Despite the further legal advice that fraudulent emails submitted in support of the developer's previous application for the site were 'not a material consideration', the application is still the subject of hot debate and there are likely to be further pubic representations tonight.
Yesterday Friends of Kensal Rise Library announced that: LINK
After months of negotiations, the Friends of Kensal Rise Library are to be named as the ‘Actual’ tenants of the new library and community space in the Kensal Rise Library building.
Previously the Friends were named only as the ‘preferred’ tenants, leading many to think that the agreement FKRL had signed with both All Souls College and the Developer was not watertight and carried no legal weight, and, that after years of campaigning there was a chance that other groups might be offered the space.Mandip Sahota, Associate planner for the developer stated:
Further to advice provided by the LPA in respect of the Assets of Community Value Regulations 2012, I am pleased to advise that the applicant has today confirmed that he is naming FKRL as the ‘actual’ tenant, as opposed to his ‘preferred’ tenant, subject of course to lease negotiations, management plan etc being satisfactory.
We trust this goes some way to giving the Council, the FKRL and the local community the confidence to support this planning application.As comments on the previous posting on this issue demonstrate LINK there are still concerns about the trustworthiness of the developer.
Other issues relate to the significance of the Option Agreement signed by All Souls College and the fact that it is not referred to in the Officers' Report LINK and the granting of Asset of Community by Brent Council and its significance for the redevelopement LINK
I suggest readers check the comments column below before the meeting as this is very much an ongoing debate.
After
months of negotiations, the Friends of Kensal Rise Library are to be
named as the ‘Actual’ tenants of the new library and community space in
the Kensal Rise Library building.
Previously the Friends were named only as the
‘preferred’ tenants, leading many to think that the agreement FKRL had
signed with both All Souls College and the Developer was not watertight
and carried no legal weight, and, that after years of campaigning there
was a chance that other groups might be offered the space.
Mandip Sahota, Associate planner for the developer stated:
Further to advice provided by the LPA in respect of the Assets of Community Value
Regulations 2012, I am pleased to advise that the applicant has today
confirmed that he is naming FKRL as the ‘actual’ tenant, as opposed to
his ‘preferred’ tenant, subject of course to lease negotiations,
management plan etc being satisfactory. We
trust this goes some way to giving the Council, the FKRL and the local
community the confidence to support this planning application.
- See more at: http://www.savekensalriselibrary.org/2014/07/15/july-15th-update/#sthash.CzlLl6Rn.dpuf
After
months of negotiations, the Friends of Kensal Rise Library are to be
named as the ‘Actual’ tenants of the new library and community space in
the Kensal Rise Library building.
Previously the Friends were named only as the
‘preferred’ tenants, leading many to think that the agreement FKRL had
signed with both All Souls College and the Developer was not watertight
and carried no legal weight, and, that after years of campaigning there
was a chance that other groups might be offered the space.
Mandip Sahota, Associate planner for the developer stated:
Further to advice provided by the LPA in respect of the Assets of Community Value
Regulations 2012, I am pleased to advise that the applicant has today
confirmed that he is naming FKRL as the ‘actual’ tenant, as opposed to
his ‘preferred’ tenant, subject of course to lease negotiations,
management plan etc being satisfactory. We
trust this goes some way to giving the Council, the FKRL and the local
community the confidence to support this planning application.
- See more at: http://www.savekensalriselibrary.org/2014/07/15/july-15th-update/#sthash.CzlLl6Rn.dpuf
If
ReplyDelete'all disposals subsequent to the binding agreement which was signed in November 2012 (and counsel decided the agreement was legal and binding) are subject to ACV (Anonymous 15 July 22.39 on linked blog,above)',
then the 'disposal' of any flats in change of use of KRL are also subject to ACV, something omitted from officers' report.
As for trusting the applicant's latest 'actual' tenancy offer, this surely breaches the Community Right to Bid? Having expressly excluded KRL building from Localism Act in his contract (Option Agreement) to purchase the building from ASC, applicant now appears to be doing the same thing by making a legally unenforceable statement in favour of FKRL which would itself appear to breach the Community Right to Bid. As others have said on the previous blog, this sounds and feels like a 'big mess'. I don't envy Cllr Marquis but am confident she will exercise her independence and do the right thing this evening. As FKRL said after the deferral of decision at the June planning committee hearing, one would expect officers to have done their homework before bringing the application to committee. 'Due diligence', I believe it's called.
We can't have planning applications approved when Council Officers Omit a number of materially important issues such as ACV.
ReplyDeleteAs per point above FKRL have no business making legally binding contracts under Community Right to bid.
This is alone should be grounds for the application to be simply refused.
Seems to me an open tender under community right to bid is definitely the only way for the process to be transparent.
ReplyDeleteFKRL have lost all community credibility and even their own governance team have fallen out with very public display of an organization in crisis. I therefore doubt FKRL have community support for volunteers to manage the community facility even if planning permission is approved.
It would therefore be far better for a proper community right to bid with all organizations coming together and not just FKRL who have not been publically selected only assuming they had such a mandate.
Another issue for a community challenge of planning committe approve application tonight.
Bet the developer is squirming under this eleventh-hour direction from Brent's legal officers. The pressure's clearly on to get this controversial planning application past tonight's planning committee through this conditional statement on which officers have advised - no lease to 'actual' tenant can be signed until planning consent granted.
ReplyDeleteGiven the statement in officers' report that 'Members should however, be reminded that inso far as FOKR being named as “preferred tenant” of the D1 community space, this is not an issue the committee should purport to determine as part of the planning process', it'd be interesting to know what led to this last-minute decision? A proper reading for the first time of Assets of Community Value legislation? Senior officers should be ashamed.
Re 'social media' - 25 people have 'liked' the blog on FKRL's Facebook page which announces that it's been 'named' as 'tenants' of the D1 space. Premature rejoicing, surely? No lease has yet been signed.
ReplyDeleteOnly 25 likes
DeleteSeems like the community has given up on FKRL if they can only muster 25 likes being named as tenant.
We shall see what gives in a few hours.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS WRITTEN BY ONE OR TWO PEOPLE AND WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE.
ReplyDeleteA CASE OF NOT BEING ABLE TO READ WE DEFINITELY NEED A LIBRARY AND YOU TWO NEED TO COME DOWN...
WONDER WILL MEG AND JODI BE JOINING US FOR A DRINK
Netiquette equates writing in block capitals to shouting. Please don't.
DeleteMartin (moderator)
Just shows FKRL are really frenemies.
DeleteAnd Brent Officers are required to vote tonight without a transparent process of approving the most suitable organization.
The above post at 16:42 just goes to show that FKRL have not got the community support they need, as it would seem the poster is trying to attack genuine community concern.
I do not beleive it is just Meg and Jodi who are voicing their concerns. A large number of us are voices our concerns, but FKRL fail to consider our concerns.
The community want 100% of the building retained as community space and that could include as per todays suggestion that the ACV requires the flats to be offered to the community first rather than private inviduals.
Brent Planning Committee when they have not been fully briefed about the facts surrounding ACV and implications for Gillicks disposal of flats following planning approval can only but recommend the application be refused, pending further consideration around ACV including determining the developer has correctly registered ACV listing with land registry.
This kind of behaviour speaks volumes of what FKRL has become.
DeleteIt is so sad as the whole campaign began with protecting a community asset and yet FKRL do not now seem that interested in protect a community asset.
It is great to see so many other people still wanting to fight to protect all of the building and not just a token gesture of a room that does not even have access from the main front doors anymore.
This is not why I supported the campaign in the first instance to end up loose 80% of the building. This probably why everyone seems to have left FKRL apart from 25 people in the community who still think it is the best deal.
FKRL keep saying it is the best deal and yet even simply waiting for the fraud investigation to conclude in all probability will end up a much better long term deal.
Token gestures?
Delete'So many other people still wanting to fight'.
Where were all of you tonight when Jodi needed support?
All of you who still want to fight?
Shame.
Even if there is a lease currently being negotiated, not sure how this is relevant to planning committee? Hardly a 'material consideration' for change of use/propriety of ASC conveyance.
ReplyDeleteIn light of the granting of planning permission this evening, I wonder how soon it'll be before the police investigation into the fake email affair is dropped? Forgive my cynicism. Shameful that neither officers nor Mo Butt - the self-appointed champion of reopening the case - has updated local residents on the matter.
ReplyDeleteFight continues next step is for an community referral to Sectreary of State outlying due process was not followed in this matter.
ReplyDeleteI bet Secretary of State will enjoy this one and give Barry Gardiner stick coming into 2015 National Elections.
Secretary of State might just agree fraud investigation is a material consideration let alone all the other issues Brent Planning have failed to consider.
Well-said. Though I empathise with 21.05's comments re fraud investigation, it's up to all who are concerned to see justice done in this matter to ensure that it's not quietly dropped. Mo Butt needs urgently on the matter. It will otherwise be impossible to avoid the conclusion that Brent's leader acted decisively in January only in the interests of electoral support by showing he was on the side of local residents before polling day in May. He's doing himself, and the shadow cabinet, no favours by staying silent now.
DeleteWhat a shameful, and shameless, comment at 16.42. Deplorable, cowardly behaviour, trying to smear Meg Howarth and Jodi Gramigni. volunteers to help you run the D1 space - should you get it.
ReplyDeleteAs for the boast about a celebratory drink - makes me wonder if you weren't tipped off about the outcome of tonight's meeting by someone who attended the pre-meet that precedes all planning committee meetings (in all local authorities) and at which most decisions are made. Texting and tweeting enables such activity. Brent could bump up its scrutiny by allowing an elected member of the public to sit in on these fundamentally anti-democratic pre-planning meets, banning all electronic devices from them as well as from planning committee itself - planning decisions are quasi-judicial.
I, for one, am not celebrating tonight, but taking heart from Mark Twain himself: 'Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed'. Well-said, 21.27! Respect to you.
End of para 1 of my comment above should have read '...yet you expect volunteers to help you run the D1 space - should you get it'. Lesson learnt - shouldn't be online so late.
Delete