Morland Gardens – now there is a real chance to save the Victorian villa!

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant in a personal capacity

The Victorian villa, “Altamira” and community garden, at the corner of Hillside and Brentfield Road.

 

My first guest post about the 1870s Italianate-style Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, in February 2020 (!), asked “Housing or Heritage? Or both?” Now BOTH is a real possibility again, following the exhibition and its subsequent consultation on Bridge Park and the Hillside Corridor (see Martin’s recent post for details).

 

If you are interested in the chance to save this beautiful and historically important local landmark, and see it put to good use for future generations of local residents to enjoy, please read on. I will outline the current position, and how you can help, in this latest guest post (there will be “links” to earlier ones, if you would like more information).

 

The Council’s original plans for redeveloping 1 Morland Gardens, which had been the home of Brent’s adult education college since the 1990s, were approved by the Cabinet in January 2020, and then by five (out of eight) members of the Planning Committee later in the year. They included demolishing the locally-listed heritage building (against national and Brent planning policies) and building over the community garden outside the property, which the Council had no legal right to do, and would have breached its air quality and climate change policies.

 

The project failed, after the Council’s planning consent expired at the end of October 2023, without construction work having begun. Since November 2023, Brent Council have been carrying out a review of their future plans for the Morland Gardens site, after the Brent Start college was moved out to a “temporary” home (meant to be for just two years while the redevelopment was carried out). One year on, I would have expected the Council’s ‘outline proposals’ from this review, which were unveiled as part of the Bridge Park and Hillside Corridor exhibition on 28 November, to be more than this:

 

‘This site, formerly Brent Start’s home before they moved to Twybridge Way, is going to be redeveloped. The Council plans to build new council homes and community facilities here. We want to hear what you think is needed.’

           The entire Morland Gardens section from the exhibition.

I had a good conversation at the exhibition with Brent’s Head of Capital Delivery. One thing he made clear was that site for the new proposals, following the consultation, would only be for within the 1 Morland Gardens boundary. They no longer plan to build on the community garden land outside ('we have learned some lessons from last time').

 

The plans for Brent’s new leisure centre building at Bridge Park show that the new Brent Start college, and the affordable workspace, which were going to be at Morland Gardens under the Council’s failed 2020 scheme, will be at Bridge Park instead. This means that they do not have to be part of the future plans for the 1 Morland Gardens site.

 

A section drawing through Brent’s proposed new Bridge Park building, from the exhibition.

 

It is ironic that Brent are now proposing to rehome Brent Start on the Bridge Park site, as that is what I suggested in October 2021, before they moved the college out of Morland Gardens. That suggestion was made in correspondence with Stonebridge Ward councillors, with a copy to the Cabinet members and Council Officers involved. It would have allowed Brent to go ahead with its Stonebridge Phase 2 housing scheme at Twybridge Way, which received planning consent in May 2020.

 

I repeated that suggestion to Brent Council’s Leader in an email of 19 January 2022, sending the text of this comment I had made under Martin’s blog “Muhammed Butt hails High Court's Bridge Park Appeal ruling”, reporting the Court’s decision and Cllr. Butt’s reaction to it:

 

‘This decision means that the development of the long-blighted Unisys building can also go ahead.

 

That would give Brent the opportunity to work with the developer, to include in the redevelopment scheme the modern college facilities that Brent Start Adult College needs, paid for by the £15m of CIL money which the Council has set aside for that.

 

The new college on that site would be ideally placed, next door to 'the fantastic new leisure and employment centre that local people need and deserve' at Bridge Park.

 

Building the new college facility there would mean only one disruptive move for the college, rather than a move into temporary accommodation in the "Stonebridge Annexe" building at Twybridge Way, then back again to Morland Gardens after two or more years.

 

A decision to pursue the "Unisys" option for the college would immediately free-up the Twybridge Way site for Phase 2 of Brent's Stonebridge Housing scheme, including family houses and much-needed New Accommodation for Independent Living flats.

 

It would also mean that the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens would not need to be demolished, but could be sympathetically incorporated into a new housing scheme on that site, once the college had moved to its new facilities.

 

That looks like a win/win/win situation, and should be quickly and seriously considered.’

 

The exchange of emails is recorded in full in the comments under that article (which some might find interesting reading!). The first response to my suggestion was from Cllr. Muhammed Butt: ‘Morland Gardens is not part of the work around Bridge Park and will continue to progress in its current form separately to Bridge Park.’

 

The last response was from Brent’s then Director of Regeneration on the Leader’s behalf: ‘The proposed developments at Morland Gardens and Bridge Park will continue as planned. There will be no changes to the proposed re-development at Morland Gardens as a result.’ My “final word” to the Director on 31 January 2022 was: ‘If (or when) your proposed [Morland Gardens] redevelopment comes to nothing, the Council won't be able claim that it was not warned of the mistakes it had made, and the risks it had decided to take.’

 

If only they had listened! It would have saved several wasted years and millions of pounds of Brent Council money! But, to quote the words of a song, ‘they would not listen, they did not know how, perhaps they’ll listen now.’

 

“The Starry Night” by Vincent van Gogh, which inspired the song, (Image from the internet)

 

I was assured at the exhibition that the Council still has an open mind on whether to retain the Victorian villa as part of the new redevelopment proposals. Officers will await the outcome of the consultation process before drawing up their recommendations for Morland Gardens. I am as sceptical as many of you will be about Brent Council “consultations” (‘they would not listen, they’re not listening still, perhaps they never will’), but I hope, and believe, there is a real chance that a strong show of support for retaining the Victorian villa would swing the decision that way.

 

Brent Council’s stated policy on valuing heritage assets. (From a supporting document to the Local Plan)

 

That is why I am asking for your help, please. If you agree that this important heritage asset should not be ‘lost forever to the community and future generations’, and that it should ‘be used for regeneration and place-making purposes’, please share that view as part of the consultation exercise. Please do that as soon as you can, and definitely before 6 January 2025.

 

There is an online consultation, but that is mainly about Bridge Park, with a few tick box options for possible Morland Gardens facilities at the end of the long survey form. If you are responding to the survey on the Bridge Park proposals, you could give your views on keeping the Victorian villa in the “other” box at the end of this Morland Gardens section:

 

The Morland Gardens section of the online survey form.

 

To be sure that your views reach the decision makers, I’d suggest instead that you send your views, including that the heritage building should be retained, in an email headed “Morland Gardens consultation” to: bridgepark@four.agency , with a copy to: neil.martin@brent.gov.uk  

 

Thank you!

 

Philip Grant

UPDATED: Bridge Park consultation exhibition boards published. Unisys, Bridge Park, Morland Gardens, Twybridge Way, Roy Smith House, Bernard Shaw House are all affected. Second public consultation tomorrow 10am to 2pm

 The Unisys site

 

The boards for the Stonebridge/Bridge Park/Unisys/Morland Gardens development have been published today to coincide with the first public consultation:

Brent Start, Twybridge Way, London NW10 0ST on Thursday 28 November, from 3 to 7pm or Saturday 30 November, from 10am to 2pm (Note Saturday is a Wembley Event Day - England v USA).

 The Unisys site would provide more than 1,000 homes (tenure to be decided), a hotel and commercial premises. It appears that the current twin Unisys buildings on the site will be demolished.

Interesting it is now proposal to move Brent Start to Bridge Park rather than Morland Gardens as first proposed. The plans are for new council homes and community facilities here. It is not clear that this means the Altamira Victorian house will be saved from demolition as previously proposed. 

The online consultation can be found HERE. Please note this is much more than a consultation just about Bridge Park. The Hillside Regenration Corridor includes Unisys, Twybridge Way, Morland Gardens, Roy Smith House and Bernard Shaw House as can be seen below.

 

This is a portion of one board that points to 'High Level Views' - unfortunately the image leaves out 32 storey Stonebridge Place and 24 storey Argenta House next to 'The Wem'. You would have to be pretty high yourself to see past those blocks. In fact the two blocks in the corner of the Unisys Site (North Circular and Harrow Road) are 32 and 34 storeys high. The hotel on Harrow Road itself will be 16 storeys high.

Planned  new developments below with Argenta House in black. Stonebridge Park station is white roof in bottom left corner.

Below are some of the exhibition boards for you to review before responding to the consultation or visiting the exhibitions inperson and discussing with staff there.

Click right bottom X for whole page view. 

Bottom right to download a copy.

 

ONLINE CONSULTATION

UPDATE

I went to the exhibition yesterday and chatted to some of the architects and the developer but most importantly some of the local people who had dropped into the session.

The architects were proud of the work that had gone into the planning of the greens spaces and gardens that address flooding  and run off potential on the site. The site historically included an oxbow, a loop, in the River Brent to the south of what is now the North Circular over which was a stone bridge. The river was rerouted so it flows alongside the North Circular and is joined by the Wembley Brook at Argenta House. Place names on the south side give a clue to water courses in the area: Brentfield, Conduit Way, Miitchell Brook, Sladebrook and the canal feeder.

Bridge Park Leisure Centre is currently in the centre of the site but will be tucked into the southern corner under the current plans.  Residents were concerned that there was no car parking allocated or space for a coach to park to let off  parties of school children using the planned swimming pool.

The Morland Gardens site is earmarked for a community space and homes but there was no detail except that the Memorial Garden will no longer be built on and Brent Start adult education will not be housed there. The future of the Altamira Victorian villa appears to be subject to further discussion.

The plans showed Brent Start on 3 floors beneath a residential tower adjoined to the Leisure Centre and concerns were voiced that this would be insufficient for its needs.

 

There was inevitable scepticism about the proposals given the history and this was particularly true of the 1,000 new homes promised for the Unisys site. There were no details regarding tenure and one local insisted (without much hope) that they should be council or social rent homes.

The Unisys site is to be developed by Stonebridge Real Estate Development Ltd, owned by General Mediterraean Holdings. GMH were there (though their badges said GHM) and were a rather isolated group.  I was interested in the financial viability of the development with an eye on the inevitable viability assessment that would reduce the amount of affordable housing on site. They did not want to discuss the financial position of Stonebridge Real Estate but assured me that GMH had plenty of money if there were any problems.

GMH is registered in Luxembourg and has an interesting history. See LINK

 

Brent’s Halloween Nightmare – its Morland Gardens planning consent has expired!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity 

 

“Altamira”, 1 Morland Gardens, on 30 October 2023 (a significant date).

 

I’ve lost count of the number of guest posts I’ve written about Brent Council’s plans to redevelop (and demolish!) this locally listed heritage Victorian villa, then home to Brent Start, since they first submitted a planning application in February 2020.

 

The proposed development was mentioned in a report to Brent’s Cabinet earlier this month, which said: ‘The Morland Garden project is experiencing significant viability challenges whilst also being subject to a significant delay in the project delivery timescales dependent on the outcome of the public inquiry in relation to the stopping up order.’

 

I pointed out one of the “significant viability challenges” in guest posts in July, including copies of open letters to Brent’s Chief Executive and to the Mayor of London. I showed that Brent’s claim to have achieved a “start of site” by 31 March 2023, in order to qualify for more than £6.5m in GLA 2016-2023 Affordable Homes Programme funding, was false.

 

At first Brent refused to accept this, but on 30 August I received a letter of apology from Kim Wright, including the following admissions:

 

‘In the past few days, I have been made aware of some delays to the works programme which have resulted in the GLA’s Start on Site definition not being met, and this is different to what I had been firmly assured by colleagues was the case and which I communicated to you.’

 

‘I have expressed my disappointment and frustration to those Officers involved, in that I should have been able to rely on the accuracy of what they were telling me, especially after I had probed this particular point thoroughly in order to satisfy myself as to the position.’

 

‘Having reviewed this with the GLA, the council is now aware that this means the Start on Site definition was not met …. The council informed the GLA as soon as we became aware of this error and we are committed to working closely with them to address any implications arising from it.’

 

So, currently NO funding from the GLA for this project, What about the delay caused by ‘the public inquiry in relation to the stopping up order’? The Mayor of London’s decision on 20 March 2023 advised Brent that a Public Inquiry would be necessary, but (as one of the objectors) I waited in vain to hear when that would be held. 

 

On 23 June I submitted an FoI request with a simple question:

 

‘Has a request to hold an Inquiry over the proposed Stopping-up Order been sent to the Inspector?’

 

All that it needed was a simple “yes” or “no” answer. Instead, on 31 July I received the following response from Brent’s Director of Property and Assets:

 

‘In relation to [your enquiry] above, I am unable to provide any of the information that you have requested, and, in this regard, I apply the EIR 2004 Exemptions set out in 12(4) (d) which states that the Council may refuse to disclose information where “the request relates to material which is still in the course of completion. This is because the Council is currently in the process of considering its options in relation to the Stopping-up-Order and no formal decision has been made as to how the Council will proceed.’

 

It appeared that the Council had not yet put the wheels in motion for an Inquiry into the objections (by four members of the public) against the proposed Stopping-up Order, but as the refusal to say “yes” or “no” seemed unreasonable, I requested an Internal Review. However, it appears that I didn’t understand how difficult it can be to provide a straight “yes” or “no” answer!

 

On 11 September, I received the Council’s response to that Internal Review (from Brent’s Corporate Director of Finance and Resources, no less). It included this statement:

 

‘With respect to the public interest considerations, I am aware of our obligations to enable greater access to environmental information. I am also aware of the public interest in promoting accountability and transparency for decisions taken by Brent, especially in relation to Morland Gardens and the stopping up order.  However, I am also of the view, that providing a yes/no answer as you suggest, at that time, could disrupt the process and thinking of officers. I am therefore satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure.’

 

However, the GLA funding and the Public Inquiry required over the Stopping-up Order were not Brent’s only problems over its proposed Morland Gardens development. They seem to have overlooked Condition 1 of the planning consent they received on 30 October 2020:

 

Condition 1 from the Decision Notice issued on 30 October 2020,
accepting Brent Council’s Morland Gardens planning application 20/0345.

 

The Council’s flawed Morland Gardens project has seen mistake after mistake, delay after delay. I will ask Martin to attach below a copy of the Open Letter I sent today to Brent’s Chief Executive, advising her that the planning permission for the Morland Gardens development has expired. It has lots of information, pictures and legal argument, should you care to read it.

 

1 Morland Gardens and the Community Garden, with the sympathetically redeveloped
(about 20 years ago) Victorian villa at 2 Morland Gardens beyond, 30 October 2023,

 

Brent may try to find a way to wriggle out of the latest mess they have got themselves into, but I hope they will now have the good sense to drop their current plans, and design a development which provides an up-to-date college for Brent Start, with some affordable housing, but retains the beautiful heritage Victorian villa and the Community Garden area in front of it.

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

1 Morland Gardens –Brent’s latest NON-development (and a planning complaint).

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

1 Morland Gardens on 1 April 2023. (Photo by Margaret Pratt)

 

The photograph above is similar to one that introduced a previous guest post in January 2023 (1 Morland Gardens – How many more times can they get it wrong?). It was taken on 1 April, but this is no joke. The “April Fools” are at Brent Civic Centre. 

 

If the Senior Officers, Council Leader and Cabinet members had listened, to me and others opposing their plans for redevelopment of the (now former) Brent Start college at 1 Morland Gardens since early 2020, they could have amended their project. They could have retained the heritage Victorian villa they seem determined to demolish (in complete contravention of the Council’s own heritage planning policies), and had a scheme which still delivered perhaps 20 affordable homes as well.

 

The wide footpath, from Hillside, with community garden on the right. (Photo by Margaret Pratt)

 

Instead, they pressed ahead with plans which were supposed to deliver 65 affordable homes, built partly on land that is a wide footpath and a community garden. They currently have no legal right to build on that land, despite claiming it is part of their site, and there are objections to the Stopping-up Order they would need. That is because their plans would force pedestrians to walk through heavily polluted air, and remove many trees, in breach of Brent’s Air Quality Action Plan and Climate and Ecological Emergency Strategy.

 

The funding for the project, which Brent’s Cabinet approved in January 2020, included £6.5m from the GLA’s Affordable Housing Programme 2016-2021. Although this programme was extended to 2023, local authority projects for funding under it had to “start on site” by 31 March 2023. As a number of photographs taken around 1 Morland Gardens on 1 April by a Willesden Local History Society member show, no actual work had begun on the site by then.

 

Blue hut in the car park at 1 Morland Gardens, 1 April 2023. (Photo by Margaret Pratt)

 

An “Oasis” self-contained welfare unit (including canteen and toilet facilities) had recently been delivered to the former college’s car park, ready for any workers to use. But none of the “Start on Site Works”, as defined in the GLA’s funding agreement, had been carried out by the key date. Brent Council has therefore lost that £6.5m funding, for a scheme it was already admitting, in the November 2022 affordable housing report to Cabinet, was unviable. So the Cabinet approved recommendations to “value engineer” the 1 Morland Gardens project.

 

Construction details from the February 2023 Construction Logistics Plan.

 

From the latest documents I have seen, that “value engineering” means ditching the more environmentally friendly “award winning” design which was given planning consent in 2020, and switching to a traditional concrete frame, with precast infill panels. This will require much stronger foundations, involving 454 20-metre-deep concrete piles across the site. It seems all too reminiscent of the methods used to build Brent Council’s Chalkhill and Stonebridge estates in the late 1960s / early 1970s, which had to be demolished around 30 years later!

 

Construction of a “Bison” concrete block of flats at Chalkhill, c.1967.

 

My title mentions a planning complaint, and I will ask Martin to attach a copy of my open letter of complaint to Brent’s Head of Planning at the end of this post, for anyone interested in the details. It concerns the Construction Logistics Plan (“CLP”) for the Morland Gardens development (application 22/4082) which I wrote about in my January 2023 article.

 

That application could and should have been refused, yet I found out last week it had been granted consent on 27 March. But it wasn’t the CLP submitted with the application in December 2022, it was a completely new one submitted in February 2023. That new CLP was not published on Brent’s planning website until 17 March, there was no consultation on it, and even those of us who had commented on the original CLP were not notified of its existence!

 

I don’t think the secrecy over it was part of a “plot” to try to get the CLP approved in time for work to “start on site” at 1 Morland Gardens by 31 March (it was too late for that), but this is far from the transparency Brent residents are entitled to expect, especially when the application relates to a proposed Council development.

 

Will the loss of the £6.5m GLA funding make Brent Council finally accept that their current plans for 1 Morland Gardens are hopeless? It should do, but the past 3+ years have shown that their foolishness is not just confined to April.

Philip Grant.

 

Brent Council: Heritage and Hypocrisy

 Guest blog, by Philip Grant in a personal capacity:-
 

The newly renovated listed Georgian house in Kensal Green.

 

A press release issued by Brent Council on 9 February opens with the words: ‘A threatened historic building is now a beautiful family home thanks to Brent’s heritage experts.’

 

It gives the news of how Brent’s Heritage team worked with the new owner of this Georgian villa, on the Harrow Road in Kensal Green, and Historic England, to retain the historic characteristics of a building that had fallen into disrepair, and was “at risk”. The press release ends with a link, inviting us to “Read more about Brent’s heritage assets”.

 

The page on the Council’s website tells us:

 

‘Brent's heritage assets include a wide range of architectural styles from Victorian Italianate, Gothic Revival, suburban 'Arts and Crafts', ‘Tudorbethan’, ‘Old World’, Modern and Brutalist.’

 

‘Heritage assets make a substantial contribution to Brent's local character and distinctiveness. They are a unique and irreplaceable resource which justifies protection, conservation and enhancement.’

 

And, after describing the various types of heritage assets, including statutory listed buildings, locally listed buildings and registered parks and gardens, it concludes by stating:

 

‘Brent’s heritage is valued as evidence of the past culture, providing a sense of belonging.’

 

Brent’s finest example of the Victorian Italianate style of architecture, and a locally listed heritage asset, is the villa at 1 Morland Gardens, originally known as “Altamira”. It was built in 1876, as part of the original Stonebridge Park development, by the architect Henry Kendall Jr. It is ‘a unique and irreplaceable resource which justifies protection, conservation and enhancement.’ And yet, its owner, Brent Council, plans to demolish it.

 

“Altamira” at the entrance to Stonebridge Park in a 1906 postcard. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

“Altamira”, now home to the Brent Start adult college, in 2020.

 

At the first pre-application planning meeting in March 2019, Brent’s project team were told that the Council’s Heritage Officer believed that this heritage building should be retained. But a Planning Officer had already (wrongly) told them that ‘not retaining the villa was acceptable.’

 

When Brent submitted its planning application in 2020, seeking to demolish the Victorian villa to make way for a new college facility with an eight-storey block of flats on top of it, the Heritage Officer’s initial comments said that the villa ‘should be considered an important local heritage asset of high significance.’

 

The Heritage Officer’s final report, dismissed the conclusions put forward in a “Heritage Statement” submitted by planning agents on behalf of Brent Council, as the prospective developer. He referred to evidence provided by ‘Anthony Geraghty MA PhD, Professor of the History of Architecture at the University of York’, saying: 

 

‘He rates Henry Edward Kendall Jr. as ‘an architect of considerable importance whose nineteenth century villa characterises work by an architect of genuine and lasting significance.’ This is supported by the Victorian Society who make the point that the Stonebridge Park Estate was a development by a Victorian ‘architect of note’ and a ‘good surviving example of a key aspect of Kendall's small, domestic works’.’

 

Brent’s heritage planning policy DMP7 says: ‘Proposals for…heritage assets should…retain buildings, …where their loss would cause harm.’ It’s Heritage Officer’s final report clearly stated that: ‘The demolition of the building, by its very nature, must be seen as substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset.’

 

Despite the evidence of “Brent’s heritage expert”, and the efforts of myself and other residents to get Brent’s Planning Committee to uphold the Council’s own heritage planning promises, five of the eight members were persuaded to accept the recommendation of Brent’s Planning Officers, and approve the Council’s application.

 

I welcome the news that the privately-owned heritage Georgian villa in Kensal Green has been restored to its former glory – but when it comes to heritage, it does seem that there is one rule for the Council, and another for everyone else!

-----------------------------------------------------

 

I’m dedicating this article to the memory of Martin Redston. Martin was one of many supporters of Willesden Local History Society’s campaign to “Save the Altamira”. He’d also been a leading figure in the 2012/13 community campaign to stop the demolition by Brent Council of another locally listed heritage asset, the original 1894 Victorian section of Willesden Green Library.

 

Brent’s then Regeneration Director had said it would be impossible to retain that building if the Council was to have a new library centre, “for free”, as part of its proposed deal with a developer partner. Martin provided them with this sketch, to show how it could be done.

 

 

Public pressure forced the Council to change its mind, and Brent now boasts of its new Willesden Green Library. There is even a photograph of it on the front of its Historic Environment Place-Making Strategy booklet, with a caption saying that the new building: ‘returns to use the locally listed Victorian Library blending perfectly the old and the new.’

 

 

There is still time for Brent to change its mind, and do the same at 1 Morland Gardens, rather than demolishing a beautiful, and still useful, heritage asset.

 

Philip Grant.