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.

UPDATED TRIBUTES: Martin Redston, Chair of Brent Arts and an active citizen campaigner for heritage, libraries and justice

 

Martin Redston in high vis jacket protesting over redevelopment of Willesden Green library

 

I am sad to hear  via social media of the death of Martin Redston, a Brent man of many interests, totally involved in our community.  A model 'active citizen' who was terrier like in his campaigns for justice and afraid of no-one.  My condolences to family and friends.

Martin in Neasden Shopping Precinct with the Christmas lights he funded in the background

I bumped into him on several occasions recently and he told me about his illness and the poor outlook. Nevertheless he kept going and was at the last Brent Connects meeting where, ironically, he backed my request made via the chat, that  the meeting pay tribute to another veteran local local campaigner, Dilwyn Chambers. Now it is my turn to pay tribute to Martin.

 

Martin as actor

I am sure others will write about his involvement with Brent Arts, the Mad Hatters Theatre Club and other organisations but it is through the Keep Willesden Green campaign and later, his pursuit of Dominic Cummings that I best knew him.

Martin had his own civil engineering company, Redston Associates LINK

Martin was co-chair of Keep Willesden Green LINK, a campaign set up to fight the redevelopment of Willesden Green Library and the subsequent loss of the much-loved Willesden Bookshop, other amenities in the building, the open space  in front and the Victorian library. We also opposed the sale of public space behind the library for a private development of flats.

In  order to save the public space Martin launched a campaign to get it protected through designation as a Town Square.

That campaign, along with the effort to save the bookshop, was lost but the Victorian library was retained.

 

Martin's co-chair of Keep Willesden Green, Alex Colas said:   

Martin's tenacious campaign to register the area in front of the Willesden Green Library as a town square failed. But his David-like fight against the Goliath developers and their Council allies galvanised residents in saving our Library turret as a local landmark. It stands as a fitting  tribute to Martin's efforts on behalf of the local community.

 

 

Brent Arts said

Martin Redston, 1949-2022 , was long time chair of Brent Arts, a local charity.

Martin was a tireless campaigner for local causes such as saving the Old Library and the Queensbury Public House, both in Willesden where he lived.

He was a participant in art events including art shows held inside St.Catherine's Church, Neasden, community drama with Madhatters Theatre Club and the Kingsbury Operatic Society (KAOS).

On top of this he found time to sit on numerous local committees including the successful Neasden Festivals Group.

Any messages of sympathy to his wife Sheila and family can be sent to stablesinexile@gmail.com

 

His most recent high profile campaign was over Dominic Cummings breach of Covid regulations where he launched a crowdfunder to raise £30,000 for a jusicial reviw of the failure of the DPP to investigate Cummings' actions. On his crowdfunder page he wrote:

My name is Martin Redston and I am bringing judicial review proceedings against the Director of Public Prosecutions for his failure to properly consider the actions of Dominic Cummings, the chief advisor to the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, in relation to a potential breach of Regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020/350.

I, like many other citizens, have fully complied with the Government’s lockdown requirements at all times. Despite the police and the public having been made aware of Mr. Cummings’ potential breaches of the rules since 22^nd May 2020, there has been no investigation into those potential breaches in London.

Why does this matter?

The rule of law should apply for all persons, irrespective of any friendships in government. The public health measures which were put in place to protect us must be applied to everyone, including in particular those who helped to make the rules. A number of individuals in public office who have flouted those strict rules have resigned. That provided some accountability for breach of the law by those who are central to the public health message and the need to encourage full compliance. In respect of Mr. Cummings, however, representatives of the Government have taken to social media in support of him. The Attorney-General has tweeted in support of Mr. Cummings’ actions. This raises a real concern over the state’s obligation properly and fairly to investigate the case of Mr Cummings where a law officer has prejudged it by issuing a peremptory statement that sought to exculpate Mr Cummings, without due process of the law.

Martin lived long enough to see echoes of that case in 10 Downing Street.

Martin was passionate abour righting injustices and not afraid to take risks in launching legal proceedings. Many of his campaigns have been reported on Wembley Matters. Here are a few links:

Speech at Muhammed Butt's first meeting as Council Leader regarding Willesden Green Library  (May 2012)

Reasons for Rejecting Willesden Green Library Plans  (June 2012)

Public Inquiry into registration of Willesden Green public space as Town Square  (December 2012)

Martin's comments on Public Inquiry report (February 2013)

Martin's comment on rejected of Town Square registration (March 2013)

Concern over the cutting down of apparently healthy trees by Brent Council (July 2014) 

 Martin launches campaign for judicial review of DPP's failure regarding Dominic Cummings  (June 2020)

Guardian report on Martin's campaign  (June 2020)

After refusal of case Martin says 'This isn't over yet' (November 2020)

Martin persists and ask for permisison to Appeal ther case  (November 2020)

'We can't give up now' (January 2021)

The most recent intervention I can find is about the Neasden Gyratory system just 5 months ago on Brent's Have Your Say site !

Martin Redston: Why one law for SNP's Margaret Ferrier and another for Tories' Dominic Cummings over Covid breaches?

Local resident Martin Redston, despite setbacks in the courts, is continuing his battle to hold Dominic Cummings to account over his breach of Covid restrictions last year. It was a breach  that many see as the catalyst for the public's loss of confidence in government advice and the subsequent increase in contagion.

In the latest message to supporters Redstone says:

Well what a surprise, Margaret Ferrier,  MP for the SNP is going to be prosecuted  LINK  whilst Dominic Cummings, Private Citizen protected by Prime Minister Johnson is going to get away with his lockdown breach escape to Durham scot free! 

When we wrote to the Metropolitan Police back in August they responded with the letter enclosed below.  In particular in para's 2 and 3 they state:

....I can confirm that an assessment has been made of all the information available and there will be no Metropolitan Police investigation at this time. 

Where the Metropolitan Police Service (‘MPS’) receives allegations of breaches of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions)(England) Regulations 2020, the MPS focuses on those that are live or ongoing where police action can enable a change to behaviour that is posing a current public health risk.   

So what exactly is the difference in dealing with the way that Police forces deal with these two high profile public figures? 

We can't give up now.

 

A few days ago Martin Redston, who has raised £46,000 for his court action LINK.  sent an update to supporters of his action outlining the present situation:

We have received notification from the Appeal Court that they have not granted me permission to proceed. I enclose the ruling for reference. Having discussed this with our legal team, who have researched the subject, we can only concede that there seems to be no further formal proceeding we can take to persuade the DPP to take action along with the Metropolitan Police.

In the ruling, the Judge, Lord Justice Dingemans decided this was not a case to allow the appeal because there has now been referral to the Metropolitan police to request an investigation that may provide an alternate remedy for the rule of law. We must hope the Met conducts a thorough investigation now on the movements in London when Cummings commenced his journey and, indeed before that time when he visited his office whilst likely to be infected; and does not suffer the same failings of the report by Durham Police which found an offence in Durham but failed to refer that offence to the DPP. If following the Met investigation no action is taken then a possible challenge to that will fall to be considered. However I am pleased that the court accepted jurisdiction which is important for other cases and a small but significant gain and the rule of law point was recognised    

I am now consulting with my legal team about possible ways forward, the challenge for an ordinary citizen to take action against a miscreant bearing in mind that the Covid emergency legislation seems to preclude this pathway.

Much of Public opinion and the Press is still accusing Cummings of breaking the trust of the public and undermining good governance. Even now after all these months it is reported that  200 British skiers in Verbiers scarpered in the night to avoid quarantine as ordered by Swiss authorities. But it remains that no action has been taken by the authorities over Cummings' main breach at the start in London which has set the tone ......not just his action and public mea culpa, but the turning of a blind eye by the key police authority and public prosecutor.

I am now consulting with my legal team about possible ways forward, the challenge for an ordinary citizen to take action against a miscreant bearing in mind that the Covid emergency legislation seems to preclude this pathway.   

We are not giving up just yet. Any ideas that you may have will be gratefully received, especially if you feel that you have been affected by Cummings' actions back in March..

Redstone applies for permission to Appeal in Cummings case

 Martin Redston has circulated an update on the High Court case he is fighting concerning Dominic Cummings.

He says:

An application for permission to Appeal the decision of the High Court was lodged in the registry of the Court of Appeal on 9th November 2020.  

 

It has taken some courage on our part to go forward with this, particularly in view of the pushbacks to our case to date.  However,  our legal team believe there are solid grounds for appeal and that our case raises major issues of public importance, specifically:

 

- the role of the DPP

- adherence to the rule of law

- public confidence in the rule of law; and

- Seeking to ensure the DPP is free to make independent decisions without undue influence

 

I am profoundly grateful for all the support that has been given to date for the case and would very much hope that supporters agree that we should Appeal and will help us obtain further support to enable us to pursue this with vigour to achieve our ultimate goal.

 

Please share this with everyone you can.

The Pledge Page to fund the case is HERE

BREAKING NEWS: JUDICIAL REVIEW LODGED AGAINST DPP RE INACTION OVER DOMINIC CUMMINGS

From Martin Redston (See LINK )

My lawyers have today lodged proceedings in the High Court to seek an urgent judicial review of the Director of Public Prosecution’s inaction over the alleged breaches of the Coronavirus Regulations by Dominic Cummings. One particular concern is the so-called ‘Cummings effect’ or ‘Cummings defence’ which has meant that people who previously were complying with the Regulations have sought not to adhere to them fully. 

The grounds filed with the High Court include the following complaints:

There is a lack of an appearance of independence to the decision-making of the DPP which arises from (a) the scheme of subordination of the DPP to the Attorney-General – a politician who has tweeted support for the claimed legality of Cummings’ actions without allowing due process to take place, and 

(b) the failure to engage meaningfully with the question over Mr. Cummings’ actions and stance taken. In addition, my lawyers have previously sought disclosure of "all communications that (the DPP or his office) had received from any minister, departmental official, or mandarin or person associated with the Cabinet, Prime Minister, or affiliates or agents or representatives of the same, referring to the question of Mr Cummings in any way”.

The CPS/ DPP did not respond to this request in their reply to my representatives. The question as to the manoeuvres of the government and use of its powers behind the scenes is of obvious concern given the history of this high-profile case.

As a state authority the DPP has failed to comply with the duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure public safety to the greatest extent practicable – he would do so in this case by taking active steps to ensure the maintenance of public confidence in accountability to, and enforcement of, the law that is designed to protect the public from the ongoing threat of Covid-19. In short, he should not wash his hands of the issue but should refer it to the police and thereafter consider the issue himself.

A failure to safeguard citizens from the risk of Covid 19 risks a real breach of Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, namely degrading or inhumane treatment or the loss of life. It is in any event unreasonable not to inquire into the actions of Mr. Cummings to determine whether or not to prosecute him for potential breaches of coronavirus regulations, or a common law criminal offence of public nuisance – given the potential to infect others by travelling across the country from London to Durham, and relocating to a new area when infected.

The DPP has failed to exercise his discretion to refer the matter to the police on our request. Consequently there has been a failure to engage with the need for public confidence to be restored: the law applies to everyone. Public compliance with the regulations is vitally important: they were put in place to protect the public from a virus pandemic. A failure to act soon means that evidence relevant to the investigation into Mr. Cummings’ actions may well be lost.

My action seeks the restoration of public confidence in the office of the DPP as an independent body uninfluenced by and not capable of influence by No.10 and politicians including the Attorney-General. The rule of law applies to all and due process should be followed before any decision is made as to the lawfulness or otherwise of any person’s actions, no matter how close to the centre of power that person sits.

Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.  Please contribute and spread the word.

Many thanks

Martin Redston

Brent's controversial £40 'Garden Tax' for green waste collection to be discussed by Cabinet tomorrow

Tomorrow afternoon's Brent Cabinet will be discussing a proposal to charge residents £40 per year for the collection of garden green waste. At the ame time dry cycling will be collected weekly instead of fortnightly and caddy food waste will be collected weekly.

Dubbed a 'garden tax' by some there are fears that garden waste not suitable for composting will end up in the grey residual bins or dumped at the roadside.

Charging for green waste seems at odds with Labour's previous condemnation of  charging for bulk waste collections. (Read on for detailed submission by Brent Friends of the Earth)

Concerns over Brent's tree cutting addressed but highlights need to communicate with residents

I have been hearing recently of residents' concerns about the removal of apparently healthy mature trees in the borough. Concerns have been followed up by resident Martin Redston in his local area and his findings are set out below. Clearly, following the recent tragic death caused by a falling branch, LINK the Council has a duty to make sure that trees are safe while also maintaining and increasing the borough's stock of trees.

Following concerns about the cutting down of trees locally I met  Gary Rimmer (Brent Tree Officer) in Park Avenue on Tuesday afternoon for an hour or so. We looked at every tree. He showed me that each tree that had been cut, was actually in poor condition. Most were hollow at the base and one outside no 2 was actually dead. We talked at length and ex- councillor Maloney joined us for a few minutes so he was also given some of the information. 

No Willesden Town Square registration but some crumbs of comfort

The public inquiry report into the registration of the space outside Willesden Green Library took much longer than anticipated to be completed and it is far fuller than most. However the conclusion is that registration is not recommended despite the huge efforts of Martin Redston to convince the planning inspector that residents had a case:

Martin said:

By now you will have heard that the Inspector rejected my application for registration. His report of 211 pages is exceptionally long and detailed. Having read it carefully I would confirm that I think that he has been fair and reasonable in his treatment of all sides in the matter . ...He cannot recommend registration but he is sympathetic to our community in seeking to protect the open space.

..it seems to me that there is a small crumb of comfort in that  if you read Mr Brown's various comments throughout his summary, conclusions and recommendations he considers that the square could be registered on the basis of a more defined local neighbourhood, and if free festivals (clarified by him to be a suitable pastime) in particular had been organised on a continuing basis for the entire 20 year period. He also implies that the council might like to consider the fact that they have actually increased the profile of the square in the last few years, it seems a shame to lose it now.

A report on the outcome can be read HERE on the Kilburn Times website

Willesden Greeen Public Inquiry report ready in '7-10 days'

The Public Inquiry into the application for registration of the open space outside Willesden Green Library as a Town Square finished this afternoon.  Martin Redston and Philip Grant summed up with a detailed response to this morning's submission by Counsel for Galliford Try/Linden Homes and Brent Council.

Concluding Martin Redston said, "(In the 1980s) Brent Council wanted to put the Green back into Wiillesden. Brent residents embraced it."

Paul Brown QC, the inspector who held the inquiry said that he would  priortitise the report and expected his writing up to take 7-10 days and commented that he couldn't guarantee it by Friday of next week, "If it takes longer it is because I want to get it right."

The Special Planning Committee considering the Willesden Green Planning Application has been scheduled for Thursday 21st February, before the report is likely to be ready.

Brown commended the public, who had attended every day of the 4 day inquiry, for sticking it out.

In turn I would commend Martin and Philip for the enormous amount of work they have done in preparing the case and presenting it to the Inquiry. As Paul Brown,said they were doing it in their own time and were up against people whose paid job it was to represent objectors.

The Planning Committee Agenda is now on the council website. I suggest that anyone who was planning to speak should resubmit their request. LINK

Willesden Town Square Enquiry adjourned until February 2013

Cllr Muhammed Butt addresses 100 Days Of Peace Rally in the Town Square

 The Public Enquiry into the application to register the space outside Willesden Green Library as a Town Square  has been adjourned until February 2013 on the grounds that the applicant was not given enough time to prepare the case.

A preliminary hearing will be still be held on Monday December 17th, 10am Studio 2, Willesden Green Library Centre. This will hear directions from the Inspector to the parties concerned. The meeting is open to the public.

The delay has implications for the timetable for the planning application for redevelopment of the site and the building of 95 homes as the developer's plans involves building on the Town Square.

Evidence of the use of the Town Square can therefore continue to be sent to Martin Redston mredston@compuserve.com as signed PDFs with any photographic evidence. The Inspector will be seeking to establish that:

i. A significant number of inhabitants of any locality, or any neighbourhod within locality, indulges as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years; and
ii. They continue to do so at the time of application


Comments are also still possible on the planning application and can be sent to andy.bates@brent.gov.uk (Reference 12/2924 12/2925)

Squaring up for a battle in Willesden Green

Campaigning in the 'Town Square' (Photo: Kilburn Times)

The battle over the application to designate the open space outside the Willesden Green Library Centre as a Town Square is hotting up.

If the space is so designated it could torpedo the plans to build over 90 unaffordable flats on the present car park.  These plans require that the new building be moved close to the High Road roadside to make room for the flats. The present open space would be built over.  If the space is designated a Town Square, it cannot be built on and this would mean the former car park space available for the flats would be much less. The project depends on the developer making money from the land given to it by Brent Council to build the Cultural Centre at 'no cost' to the council. Fewer flats, less profit, no money for the Cultural Centre.

Not surprisingly the developer, Galliford Try-Linden Homes has put in an objection to the Town Square application. Rather more surprisingly, as Brent Council decides to approve or reject the application, the Council itself has also put in an objection.

In the meantime local historian Philip Grant has revealed that back in 1984 Brent Council itself supported the idea of an open space here:

In a document produced by Brent's Development Department (the forerunner of the present "Regeneration and Major Projects") in December 1983, an annotated plan of the site stated: 'The Council intend to preserve the little building on the corner with its turret and decoration - the wings behind are later additions, and these will be removed to provide some much-needed open space.'

 

Some councillors wanted to save money on the project, and demolish the whole of the old (Victorian) Willesden Green Library, replacing it with a public square which would run from the new Library Centre right down to the High Road. In a Council debate, reported in the "Kilburn Times" on 20 April 1984, Councillor Len Snow said that this 'would be a sad mistake', leaving 'a gap here, which will be open to wind and traffic noise'. He went on to say: 'If the square was protected by an interesting frontage it would be a haven of peace and on a sunny day a delight to sit in.' 

 

Len Snow's view, and that of like-minded Councillors, eventually prevailed, giving Willesden Green the public square that local people have enjoyed for more than 25 years, and still enjoy.

Philip's article and the response by Martin Redston to the developer's objection can all be found on the Keep Willesden Green blog HERE