Pickles to decide on fate of 1894 library

Philip Grant has received a reply to his letter of 17 March. 

 

Eric Pickles passed it to his National Planning Casework Unit, who have discussed the matter of who has authority to give consent for the demolition of the 1894 Willesden Green Library building with Brent Council. 

 

The letter confirms that if the planning application for the new Cultural Centre includes demolition of the Willesden Green Library (which we now know that it will), and if the Council are minded to approve that application, Brent intend to refer the Conservation Area Consent application to the Secretary of State for his consideration under Section 74, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990. 

 

 

The significance of "Significance" in the battle for the 1894 library building

When Councillor George Crane said, at the recent meeting of Brent's Executive,  that the Victorian library building had "no significance", he said it for a reason. He will be pleased that his comment has been widely reported, because that is the message he wants to get across, particularly to his colleagues on the Planning Committee. "Significance" will be a key factor when the planning application for the new Cultural Centre and the application for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the 1894 library building are considered.

Since March 2012, the official guidance for all planning matters has been the Government's new National Planning Policy Framework. It's Glossary includes the following definition:

Significance (for heritage policy): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.

The definitions also mean that the locally listed 1894 library building is a "Heritage Asset", and the Willesden Green Conservation Area is a "Designated Heritage Asset" for the purposes of NPPF.

When considering the impact of a proposed development, NPPF says that the applicant must 'describe the significance of any heritage assets affected'. The higher the heritage asset's significance, the stronger the case for conserving it, or refusing consent for the 'substantial harm or total loss of [its] significance' (i.e. its demolition!). From the point of view of the Council and Galliford Try, the lower they can make the significance of the 1894 library building and Willesden Green Conservation Area appear, the more chance they have of getting their proposals approved. So when Cllr. Crane says that the building has "no significance", or Beth Kay (Regeneration Officer) tells the Willesden ACF meeting (with several members of the Planning Committee present) that because of substantial alterations made to the original library building 'it does not retain significant architectural value', they are already preparing the ground to get the decision they want.

In our objection letters (I will be writing two, one for the planning application and one specifically for the conservation area consent application, which I hope will be considered separately on its own facts and law) we will need to get across the fact that both the Willesden Green Conservation Area and the locally listed 1894 Willesden Green Library building do have real value, and therefore a high significance for the purposes of consideration under NPPF. Here are some points worth making, but I am sure that campaigners can think of others which reflect their particular views:

• that as well as the front of the old library being a beautiful architectural building in its own right (with the 'substantial alterations' made in the 1980's being what was necessary to retain that highly valued frontage when later extensions to it were removed) it is an important landmark building and an integral part of a group of late Victorian buildings which form the core of the Willesden Green Conservation Area;
• that the 1894 library building makes a positive contribution to the character of the area;
• that the 1894 library building played a key part in the social history of the area, and rather than knocking it down, it could be conserved and put to viable use as part of the new Cultural Centre (which will contain Brent's Museum and Archives) thereby enhancing its significance;
• and if this appears to be the case when you look at the application documents:- that the Conservation Statement tries mislead the reader by understating the significance of the 1894 Library Building and/or the Willesden Green Conservation Area (giving at least one example).

The NPPF says (in 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.' That is a good starting point for our fight to save the 1894 library building, but only if as many people as possible make the case that it, and the conservation area it stands in, do have real value and significance.  If you would like to read the full National Planning Policy Framework guidance on "Conserving and enhancing the historic environment" (which replaced Planning Policy Statement 5 at the end of March), I have copied and pasted this section of NPPF and the relevant definitions from the Glossary into the  4-page pdf below. 

Philip Grant

Open letter to Councillor Hunter

Dear Councillor Hunter.

I came along to last night's meeting and felt that the KWG group gave an excellent and honest account of how the 'majority' of Willesden Residents feel.

I was astonished to hear you suggest that there is a 'silent majority' who do not object to the Executive's proposals. This just is not true. I stood for many weekends outside the library - spreading the words about the new proposals. Firstly, let me say, initially (back in February of this year) I was shocked by how many people did not know about the proposal to knock down the historic 1894 library building and the subsequent demolition of the 20 year old library. In fact - many did not believe me!!

However, due the the persistence of the close knit community we were soon able to spread the word (something the council seem unable to do adequately). The opposition to the demolition of the historic building is huge. I can honestly say that over 90% of those we asked about what they thought of the new plans were against it. They did not need encouragement to sign the petition  - they were enraged that they had not been asked - and that such a thing were possible in a democracy. 

I don't expect you stood outside the library for as many hours as I did or spoke to as many people - but I would ask you to provide me with some proof regarding your suggested  'Silent majority' that you believe exists.   There are two petitions with a collective 9000 signatures from local residents - who are opposed to the plans - we have our own survey of residents which concurs with our own findings of 90% against the development and even GT/Brent Council's own 'consultation' figures record that 77% of residents are against the development - please tell me where your silent majority fit in to these figures? and show me proof.

Jackie Baines

Petition presented but will Council listen?

On the Town Hall steps last night

Supported by more than 60 campaigners Miki Berenyi presented Keep Willesden Green's 'Stop, Listen and Reflect' petition to the Executive last night with a cool and cogent speech detailing the Council's failure to consult, its neglect of the original building and its cinema and cafe area, and the fact that the new building has less community amenity than the original.

Cllr George Crane in response said that 'Pause and Reflect' (it is noteworthy that he left out 'listen') would perform no useful function and that the planning process would give time to reflect. He said that her understood the significance of the Old Willesden library building and suggested it could be 'celebrated' within the confines of the new building.

He said that the Council was trying to look at a space for the bookshop within what he called  the 'cafeteria' and was revising the space in the front of the building.

Two local Lib Dem councillors spoke. Cllr Gavin Sneddon in favour of the petition and Cllr Ann Hunter against. Sneddon compared the way Willesden residents had been treated to the very full consultation, from first principles, of the Harlexen Town Plan.

He asked Ann John to give residents an assurance that, in line with the law, no pressure would be put on councillors on the planning committee to approve the plans.

Ann John did not give any such assurance.

Cllr Ann Hunter in a long contribution said that she had asked for two plans - one with and one without the historic building. The previous retention of that building has been a compromise because of strong local feelings. She went on to suggest that there were other residents who thought that building had no value and that it was time to move forward with a dynamic new building that would enhance the area.

Demonstrate In Support of Our Petition Tonight

Please come to the Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane, Wembley tonight at 6.30pm to join our demonstration in support of the 'Stop' Listen and Reflect' petition that we will present at the Executive just after 7pm. The Executive Meeting will be upstairs in Committee Rooms 1,2 and 3.

Keep campaign alive with this poster

Philip Grant says: The attached A4 poster is a document that can be used to help get the message across in the community that local people still have a chance to help save this much-loved building. The idea is that it can be displayed in shop windows, or on notice boards, anywhere that people are willing to put it up legally. I would not want it to be flyposted, particularly as I have put my name on it. Lorraine King, editor of the Brent & Kilburn Times from whose 19 April edition the letter has been copied, is aware of the poster, and I have told her that I'm not sure of the exact copyright position, but hope that no one will object.

Letter to Eric Pickles on Conservation Area Consent

To: The Rt. Hon. Eric Pickles MP Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London, SW1E 5DU 

17 March 2012

Dear Secretary of State, 

Willesden Green Library Centre Redevelopment (London Borough of Brent) Section 74, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Who is the appropriate authority for “conservation area consent”? 

I am a resident and Council Tax payer in the London Borough of Brent, and am writing to ask for your help. If you can give all parties with an interest in this matter a clear statement of your views, this will help to avoid unnecessary delays to this proposed redevelopment, which is intended to provide both a new Cultural Centre for the south of the borough and new homes. Users, like myself, of the existing library (Brent‟s busiest, with over 500,000 visitors a year), museum and archives on the site will be without proper facilities there for at least 20 months (August 2012 to April 2014), which will be a considerable inconvenience without any additional delays. 

By way of background, but not the issue I am asking you to consider now, I would advise you that a key planning decision which has to be made in this case is whether a locally listed building (the original 1894 Willesden Green Library) within a conservation area can be demolished. The developers, the London Borough of Brent and Galliford Try plc (their „development partner‟ under a Development Agreement signed in February 2012, following a “tender” process), wish to demolish the building, to clear the site for an entirely new building. A large number of local people oppose the demolition of the building, many, myself included, believing that it can and should be retained as part of the new Cultural Centre. 

The difference of opinion which you can easily resolve at this stage (I will suggest a way that this could be done below) is over who has the authority to decide whether this building, in the Willesden Green Conservation Area, can be demolished. The relevant legislation on this point is from the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990:- 

74. Control of demolition in conservation areas.

(1) A building in a conservation area shall not be demolished without the consent of the appropriate authority (in this Act referred to as “conservation area consent”).

(2) The appropriate authority for the purposes of this section is—

(a) in relation to applications for consent made by local planning authorities, the Secretary of State; and

(b) in relation to other applications for consent, the local planning authority or the Secretary of State. 

During a recent discussion with representatives of Brent‟s Regeneration Team and Galliford Try plc I was advised that they believe Section 74 (2) (b) applies, as they intend that both the application for planning permission and the application for conservation area consent will be made by Galliford Try plc (as sole applicant) to the London Borough of Brent (the local planning authority). My view, and that of some of my fellow objectors to the demolition of the 1894 library building, is that Section 74 (2) (a) applies, as Brent is the owner of the building that is proposed to be demolished, will be the owner of the new building that would replace it, has responsibility for the design of the new building, is legally the development partner of Galliford Try plc for that building and is the local planning authority. 

Even if it is correct in strict law that Galliford Try plc are the applicant (because only their name will be shown as “Applicant” on the application for conservation area consent form), this is surely a case in which Planning Law must not only be applied fairly, but be seen to be applied fairly. If Brent Council were to decide this conservation area consent application in favour of demolition, I believe that most impartial observers would consider that they had acted as both judge and jury in their own case. It might also lead to legal action, resulting in additional delays and costs, a situation which I hope all parties would prefer to avoid. 

As “the Secretary of State” can be “the appropriate authority” for the purposes of both Section 74 (2) (a) and (b), and can consider the evidence and arguments of both sides in a manner which will be seen as independent of both, the way in which I would suggest that you can resolve this matter at an early date is to notify all parties along the following lines: 

In the particular circumstances of this case, and without prejudice to whether S.74 (2) (a) or S.74 (2) (b), Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 applies, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will act as the appropriate authority in this case, and any conservation area consent application made in respect of the proposed demolition of the 1894 Willesden Green Library building in the London Borough of Brent must be referred to him. 

Everyone involved would then know how the application should proceed, and could prepare accordingly, saving time which might otherwise be wasted in disputes over who was “the appropriate authority” when the conservation area consent application is actually made.  

As well as replying to me as an individual, please send copies of your reply to the Chief Executive of the London Borough of Brent and the Company Secretary of Galliford Try plc, to whom I have copied this letter at the addresses shown below, and to the two groups whose letters of support are attached, Keep Willesden Green and Willesden Local History Society, who have seen this letter in draft.

Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you. 

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant

: