Thursday, 31 January 2013

GT comment on 'suspicious' surge in support for their development

Kilburn Times 31.1.13


  1. Looking at how far galliford and try had to trawl street wise to come by even this few in favour says a lot really. Shame they did not add the objected ones with as much vigor as they have added the supporters as it would probably have added several thousand people opposed looking at the streets. The vague gent who tried canvassing for support at our door from galliford and try when told we opposed it said that he didnt blame us living so close to the library and probably wouldnt want it either nice! says a lot really even people employed by GT see that its wrong...! Perhaps a brent councilor or our local MP (Sarah Teather)would like to volunteer to spend a day knocking around local residents doors with me and we can both hear and gauge what all the local residents really think when they are given all the facts not a very very vague man at a door making out its all for the good of the community! Any takers from Brent? I'll free up a day... any day and we can post our results on your blogs and on here.

    1. Dear Anonymous,

      Please write to or email your local Councillors to let them know what was said by, and what you said to, the man from Galliford Try (did he give a name, or ID?). If you wish, please also email the Brent & Kilburn Times, , so that they can publish the facts. Thank you.
      Philip Grant.

    2. NEWS ALERT: Developer presenting proposals with rose tinted glasses; concern that residents are not informed of both the positives and negatives of the development... Of course, this is COMPLETELY different to encouraging people to print out the Keep Willesden Green leaflet to "distribute to your friends, neighbours, local shops and anyone you think may be interested". Is there not some recognition of the hypocrisy of this...?

  2. Of course the developer would've presented the proposals with rose-tinted glasses, just as those against the development would concentrate on the negatives, it's natural bias i.e. if those in opposition went knocking on doors then no doubt the focus of the conversation would be on loss of public space and a smaller facility with little or no mention of potential regeneration or a more economical and environmentally friendly building. I do not see how their biased actions is different or any more concerning than anyone elses.
    Best, Martin

  3. Above comment is not by this Martin.

  4. I agree with Martin. Getting signatures on a petition (or similar) is always by people with a position to push. Many people may not have known about the issue, before they are asked to sign up.

    Planning applications are not decide by votes though, but on planning considerations. On the other hand, very few people notics Local Develepment Framework consultations, which decide these policies, or even know what they are.

  5. Regarding the above debate there is the issue of motivation. Keep Willesden Green campaigners were motivated by amongst other issues, a desire to keep their local bookshop, an historic landmark, an open space and a car park. They were protecting their community against the loss of public amenity. The Council claim their motivation was to replace a 'not fit for purpose' 1980s building was was expensive to heat and maintain and replace it with a state of the art cultural centre they claimed represented an improved facility for the local community which would enhance the area -it would also contain a 'southern hub' for councillors and council offers to complement they £100m Civic Centre that opens in a few months time in Wembley. They got the Cultural Centre/Council Offices for 'nothing' by selling off land to a developer for housing which was not affordable for local people. The developer.... well they get a valuable piece of land on which to build expensive homes which will give them a good profit for a minimal outlay on a smaller library, renamed a cultural centre,


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.