Guest blog by Philip Grant in a personal capacity:-
One of
the “spin-offs” from Martin publishing my guest blogs over 1 Morland Gardens is
that he received, and passed on to me, a query over a time capsule that was
buried there in 1994. Did the people at Brent Council know about it, and if so,
would they save and rebury it as part of their planned redevelopment?
I
asked, and got the answer that they did, and they would. Through my sharing the
answer with the person who had first raised the query, I also discovered how
Brent Council came to own the Victorian villa that they now propose to
demolish, and how it came to be restored, to improve the environment and
quality of life for the local community, with most of the finance coming from
the Harlesden City Challenge project in the 1990s.
I am
setting out below the full text, and illustrations, of an open letter which I
sent to Brent’s Chief Executive over the weekend. I’m sure that many readers
will remember BACES, and my letter gives the details about Brent Adult &
Community Education Service and Harlesden City Challenge being at the heart of
the Council’s ownership of 1 Morland Gardens. This information was never made
available to the councillors who have made decisions about Brent’s current
proposals for the property, and needs to be more widely known before any final
decision is made on whether the plans to demolish this beautiful building go
ahead.
My
letter begins with my initial response to Brent’s answer to the serious
concerns I raised in August about the planning application, and the
further
information on this that I had obtained under FoI. When
Brent’s new Strategic Director, Regeneration, sent me a copy of his report into
the concerns I had raised about how Council officers had dealt with the 1
Morland Gardens proposals, I asked if he would have any objection to it being
published, in the interests of openness and transparency. He did not want his
full report published, but sent me an edited version that could be made public,
and I will ask Martin to include that document at the end of this post.
Here
is my open letter:-
To:
Carolyn Downs
From: Philip Grant
Chief Executive, Brent Council.
10 October 2020
THIS
IS AN OPEN LETTER
Dear
Ms Downs,
1
Morland Gardens, its heritage significance and Harlesden City Challenge
Thank
you for your letter of 7 October, which was your response to the serious
concerns I had raised over the actions of Brent Council officers in connection
with the redevelopment proposals for 1 Morland Gardens. Your response was based
on the report into those concerns by the Strategic Director, Regeneration, who
also sent me a summary version of his report on the same day.
I have
not yet provided my response to Mr Lunt’s report, because I am still awaiting
some information, the request for which was wrongly refused on 18 September,
and is currently the subject of an internal review. It would also help to
resolve matters if the Council would provide me with a copy of the advice that
Mr Lunt received from Legal Counsel over the planning policy point at issue. I
know that this is said to be covered by “privilege”, but as there is no ongoing
legal action over this matter, and I have undertaken not to initiate any such
action, I cannot see the harm in this being made available to me on an “in
confidence” basis.
What both
your letter and Mr Lunt’s report have failed to grasp is that the heritage
“significance” of the locally listed Victorian villa is at the heart of where
Council officers went wrong over 1 Morland Gardens. Both the National Planning Policy Framework and Brent’s own
policy DMP7 set out clearly that the starting point for any proposals affecting
a heritage asset must be a clear understanding of the architectural and
historic significance of that asset.
Brent’s
Property Services team failed to seek or obtain any clear understanding of that
significance, before embarking on proposals which demanded such a high number
of homes, as well as an improved education college and affordable workspace,
should be delivered by the scheme.
In
giving advice to the Property Services team, in both unofficial (December 2018)
and official (from March 2019) pre-application discussions, Brent’s Planning
Officers failed to ensure that the applicant had a clear understanding of the
significance of the heritage asset. Planning Officers also failed to find out, or
show, any proper understanding of the architectural and historic significance
of the building themselves. That ignorance was displayed, and had a critical
influence on the development of the proposals, when one officer advised that
‘we’re not likely to refuse a scheme due to the loss of this building’ as early
as December 2018.
That
negligent action, in clear breach of Brent’s stated policies of valuing and
protecting the borough’s heritage assets, is in stark contrast to the Council’s
original involvement with and redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens, when it was
first acquired in the 1990’s.
I
recently passed on an enquiry that had been forwarded to me about a time
capsule, which was buried at the site during that redevelopment in 1994.
Sharing the information which Mr Lunt provided on this has brought to light
some important information about the recent heritage of the Victorian villa.
That is the main reason for this letter, which I am making an open letter,
because the information deserves to be in the public domain.
It has
now emerged that the Council’s acquisition of 1 Morland Gardens, the
restoration of the Victorian villa and its redevelopment into an adult
education college came about through the Harlesden City Challenge initiative of
the 1990s. No reference to this was made in the then
Strategic Director of Regeneration’s Report to Brent’s Cabinet on 14 January
2020, which simply said (at para 3.1): ‘The council fully owns 1 Morland
Gardens, which presents an opportunity to deliver an innovative and high
quality mixed use development in the heart of Stonebridge ….’
The
then Government’s City Challenge programme ran from 1992 to 1998, ‘with the aim
of transforming specific rundown inner city areas and improving significantly
the quality of life of local residents.’ Harlesden in Brent was one of the
areas whose bid for major funding, through a specially formed company Harlesden
City Challenge Ltd (“HCC”), was successful. The basis of the finance for City
Challenge was that capital projects under the scheme would have 75% funding
from the Government, with the other 25% being raised from Local Authorities,
local businesses or other sources such as charities.
The
initiative for the 1 Morland Gardens scheme appears to have come from Brent
Adult & Community Education Service (“BACES”), which wished to expand the
range of courses it was able to offer. It had identified the disused Services
Rendered Club at 1 Morland Gardens (which had originally been the private
residence, “Altamira”, Stonebridge Park) as a possible location, in the heart
of the area where it felt the greatest need for its services was.
BACES,
together with Brent Victim Support, who also wished to provide a service in the
area, approached HCC with their proposal, and were offered £700k of City
Challenge funding, if they could obtain the balance required. BACES then got a
commitment from George Benham (who was probably Brent’s Director of Education
at the time, but later became its Chief Executive) that the Council would back
the scheme and make sure it came to fruition, which would involve a minimum of
£200k Council funding.
It was
on that basis that 1 Morland Gardens was purchased in the name of Brent Council
(but with majority funding from HCC). Chassay Architects were commissioned to
design a sympathetic restoration of the Victorian part of the building, with
partial demolition of some of the later additions by the Services Rendered
Club, and a new extension subordinate in design to the heritage building. This
would provide an adult education college for BACES, and premises for Brent
Victim Support. Planning permission was given for this in January 1994.
Restoration
work in progress on the front of the Victorian villa, May 1994. (Still
photograph from a video)
During
the building work, on 9 May 1994, a ceremony was held to bury a time capsule,
containing 25 items chosen by various people involved in the project, including
BACES students and members of the local community. A plaque was unveiled,
saying that the time capsule ‘was buried to celebrate the creation of a new adult
education community college using funds from Harlesden City Challenge and Brent
Council’, and that it would be ‘opened in 50 years on 9 May 2044’.
In a
short speech at this ceremony HCC’s Chief Executive, Gerry Davis, said HCC was
not about physical regeneration, but to make better things that are derelict,
to make an environment that looked good, so that the lives of local people
would be improved. He may also have been speaking about the HCC Community Garden
outside, on the paved area of the former Stonebridge Park, closed off from
Hillside when the street was renamed Morland Gardens as part of the 1960s/70s
Stonebridge regeneration.
The
first BACES courses at 1 Morland Gardens were offered from September 1994, with
the new college fully operational from January 1995. As shown by the cover of
the supplement (above), giving details of those first courses, HCC was included
in the name of the college. A plaque inside its front door carried the message:
‘City Challenge Brent Adult College supported by Harlesden City Challenge Ltd
with funds from the Government Office for London.’ The new college, in the
restored Victorian building, featured on the front cover of the 1995/96 BACES
courses guide.
It is
clear from this new information, obtained from the first Head of the City
Challenge Brent Adult College (who recently donated material including the
items pictured above, and the video mentioned, to Brent Archives), that a key
reason behind the purchase and renovation of the Victorian villa was to
preserve a beautiful historic building.
It
would be used for the benefit of the local community, in providing a range of
vocational and recreational courses. As well as providing a beautiful and
inspiring college for its students, it would, together with the HCC Community
Garden in front of it, improve the environment in a run-down area, and the
quality of life for everyone living there. And as the burying of the time
capsule shows, it was intended and expected that the renovated Victorian building
would provide those benefits for at least fifty years
Now
Brent Council, without a proper understanding or consideration of the heritage
value of the building, plans to demolish it. It’s plans also include (as part
of claimed ‘public realm improvements’) building over much of the Harlesden
City Challenge Community Garden, and replacing it with a much smaller garden
area that will be part of the proposed new college, not a space for public
enjoyment.
These
Harlesden City Challenge disclosures raise questions that need to be answered,
and the answers made publicly available, before the Council goes any further
with its ill thought out scheme.
· Was
the preservation of this heritage building part of the basis on which City
Challenge funding was obtained for the new adult college in the 1990s?
· What
were the terms of the letter from senior Brent Council Officer, George Benham,
in respect of committing the Council to the purchase and renovation of 1
Morland Gardens, as far as relate to the future of the heritage building?
· Were
there any covenants or provisions in the purchase contract for 1 Morland
Gardens over the preservation of the Victorian villa on that property?
· What
commitments were given over the future of the Victorian villa in return for the
£700k received from HCC?
· Was
the £700k grant for the purchase and restoration of 1 Morland Gardens repayable
if the building was either demolished, or ceased to be used as an adult
education college?
· If so,
is that condition over the repayment of the grant, or any part of it, still in
force?
I realise that the answers to these
questions lie back in the 1990s, but I am aware from its catalogue that Brent
Archives holds a Local History Collection boxfile, reference LHC/1/PLA/4, which
contains a large number of documents relating to Harlesden City Challenge,
1993-1998, which may help with at least some information.
I hope I have shown that it is not just
Brent’s Victorian heritage, but also its modern Harlesden City Challenge
heritage, that is of significant historic and architectural value here. I make
no apology for persisting in my efforts to persuade the Council that the
proposals by Brent’s Property Service, aided and abetted by Brent’s Planning
Service, have “got it wrong”.
Yours sincerely,
Philip Grant.
