Was St Raph's community centre lock-out politically motivated?

 

Bias by Brent Planning Officers over Hazel Road application listed for Committee next week – TWO open emails to Brent’s Director of Law.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Hazel Road and the Mission Hall now, and what is proposed.

 

Readers may remember a guest post from last September “EXPOSED! – Improper bias by Brent’s Planners over the Hazel Road application.” It may appear to have gone quiet since then, but things have been happening behind the scenes. Now matters are coming to a head!

 

Kensal Green Residents’ Association, whose FoI request had uncovered the evidence used in my previous article, sent a pdf document copy of my exposé as part of a complaint to Brent Council. The reply they received, from Brent’s Head of Planning, first summarised the issues raised, then responded in general terms to the summary (without referring to any of the detailed evidence of wrongdoing by the Case Officer) and concluded that there had been no bias! (That is typical of the way Brent has dealt with various complaints I have made over the years.)

 

In between various other, more pleasurable, heritage activities, I had put together a very detailed, evidence-based objection comment about the bias by Planning Officers, which I finally submitted to Brent’s planning website for application 25/0041 on 26 January. Brent’s Planning Code of Practice requires Officers and Members to consider and decide applications ‘in a fair impartial and transparent manner.’ Because I felt that there had been a clear breach of the Code, and a failure by the Council’s Head of Planning to address the concerns raised, I sent this open email to Brent’s Director of Law on 2 February:

 

‘Bias and perceived pre-determination by Brent Planning Officers in dealing with application 25/0041

 

This is an open email

Dear Ms Henry,

 

I am attaching a pdf document copy of an objection comment which I submitted on 26 January in respect of the planning application ref. 25/0041 (26 & 28 Hazel Road, London NW10). It contains detailed evidence of irregularities by Brent Council Planning Officers, which I would bring to your attention in both of your roles.

 

1. As Monitoring Officer:

There has been a breach of Brent's Planning Code of Practice by the Case Officer dealing with application 25/0041 (I will not name the Officer in this open email, but you can easily identify him internally), and potentially by other Planning Officers who have dealt with this application.

 

Paragraph 1.2 of the Code makes clear that Officers, as well as Members, must ‘consider and decide planning matters in a fair impartial and transparent manner.’

 

In cases such as this, where there had been pre-application advice and discussions, involving the Case Officer and other Officers, paragraph 8.4 of the Code states: 'It is vital that such discussions are conducted in accordance with this Code so there can be no suggestion of actual pre-determination or bias, or any perception of pre-determination or bias, or any other procedural impropriety.'

 

As I have shown in the attached document, there is a very strong perception of pre-determination in favour of the applicant in this case, and very clear evidence of bias by the Case Officer, so that his consideration of the application, in particular (but not exclusively) over the heritage aspects of it with which I was involved as an objector, was neither fair nor impartial.

 

You will need to consider the attached document in full, but the key points on the heritage side are:

 

·      the Case Officer had already sent the applicant's agent a copy of the Alternative Heritage Statement ("AHS") which I had submitted in February 2025, and invited the submission of a revised heritage statement ("RHS") on behalf of the applicant (which I do not object to);

 

·      after reviewing the RHS, submitted in April, and finding that it did not undermine the case made in my AHS, which showed that the application failed to comply with Brent's Local Plan heritage policy BHC1, the Case Officer not only asked the agent to prepare another revised heritage statement ("RHS2"), but spelt out in an email of 2 May 2025 what that statement should say. This instruction was clearly designed to enable the Case Officer to claim that policy BHC1 had been complied with (as if the application did not comply, Planning Officers could not recommend its approval to Planning Committee);

 

·      the RHS2 was sent to the Case Officer on 27 May 2025, and because a more senior Officer decided that this should trigger a new public consultation period, the Case Officer issued letters and notices about the consultation on 10 June;

 

·      however, the RHS2 document, which the consultation was meant to be about (with a closing date of 10 July) was not published on the Council's planning webpage for application 25/0041 until 9 July 2025. This did not seem to have been accidental, as I had emailed the Case Officer on 10 June saying that the revised heritage statement on the website was the April RHS (I was not aware until late July that there had been an RHS2!).

 

Although I believe that the Case Officer has breached the Planning Code of Practice, I would only ask that, if my complaint is upheld, he should be given a formal reprimand, not anything more serious. This is because, from past experience, I believe that problems over how adopted planning policy and practice are dealt with at Brent Council are not just down to this single Officer.

 

If you agree, on reviewing all of the evidence provided in the attached document, that the Planning Code of Practice has been broken in this case, I would ask that a written warning be given to Brent's Head of Planning, to be passed on to all of the Officers in his Department, that any future case of failure to consider and decide an application fairly and impartially will be treated as a misconduct offence, with serious consequences.

 

2. As Director of Law:

 

My wider concern, and hopefully yours as well, is that when the evidence which I have included in the comments document attached was presented to Brent's Head of Planning last October, in a complaint made by Kensal Green Residents' Association, his response was summarised in the words: 'I do not consider that the local planning authority has acted in a biased manner.' The details about this are set out at section 4 of the attached document.

 

I realise that a Head of Department is likely to try to protect his Officers, and the reputation of his Department, but in order to do so he has either failed to look at the detailed evidence provided, or has decided to ignore it, and try to deflect attention away from it in his response (an email of 24 October 2025 to Kensal Green Residents' Association, which they forward a copy of to me).

 

That approach undermines the credibility of any Report to Brent's Planning Committee put forward in respect of this application, if that Report is prepared or presented by Officers who have been involved in any way with the clear bias and perceived pre-determination which I have uncovered and commented on.

 

If such a Report, which would almost certainly recommend approval of the application, were to be made, and the Planning Committee were to accept the Officers' recommendation, then there would be strong grounds for an appeal against the decision to the High Court by objectors. Would you, as Director of Law, wish to take that risk?

 

The alternative that I can see, if the application is to be considered by Brent's Planning Committee, is that Brent Council should engage an independent planning consultant, perhaps nominated by a body such as the Royal Town Planning Institute, to review all of the planning application documents and comments on the application, and prepare a report and recommendation which is not influenced by the "procedural improprieties" which I have drawn attention to.

 

I look forward to receiving your response to this email, before any further action is taken by Brent Council (as local planning authority) over application 25/0041. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

I had not received any acknowledgement to that email when I wrote a second time, after learning that application 25/0041 had been listed for a decision at the Planning Committee meeting next Wednesday, 11 February. Having read the Officers’ Report, on which Committee members are expected to base their decision (which is usually to approve the application, as recommended by Brent’s Planning Officers), it continued the bias previously complained about. This is what I wrote on 5 February:

 

Bias by Brent Planning Officers in their Report to Planning Committee on application 25/0041

This is an open email

 

Dear Ms Henry,

 

Further to my email to you on Monday 2 February, about bias and perceived pre-determination by Planning Officers in this case, I have been advised that application 25/0041 has been listed for determination at the Planning Committee meeting on Wednesday 11 February.

 

Having read the Officers' Report, it is clear that the bias By Planning Officers in favour of the application, and against those objecting to it, has continued in that Report. As a result, it is unlikely that there could be a fair and impartial consideration of the application, and I would strongly urge that application 25/0041 (26 & 28 Hazel Road, London NW10) be adjourned from next week's Planning Committee meeting, and only returned to the agenda when a Report and recommendation has been commissioned and prepared by an independent planning consultant, as suggested at the end of my 2 February email.

 

Because of my request for an adjournment, I am copying this email to the Chair and Vice Chair of Planning Committee, and to the Governance Officer for that meeting, for their information. I am also copying it to the Chief Executive, who may well be concerned by its contents as Brent's Head of Paid Service.

 

I realise that this email involves serious allegations, so I will seek to justify them, by reference to the Officers' Report to Planning Committee.

 

The Report's "summary of concerns raised" does include a mention of the detailed comment document which I included with my 2 February email, which it describes as: 'Planning officers being bias and pre-determining application.' However, the "Officer Comment" on this concern does not deal with the detailed evidence which I had provided, showing that there had been clear bias by the Case Officer. Instead, it suggests that any such bias would be immaterial:

 

'All planning applications are required to be determined in accordance with planning policies set out within the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The assessment of the planning application would also consider any comments received from the public or internal/external consultees, when forming a recommendation on a proposal.'

 

I agree entirely that planning applications should be determined in accordance with Brent's adopted Local Plan policies, but those policies have not been set out in the Report 'in a fair impartial and transparent manner’, which is a vital requirement for both Officers and Members in considering and deciding planning applications.

 

In addition to showing that application 25/0041 did not comply with Brent's heritage policy BHC1, my Alternative Heritage Statement ("AHS") comment of February 2025 listed three other Local Plan policies that the application breached. This is the relevant extract from para. 4.5 of the pdf document version my AHS that was emailed to Planning Officers:

 

  

That objection, highlighting the application's failure to comply with three identified Local Plan policies, is not included in the Report's "summary of concerns raised". That is a serious omission when applications need to be determined in accordance with planning policy, and another example of the bias by Planning Officers in favour of the application which they want to see approved.

 

The Report's list of "Key policies of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041" does not even include policy BP6 South East, which is the specific development management policy covering the Kensal Green area of the borough. When dealing with the other two policies in the body of the Report, Planning Officers have been very selective with the parts they refer to. This is a screen shot from the Report:

 

 

Para. 40 of the Report fails to include the requirement in policy DMP1 that 'complements the locality' includes the requirement to 'conserve and where possible enhance the significance of heritage assets.' Para. 48, at the end of that section of the Report, actually claims: 'The proposed contemporary design is therefore considered as high quality and would comply with policy DMP1.' But the character of the locality which policy DMP1 states the proposed development needs to complement is a street of two-storey Victorian terraced homes. A square modern four-storey office block (in place of a Victorian heritage building) would detract from the locality, rather than complement it.

 

Para. 41 of the Report does admit that policy BD1 states: 'innovative contemporary design will be supported where it respects and complements historic character,' then goes on to seek to negate that requirement by adding: 'but is also fit for the future.' It is not disputed that the proposed building has an 'innovative contemporary design', but it does not respect the historic Victorian character of Hazel Road. That requirement of Brent Local Plan policies DMP1, BP6 South East and BD1 should mean that application 25/0041 IS NOT recommended for approval, but Planning Officers have failed to represent those policy points fairly in their Report.

 

The section of the Report dealing with the heritage aspects of the application "copies and pastes" extensively from the Further Heritage Comments document prepared by Brent's Principal Heritage Officer ("PHO"), which was published in November 2025. However, the PHO was quite new to Brent, and had not known or had misunderstood several important points from the borough's Historic Environment Place-making Strategy ("HEPMS"), a 2019 supporting document for the Local Plan.

 

One misunderstanding was his view that because 28 Hazel Road had not been added to the Local List after a 2016 project, it did not merit being on that list, and so should have a heritage significance score of no more than 5 (and his assessment gave it that score, out of 12). I wrote to him on 25 November, explaining with supporting evidence how he had misunderstood the HEPMS, and showing him that as 28 Hazel Road was included on the list at Schedule 3 of the Strategy document, it was considered to qualify for addition to the Local List, with a score of at least 6 out of 12, even though none of the 100+ properties on that list have been formally added yet.

 

The PHO replied to me on 27 November with this email:

 

As can be seen, the PHO thanked me for bringing the misunderstanding to his attention, and said that would share the information 'with the relevant planning case officer.' However, the Report does not take into account that information, and still includes the original, and false, claim: 'It must be emphasised that, following LB Brent’s 2016 round of the local list review process, that the site building was not locally listed, as it was not considered to have reached the necessary threshold for local listing.'

 

The Report also continues to claim that the former Victorian mission hall has a heritage significance score of 5 out of 12, despite the fact that if it had a score that low the HEPMS would not have treated it as a non-designated heritage asset! This is yet another example of the bias shown by Planning Officers against genuine grounds for objection by myself and many other Brent residents in their consideration of this planning application.

 

The application should not be allowed to proceed to a decision at next week's Planning Committee meeting, and I look forward to hearing that it has been withdrawn from the agenda, pending an independent Report which can be relied on to be fair and impartial, rather than the current Report by Brent Planning Officers which cannot. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

Is it worth all this effort, trying to oppose the Brent Council “machine”? I believe it is, and that ordinary citizens, like us, sometimes have to make a stand on important issues. If what I have uncovered is happening on this application, how much trust can residents have that Brent's Planning Officers will deal with any application fairly and impartially?

Philip Grant

 

 

Shock on St Raph's as community shut out of their Community Centre without notice

 

Amazing things go on inside this nondescript building

 

St Raph's Voice has sent Wembley Matters this description of recent events at their community centre that have caused disquiet in the community,

 

Children with nowhere to go after school. Vulnerable adults suddenly cut off from support. Mothers left without a safe, familiar space to meet, share advice, or ask for help. All of this has happened earlier this week on the St Raphael’s estate, where the resident association community centre locks were changed without notice.

 

Overnight, this vital hub was closed in a place with a lack of community spaces and provisions. Homework clubs stopped in an area with low educational attainment levels. Support sessions for vulnerable people ended abruptly. Essential community activity ceased with no notice. In an estate with very limited communal facilities, residents have been left with nothing to replace it.

 

The Chair of the Resident Association, Hinda Sharif was kicked out mid-community session by a contractor sent by the council with no communication or explanation. The justification given was fire safety.

 

Residents understand the importance of safety and would never argue against urgent action where there is genuine risk. However, at the time the locks were changed, no fire safety checks had been carried out to ascertain risk, and no evidence or documentation of completed inspections was shared with residents or the Resident Association. No findings were presented and no timeline for inspections or reopening have been communicated.

 

Despite repeated requests for information and clarity on when the doors might reopen, Labour-led Brent Council has not been forthcoming. This lack of transparency has compounded distress in a community already dealing with the sudden loss of essential support.

 

The St Raphael’s community room is not just a venue. It is a lifeline for children who rely on educational support and homework clubs, for vulnerable adults experiencing isolation, and for mothers navigating financial and emotional pressures. The Resident Association provides community-led support that is local, trusted, and accessible - exactly the kind of grassroots infrastructure councils often claim to value.

 

St Raphael’s is also an estate with a proud history of resilience and achievement. It is the former home of George the Poet, Raheem Sterling, and content creator Chunkz, clear examples of what can emerge when communities are supported rather than sidelined. Closing one of the few remaining shared spaces on the estate without notice sends a stark message about how today’s residents are valued, and what investment in future potential really looks like in practice.

 

Brent frequently speaks about community power, participation, and wealth-building. Yet this action exposes a troubling gap between rhetoric and reality. Community power cannot exist where communities are locked out of the spaces that allow them to organise, support one another, and thrive.

 

No suitable alternative space has been offered while the room remains closed. There seems to have been no suggestions of other spaces or due concern for where activities can continue in the meantime. And there appears to have been little consideration of the impact on those most affected.

 

“This is not how you treat communities who rely on this support service,” says Asif Zamir, resident of St.Raphael’s Estate and former Chair of the Resident Association. “It shows a disdain and complete lack of regard or respect. On the one hand they say it’s for resident safety, and on the other they are causing considerable harm.”

 

How decisions are made matters. When Brent Council acts without communication, without evidence, and without accountability, they reveal what they truly think of the communities affected. The failure to respond transparently when asked for information only reinforces that message.

 

Residents are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for honesty, respect, and basic fairness. If safety is the concern, then evidence should be shared, timelines made clear, and interim solutions provided so that children, vulnerable adults, and families are not left without support.

 

If community power is more than a slogan, then it must start with listening - not locking the doors as if the communities affected are irrelevant.

 

I understand that an apology has been made by the council regarding the poor communications involved in this action. However, keys to the new locks have not been handed over and no remedial works have taken place since Monday. 

Proposal to change timing of Brent Council Budget Setting Meeting

 The Budget and Council Tax Setting Meeting is the most important Full Meeting of Brent Council in the municipal calendar. This year's meeting on Monday February 23rd falls during Ramadan  so a proposal has been made to accommodate members who wish to attend Itfar.

Instead of the usual 6pm start it has been proposed that the meeting starts as 3.30pm with a 15 minute break for Itfar at 5.30pm to 5.45pm.

The proposal is in line with Brent Council's respect for the borough's religious communities but also affects councillors and the public who will be working at this earlier time or who have after school childcare commitments.

Time for residents and visitors, and especially young people, to be seen and heard over hotel plans for Wembley Park public space

 Proposed hotel development from the stadium steps side of Engineers Way

I had heard that Quintain had advertised their plans to build a new hotel in the Samovar Space/Market Square at the site so I popped down on a very chilly afternoon to see for myself.

I searched around Market Square and found nothing, then spied this,  in the distance on the edge of  the Samovar Space:

 

 

Close up it was a rather tatty notice with a QR code to Quintain's presentation:

 

 

 

And that was it - there were no other notices or indications of the plans that Quintain expect to submit to Brent Council planners in February or March. No wonder Wembley Park residents are protesting and launched a petition which so far has over 200 signatures. (SEE THE PETITION HERE).

 

I talked to the few people who had braved the cold (although more young people would be there after school) and despite sitting close to the notice while supervising their children had no idea about what was planned and were quite shocked to find out.

 

The Samovar Space is past its best as Quintain took down the Shell Performance Stage and other bits and pieces and the play area has not been repainted, but the potential for a space in the centre of Wembley Park can still be seen.  Only a much smaller area will be left if the hotel is built. All photographs were taken about 3pm this afternoon.

 

 

When the Samovar Space was installed great play was made of the involvement of young people inits design when their voices are often not heard in major developments.

 

Julian Tollast, Head of Masterplanning and Design, Quintain, welcoming an Award for the Samovar Project, said: 

It is a sad fact that young people are often overlooked when it comes to the built environment. With this in mind, we are extremely proud of the work we have done, and are continuing to do, via Seen & Heard to make Wembley Park and the wider area a more welcoming place for all. To succeed at these awards and represent not only the Borough of Brent but London as well was an honour for all involved.

In this case it  seems it is not just young people who are not being 'Seen and Heard' but Wembley Park residents and  visitors.

What a contrast to the optimism of just over 2 years ago as demonstrated by this video:

     

• Date of planning submission February/March 2026.

• Planning determination will take around 3 - 4 months and if approved construction will not commence until end of 2026 at the earliest.

• Construction likely to take 2 - 3 years.

• If you wish to make any comments or have any questions on these proposals, please  send them to :

Development@wembleypark.com

https://www.quintain.co.uk/site-services/nw04

 

 IF YOU AGREE WITH THE OBJECTORS SIGN THE PETITION HERE

 

Petition to Halt the Proposed Hotel Development at Samovar Space and Wembley Park Market Square (Plot NW04)

 

A Wembley Matters reader  in Wembley Park writes:

Quintain's 'pro-active' 'consultation' with the Wembley Park (and wider Wembley) community still seems limited to the couple of A5 posters they've put-up at random points around the development (they're really "blink and you'd miss them", it's almost like they're hoping no-one notices them!). No attempts what-so-ever at truly engaging directly with the community they profess to care so much about.

Now a petition has been launched against the hotel development on what is currently a lively open space - a break from the surrounding high rise where people can meet and childen play.

Yoga in the threatened Samovar Open Space  (Picture from wembleypark.com)

 

The Petition (SIGN HERE)

We grew up surrounded by the vibrant energy of Wembley Park Market Square, a place where families gather, children play, communities connect, and traditions flourish. This is not merely a physical space, it is the heartbeat of our local culture. People from all walks of life come together here, united by a rich tapestry of diverse stalls, warm interactions, and a deep sense of belonging. Sadly, this cherished community space is now under threat.

A proposal has been put forward and discussed with the council to construct a hotel on Olympic Way, directly opposite the Civic Centre, on the site of Wembley Park Market Square and Samovar Space without any meaningful consultation with local residents or their elected representatives. Residents should have been informed by email and a proper consultation should have been held for all neighbouring residents, rather than limiting consultation to only those living at Landsby East.

If approved, this development would have far reaching consequences for both residents and the environment, while permanently eliminating a valued open space that is central to our community life.

The construction of a hotel in this location would not only overshadow and diminish this much loved public space, but would also likely result in increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, environmental damage, and additional strain on already pressured local infrastructure. The character and charm of the neighbourhood could be irreversibly altered, depriving future generations of the cultural, social, and communal experiences that have long defined Wembley Park.

Beyond the environmental and infrastructural concerns, such a large scale development would significantly impact residents’ quality of life. Increased footfall from hotel guests could lead to overcrowding, parking difficulties, and the erosion of the peaceful atmosphere that the community currently enjoys.

We firmly believe that alternative locations exist which are far more suitable for a development of this nature, locations that do not require the sacrifice of an invaluable community space. We therefore urge Brent Council, Quintain, and all relevant stakeholders to reconsider this proposal and take meaningful action to ensure that Wembley Park retains its unique cultural identity and heritage.

Please stand with us in preserving the vibrancy and spirit of Wembley by opposing the proposed hotel development at Wembley Park Market Square and Samovar Space. Sign this petition to protect the heart of our community and help secure a future in which local culture and shared spaces are safeguarded for the benefit of all.

 

 

The Farmers' Market in Market Square - the hotel will overshadow the Civic Centre Library and replace much of the Square (picture from Wembley Park Com) 

 

Comments on the Petition site:

To Brent Council and Quintain, Wembley Park is being shaped by decisions that prioritise profit over people. Both Brent Council and Quintain should seriously consider the principles outlined in Thomas Heatherwick’s Humanise, which argues that buildings and neighbourhoods must be designed around human health and wellbeing — not maximum financial return. More buildings may generate revenue for developers, but the long-term impact on residents will be far greater. Increased strain on the NHS, social services, and housing support is inevitable when overcrowding and poor living conditions are normalised. These costs will be paid by the public, not by the developers who benefit today. What drives this approach is simple: greed. And it is telling that no one making these decisions would realistically choose to live at Wembley Park under the conditions being created for others. Development should serve the people who live there — not just the financial interests of a few. The right thing to do is to stop, reassess, and place human lives, health, and dignity ahead of profit. 

This square is one of the few genuinely shared community spaces we have - it’s where local markets run, kids play, and people actually spend time together. Building a hotel here would permanently take that away. On a practical level, the area already struggles with infrastructure: the local Sainsbury’s regularly has long queues and stock shortages, and transport and foot traffic are already stretched, especially when concerts or events finish. Adding a hotel would significantly increase congestion, confusion for visitors, delivery traffic, waste, noise, and pressure on services that clearly aren’t equipped to handle it. With limited open space, crowd flow would become a real safety concern during busy periods. This development doesn’t improve the area - it removes a vital community space and creates ongoing problems for residents, families, and local businesses. The construction period alone would last years, bringing constant noise, dust, visual blight, and disruption that would make events difficult or impossible to run and harm local traders. Environmentally, losing open space will worsen air quality, increase noise and light pollution, and contribute to urban overheating and drainage issues. The area already lacks the infrastructure to support additional pressure, and increased traffic, deliveries, and visitor congestion would create ongoing safety and accessibility problems. This proposal prioritises developer profit over long-term community wellbeing and the character of the area.

I previously challenged the relationship between the construction and hotel industries whilst working in the Far East. Now, back in my own country, I see the same murky processes taking place. The apparent lack of consultation in this case with the local community is truly disturbing and it is essential that we challenge this at an early stage in the proceedings by demanding the necessary and promised levels of transparency before any decision is made. Please sign the petition at your earliest convenience

Note: I understand that the well-used Children's Playground opposite the entrance to the London Designer Outlet from the Boulevard is also subject to development in the future.

 

 

Preston Community Library Opening: 'A proud and extraordinary achievement'

 

 

There were crowds outside Preston Community Library this morning as the community came out in droves to welcome the official opening of the library that they campaigned for, helped fund and staffed with volunteers.

Barry Gardiner MP was there, and ward councillors  were present but it was the people who were there for what Philip Bromberg,  described as a 'a proud and extraordinary achievement that took pride of place.

Reflecting early debates over strategy on library closure,  Philip said, 'Everyone here at Preston Community Library still believe that all public libraries should be properly funded with  paid and trained staff.'

 

INSIDE THE LIBRARY

 

Join, borrow, return and renew at the front desk

 

 

 

Computers are provided

The Library Kitchen

There is also a large community room that can be used for meetings, classes (Yoga anyone?) and regular cinema film shows.

On the eve of its offical opening a review of the peoples' struggle for Preston Community Library and Hub

 

The latest election leaflet from Labour councillors in Preston ward (extracts above) would almost make you think that the Brent Community Library is a Brent Council library and a Brent Labour project.

It is a little more complicated than that.

The new Preston Community Library has its official opening tomorrow by the Deputy Mayor of Brent. For the context of how we got to this point we have to go back nearly 15 years to the SOS Brent Libraries Campaign when campaigners against the then Labour adminstration's closure of 6 Brent Libraries (half the total number of libraries in the borough) - Preston, Tokyngton, Barham, Neasden, Kensal Rise and Cricklewood- organised in the community.

 It is their grit, determination and sheer hard work that has kept 4 of those libraries open. A campaign for the Neasden Library never really got off the ground in a working class area of time poor people, and Tokyngton Library was sold to a Mosque for use as a community centre. Muhammed Butt was a member of the Mosque Committee.

Some of the background: 

 

February 2011 Petition

 

Keep Preston Library Open We the undersigned petition the council to keep Preston Library open and give full consideration to alternatives to the removal of essential local library services to the Preston ward under the Brent "Library Transformation Project". We oppose the sale or redevelopment of the site that does not include a Brent public library. : We oppose the closure of Preston Library, a cost-efficient local service that is well used by all the local community.

It provides essential facilities for some of our community, particularly senior citizens and those with limited mobility, schoolchildren, and the unemployed and others who may not have access to a computer.

Preston Library service is more accessible and meets the needs of a greater number of local people than would a multimillion-pound mega-library at Wembley Stadium, to which many users would find it difficult to travel.

We demand that Brent Council give adequate time and due consideration to alternatives plans to the closure of Preston Library, including the revision of proposals for the library at the Civic Centre.

We also oppose the sale or disposal of the Preston Library site for any redevelopment that does not include a public library for the use of local citizens.

Because this blog post marks its official opening I will concentrate on the Preston Library  but is it important to note the concerted effort made by all  in the SOS Libraries in the legal challenge that went all the way to the High Court but finally failed despite making national headlines.

May 2011 First Salvo Fired in Library Legal Campaign

Brent Council has now been sent the Letter Before Action from Bindmans that begins the legal process for a judicial review. The action is backed by S.O.S. Brent Libraries which brings together the campaigns against the closures of six Brent libraries.

The Letter Before Action in summary claims:

1. a fair-minded and informed observer, having full regard to the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of predetermination by the decision-makers that these closure proposals should go ahead (indeed that there was no alternative) which, in turn, meant the results of the consultation exercise were not taken into account conscientiously and with open minds on 11 April 2011;
2. insufficient information was gathered to enable the decision- makers to take into account mandatory relevant considerations at the appropriate time, particularly in relation to questions of need for library services and equality;
3. some consultation responses were not made known to members, significant errors of fact were made in the consultation document and officers’ reports and irrational conclusions drawn;
4. the Council misdirected itself on the means by which its duty to provide a library service could be discharged; and
5. those who had made alternative proposals were not dealt with fairly.

Unless Brent Council backs down the legal process is expected to proceed by way of a judicial review of the council's decision.

David Butcher from Kensal Rise speaking on behalf of the Brent SOS Library Campaign said,

Thousands of people across the whole of Brent are supporting the campaign to save the local community libraries of Barham, Cricklewood, Kensal Rise, Neasden, Preston and Tokyngton. 

While Councillors Ann John and Powney are using the resources of Brent Council to force through the closures local people are determined to fight their closure plans all the way.

 

Brent SOS Libraries; Save Our Six Librarie have agreed to raise funds for the judicial review of the council’s decision. The Legal Services Commission requires a ‘community contribution’ of £30,000 towards the costs. Each of the library groups has pledged to raise a contribution.

 

Brent Council erected hoardings around Preston Library to thwart any attempts at occupation. The hoarding soon became what some called a 'Democracy Wall'  or 'Wall of Shame' like those in China used to criticise the Chinese authorities. There was a lot of anger and the comments were not always polite. Council officers 'raided' Kensal Rise Library and removed the books to the horror of campaigners who had mounted a regular picket outside.

 

 

The unpopularity of the library closures were evident and Muhammed Butt then deputy leader, made a bid for the Brent Labout leadership at the 2012 Labour AGM.

 

The the Labour Party member and former councillor  Graham Durham (now Your Party) wrote to Cllr Butt.

      

Dear Mo,

 

Thank you for your telephone call of 9 May 2012 in which you invited me to vote for you as Leader of the Council at the Brent Labour Party hustings on 10 May.

 

As you know I am opposed to the Brent  Labour Group record over the last two years of implementing the Tory /Lib Dem government cuts and thus severely damaging the life prospects of many of the most vulnerable people in Brent. Naturally I was anxious to know how you would change matters and specifically how you would propose to make the Tory/Lib Dem cuts you made clear you are committed to over the next two years 

 

I was pleased  to hear your response on the question of libraries which I recorded.You said

 

'I feel we handled libraries very badly.I always wanted to consider partnership with community groups as Camden Council has done and was blocked by Ann John who  insisted we had to be seen to be backing officers and closing the six libraries.This will change if I am Leader.'

 

On future budget cuts you said

 

'We have far too many senior officers in Brent ,a record number of Directors on very high pay and they all build empires of Assistant Directors.I think we could save £3 million a  year  on these costs by 2015 '

 

Whilst I do not wholly agree with these two proposals I did concede that they represented progress from the intransigence and hostility to community groups displayed by Ann John and senior officers over the last two years .As promised  I advised Labour Party members I know of your views and asked them to consider if the changes you promised were sufficient to enable them to vote for you as Leader.

 

You have become Leader of Brent Council  at a time when working  people across  Europe  are realising that the disastrous policy of austerity is leading to impoverishment and misery everywhere.Voters in France and Greece have realised that the solutions of  cuts in services and basic benefits and pensions are incapable of creating jobs and protecting a reasonable standard of living for working people.

 

In Brent we have seen the extraordinary GLA vote in which Labour heavily  defeated the Lib Dems in every single ward of Brent Central - a great opportunity exists for us to remove Sarah Teather and cuts agenda at the next General Election.

 

You will need to be resolute in challenging Brent Council officers on every aspect of their work.In particular Gareth Daniel,Chief Executive, must be reigned in and told to stop spreading government cuts propaganda to Brent Council staff.

 

I am sure that the local newspaper, the Brent and Kilburn Times, has misquoted you in stating that you now support library closures and the matter is closed. I do not believe that you would have completely reversed the promises you made to Party members during your leadership campaign nine days ago.

 

I know that Brent SOS Libraries Campaign have written to you asking for  an urgent meeting and I look forward to discussing this issue with you then.Labour should be embracing local campaigners not treating them with disdain.

 

On a wider programme Brent Fightback want to work with Brent Labour Council in opposing Tory/Lib Dem cuts.We have also requested a meeting to discuss how to work together to resist  NHS Cuts such as the closure of Central Middlesex hospital  as well as local government cuts.

 

I look forward to meeting you to discuss further co-operation 

 

A notable aspect of the campaign was the support of children from a nearby secondary and prinary school who were users of the library for homework and as a safe place.

 

 

 

 

8^th May 2014 (Before the local election)  A crowded  public meeting of the Preston Library Campaign heard speakers from Brent Labour, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Greens and TUSC on the future of the closed Brent libraries.  This is my speech:

         

I am speaking primarily as the Green Party spokesperson for children and families, because I am particularly concerned about the impact of the closures on young children. I did childcare for a pupil of Preston Park Primary who used the library regularly, did her homework there and always felt secure with helpful staff available. But of course it is not just Preston Library but five others that have been closed.

 I have seen eager children arrive at Neasden Library, only to turn home crestfallen when they realised it was closed for good. Without internet access at home they were dependent on that library to use a computer for their homework.

 Libraries are important for book borrowing, homework and a social space but most importantly are  'local'  - where older children can visit independently, families drop in and elderly people access with ease.

Labour realised belatedly that  the closures were a mistake and this led to a change of leadership and recent attempts to recover lost ground. However, the damage has been done and a 'fresh start' cannot make up for that.  We believe in publicly funded, properly staffed, local libraries and will fight for the restoration of local library provision.

Greens care about the quality of life and not just the quantity of goods. This is important not just in terms of  libraries but in educational provision public spaces and housing where we intend to enhance everyone's quality of life rather than focus on acquisition of goods.

At the end of the meeting a show of hands clearly demonstrated support for a professionally staffed and publicly funded library with a slightly lower number in favour of a volunteer run library. However, afterwards some indicated if a voluntary run library was the only solution they would reluctantly support that.

So a volunteer library it was.  

 The Preston Library site re-opened as an additional class for Preston Park Primary School and the Preston Library Campaign were granted a licence to use when it was not in use by the school:

 January 2014 Philip Bromberg of the Preston Library Campaign wrote ahead of the local council election on May 22nd:

 

First of all, can I wish you a very, very happy new year, and thank you for your continuing support. This week sees the third anniversary of the campaign to save Preston Library. The fact that the campaign - here, and in Barham Park, Cricklewood and Kensal Rise - is moving into its fourth year is a testament both to the vital importance of local public libraries and to the hard work of a very remarkable group of people. Please continue to do whatever you can to support the campaign in 2014.

 

We are fortunate in one respect - the Preston Library building is still in public hands, and is likely to be vacated by Preston Park School at some time in the next eighteen months. As most of you will know, there will be local elections in all London boroughs on May 22, and candidates will be seeking your votes. Please continue to tell candidates and councillors what the loss of the libraries has meant to our communities, and ask them to work with us to restore our public library in Carlton Avenue East.

      

15^th Feb 2015  Barry Gardiner – evidence to the The Culture Media and Sport Select Committee Inquiry into library closures.

 

In Brent the Council has set out its intention to improve the service that is offered at the six remaining libraries. Their hope is that by improving the service in a reduced number of outlets, more people will be encouraged to use the service overall. In this regard I think Brent is an interesting case study in the review of what should be considered comprehensive and efficient. In particular does the service in the remaining six have to be improved before the other six cease operating? 

 

What has been overwhelming in my constituents’ response is the value they put on the locality of library provision and how if you remove the local element this disadvantages certain communities, irrelevant of whether the service at a library located further away is being improved. I would argue that this should be a central component of what constitutes a comprehensive and efficient library service. In rural communities this may be replicated by regular visits of mobile libraries to small local communities. 

 

The libraries closing in Brent serve a highly dense and often multiply disadvantaged population for whom ease of walking access is economically vital. This factor is particularly poignant for the most vulnerable library user groups such as the children and the elderly. It is these groups that are unable to make the journey to a library that is further away either as a result of the added costs or because they are physically unable to make such a journey. By removing local libraries there is an unfair impact on these vulnerable users. As such it is important that when redefining a comprehensive and efficient library provision that the ease of access for vulnerable communities should be a key criterion. 

 

There is a sad trend in councils up and down the country to run down service provision in what are seen as non-revenue raising areas such as libraries and allotment gardens. The argument is then adduced that the service is under-used or costs too much per capita and the case is made by Council officials to sell off the buildings or the land. This is what appears to have happened in Brent. 

 

The six libraries put forward for closure are said to be "poorly located and have low usage". It is clear to me that people living in Preston, Sudbury, Northwick Park and Kenton do not regard Preston or Barham Park Library to be nearly as poorly located for them as the closest alternative. Where there really is under-usage the solution should be to invest in improving the service on offer so that the locality aspect is maintained as much as possible.

 

A comprehensive library service must also reflect the needs of modern communications with a minimum number of computer terminals with full fast internet access where students of all ages can conduct research. The number of terminals should reflect demographic factors that will influence community demand such as age profile and household wealth. 

 

Poorer areas with a high school age population should be required to have a far greater number of terminals than wealthier areas with a low number of school children. 

 

Areas of high immigration should reflect the indigenous languages of significant local communities in their stock of books.

 

In 2016 Cllr Michael Pavey, Lead Member for Stronger Communities announced plans for the library site:

Preston Community Library have done an absolutely superb job in keeping a library running in extremely difficult circumstances. They have delivered a truly inclusive range of exceptional activities and have brought the whole community together.  

I would make the small point that although many of the Library volunteers are indeed Preston residents, many others live in Barnhill and surrounding wards - they all deserve immense credit.  

We plan to redevelop the Preston Library building to provide new housing, however these plans will also incorporate high quality new community space. Cabinet felt that the published report paving the way for this redevelopment did not sufficiently recognise the excellent work of the Preston Community Library, nor did it do enough to pledge ongoing support for that library.  

Consequently Cabinet committed to take three months to work with Preston Community Library, as well as the community libraries in Cricklewood, Kensal Rise and Barham Park, to develop a new Community Library Strategy over and above which the Council has a duty to provide. In addition to broader issues, this strategy will directly address access to the new Preston Library building. 

Cabinet has also stated a very clear preference that both the tender process and the rental level for the new community space at the redeveloped building should be clearly weighted towards social value, rather than financial value. 

All four Brent community libraries are extremely important partners of the Brent Library Service. We are grateful for their excellent work and look forward to working with them to develop an exciting new strategy to assist in securing the long term future of each library.

Cllr Pavey, rejected the  Cabinet report's terminology of a 'pop up library' to describe Preston Community Hub.  The bookcase at Willesden Green station was a 'pop up' - Preston with its shelves of books, classes and cinema was much more than that. He argued for the primacy of social value in any procurement process rather than financial value. The financial equivalent of the volunteers' efforts should be included in a calculation of social value. Pavey suggested that in any design for the new building the library space should come first and the flats second

A majority of the Preston Library Campaign, some relectantly, accepted the proposal and the library moved to temporary premises while the building works took place.  SKPPRA (South Kenton Preston Park Residents Association) took the initial planning committee decision to Judicial Review and it was found unlawful, but then approved in the second submission.

There were concerns about over-development of the site and some opposition to social housing.

In 2017 Brent Council advertised for a temporary librarian to support the community libraries:

Title: Professional Librarian

Funding Available: up to £40,000 for period of approx 20 months to 31 October 2018

Commitment: Actual hours will be negotiated but should start by or before 1 April 2017.

Project ends: October 2018

Location: working across Brent

Travel information: Brent is within London Transport Zones 2/4.

 

Professional community librarian sought by a small network of libraries in Brent, North West London, operating as independent volunteer-run community libraries.

 

The Brent Community Libraries (BCL) network is made up of four community libraries, spread across Brent, which are at different stages in development and operation. The libraries are all registered charities and each library is supported by a strong group of residents. Brent is one of the most diverse areas in the country and this post offers the opportunity to develop services for people across a wide range of ages, backgrounds and abilities.

 

The libraries are committed to providing a lively top quality service in their diverse neighbourhoods. We are in an innovative position, collaborating with each other, local community groups and the Council. This is a great opportunity to create a whole new way of approaching how libraries serve the community.

 

The Preston Library temporary site was not as accessible as the former library but the campaigners managed to keep it going. An application was granted for Neighbourhood CIL monies to fit out the new premises. 

The library pays a peppercorn rent but all running costs are paid for my fund raising including the monthly quizzes at the Preston Pub, room hire etc and volunteer labour is of course free.