Friday, 13 June 2014

Police investigation into fraudulent emails not concluded but Kensal Rise planning application goes ahead

Curioser and curioser - Kensal Rise library occupied by tenants despite no change of use granted
Despite calls for the Kensal Rise Library planning application to be postponed until the police investigation into fraudulent emails has been concluded, the new application (by the same developer) will be heard at Brent Planning Committee next week.

For those without long memories, here is how the issue was reported by the Kilburn Times at the time of the last application, just 8 months ago LINK :
Council chiefs have called in the police over claims that emails supporting plans to develop an axed library branch were faked.

The action has been taken after an investigation by Brent Council into the allegations surrounding Kensal Rise Library concluded the case should be referred to detectives.

The council’s IT officers scrutinised the emails including IP addresses which are exclusive to each computer.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari, Brent Council’s lead member for environment and neighbourhoods, is responsible for libraries.

She said: “The council compiled a report after their own investigation and we have handed this over to police.

“Abuse of Brent’s planning system will not be tolerated.

“This has now escalated into a police matter and we await the outcome of the police investigation.”

In September, a council report added strength to claims by campaigners Friends of Kensal Rise Library (FKRL) that false statements were made against its fight to retain the Bathurst Road building for community use.

The report stated that when email notifications were sent to everyone who made a statement about the plans on the council’s website 78 were returned as being undelivered with 70 of those belonged to ‘supporters’.

Andrew Gillick, the director of Platinum Revolver Limited which took over the building from owners All Soul’s College in Oxford, hit back with claims that false objections against the application had also been posted on the council’s website.

He had applied for permission to convert the site into six flats, a cottage and a community hub but it was rejected by the council.

Margaret Bailey, chair of FKRL, said:

“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.”

Cllr Mashari added: 
“We must keep our eyes on the end result of securing a community library at Kensal Rise.

“I am ready to work with the community and any stakeholder to ensure that this happens and that it is viable and sustainable.”
The alleged illegality seems to have been forgotten, or swept under the carpet, with both Brent Council Planning officers and FKRL supporting Gillick's new application.

It appears to me that whether one is for or against the revised application, until issues around the previous application by the same developer have been cleared up, it will be tainted and should not be tabled.

What price Brent Council's commitment to preventing the subverting of local democracy? Sarah Marquis, with no previous experience as a councillor, but with experience as a lawyer, chairs the Planning Committee.

What does she think?


Anonymous said...

Sarah Marquis is in a difficult position as a lawyer.

As she chairs the planning committee and being a lawyer and if she does not exercise legal concern and exercise caution by suggesting to the planning committee that they suspending the planning application, pending the outcome of the police investigation, could a complaint be made to the law society about her professional conduct ?

The law society may agree her position as a lawyer and if she does not suggest to the planning committee to suspend the planning decision until the police investigation has concluded constitutes "professional misconduct"

Thank about that Ms Marquis, before you vote on the planning application !

Don't take the potential fall for others

Anonymous said...


I assume this is the profile for Sarah Marquis on linkedin and is connected to Dan Filson

Her profile reads

Sarah is a Senior Associate in the Corporate Crime, Investigations and Compliance team at DLA Piper.

She is a highly experienced criminal defence lawyer specialising in white collar crime, regulatory, complex international fraud investigations, bribery and corruption, and corporate compliance issues.

She has a background in defending prosecutions and investigations undertaken by the broad spectrum of UK regulators, including the Serious Fraud Office, HM Revenue & Customs, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Office of Fair Trading. She also has a detailed understanding of the nature of prosecutions and investigations gained in her previous role as a Case Controller at the Serious Fraud Office, where she was responsible for leading multidisciplinary teams through the most serious and complex fraud investigations and prosecutions.

Ms Marquis has some serious explaining to do to the law society, if she says nothing to Brent Planning Committee as Chair of planning committee and where there are allegations of fraud.

Defending fraud cases is her expertise

I would not like to be in her shoes if she says nothing !

Anonymous said...

Great detective work.

Ms Marquis will have to face the music, if she simply rubber stamps this planning application.

The words "fraud" and "corruption" springs to mind !

Anonymous said...

While I've no doubt Cllr Marquis is employed by DLA Piper, I can't find her listed amongst the firm's staff. Wikipedia's entry for this 'Anglo-American multinational law firm ... the largest in the world measured by revenue' makes interesting, though uncomfortable reading. It seems the company is registered as a 'Swiss Verein' which 'allows regional profit pools and their related tax, accounting and partner compensation systems to remain separate while allowing strategy, branding, information technology and other core functions to be shared between the constituent partnerships'. H'mm... (links below)

Anonymous said...

Interesting article, seems to be written by Sarah Marquis

Even if developer is innocent, it would seem a case could be brought against the developer for receiving proceeds of crime from the misconduct of a 3rd party. To avoid any doubt, this planning application must be suspended. While the developer might argue the second planning application is not connected and was granted on it's own merits, unless we stamp out this type of planning abuse white collar criminals will continue to make vast sums of money at the expense of society and in this instance Brent residents.

Civil recovery

Although the SFO gave M&J full credit for its co-operative approach and early resolution of the case, it was not content to end the matter with the convictions and financial penalty. It looked higher up the chain and decided that others had benefited from M&J’s unlawful conduct. It therefore decided to confiscate this benefit. In the spirit of ongoing co-operation, MEH agreed to pay the sum of £131,201 plus costs. This amount represented the dividends that MEH collected from the contracts at the centre of the sanctions offences. 

In seeking to make this recovery, the SFO was not exercising new powers, rather it relied on existing Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) 2002 powers, which allow it to recover property obtained by a third party from the unlawful conduct of others. In 
this case, the parties agreed to a consent order under s276 of POCA 2002. However, 
in contested matters, the SFO would only have to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the profits were made as a result of unlawful conduct for those profits to become property that would 
be recoverable. It is important to note 
that it would not have to prove that 
the third party played any part in the unlawful activity.

In seeking to recover what was a relatively modest sum, as compared with the 
financial penalty already imposed on 
M&J, the SFO was clearly determined to signal that it is willing and able to pursue anyone who benefits from the unlawful activity of others.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) better get their skates on re planning fraud allegations.

If a complaint is lodged about the conduct of Ms Sarah Marquis as chair of planning committee, it could open up the possibility of SFO reopening case files of defendants who have previously been prosecuted. Ms Sarah Marquis was case controller at the Serious Fraud Office, where she was responsible for leading teams through the most serious and complex fraud investigations and prosecutions.

It would not look good for the SFO now would it !

Particularly as it seems she has moved from prosecutions to defending cases.

Some background on Sarah Marquis
Sarah Marquis is an associate in DLA Piper’s corporate crime and compliance division in London. She is an experienced criminal defense lawyer specializing in white collar crime, regulatory and complex international fraud investigations. Sarah advises on fraud, corruption, cartels and money laundering issues. She has a background in defending prosecutions and investigations undertaken by the broad spectrum of U.K. regulators, including the Serious Fraud Office, HM Revenue & Customs, the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading. She also has a detailed understanding of the nature of prosecutions and investigations gained in her previous role as a case controller at the Serious Fraud Office, where she was responsible for leading teams through the most serious and complex fraud investigations and prosecutions.

Anonymous said...

This planning application should be refused simply on the grounds the property market will soon crash again.

Expectations are for interest rates to increase much sooner than anticipated.

The developer might find his assumptions do not stake up and community end up with empty building.

People forget. A propert crash can happen and it will as history repeats itself.

Anonymous said...

Seems like the fraudsters can afford highly paid legal representation.

While the poor, have to accept little or no representation.

Councillors Marquis position as a lawyer potentially defending unscrupulous fraudsters, seems to be in stark conflict with her position as a Councillor in Brent.

As per a suggestion, her professional conduct could be called into question if she does not accept the need to suspend the planning application, pending outcome of fraud investigation. For accountability and transparency, her ability to conduct herself as a lawyer has to be called into question given such potential conflict of interest.

Anonymous said...

Given Tories need to pull some punches, if they stand any chance of being re-elected in 2015, the Tories could have a field day in Brent, if Councillor Butt is not careful.

The Tories could easily point to the corruption happening in Brent and this could start to turn the electorate away from Labour, despite such a recent local election victory.

If the planning committee agree this planning application, it could start to blow up, if both there is an investigation into professional misconduct of Ms Marquis as chair of planning and Secretary of State intervenes.

Simply accepting the need in this instance to suspend planning decision would avoid any egg on face.

Anonymous said...

Society seems to turn a blind eye to white collar crime.

Margaret Bailey has been extremely silent now she thinks she has got her library.

But at what price ?

I would rather see white collar fraud being full investigated with charges brought, rather than simply forget about, it even if this means the library is simply a dream until this mess is cleaned up

Anonymous said...

This is the making of a great crime thriller.

The suspense is killing me !

Anonymous said...

I love the quotation (from Cllr. Roxanne Mashari) in Martin's original article:
'Abuse of Brent's planning system will not be tolerated.'

When an anonymous Brent Council officer(s?) suddenly produced a "Community Facilities Assessment" in support of the application by the Barham Park Trust (sole corporate Trustee, Brent Council) for a change of use of the former Barham Park Library from community use to business use in late October 2013, I wrote to the members of the Barham Park Trust Committee (five members of the then Executive, including Cllr. Mashari). I pointed out that Assessment was a 'dishonest document', because:
'... it makes its case by ignoring a key fact that we all know exists, the perceived need by the local community for a local (if volunteer run) library at this site and the demand for the former library building, or at least part of it, to be made available as a continuing community facility for this purpose.'

Certain people within Brent Council were trying to mislead its own Planning Committee. They did not succeed, because objectors (including me) showed in both written submissions and in evidence to the Committee meeting on 13 November that on the true facts Brent's core planning policy CP23 meant that the former library must remain as a community facility.

Rather than accepting the correct Planning Committee decision, and getting the former library back into use as soon as possible for a variety of community purposes, the Council Officers then persuaded the Trust Committee to authorise an appeal (effectively by Brent Council) against its own Committee's decision. This appeal has still not been settled, although it is unlikely to overturn the original decision because Brent's Planning Officers are now also supporting Brent's core policy CP23 (they had originally accepted the document submitted by their anonymous colleague at face value, and recommended that the change of use be allowed).

Is Council Officers trying to mislead the Planning Committee not also 'an abuse of Brent's planning system'? If so, why has this been tolerated?

Philip Grant.

Anonymous said...

Once again, Martin is to be applauded for enabling ongoing scrutiny of the handling of the fraudulent email affair surrounding the developer's original application for the Kensal Rise Library building. The police are in the midst of a live investigation. Of course they should be allowed to complete their inquiries before his latest application is heard. Commonsense dictates that is so, whether or not charges are pressed - which they might yet be.


- if Tuesday's planning committee proceeds with the tabled hearing and grants permission for Andrew Gillick's revised plans before the police have reported, might the investigation then be quietly dropped? Is that what Brent's new council - including Cllr Marquis - and its senior officers want? It's planning officers who've tabled the hearing without, to date, having given any sound reason for not deferring. Brent's planning lawyers will doubtless cite section 70A (amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for Ms Marquis regarding the 'obligation' a planning authority has to accept an application as long as it meets the 'validation requirements'. Andrew Gillick's revised application has been accepted. Deferral is NOT refusal to accept. With no known legal precedent or case law as guidance in this case, Cllr Marquis would do well to tread extremely carefully, as commentators above have made clear;

- the planning committee is independent of the council executive, ie. its members can't be whipped to dance to the executive's tune. Why didn't Mo Butt make this clear when speaking to this week's Brent & Kilburn Times (p. 3), instead of ploughing the tired old senior-officer furrow that this 'is a separate application that has to be looked at on its own merits'. It's beginning to look as if the leader's initiating of the re-instated police investigation was nothing more than a calculated pre-election party-political ploy before - as Martin states above - the matter appears to have been swept under the carpet. A robust leader would have made it clear that it was for the planning committee to decide whether to hear the application or to defer;

Roxanne Mashari has made no further comment on the email affair since stating, as above, 'we await the outcome of the police investigation'. New member responsible for libraries, James Denselow, hasn't commented publicly at all, being content, it seems, with a 'promise to work with FKRL to support their plans for a community library and will strive to bring these delicate negotiations to a successful conclusion' (FKRL FB page). 'Negotiations' with whom? Andrew Gillick, the developer? Is that appropriate behaviour for an executive member while a live police investigation is underway? Surely it would be wise for Cllr Denselow to wait until the police have reported, even if only to save his political reputation from becoming tainted?

Footnote: Platinum Revolver Ltd was dissolved on 24 Sep 2013 - see

within days of Mr Gillick's first application being refused planning permission. It was subsequently relaunched as Platinum Land Ltd which, disconcertingly, is listed as having been incorporated as a company in February 2011 - when it didn't yet exist

Perhaps Mr Gillick would like to explain.

Anonymous said...

Further to Anonymous above, 13 June 22.49 - more disturbing reading on the 'Swiss Verein' company-type that DLA Piper has adopted (it's unclear whether this was after the 2009 financial crises, when it was 'used in several mergers of large multinational law firms') -

'The form is often used by multinational professional firms to limit their global accountability. One advantage to the Verein structure is that because control of the firm is decentralized, offices are only bound by regulators in their country'


Oh dear...

Anonymous said...

Kilburn times article just shows what FKRL will be up against with Developer. _david_and_goliath_battle_with_developers_1_3641908

What I don't want in the future is hearing from FKRL when develop starts to make it difficult for the running of library.

Many have been against a deal with the devil.

So whatever the result, FKRL do not start crying when it all goes horribly wrong.

You were warned and you didn't listen

Anonymous said...

Just spotted on Twitter, posted by Peter Grigg, a member of the FKRL committee, I believe: 'Shocked to hear a party emanating from the closed library - isnt this building meant to be closed?'

Interesting answer from the official FKRL Twitter a/c: 'People are living there, paying rent' - so that's OK then, is it, FKRL, even though planning permission for change of use hasn't been granted?

Anonymous said...

This is extraordinary. According to @savekrlibrary Twitter, FKRL have known about 'tenants' - Gillick's security guards? - paying rent for several weeks:

'@savekrlibrary: Met one of the 'tenants' a few weeks ago who told me they are paying to live there'.

Did they report this to Brent's planning officers? They certainly don't seem to have informed Peter Grigg. Wonder what cllrs Mashari and Denselow will have to say about this?

A taste of things to come, perhaps - Gillick charging his own guards - or are they 'subletting'? - to live in the former Kensal Rise Library building which is still D1 space. And FKRL have put their faith in a deal with this guy?

Anonymous said...

Pic of inside KRL building - poster thought it was light from a disco-ball

Anonymous said...

Seems like the Brent Beds in sheds needs to act quick smart.

Given lights on second floor this hardly seems like a security guard.

As an allegation has been made that the occupants are paying to live in the former library, this has to be investigated.

If Brent does not suspend this planning application and investigate these claims that the building is being used as public housing when no decision has been made as to the change of land use, it will encourage other developers to follow suit.

Just another example of double standards by Brent if they are not prepared to investigate.

Unauthorized squatters are quickly frog march from premises and in this instance if the owner has authorized the building to be used as a squat with tenants paying money, this has to be investigated.

Furthermore the tenants are probably unaware that Gillick should not be charging rent, rather he should be paying them as security.

Anonymous said...

I have no faith in FKRL !

It seems clearly obvious from their silence several months prior to the election they were paid-off.

This new revelation that FKRL knew about tenant occupation several weeks ago speaks volumes!

Anonymous said...

What happens if tenants decide they want to stay ?

Yet another mess!

Anonymous said...

Funny how the hoarding erected around the building is not enough security.

This smacks of hypocrisy if Brent do not now both suspending planning permission decision pending both an investigation as to the exact nature of the residents at Kensal Rise Library and the fraud investigation.

Particularly when the new chair of Brent Planning Committee is an ex Serious Fraud Officer,

How can the community have any faith in Serious Fraud Investigations if Brent planning committee do nothing ?

Anonymous said...

Cll Denselow says he is going to crack down on beds in sheds

Residents staying at Kensal Rise Library need to be investigated to confirm the status.

Are they paying rent ?

Eat humble pie Councillor Denselow and fully investigate these new allegations of the Developer renting sleeping quarters at Kensal Rise Library.

Anonymous said...

From what I can see from the picture above with the building ablaze with lights, it seems more than simply a security guard !

Has anyone counted the number of people coming in and out ?

Anonymous said...

Emma K on Twitter thinks it was about 1 month ago residents were seen in library not 2 weeks ago

Yet more shenanigans !

We are bending over backwards for this developer.

Emma K ‏@EKtoday · 16h
@NW10KTRA @SaveKRLibrary I also have pictures of lights/music/discoball (?!) frm about a month back if you want all info. Can work date out

Anonymous said...

Here's the pic of inside the library taken by Peter Grigg when he tweeted @savekrlibrary that it appeared a party was taking place inside KRL

When told by @savekrlibrary that 'tenants' were paying to live there, Peter said 'fair play, then'.

Anonymous said...

Allowing 'tenants' to live in the D1-designated library must also breach of health and safety regulations - which makes it all the more disturbing that FKRL appear not to have reported the matter to council officers when they first heard, weeks ago, that the building was being used in this way. Imagine if a fire broke out...?

Could it be that FKRL has kept quiet about the current 'tenancy' of KRL because it didn't want to upset Andrew Gillick prior to the hearing of his latest application? After all, there is no guarantee that the group will be offered the permanent use of the retained D1 space inside Mr Gillick's residential development. Was a collective decision taken to keep stum because the group was afraid that reporting his apparent misuse of the building might have jeopardised its chances of securing that space?

What's clear is that Cllr Denselow/officers need to visit the building without delay.

Anonymous said...

I don't know who the 'we' is above? Many object to the deal FKRL has struck with the developer and ASC.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the 'we' indicates that some continuing supporters of FKRL are getting fed up.

Anonymous said...

What is very troubling is that if Brent do not act on current occupation of Kensal Rise Library it makes a mockery of the whole process.

A developer should not be able to do as he pleases.

Furthermore, FKRL have lost all credibility in this latest revelation.

They are now just as guilty in furthering their "Hope" to secure the promised library area.

It is only "Hope" and I bet the developer will make excuses once planning permission is granted.

Anonymous said...

Ward cllrs Claudia Hector, Dan Filson and Matt Kelcher need to visit asap. It's their patch. They need to act. Cllr Filson had a fair bit to say, pre-election, about KRL on previous WM blogs: he claimed (but has failed to substantiate) that ISPs are the cause of the delay in the police investigation in to the fraudulent email affair, while stating that he doesn't support deferral of the planning application - like Cllr Butt, he's given no sound reason for this stance. Wonder what he'll have to say about paying 'tenants' and the breach of H&S rules.

Re Anonymous, above, 10.21 - maybe it's because folk 'are bending over backwards for this developer' that this outrageous situation has occurred.

Anonymous said...

I think everyone is getting fed up, as the developer is taking everyone for a big ride.

Even if planning permission is granted, there is a big smell in the air.

It is unlikely volunteers will come forward or possibly not in the numbers FKRL. expect. They have really torn the community apart, the way they have recently been bowing to the developer

I bet any occupants of the developed flats will not bother to volunteer and why should we all bother anymore.

The building should not be developed as flats, period.

There are many options that could have been explored, but FKRL have shut their eyes, including the fact that the building is listed as a community asset.

It hardly seems a community asset when most of the building if granted planning permission is converted to a private asset ?

Anonymous said...

I dont know why anyone thinks that someone should have updated me about developments. I tweeted the photo of the party because i am against the idea of the library being used in this way. I find it amazing that people are turning on FKRL - these are volunteers who have tirelessly fought to save the library for years. Come on.

Peter Grigg

Anonymous said...

Yep. I said that because I thought if someone is renting a property its up to them if they wanted to have a party. I didnt know, until reading this blog, that maybe they shouldn't be there! Glad the tweet was of interest though, it seemed odd to me to walk past a closed library with a party occurring.


Anonymous said...

Yes indeed

Councillors you were elected to perform a duty.

Now do it.

No if's or but's

Other candidates, not elected would have acted quick smart.

Show the electorate you are not simply going to sit around and do nothing !

Anonymous said...


Seems FKRL has deleted its response to Peter Grigg's concern about a party being held in KRL (Anonymous, above, 14 June 20.05). The original 13 June Twitter exchange between Peter and FKRL read as follows:

@pgrigg to @savekrlibrary 'Shocked to hear a party emanating from the closed library @SaveKRLibrary - isnt this building meant to be closed?'

@SaveKRLibrary to @pgrigg 'People are living there, paying rent'

@pgrigg to @SaveKRLibrary 'fair play then. Its a bit annoying that we couldn't have used it for a library though his whole 3 years!'

@savekrlibrary to @pgrigg 'Not sure it's fair play. Feels galling to me that our library is being rented out to private tenants. More to come'.

The exchange now reads oddly, of course, as a fresh reader would have to ask what Peter is saying 'fair enough' to.

Doctoring the record hardly helps boost FKRL's reputation, nor does saying 'galling to me that our library is being rented out to private tenants' weeks after the group knew folk were paying rent to live there. Why didn't they act then? Afraid, as the poster at 11.39 today, 15 June, asks, that making public this probably illegal activity would harm their chances with developer Andrew Gillick?

Tuesday's planning committee hearing should now be put on hold not only because the police need to finish their investigation first, but also because the developer has to answer questions about his apparent abuse of the D1 status. If the 'tenants' are his security guards, why are they paying to live there?

Planning and enforcement officers need to act promptly, and an inquiry be held in to this serious matter. Until this and the police investigation have reported, there should be no planning hearing.

Anonymous said...

Come on, Peter. You are, or were, a member of the FKRL committee. FKRL, which has lawyers amongst its trustees, has admitted knowing about the paying tenants weeks ago - the first pics of parties were taken about one month back. Why shouldn't you - and the other volunteers - have been consulted on what should be done about what was likely to be illegal activity - ie, paying tenants in a D1 space? FKRL is a registered charity. It, and its members, could be in trouble if found to be knowingly permitting illegal activity to continue in the KRL building. Ignorance of the planning law will be no defence.

Anonymous said...

There'll doubtless be more parties in the library building if planning permission is granted for change of use to residential, Peter. And the library hasn't been saved, not even the D1 space - there's a non-guaranteed deal between ASC/Andrew Gillick and FKRL.

Anonymous said...

A cynic

I will be amazed if Brent do anything about all the allegations surrounding this complete mess !

I bet if a complaint were made to Secretary of State, he would relish the opportunity to intervene and expose the fraud and corruption at Brent !

Something to think about, before deciding this very important planning application !

Anonymous said...

Security guards/caretakers have been in the building for over two years - as anyone who lives around Kensal Rise knows - why is this being brought up now and what for? Same as Cricklewood Library.
Total non-issue.
What hysteria.

Anonymous said...

What having parties and carry on ?

Since contract exchange was only January this year when all hell broke loose and hoarding went up and ever since has looked more like paying residents have taken up camp in the building.

Before exchange contract security took low profile as they should.

Now it looks as though paying residents are camped inside.

Disgraceful shame on you FKRL to allow and tolerate such behaviour.

Anonymous said...

All Souls previously installed a single resident guard/caretaker. Why would the present occupants - there are four in one of the photographs above - be paying rent if they're employees of the owner/developer? There is surely a Health and Safety limit to the numbers/activities of caretakers/guards in a property?

Anonymous said...

The matter appears also to be a concern for FKRL - otherwise why delete its Twitter entry 'People are living there, paying rent'?

Anonymous said...

Just goes to show FKRL can't be trusted anymore !

They did have respect and community admiration, but they blew it when they got into bed with the developer.

Ever since it has become issue after issue with FKRL not displaying any true community leadership.

Pity the whole campaign is now a crumbling car wreck.

Anonymous said...

Get your facts straight. All Souls had 3 caretakers.
Caretakers a decision of owners.
Please blame the right people.

Anonymous said...

Were All Souls caretakers all living there at the same time? The matter of partying in the property was never an issue with them.

Owners cannot do anything they like with a property - that's why planning laws exist. But, as you say, blame the right people - so what has Mr Gillick to say?

Anonymous said...

The question arises ?

Are they caretakers and being paid by the owner or are they paying the owner ?

If the owner is conveniently claiming they are caretakers, but receiving rent, this in the eyes of the law is not a caretaker, this is a tenant !

This should be investigated pronto to finding if the owner is breaking the law.
Fact not fiction

Anonymous said...

Hysterical to raise concern about a much-loved building and an Asset of Community Value? I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

I guess you would rather loose community asset and see a private individual profit from the said community asset ?

Anonymous said...

Concern has been expressed above that should tomorrow's planning hearing go ahead and permission be granted for the developer's latest proposals for change of use, the investigation into the fraudulent emails surrounding his original scheme will be quietly dropped. What have the ward councillors to say on this matter? It's not too late to speak out.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that we are missing a very big point here , it is not the developer who shut the library down, this was the councils doing over 2 years ago, the building is to be refurbished which as it stands now looks a mess due to many years of neglect and poor maintenance, at least we will be able to get this great site back to its glorious looking self which would have never happened under the councils control.

Anonymous said...

What you mean refurbished for private residence ?

It sickens me that people are now sticking up for a greedy developer!

Anonymous said...

The developer is no saint !

Anonymous said...

Another 'very big point' that's being missed is the live police investigation in to the fraudulent email affair in which the developer's original planning application is mired. Your thoughts on that, please?

Anonymous said...

Who's 'we' (7.38, above)?

Anonymous said...

Let's hope Sarah Marquis makes her mark with determined independence of legal mind this evening. She'll need to drill deep into whatever justification she might be given by planning officers for not deferring Andrew Gillick's latest planning application until after Brent police have concluded their live investigation in to the fraudulent email affair surrounding his original scheme. Someone posted those emails which stole residents' addresses and used false names. Charges may yet be brought.

Neither planning officers nor lawyers - let alone politicians whose party is responsible for the closure of Kensal Rise Library - have, to date, given adequate reason why Brent police - it seems the Met is now inhabiting part of the Civic Centre - shouldn't be allowed to complete their investigation before a decision is made about the developer's latest proposal. The schemes may be different, the developer is the same.

Anonymous said...

Not so LOL - according to latest WM blog 'Brent Council to lease out two floors of Civic Centre as staff numbers reduce'

As a commentator says, was it to help fund a 25% vacant Civic Centre that Kensal Rise Library (and five others) were closed? Whoever said (bitter) irony was dead?

Anonymous said...

As someone who pledged money to FKRL, I am dismayed that the registered charity has failed to back calls for the deferral of the latest KRL planning application until Brent police have completed their investigation.