Citizens) both spoke in favour of the new development saying that it would bring the High Road into the 21st century and improve the area. Cllr Claudia Hector (Labour, Kensal Green) on the other hand sent a message to the meeting calling for the old Victorian Willesden Library building to be saved. She said that she had informed the Labour leadership of her views. The meeting heard that an application had been lodged by campaigners with English Heritage to have the building listed.

Martin Redmond challenged the view that the Old Willesden Library could not be incorporated into the redevelopment and circulated the image below.

The meeting concluded with residents volunteering to form a Keep Willesden Green committee to carry on the work of the campaign and others enthusiastically signing up to work on specific aspects including the Willesden Bookshop, Old Willesden library, the consultation process,  the planning application, and the community's vision for the new building.

If you would like to take part e-mail keepwillesdengreen@hotmail.co.uk

Further information will be posted on this blog as the campaign develops. Your comments are welcomed.

Dollis Hill by-election likely on March 22nd

The by-election in Dollis Hill ward, following the death of Councillor Alec Castle, is likely to be held on Thursday March 22nd. The date is subject to confirmation.

The by-election will give an opportunity to question candidates on the Willesden Green Regeneration issue.

There is full page coverage in the Brent and Kilburn Times today about the history of the Old 1894 Willesden Library building and its planned demolition. The epetition to save the building  has more than 430 signatures and there are additional signatures on paper petitions. The Willesden Bookshop epetition has more than 400 signatures and again there are more on paper versions.

There are likely to be representations on the issue at the Executive Meeting on Monday February 13th and there is a full Council meeting on February 27th.

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

Willesden Green Call In tonight

The Call In and Overview Scrutiny Committee will be examining the Willesden Green Regeneration plans tonight at 7.30pm, Brent Town Hall.  Local residents are expected to make short presentations on the issue at the beginning of the meeting.

Press and public are allowed at the meeting but will be excluded from any discuss of appendices 8, 14 and 16 on grounds that they relate to business and financial affairs of the Council.

AGENDA