1 Morland Gardens – update on the Brent v. Heritage planning battle - Next round at Planning Committee on August 12th

Guest blog by Philip Grant, in a personal capacity.

If you have read my guest blogs on Brent Council’s planning application 20/0345, you may have missed two recent comments. I will set these out below, for ease of reference, as well as drawing attention to some interesting flaws in the “public benefits” of the proposals (supposed to justify demolition), that have emerged from recent “consultee comments” I have now seen.

1.The Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, with 2 Morland Gardens beyond, from the top of Hillside.

I have added this comment to my How significant is significance? blog of 25 June:

FOR INFORMATION:

I have now received a copy of the consultee comments by Brent's Principal Heritage Officer, on the Heritage Impact Assessment and other evidence submitted since his original comments in April 2020.

I can imagine that he was under pressure from those at the Council promoting this application to confirm the HIA assessment that 1 Morland Gardens is a heritage asset of "low significance".

 

He has resisted reducing the building's score from 8 out of 12 (although from his reference's to the architect, H.E. Kendall Jnr., I suspect he would have liked to increase the architecture score to 3 out of 3, but has also resisted doing that). Despite keeping the same score, he has changed his original significance description from "high" to "medium".

Here are the Principal Heritage Officer's comments of 29 July 2020 on significance:

'1 Morland Gardens is a Locally Listed Building [a non-designated heritage asset] but not in a conservation area nor a statutory listed building. The local list description confirms and sets out its significance. It has a significance score of 8 out of 12. This actually places the building at ‘medium’ significance rather than of high significance as I stated in my initial advice.

National Planning Guidance, Historic environment, paragraph 8 states that an ‘Analysis of relevant information can generate a clear understanding of the affected asset, the heritage interests represented in it, and their relative importance.’ I have therefore considered the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) report by Lichfields submitted by the applicants and comments made by other consultees such as the Victorian Society and those with a special interest. I have thus taken into account the available evidence and necessary expertise [National Planning Policy Framework para.190].

The HIA asserts that ‘according to Brent’s local listing criteria the following score is more appropriate to the building: 6/12, due to the authenticity of the building being affected by its 20th century alteration and extension and the lack of its surviving historic context.’ It has been given ‘low significance’. I have looked closely at the reasoning and I do not share the view on the determination that was made.

I am persuaded by Anthony Geraghty MA PhD, Professor of the History of Architecture at the University of York. 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’. 

It is clear to me that 1 Morland Gardens should be considered a local heritage asset of special interest. There are only 2 of this belvedere towered design left in Brent. There are many examples of Italianate origin seen in the Borough (throughout the South Kilburn Conservation Area, for example) but these are by speculative builders and not by a significant architect like Kendall.

With this in mind, I am firmly of the view that the building is of ‘medium’ significance with a score of 8 out of 12 as none of the evidence provided introduces anything much new.'

2.Elevation drawing from the plans submitted in February 2020.

I added this comment to my Why Brent should withdraw its application to demolish 1 Morland Gardens blog of 20 July:

FOR INFORMATION:

This morning I received (from "The Office of the Leader") a letter from Amar Dave (Strategic Director, Regeneration and Environment), in reply to my open email of 19 July, on behalf of Brent Council as applicant in this case (20/0345). He replied to all the points I had raised, and I will summarise his long letter below.

He said that the architectural and historic significance of the Victorian villa had been understood at an early stage of the planning process, saying: 'The assessment was reviewed by planners following submission and we were informed that it was a very thorough assessment of the condition of the historic building.' - My response to this would be that if their assessment had demonstrated a proper understanding of the building's significance, they would not have been asked to provide one, several months after their original application was submitted!

He did not agree my assertion that 65 homes, a new education centre and affordable workspace was an overdevelopment of this small site, saying: 'Further, the results of our option appraisal and public consultation within the locality showed significant need for these facilities in Stonebridge.'

In response to my assertion that the "low significance" assessment was false, he said: 'This report provided an independent assessment of the significance of the locally listed building.' He also said: 'The validity of the HIA has been confirmed by the Planning Officers.' - My response would be that, despite what the Planning officers might have said, the Council's Principal Heritage Officer has rejected the HIA's claim that the significance score should be reduced from 8 out of 12 to only 6 out of 12.

In response to my question of whether the Officers and councillors proposing this scheme 'really intend to use the HIA, seeking to deceive Brent’s planning committee into approving a planning application which they should really reject?’ Mr Dave has said: 'The HIA is part of the suite of planning documents to be assessed by officers, and considered by the Planning Committee. This will include in the report the assessment of the Council’s own Principal Heritage Officer. The Committee will be able to come to their own judgement on the significance of the building, and will balance this against all other aspects of the scheme.'

He has also said: 'We do not accept your assertion that a decision as either landowner, or as a planning authority, to agree this scheme would put "every other heritage asset in Brent at risk of demolition".'

The Council does not intend to withdraw its planning application.

3.Revised ground floor plan for 1 Morland Gardens, submitted June 2020.

I wrote in my Brent Relents! blog recently that the Council had agreed to change its practice of not making “consultee comments” on planning applications publicly available on its website. Those comments can be really valuable in identifying weaknesses in applications that affect you, and it’s not only the Heritage Officer’s comments that are of interest on this application.

Transport and access: The original plans included a loading bay, for deliveries and refuse collection, as a lay-by on Hillside, but both TfL and the Council’s Transportation Unit said this was unacceptable, because of the danger it would cause to pedestrians. The loading bay has now been moved to the end of Morland Gardens (a cul-de-sac), taking a bite out of the “Arrival Garden” at the entrance to the new adult education college. More of that garden’s paved area has been lost because the GLA objected to the lack of visitor cycle parking.

The loading bay will be the only place where deliveries can be made to the entire proposed development, and is reached along a minor side road with parking spaces on both sides. The latest comments from the Transportation Unit still have concerns about access and servicing of the building. ‘This servicing area will be convenient for the relocated refuse store and the college, but less so for the lower ground floor workspace’. The answer suggested is that: ‘… to ensure the loading area does not become congested, a Delivery and Servicing Management Plan is sought as a condition of any approval.’

That suggested plan (‘to be approved before the building is occupied’) just covers the college and the affordable workspace on the lower floors. What about deliveries to the 65 homes on the upper floors? Given experience during the Covid-19 lockdown, and the growing switch to online shopping, the people living in those homes are likely to need many deliveries as well. It is 50 metres from the loading bay to the entrance door for the tall block of flats, and over 100 metres to the entrance of the homes further down Hillside. Each trip by a delivery driver will take a long time, so where will the other delivery vans or lorries park while waiting for their turn? And can you imagine the nightmare when 65 families are moving into their new homes?

One of the factors causing more deliveries will be that the new homes will be “car free” – no parking spaces (except for disabled) and no permits allowed for street parking. In reality, many residents will have cars (the planning estimate is around 58, based on data for the number and mix of units). What is the answer to this problem? A familiar one to those who have seen previous planning cases – a Section 106 agreement for ‘a financial contribution of £32,500 towards the introduction of a year-round Controlled Parking Zone in the vicinity of the site’!

4.A view of the site - taken from a Google maps 3D satellite image.

Environmental: If you compare the “Google” view with the new ground floor plan above, you will see that the proposed new building comes much closer to Brentfield Road and Hillside than the existing building. The 1994 Harlesden City Challenge garden (which Brent’s application describes as neglected – well, whose fault is that!), and the wide pavement area behind it will be built over, with a much smaller “Arrival Garden” in front of the college entrance instead. In spite of this, the Council’s proposals are claimed to provide ‘improved public realm’.

The latest Stage 1 comments from the GLA point out that the new plans only deliver an “Urban Greening Factor” of 0.2, which falls well short of the target of 0.4, saying: ‘The applicant should therefore seek to improve the quantity and quality of urban greening across the site.’ They also point to the continuing lack of an ecological statement, outlining the impact of the development on different species, and measures to provide a biodiversity gain, in line with London and National planning policies.

Air quality also has a “red flag” against it in the GLA’s comments. 1 Morland Gardens is in an Air Quality Management Area, next to one of the poorest air quality sites in Brent, at the junction of Hillside and Brentfield Road. The ’baseline local air quality’ is poor. The development needs to deliver an Air Quality Neutral assessment for both building and transport emissions, and the GLA are not satisfied that it does. It is already clear from the application’s own assessment that the Nitrogen Dioxide levels would be too high to allow windows to be opened on the ground floor (college) and the next two floors (of homes) above!

Although the plans will provide a one metre wider pavement along Hillside, instead of a low wall then open space, the pavement will be flanked by the building itself (see elevation drawing above). Fumes from the passing traffic will be trapped, and instead of the curving wall and wide pavement turning into Morland Gardens, pedestrians (including students arriving on the No. 18 bus to the Hillside Hub stop) will need to walk up to within 5 metres of the busy junction.

Water: Thames Water have pointed out that the revised plans submitted do nothing to answer objections to the proposals which they made in March. ‘Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing SURFACE WATER infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this development proposal.’ In other words, the increased rainwater run-off would be too much for the local drains, and if no action is taken to address this, a heavy storm (more likely with Climate Change) could cause water to flood down Hillside! They want a condition added that no properties should be occupied until ‘all surface water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been completed.’ The developer (the Council) would have to pay for those upgrades.

The second objection from March that had still not been dealt with by 6 July was: ‘The proposed development is located within 5m of a strategic water main. Thames Water do NOT permit the building over or construction within 5m, of strategic water mains.’ By taking so much of the site (and adjoining public realm) for the new building, the Council have caused this problem. If they don’t make its “footprint” smaller, the main drinking water supply pipe for this area will have to be moved further out under the highway, at the Council’s expense, before any construction on the site can begin. Imagine the traffic chaos on Hillside / Brentfield Road that will cause!

Despite these weaknesses, and more, in the Council’s plans for 1 Morland Gardens, you can be sure that Planning Officers will recommend it for approval, probably at the “virtual” Planning Committee meeting on 12 August. Willesden Local History Society hope to participate, with my support, to oppose the application.


Philip Grant 

Editor's Note:  

The Planning Committee on August 12th starts at 6pm (following a pre-meeting at 5pm) and after the preliminaries of declarations of interest and approaches, 1 Morland  Gardens is the first item.  The proceedings can be viewed live via a link to the Webcast on the Agenda here: http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=115&MId=6107

'Former Victorian building at Craven Park - see Binali's comment below.'

 

 

BREAKING Brent issues urgent warning over Covid 19 cases rise in the borough

FROM BRENT COUNCIL

An important message from Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council.

Today I have to share an urgent warning for everyone in Brent. For the first time in several weeks confirmed cases of Covid-19 in Brent are rising again, with 41 people testing positive for the virus over the past fortnight.

We are all rightly worried about a second wave of the virus and the recent increase in cases, which have also been seen elsewhere across the country. With this in mind I am asking for your help to prevent a second wave of the deadly virus in Brent.

Together, we all need to pay maximum attention to our surroundings at all times. We desperately want to avoid a situation where we cannot visit each other’s homes again.

I know you are likely to have heard this advice before but it is now vital that we all continue to act on it:

• Wash your hands, or use hand sanitiser, regularly and for at least 20 seconds
• Wear a face covering in shops and supermarkets, on public transport and when in other indoor spaces where keeping apart from others isn’t possible. Please always take a face covering with you when you leave your home in case you need to use it.
• Get a free test now if you have any Covid-19 symptoms
• Stay at home if you test positive for the virus, or have been in contact with someone who has tested positive.

Please pass this message onto your family, friends and neighbours. More information is here if you need it

I know we all want to get back to doing the things we love. However, we cannot do that if cases continue to rise. Let’s not throw away the hard work and sacrifices made by so many of our friends, neighbours and loved ones during lockdown.

Together, by following the NHS advice, we can stamp out coronavirus in Brent and prevent a second lockdown.

Mutual Aid network in Kilburn comes to the aid of a tree scheduled for removal - and saves it!

Guest post by Dan Judelson

Local councils removing trees agains the wishes of residents is a hot button issue. Sheffield has doubtlessly been the worst example of this  LINK  but here in Brent plans to remove trees saw produced a well organised and eloquent defence of mature trees and opposition to their removal in Furness Road. The result was a commitment from the council to fashion a new approach with removal being a last resort LINK .

So when notices appeared last Friday (24th) on trees at either end of Algernon Road, Kilburn, warning that one was scheduled for removal the following Monday, it became a small scale test of this new policy. The good news is that thanks to local residents quickly raising the alarm, along with fast responses from local Brent councillors and officers alike, the decision has been reversed and the tree saved. How it happened is at least as important as the fact that it did happen.

(Photo courtesy Sophie Capel)

Like many other areas, Kilburn has set up a number of mutual aid groups, at both ward and hyper local street level. While the intention was to support neighbours in need during the lockdown to counter the Covid pandemic, it has of necessity meant that people not necessarily in direct contact with one another before now have the ability to communicate quickly when issues come up.

This is exactly what happened in this case. WhatsApp messages and tweets went out on Friday evening. Emails were sent to local councillors and officers that evening and over the weekend, protesting that the tree was not "dead” as the signs claimed. One councillor, Faduma Hassan, asked for her email address to be circulated so that residents could contact her and she could show the strength of opposition to the plans and contacted the lead member for environment. Others contacted residents in nearby streets - put in touch via the street level groups - who had some experience of dealing with the council over tree preservation. 

Monday morning rolled around and when one of the residents went to talk to the contractors who had arrived, they discovered that the council had indeed changed the work order. The trees at one end were to be pruned and a stay of execution of two weeks place on the tree scheduled for removal. Further good news came the following day, with an email from the council tree officer. Gary Rimmer said they now thought that the tree could be saved and would be pollarded, not removed. He included a welcome apology for the lack of notice too.

So this was a great result, with Brent being pushed to re-examine their plans and change them, in less than 48 hours. 

It would not have happened but for the ability to circulate information so fast, without excellent and timely responses from Councillor Hassan and Gary Rimmer, taking residents concerns seriously - and perhaps being aware of the pressure from previous incidents, thank you Furness Road campaigners and Harlesden Area Action for acting so fast back in November 2019. It’s also worth noting that in that instance too, the local councillor, Jumbo Chan was quick to back residents concerns LINK .

There are two concerns remaining, however. A new housing development, at the other end of Algernon Road is nearing completion. These photos show how many trees were removed to make way for it:

 

(Photos courtesy Stuart Fry)

When the building is completed, Brent needs to be held to its commitment to replace the lost trees with ones on the same spot or, in this case, nearby. Brent needs to acknowledge that replacing a mature tree, wide canopy and all, with a young sapling, is not really replacing anything at all. See LINK . 

Brent declared, rightly, a climate emergency. We need to make sure their actions on this are as serious as their warm words. It may well be that local mutual aid groups, set up to support isolated neighbours needing shopping and having prescriptions filled have a longer term role in the maintenance of local democracy, too.

The Preston Story- Part 2

The second part of a series of four by Chris Coates 

                                                                  

We left the end of Part 1 of the Preston Story in the 18^th century, with the landscape scarcely changing over the previous 500 years. In the early 19^th century, the population grew slowly – in Preston and Uxendon together there were 64 people in 1831 and 105 in 1841. Preston was still very much a rural area, but not a contented one.

Preston and its surrounding area, 1832. (Extract from the Environs of London Map, 1832)

The agricultural depression after the Napoleonic Wars caused problems for both farmers and their labourers. Following the Enclosure Acts 1803 and 1823, the continuing fencing off of common land by large landowners caused problems for tenant farmers. An ‘Anti-Inclosure Association’ distributed manifestos throughout Harrow Parish and there was a petition to Parliament in 1802 and fence breaking incidents locally in 1810. In 1828, when there was a further outbreak of violence in the area, Harrow’s only fire engine and six crew were called into action at Uxendon as desperate workers burnt haystacks and threatened local landowners. 

Unrest continued and in 1830 local workers were active in the Swing Riots, a widespread protest across South East England, which used arson and machine breaking against the increasing use of agricultural machinery and the subsequent unemployment and lower wages. The Uxbridge yeomanry cavalry and the militia were mobilized to shield London when rioting spread to the Harrow area at the end of November 1830.

Swing rioters (in Kent), 1830. (Image from the internet)

Tenant farmers called for a reduction in rents. Lord Northwick, who held the manor of Harrow with land bordering Preston, accused local farmer Thomas Trollope, the novelist’s father, of conspiracy and had his crops seized. Anthony Trollope described Lord Northwick as 'a cormorant who was eating us up'. Northwick received a threatening ‘Swing Letter’ demanding a reduction of rent and warning that “our emisaris shall and will do their work - you have ground the labouring man too long”. The 1834 Report of the Poor Law Commissioners showed wages of agricultural labourers in Harrow district to be around 10/- per week or £26 per annum “supposing work is available all year round - which for most it is not “.

Despite poor wages, the area continued to attract migrant labour. In 1841, there were 415 migrant haymakers, mainly from Ireland, living in barns and sheds in Harrow. The 1851 census clerk for Preston and Uxendon notes these conditions for in-house migrant workers: “All persons entered as lodgers are those only who occupy generally part of a bed, at the usual charge of 1/6 per week, including washing and attendance, with a seat by the evening fire”. Some seasonal workers settled down in Preston. In 1851, the Irish family occupying Forty Farm cottage had a child born there, and there are Irish and West Country domestic servants elsewhere.

Preston House and tea rooms, 1912. (Brent Archives online image 331)

 

Early in the century, Preston House was built on Preston Hill near four cottages recorded therre in 1817. The census shows Preston House was initially a ‘country residence’ leased to various professional men, including a corn merchant, a surgeon, a cigar importer and a solicitor. Around 1880, Preston House was acquired by George Timms (d. 1899), who turned the grounds into the Preston Tea Gardens.

An advertising card for the Preston Tea Gardens, c.1910. (Brent Archives online image 6864)

The Tea Gardens flourished well into the next century and the building survived until the 1960s when it was demolished for flats. By 1864, the four cottages were replaced by a pair of Victorian villas, now 356-358 Preston Road – the oldest surviving houses in Preston. They must have had a fantastic view over the surrounding countryside, to Harrow-on-the-Hill.

356 and 358 Preston Road. (Image from Google Streetview)

Further down Preston Hill, Hillside Farm was also hosting the 'Rose & Crown' beershop in 1851, run by the farmer’s wife, Sarah Walker, and her daughter. Hillside Farmhouse was also demolished in the 1960s, but Hillside Gardens recalls its location. Lyon Farm remained in the hands of tenant farmers with its profits going to the Harrow School that John Lyon founded [see Part 1]. The Uxendon Manor Estate had sold Preston Farm to the Bocket family some time before 1799 and it was held by various people until last farmed by the Kinch Family, after whom Kinch Grove is named, in the 20^th century. By 1820, the Wealdstone Brook at the bottom of the Hill had a ford and a footbridge, making the route to Kingsbury more accessible.

Farms at Preston in the 1890s. (Extract from a large-scale Ordnance Survey map)

At Uxendon Manor, life had settled down after the tumultuous events of the 16^th and 17^th centuries, with the Page family still owning the farm until 1829 when the land passed to Henry Young (d. 1869), the junior partner of the Page's solicitor - with some suspicion that he had obtained the lands fraudulently!  The original Manor House was demolished and a new farmhouse built just a little further north [now 18-20 Uxendon Hill]. The farm drive led west to a gated entrance lodge. In the 19^th century, this was the only building on Preston Road between Preston House at the top of the hill and Wembley Farm [built around 1805] at the junction with East Lane.

Forty Farm, with the farmer showing off one of his horses, c.1910. (Brent Archives online image 1205)

In 1850, the tenant farmer John Elmore made Uxendon a venue for steeplechases and was well known for its "sensational water jump”, while Forty Farm was famous for horses. By the 1880s, Forty Farm was also known as South Forty Farm because a new farm, North Forty Farm, had been built [now Newland Court on Forty Avenue]. Part of the fields on the southern slopes of the hill behind the farm became Wembley Golf Club in the 1890s – the course stretching up over Barn Hill pond.

I wonder how many golf balls were lost in there!

The Harrow-on-the-Hill cutting, London & Birmingham Railway, 1838. (Image from the internet)

It was the arrival of the railways which started the slow change of the area from countryside to suburbia. The world’s first main line - the London to Birmingham Railway, built by Robert Stephenson and opened 1837, carved its way through Harrow Parish and soon a network of railway lines crossed the district. Horse drawn buses ferried passengers from villages like Preston to Wembley station, known from 1882 as Wembley and Sudbury. The 1881 Census shows several railway workers - railway plate layers, clerks and train drivers – living in cottages along East Lane to what is now North Wembley Station. Some settled, but others moved on as the network grew.

An 1890s map showing how railways were shaping the Preston of today. (Extract from an O.S. map, c.1895)

In 1863, the first Underground railway opened. By the 1870s, it was expanding north-west from Baker Street via Willesden Green to reach Harrow-on-the-Hill in 1880. The construction of the Metropolitan Railway effectively destroyed Forty Green, although South Forty Farm continued into the 20th century. Further changes were underway – following the 1894 Local Government Act, Preston broke its historical connection with Harrow and became part of the newly formed Wembley Urban District. No longer ‘rural’ – at least officially. 

A Metropolitan Railway steam locomotive, early 1900s. (Image from the Wembley History Society Collection)

Towards the end of the century, and especially after the development of the Wembley Park pleasure grounds in the 1890s, the Preston area began to be seen as a pleasant location for other leisure activities. Uxendon became popular with shooting enthusiasts. By 1900, the Lancaster Shooting Club was established there and the celebrated Bond Street gunsmiths Holland & Holland had a shooting ground nearby. An Uxendon Shooting School was set up behind the rebuilt farmhouse, roughly where Alverstone Road is now, and had a 120 ft high tower for hurling targets. It survived until 1932 when the Metropolitan Line extension from Wembley Park to Stanmore cut across the land and housing development started on the site.

Uxendon Shooting Club, c.1910, showing the rebuilt farmhouse. (From the collection of the late Geoffrey Hewlett)

When the Olympic Games were held in London in July 1908, the ground was sufficiently important to be used for Olympic clay pigeon shooting competition. The shooting club, which was a two-mile walk from the nearest station, joined local residents in petitioning the Metropolitan Railway Company to open Preston Road Halt on the opposite side of Preston Road to the current station in May 1908. [A proposal for a station in 1896 was rejected because there were not enough residents]. 

Clay bird shooting competition at Uxendon, 1908 Olympic Games. (From the “Daily Mirror”, 7 July 1908)

The station’s status as a halt meant it was a request stop and initially many trains failed to slow down enough to enable the driver to notice passengers waiting on the platform. Eventually, the booking office clerk was instructed to wave a red flag from the platform when passengers turned up.

Houses on Preston Road, c.1920 [note the unmade road and gas street lamp!]. (Brent Archives online image 329)

Preston Road Halt triggered the first commuter development in the district. Several large Edwardian-style houses [a few of which survive] were built along Preston Road opposite the Avenue from 1910 to 1912, and the Harrow Golf Club opened just south of the station in 1912. The photograph below shows a view across what would become the Preston Park estate. The Clubhouse was demolished during the development of Grasmere Avenue in the 1930s.

Harrow Golf Club, Preston Road, early 1920s. (Brent Archives online image 8947)

The absence of a full-time station and the purchase of unused fields for staff sports clubs by companies like Debenhams and Selfridges, kept Preston as a rural area into the early 20^th century. Preston Road was still a twisting country lane and the Wealdstone Brook could be described as ‘one of the most perfect little streams anywhere, abounding in dace and roach’. 

"Pretty Preston Road" - postcard of a rural scene from the early 1900s. (Brent Archives online image 328)

However, in 1915, an employee at the Metropolitan Railway Company coined the name “Metroland” – and things started to change – which we will look at in Part 3, next weekend.

Chris Coates.

Cautious limited re-opening of four Brent libraries. Face covering and Test & Trace details required

From Brent Council

At the beginning of July, Brent Council began a phased reopening of library, arts and heritage services to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for staff, residents and visitors returning to their local libraries.

Wembley Library and The Library at Willesden Green were the first to reopen. Ealing Road Library and Kilburn Library will reopen on Monday 3 August. The opening hours will be 10.30am - 2.30pm.
We are currently working hard to make Kingsbury Library and Harlesden Library Plus Covid-secure, and expect both to reopen during August.

Brent Council request contact details for all library visitors to support the NHS' Test and Trace' programme. Adult visitors must also wear a face covering. This is mandatory unless you are in an exempt group and you may be asked to leave if you refuse to fill to complete the Test and Trace or wear a face covering.

Customers will be able to borrow and return books and DVDs and reserve computers, however there will a limit on the number of people able to enter the libraries at any one time.

A number of services including Wi-Fi, newspapers and journals, and study facilities will not be available for now, but this will be reviewed regularly. The Willesden Gallery and Brent Museum and Archives will also remain closed for the time being.

Residents are encouraged to continue using the e-Library to access thousands of e-books, e-magazines, newspapers and other digital resources from the comfort of their own home, by visiting www.brent.gov.uk/elibrary.

Brent Museum and Archives also has exhibitions, school resources and access to the museum, archive and photography library online for everyone to enjoy.

To support library users during this time, all items currently out on loan have been automatically renewed until Tuesday 1 September and the Brent libraries phone 020 8937 3400 and email service libraries@brent.gov.uk will be available Monday to Friday from 10am-5pm if customers need any help with their account details or accessing the e-library.

Brent’s Home Library Service will be restarting, delivering books and magazines to vulnerable residents, using our strong team of local volunteers. If you are unable to leave your home and would like to know more about this service please contact the library service.

Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure, Councillor Hirani said:

The reopening of Wembley Library, The Library at Willesden Green, Ealing Road Library and Kilburn Library is a really positive step, however we still need to be cautious as COVID-19 has not gone away.

That’s why these four libraries will be open on a very limited basis at first with safety measures in place, so we can make sure we’re taking every step to protect staff and visitors.

Residents can access the e-library at the click of a button so I’d urge people to continue using this if they can. If you do choose to visit the library, please make sure you maintain social distancing at all times and follow the instructions of the library staff.

As part of the phased reopening of the libraries service, these libraries will be the first to open with plans to open the rest when it’s safe to do so.

Judgment in Brent Council v Bridge Park case not expected until September. HPCC blow when constitution not found

After hearing closing submissions from the Counsels for Brent Council and Leonard Johnson the Judge, Michael Green QC,  said he was unlikely to deliver his Judgment before September.  He said that he would decide on a legal basis if the defendants had a beneficial interest in the Bridge Park site but said that in itself that would not resolve the issues between the parties.  He said that the parties needed to talk together: 'Everyone needs to move on.'

The issue of whether HPCC had a constitution in its early days remained unresolved today when Mr Cottle admitted to the Judge that a search yesterday had failed to come up with a copy. They had found a copy of a draft working ducment for the Bus Garage Steering Group, a later organisation that included HPCC members.

The constitution was vital to establishing the status of HPCC and thus its claim for an interest in the land which is the nub of the case.

The Judge told Mr Cottle that if there was a document he needed to know. He said, 'Perhaps the other side would have wanted to ask  Mr Johnson and Mr Anderson questions about it.' The Judge said the document needed to be located and handed over to the Court. It was amazing that the council had not insisted on a constitution befor handing money over to HPCC.

The two sides in the dispute had sent the Judge  more than 100 pages of written closing submissions which enabled proceedings to take less time than expected.  It did mean for those observing the case remotely exchanges were harder to follow today with frequent references to the submissions, ancillary documents and legal precedents.

Mr Cottle asked to submit amendments to the Bridge Park case one of which related to Mr Leonard Johnson's status.  Cottle said this would be signed tomorrow and the Judge asked that it be signed and a photograph of it sent to him.

The submissions related to the issues that have already been reported on here and included the conflict between the parties on the status of HPCC and its charitable purpose and aims; whether HPCC could be said to have an interest  in the land and the status of 'an aspiration' to buy the lease; who actually owned the project, the implications of the Covenant required by the GLC and its implications for future use of the land and whether it was indented for charitable purposes,; the role of Brent Council in the early stages of the project and the implications of the different funding streams in terms of ownership and any subsequent breaches of conditions; whether there was a conditional trust at the commencement of the project and many more complex issues accompaned by references to rulings in previous cases and legislation one side or the other thought was relevant.

Brent Council was anxious to prevent any future action by the defendant in terms of a restriction on the land arising from the claim and said that their development project was 'respectful of the Bridge Park legacy.'

Stonebridge 1981: 'Don't burn it down - let's build!' The Brent Council v Leonard Johnson hearing

The young campaigners at the disused Stonebridge bus garage

Paul Anderson, who worked with Leonard Johnson from the beginning of the project in 1981, was cross-examine don his witness statement by Ms Holland, Brent Council's Counsel.

He said he had attended a youth club on Stonebridge which put on lots of activities against the background of agitation and riots elsewhere in the country.

Anderson said that HPCC did have a written constitution, he had seen it and many activities were borne out of that constitution. 'We were young 20-22, and talented and worked with the CDA (Co-operative Development Agency). We couldn't have been part of Itec if we didn’t have a constitution.'

He could not give the exact date of the constitution but said it was produced around 1981-8.

Holland asked if it could have been the Steering Group constitution he was remembering. Anderson said, no, HPCC still had their own constitution. They had a General Meeting to elect people and had to put something together to say how they would operate. The constitution developed, 'We were active in stopping people destroying our community. We did it our way. Alice Holt (CDA) would have known what HPCC stood for, we were part of the Steering Group. We had so many activities that we had to have rules and regulations - we did it our way. We knew we had to have some sort of governance to the best of our understanding. As we developed, we got all sorts of professionals coming in to help is.'

He added, 'I'm passionate about this. It's an asset and they're trying to take it away.'

The Judge asked if there was any document that covered aims and objectives, financial controls, voting etc.

Paul Anderson said they did. They had to have a quorum and voted for chair, treasurer.  The contributed what they could. HPCC was on a learning curve - he was there.

Anderson was asked if he had the constitution with him. He said he hadn't brought it. He would have to look in the attic but they'd had a constitution to this this day.  He promised to try and get it for the court.

When he appeared to go off the point Ms Holland said sharply, 'Answer my questions. This isn't a street protest.'

Anderson said, 'I am a member of Bridge Park. I believe we own Bridge Park, we put a lot into it. Bridge Park belongs to the community.' He denied that there was any monetary in the case for him personally. He said he did not see himself reaping any financial benefit from the asset as it was for the community.

He continued, 'We had a vision to become self-sufficient. That's what we told the community: "Don't burn it down - let's build!" We campaigned to get the old bus garage, ran classes. When we got it, the message went out that this belongs to the community - not just to HPCC. We made the building what it is.'

Ms Holland asked about the vision, generation of revenue and aim for self-sufficiency within 5 years. She asked if Anderson was part of a project aiming to purchase the site.

Mr Anderson said the vision was making what the community wanted happen. A place for education, performance, training -'It was ours. People were inspired and helped to build the project.'

Holland said, 'You didn’t think you were owners. You could have sold it.'

Anderson said it hadn't crossed their minds that they could sell it.

Holland challenged, 'It didn't cross your minds because you didn't own it.'

Anderson: 'Nobody thought we'd sell it. It was the community's.'

The Judge intervened asking, 'You didn’t think the property was yours?'

Mr Anderson responded that they expected at one point they would get it. 'The message was that it was ours. We own it but we weren't going to sell it.'

Holland put it to him that they knew they didn't own the land but sometime in the future it could happen.

Anderson said he accepted that.

Holland continued, 'The anticipation was for the Community Co-operative, not HPCC.' Anderson replied that HPCC represented the community. Whatever mechanism allowed that to happen.'

Challenged by Counsel that only two mentions of his name could be found in documents and that he wasn’t involved in setting up Bridge Park, Anderson said there were many facets in the project and different roles. He was involved in the Itec and put his heart and soul into it: 'To see that taken away. Turned my back and it was gone. It was awful.'

He said he was not directly involved in meeting with the council [setting up Bridge Park] but involved in working with the DTI and council for the IT project.  He was not involved in setting up the HPCC but was a living witness of the campaign and getting the community behind the project. 'It was beautiful.'

Mr Cottle asked Anderson about a document written by representatives of the HPCC in July-October 1981 entitled, 'Realities of Life in Stonebridge' and another with the same title dated December 1981. Anderson said the two were slightly different.  The Stonebridge Bus Garage Steering Group document was more about what would be put in there, the other was a contextual report.

The next witness was former Labour councillor Bertha Joseph, who switched to the Conservatives in 2007.

Ms Joseph said that at a Labour Group meeting held when Merle Amory (now Abbott) was leader in 1986/87, Amory informed those present that HPCC was planning to buy the bus garage. Joseph had joined the council in 1986.

Holland pointed out that the garage had been bought by the council 4 years before - that didn’t make sense.  Joseph said she remembered Amory saying it at the time.

Holland suggested it was the Steering Group that could buy, not HPCC. Joseph said it was the HPCC that was around at the time. She had known about their work before becoming a councillor and the awful lot of work they did for young people at Bridge Park.  She was a 24-year-old councillor and had never heard that it belonged to the council. It was a community project. When the community heard that HPCC was buying the garage they were excited. The council didn’t have a connection with young people. She saw Leonard as the leader - the President.  The police had no control. There was no riot because of the project.

She added that taking it away now would be devastating for the community.

The next witness was Richard Gutch who had worked for the council but for a few years after he left continued to offer pro bono advice to the project when they requested it., and again more recently. He had met with the new project manager at the time and as an outside helped them assess contractors,

Gutch has asked to amend his witness statement because following Carolyn Downs' cross-examination he now knew the proposed development involved more than a swimming pool. He had thought it was a private development contrary to community use.

Ms Holland asked about the transfer of land to Brent Council from London Transport: 'Are you clear that Brent accepted the land?'

Gutch agreed but said HPCC were working very well as partners and when resources allowed would be legal owners. He understood that there was an expectation that they may be able to get a lease with an option to buy but that would be dependent on the project's sustainability. Brent were the legal owners.

Mr Gutch said that Johnson recognised that initially with help from funders Johnson recognised that that the land would be in the name of Brent. Gutch's advice was that it was great to have a vision but to take one step at a time.

Holland quoted a 1982 document with a factual statement that the council was purchasing the bus garage for this project. Gutch said, 'Yes but would be run and eventually purchased by HPCC.'

Ms Holland followed up stating it was always ultimately the council's property.  Gutch agreed and said as the council was making a contribution, they set out safeguards on how a potentially risk situation went.  Safeguarding ownership rested with Brent as was true of all Urban Projects.

Turning to the issue of Mr Watkins of Watts County Holland said that the significance of his meeting with him was about ownership.  Gutch said that Watkins had a number of facilities in Watts. He told HPCC that ownership enables you to do more things. It inspired Johnson and others to that aim.

Holland questioned Gutch again about ownership and the Urban Programme funds. Summing up she said that the asset was ultimately the council’s at the end of the day. Gutch agreed. She quoted GLC conditions, 'acquired for and controlled and run by the community.' Gutch agreed.

Gutch told Mr Cottle that he stood by his statement that it was 'not for the benefit of Brent [Council] in its own right.' The point was that it was being run by HPCC as a community-controlled project which had impressed funders who would not normally be politically sympathetic.

Both Counsels are preparing written submissions today and the hearing will continue tomorrow, (Thursday)