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 14^th 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.