Crunch day for Preston Community Library at Planning Committee on Wednesday 21st August

Ground floor plan showing flat and accommodation entrance and library space

Frontage from Carlton Avenue East

Preston Community Library is at the centre of a planning decision to be made by Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday August 21st LINK. The community library emerged from a fierce campaign against closure and campaigners decided to run a volunteer library to safeguard the site and service until a council run service was reinstated. Recently the library was commended in the Bookseller's Library of the Year Award, the first volunteer library to receive such a commendation.

Campaigners won the status of Asset of Community Value (ACV) for the library and its retention is guaranteed in Brent Council's redevelopment proposal that includes provision of a new building with 12 affordable flats on the site as well as a smaller library space.

Supporters of the library have varying views on the proposal with some supporting the development as a way of ensuring the survival of the library and the replacement of a flimsy building which is not fit for modern purposes. They accept that the  smaller floorspace will be more flexible and adaptable than the current classroom layout. Others oppose the development because the library provision will be smaller than the current floorspace and they wish the library to continue as it is - often without any redevelopment to provide housing.

There are 67 objections in all including that from the South Kenton and Preston Park Residents Association.  Ground include the height and density of the proposed building, its failure to fit in with the local 'metroplitan style' semi-detached houses, traffic impact, overlooking of nearby gardens, lack of play-space for children and danger of surface flooding. Neighbouring Twinstar Car Sales oppose the development partly due to it overlooking their premises but also because it limits their own redevelopment proposals. An earlier submission by them was turned down.

Councillor Kennelly in hs submission recognised the benefits of re-providing the library facility to allow its continued operation in the long term, but highlighted concerns regarding the impact of the proposal upon the privacy of the properties on Longfield Avenue and the need to remove windows/balconies facing onto these properties, 
that the design of the building is not in keeping with the character of the area and could set a precedent. 

I would expect Cllr Michael Maurice, who is a member of the Planning Committee, to recuse himself from this agenda item as he has expressed strong views on the proposal. 


Three supportive comments claimed that 
the proposal will provide much needed affordable housing within the borough in a decent standard of accommodation, that the 
 site is in a sustainable location close to local amenities, transport links and schools 
and the proposal will allow the long term operation of the library to take place on the site in a 
modernised building 

As shown in the plan above the library space will be provided as a shell at this stage and Preston Library will fit it out themselves using the £268,000 they were granted from Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy that was conditional on the redevelopment going ahead. LINK


Below I have reproduced three views from the Council Planning Portal to illustrate the issues:

NEUTRAL

Since this development was first proposed in 2010, I have read and reviewed the many ideas and suggestions from Brent Council. Previous proposals failed to provide adequate provision for a Library or community space. This space has always been and remains an integral part of our community in Preston Ward. Since 2016, I have seen a more engaged approach from Brent Council and a willingness to listen to the community. Although these plans require further alterations, the basic provision for a sustainable community library in the long term is the most important factor in my decision to support this development as a resident and councillor.

The space available to the community will be maintained and modernised. It will allow the Preston Community Library and Hub to build upon their hard work and success by granting long term security both financially and structurally. The current building is approaching the end of its natural life and will require substantial work to maintain the current standards. By supporting this proposal, I believe that the long term future of Preston Community Library and Hub will be secured.

However, I am concerned that the current proposals do not meet the necessary safety concerns for the development to proceed in its current format. Firstly, at every public meeting local residents have expressed their concerns over privacy and child safety. The proposals have continuously failed to meet these concerns. To help protect residents, I propose that all balconies are removed from the final design and no windows overlook the residents on Longfield Avenue. The safety and protection of vulnerable residents should be the first priority for the Planning Committee.

Secondly, the design of the building does not keep with the local architecture. This community has a traditional metropolitan look, which these proposals do not reflect. I am concerned that this will open the floodgates to applications that do not reflect the traditional beauty of the local area. Therefore to maintain the high standards in the local area, these proposals should be reviewed once again.

Finally, I do not believe that adequate planning or consultation has been completed in regards to the impact of increased traffic and reduced pedestrian access whilst work is being completed. I would strongly question any survey that has been completed by the council and ask why they have asked for such little public engagement on this issue. It is my belief that the current proposals will hurt local business and impact upon the lives of both elderly and vulnerable resident. It will lead to an increase in pollution and congestion. The lungs of young residents are most affected by the fumes from parked traffic, I implore the Planning Committee to ask Brent Council to think again about these proposals.

I want to make very clear that my support for this project hinges upon the guarantee of the long term future of the Community Library and Hub. Should the Committee or Brent Council attempt to reverse these plans and commitments that have been made to the community, I would be unable to continue with my support.

FOR

I strongly support this development, because it will provide a new and better laid out and equipped library, rather than it having to make do and mend in a building that has seen better days. I agree with an earlier comment that the library is an important resource for the community which allows people a safe creative environment to interact and encourages diversity, and that it has a positive function in social, health and economic terms.

I also, unlike most of the people opposing the development, positively welcome the development of affordable housing, particularly at a time when across London around 80% of new market housing is affordable to only 20% of working households and there is marked reluctance by private landlords to let to households claiming Housing Benefit.

Brent Council's housing strategy acknowledges that the opportunities for large-scale new development in Brent are constrained by land availability and costs, so smaller developments must play their part in helping to provide homes for those who don't have them or are poorly and insecurely housed.

We in this community should welcome this opportunity to increase the affordable rented housing stock. Too many of the comments opposing the development simply smack of nimybism.

AGAINST

We wish to make you aware of a number of strong objection that we have with regards to the proposed development of  Preston Community Library. As an immediate neighbour to the site of the proposed development, we are of the view that the proposed development will have a serious impact on our standard of Living. Our specific objections are as follows.

1 Detrimental impact upon residential amenities.

We believe that the proposed development is a direct contravention of the policies, it does not respect local context and street pattern or in particular, the scale and proportion of surrounding buildings and would be entirely out of the character of the area, The proposed Development is 4 storey building and is much higher than neighbouring property. The proposed dwelling incorporates an external balcony at front and rear of development unlike any other neighbouring property, so the scale and design of the development will be entirely out of keeping.

The proposal would demonstrably harm the amenities enjoyed by local residents, in particular safe and available on-road parking (see point 6), valuable green space (see point 4), privacy ( see Point 5) and the right to enjoy a quiet and safe residential environment.

2 Need To avoid town cramming

We believe that the proposed development is a direct contravention of the policies. The proposed dwelling would significantly alter the fabric of the area to serious cramming in what is a low density road, The proposed dwelling have very small garden, but the nature and orientation of the plot means that the garden would actually be very small for a four-story dwelling, particularly compared with the large plots typically enjoyed by the surrounding properties. The proposal allows very little space for landscaping and we believe that it would lead to gross over-development of the site. The proposed development would not result in a benefit in environmental and landscape term, to the contrary it would lead to the loss of valuable green space.

3 Communal Play Space Policy S4 (Mayor of London)

We believe there is no Communal Play space for children and Young people in accordance with the requirement of Policy S4 Play and informal recreation as per Mayor of London Plan (Minimum for 10 children)

4 Protection of valuable open space under TPO

We have grave concerns about the adverse effect the proposed development would have on large tree will be removed this will affect wildlife haven for many birds and valuable contribution to the street scene and area and are an amenity for local residents.

5. Loss of privacy and overlooking

The proposed site of development and scale that the primary amenity area of our garden, resulting in a serious invasion of our privacy.

We believe that the proposed development is a direct contravention of policy of the District Wide Local Plan. The design of the proposed development dose not affords adequate privacy for the occupants of the building or of adjacent residential properties. Particularly, with regard to their right to the quite enjoyment of garden amenities. We would urge you to consider the responsibilities of the council under the Human Right Act in particular Protocol 1, Article 1 which states that a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions which includes the home and other land. We believe that the proposed development would have a dominating impact on us and our right to the quite enjoyment of our property. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act stats that person has the substantive right to respect for their private and family life.

6. Inadequate Parking and Access.

We believe that the proposed development does not provide sufficient parking space to meet these requirement ( As specified in transport report this kind of development require 14 space for flat resident plus about 5 space for library users plus disable space for both library user and flat resident) in addition to this , there is already intense on street parking pressure on the road on Carlton Avenue East, Longfield avenue, Fernleigh Court, and we believe the proposed additional parking provision will damage both highway safety and residential amenity.
Also proposed development showing hoarding taking public footpath and parking bay outside library and will create blind spot junction and will increased on road safety and accident.

7. Our other objection are listed below.

1) Nuisance and annoyance obstruction of the view
2) Twinstar similar Development been refused by Brent council reference 08/3173
3) Consultation meeting 76% Neighbours and library user object the development proposal
4) We believe proposed Development will create overshadowing in our property

We would be grateful if the council would take our objection into consideration when deciding this application. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with a representative of planning department to illustrate our objections at first hand.

Now Cricklewood Llbrary land and building to be sold off

After the controversy over the attempted sale of Kensal Rise Library, Cricklewood Library is now up for sale.  As the library is an  asset of community value there is now a period in which community interest groups can lodge notice that they are potential bidders

Stonebridge Adventure Playground gets Asset of Community Value listing but watch this space

Campaign on Facebook PleaseSupport

Campaigners for Stonebridge Adventures Playground are celebrating the granting of Asset of Community Value to the facility which has served local children and their parents seince the 1970s.

Brent Council plan to close the playground in order to extend Stonebridge Primary School and build housing. The full staffed and well-resourced playgtround which also runs special projects for children with special needs and disabilities would be replaced by a much smaller unstaffed 'kickabout' close to the main road.

As well as recognising the value of the playground to the community the listing also opens the way to a community bid for the site.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE PLAYGROUND IS SAVED AND RESIDENTS ARE URGED TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT  THE CAMPAIGN,  SIGN THE PETITION AND ESPECIALLT TO COMPLETE THE ON-LINE CONSULTATION

However, this extract from the letter granting ACV status also indicates (last para) the possibility for an appeal which I would expect to come from the Planning Department - basically one part of Brent Council appealing to another part of Brent Council.  Something to carefully monitor.

A consultation process is currently underway on the Council plans with the latest meeting tonight at the The Hub in Stonebridge 7-9pm. Bonfire Night is perhaps not the best night of the year to consult with children and their parents!

Extract from Brent Council's letter signed by Cathy Tyson

-->

I am satisfied that the nomination made by the community body falls within Section 90(3) and under section 90(4) the Council is therefore required to enter the land as nominated on the Council’s list of assets of community value.

In accordance with Section 91 of the Act I hereby give notice of the inclusion of the Stonebridge Adventure Playground with the boundary shown on the maps provided by the nominee on 9^th September 2014 on the Local Authority’s list of Assets of Community Value.

The consequences for the land and for the London Borough of Brent as owners of the land of the inclusion of the land on the list of assets of community value are that

.        i)  The land will remain on the list of assets of community value for a period of 5 years unless the criteria for listing are found to no longer exist during an earlier review. 


.        ii)  It is open to the Council to remove the entry if for any reason the council no longer considers the land to be of community value. 


.        iii)  A restriction will be entered on the Land Registry and entry will be made on the Local Land Charges Register. 


iv)Under s95 of the Act the owner (London Borough of Brent) must not enter into a relevant disposal of the land unless certain conditions are met. These include notifying the Council in writing of the owner’s wish to enter into a relevant disposal of the land and complying with any moratorium periods on disposal.

v) A relevant disposal of listed land is ineffective if it is a disposal which contravenes S95. There is an exception to this in paragraph 21(2) of the Regulations.

The owner of the land (London Borough of Brent) has the right to ask for a review under S92 of the Act. A request for a review must be made in writing before the end of 8 weeks from the date of this notice. Such request should be addressed to the Assistant Chief Executive, Brent Council, Brent Civic Centre, Empire Way , Wembley, HA9 0FJ

ACV status for Stonebridge Adventure Playground to be decided next week

The Kilburn Times has been supporting the campaign since the start

The Brent Play Association's application for Stonebridge Adventure Playground to be made an asset of community value is due to get a response from Brent Council by November 5th.

ACV status gives some protection to such assets but does not prevent development.  However, it can be taken into account by the Planning Committee and clears the ground for a community bid. It makes a clear public statement that the facility is valued by the public.

Certainly the playground can easily demonstration that it has been a community asset for decades and many personal testimonials demonstrate its value to a community.

Front: Martin Francis (Green Party) and Dawn Butler (Labour) united in defence of the playground

The playground's fight for survival has received much support including that of Dawn Butler, Labour's parliamentary candidate for Brent Central, despite Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt insisting that he remains 'neutral'. I am supporting the fight both as a Tustree of the Brent Play Association and as Brent Green Party's spokesperson on children and families.

A community asset then...

and now

Brent's legal flip-flopping over Kensal Rise Library planning application

In this Guest Blog Meg Howarth tries to disentangle the various interpretations of the law involved in the Kensal Rise Library development planning process.

Last week, Brent's planning committee gave the go-ahead to Andrew Gillick's latest plans for the Kensal Rise Library building he now owns. Brent & Kilburn Times report HERE - 

Regarding the still-unresolved fraudulent email affair surrounding the developer's original scheme - there's currently some speculation that matters might now be in the hands of the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service). This is unconfirmed, however, and shouldn't stop anyone from writing to their ward councillors to ensure that Brent police's investigation isn't quietly dropped on the back of last Wednesday's planning consent.

Last Wednesday's decision was made in the face of apparently contradictory advice from the council's lawyers about the relevance of ACV (Asset of Community Value) legislation to the application - the library building was listed as an ACV in December 2012. The committee's legal advisor told the committee that the Localism Act and ACV was 'separate legislation' and 'not under the consideration of this committee'. This is not only untrue, as Jodi Gramigni says on the following Wembley Matters' blog  LINK

The advice appears also appears to contradict points 7 & 8 of the planning officer's report. These state unequivocally that 'in this case [KTR planning application] the fact that the building is listed as a Asset of Community value is...a material planning consideration' and 'is also relevant...as a partial change of use to residential is proposed' - link to report HERE 

But the most glaring evidence of Brent legal's flip-flopping regarding ACV legislation comes in the statement from Andrew Gillick's spokesman on the eve of the planning committee: 'Further to advice provided by the LPA [Brent local planning authority] in respect of the Assets of Community Value Regulations 2012, I am pleased to advise that the applicant [the developer] has today confirmed that he is naming FKRL as the "actual" tenant, as opposed to his "preferred" tenant'.

So less than 24 hours before the Localism Act and ACV was declared 'separate legislation', it had been  used by Brent's planners to enable a shift from 'preferred' to 'actual' tenant status for FKRL. Why, then, did committee members fail to probe these inconsistencies? Were they asleep on the job? The 2012 legislation either applied to the application or it didn't.

In the event, the shift to the much-heralded status of 'actual' tenant appears to have been little more than a PR move to encourage support for Mr Gillick's latest attempt to convert the library building into unaffordable residential flats. As his spokesman said: 'We trust this ['actual' over 'preferred' tenant status] goes some way to giving the Council, the FKRL and the local community the confidence to support this application'. But as Jodi Gramigni says: there's no 'legally binding requirement to reinstate a library [in the KRL building] or agree a lease with FKRL, confirmed by committee member, Cllr Kasangra, when he said clearly at the meeting that a lease is not part of the planning conditions. 

Those with long memories will here recall the developer's apparent untrustworthiness when, in his original change-of-use application for the Mark Twain library - the one linked to the fake email support - he offered D1 space in the basement of the-then publicly funded building in breach of the legally binding contract he'd signed with then-owner All Souls College: 'none [of the D1 space shall be] in the basement of the Property)' (Option Agreement para 15.1). Jodi's appeal for 'vigilance' is surely spot on.

A further point regarding the Localism Act: if a property is listed as an Asset of Community Value before a sale is agreed, the property is subject to the Community Right to Bid - a 6-month period to enable community groups to prepare alternative sale proposals. Brent's legal counsel argued that the Option Agreement to purchase Kensal Rise Library from All Souls College, allegedly signed in November 2012, preceded the building's ACV-listing in December, and that the building was therefore exempt from the right-to-bid period. But the Option Agreement wasn't a sale contract. That wasn't signed until later, almost certainly in January 2013. So it's arguable that the 6-month bidding process should have started then, enabling FKRL to exercise a bid. For clarification of this alone and/or other aspects of Brent's handling of the application or the police investigation, it might be worth requesting the Secretary of State to call in the planning committee's decision for reconsideration advice on how to do so HERE

Fairview Homes appeal to demolish the Queensbury Pub to be heard

It looks like the Planning Inspectorate may have to open an office in Brent! Fairview Homes have lodged an appeal against Brent Council planning committee's refusal of their plans for the Queensbury pub site at 110 Walm Lane. Fairview want to demolish the Asset of Community Value and replace it with a block of flats.

The hearing is expected to last three days. The Planning Inspector's letter can be found HERE

Why Friends of Kensal Rise Library accepted developer's offer of space

In this guest blog the Trustees of  Friends of Kensal Rise Library explain why they they decided to accept the developer's offer of space in the building.

Many of you know that the FKRL Trustees recently decided to support the community (D1) aspect of the library building's re-development. We signed an agreement in good faith with All Souls College and the developer to this effect, trusting this would strengthen our position as future operators of the library and community space.

The proposal provides approximately two thirds (186m2) of the ground floor for community use, with FKRL as the 'preferred' tenants. The London Evening Standard called this: 'a landmark agreement with developers that could save Kensal Rise Library' (25th March 2014).

We feel you should know how we came to make this momentous decision and the factors that we were obliged to take into account.

Throughout almost four years of campaigning and negotiating, initially with Brent Council, and more recently with All Souls College and the developer, FKRL's objectives has been, and will remain, to re-establish a library and community space in the building. We trust and hope that our decision offers the community the best chance of this.

The decision is not without risk. However, there were risks involved in the other options open to us which we ultimately rejected. These included the following:

1. HOLDING OUT FOR MORE SPACE

• The provision of rent-free space is an important factor for the sustainability of a community library. The current proposal is for rent-free community space, as this forms part of the agreement between All Souls College and the developer. Even if further space were to be available for community use, there is no guarantee that it would be rent-free.
• Although the upstairs parts of the library were used for archive and staff purposes until the library closed, the ground floor is the only part of the library that has been accessible to the public in recent years, and planning officers noted and remarked on this when we met them in October 2013.

2. TRUSTING IN ACV

• FKRL worked hard to persuade the Council to protect the entire building as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) in 2012. Just before the Council designated it as an ACV the College and the developer entered into a binding agreement that meant the moratorium period of six months that we might have used to prepare a bid for the building could not apply.
• We may have prepared a bid to buy the building, but there would have been no obligation on the College to accept our bid.
• If change of use from community to part-residential/part-community use was refused and the whole building remained in D1 (community) use as an ACV, the developer could rent it out for other community uses: for example, as a religious place of worship, doctor's surgery, or school. The planning process cannot dictate that the community space must be used as a library.
• There is no guarantee that any of the space will be used for a library or for anything that this community might want or need, nor who will be able to use the space.
• ACV does not determine ownership. The owner remains the same. The community does not own the building.

3.  HOPING THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS REJECTED

• If the most recent planning application is rejected, the developer could go to Appeal or submit another planning application. This could continue for years, during which there would probably not be any community access to the building.

4. HOPING THE DEVELOPER SELLS THE BUILDING

• If the developer decided to sell the building, substantial seven figure sums would be needed not only to purchase but also to refurbish. The developer would be under no obligation to sell it to FKRL or to the community.
• There is no guarantee that any new purchaser would be obliged to grant a rent free space space to the community.

FKRL made their decision after very carefully analysing the risk of losing the space proposed in the latest planning application, We have always endeavoured to act fairly, honestly and openly in our negotiations with the other parties and have entered into this agreement in good faith.

Kensal Rise Library's last librarian - before it was closed - said of FKRL's achievement and of the space currently on offer:

I'm sorry you weren't able to get as much space as you wanted, obviously the more the better. I think though that you've still got enough space to have a really good community library. There are certainly nice libraries that are smaller than the area you've got.

You have done a fantastic job in my opinion in saving the library. I really hope that as a group you don't let any disappointment about not getting everything you wanted overshadow what you have achieved. The odds were stacked against you and the people running Brent Libraries were determined Kensal should close. I'm sure that you will make a success of running the library. It really will be valued by local people after the fight that has been put up to save it.

Karl Hemsley (25 March 2014).

We are encouraged by the support of the Lead Member for Libraries at Brent Council, Cllr Roxanne Tessa Awe, Mashari, and by the present and future backing of Ms Tessa Awe, CEO of Brent CVS (Community, Voluntary Sector). There is tremendous community support for the library and the campaign to save it, and we know local people will embrace a new community library if, as we hope, we are given the opportunity to run it.

(FKRL have not been asked to comment on the whole of the planing application, only on the space proposed for D1 (community) use in the redevelopment. The Council is consulting the local community about the planning application in the usual way and everyone is free to comment on all aspects of the proposal.)

WE TRUST THAT THE ABOVE WILL GIVE ALL OUR SUPPORTERS AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE REASONING BEHIND OUR ADOPTING THIS POSITION AND WE VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO OPERATING A COMMUNITY LIBRARY FROM THE D1 SPACE IN DUE COURSE.

Trustees of Friends of Kensal Rise Library

Brent Council refuse to recognise the community value of the Queensbury Pub

Guest blog from the Save the QueensburyGroup. It really does seem to be The People against The Developers (Kensal Rise Library, Willesden Green Library, Queensbury Pub) with Brent Council unable or unwilling to stand up for local people - and seemingly subservient to the developers.

The Save The Queensbury group is very disappointed that the pub has not been added to Brent Council’s list of Assets of Community Value. Our nomination (via the NW2 Residents Association) was refused following a 15 page letter from the Fairview Homes law firm to Brent Council and we are now considering whether to try for a third time.

We are disappointed that Brent Council did not recognise and agree that the site of the pub has been an important resource in our community since 1925. The regulations on ACVs ask whether a property has community use currently or at any time in the recent past. We were confident that because the building has been a social club between 1925-2012 and a pub since 2000 it would reasonably meet that criteria. After all many pubs already listed elsewhere are actually closed, often by developers who want to build flats. This is precisely why these regulations were introduced.

We are also disappointed that Brent Council did not agree that the Busy Rascals activities for toddlers and the National Childbirth Trust meetings for parents both reflect the pub’s place in the community. Fairview argued that this is not a normal use of a pub, claiming it actually contravened the pub’s lease and sought to discount it for ACV purposes. Brent council seem to agree. Let’s remember that Fairview have strenuously and persistently sought to undermine Busy Rascals and the pub, at every turn.

Aside from current use, there is also a test as to the future use of a building over the next five years. We argued that the pub has a lease until 2017 so it’s a no-brainer? We also stated that there is no permission for anything other than community / social club / pub use. Plus there are no current plans before the council to change this. But, again, Brent listened to Fairview Homes who said that they have no intention of opening the building for community use and every intention of demolishing it. As far as we can tell there is nothing in regulations about a landowner’s intention and desire, otherwise surely no building would be listed if an owner could simply say they wanted to demolish it?

We put a lot into our nominations. We took advice  and we looked at other successful nominations of pubs and other buildings. What we got in return was a convoluted process which heavily favoured Fairview Homes (they had two weeks to respond to our nomination and we were afforded two days). We are a small, voluntary group without the expertise and resource of a multinational law firm. Yet we did address Fairview’s points and were confident that our nomination met the criteria and Brent had a duty to list it.

So what next?

This is a small chapter in a battle to save both The Queensbury pub and the activities of Busy Rascals by preserving a landmark building in a conservation area. But we have little expertise, limited resource, not much local Councillor support and a developer with a lot of money at stake and a huge legal resource to lobby and bully the council.

It really is an uphill struggle, so we’re taking stock and considering our next moves, but we’re certainly not giving up in our fight to save The Queensbury.