Hazel Road Victorian Mission Hall – why proper Heritage Statements matter in the planning process.

 Guest Post by local historian Philip Grant in a personal capacity:-

The Victorian former mission hall, alongside the 2002 Hazel Road Community Centre.

 

Last month, Martin published an article “Kensal Green residents oppose the demolition and redevelopment of Victorian community centre building in Hazel Road.” The local residents’ association had already contacted Willesden Local History Society, to ask for any help which could be given with the heritage aspects of the planning application, 25/0041. I’m a member of that Society, and as I already have experience of dealing with similar planning cases (“Altamira” / 1 Morland Gardens!), I was asked to take a look at it.

 

Looking at the application documents, it was clear that the Making The Leap charity and their planning agents had not even considered the Victorian building they own to have any heritage impact on their proposals. They just planned to knock it down, along with the Hazel Road Community Centre beside it, and build a modern office block on the site. It appears it was only after Brent’s former Principal Heritage Officer pointed out that the Victorian building was a non-designated heritage asset that they asked a consultant to prepare a Heritage Statement to support the application.

 

It came as no surprise to me (based on past experience) that the firm they paid to consider the building’s heritage value, and how that should be dealt with for planning purposes, came out strongly in support of its client’s application!

 

‘The Proposed Development would achieve numerous public benefits, including high quality community and training spaces, landscaping improvements and the enhancement of all community facilities, that would convincingly outweigh the slight harm caused by the demolition of the existing non-designated heritage asset.’

 

However, the “quality” of the research which had gone into the three-page “Heritage Statement” document (which had no maps or photographs, and only a slight knowledge of the building’s history) was rather undermined in the next sentence: ‘In conclusion, the Proposed Development is in accordance with the Barnet Core Strategy ….’

 

It will come as no surprise to regular readers of “Wembley Matters” that when I conducted a more thorough examination of the building’s history, its heritage significance and how the correct Brent Local Plan policies applied to the case, I came to the opposite conclusion. I have set out my views in a detailed Alternative Heritage Statement, which Martin has agreed to attach at the end of this introductory guest post, for anyone who is interested to read, or glance through. 

 

The original Willesden Local Board record of the 1888 planning application for the Mission Hall.
(Source: Brent Archives Willesden planning microfilm for application number 1970)

 

What is now Harriet Tubman House was the Christ Church Mission, built in 1888 to replace a temporary “tin tabernacle” of the same name in Ponsard Road, College Park (now part of the site occupied by the Mayhew Animal charity). Football fans may remember that the mission’s football team, Christ Church Rangers, formed in 1882, was the start of the club which would become Queens Park Rangers.

 

The Victorian building is a heritage asset of high significance, which should be protected by Brent’s heritage planning policy BHC1, while the claimed ‘numerous public benefits’ involve little public benefit, and in some cases no benefit at all (the reality of ‘the enhancement of all community facilities’ is actually a cut from two full-time community rooms totalling 245sqm floor area to one room of 115sqm).

 

There are also some major breaches of other Brent planning policies (DMP1, BP6 South East and BD1), which all require new developments to complement the historic character and scale of their setting. I apologise for the differing perspectives of the two images I’ve combined below, but I have tried to ensure that the scale of the imposed architect’s image of the proposed new office block matches that of this view along Hazel Road. I think anyone can see that it would be out of character!

 

View along Hazel Road from the east, with the proposed office block imposed
instead of the Victorian mission room and community centre buildings.

 

My Alternative document below (the only one of the two which I believe deserves the title of Heritage Statement) took a lot of time and effort to prepare, and I cannot promise to assist in this way with any other planning application. However, it was clear to me when I looked at the planning documents, researched the building’s history and visited the site, that KGRA and their supporters have a strong case, including a strong heritage case, for opposing this application. Their efforts deserved my support, and I hope that application 25/0041 will be withdrawn, or refused. 

 

 

Whether that happens or not remains to be seen – this is Brent, after all!

 

 Philip Grant