Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
“Altamira”, the landmark Victorian villa in Stonebridge, and subject of the petition.
On Monday evening (15 September) I will be presenting Willesden Local History Society’s petition, calling on Brent to retain the heritage Victorian villa as part of its redevelopment of the Morland Gardens site, at the Full Council meeting. As the petition was active a few months ago, I will include a copy of what it said at the end of this article, should you wish to read it.
I won’t go into the detailed reasons why Brent should not demolish this beautiful and historic building here, as you can read those in an open letter to two Cabinet members in May, when it seemed likely that the petition might need to be presented at a meeting in June. That didn’t happen because Council Officers had still not decided whether or not to recommend retaining this locally listed heritage asset, even though they were supposed to have been reviewing that since November 2023!
Ahead of the Full Council meeting, I had written to the Mayor, who will be chairing it, last Monday, with two requests. The email was copied to the Council’s Governance Manager, who organises arrangements for the meeting and had notified the Society that it would be allowed up to five minutes to present its petition.
The first request was that the photograph of “Altamira”, shown above, should be shown on the small screens around the meeting hall during the presentation (with the countdown clock in a window at one corner), so that councillors and members of the public not familiar with the building could understand what the petition was about.
When the Governance Manager responded last Thursday (‘after discussions with the Mayor’), I was told: ‘I’m afraid that won’t be possible to arrange alongside the speech timer.’ My reply to that was:
‘I find it hard to believe that this would not be possible technically. It may be that the Officers controlling the screens at the meeting do not know how to do that, but if they were to ask a member of the Council's IT staff to show them how it can be done, that would improve their skill set and allow them to provide a better service to councillors at future meetings.’
My second request to the Mayor was for him to agree that if I gave up some of the five minutes allowed for my presentation, he would use the "spare" time to invite any councillors who wished to speak briefly on the petition, to do so. Such an arrangement would be within the Mayor’s discretion, as Standing Order 6 in Brent’s Constitution allows him to decide on how the proceedings at Full Council meetings are applied (subject to a majority of councillors not objecting to his decision).
Standing Order 6, from Part 2 of Brent Council’s Constitution (May 2025 edition).
The response I received from the Governance Manager was: ‘Whilst your request has been considered, I can confirm that the mayor intends to follow the same procedure as at previous meetings. This will mean you having up to 5 minutes to present the petition with the Lead Member then having the opportunity to provide a brief response.’
There is actually nothing, in Brent’s Standing Orders regarding petitions, saying that the response to a petition will come from a Cabinet member, or excluding any other councillors from responding to one! It appears to have just developed that way [probably because the Leadership wants to keep control of the Council’s business, and to exclude the majority of the borough’s elected councillors from having a say].
I have to admit that the reason I was willing to give up some of the five minutes I would be allowed is that I know there are eight individual councillors, from across all three political groups on the Council, who have told me privately that they want to see the Stonebridge heritage villa retained. I had written to each of them to say that there might be an opportunity to say a sentence or two in support of the petition. [There may still be, if the Mayor changes his mind.]
Although I’ve heard it rumoured that the Labour Group/Council Leader enforces strict control over his backbench councillors, I was still surprised by the first reply I received from one I had written to:
‘It will be difficult for me to go against the party as part of the collective responsibility that I am subject to. The decisions are made in Cabinet and so, as a back bencher I have no input. Sorry I can't be of any more help.’
I did reply, saying that, as far as I was aware, it was not Brent Labour policy to demolish this locally listed heritage building, and the councillor should not be afraid to express their genuine personal belief that ‘this iconic building should be saved.’
Another Labour councillor replied: ‘Ordinary Councillors like me are not permitted to issue independent responses unless they are explicitly supporting the Cabinet Lead Member’s position.’
[These replies do not reflect well on democracy in Brent, where there are 57 councillors elected to represent the views of residents in their wards!]
So, I
will present Willesden Local History Society’s petition on Monday evening, and
hope that the Cabinet Lead Member’s position (probably written for her by a
Council Officer) is that they will retain Altamira, when the Council
finally gets round to regenerating the 1 Morland Gardens site.
Philip Grant.
The Willesden Local History Society petition:
Title: Retain the heritage Victorian villa, Altamira, as part of redeveloping 1 Morland Gardens
Petition: We the undersigned petition the Council and its Cabinet, when considering the regeneration of 1 Morland Gardens, as part of the Bridge Park / Hillside Corridor proposals, to retain the beautiful and historic locally listed Victorian villa, Altamira, as part of the redevelopment of that site for affordable housing and youth facilities. The 150-year-old landmark building is part of the original estate which gave Stonebridge Park its name, and its sense of place can be an inspiration to local young people who would use it, while there is plenty of space behind the Victorian villa to build a good number of genuinely affordable homes.
Background Information: Between 1872 and 1876, the noted Victorian architect, Henry Kendall Jnr, developed an estate of middle-class homes on a field beside the Harrow Road, just to the west of Harlesden. He called the estate Stonebridge Park, and that was the origin of the name for the area which grew up near it.
Although there are other late 19th century houses in Brent which are described as being of Italianate style, numbers 1 and 2 Morland Gardens, originally “Altamira” and “Hurworth”, are the only surviving examples with distinctive belvedere towers. Seen from the crossroads at the top of Hillside, and with the trees of the community garden in front, they provide one of the best streetscape views in the area.
“Altamira” remained as a private house until around the time of the First World War, then became a members’ club for many decades. In the 1990s, this beautiful Victorian villa was chosen by Brent Council, and sympathetically restored and extended, with funding from Harlesden City Challenge, to become the home of the Brent Adult and Community Education Service, in an inspirational Stonebridge setting.
In 2018, it was decided to upgrade the facilities for what is now the Brent Start college, and an architect was chosen, through a competition, with experience of combining heritage and modern buildings. Sadly, at an early stage, a planning officer wrongly advised that the locally listed building could be demolished, without taking into account Brent’s adopted heritage planning policies or the heritage significance of the Victorian villa.
As a result, the scheme which was given the go-ahead by Brent’s Cabinet in January 2020, and received planning consent later that year, despite numerous valid objections, would have seen the heritage asset demolished and a new concrete building of up to ten storeys constructed over the site and the adjacent community garden, providing a new college facility and 65 homes.
That scheme saw a number of problems, because of mistakes that had been, and continued to be made by the Council and its Officers, and even though an award was made for the first stage of a two-stage design and construct contract in the summer of 2022, no actual construction had begun on the site when the planning consent expired at the end of October 2023.
A review of what to recommend for the future of the 1 Morland Gardens site was begun in November 2023, and a year later the outline of “affordable homes and community facilities” was included as part of a large consultation exercise on Bridge Park and the Hillside Corridor. The second consultation in March 2025 has refined this further to “affordable homes and youth facilities” for 1 Morland Gardens, but without giving any indication over whether Council Officers will recommend retaining the heritage building, “Altamira”, as part of their proposals.
This locally listed Victorian villa is a much loved and much valued part of the Stonebridge streetscape, and this petition has been set up by Willesden Local History Society so that people who live, work or study in Brent can express their support for it to be retained as part of the Council’s latest proposals for redeveloping 1 Morland Gardens.
11 comments:
When Councillors are either incompetent in their role or lazy , or (indeed) both, they "delegate" (not to say"abdicate") decision making to Officers who in turn in their sycophancy will write what they like. In turn Officers have little skill sets to deal with developers - who then are requested by Officers to raft relevant text of policy positions.
Whether or not it was the effect of my guest post being published yesterday (I did say there was a chance that backbench councillors would be allowed to speak, 'if the Mayor changes his mind.'!), but I received this message from The Council's Governance Manager this morning:-
'The points you’ve raised in relation to presentation of the petition have also been noted for consideration by the Mayor, should any members request to speak following presentation of the petition.'
I am still waiting for clarification of exactly what this means, but I am hoping that good sense will prevail at the Full Council meeting this evening.
I was very encouraged this evening that the Mayor, Cllr. Ryan Hack, did allow non-Cabinet councillors to respond to both the petition I was presenting, on behalf of Willesden Local History Society, and to Martin's petition on the future of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre.
That sets a good precedent, going forward, for a more democratic approach to business at Full Council meetings, rather than simply allowing responses from a Cabinet Lead Member (neither of which this evening actually responded to the points raised at the meeting in the presentations - probably because they were written in advance by Council Officers!).
I was also pleased that all four councillors who asked to speak, in response to the Altamira petition, supported retaining the heritage Victorian villa in Stonebridge, and that they were members from all three political groups on the Council. I hope that sends a clear message to Council Officers, when they finally get round to making recommendations to Cabinet on the regeneration of the Morland Gardens site.
Cllr Hack is a great local Mayor. Very sharp considering his youth.
But it was a real shame that the Labour Cabinet Member simply read out a statement in response to Philip's petition which was very clearly prepared for her by Council Officers.
As I said at the Council Meeting the Labour run Council has already wasted over £3 million on this project without providing as single new home.
If they listened to Philip Grant at the outset all that money would have been saved and we would by now have both the existing Villa retained and new homes in the area.
Sadly the actions of the Labour Leadership highlight their petty arrogance - they think they know best and refuse to listen to anyone with local knowledge and better ideas.
I agree with Anonymous (16 September at 09:34) that the Mayor, Cllr. Ryan Hack, conducted yesterday evening's Council meeting very well.
That's not just because he agreed my request to allow other councillors to respond (to both petitions), but because he explained at the start how he expected everyone to behave, was fair in calling time on every speaker who exceeded their allowance and was politely firm when needed.
On top of that, late in the evening, he sent me a short email, thanking me for taking the time to come and take part in the meeting. To me, that shows class!
I will make another comment later, in reply to 10:05.
Thought fobbed off as response was, paraphrased, will consider in future plans instead of a firm assurance.
Thought fobbed off, response was, paraphrased, will consider in future plans, rather than an assurance.
Replying to Anonymous (16 September at 10:05), I agree that it is a pity the Lead Member response to my petition was to read from a pre-prepared statement, but that was no surprise to me and is probably what her "boss" expects his Cabinet members to do, rather than actually respond to the petitioner's presentation.
However, I did find myself in the lift with Cllr. Benea after the meeting, and she began a conversation which was much more "human", and which we continued when we left the lift. I asked her to make sure that the Council Officers working on plans for the Morland Gardens site know that councillors from all three political groups had spoken in support of retaining "Altamira", and she promised she would do that.
To make sure they had the message, I copied Cllr. Benea and the main Officer carrying out the review into the email I sent to the Governance Officer, with a copy of the text of my presentation (to assist in writing up the minutes of the meeting).
Cllr. Benea sent me an email today:
'Hi Philip,
Lovely to meet you yesterday and thank you so much for your passionate presentation and for sending us the text.
Kind regards,
Teo Benea'
I sent her this reply this evening:
'Dear Councillor Benea,
Thank you for your email, and for taking the opportunity to have a brief conversation with me after yesterday evening's meeting.
My presentation was passionate because I passionately believe it would be an act of cultural vandalism for the Council to demolish this beautiful, 150-year old heritage asset, and that it still has the potential to be an inspiring place for young people to meet and enjoy activities.
Along with fellow History Society members and other supporters, I have been campaigning for five and a half years to "Save the Altamira". We would much prefer to have a Morland Gardens project we can support, and contribute what we can to help make the youth facility there, inside the Victorian building, a success. But we will fight on, if forced to do so.
I see that there is still no mention of 1 Morland Gardens on the Council's Forward Plan, but as well as "Altamira", this site has space for a good number of much-needed Council homes. I hope that the Officers, still reviewing future plans for the site after nearly two years, will soon make recommendations to Cabinet for a regeneration scheme on this valuable site which finally gets things right. Best wishes,
Philip Grant.'
Now we will have to wait (hopefully not for too long) to find out what Council Officers recommend as the future plans for the Morland Gardens site. I really hope that they have learned the lessons of their past failure!
Paul (16 September at 10:10), although some of his language seems like political point scoring, is right.
But why would the Council Leader, various Lead Members and a succession of Strategic Directors of Regeneration listen to an ordinary member of the public?
They had been "sold" what looked like a wonderful scheme by a departing Strategic Director, issued a glowing press release after giving it the go-ahead, and trumpeted the "award winning design", with architects impressions of it plastered all over the project's page on the Council's regeneration website. [Although they never intended to actually build the eco-friendly building envisaged by the architects, because that would have been too expensive, just a concrete copy of it].
The succession of well-reasoned emails I sent, pointing out the flaws in the scheme, and why it wouldn't work (principally because they did not have the legal right to build on part of the site - the community garden), must have seemed like a resident, with a "bee in his bonnet" about the heritage building they planned to demolish, just being a nuisance.
But if the Leader and Cabinet members involved had thought, why didn't Officers explain these problems (and risks) to us, and why didn't we ask more questions about points that were glossed over in the January 2020 Report, they would have realised that I was making some very valid points.
Instead, they seem to have thought: We are the Council! We have the planning permission! We will plough on pursuing this scheme, despite the setbacks which unfortunately seem to happen on a regular basis. We will prevail!
The result is more than five wasted years and millions of wasted pounds. Worst of all, by not questioning a key part of the 2020 proposal, the "temporary" relocation of Brent Start to the Twybridge Way site (which cost £1.2m, rather than the £500k estimate in the Report) they blocked a 70-home Council housing project there, which had received full planning consent in May 2020.
One of the pieces of advice I gave to the Officers and Cabinet members in the autumn of 2021 was to keep Brent Start at Morland Gardens for the time being, go ahead with the Twybridge Way housing scheme, and use the £15m CIL funds set aside for the new college building to include a modern Brent Start facility as part of the proposed Bridge Park regeneration (followed by a regeneration of the Morland Gardens site, retaining the Victorian villa and including affordable housing, once the college had moved).
This was flatly rejected by the Leader and Strategic Director, who said that it was impossible to include the college in the Bridge Park scheme, and that the Morland Gardens plans would go ahead.
Brent Start moved to Twybridge Way in January 2022, as its "temporary home" for two years. It is still there, and in November 2024 it was announced that it will stay there until the new college facility is ready AS PART OF THE BRIDGE PARK redevelopment (which has not even reached the planning application stage yet).
It would be easy to blame poor advice from a succession of Council Officers for the failure of the 2020 Morland Gardens scheme. But the Leader and Cabinet must take a big share of the responsibility, for not challenging lots of weak points (what if that doesn't happen? / please let us have more details / what does that mean? / isn't that risky?) in the Officer's Report.
Surely that is what a Cabinet is there for, to make sure that the big decisions involving millions of pounds of the Council's money, are good ones. Instead, it seems to be: "Well, the Leader has been briefed on that, and he says it's OK". Recommendation Agreed!
Post a Comment