Saturday 22 August 2020

The Welsh Harp Reservoir Story – Part 1

A new local history series from Philip Grant. 

If you were standing in Kingsbury around 20,000 years ago, you probably would have had cold feet! The area was just at the southern edge of the ice sheets that covered much of Britain during the last Ice Age. The glaciers had left a covering of gravel over the underlying clay, and as they receded, the melt-water formed rivers that flowed south into the Thames. Over the centuries, they cut valleys into the landscape. Two small rivers, the Dollis Brook and Silk Stream, combined to form the River Brent, and that is where our story begins.


1. Looking across the reservoir towards West Hendon, c.2010.
Although some of this series is based on my own research, I could not have written it without the knowledge I gained from my friend and fellow local historian, Geoffrey Hewlett, who sadly died last year. I assisted him, mainly on the illustrations side, with his 2011 book “Welsh Harp Reservoir Through Time”. I learned so much of interest from him about this beautiful area, at the heart of our borough, that I want to share with you during this difficult Covid-19 period. 

We don’t know when people first lived in this part of Brent, but they were definitely here by the late Bronze Age (around 1,000 to 600BC). There are old records of pottery funeral urns, dated by archaeologists to the Deveral Rimbury period, being uncovered during work near the edge of the reservoir. Unfortunately, these have disappeared, and the exact location of the find was not recorded. Geoffrey worked at Brent Council, and when he was asked to suggest a “historical” name for a new road near the reservoir, off of Birchen Grove, he wrote down Rimbury. A typist misread his joined-up writing, so Runbury Circle commemorates the find!

2. C.3rd/4th Oxfordshire red-slipped ware pieces, from Blackbird Farm, 2013. (Archaeology South East)

Moving on into the Iron Age, farmers from Celtic tribes (originally from Central Europe) came to the area, and the Brent is thought to have got its name from their goddess, Brigantia. The Celts were pushed further west by later immigrants, and the next hard evidence we have of people living here is of farms during the Roman period, on the more easily cultivated gravel soils at the top of Dollis Hill and Blackbird Hill. Finds of 3rd/4th century Roman pottery have been dug up at both sites, as well as a Roman coin of Constantius II (337-361) in the reservoir.

3. The River Brent valley between Kingsbury and Dollis Hill on the 1745 Rocque map. (Brent Archives)

I covered much of the Kingsbury area’s agricultural history in The Fryent Country Park Story, so I will jump forward to the 18th century, and developments which would lead to “the Welsh Harp” being created. Britain’s “Industrial Revolution” had begun, with the need for much greater quantities of raw materials and manufactured goods to be moved about. Roads were in a poor state, and a horse could pull much more weight in a boat than on a cart (as well as more safely for fragile items like Staffordshire pottery). It was time for canals.

Many shorter canals had been built since the 1760s, but it was the Grand Junction Canal, from the Midlands to the Thames at Brentford, that provided the main link to London. Even while this was being built (1793-1800), an Act of Parliament in 1795, allowed the construction of a branch from it direct to Paddington, on the outskirts of London itself. A new brickworks at Alperton, using suitable clay from a local field, provided bricks for some of the bridges required, and the branch canal opened to the Paddington Basin in 1801.


 4. The opening of the canal branch to Paddington Basin, 1801. (Image from the London Metropolitan Archive)

Canals need to be topped up with water, and this was especially the case after the canal company started supplying piped water (pumped straight from the Basin!) to homes in the rapidly developing Paddington suburb. The River Brent was soon identified as a likely source, and although a reservoir was considered, the cheaper option of a “feeder” was constructed in 1810/11. This ran from a bend in the river at Kingsbury, through the parish of Willesden, to the canal at Lower Place. You can see its course on a map from that time, and it is still there today. 

5. The Feeder, in light blue, on an 1816 map of Willesden, and by Johnson Road, Stonebridge, c.2010.

Water supply again became a problem when the Regent’s Canal was opened in 1820, joining the Grand Junction branch at what is now known as Little Venice. A drought in 1833 gave the final push to plans for a 61-acre reservoir at Kingsbury, and by late 1834 the canal company had accepted a tender from William Hoof, to build the dam and associated works for the sum of £2,747 (and six shillings!). 

 6. Hoof's letter to the Regent's Canal Co. of October 1834, agreeing terms for constructing the reservoir.

Work on the reservoir’s construction must have been carried out quickly, because a plaque inside Old St Andrew’s Church, Kingsbury, records the deaths of four Sidebottom brothers ‘who were drowned in the reservoir near this church on the 14th of August 1835’. The inquest found that Alexander, William and Edward accidentally drowned while bathing, and that Charles died ‘while attempting to save the lives of his three brothers’ - a tragic start to the reservoir’s story.

7. The Sidebottom brothers’ memorial in Old St. Andrew's Church, Kingsbury.

Even before the original work was finished, the canal company was buying more land, so that the dam could be raised and the reservoir extended. Their haste was to have severe consequences. The winter of 1840/41 was so cold that the ground was frozen to a depth of 20-30cm. The six days from 10 to 15 January saw heavy snow and rain, and water was seen overflowing the reservoir’s dam via a “waste weir”. On 16 January there was a rapid thaw, and at around midnight a fracture occurred in the dam wall.

There was already some flooding at Brentford, where the Grand Junction Canal and River Brent met the Thames, but just before 4am on Sunday 17 January 1841 ‘a great body of water’ hit the town, lifting boats out of the canal, which then caused damage to other boats and property as they were flung about by the flood. Three men died, and around twenty barges and their cargos were destroyed or seriously damaged.

 8. A February 1841 newspaper illustration, depicting the flood at Brentford (with some artistic licence!).

Records of the inquest on William Spruce, a 19-year old “barge boy”, show the lengths the coroner went to in order to establish the cause of the flood, and reason for his death. A surveyor representing the Regent’s Canal Company said that the Kingsbury dam ‘was of a proper strength’, and claimed that the water which escaped because of the fracture would not have reached Brentford before 5am, so could not have been responsible. The jurors decided that it was flood water from the reservoir that caused Spruce’s death. The canal company’s directors ordered urgent strengthening of the dam, but continued to resist any claims for compensation!

9. A season ticket for fishing on the reservoir in 1846.

The rebuilding of the dam was completed by early 1843, and a cottage was built near the Kingsbury end of it for a keeper. He would control the flow of any excess water from the reservoir, using sluice gates above the new waste weir, reached along a wooden walkway above the dam. After this, the Brent or Kingsbury Reservoir (both names appear to have been used) settled down to a few quiet years, when fishing and birdwatching were enjoyed there.


10. An 1850 watercolour: 'Reservoir of the Brent, Kingsbury, Middlesex.’ (Brent Archives online image 1710)

Water supply for both the Regent’s Canal from the docks at Limehouse, and the branch through Alperton and Willesden, soon became a problem again. In 1851, Parliament passed an Act allowing them to increase the height of the dam and create a much larger reservoir. More land was purchased, including a public house just north of the Brent Bridge on the Edgware Road. Its tenant was removed, and an embankment had to be built, to protect the pub from flooding.

11. A Regent's Canal Company boundary post from 1854, near the reservoir. (Photo by the late Len Snow)

New boundary posts (bearing the Prince of Wales crest of the former Prince Regent, later King George IV) were put in place around the company’s land, and by 1854 the reservoir had been filled to cover around 400 acres. As the former meadows became flooded, and the habitat changed, the bird life around the reservoir was studied by two keen naturalists living in Kingsbury, Frederick Bond and James Harting. The latter’s 1866 book, “Birds of Middlesex” has a wonderful frontispiece showing the reservoir.


12. The frontispiece to Harting's 1866 book "Birds of Middlesex". (From an original copy at Brent Archives)

Around 1858, a new tenant took over the public house near Brent Bridge, and we will look at his part in the reservoir’s story next weekend. I hope you will join me then.

Philip Grant.

Friday 21 August 2020

Lorber backs Philip Grant on Altamira's heritage value



Former Brent Council leader and Liberal Democrat candidate for Brent North has written to Carolyn Downs, Brent Council CEO, in support of Philip Grant's position on the heritage value of 1 Morland Gardens ('Altamira'):

In 1955 the then Wembley Borough Council demolished the Barham Mansion within the grounds of Barham Park which had been the home to first the Copland sisters, and later General Crawford-Copland, and ultimately the Barham family, including Titus Barham.

The Coplands and Titus Barham were major benefactors to various projects and activities within the Wembley area including Wembley Hospital, St John's Church, etc etc.

The old Mansion had been used during the war and due to lack of money was neglected and in poor state of repair. Its loss is felt to this day.

Brent Council has clear policies about preserving its ever diminishing heritage assets. The old Willesden Library building was preserved on two occasions despite it being in the way of new developments.

The Villa at 1 Morland Gardens is clearly unique and will represent a massive loss of heritage buildings in Brent. The decision is both odd and also clearly in breach of the Council's own policy developed only a few years ago. What is the point of a heritage policy at all when it is ignored in a case like this.

As you know I have been critical of the planning process in Brent. Planning officers with little connection or history with Brent have far too much power and influence and Councillors are bullied into making decisions with threats of possible appeals. Officers move on no doubt claiming on their CV the achievements of getting decisions through - however damaging those decisions may be to our local area.

In this case the failure to properly follow the Council's heritage policy means that the decision should be suspended and reviewed. We simply cannot allow the destruction of the Brent's heritage in this way. 

I recall walking the desolation of this area in Stonebridge in the early 1970s when all the terraced houses had been demolished and replaced by the unsuitable Bison Wallframe buildings. The Villa survived that onslaught only to face demolition now when we claim that we have learned of the failed policies of 'slum' clearance.

We should not make the same mistake and we should not allow for another important of Brent's heritage building assets to be lost.

I trust that you will instigate an investigation and review before it is too late.

Muhammed Butt missing from council leaders' letter calling for an extension of Covid-19 evictions ban


Muhammed Butt has not signed the letter below despite the leaders of neighbouring Camden, Harrow and Ealing councils signing. Our other neighbour, Barnet, is of course Conservative led.  This letter comes after the Brent Poverty Commission's report emphasising housing as a major issue behind poverty in the borough.

I wonder why he hasn't signed....


Below is the full text of the letter sent to Robert Jenrick yesterday afternoon. (LINK)

Dear Robert Jenrick,

We are writing as the elected representatives of millions of people across England to press the urgent need for an extension to the ban on evictions, which is due to end on Sunday 23rd August. We welcomed the government’s decision to introduce the ban and to extend it. However, you have not used this time to prepare for what comes next.

In March, you promised “no renter who has lost income due to coronavirus will be forced out of their home, nor will any landlord face unmanageable debts.” However, you have so far not introduced the legislative changes and support for tenants that would make this a reality.

Before Covid, two thirds of private renting households, and eight in ten social rented households had no savings. In short, people renting their homes have little resilience to the shock of the Covid-19 crisis.

On top of this, renters are likely to be hardest hit. Compared to homeowners, renters are more likely to have seen their work status change significantly and income fall, according to research from Citizens Advice. Unfortunately, the government has done little to prevent people from falling into debt arrears during this crisis.

Shelter now estimates that nearly a quarter of a million people are at risk of eviction because of Covid economic impact. Already, while the ban is in place, an estimated 20,000 people have been made homeless during the pandemic. Once the ban is lifted, under current law, anyone with two month’s arrears can be automatically evicted through the courts.

As with the A Level, BTEC and GCSE results fiasco, the government has had several months’ notice of a growing crisis affecting thousands of people. We have long been warning that current policies will lead to a wave of evictions and homelessness this winter, potentially coinciding with a rise in COVID-19 infections. But this crisis is avoidable if you act quickly and decisively.

Together, as the elected representatives of millions of people across England, we are calling on you to urgently extend the ban on evictions, and make good on your promise, that no-one lose their home as a result of Covid.

We look forward to your response. We will work with the government constructively to support everyone affected by this situation.

Yours sincerely,

Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London
Steve Rotheram, Mayor of Liverpool City Region
Jamie Driscoll, Mayor of North of Tyne
Councillor Darren Rodwell, Leader of the Council, Barking & Dagenham
Councillor Ann Thomson, Leader of the Council, Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council
Councillor Gavin Callaghan, Leader of the Council, Basildon Borough Council
Councillor Ian Ward, Leader of the Council, Birmingham City Council
Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, Leader of the Council, Bradford Metropolitan District Council
Mayor Marvin Rees, Executive Mayor, Bristol City Council
Councillor Timothy Swift, Leader of the Council, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Georgia Gould, Leader of the Council, Camden Council
Councillor Sam Corcoran, Leader of the Council, Cheshire East Council
Councillor Louise Gittins, Leader of the Council, Cheshire West and Chester Council
Councillor Tricia Gilby, Leader of the Council, Chesterfield Borough Council
Councillor Alistair Bradley, Leader of the Council, Chorley District Council
Councillor Tom Beattie, Leader of the Council, Corby Borough Council
Councillor George Duggins, Leader of the Council, Coventry City Council
Councillor Tony Newman, Leader of the Council, Croydon Council
Councillor Simon Henig, Leader of the Council, Durham County Council
Councillor Julian Bell, Leader of the Council, Ealing Council
Councillor Martin Gannon, Leader of the Council, Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Danny Thorpe, Leader of the Council, Greenwich Council
Mayor Philip Glanville, Executive Mayor, Hackney Council
Councillor Mark Ingall, Leader of the Council, Harlow Council
Councillor Graham Henson, Leader of the Council, Harrow Council
Councillor Anthony McKeown, Leader of the Council, High Peak
Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council, Hounslow Council
Councillor David Ellesmere, Leader of the Council, Ipswich Borough Council
Councillor Richard Watts, Leader of the Council, Islington Council
Councillor Shabir Pandor, Leader of the Council, Kirklees Council
Councillor Jack Hopkins, Leader of the Council, Lambeth Council
Councillor Erica Lewis, Leader of the Council, Lancaster City Council
Councillor Judith Blake, Leader of the Council, Leeds City Council
Mayor Damien Egan, Executive Mayor, Lewisham Council
Councillor Richard Metcalfe, Leader of the Council, Lincoln Council
Mayor Joe Anderson, Executive Mayor, Liverpool City Council
Councillor Hazel Simmons, Leader of the Council, Luton Borough Council
Sir Richard Leese, Leader of the Council, Manchester City Council
Councillor Peter Marland, Leader of the Council, Milton Keynes Council
Councillor Nick Forbes, Leader of the Council, Newcastle Upon Tyne Council
Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz, Executive Mayor, Newham Council
Councillor Sean Fielding, Leader of the Council, Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Susan Brown, Leader of the Council, Oxford City Council
Councillor Mohammed Iqbal, Leader of the Council, Pendle Borough Council
Councillor Tudor Evans, Leader of the Council, Plymouth City Council
Councillor Matthew Brown, Leader of the Council, Preston City Council
Councillor Jason Brock, Leader of the Council, Reading Borough Council
Councillor Allen Brett, Leader of the Council, Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Steve Siddons, Leader of the Council, Scarborough Borough Council
Councillor Ian Maher, Leader of the Council, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Julie Dore, Leader of the Council, Sheffield City Council
Councillor James Swindlehurst, Leader of the Council, Slough Borough Council
Councillor Paul Foster, Leader of the Council, South Ribble Borough Council
Councillor Iain Malcolm, Leader of the Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Chris Hammond, Leader of the Council, Southampton City Council
Councillor Ian Gilbert, Leader of the Council, Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
Councillor Peter John, Leader of the Council, Southwark Council
Councillor David Baines, Leader of the Council, St Helens Council
Councillor Sharon Taylor, Leader of the Council, Stevenage District Council
Councillor Bob Cook, Leader of the Council, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
Councillor Graeme Miller, Leader of the Council, Sunderland City Council
Councillor Roger Truelove, Leader of the Council, Swale Borough Council
Councillor Brenda Warrington, Leader of the Council, Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Shaun Davies, Leader of the Council, Telford & Wrekin Council
Councillor Rick Everitt, Leader of the Council, Thanet District Council
Mayor John Biggs, Executive Mayor, Tower Hamlets Borough Council
Councillor Denise Jeffrey, Leader of the Council, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
Councillor Clare Coghill, Leader of the Council, Waltham Forest
Councillor David Molyneux, Leader of the Council, Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Simon Greaves, Leader of the Council, Bassetlaw District Council
Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, Leader of the Council, Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
Mayor Norma Redfearn, Executive Mayor, North Tyneside Council
Councillor Elise Wilson, Leader of the Council, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Doina Cornell, Leader of the Council, Stroud District Council
Councillor Russ Bowden, Leader of the Council, Warrington Borough Council

Thursday 20 August 2020

New urban wildflower sowings boost biodiversity along Brent’s roads and on its roundabouts

Barham Park (last year)
Sudbury Court Drive (recently)
Fryent Roundabout (May 2020)

From Brent Council

Newly sown verges and roundabouts are bringing life and colour to Brent's roads this summer, as the borough's biodiversity-boosting Bee Corridor is expanded for 2020.

Last spring, wildflower-rich urban meadows were introduced in 22 of Brent's best-loved parks. Together, they formed a 'bee corridor' - the first of its kind in London - and prompted a rare species of butterfly to return to the capital.

By building on the programme to rewild parks and open spaces, the Council hopes to encourage even more visits from pollinating insects. This year, 13 verges and roundabouts have been transformed into urban oases for bees, butterflies, dragonflies and moths.
Studies have revealed a huge drop in the number of pollinating insects across the UK since the 1980s, prompted in part by the loss of wild habitats. More than 97% of the UK's wildflower meadows have disappeared since World War Two.

Cllr Krupa Sheth, Lead Member for Environment at Brent Council, said:
Many of us have been lucky enough to reconnect with nature during lockdown. Seeing the human impact of this pandemic has brought home just how fragile life is, and that's why it's so important that we protect pollinating insects. They play a crucial role in our food chain. I'm incredibly proud of our commitment to boost biodiversity in Brent, and hope our residents enjoy the new splashes of colour too.
Locations for the new wildflower areas are as follows:
  • John Lyon Roundabout
  • Sudbury Court Drive
  • Kingsbury Roundabout
  • Fryent Roundabout 
  • Fryent Way 
  • Bridgewater Road 
  • Sudbury Green Junction with Bridgewater Road
  • Sudbury Roundabout
  • The Avenue Mayfields Green
  • The Avenue Basing Green
  • The Mall 
  • Queensbury Station green
  • Neasden Roundabout


'Over-whelming' high-density high-rise development plans published for B&Q Cricklewood site



It is surely no coincidence that some of the London Borough of Barnet's most controversial developments take place on the borders with neighbouring boroughs.  This was circulated by the NorthWestTwo Residents' Association yesterday:

Montreaux have made their planning application:
up to 1,100 residential units and 25 storeys on the B&Q site.


Barnet have published it as planning application ref 20/3564/OUT. You can see all the documents HERE  – including drawings, there are 131 documents, so it’s going to take a little time to find the key ones and read them. What’s clear right now is that it is as Montreaux described it before, an application for up to 1,100 residential units in blocks up to 25 storeys tall, with the tallest being closest to Cricklewood Lane.

It's extraordinarily high-density and it would overwhelm the centre of Cricklewood, looming not only above its nearest neighbours in Barnet but all the Brent and Camden residents of Cricklewood too, and stress facilities to breaking point.

Barnet’s planning portal is already open for objections HERE . The deadline is shown as 16 September 2020, just 28 days away, which is surprising. Barnet had previously announced that during lockdown such deadlines would be extended and that should be the case for such a massive application as this, so that’s being queried.

After that, Barnet’s planning officers will also examine the application, write a report for the planning committee and make recommendations. The report will look at how the application fits in with council policy, and will summarise and respond to the objections they’ve been sent. Some types of objections can be considered by the committee, some can’t – there’s a quick guide on our website at https://www.northwesttwo.org.uk/developments/making-objections/ .

The report will hardly mention petitions and won’t consider them. There were five petitions against the Waste Transfer Station at Geron Way up the Edgware Road, but the report didn’t even mention what they said (you can see it HERE ). So if you’ve signed a petition in the past, do make sure to make your own objection on the planning portal too!

We’ll put more in the newsletter and on our website https://www.northwesttwo.org.uk/ when we’ve had a chance to look at the details, but as the clock’s started ticking we wanted to let you know right away.
 
Montreaux's picture of the bottom part of their 25-storey block, not showing the 2-storey and 3-storey buildings under it on the other side of Cricklewood Lane.

1 Morland Gardens – How Brent Council won its planning “victory”.


Guest post by Philip Grant

Last week. Martin gave a detailed report on the Planning Committee meeting,  which approved Brent’s plans for 1 Morland Gardens by 5 votes to 2. After six months of working with Willesden Local History Society members to oppose the Council’s application, I am understandably disappointed with the decision, but my comments here are not “sour grapes”. 

It may be too late to stop the 1 Morland Gardens proposals from going ahead. But this case has highlighted much wider concerns about the way in which planning matters are dealt with in Brent. If Brent’s planning officers have done what I allege in this article, what culture has been allowed to develop in Brent’s Planning Service which made them think it was acceptable? 

I will explain how I believe Brent “won” this planning battle. I may be wrong, and anyone from the Council is welcome to reply if they think I am. If you are interested in how your local authority uses, or abuses, its power, please read on, and make your own judgement.

As the applicant was the London Borough of Brent, it would be reasonable to expect the Council, to comply with its own rules and policies. It has a Planning Code of Practice, which requires ‘that officers and members consider and decide planning matters in a fair impartial and transparent manner’, and ‘that planning decisions are taken on proper planning grounds’.


               Cllr. Roxanne Mashari's Foreword to Brent's 2016 Development Management Policies
Brent Council’s planning policies are set out in its Development Management Policies, adopted in November 2016. In her foreword to this the then Lead Member for Regeneration said it ‘contains detailed planning policies which will guide the future development of the borough,’ and that: ‘This plan aims to help make this happen, by giving clear guidance; such as what can be built, where, how, for what use, where restrictions apply and why.’ 

One of the planning policies adopted by the Council in 2016 is its Heritage Assets policy DMP7, with paragraphs ‘giving clear guidance’ on how that should be applied. At the start of my three minute submission to Planning Committee last week, I set out the key message of Brent’s policy DMP7, that ‘proposals for…heritage assets should…retain buildings, …where their loss would cause harm.’ I also said that the 1 Morland Gardens proposals went wrong over that policy from the start.

The first test in policy DMP7 that proposals need to pass is that they ‘demonstrate a clear understanding of the architectural or historic significance’ of the heritage building. When Brent’s Property team and their architects had their first pre-application meeting with Brent’s planning team on 8 March 2019, they already had their development strategy and ‘strategic brief’ for the project. A summary of that meeting records that: ‘Discussion surrounding building height highlighted that a tall building could be justified in order to include education space, affordable workspace,’ as well as the residential side of the development.


 Extract from the application's January 2020 Planning Statement.

Another key point from the 8 March 2019 pre-application meeting was: ‘Further engagement with Heritage Officer required to discuss loss of locally listed villa.’ The Historic Building Assessment they had commissioned for 1 Morland Gardens was not delivered until April 2019. Brent, as applicant, had not properly considered, let alone understood, the architectural and historic significance of the building before discussing its ‘loss’. This was an early opportunity for planning officers to say ‘you are going down a path that breaches Brent’s planning policies – think again’, but they did not. 


Section 5.1 of the application’s Planning Statement also says: ‘On balance, the design team concluded that the minimal significance of the historic core is outweighed by the need for new education facilities and housing in the Borough.’ There is no way in which the applicant could have demonstrated a clear understanding of the significance of this heritage asset, as required by policy DMP7, if the team behind the project thought it had ‘minimal significance’. Its discussions with Brent’s Heritage Officer should have told them that. 


My own detailed objection comments of 5 March 2020, and the initial comments by Brent’s Principal Heritage Officer in April, both showed that the locally listed building at 1 Morland Gardens had high significance, and that its loss would cause substantial harm to that significance. It should have been clear to planning officers then, if not before, that the application did not comply with Brent’s policy DMP7. Again, they decided to proceed as if that didn’t matter.


It was not just policy DMP7 that should have been flagged-up for Planning Committee to consider. After some revised plans and documents were submitted in June 2020, I put in a detailed objection comment on 17 July, that the proposals failed one of the tests in Brent’s policy DMP1. Planning officers failed to disclose, or discuss, that in their Report to the Committee. When I pointed this out, they did mention it in their Supplementary Information, but in a way which I described as side-stepping the issue on accessibility, when I spoke at the meeting.


Extract from the Planning Officers' Supplementary Report, 12 August 2020.

Despite inviting questions, I was not asked any by committee members on this. The Report did not mention that my objection involved a failure to comply with policy DMP1. It did say, as a response to the accessibility point: ‘the council’s highways officer has confirmed that the revised servicing and accessibility arrangements from [for?] Morland Gardens would be acceptable in highways terms.’ “Highways terms” was not the point at issue in the objection! The failure by planning officers to deal with that objection properly meant that this fault in the application’s proposals was concealed from Planning Committee members.


The key “battleground” at the Planning Committee meeting was whether it mattered that the proposals were ‘contrary to Policy DMP7 of the Local Plan, and London Plan policy 7.8’, and that ‘the application does not accord with the development plan’. Those quotes are from the Report to Committee, so that it was not in dispute that the application could be refused on ‘proper planning grounds’ (which is what decisions are meant to be made on).


At the end of my presentation to the Committee, I had said:

‘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”.’


At least two officers were asked to comment on that by committee members. Their response was that each application was looked at on a ‘case by case basis’, so just because they were being recommended to approve this application which went against Brent’s Heritage Assets policy, it did not mean that any others would be allowed. Frankly, that was disingenuous!


Key paragraph from Brent's Historic Environment Place-making Strategy of May 2019.

Both Roger Macklen and Stella Rodrigues, addressing the committee as objectors, had quoted from the above paragraph. Every word of it cries out that valuable heritage assets, like 1 Morland Gardens, should not be demolished. How could plans, by Brent Council itself, that involved the demolition of the building, not undermine that strategy?


The same is true of the precedent that granting this planning permission sets. It was an application by Brent Council to demolish a significant locally listed heritage asset, despite 366 people petitioning the Council against this, over fifty objectors and the local Ward councillors saying what the building contributed to the character of Stonebridge. What is to stop any private developer from applying to demolish, say, a group of locally listed cottages elsewhere in the borough, with proposals to build a large block of “quality homes”, 50% of them “affordable”, and using the same “public benefit” arguments? After all, Brent, you gave yourself planning permission on those grounds, so if you don’t give it to us as well, we appeal and you lose!


The planning officers’ reason for recommending approval was “public benefits”:


‘there would very significant public benefits, most notably the social, economic and environmental public benefits delivered by the proposed scheme, which include the provision of a much improved adult education facility and the creation of 65 affordable dwellings, including larger family homes, for which there is an acute need in the borough. Those social and economic benefits are in the view of Officers sufficient significantly to outweigh the harm caused by the loss of the heritage asset.’

In my original objection comments of 5 March 2020, I had made the point that the Council’s own guidance on policy DMP7, after setting out the many good reasons why ‘Policy DMP7 … specifically seeks to protect Brent’s heritage’, says at para. 4.29:

‘The Council will resist significant harm to or loss of heritage assets. It will assess proposals which would directly or indirectly impact on heritage assets in the light of their significance and the degree of harm or loss which would be caused. Where the harm would be less than substantial, it will be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal ….’

I have added the bold text and underlining to emphasise what I believe is the statement in the policy which should have decided this application, against accepting the planning officers’ recommendation. 

Although this point had been made clearly in my objection comments, it was not referred to or discussed in the Officer Report to Planning Committee. I made it in my presentation at the meeting, and again in answer to a question from the Chair. So why was it ignored, by the majority of the committee members? I believe that they were misled by planning officers.

Their recommendation was based on the argument that the committee should make a ‘balanced judgement’, and that in doing so, the public benefits (in the officers’ opinion) outweighed the harm. The Case Officer presenting the application, said that it was ‘not fully compliant’ with Brent’s planning policy. He said that it was not uncommon for ‘things’ (applications) to come before the committee that were not policy compliant. 

From my own experience of following various applications, it is fairly common for various partial breaches of policy (e.g. insufficient percentage of affordable housing, several storeys taller than local guidance) to be ‘considered acceptable’ by planning officers. I can’t remember one where the total breach of an entire policy has been recommended as being acceptable!

Brent’s Heritage Officer had clearly said that ‘The demolition of the building … must be seen as substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset,’ and that fact was acknowledged by the planning officers. Brent’s policy guidance says that it is ‘where the harm would be less than substantial’, that the harm is weighed against the public benefits. What blinded some of the committee to those facts?

The Development Management Manager (“DMM”) told them that they had to make a balanced judgement because the national policy does not prevent the loss of non-designated heritage assets, such as locally listed buildings. He made it appear that the National Planning Policy Framework (”NPPF”) somehow took precedence over Brent’s own policy DMP7, and that NPPF was a ‘material consideration’ that they must take into account in making their decision.


Para.197, National Planning Policy Framework, February 2019.

Although the DMM emphasised that para.197 of NPPF said that ‘a balanced judgement will be required’, he did not complete the reference, ‘having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.’ NPPF does not over-ride local planning policies, but those policies are supposed to be drawn up so that they do not conflict with the national planning guidance. And Brent’s policy DMP7 is in accordance with all of the heritage assets guidance in NPPF. It does have regard to the scale of any harm or loss, by saying that the public benefits of a proposal come into the balance ‘where the harm would be less than substantial.’

The guidance that planning officers should have given to planning committee on policy DMP7 was that because of the substantial harm that would be caused, to a heritage asset of at least medium, but probably high significance, the undoubted ‘public benefits’ of the proposals should not enter into their consideration of the application. Committee members were told the opposite of that.

And the irony is that the ‘public benefits’ were only allowed to appear in a planning application in the first place because Brent’s planning team did not point out to their Council colleagues, at the pre-application stage in the Spring of 2019, that their proposals did not demonstrate a clear understanding of the architectural and historic significance of this heritage asset, the Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens!



R.I.P. “Altamira”, elegant survivor of the original 1876 Stonebridge Park? Or will Brent Council come to its senses, and not go ahead with its flawed proposals for 1 Morland Gardens? If they do proceed to demolish this beautiful building, it will be a tainted “victory”.

Philip Grant