Please sign the petition to retain Stonebridge’s heritage Victorian villa

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

“Altamira”, 1 Morland Gardens, at the corner of Hillside and Brentfield Road.

 

Willesden Local History Society has been campaigning to save the locally-listed Victorian villa, known as “Altamira”, since Brent Council “consulted” on its original plans to demolish it as part of its Morland Gardens redevelopment plans in 2019. I joined the fight in February 2020, with a guest post on “Housing or heritage? Or both?”

 

The battle has been long and hard, but the planning consent which Brent’s Planning Committee gave in 2020 expired at the end of October 2023, without construction beginning on the project. The following month, the Council started a review of its future plans for the former Brent Start site (the college having been moved to a “temporary” home in the former Stonebridge School annexe in 2022, at a cost of around £1.5m).

 

That review was due to last a few months, with proposals then being put to Brent’s Cabinet by Spring or early Summer 2024. Instead, it eventually got tagged onto the redevelopment proposals for Bridge Park, as part of what Brent then started calling its Hillside Corridor project. At the exhibition in November 2024, which began another consultation, this was the conclusion after one year of the Council’s Morland Gardens review:

 

 

By March 2025, a new consultation was launched, asking whether residents agreed that the Morland Gardens site should comprise new Council homes and youth facilities. It did not give any indication of whether Brent intended to retain the heritage Victorian villa as part of that scheme, even though I’m aware that many people had asked for that in their comments as part of the earlier consultation (including me, with detailed proposals on how this could be done!).

 

Now we have found out that the long-awaited new proposals will be put to Brent’s Cabinet at its meeting on 16 June 2025, not as a separate item, but tucked away as part of a report about the future of Bridge Park. In response to this, Willesden Local History Society have launched a petition on the Council’s website:

 

We the undersigned petition the council and its Cabinet, when considering the regeneration of 1 Morland Gardens, as part of the Hillside Corridor proposals, to retain the beautiful and historic locally listed Victorian villa, Altamira, as part of the redevelopment of that site for affordable housing and youth facilities. The 150-year-old landmark building is part of the original estate which gave Stonebridge Park its name, and its sense of place can be an inspiration to local young people who would use it, while there is plenty of space behind the Victorian villa to build a good number of genuinely affordable homes.

SIGN THE PETITION HERE

As I write this, more than 150 people have already signed this online petition, more than enough to ensure that the Society can present its views in support of retaining this important local heritage building at the Cabinet meeting. We can hope that this view adds weight to a recommendation already made by Council Officers, but we won’t know that until the report is published about 10 days before the meeting!

 

From Brent’s Historic Environment Place-making Strategy (Part of the Council’s adopted Local Plan!)

 

At this stage, it is important that as many people as possible from the Brent community sign the petition, to show the strength of feeling that this beautiful and historic building is too valuable to be demolished. The Council’s own planning policies tell them that, but there are some people at the Civic Centre who don’t seem to care about that! If you agree with the petition’s aims, then please sign it, if you haven’t already done so. You can do that here. Thank you.

Philip Grant.

 

 

Heritage Open Day at St Andrew’s Church, Kingsbury, on Saturday 16th September 10am - 4pm

 

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant

 

St Andrew’s Church, in Church Lane, Kingsbury, is inviting residents and visitors to a Heritage Open Day on Saturday 16 September, as part of its Rekindling St Andrew’s project. The beautiful Grade II* listed “new church” building, with its magnificent interior decoration by top Victorian artists and craftspeople, will be open to explore between 10am and 4pm. The Grade I listed “old church” will also be open, but inspection of the inside will only be available from 10am until 12 noon.

 

A watercolour sketch of St Andrew’s Church, in 1810 (when it was already around 700 years old!)
(Source: Brent Archives, Naimaster Collection)

 

There is a programme of events taking place during the Heritage Open Day, as listed on the programme below. I don’t think booking is essential for the talks / tours, which are all free, but if you do book it would guarantee your place, if more people turn up for it than can be safely accommodated. More details and bookings can be found here.

 

I am leading the first event, Old St Andrew’s Church, which is a short, illustrated talk in the “new church” followed by a guided visit to Old St Andrew’s, just a short walk away. If you would care to join me at 10.20am next Saturday morning, to discover the history of this fascinating building (Brent’s oldest), you will be very welcome! The other events will be equally interesting and informative.

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.

Brent’s Historic Green Spaces – do you live near one? Make sure it is protected

 Guest post by Philip Grant

In a comment on Martin’s first blog about the planning application to build a block of flats in Barham Park, I said that I had set out the case for the park to be treated as a “heritage asset” in its own right as part of my objections. 

 

 

The site of the Victorian mansion in Barham Park, September 2015.

 

I sent a copy of my case for this to Brent Council’s Heritage Conservation Officer, and his reply was that it already had that status. He said:

 

“I can confirm that Barham Park would be treated as locally designated asset as it is contained on the London Gardens Trust Inventory.  See 10.3 of Brent’s Historic Environment Place-making Strategy.  It states ‘The London Parks & Gardens Trust has identified 38 sites within Brent which have been included on its Inventory of Historic Green Spaces. These sites are treated as Locally listed within the Borough and are identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions.’”

 

The fact that thirty-eight “Historic Green Spaces” in the borough are meant to have the same level of protection as locally listed buildings for planning purposes came as news to me, so I thought that it was something that was worth sharing with you. It is not something that I’m aware of the Council, or its planners, having drawn to public attention. 

 

As “non-designated heritage assets”, any planning application that affects one of these green spaces, or its setting, should include a Heritage Statement, which describes the heritage asset and its level of “significance”, sets out the degree of harm to that significance which the proposals in the application would cause, and anything that the proposals will do to mitigate that harm. 

 

This is certainly something that anyone looking at plans for a development near one of these green spaces in their area should bear in mind, and make sure that it is referred to in any objections they may make. If a heritage statement is not included as part of the application, or is inadequate, this can be drawn to the Case Officer’s attention as grounds for, at least, requiring further information on this heritage aspect of the plans.

 

Here is the list of the thirty-eight Historic Green Spaces, from Brent’s Historic Environment Place-Making Strategy, which is one of the documents (adopted by Brent Council in 2019) which form part of the borough’s “emerging Local Plan”:-

 

Remember, these green spaces are all Heritage Assets, which Brent’s own policies say are a valuable part of our historic environment, and deserve protection!

 

Sadly, as we know from the experience of Brent’s own planning application to demolish Altamira, the locally listed Victorian villa in Stonebridge, the Council and its planners do not always abide by their own adopted policies! But that should not stop us from flagging up those policies, and the level of protection which they are meant to provide, whenever they are relevant to a planning proposal which would have a detrimental effect on one of our Historic Green Spaces.

 

Philip Grant.

Harlesden's character 'vulnerable to sweeping changes' from nearby major developments in the pipeline

 From the Historic England website LINK

 

A key stretch of buildings is set to be restored at an important gateway to the area. This will help to make the town centre more attractive and welcoming, and help Harlesden retain its character and sense of place in the face of major new developments nearby.

 

Harlesden is a bustling, vibrant and multi-cultural hub within Brent, London Borough of Culture 2020. But its High Street has declined over a number of decades. Some of the High Street's Victorian and Edwardian buildings have seen better days. 

 

Harlesden is vulnerable to sweeping changes with nearby major developments in the pipeline which could undermine the social and economic character of the town centre. 

 

The High Street Heritage Action Zone outlined on a street plan of Harlesden © Crown Copyright and database right 2020. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100024900

 

How the Harlesden High Street Heritage Action Zone will help

 

The High Street Heritage Action Zone aims to create an attractive gateway to Harlesden town centre and support the local economy, traders and entrepreneurs, as well as offering local people high quality community spaces to come together and maintain their sense of local identity. There is an opportunity to make improvements to some of the wonderful historic buildings here so that residents, business owners and visitors benefit. 

 

An exciting project is planned, led by the Refugee Support Network, to transform a disused former bank into a focus for support for young people, workspace for small businesses, and a meeting place for community groups. The bank is at a focal point in the centre of the High Street and will bring alive this prominent building. 

 

Elsewhere, shop fronts will be repaired and restored, with opportunities for apprentices, and for shopkeepers to learn basic maintenance skills for their buildings to help maintain the sense of pride in the local area.

 

Harlesden High Street's heritage to be enhanced by £1m grant awards

 

Brent Council has published the Press Release below. I welcome the news as an ex-Harlesden (St John's Avenue) resident. The High Street, Craven Park and Station Road have a greater variety of shops than many high streets that are dominated (or perhaps 'were' after the impact of lockdown) by chain stores. Harlesden, when I was last there before Covid, had more wet fish shops than many a coastal town.  I remember an American friend visiting Harlesden fascinated by the architecture of the buildings above the shop frontages as much as the shops themselves. I hope that this project marks a positive change in Brent Council's attitude to our heritage.

 

Part of the High Street selected for  shopfront improvements

PRESS RELEASE

Harlesden is set to be transformed by a million-pound regeneration project after Brent successfully secured funds for a Harlesden Gateway High Streets Heritage Action Zone. Brent’s winning bid will create a scheme to improve the area and restore lost features on historic buildings in Harlesden town centre over the next two years.

The High Streets Heritage Action Zone is part of the £95 million government-funded programme delivered by Historic England to unlock the potential of 68 high streets across the country. The Harlesden scheme will help support Brent’s economic recovery and breathe new life into the area.

Historic England’s original funding award for the project was worth more than £437,600. Since then, they have offered a further £95,000 to support the programme.

Brent Council will match this with over £454,000 through a successful bid to the NCIL fund (Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy) which is funded by new developments in the borough, bringing the total investment to almost £1 million. 

The funding will help deliver:

• Shopfront improvements for a selected list of buildings on the stretch of Harlesden High Street within the designated conservation area (97-109 High Street). 
• External improvements to the former HSBC Bank building.
• A “how to” guide on shopfront improvements for local Harlesden businesses.
• Community engagement including a number of apprentices and workshops for young people.
• A local cultural consortium that will bid for revenue funding from Historic England to deliver a programme of cultural activity for the town centre during 2022 in celebration of its diverse heritage and communities. The internal renovation of the former HSBC bank building, which will provide a supportive space for young people run by the Refugee Support Network.
• The improvement of highways, two road crossings and pavements across six streets.

Cllr Shama Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning, said: 

We are really grateful for this £532,000 of funding from Historic England to deliver the High Streets Heritage Action Zone for Harlesden, and for the GLA’s funding in 2018 to undertake a detailed study of Harlesden through Hawkins Brown Architects, which helped to set the ambitions and vision for the town centre.

The funding is part of more than £5 million investment in Harlesden town centre, and the surrounding area, to provide community facilities, cultural events, workspace and general improvements from 2020 to 2022. This project will help create opportunities for the town centre, the local residents and businesses that are fundamental to its success.

Refugee Support Network has secured funding sources of over £1 million for the project. Catherine Gladwell, chief executive of Refugee Support Network, said: 

We are so grateful to have received such generous support from Historic England and from NCIL through Brent as we turn a disused bank into a refugee youth education centre and community hub. Thanks to Historic England, the exterior of the building will be able to be restored in line with its historic architecture and features, and, thanks to the NCIL fund at  Brent Council, the inside of the building will be transformed into a youth friendly space in the heart of Harlesden. We're delighted to be partnering with both organisations on this important community project.

Verena McCaig, Heritage at Risk projects officer for Historic England, said:

Every high street has a distinctive history that can be harnessed to help it thrive again. We’re excited to help deliver a High Streets Heritage Action Zone in Harlesden that will restore shop fronts and regenerate the former HSBC building - looking after and celebrating the places at the heart of our communities, and the buildings and public spaces which define their character.

'Heritage murals' at Bobby Moore Bridge, Olympic Way partially uncovered for just 3 weeks

 

 

Just two weeks ago Philip Grant wrote about the 'dodgy deal' behind the covering over of the famous sporting and musical tile murals at Bobby Moore Bridge at the Olympic Way pedestrian route to Wembley Stadium,

Now Brent Council has published a press release advertising that the mural will be partially uncovered for just three weeks. It is good that Brent Council is now recognising that these are 'heritage' but that makes their covering up  action even more inexplicable.

The Press Release:

More heritage murals on display at Wembley Park’s Bobby Moore Bridge during March

Extra areas of the heritage tile murals outside Wembley Park station will be revealed from the 10th to 28th March, as part of an annual display.

The colourful ceramic tiles, which show scenes from famous sports and entertainment events at Wembley Stadium and the SSE Arena, Wembley, date back to 1993 when they were originally dedicated to the legendary England football captain and 1966 World Cup Winner Bobby Moore.

Mayor of Brent, Cllr Ernest Ezeajughi, said: "I'm delighted that residents living close to Wembley Park and our amazing keyworkers who are still travelling into work will be able to enjoy these wonderful murals during the month of March. We may not be London's Borough of Culture this year, but we remain the borough of cultures, including the major events we host in Wembley. It's great to showcase that and pay tribute to some of the icons of our recent past especially as we start to look forward to the Euro football finals coming to the stadium this summer."

Please maintain social distancing and consider wearing a face mask whilst viewing the tiled murals.

The first scene outside the subway shows American Football players.  Many people think that the sport at Wembley Stadium started with the first NFL game there in 1983, with matches played annually at the new stadium since 2007. However, its history goes back a further 40 years, to the Second World War when two U.S. Forces teams played.

The middle scene shows a tackle involving two rugby league players. The Rugby League Challenge Cup Final was first played at the Stadium in 1929. It proved very popular, as a great day out for supporters. The final was played annually at Wembley (apart from during the Second World War) until the old stadium closed in 2000, and it has been a fixture at the new stadium since 2007.

The Empire Pool (now Arena) was built in 1934, as a year-round venue, for swimming in the summer and ice hockey and public skating in winter. It got its name because the first event held there was the swimming competition for the 1934 British Empire Games. From the autumn of that year, it was home to two ice hockey teams, the "Wembley Lions" (who played there until 1968 and were national champions four times) and the "Wembley Monarchs".

FULL REPORT: Planning Committee votes to demolish 'beautiful' Altamira (1 Morland Gardens) - Chair votes Against

1 Morland Gardens

The approved redevelopment

Brent Planning Committee tonight approved the Council's own development plans for 1 Morland Gardens despite pleas to respect it as one of only two heritage buildings in the area.  The Italianate Villa will be demolished and replaced by the building above.

There had been 48 initial objections to the plans with a further 15 when plans review, a 330-signature e-petition against and a 36-person written petition from Willesden Local History Society.

There were just 3 comments on the Planning Portal in support.

Chair of Brent Planning Committee Cllr James Denselow voted against mainly on grounds of confusion over the DMP7 policy on heritage and view shared by Cllr Maurice who also voted against and felt additionally that the Council as applicant could have done more work on the proposal.

 In his presentation to the Committee Roger Macklen said:

I have lived in Stonebridge since 1947, and as well as being a local resident, I’m a member of Willesden Local History Society.

Stonebridge has changed during my lifetime, much of it not for the better. Many of the newer buildings are tasteless and have nothing to please the eye.

1 Morland Gardens, or Altamira as I know it, is a beautiful landmark building that has been around since 1876.

It was part of the original Stonebridge Park, that gave its name to the area.

Please see the two photos we sent you - Altamira and its neighbour have been an impressive part of the scene by the main junction for more than a century.

They are the only buildings with this belvedere tower design left in Brent, and together they add so much to Stonebridge’s townscape.

Brent’s Heritage Officer said in April that Altamira: ‘should be considered an important local heritage asset of high significance.’ He was right.

Brent’s planning guidance says: ‘Brent’s heritage assets make a substantial contribution to the borough’s local character and distinctiveness. They are a unique and irreplaceable resource which justifies protection, conservation and enhancement.’

Brent’s new Historic Environment Strategy says: ‘Once a heritage asset is demolished it cannot be replaced. Its historic value is lost forever to the community and future generations and it cannot be used for regeneration and place-making purposes.’

This application wants to demolish Altamira, an irreplaceable building that’s part of Stonebridge’s character, and should be kept, for the long-term benefit of the community.
366 local residents have signed a petition asking the Council not to demolish it.

The applicants claim that 1 Morland Gardens is of ‘low significance ... and of local interest only.’ That’s wrong - and there’s plenty of evidence to prove it.

It’s shown to be wrong by the Council’s own Local List score of 8 out of 12, which the Heritage Officer has confirmed, and by objections from nearly 50 people who understand the history of the area and the value of this building.

And it’s shown to be wrong by objections from The Victorian Society, and from a Professor of Architecture, and expert on H.E. Kendall, who wrote:


‘1 Morland Gardens is not just any nineteenth-century villa, but a characteristic work by an architect of genuine and lasting significance. Its destruction would be a terrible loss, not only to the local environment, but also to the architectural heritage of Victorian Britain.' 

I strongly urge you to reject this application.

In his submission, local historian Philip Grant who contributes regularly to Wembley Matters said:

Brent’s policy DMP7 says: ‘Proposals for...heritage assets should...retain buildings, ...where their loss would cause harm.’

These proposals went wrong over that policy from the start – they didn’t show: ‘an understanding of the architectural or historic significance’ of this heritage building ...
... and instead of considering what viable use could be made of it, they started with a “wish-list” that made it impossible to retain.

The applicants’ “headline” public benefits sound good – but their plans have major faults, including on air quality, and on accessibility, which the Supplementary Report side-steps – I’d welcome your questions on those.

They tried to justify demolition by saying the villa has “low significance”, a false assessment, by a firm who knew that “low” was the result their client needed to support its application.
The Heritage Impact Assessment didn’t use the criteria for locally listed buildings approved by this Committee in July 2015 – please see the copy at page 4.

On your criteria, I believe this building scores 2 for authenticity, 3 for architecture, at least 2 for historic, and 3 for townscape – a total of 10 out of 12 - a “high significance”.

I’d be happy to justify those scores in answer to questions – please ask Brent’s Heritage Officer for his views as well.

Please look at page 3. The para. 4.29 guidance on policy DMP7 says: ‘The Council will resist significant harm to or loss of heritage assets.’

It also states that ‘a balanced judgement’ is required: ‘where the harm would be less than substantial’.

Brent’s Heritage Officer has said: ‘The demolition of the building, by its very nature, must be seen as substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset.’

The DMP7 guidance gives a strong presumption that the substantial harm to this heritage asset over-rides any public benefits.

Even with a “balanced judgement”, those claimed benefits, with their unresolved flaws, do not outweigh the harm. This application should be rejected.

If you approve this application, contrary to Brent’s planning policies, you’ll not only condemn this valuable building, but set a precedent that undermines Brent’s entire historic environment strategy and puts every heritage asset in the borough “at risk”.

Questioned by councillors Philip Grant said that in 1994-95 Brent Council made alterations and extensions to the building in line with heritage policy. Design of them was subordinated to the main building and the view from Hillside preserved.  He said he was not opposed to change or alterations, not to housing and the college, if such changes were also subordinate to what should be a protected building.

He continued, 'That's not what they're planning to do - they want to knock it down.'

Stella Rodriguez came next, she introduced herself as a foreigner ('you can tell by my accent'), who had recently settled in the area and could not understand why anyone would want to demolish such a beautiful building.

Errol Donald then spoke in favour of the development, a charity worker in Harlesden for the last 3 years and with family still in the area, he said that the development was essential to reinvigorate the area.  He did not mention the Bridge Park controversy by name but talked about the local and national political context. He said the scheme was not a direct response to that context but did contribute. It would provide real hope and training (in the form of the new college building) for a resilient community that deserved a chance to have the same chance to grow and thrive as other areas in Brent.

He said that working with young people informed his views - history and heritage are ongoing and cannot be seen in isolation.  He'd had conversation about architecture but it was their personal history that was important to people.

Ala Uddin from the College quoted Malcolm X's views on the importance of education. He said the current building was dysfunctional and that the new building would provide fantastic learning spaces with high tech facilities. It would be an aspirational a building that would provide high quality education and motivation to learn.  Cllr Denselow asked if the college could do outstanding work in a dysfunctional building despite the problems. Uddin said ye, but it would be even better in a new building.

Answering a further question, he said that 92% of their students came from Brent with the majority from Harlesden, Stonebridge and Willesden Green.

There was a revealing exchange with Brent Council's agent and architect when Cllr Robert Johnson asked if they had looked at keeping the Altimira building.  The architect said they had looked at numerous reasons why a new building would be better.  The college spaces would be 50% bigger with demolition and 30% bigger if it was retained. A new building would not be constrained by the site's hilltop position Its quality would be greater if they did not have to work around constraints of keeping the building. Retention would reduce the number of housing units from 65 to 27. He admitted that early options did not go through a thorough planning process but said a crowded site with housing would have over-shadowed the present building.

Cllr Abdi Aden, speaking on behalf of the three Stonebridge councillors took a neutral stance.  He welcomed aspects of the proposal: housing, replacement building for the college, workplaces bur regretted the loss of the heritage building and said local people thought a 9-storey building on that site was out of character with the area and too high.  It had not been designated a site for high buildings. There were also concerns about traffic congestion and loss of light to neighbouring buildings.

Questioned by councillors, officers said that the proposal was not fully 'policy compliant' but this was not 'uncommon.' The loss of a heritage asset was important but officers did feel that there was a substantial public benefit - it was a 'tricky balancing act.'

Heritage Officer Mark Price said schemes were looked at on a case by case basis and asked by Cllr Johnson if the council were going against policy said 'a balanced judgement doesn’t go against our policy.  Officer David Glover said policy just mentions 'harm' and any loss of a building could be said to cause harm.  For the loss of a non-designated heritage aspect policy just refers to balance.

Their own recommendation and those of third parties said that heritage had value, but there was disagreement about the extent of the value.  It had to be weighed on a case by case basis.  Referring to Philip Grant's closing point that the precedent set by approval tonight would mean that every heritage asset in the borough would be at risk, he said tonight's decision did not not do that as decisions were made on a case by case basis.

Asked by Cllr Denselow if the loss of one of only two heritage buildings in the area meant that this constituted more than 'significant harm' for this part of the borough, Mark Price replied that this was one of the factors.  Asked about Philip Grant's 8/11 rating Mark Price said it could have been -9 taking into account the architect responsible for the design of 1 Morland Place, Philip Grant had been right on that.

Denselow suggested that even if the score had been 12/12, they could still be facing an application to remove.  An officer said details had not been decided but given the Council's objectives it was likely that all of the housing units would be affordable.

David Glover confirmed that plans retaining the building had only been 'developed to a certain level' and had not been presented tonight.

Three of the five councillors who voted for development took no part in the proceedings except for the final vote. Councillors Butt, Chappell and Sangani raised not a single question or even a comment. Had they already made up their minds?

A Labour councillors, not on the committee, said after the decision, 'I am more ashamed than ever.'

The meeting has been archived. Watch on this link: https://brent.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/502597