Residents and developers will battle over Willesden Green at planning committee tonight

The  controversial Willesden Green unaffordable housing and developer's land grab in exchange for a smaller library  battle will come to a head tonight when the planning committee considers the application from Galliford Try/Linden Homes.

Only the main planning application will be decided on. The application regarding the conservation area will go straight to the Secretary of State.

The Keep Willesden Green campaigners will be among the speakers at the committee meeting which begins at 7pm sharp at Brent Town Hall.  It is expected that many KWG supporters will be in the audience.

Willesden Green regeneration: 'Never mind the deadline, let's make a decision'

Brent Planning Committee is to consider the planning application for the Willesden Green Cultural Centre on February 13th despite the Public Inquiry for the Willesden Town Centre continuing until February 14th.  This is also the final date for submissions on the planning application.

The Council get over this little problem by recommending that the Committee (which is supposed to be independent of the Council) grant consent in principle and delegate the final decision to the Deputy Director of Planning and Development who will make the decision:

(a) taking into account any further representations received on or before the 14th February 2013;
(b) any direction by the Mayor of London to refuse the application. In accordance with Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 following the Council’s determination of this application, the Mayor is allowed 14 days to decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged or direct the Council under Article 6 to refuse the application;
(c) Satisfactory prior completion of a Section 106(s) under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and/or other form(s) of agreement/undertaking in order to secure the S106 matters as detailed in this report

and for the conservation area consent:

 (b) any direction by the National Planning Casework Unit, the Secretary of State having considered the matter, to refuse the application

The planning application reports can be read on the Keep Willesden Green blog  HERE

Residents meet on Thursday on Willesden Green Library Plans

£7m spent on Shaping a Healthier Future consultation

The Daily Mail LINK has revealed that the NW London NHS Trust consultation cost £7,000,000. It seems that at national and local government level PR companies are one of the main beneficiaries  from austerity as those in power seek to dress up cuts decisions already made with spurious and meaningless 'consultation' exercises. In the case of Central Middlesex Hospital keeping the A&E open  was never an option the public were allowed to choose. Moreover with no risk assessment  in the public domain respondents had no way of assessing the true human cost of the changes. A shameful waste of public money. With so few turning up to consultation meetings it would be interesting to know the cost per attendee.

Meanwhile in Brent the PR bill for the Willesden Green Redevelopment project continues to mount as plans are tweaked but no ground given on the fundamentals.

When I worked for Erwin Wasey, Ruthrauff and Ryan Limited, an advertising agency, in the 1960s, I asked about a job in their Public Relations Department. In the interview I was naive enough (I was only 16) to say that I thought I was suited to work in PR because I got on with people. The director who interviewed me exploded and said, "Well you shouldn't work in PR then. You have to hate people and hold them in  contempt if you want to do well in this business."

David Cameron worked in PR for Carlton Television in order to have some experience outside politics. He got the job because his then girlfriend's mother, Lady Astor, had a word on his behalf with her friend, Michael Green, who was executive chairman of Carlton. He started on a salary of £90,000.

James Powney: Sainsbury's is obliged to provide Town Centre parking

Councillor James Powney, commented on the Sainsbury's Willesden Town Centre parking issue, on his blog

Martin Francis has been told by Sainsburys that they have no obligation to provide parking to any but their own customers. My understanding is that the Willesden Sainsburys has a planning obligation to provide car parking to Willesden Town Centre under a deal originally laid down by planning in the 1980s.Martin

In fact the Sainsbury's e-mail, from their head office, which stated that they were under no obligation to provide parking, was passed on to me by a third party.

Lively consultation on Willesden Green leaves unanswered questions

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 Willesden Green redevelopment  '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. More pictures (above) - more on the Keep Willesden Green blog HERE However Beth gave mixed messages about this. At one stage she had been talkling about dialogue with the community 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, joint 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. Keep Willesden Green had wanted the Council to start again from scratch and involve local people from the start. Beth angrily stated that the provision of council offices was a matter for the council and nothing to do 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.

Willesden Green: 'Is this all there is?'

Well, that was my reaction in the words of the old song,  when I saw that the proposed consultation with the community and redesign, following the withdrawal of the Willesden Green Redevelopment Planning application, amounts to a one day event.

The truth is that the Keep WillesdenGreen campaign, through its website, public meetings and face to face cobersrtions with local people, has done far more consulting that the developers.

Still it will be worthwhile going along and remaking the points that have galvanised so many local people and library, bookshop and museum users into action:

Dear Resident

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thursday 8 August

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

 

Round 1 to Keep Willesden Green campaigners as developers withdraw planning applications

Galliford Try, the developers of the controversial housing development (with Cultural Centre attached) has withdrawn its two planning application for the site.

Galliford Try and Brent Council say that this is to extend the consultation period for the redevelopment and use the summer to seek local people's views.

The planning applications have received an overwhelming thumbs down from local residents with the planning department unable to keep up with the enormous flood of objections.

Cllr George Crane, lead member for Regeneration and Major Projects insisted that 'this redevelopment has never been a foregone conclusion as some people have claimed and this extra time for discussion demontrates that' but went on to state that the development 'needs to be at no capital costs and result in a quality development - these principles remain unchanged'.

Martin Redston, joint chair of Keep Willesden Green, said that he was overjoyed at the decision but that the campaign would not put its guard down: 'We will be looking for genuine consultation leading to community engagement at all levels'.

Details about consultation events and the time line will be publicised shortly. The further consultation will include the design of the new cultural centre and the activities that people want to see in the building once it's complete.  I understand that the original architects are now working on designs that will include keeping the historic Old Willesden Library.

The shows what a well-informed and determined community based campaign can do. Congratulations to all  all concerned.

Zadie Smith pitches into Willesden Green battle

Zadie Smith campaigning for Kensal Rise Library

As the deadline for responses to the planning application for the Willesden Green Library Centre redevelopment nears, local author Zadie Smith, has written an illuminating article for the Keep Willesden Green blog where she asks, "What kind of problems is a library?" and pays homage to the Willesden Bookshop.

See the article on the Keep Willesden Green blog HERE  It is also available on the New York Review of Books website HERE

Should Ann John participate in Willesden Green planning decision?

Shortly after being ousted as leader of Brent Council, Cllr Ann John joined the Planning Committee. The Committee will shortly be considering the planning application for the controversial redevelopment of Willesden Green Library Centre, which includes the demolition of the 1980s library and the Victorian library, loss of open space and the Willesden Bookshop's loss of premises, in exchange for a smaller library and the building of more than 90 luxury flats.

As leader and Executive member, Ann John was a keen supporter of the regeneration scheme.

Inevitably campaigners have seen a possible conflict of interest here as the Committee (rather like the infamous case Jeremy Hunt in the SkyB matter) exercises a statutorily independent duty.

In the Willesden and  Brent Times this week Ann John rounded on her critics:

This is a cheap shot from people who just want to have a go at me. I will of course approach any planning application with an open mind and take everything into account and following planning guidelines. Backing the scheme pre-planning is not the same as having a pre-conceived notion about it.  I will be looking from a planning point of view only, as will all the planning officers.

The penultimate sentence in her statement is clearly a matter of semantics but with far-reaching consequences. The Council's Constitution (Codes and Protocols)  LINK indicates that campaigners may have grounds for requesting that Cllr John absent herself from discussion of this particular planning application.

A general principle can be extracted from the guidelines on Scrutiny:

Prejudicial interests arising in relation to overview and scrutiny committees

11.

You also have a prejudicial interest in any business before an overview and scrutiny committee of your authority (or of a sub-committee of such a committee) where -

(a) that business relates to a decision made (whether implemented or not) or action taken by your authority's executive or another of your authority's committees, sub-committees, joint committees or joint sub-committees; and

(b) at the time the decision was made or action was taken, you were a member of the executive, committee, sub committee, joint committee or joint sub- committee mentioned in paragraph (a) and you were present when that decision was made or action was taken

Ann John was a member of the Brent Executive that took the decision top go ahead with the Willesden Green Redevelopment.

The guidelines for Planning Committee members state:

30. Members of the Planning Committee shall refrain from personal abuse and party political considerations shall play no part in their deliberations. Members of the Planning Committee shall be respectful to the Chair and to each other and to officers and members of the public including applicants, their agents and objectors and shall not bully any person. Members of the Planning Committee should not make up their mind before hearing and considering all relevant information at the meeting and should not declare in advance of the meeting, how they intend to vote on a particular application or other matter

The question for Ann John is,  to quote a phrase used in the Codes and Protocols,  whether her previous comments are such that  'a member of the public with  knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant  that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest'.

I would argue that campaigners' concerns are not a 'cheap shot' as Ann John claims but a legitimate onjection that should be seriously considered by the Council's legal officers.

What did for Ann John?

From the Save Preston Library 'Wall of Shame'

As the dust settles on the Brent Council leadership changes it is worth reflecting on the reasons behind the ousting of Ann John and what it means for the future.

The libraries issue, both the closures and the redevelopment of the Willesden Green Centre, has been the most contentious aspect of Council policy. The presentation as 'transformation' rather than closure; the labelling of opponents as self-interested, unrepresentative and middle class; the ignoring of petitions; the suggestion that cheap books were readily available at Tesco; all riled local citizens and the energetic and resourceful campaigners kept the issue in the local press and crucially on the national media agenda.

Nationally, Brent Labour's library policy became an embarrassment for the Labour leadership. Brent's policy was at odds with Ed Miliband's public opposition to library closures and shadow culture minister, Dan Jarvis's championing of the public library service. Ken Livingstone, Barry Gardiner MP and Navin Shah were all local Labour politicians who distanced themselves from Brent Council's policy.

Privately back-bench Labour councillors spoke about their opposition to the closures but confessed themselves powerless and some Executive members had reservations but were bound by collective responsibility not to oppose openly.

So a combination of a personal and presentational style that alienated the public and a political control that brooked no internal opposition, backed by a close personal and political alliance with Gareth Daniel the Chief Executive that insisted there was no alternative, all contributed to Ann John's demise. Of course the libraries issue was not the only one that divided the local party. The possibility of the council entering into a partnership to open a free school in the borough and acquiescence in academy conversions reveals a similar pattern with the leadership-officer combo arguing that 'there is no alternative' being opposed by some Labour party members on political grounds.

The problem with Muhammed Butt's succession is that he has been closely identified with Ann John as her deputy leader and, although his personal style may be more open and friendly and his presentation of policy less aggressive, his actual policies may be little different. He is likely to have a more collegiate relationship with his colleagues but a lot will depend on the experience, strength and stance of the new Executive. Will they be more independent of officers and more open to debate and persuasion?

Perhaps most importantly is the question of the administration's attitude to cuts in local services. There have been differences of emphasis about the impact with the Labour Council at first arguing that their cuts had been made in such a clever way that they would not harm residents but latterly pointing to the massive cuts in local government funding, combined with central government cuts and welfare reform, that would seriously damage the quality of life of many local people.

Muhammed Butt's views on the cuts are best accessed by reading his budget speech which is available on his blog HERE

In his leadership acceptance speech Butt said that building unity across the borough would strengthen its capacity to take on the fight against Coalition cuts. The political question is about the nature of that fight. With the Labour Party enjoying some success at the polls and the Coalition increasingly unpopular, will Brent Labour be pushing for a mass campaign against the cuts and be prepared to refuse to implement them when the damage to local people is intolerable?. Will that stance be backed by Labour nationally?

I would like to be proved wrong but  am afraid that the answer to both questions is 'No'.

We may see more efforts at dialogue with residents, mollification rather than vilification of campaigners and some minor concessions perhaps on volunteer run libraries, but little change in the overall direction of council policies.

Old Willesden Library demolition proposals published

The proposed development

Most of the planning documents for the proposed Willesden Cultural Centre are now available on the Brent Council website.  They are numerous and will need careful study. There is a main planning application for the demolition of the Victorian Library, 1980s Library, bookshop etc and the building of 92 flats and the Cultural Centre and an application relating to the Conservation Area. Most of the documentation is replicated on both sites.

Main Planning Application HERE

Conservation Area Application HERE

The future of the Old Willesden Library is of particular interest to many and the Heritage Statement is available below.

One key section states:

The loss of the Old Library is to some extent mitigated through ‘preservation by record’ and the undertaking of the historic buildings survey to English Heritage Level II standards, and which has been used in this report to understand the building’s significance. Should consent be granted for this or future schemes affecting historic fabric, it is recommended that additional recording be undertaken during demolition in order to supplement this report with further details of the building’s history.

It is also recommended that specific elements of the architectural fabric are retained, and where possible, reused within the new building as architectural details, art installations and/or exhibits within the museum space. While it is recognised that the scheme represents the total loss of the Old Library, the retention of certain elements would evoke the cultural memory of the building and help preserve the historic narrative of development on the site. Those pieces that should be considered for retention are as follows, though further elements may be revealed during the demolition process:

· Shell-hood above the former entrance way on the north elevation;

· Parge work on the north elevations and around the tower;

· Plaque commemorating the building on north elevation; and

· Weather-vane on summit of the tower

The remaining historic fabric and fixtures such as window frames should be considered for salvage, and where suitable, deposited in a suitable store such as the Charles Brooking Collection currently housed in Surrey.

Demanding a voice at Willesden Green on Saturday

It was a great day down at Willesden Green on Saturday at the Brent Council-Galliford Try 'consultation' on the Cultural Centre project. The people presenting the proposals and  answering questions from the public seemed increasingly uncomfortable faced with well-informed and incisive questioning from local residents. Many of their answers were vague or shrugged off with 'that was before we got involved'. Clearly the developers have been dropped in a thicket of brambles and stinging nettles by Brent Council and are not very happy about it.

Outside the public were anxious to sign Keep Willesden Green's petitions and the campaign's yellow stickers were everywhere along the High Road.

This campaign means business!

'Who put the CON into Consultation?' asks Michael Rosen

After Keep Willesden Green had a successful morning outside the Brent Council - Galliford Try Consultation I came across this on Michael Rosen's blog. LINK  Michael is the children's poet and BBC broadcaster. It may ring bells for you!

In many streets, there is a scarcely visible process going on: developers eye up land and properties with a view to convincing councils that there is a place or space which they can make a profit out of. They don't call it that. They call it 'regeneration' and proceed to line up various agencies or authorities to back them: eg the local transport people, some 'business people', some kind of 'development agency' or ngo in the area and so on. They will also try to capture some key members of the council (elected or non-elected). Sometimes this process is initiated by a council committee as part of their own 'regeneration' scheme.

In fact, more often than not, it's a con. The 'affordable' housing that is sometimes promised at the outset, starts diminishing in numbers as the developer pleads economy and 'returns  on investment'. Quite often some kind of half-hidden subsidy is engineered by either the council or one of the ngos whereby the developer gets the land cheap or received some kind of suspension in the council tax etc. And when it comes to the 'retail units', more often than not, this is in fact an effort to bring in the multinational chains.

Prior to all this, the land or properties that the developers have been eyeing may well have been deliberately run down by the public authorities eg the council or transport authority. The 'dereliction' they talk about in their glossy brochures may well have been engineered, by refusing to let tenant holders, short-term occupiers or some such stay and develop their own property. Groups (eg council subsidised self-help groups, community organisations and the like) are often told that they can be moved out at any time. Another trick is for the council to have not updated and upgraded some properties they owned so that they are in effect falling down.

At this point the developer's plan is presented as the only viable alternative. The possibility of people on the ground developing their places and spaces has been eliminated by refusing to let them (!), some deal is on the cards whereby the developer is getting some kind of subsidy from us, the council tax payers, but which may well be hidden as a non-ask eg a very low payment for a slice of property, and the council and the developer produce some great big brochure of blather saying how this is all a marvellous retail opportunity, everything is going to look smart and nice, Marks and Spencer are going to be on your doorstep etc etc.

Now to the council meeting to see if they can get it through.

At this point, I'll break off the story...with this:

Just up the road from a historic defeat for the people, places and spaces of Dalston in Hackney, comes a historic victory:

http://opendalston.blogspot.com/2012/03/dalstons-voice-is-heard-hackney-reject.html

Tell Willesden Green developers what you think on March 9th and 10th

Shop/house window poster

Keep Willesden Green is producing these posters for display in shop and house windows to get the message about the redevelopment out as widely as possible.

You can download your own A4 version as a PDF HERE

Keep Willesden Green are pressing the Council/Galliford Try to STOP, LISTEN  AND REFLECT to enable residents to say what they think of the proposals and what they want for their community. It is important that this message gets to them on the Exhibition/Feedback days to be held at the Willesden Green Library Centre on Martch 9th and 10th.

Keep Willesden Green do not accept that this development is a 'done deal'.

Willesden Green residents rise in defence of bookshop and Victorian library

Many thanks to BNCTV