Saturday 12 April 2014

28th April deadline for Kensal Rise Library development comments


Brent Council is currently consulting on Andrew Gillick’s latest controversial planning application for the Kensal Rise Library building - LINK

It seems likely that the council planning committee will consider the application on 14th May, the week before the local election, and before the Metropolitan Police CID has reported on the fake emails which were submitted at the time of Mr Gillick’s original application.

The consultation is being conducted over the Easter/school-holiday period and many residents, both those for and against, may be disenfranchised as a result of being away. Some consultation letters dated 21st March were arriving only in week beginning 7th April. With only 21 days for response some may not bother, believing 11th April as the final date. The cut-off date is, in fact, 28th April, as the site-notice states LINK

So far most of the comments published publicly on the Brent Planning portal are against the proposal. When making a comment remember to state 'Objection', 'Support' or 'Comment'.


  • 11/04/2014 - 102 Liddell Gardens , London , NW10 3QE. Objection: I would like to object to this planning application to change the former Kensal library into flats. My business address and email address was used fraudulently in the previous planning application for this same building, (used as a supportive vote and comments made by another person, not myself, also in support of the application) which was very upsetting and detrimental to my business re our standing in the community here. This matter of the fraud from the previous application has STILL not been resolved, with very little communication with me, and for this reason I am strongly against the granting of the planning permission to these people wanting to convert the library, leaving the area without one.
  • 10/04/2014 - 2 Bathurst Gardens , London , NW10 5JA. Objection: I vehement to the change of use of this building from a public community space into apartments for a number of reasons. This loss of a public building, given in perpetuity to the people of Brent, shut by a weak unimaginative council because it was a soft target brought about by Government spending cuts due to a recession fuelled by greedy bankers, betrayed by the owners, the very wealthy All Souls college, and sold to an unscrupulous developer who is accused of making fraudulent comments on his previous application for permission. I object to these peoples actions. What a sad state of affairs and what a sorry bunch they all are. Who looses out? The community, the elderly, unemployed but most of all the children, who gains the wealthy college, unscrupulous developer and the pathetic unimaginative council who save a little money to take and waste elsewhere. The building was built as a public building not as a residence it is in close proximity to and overlooks other properties previously not overlooked by residents. Some of the windows overlooking adjoining properties are on the application said to be partially obscured this needs clarification what does partially obscured mean? There will be additional cars in what is an already very busy street and at a very busy junction. There would seem to be no provision for additional parking for, what could be up to 5 cars. The appearance of the former library will be changed forever if the proposed plans go ahead, the roof line, roof terrace and "community hub" entrance are not in keeping with the style and period of the library and will remain as a scar on the beauty of the building. There are serious low pressure issues with the water and it is often reduced to a trickle in the morning or early evenings pressure is lower than during the rest of the day. The addition of five more residential apartments in this building will potentially exacerbate this issue. I dont want 5-10 (?) new neighbours on my doorstep, I bought my property 28 years ago and part of the attraction was that it was end of terrace and next to a library and therefore a reasonably quite location, this development will put an end to this, we will lose this peaceful corner of Kensal Green.
  • 10/04/2014 - 4 Bathurst Gardens , Willesden , London , NW10 5JA. Objection: I object to the development of Kensal Rise on the following grounds. 1) change of use, this is a community building and should remain so, this should not now be used for residential. 2) the neighbourhood is already densely populated and the council is barely able to fulfil it role for current tenants and residents,, clearly they do not have the ability to handle more. 3)building is not fir for the purpose of residential as it is positioned too close to other properties. 4) if the building is developed it will overlook my property and be an invasion of my privacy. 5) There are no provisions for the parking facilities that would be required for this number of additional residents, the number of cars and parking is already at maximum capacity. 6) the proposed development will increase activity on a very busy junction. This is a major health and safety concern. 7) Proposed structural changes to roof and proposed community hub entrance are not in keeping with this period of property, will be aesthetic eye sore. 8)Proposed development will contribute to the loss of a much needed community space in the area for which council tax payments are received annually. 9) developer did not get permission for hoarding before erection, which suggests already a level of dishonesty and lack of integrity. 10) failure of the council to allow the developer to put hoarding up and remain there without permission suggests the council may either be on the payroll of developer and thus biased and corrupt in its judgement of this development. 11) water pressure and supply already compromised by the densely populated area. 12) sanitation additional garbage of added residence will added to vermin issue that council has not managed to control. 13) I know from the survey conducted on my property in 2008 I was told to beware of building close to mine developing upwards as foundations in the immediate vicinity of my property could not withstand additional weight. Thus additional stories on the Library would pose increased risk to land stability of my property and risk of subsidence.
  • 10/04/2014 - 4 Bathurst Gardens , Willesden , London , NW10 5JA. Objection: I object to the development of Kensal Rise on the following grounds. 1) change of use, this is a community building and should remain so, this should not now be used for residential. 2) the neighbourhood is already densely populated and the council is barely able to fulfil it role for current tenants and residents,, clearly they do not have the ability to handle more. 3)building is not fir for the purpose of residential as it is positioned too close to other properties. 4) if the building is developed it will overlook my property and be an invasion of my privacy. 5) There are no provisions for the parking facilities that would be required for this number of additional residents, the number of cars and parking is already at maximum capacity. 6) the proposed development will increase activity on a very busy junction. This is a major health and safety concern. 7) Proposed structural changes to roof and proposed community hub entrance are not in keeping with this period of property, will be aesthetic eye sore. 8)Proposed development will contribute to the loss of a much needed community space in the area for which council tax payments are received annually. 9) developer did not get permission for hoarding before erection, which suggests already a level of dishonesty and lack of integrity. 10) failure of the council to allow the developer to put hoarding up and remain there without permission suggests the council may either be on the payroll of developer and thus biased and corrupt in its judgement of this development. 11) water pressure and supply already compromised by the densely populated area. 12) sanitation additional garbage of added residence will added to vermin issue that council has not managed to control. 13) I know from the survey conducted on my property in 2008 I was told to beware of building close to mine developing upwards as foundations in the immediate vicinity of my property could not withstand additional weight. Thus additional stories on the Library would pose increased risk to land stability of my property and risk of subsidence.
  • 10/04/2014 - 2 Bathurst Gardens , London , NW10 5JA. Objection: I vehement to the change of use of this building from a public community space into apartments for a number of reasons. This loss of a public building, given in perpetuity to the people of Brent, shut by a weak unimaginative council because it was a soft target brought about by Government spending cuts due to a recession fuelled by greedy bankers, betrayed by the owners, the very wealthy All Souls college, and sold to an unscrupulous developer who is accused of making fraudulent comments on his previous application for permission. I object to these peoples actions. What a sad state of affairs and what a sorry bunch they all are. Who looses out? The community, the elderly, unemployed but most of all the children, who gains the wealthy college, unscrupulous developer and the pathetic unimaginative council who save a little money to take and waste elsewhere. The building was built as a public building not as a residence it is in close proximity to and overlooks other properties previously not overlooked by residents. Some of the windows overlooking adjoining properties are on the application said to be partially obscured this needs clarification what does partially obscured mean? There will be additional cars in what is an already very busy street and at a very busy junction. There would seem to be no provision for additional parking for, what could be up to 5 cars. The appearance of the former library will be changed forever if the proposed plans go ahead, the roof line, roof terrace and "community hub" entrance are not in keeping with the style and period of the library and will remain as a scar on the beauty of the building. There are serious low pressure issues with the water and it is often reduced to a trickle in the morning or early evenings pressure is lower than during the rest of the day. The addition of five more residential apartments in this building will potentially exacerbate this issue. I dont want 5-10 (?) new neighbours on my doorstep, I bought my property 28 years ago and part of the attraction was that it was end of terrace and next to a library and therefore a reasonably quiet location, this development will put an end to this, we will lose this peaceful corner of Kensal Green.
  • 08/04/2014 - 18 College Road , Kensal Green , NW10 5EP. Objection
  • 03/04/2014 - 72 Liddell Gardens , London , NW10 3QE. Support
  • 02/04/2014 - 101A Wrottesley Road , London , NW10 5TY. Objection: I object wholeheartedly to this planning application (formerly Kensal Green Library). I vehemently oppose this application for a number of reasons but principally because I do not want it to lose its community value forever - the library was a great asset to our incredible community. The value of this building is surely not just going to be reduced to a useful revenue stream - it was an artery serving the community. I beg you to reconsider.
  • 01/04/2014 - 9 Victoria Mansions Sumatra Road , London , NW6 1PD . Support: It's a beautiful building that shouldn't sit empty. There are far too many people that need a home so it will be lovely to see it restored.
  • 01/04/2014 - Liddell Gardens NW10 3QD. Objection: This building is currently classified as non residential and community use D1 - and has been since the library was build with a combination of philanthropy and community contribution. The change of use of a community owned asset to private dwellings, in which a developer stands to make significant profit is a mis-use of the existing resources of the community and for Brent council. Ensuring that 75% of the ground floor will continue to be D1 usage is not enough of a commitment to community use. I feel that the entire building should remain as D1 usage. However if that is not possible then the D1 usage should be at least 50% of the floor space of the building, the complete ground floor and some room upstairs and the residential units should include social housing. Changing a community asset from D1 usage to private dwellings is a serious loss to our area - and I strongly oppose it. In terms of details in the proposal - the large door and hallway to the D1 space, in the plans has been proposed to be used by residents and a much smaller door for the community space, likely a library. This seems an extra-ordinary way of dividing the building - to ensure a few residences use a large doorway and hallway and leave a much smaller more awkward door for a public building likely to have significant numbers of daily visitors .The proposed flats (if approved) should have an entrance hall to the side of the building - possibly where the extension and extra residential building is proposed. Does there really need to be so many flats proposed ? The proposed D1 ground floor space is also an awkward U shape - not at all suitable to maintaining a community space, that maybe used for community meetings, classes. this seems to be determined by maintaining the large entrance for a few residential flats The plans look like they are pushing as many individual residences into the space rather than a vision of practical co-living. Lastly the lack of parking spaces for 5 new flats will cause significant parking place squeeze in the area.
  • 31/03/2014 - 27 Chelmsford Square , London , NW10 3AP. Objection
  • 28/03/2014 - 31 Chelmsford Square NW10 3AP. Objection: Former Kensal Rise Branch Library, Bathurst Gardens, London NW10 5JA I object to the proposed planning application for three basic reasons. Firstly, The entire community has come together to oppose the removal of our beloved library. Despite campaign after campaign and petition and demonstration after petition and demonstration, all our efforts have fallen on deaf ears. The Council¿s consultation process is a sham. The Council consults because it is legally obliged to do so and then totally ignores the results of that consultation Secondly, this library was opened by Mark Twain and was under a covenant to be a free reading room and NOTHING ELSE. Mark Twain, the American writer, who educated himself in libraries, was invited to open the Public Reading Room in 1900 by the Kensal Rise Libraries Committee of the then Willesden Council. The land was donated with a restricted covenant by All Souls College who, at that time, obviously believed in education. The covenant said that the land could only be used as a free public reading room and library. The Reading Room was extended into a library in 1904 by Andrew Carnegie, the Scottish philanthropist. It is also relevant that the building has been listed as an Asset of Community Value. This applies to the whole building and means that the planners must take into account that the building has been listed in this way. It is not enough for just the ground floor to be an Asset of Community Value. The change of use affects some of the most vulnerable of the community. There are so many children who used the library as a safe place to do their homework as they had no other place available to them There will be a major impact on traffic safety and congestion with effects on parking provision and a change to the character of the area. And finally, I understand that there is an on-going police investigation concerning the alleged fraudulent attempt to influence the first planning application I feel that is is most inappropriate to consider any further planning application until the police investigation has run its course.
  • 27/03/2014 - 69 Crundale Avenue , London , NW9 9PJ . Comment: Although I have not considered all of the planning policy aspects of this application, I feel that the new design, with a much better D1 community use space solely on the ground floor and fewer residential units, is a great improvement on the previously rejected proposals. Commitments have been given in the detailed commentary on the application, to lease back the D1 space to All Souls' College, with that College then leasing the space to FKRL, or another community group, which will undertake to make good use of the space, for a peppercorn rent. In my opinion, that will now satisfy Brent's Core Policy CP23. For me, this application takes on board the points which I made in objecting to the previous application, and still retains the good points of the previous design in respecting the important late Victorian building which it proposes to convert. A point has been raised by others that this planning application should not be allowed to proceed until the investigation into the alleged fraud over bogus comments in support of the previous application in respect of this property has been concluded. My personal view is that this new application should not be delayed for that reason, so that if it is approved, work can go ahead and the building be brought back into use, for a mixture of residential and community purposes, as soon as possible. If there was fraud in respect of the previous application, that can be dealt with in law as a separate matter. Philip Grant.


51 comments:

Jodi Gramigni said...

Brent Council must delay the closing date for the consultation to assure a fair and democratic process, and give local residents a proper chance to respond to this planning application for our historic community building. Better yet, would be for the council to delay the hearing until the outcome of the Met fraud investigation is advised.

Allowing the current timelines to remain will force a rushed decision of a complex situation. Certainly it cannot be Brent Councils intention to deliberately disenfranchise our local community for the benefit of a clever developer? I certainly hope not!

Toby Chambers said...

The only way to beat this whole matter is if everyone starts nominating themselves to stand as an Independent on 22 May in every ward.

If the community then vote for alternative representatives and KICK the current bunch of Councillors OUT we might then have the opportunity of forming a Coalition of voices representing the people.

Nominations need to be in 19 Days before election and you need 10 people to support.

Given the disgrace over Barham Park and recent proposed closure of school library at my son schools Woodfield, I am considering standing as an independent in the Sudbury Ward.

If anyone living in Sudbury Ward would like to support my nomination form, please email me toby@jollyswagman.co.uk

Many Thanks
Toby Chambers

Toby Chambers said...

This is exactly why I have decided to apply to stand in the 22 May Local Elections as per my post below.

If you can't beat them then stand in the Local Elections and perhaps if the main parties don't secure a majority, the so called "fringes" might have a voice.

Martin Francis said...

Thanks for your comment Toby. The Green Party will be standing in the local elections. In Willesden Green we are standing only two candidates for the three vacancies,s. This will enable voters to also vote for the independent Make Willesden Green candidate if they wish.

Toby Chambers said...

Sounds brilliant.

Brent Councillors are not listening.

Progress can only be made if people come forward and provide a real alternative to the incumbent members.

If people then don't vote for alternative candidates people can't then complain in the future about decisions.

People have a real chance on 22 May and I hope this might inspire others to come forward.

I am appaled at the lack of concern from Brent leadership both over schools and libraries, that will have lasting long term consequences for our young people growing up.

Closing libraries and trying to squeeze more children into already cramped schools will negatively impact a young persons education. I am particularly surprised that Christine Gilbert as former head of Ofsted and now interim chief of Brent has not stepped in and challenged current decision making. When she is receiving a large salary, her job should be to question and seek the best outcome for local residents and not line the pockets of developers.

Anonymous said...

'When she is receiving a large salary, her job should be to question.....'.
If she had a history of questioning she wouldn't have got the job or be earning a large salary.

Toby Chambers said...

Solution I might suggest is Vote out Labour who installed her in the first instance and Vote in Independents and Greens.

My manifesto if my nomination is accepted reads
No Brent executive should earn more than £100,000 capped for 10 years.
"Then we might all be in it together"

Anonymous said...

Even £100K sounds overly generous to these chiefs, let alone the telephone number salaries they are actually being paid, when they can't even be bothered to suspend planning application in Kensal Rise library and call a Judicial Review over Copland for starters. I will definitely vote for the alternatives.

There is no accountability in Brent, the chiefs take their high salaries, while the rest of us are tossed out of our homes

Toss them out.

Anonymous said...

It seems Ms Gilbert's salary arrangements while CE at Brent have been the subject of controversy -

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/christine-gilbert-confirmed-as-brent.html

Wasn't she paid through a 'personal company'? Here's what one London MP recently had to say about such matters: 'Anyone working directly for the public sector in any capacity should be employed by, and accountable to, the public sector. There should be utter transparency about their employment, and we should not have these ludicrous schemes [personal companies] that are probably to do with tax avoidance and lack of accountability'.

Anonymous said...

There's lots of interesting stuff about a new book by Thomas Piketty called 'Capital' (familiar?) in all the public prints at the moment. Increasing inequality and the attempt by 'super-managers' to keep up with the wealth they see their betters grabbing more of. People like C G are not up there with the bank bosses etc but the inflated salaries phenomenon ( 'the going rate if you want to attract the right people') is a reflection of it. I'd vote for you if I lived in Brent.

Toby Chambers said...

Thanks for the Vote of Confidence Anon 17:21

You are so right.

The Borough could even employ 4 extra people on the average wage of £25K by simply cutting the chiefs wage in half, plus the rest with inflated manager salaries

I bet 4 extra frontline staff would be worth far more to the local community than a chief that does nothing for the community and does not even take any of the heat, letting Councillors take the heat from local residents.



Anonymous said...

Why are Greens only running 2 candidates? Can't you find a third? That doesn't bode well for your level of support

Anonymous said...

Come clean FKRL have you been silenced to push through the planning application ?

it all seems very suspect your silence on these matters.

We are not stupid.

Martin Francis said...

We decided in January to stand only two candidates in Willesden Green in order to give spoace to the independent Make Willesden Green candidate. This is the statement we made at the time:

Brent Green Party welcomes the candidature of Alex Colas who is standing as an independent on the Make Willesden Green platform in Willesden Green ward in the local elections.

We believe that the election of Alex Colas, arising from his principled participation in local campaigns, would be healthy for local democracy. In recognition of this we will stand only two candidates in the ward and recommend that our supporters give Alex their third vote.

Anonymous said...

To date, councillors have remained noticeably silent on deferring Andrew Gillick's latest application for the Kensal Rise Library building until after the Met CID have reported - see Wembley Matters 6 April

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/what-do-brent-councillors-think-about.html.

Indeed, since calling for and welcoming the re-opening of the police investigation into the fake emails identified by planning officers, council leader Muhammed Butt has repeated his senior officers' mantra on the matter: 'The Council has a statutory responsibility to consider all planning applications that are submitted'.

What these officers have failed to make clear is that the cross-party planning committee which considers the borough's applications is statutorily independent of the council - it cannot be whipped into party-political lines and does not need to follow planning officers' recommendations.

It's to be hoped that the committee members do the right thing and defer the hearing of Mr Gillick's latest scheme until the CID has reported. Nothing else makes sense.

Anonymous said...

Jodi as you well know the council cannot delay the application as it opens the door for the whole application to go straight to appeal.

You re not doing yourself any favours with these crazy suggestions.

FKRL decided to go with the best option for everyone and your constant bickering and objections are not helping.

Anonymous said...

Fully agree.

This matter has to be handled with full accountability and transparency.

It looks like FKRL have been bought, both to get Gillicks application through and so Labour might save face in Kensal Rise.

Labour could have face a huge backlash from people in this ward, unless a deal was done to silence FKRL. Although highly likely people will turn their backs on Labour in any case in this ward.

Not even a back pedal at this stage would be worthy of a vote.

Labour are totally out of touch.

It

Anonymous said...

As Andrew Gillick's second planning application for the Kensal Rise Library building is listed on Brent Counci's website, a reminder from today's Guardian of the importance of local libraries - http://gu.com/p/3zdmt/tw (bottom two letters). Francis Bennion, responsible for drafting the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act, believes that the 'severe reductions in public library facilities that were being provided by authorities two or three years ago are "likely to be unlawful"'. Food for thought indeed.

Anonymous said...

See comments below, 15.44 and 19.41 today. It's up to the planning committee to decide whether or not to defer the application, not FKRL. The committee is statutorily independent of the council and has the power to make that decision. Labelling Jodi Gramigni's suggestions as crazy demeans a once-respected campaign. Going to appeal is clearly what FKRL fears. Is this what the developer has threatened what remains of FKRL - at least two former Trustees have resigned? Attacking anyone who dares to voice a different point of view is a sign of weakness, not strength.

Anonymous said...

It's a bit late for saving the library. 3 years too late. It will never be back as it was.

The fact is if this scheme does not get planning and the developer gets tired of applying and appealing that it will (without the need for planning permission) become a surgery, place of worship of some other economic D1 use. Where will we be then?

This witch- hunt of the Andrew Gillick, councillors and hassling the Police to do something when they have better things to do is not going to bring our Library back.

It is highly likely that a lot of the comments for and against in the last application came from a local few- you know who you are.....i certainly suspect there wasn't 70 people supporting but there wasn't 200 people upset enough to object.

FKRL have managed to negotiate the only worthwhile deal over the last 3 years- it is now time to grab the opportunity. Before it is gone for good.

Anonymous said...

There is no reduction.

Under the library transformation programme the service was reprovided.

Instead of 12 poorly invested libraries Brent now has 6 of the best facilities in the country.

No reduction in facilities here in Brent Francis.

Jo said...

Andrew Gillick has been busy. Three weeks after lodging the above planning application for the Kensal Rise Library building on 7 March 2014, Mr Gillick seems to have added yet another property company to his portfolio. Half Acre House Ltd was registered on 25 March 2014. Its head-office is, like the rest of the companies with which his name is associated, Queripel House, Kensington and Chelsea, SW3. The police inquiry into the fake emails surrounding the developer's first planning application was originally in the hands of the royal borough's police, before being passed first to Brent, then currently, according to Cllr Butt, to the Met CID. Meantime, the developer's Platinum Revolver has had a make-over and is now Platinum Land. The name-change was registered on 24 September 2013, the week after Mr Gillick's first planning application for the Kensal Rise Library building was rejected. As of 1 April, Platinum Land's Annual Return was overdue

http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/platinum-revolver.

Anonymous said...

Is this a councillor speaking? Surely FKRL isn't now waving the flag for the LTP, the very scheme which closed Kensal Rise Library? BTW - it wasn't 'Francis' who posted the comment at 21.46. It was me.

Anonymous said...

The real issue is Ioss of D1 community space.

This has nothing to do with library transformation and consolidation of library provision.

The community were promised if they supported KFRL that some of the space would be available for community use including library and other community uses.

The current deal on the table is 80% reduction in space with nothing in return apart from a very small and poor access entrance to community library.

As per many other posts this is not what people supported FKRL to end up with.

All it seems to most people is those making the decisions at FKRL have been silenced.

If this is not the case then why are FKRL now very accepting of the deal and even not continue down path of suspending planning application?

There seems a resident is dismayed this planning application is going forward despite the resident confirming in objection their details were fraudulently used in the previous application in support of Gillicks planning application.

It speaks volumes of Brent corruption if this whole matter is not investigated.

Anonymous said...

Interesting to see that neither of the two supporters of the planning application listed above lives in the area of the library, one address even being out-of-borough in Camden.

Anonymous said...

Does not instill confidence.

This is the type of activity you hear goes on programmes such as "Cowboy Builders" and "Rogue Traders."

FKRL I have no sympathy if it all goes pear shaped.

You have been warned by many people now.

Anonymous said...

Well spotted.

The lengths these developers go to push through planning applications.

FKRL now actually support this application ?

Over my heavenly body!

Anonymous said...

Here's what Margaret Bailey, chair of FKRL, told the Brent & Kilburn Times on 21 November 2013:

“We applaud the action of our council and it’s willingness to take seriously this attempt to subvert local democracy and mislead the public.

“Our community is strongly against this development for the library building and these fraudulent emails of support for the development were an attempt to divide and denigrate this community.

“Fraud is illegal and we support a thorough investigation by the police.”

Perhaps the Anonymous FKRL supporter above, 15 April 00.02, should have had a word with her before posting the following: 'This witch- hunt of the Andrew Gillick, councillors and hassling the Police to do something when they have better things to do is not going to bring our Library back'.

As one of many who pledged financial support for FKRL in its opposition to residential development in the Kensal Rise Library building, I look on with sadness at the apparent implosion of a once-proud and -fearless campaign.

Anonymous said...

You dont need to live beside the building to make a comment.....

so now you want to control who objects and who supports...

Anonymous said...

Well Jo.

Say if the conspiracy theory read like this....

To discredit the previous planning application some locals put in fictitious supports and fictitious objections (not even sure if it is illegal).... then reported these to the council to discredit the application hoping it to be found invalid... and further applications.

Mr Gillick has to be presumed innocent until it is proven otherwise and some of what is suggested is far fetched. You might recall the same thing happened in the Willesden application... coincidence?

Mr Gillick does not live in the area so call me suspicious but how could he have even known the name of the residents that supported or objected.

I for one smell a rat......

So delving into the life of Mr Gillick is irrelevant and just makes you look like sour grapes and has no effect on the planning application.

Well done you are driving a wedge between the community and the only person that can ensure we get back into the building- the owner! You'd be better off exerting some of your energy to ensure the community space happens.

Anonymous said...

Are you suggesting that residence who claimed their address details were used without their authorization to support the application, actually faked the emails.

That is complete madness.

Why would a local resident fake an email in support of Gillick ?

This whole matter gets even worse.

Until we have answers, the community will not be able to sleep comfortably at night.

Anonymous said...

If you're suggesting Willesden library campaigners tried to discredit the developer Galliford Try by submitting fake support online, then how'd that work out for the campaigners? The more plausible allegation is that one developer saw what worked for another developer in getting through a planning application and decided to try it himself.

Anonymous said...

What an extraordinary comment (14.40) to Jo's factual, albeit unflattering post (9.38). Mr Gillick, perhaps?

Anonymous said...

I don't know who or what to believe now.

There is even now unanswered questions over FKRL finances lodged with the Charity Commission and where all the money pledged to FKRL has gone when they are only reporting less than £5k income for April 2012 to March 2013.

Martin Francis said...

I am posting this for Jodi as she is unBke to post via the website due to technical problems.
Dear Anon 14/2014 15:50
You seem familiar enough to attack me by name, but choose to hide behind 'anonymous'. Please say who you are and have the courage to publicly state your views.

As to the detail, the council can certainly extend the response period for the community - due to the 3 week school holidays - without triggering an appeal. That is not a 'crazy' idea, that is asking for parity.

Further, I appreciate that I am not "helping" FKRL, and that I am not doing "myself any favours". My objection to the developers planning application is not about 'me', FKRL, or any other group or individual. It is about the future of a historic community asset, and the potential permanent transfer of the majority of the Kensal Rise Library building it into private hands for private use.

That FKRL sees it's personal aims as justification for supporting the developers application for change of use for 80% of the building is shocking. It seems, that because FKRL has been placed in an awkward position, it chose to make a deal. But the deal guarantees an overwhelming loss for the community in exchange for a CHANCE to create a library - a vital detail that cannot be overlooked.

The deal isn't a guarantee for a library, and therefore is completely against all the historic aims of the campaign which has always sought a guarantee in exchange for any support.

No matter how much FKRL wants unequivocal support, it has made a controversial decision, and should be strong enough to defend itself without attacking those highlighting the issues or who have another point of view.

Jodi Gramigni

Anonymous said...

Well said Jodi

The new motives of FKRL to go against all what the campaign was about have disappointed us all to say the least.

We all accept it is very tempting to simply accept the current deal on the table, but what purpose does that serve the community ?

We had great admiration for what FKRL stood for and we are all disappointed that it is ending this way.

It is worth spending 1 hour watching "Shock Doctrine"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW1SHPgUAQ

The capitalists to get what they want use shock and awe tactics, ie they create a number of deceptions to steal land and assets from under everyone's feet.

This is exactly what is happening with such a lovely community asset as Kensal Rise library.

Anonymous said...

The police have better things to do than investigate a couple of emails....

it isn't even a crime.

Anonymous said...

Time is up on the Former Library i am afraid.

it is a non issue and will get planning

Big question is will Daniels Estate Agents be selling?

Anonymous said...

'Issue will get planning', eh? Try telling that to planning committee chair, Ketan Sheth, and his colleagues.

Anonymous said...

Then why have matters been passed to the Met CID? Trying to sway a planning committee decision is indeed a crime.

Anonymous said...

I totally disagree unless an Election Deal has been done to secure planning permission and Labour can wave the flag claiming they have saved the day, I can't see how you can make such a claim.

There are many more objections lodged so far than supporters.

Anonymous said...

WHAT !

Excuse Me

If it is found there was fake emails in support to push through planning application, this is FRUAD in my book, as the fraudster would have made a financial gain and it was intent to deceive.

Everyone always seems to turn a blind eye to the real criminals.

Not this time

Anonymous said...

Case was dropped before and there never has been an official word from the Police.

They dropped the case one= no crime was committed.

Anonymous said...

It's heading straight for appeal like Barnham and the Library Transformation Project will be a massive document used against us.

We don't stand a chance.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jodi,
You recently sent a message to Cllr Mo Butt saying you would support the agreement if the flats in the library could be social housing.
Setting aside whether or not the flats are social housing or private (and I applaud your support for social housing), does this mean that you think the space on offer could be sustainable?
It should not matter (with regard to the space on offer) what type of housing is in the building if we are talking about a space that is sustainable.
Could you clarify?

Jodi Gramigni said...

Dear Anonymous 17 April 2014 23:23,

I did tweet to Cllr Butt that I would support Change of Use for KRL if the residential proposed became social housing. It was a targeted tweet to spur a discussion on social housing (after watching the Panorama episode about the impact of the benefits cap in Brent), because I am outraged that the luxury housing being build in our area (including the housing proposed for KRL) is being described as 'helping' towards Brent housing targets.

Market rate housing is not any use to local residents who cannot find affordable homes and I feel it is disingenuous of the developer to describe it as such (2 bed flats in KR are now £550-£600+ and the flats proposed in KRL will surely match or surpass these rates). I do not want KRL to become residential, but if it does, then at least it should be for the benefit of local residents who are facing removal from their homes because of the rapidly rising property costs.

Do I think social housing in KRL will happen? No. Do I think the community space offered is sufficient to justify a change of use for an ACV listed bldg from D1 to residential? No. Do I think the space offered is sufficient to run a community library? No.

The proposed community space is very awkwardly arranged and extremely inefficient. The entrance is badly placed (in a chimney flue), forcing circulation through the length of the space, using up valuable area. No 'back of house' facilities are shown, therefore toilets, staff, storage, and office space have yet to be carved out, rendering the net useable space unknown.

A detailed layout is essential at this stage because the toilets, etc will take up a considerable amount of room and the fire and building regulations will constrain how the space can be arranged. A proper layout is required to understand how the space is proposed to work. This should have been resolved by the developer as part of his planning application to demonstrate viability. Hopefully the planners will recognise this lapse (as they did in the developers first application) and at a minimum, require further development of the proposal to ensure enough space, and an appropriate entrance are provided.

Anonymous said...

We do not need a library here. We have great larger purposebuilt modern libraries in the community a short walk away.

The old library was a total dump and that was funded by the council. A new one funded by the community that has no money and staffed by losers is not needed or wanted. Now we heard after 4 years FKRL who told the community they could buy the building only have a few pennies in the piggy bank.

I do not want a penny of my council tax spent on this.

If I were the developer I would do one of two things:

Knock down the building.

Build a mosque and rent it out/ sell it.

Anonymous said...

So your real problem is that you feel Gillick is making money out of this?

Did Gillick outbid you or something?

Councillors please take note!

Anonymous said...

Jodi's real problem seems to be she is an anti capitalist.


You also know the area is viable.

The scheme we have been shown works well hence why it is being backed by FKRL and the community minus YOU.

Anonymous said...

I agree.

It will either get planning at committee or on appeal.

Anonymous said...

Yeah capitalism's working just great.