|
Star letter: Four reasons why the council's town
hall plans are misguided [editor's title] The Council is putting the cart before the horse with its plans for a new civic centre (‘Seven vie to build new Brent Council flagship’, Observer, Nov 6). Here are the reasons: 1. Absent consultation. There has be no opportunity for public debate about the very idea of a new civic centre to replace Brent Town Hall. I made this objection publicly to the project director Anna Woda, following her presentation to residents at the Kingsbury area consultative forum on 5 Nov. Ms Woda acknowledged not only that Brent “have not consulted residents” but retorted that she was not prepared to, and did not have to, defend their lack of consultation. If this project is for the benefit of Brent residents, why aren’t we in a position to say whether or not we think it’s in our collective interest? Instead, the presentation carried all the hallmarks of a happy-clappy sales pitch, in which we were being told what to think and invited to make only constructive comments after highly consequential decisions had already been made for us. 2. No transparency. My own research shows that the Council Executive did indeed formally approve the civic centre project in March 2008, after commissioning a £75k feasibility study as long ago as 2003. The full study, completed in 2004 and paid for by us, appears never to have been made public. Moreover - another point made from the floor - why were not these intentions at least made clear to us? They are certainly not mentioned in Brent’s Unitary Development Plan 2004, which is a statutory instrument. This has serious negative implications for the accountability of local government to its residents. 3. Heritage. At no point in the 20-minute public presentation was it mentioned that our Town Hall is a Grade II listed building. Completed by Clifford Strange in 1940 and inspired by Dutch modernism, this purpose-built facility recently featured in the London Open House season and has been described as “the best of pre-war modern town halls around London”. The Council is under an obligation to respect both external and internal features in any proposal to change its use. Instead, Ms Woda made only disparaging references to it. Yet not only does this building win out on location, providing locals with urban clarity and a visible point of reference, but many staff, residents and library users are rightly proud of it. And what of the Paul Daisley Hall inaugurated in 2003? Is this not a vital part of our political heritage and collective memory? 4. Sustainability. Great promises for the environmental profile of a new building are already being made. Yet no analysis has been given for how refurbishment of council buildings, or co-location of some but not all, would not be less carbon-intensive overall. In fact, it would make sense to review Strange’s original plans for an extended building on the current site instead of counselling plans to sell it off. At the meeting, Ms Woda responded that extension plans were considered and rejected. Unfortunately, the public currently has no way of scrutinising these decisions or judging for themselves whether the construction industry isn’t being given too much freedom at our expense. Back in 1937, vigorous public debate took place about a new Town Hall. Yet for all the Council’s boast of making good for the 21st century, they apparently have more to learn from the last. The manner in which these plans are being rubberstamped and railroaded sets a nasty precedent that must not go unchallenged. SHAHRAR ALI Brent Green Party Spokesperson for Environment and Planning Countersigned by residents from the meeting: Ian Lee and Michael Freestone |
|
|
|
|
|
Letter published in |
