 | |
| 1 Morland Gardens |
 |
| The approved redevelopment |
There had been 48 initial objections to the plans with a further 15 when plans review, a 330 signature e-petion against and a 36 person written petition from Willesdneh 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.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.
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”.
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 comunity 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 faciliites, It would be an aspirationl abuilding that would provide high quality education and motivation to learn. Cllr Denselow asked if the collge 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 majoroty from Harlesden, Stonebridge and Willesden Green.