Tuesday 2 December 2014

Missing fortnight and missing documents twist in Kensal Rise Library saga

This is the notice of the Disposal of Land listed as an Asset of Community Value (Kensal Rise Library site).

It was only issued on November 27th, two weeks after Andrew Gillick, the current owner, informed Brent Council of his intentions, so there is some contention over the six week initial moratorium, starting from November 13th. Community interest groups have had public knowledge only from last Thursday.

The auction is to be held in just over two week's time on December 17th.

Meanwhile the  Communituy Infrastructure Levy Liability document and the Deed of Agreement  have not yet been uploaded to the Council's planning portal LINK

And, perhaps needless to say, no more has been heard into the police investigation into the alleged fake emails submitted to Brent Council in support of Andrew Gillick's initial planning application.


Anonymous said...

Perhaps FKRL should concentrate on trying to put a bid together finding a benefactor and getting down the auction. But frankly coming up with well over a million more likely two million will not happen

We don't need a library and never did, let's face it.

I say to the new developer turn the whole thing into apartments. It suits the building better.

Some people here just want a free ride through life. Enjoying Jeremy Kyle and all the other day time TV.

As good old Jeremy would say GET OFF THE COUCH AND GET A JOB.

Fact is one person here made a wise investment, worked hard and is making a profit.

I admire him and I say very good luck to him.

With all that money he will have a very happy Christmas....

Anonymous said...

Let's face it, he world consists of 3 types of people.

1. Free riders on Jeremy Kyle who think libraries and that are a good thing.
2. People who make huge amounts of money simply by having huge amounts of money already. These people are clever.
3. People like me whose simple view of life enables me to understand this.

I could go on and gloat a bit more and rant a bit about hippies like I did a while ago on this blog but I don't really want to make it too obvious how deep and personal is my resentment of people who I think think they're cleverer than me.


Anonymous said...

I would not go as far as to say worked hard, but certainly Gillick took FKRL for a joy ride and that is for the public to now openly see.

Pity the few at FKRL could not see this car crash coming.

Rik said...

PS. i think anonymous posting should be turned off

Anonymous said...

Can't for the life of me see how property can be listed for Auction on 17 December ?

Can someone explain how this can be ?

Anonymous said...

We are all cleverer than you as we are option 4> the people that contributed to your existence providing your education looking after your health and the same as the people that gave everyone a library. We recognise betrayal.

Anonymous said...

Where did Jeremy Kyle come into this? It worried me when I saw the Council's signatory!

Should have been signed off as "Friend of Ledden, Gilbert, Cavani, Butt & partners".

Friends dis-united! Long live Newby-ism.

Anonymous said...

The only way that this sale on the 17th Dec is legal is if the moratorium begins from the date Gillick SENT the letter to Brent (rather than Brent RECEIVING the letter) and that the letter was sent on on 5th Nov.

I'm not a lawyer but legalalistic letters often state "from the date of this letter" meaning the date the letter was printed/sent.

The question still remains as to why it still took 2 weeks for Brent to issue the public notice. In a 6 week timeframe this is a significant delay.

(Apologies for capitals, would have used italics of they were available!)

Anonymous said...

A veritable genius

Anonymous said...

Interesting Jeremy Kyle hosting intellectuals on his show now. Must stop wasting my time on Facebook and tune in must be better than eggheads.

Anonymous said...

Sorry. Have to own up here. I wrote Anon 16.01 to take the piss out of Anon 15.05 whose intentionally provocative boneheadedness I recognised from posts on here months ago. Looks like I did it a bit too accurately. Apologies.

Anonymous said...

If sold at Auction on 17 December It can't be a legal sale if as the above Brent Council notification clearly states 6 week moratorium ends on 11:59pm on 24 December 2014.

Questions also need to be raised in respect to 6 week moratorium notification period if Brent Council received notification on 13 November, but did not publically declare this until 27 November. This is a 2 week loss 1/3 of the notification period and therefore there is only 4 weeks to respond rather than 6 weeks. The 6 weeks should in practice begin from the date Brent Council formally notify the public a listed community asset is being sold.

This will definitely be a good test case to determine in practice.

I should add : Any MP offering to call in any ACV listing for further scrutiny gets my vote in the May 2015. Not just this sale the original All Souls College contract of sale should be held up to public scrutiny. We can't have a developer doing deals behind closed doors. The community should have had the opportunity to bid and Brent Council should have immediately called a holt to the sale.

I bet there are many developers looking at this closely. If nobody challenges it opens the door for more developers to buy community assets on the cheap without the community given the opportunity.

Just remember Brent Council wanted the sale to proceed so they could wash their hands and have not been forth coming with details of the original sale.

Anonymous said...

Just a small point. Or maybe not.
Gillick is always referred to as a 'developer'. This is a nice word and we're all in favour of positive stuff like development.
What exactly has he 'developed', though, in this case? If nothing, could we start calling him (and others in the same line of business) something else?

Anonymous said...

Sorry you are correct, the notice clearly says that the initial moratorium ends on 24th Dec so any sale on the 17th will be illegal.

So they'll put it back a week. So what? This happens all the time at property auctions.

The question is whether FKRL have declared an interest which will put off the sale for 6 months (the full moratorium period)

Anonymous said...

Whatever you refer to him as

he is a genius
a capitalist
good looking
got planning for a library
a genius
a true mastermind

my daughter is looking for a husband how do we contact this gent? I know Jodi isn't his type so she stands a chance....

Anonymous said...

Well done Dik sorry Rik.

Keep on thinking

Anonymous said...

Good Luck

From what I observe so caller rich investment bankers make for terrible husbands as all they think about is themselves.

It normally ends in years tears with a wife pondering what went wrong ?

Anonymous said...

Seems to me yet again FKRL keeping everyone in the dark and doing deals behind closed doors.

There seems little outrage from the FKRL camp with the prospect their little library could be lost forever.

Given at the start they made a big song and dance about protecting the library and now they seem to have accepted the original fate with not even a whimper.

Anonymous said...

Reposting from previous blog 'Guide Auction Price...' in response to allegation that anyone critical of FKRL is spreading 'misinformation':

The public notice appeared in the local press on 27 November, the date at the bottom of the notice outside the library, and the day before FKRL informed its supporters of Gillick's intention to sell. Question: why didn't the notice appear in the local press on 20 November, one week after Brent received notification from Andrew Gillick of his intention to sell? And when was FKRL first informed of Mr Gillick's plan - also on 27 November, or earlier?

Anonymous said...

If you ask me Wembley Matters blog now forms part of what one could describe as a local press, so why was this blog not informed prior to the first posting on 29 November disclosing the intended sale ?

Anonymous said...

An excellent point, 12.06 above (tho' think you meant to say 27, not 29 November).

Anonymous said...

This is a mess. Not only is Andrew Gillick's auction date clearly illegal under the 6-week moratorium period, Brent Council's 'missing fortnight' puts it in breach of the same legislation. Further, if it's found to have informed FKRL of Gillick's plans in advance of issuing the public notice, the council's left itself open to the charge of manipulation of the moratorium period by giving preferential treatment to a particular community interest group. That's two sticks put in the hands of Gillick's lawyer.

The missing documents are, needless to say, still missing from the council's planning portal...

Anonymous said...

Echoes of Walter Scott winging inside my head:

'Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practise to deceive'.

Anonymous said...

My hunch is that by pitching KRL for auction (Lot 88) knowingly in breach of ASC moratorium rules, Gillick was testing the market and aiming for maximum publicity for his 'asset'. He knows the auction won't go ahead on that date but the former library will have been viewed many times online.

Anonymous said...

I had similar thoughts.

All in the name of profit and self interest.

Anonymous said...

Agree, 23.47 - is the interest (bid on the D1 leasehold space) FKRL has declared enough to trigger the full moratorium period? The lawyers will currently be scrutinising the small print of the ACV/Localism legislation.

Meantime the property's still up on Alsopp Auctioneer's site


Anonymous said...

Allsopp state planning permission date was 11 November 2014

Obviously took time for Brent to issue final planning permission document and 2 days later Brent receive notification of sale.

No mention in sales document about ACV listing.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone requested section 106 agreement as this is available on request. Be worth publishing this for benefit of community to see.

Anonymous said...

In practice is Brent Council correct 6 month rule applies when they first received notification or does 6 month rule apply after the 6 week moratorium period.

It would seem in practice 6 month rule should apply from end of 6 week moratorium as of no community interest then private sale could proceed.

Over to you Fiona Ledden keeping you busy with all of these issues that need clarification

Anonymous said...

Yes but Gillick's lawyer hasn't yet uploaded the docs yet - possibly deliberate tactic. Have registered for receipt of same, as anyone can.

Anonymous said...

Alas Ms Ledden appears to have disappeared from Brent Council...

Anonymous said...

Love it!

Anonymous said...

Link to Alsopp Auctioneers' website. Scroll down for lot 88


Anonymous said...

No, the 6-month moratorium period runs from 6 months, beginning with the date Brent Council received notification of Gillick's intention to sell - as the public notice, photograph posted by Martin above makes clear (thanks to photographer, btw): ie from 13 November 2014-12 May 2015.

I don't wish to be rude but it would be helpful if commentators read the blog text/previous comments to save others having to spend time correcting.

Anonymous said...

A useful, easy-to-read link to ACV policy. Worth noting section 10 in particular for compensatons to owners for 'loss or expense incurred as a result of listing and complying with any of the procedures required by the scheme'


Anonymous said...

Wait a minute

The 6 month rule from when Brent Council received notification is Brent Councils interpretation of the rules.

This needs to be clarified as this is likely to be a test case so Brent should be absolutely sure 6 months begins from notification not after the 6 weeks has expired.

Anonymous said...

Of course, 17.25. That's what property speculators do (FYI Anon 2 December 22.18, better than 'developer'?) - put profit and self- interest before all else.

Anonymous said...

The legislation document is yet to be amended with the 6 month Rule


It is currently an 18 MONTH RULE not 6 months rule.

Straight from the legislation. (Mr Gillick you are in trouble as you can't sell for 18 months)

13.—(1) Where the responsible authority receives notice under section 95(2) of the Act in
relation to any listed land, an owner of the land may enter into a relevant disposal of any of that
land to a community interest group with a local connection at any time in the eighteen months
beginning with the date of receipt of the notice.
(2) Section 95(1) of the Act does not apply to a relevant disposal of listed land in the cases set
out in Schedule 3.

Anonymous said...

What we have not seen is a copy of the title deeds. An FOI to Brent Council might now be possible to secure those secret title deeds given the fact the requirements set out below in the Legislation are specific to prevent what actually happened when Gillick purchase building with community ability to bid.

As the community want the building to remain a community building rather than flats this needs to be challenged and if challenged might eventually result in the original sale being null and void. (Mr Gillick might still be outsmarted by the community.) He really can't get away with it.

“First registration – where land is or was listed as land of community value
27A.—(1) An owner of listed land who applies for first registration of that land, or where
rule 21 applies a mortgagee who makes such an application in the name of the owner, must
at the same time apply for entry of a restriction in Form QQ in respect of that land.
(2) Where a person applies for first registration of land and any of the deeds and
documents accompanying the application (in accordance with rule 24(1)(c)) includes a
conveyance or lease to the applicant or to a predecessor in title made at any time when the
land was listed land, the applicant must in respect of each such conveyance or lease provide
a certificate by a conveyancer that the conveyance or lease did not contravene section 95(1)
of the Localism Act 2011.

Anonymous said...

Sorry was the draft that initially posted above that came up. Final bill only slight amendments. This is link to http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2421/pdfs/uksi_20122421_en.pdf

The 18 month rule applies to moratorium of sale to community organizations in the final bill The Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 that was enacted on 20th September 2012 6 month moratorium only seems to come into discussion via consultation after the Bill was enacted, but the 6 month rule is not law as the bill is yet to be amended as far as I understand.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps because it is a residential building (largely) now ACV does not apply.

ACV does not apply to residential buildings.

Anonymous said...

Why is FKRL making no comment?

Maybe they have a lease or are negotiating one.

I am surprised no statement has been made

Anonymous said...

No, 22.55 above, the 6-month moratorium period begins on the date the council received notification of Gillick's intention to sell, ie 13 November 2014-12 May 2015. This is not simply Brent Council's interpretation of the rules.

For the avoidance of doubt:

'A moratorium will be applied when a listed asset is put up for sale. This is an initial six-week interim period, during which a community group must express interest in bidding. If one does, there is a six-month moratorium beginning from when the asset is put up for sale, i.e. including the six-week interim period, to allow a community interest group to put a bid together' (2.2 Moratorium on sale, Assets of Community Value, PDF link at bottom of


While it is the notification of sale of the land which triggers the initial 6-week moratorium period, it's the submission of a bid during that 6 weeks which triggers the full 6-month moratorium period. Whether FKRL's bid for the D1 space is sufficient to trigger that full moratorium hasn't yet been made clear. The ACV legislation is new and doubtless there'll be numerous legal discussions going on.

Anonymous said...

As the building was a public asset the change to residential would be irrelevant as far as I understand as it was listed as an ACV prior to the change in class.

Alison Hopkins said...

You don't need an FOI for title deeds, you can get copies for a few pounds on the Land Registry website.

Meg Howarth said...

Let's not forget that it was former All Souls College that protected KRL from the Assets of Community Value regulations of the Localism Act by drawing up an Option Agreement with Andrew Gillick to exempt the building from a community bid in 2011, nor that it was Brent Council that enabled this by its closure of the library and its infamous dawn raid.

Anonymous said...

It is understood the Title Deeds with details of ACV for Kensal Rise Library were not published and made available to the public via Land Registry.

This was the case as far as I am aware.

Anonymous said...

This is exactly why title deeds with ful disclosure of the signed confirmation the original sale to Gillick complied with ACV legislation should be made publicly available.

The community should challenge the original sale.

Anonymous said...

You have to blame Brent Council for the Library closing and being sold.

All Souls acted honourably and did what any well run charity would do.

FKRL have tried their best but there is not the interest or money to buy and run a library.

I have met Andrew Gillick unlike most people here. He is a smart and perfectly nice guy.

He has done nothing wrong, bought a building and now is selling it making a bob or two.

Meg Howarth said...

There is no doubt in my mind that All Souls, former owner of KRL (apologies for missing word in 12.08 comment above), drew up the Option Agreement deliberately to scupper the any chance of community bid for the property. Acting 'honourably'? Not in my book.

PS I trust my above comment wasn't meant as a defence of Andrew Gillick, whom I haven't met unlike 14.35. But 'By their deeds you shall know them'...

Anonymous said...

LOL - wonder who's presenting the testimonial for Mr G and ASC...?

Anonymous said...

I disagree the building was listed during the sale process. The sale have been stopped to allow the community to bid.

I am sure Gillick is a nice chap like 99% on this planet.

However the fact remains for public transparency the original sale process should have been stopped under ACV rules.

Gillick took a risk and if it is eventually found the community should have been offered the opportunity to bid for the building he looses.

In my book that would be a result for the community and unlucky for Gillick.

Alison Hopkins said...

If it's up for auction, then the deeds have to be publically available now, and not just to interested sellers.

The Land Registry don't have the power to conceal deeds: it's possible the ACV simply hadn't been updated onto the records, I suppose.

Anonymous said...

Indeed. Perhaps Anonymous at 14.36 above is a guide. Someone(s) definitely bigging up ASC and Gillick, while dissing - not undeservedly, of course - Brent Council.

Meg Howarth said...

Correction: end of comment 15.29 should have read:

'PS My above comment wasn't meant as a defence of Andrew Gillick, whom I haven't met unlike 14.35...'

Anonymous said...

Alison it is a private company.

They don't HAVE to do anything.

They can release what info they want and talk to who they want and Queen Meg can write requests and they can fire them in the bin.

Anonymous said...

Wembley Bog might as well close down when the library issues is over.

Martin you should be publishing everyone's comments not just the ones you like...

This is not the USSR and censorship is not cool!

Anonymous said...

ACV is a legal requirement and the documents of sale including dates etc should be available for public inspection.

It would seem to suggest FKRL have something to hide if they are not prepared to publicly request these documents as the building should be vested with the community not some developer who seems to think he can profit at both the Tax Payers expense and the communities expense if they have to buy back a building that should have been offered to the community under the Law in the first place.

Enough Said

So lets get all the documents of sale into the public domain. If there is nothing to hide then the sale from All Souls College to Gillick was obviously legal, but we all suspect it was an illegal sale.

Martin Francis said...

A look at the postings list will prove otherwise re your first point. I have not posted some comments from both sides as they did not meet the gudelines for comments set out on the side panel. If you feel a comment of yours has been censored please resubmit by email and I will tell you why it has not been published. You will remember that previously I had to close comments as they got so highly charged and personal. Let's stick to the main issue. Previously I posted a guest blog by Gaynor Lloyd in defence of FKRL's position http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/blunt-speaking-in-favour-of-friends-of.html

I have not received any statement from them so far and presume that they are still discussing their response to the latest news. I will be happy to publish as and when I receive it.

Anonymous said...

From what I have been reading I would support a full investigation to verify if Gillicks transaction with All Souls Colleged complied with ACV legislation.

I am not sure now why FKRL do not support such a call ?

Surely getting 100% of building back into public ownership should be the objective.

It is amazing FKRL seem to be objecting to another development converting an old shop to flats on College Rd, but they fail to realize supporting Gillicks development opened the door for other developers.

Anonymous said...

Fully support Martin in providing good moderation.

There is a lack of communication from FKRL.

Perhaps if they responded the community would not always be in the dark.

Looking forward to a response from FKRL

Alison Hopkins said...

The Land Registry is not a private company. It's a government agency, regulated by statute as is the nature of the information that has to be submitted to them as part of any conveyancing process.

As to property auctions, the buyers pack before the auction has to include assorted searches and other information, both as part of statute and best practice.

(My last job icluded making land searches available on line, so I gained a bit of experience as a result.)

Meg Howarth said...

Interesting post, Anonymous 22.52.

On Monday, I wrote to Robin Sedgwick, case-officer for Andrew Gillick's latest planning application for the Kensal Rise Library site, under the subject-line '14/0846 - former KRL building: S106'.

The following individuals were ccd: Andrew Donald, Christine Gilbert, Muhammed Butt, Sarah Marquis, Michael Pavey.

The full text of the email reads:

'Dear Mr Sedgwick,

Both the Deed of Agreement and Brent's CIL Liability Notice are, according to the planning portal link below, 'temporarily unavailable'. I'd be grateful for a copies of both of these as soon as possible. According to the auctioneers handling Mr Gillick's sale of the property - Alsopp LLP - the developer's solicitor hasn't yet uploaded the S106. These two matters are presumably linked.



Anonymous said...

Can we not have a new story on the library saga.

They are most amusing and reading the comments has me in fits of laughter.

Come on Martin we need a new story.

Surely we can get an update on Meg's emailing or some thing from Mr Gillick, Bailey or Gramigni

Anonymous said...

Martin - I believe from now on that no comment which names individuals - as distinct from councillors/officials - should be anonymous. Commentators like the mischief-maker at 20.22 above enjoy sniggering from the side-lines. They should not be indulged. If unwilling to speak on record, they shouldn't be given a voice.

Anonymous said...

Well, well... Someone at 20.22 above trying to act as a decoy from serious debate by appearing user-friendly to both sides while hiding behing Anonymous. Is this a radical, or simply a coward too scared to put her/his head above the parapet? Guesses on a fag-packet.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Brent if the S106 and CIL documents have been pulled from Brent's planning portal as part of a behind-the-scenes attempt to re-write the document since the triggering of the 6-month moratorium period?

Anonymous said...

Apologies for botched text at 16.13 above which should have read:' I wonder if the S106 and CIL documents have been pulled from Brent's planning portal as part of a behind-the-scenes attempt to re-write them since the triggering of the 6-month moratorium period?'

Anonymous said...

Be careful what you wish for.

Anonymous said...

Have FKRL, Gillick and All Souls done a deal, with Brent playing patsy?

Anonymous said...

Good question, Anonymous, 16.13/16.39. A glance at Brent's planning portal shows that it's one month since both the S106 (the 'Deed of Agreement') and the Community Infrastructure Levy documents were scanned - on 6/11/2014 and 11/11/2014 respectively. These should have been uploaded immediately, I believe, in line with common practice.

So the following questions arise: i) if uploaded, why were they removed? or ii) why weren't they uploaded once scanned, why not?

That they were scanned on these dates means copies of them should still - hopefully - be available. If not, why not? The missing documents raise more questions than answers. Perhaps James Denselow, executive councillor with responsibility for libraries, can clarify?

Anonymous said...

The missing docs are legally enforceable, and signed off by Brent Council. So anyone trying to claim that Brent has no part in the current (former) library saga is either ill-informed or out to try and get Brent off a rusty-looking hook. The sooner the council fesses up about the missing documents, the better. The council's reputation is looking a bit tattered at the moment.

Anonymous said...

Surely Brent's CE Christine Gilbert should be demanding answers to the missing month (period since docs were scanned and their ongoing absence from the council's planning pages). I've never been sure what the actual responsibilities of a local authority CE are - the term has clearly been imported from the private sector - but the shadow the missing docs is casting over Brent Council seems to be getting darker and more ominous, while it seems the electorate is still being taken for a collective fool.

Anonymous said...

It certainly seems Brent Council might have given Gillick a good deal in expectation he would be quickly developing the library. Brent likely to have to wait longer than they might expect to realise money from106 and CIL.

Just goes to show how profiteering Gilick really is when he can't even stick around and contribute back to community via section 106 or CIL

As someone the other day suggested Brent's financial woes can be partly blamed on reluctance to force developers to actually come good on section 106 / CIL money

Gillick just laughing all the way to the bank.

Anonymous said...

'Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive'...

with apologies to Anonymous 14.33, 3 December, above.

Anonymous said...

FKRL are running out of time.

I can see a palates centre going in here and a load of luxury flats in the uppers.

I must say it does make me chuckle.

Meg, Maggie and Jodi any good at Palates?

Mr G will be well gone with a bag of loot. Anywhere nice for Christmas Mr G? You relax and enjoy yourself, you earned it.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to point this out but some of these documents are not released to the public.

they are confidential

So you might be waiting more than a month.


Anonymous said...

Mischief-making, Anonymous 15.44 or smoothing the way for the non-publication of the Deed of Agreement/Community Infrastructure Levy docs in order to cover up for some post-sale tripartite deal? These legally enforceable documents are not confidential - if they had been, they would not have been scanned for publication on Brent's planning portal.

Anonymous said...

What the local community are kept in the dark as to what Gillick was promising and now since he is selling up s106 and CIL no longer his problem.

A disgrace if these documents are not published.

Anonymous said...

S106s are drawn up between a local planning authority and the 'developer'/property speculator, Anonymous 17.25, in this case between Brent's planners and Gillick. He then immediately notified the council of his decision to sell.

So if the already-existing S106 is being renegotiated, then Gillick will be involved. What is troubling is the apparent removal of the original S106 from Brent's planning portal, perhaps to be replaced by an amended document, possibly to cater for a deal between Gillick/All Souls/FKRL. Brent needs to be careful, as privileging FKRL over any other Brent community group will rightly be seen as anti-democratic, and running counter to the spirit of the Localism Act/Asset of Community Value legislation. Any attempt by any politician to claim that Brent no longer has any involvement with the former library site is untrue. A reminder, too, that the lease on the D1 space can be also be renegotiated by previous owner, All Souls College.

Anonymous said...

Anon 18:02

You are very right to point out that FKRL do not have first right of refusal over the old library.

Other community groups are entitled to negotiate a purchase.

Furthermore other community groups might well find the original documentation contravenes Localism Act and therefore Gillick is not the proud owner.

I bet a few other community groups would be a better fit even,if the build was eventually transformed into some other community use than a library.

FKRL should realize there are other more pressing community uses othervthan simply giving the developer 85 % of the building for private housing and retaining only 15% for a library.

Anonymous said...

Well-said, 23.17.

Anonymous said...

Excellent point, 23.17, para 5. Brent Council should also take note.

Anonymous said...

Well let them get on down the auction....

Anonymous said...

The documents are now online - links below:

Deed of Agreement: https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=126153&Other1=687150&Other2=1

CIL: https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=126153&Other1=687150&Other2=3

As the Deed of Agreement is dated 5 November, the immediate question is why it's been unavailable for over one month? What has Brent been doing? Seeking legal advice that next week's 17 December auction is legal (Anonymous 11.48, please note)?

The Asset of Community Value (ACV) legislation is still only two years old, and the KRL saga is almost certainly a first regarding disposal of an ACV at auction, while the ink's still drying on the S106.

So the question becomes: is an auction held within the initial 6-week moratorium period legal? This initial period is designed to allow community interest groups to express an interest in purchasing an ACV. Any sale before that period has expired - in the case of KRL, on 25 December (Christmas Day) - would disadvantage those interest groups that have only belatedly heard about the sale. A community-minded lawyer would certainly argue that this would be wrong in law. As Anonymous 23.17 states clearly, FKRL certainly does not have first right of refusal over the old library.

If Brent is found to have been complicit in withholding publication of the S106 Deed of Agreement in any way to favour FKRL and the D1 space, the council would almost certainly be found to have broken the spirit, may be even the letter of the ACV legislation/Localism Act.

Anonymous said...

Offer for Sale at Public Auction prior to expiration of 6 week moratorium must be an offence ?

As a previous poster pointed out, the law seems to indicate an 18 month moratorium.

Tonight's Evening Standard. Gillick might have just missed his opportunity to cash in his imaginary paper profit.


Anonymous said...

Who makes up FKRL?

Anonymous said...

If you're responding to 11 December 20.29, please read carefully before commenting.

Anonymous said...

So 'CVS Brent will be offered first refusal' of the D1 space (S106 Deed of Agreement). Wonder how that arrangement was reached? As for date of signing: Deed of Agreement says 5 November, so question arises as to why it was withheld until yesterday, 11 December.

Curiouser and curiouser... so many questions...

Anonymous said...

Correction: meant to advise Anon 11 December 20.29 to read carefully the earlier 11.48 posting to which s/he appeared to be responding.

Anonymous said...

Brent are currently tendering contract for Volunteer Centre.

The Question, is the volunteer centre on top of Brent CVS or what happens if Brent CVS are not awarded open tender contract ? Does Brent CVS go the same way as BRAVA ie into administration ?

Giving this brings up new issues it is very messy ?


Anonymous said...

My understand no community organization has first right of refusal ?

It would be up to seller to individually negotiate with organizations who indicate an interest

Anonymous said...

And the chances of not getting a taker for the D1 space is precisely zero!

Martin Francis said...

FYI This is an extract from the Planning Committee Minutes of July 16th 2014:

With reference to the supplementary report, Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager, informed members that the Council would seek to ensure that the community space was provided through appropriately worded clauses within the Section 106 legal agreement and conditions. He clarified that if following the marketing campaign an occupier was not found for the community space, Brent CVS, a membership organisation for the local not for profit sector which seeks to support, promote and develop the voluntary sector, had agreed to have the first right of refusal to prepare a bid. He added that the applicants had confirmed in writing that friends of Kensal rise Library (FKRL) would be named as the actual tenant, subject to satisfactory lease negotiations and management plan. Furthermore, the applicants had confirmed that they had earmarked a sum of £3,000 to be given to the tenant of the community space to fit it out.

Anonymous said...

And remember, 13.54, the D1 space is neither

i) reserved as library space in the S106; and

ii) is NOT secure. It can be negotiated out of existence by new owner and All Souls.

Anonymous said...

Yet again more questions than answers.

This all seems very under the table to save face as Brent CVS it was claimed by FKRL were advising them early in the year.

Does not seem Brent CVS gave good advice if Gillick can simply selling building underneath everyone's feet wwithout delivering on his promise of a new library.

Anonymous said...

Andy Bates 'added that the applicants had confirmed in writing that friends of Kensal rise Library (FKRL) would be named as the actual tenant, subject to satisfactory lease negotiations and management plan'...

Well, that seemed to be a leaky bucket as nowhere in the S106 is FKRL named.

Who was advising whom...?

Anonymous said...

Yikes! Well-spotted, Anon, 13.44.

This sounds like left hand v right hand. Why is Brent tendering for a Volunteer Centre, planning to spend money it doesn't have on what sounds like a duplicate of CVS Brent? Cllr Denselow is responsible for 'communities'. Perhaps he'd oblige by explaining this apparent anomaly?

Anonymous said...

Great to clarify this point Martin.

It would seem Brent CVS would only step in if no other organisations step forward.

Anonymous said...

I agree would be helpful to understand what Brent are thinking.

It does seem Brent are going towards volunteers as service delivering people take up from wage earners with future cuts

Anonymous said...

So it would seem FKRL have little future influence in the moratorium process in terms of who may be the ultimate community organisation should a number of community groups make an offer.

Free Market in action I guess.

Anonymous said...

What you fail to mention, 15.06, is that FKRL are nowhere named as 'actual tenant' in the S106.

Anonymous said...

The buyer could simply rent the space to themselves.

Is there another premises FKRL could operate out of?

Without a doubt FKRL or any other local group will not get in here rent free.

An art gallery for a notting hill well to do perhaps.

It's a great opportunity Kensal rise is a great neighbourhood.

Should make good money! I wonder if homes under the hammer will feature it?

Anonymous said...

Can Brent Council be trusted after this complete and utter shambles ?

The ghost haunting Brent closed libraries seems to pop up ever few months.

Conspiracy Theories will always haunt Brent Labour with so many issues now Copland, Gillick, Fake Emails, FKRL being silenced, Brent CVS, together with Cara Davani, Gilbert, Butt, Fiona Ledden, plus A Brent Councillor up on charges not able to attend council meetings etc etc etc

I simply can't believe with all the above the show keeps going on with more and more questions than answers.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you hit the nail on the head Brent CVS have to go if they are giving poor advice and are simply a puppet to Brent Council.

They certainly do not seek to represent Brent Voluntary Sector

Anonymous said...

Any decent developer would rent it to himself.

Let's face the fact the building is gone for good.

Anonymous said...

Interesting point, 21.42 - 'FKRL being silenced' rather than the group silencing itself. According to this week's Kilburn Times, it seems FRKL failed to return the calls of the journalist. That sounds more like self-censorship to me, but I may be wrong


Anonymous said...

Given the seemingly large number of objections copy link below to a very small development of a shop on College Rd approved by planning this week, perhaps all those objections should vent their future anger at FKRL. If more old shops and buildings in the area are approved to be converted into housing we can just direct everyone to FKRL as they should never have agreed for library building to be converted into flats. Bad mistake FKRL, although you have done a big favour to the developers


Comments on planning application 14/3550

Anonymous said...

Interesting Gillick seems to have a partner developer called Trehaven Group http://trehaven.com/ from Deed of Agreement between Kensal Properties Ltd and Trehaven Group

Kensal Properties has same address as Trehaven Group confirmed from companies house

Company No. 05491162

Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 25/06/2005

Anonymous said...

Further update

Trehaven Group are the Mortgagee and have registered a charge on the property as the owner in the event Gillick can't find a buyer and they might call in the loan.

It would seem Trehaven Group now have the power over Gillick and possibly are forcing him to sell.

The best option now is for as many people as possible to register a complaint with the Land Registry Office, stating in their own words the ACV listing and sale process has not been fully complied by the seller All Souls College and the Buyer.


Anonymous said...

A bit unfair blaming FKRL

The developer would have got planning regardless.

Times move on and now is time for FKRL to disband and get on with their lives.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for link, 10.45.

From FKRL's Facebook October Update:

'A planning application has been submitted to the council to turn our corner shop on the corner of College Rd and Clifford Gardens into a flat.

'This is causing a lot of anger in the neighbourhood and rightly so. We do not need more flats in an already densely overcrowded neighbourhood but we do need services and facilities for the community'.

Beyond irony...

As for the 350+ locals opposing this shop conversion, are they, I wonder, amongst the same 400+ who backed FKRL's campaign to support Andrew Gillick's second planning application for the conversion of the old Kensal Rise Library building - into flats...

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Anonymous 10.45, you're wrong - planning committee rejected the application for conversion to residential, against the advice of its own officers. Behind-the-scenes political jiggery-pokery...? Let's face it, planning applications everywhere are rarely decided on merit, rather on political expediency. It was once cash in brown envelopes but times change.

Anonymous said...

No I agree.

FKRL could have opposed Gillicks planning application, but for their own self interest they got into bed with the developer.

Although I agree with your suggest FKRL should now disband and move on.

Anonymous said...

Same address?

Likely to be just a corporate structure for tax.

They seem to do a lot together and share directors.

Anonymous said...

Land registry did nothing wrong so don't waste your time.

This acv business has been investigated by barristers.

We are clutching at straws and go down a road we all know is a deadend

Anonymous said...

We don't have the terms of the loan.

More totally fabricated news

We don't know how much the loan is, terms etc.

There's a lot of key board warriors out there....

This blog is losing credibility.

Anonymous said...

Bet it goes to Appeal and is won on appeal.

Tough love.

Anonymous said...

From FKRL's silence, it seems like the organisation has already disbanded and moved on.

Anonymous said...

Tax dodge.


A country full of crooks

Anonymous said...

Sorry, 20.48. The independent counsel employed by Brent to authenticate the Option Agreement (OA) and its relevance to an ACV moratorium on the original sale only ever saw a copy of the OA, not the original. If it turns out that due process was not followed, this will turn out to be a real mess.

Anonymous said...

'This acv business has been investigated by barristers'. Don't exaggerate. One barrister was shown a copy - not the original - of the Option Agreement. Nothing more. Barristers, too, can make mistakes. Perhaps he missed something.

Anonymous said...

What a good a tangled web FKRL weave.

It just goes to show you can't show favourtism to a single organization

Keeping FKRL quiet by throwing a bone will come back to bite Brent when it comes to appeals

Anonymous said...

You only pay tax when you make a profit

Wouldn't be surprised if Gillick isn't making a penny.

He bought it for 1m and is selling for 1.15m ?

Anonymous said...

Evidence, please, 21.28, that Gillick paid £1m for the former KRL building? T

Anonymous said...

You couldn't be more wrong, 20.51, about WM 'losing credibility'. The only people losing credibility are those who now make up FKRL.

Anonymous said...

What is both tragic and outrageous about FKRL's silence is that they've clearly allowed themselves to be led willingly to this impasse by careerist politicians and the group's own self-interest. If not complicit in their own silencing - 'Stockholm Syndrome' - trustees would have spoken out about current developments and their betrayal by Gillick.

Anonymous said...

He has to make a cool million out of this?

Is the purchase price public?

It's worth a lot more than £1.15m now

Anonymous said...

Anon 20:20

The QC instructed and paid by Brent is not basing any opinion on case law. There is none as ACV legislation ink had not even dried.

So therefore the legality of the contract and sale needs to be considered by a Judge. Only a Judge will determine if the ACV process had been followed correctly.

For the benefit of any ACV listing we need a Judge to rIle not some highly paid QC who may simply say what Brent wants to hear.

We would not even need a legal system if lawyers always agreed with each other. I bet other lawyers would have disagreed with the QC's opinion !

Anonymous said...

20:48 Anon

Land Registry only action information supplied by buyer and seller.

I bet when Gillick purchased and All Souls rubber stamped without informing land registry of ACV listing.

This is far from a dead end this issue has been brought up before but few have listened.

It would be well worth a complain to Land Registry.

Anonymous said...

Anon 13 Dec 12:42

The total hypocrisy of FKRL

They can't pick and choose the types of development in an area.

FKRL made a choice to support a development that converts a community asset into private flats in the old library.

They can't then possibly campaign against other developments when they supported flats at the old library ?

Anonymous said...

Well said !

Fully behind a review by a Judge

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Can anyone find the exact date when Gillicks Option to buy contract commenced ?

It would be interesting to verify with the listed dates Brent have documented when this option to buy commenced. Land Registry could null and void the original sale contract if they themselves accept the "Option to Buy" contract was signed when ACV kicked in.

Look forward to hearing from anyone who can provide a link to this document to review the claimed date Gillicks option to buy contract was signed.

Meg Howarth said...

Extract below from the Option Agreement to purchase Kensal Rise Library - this is the key paragraph in the document intended to exclude the former library building from Asset of Community Value legislation:

'6 Dealings by the Seller During the Option Period

6.1 The Seller may not create any encumbrance over the Property at any time during the Option Period without the consent of the Buyer.
6.2 An encumbrance INCLUDES, without limitation, any easement, restrictive covenant, lease or other right of occupation, use or enjoyment of the whole or part of the Property but for the avoidance of doubt any listing of the premises as an asset of community value under the Localism Act 2011 is EXCLUDED'
[end; caps mine for emphasis]

There's no doubt that what the above ACTUALLY says and what it's INTENDED to say are two different things (readers can decide for themselves). When read out to a retired judge, the word 'gibberish' was used...

Anon 14 December 09.33 is correct. A judge in chambers needs to review the original contract and sale.

Anonymous said...

Seems like Brent might have to front up more costs if planning committee have declined the application on the shop and there is an appeal.

Anonymous said...

Interesting to note Brent's so called expert QC in relation to ACV listing does not mention nor consider the need for Brent to question the Land Registry Office in terms of the legal owner. Planning applications are based on having legal title to land and under ordinary circumstances this might be a given. However, if Land Registry upon application by Brent to verify legal title had concluded ACV due process had not been followed and Gillick did not have legal title the planning application would have to be refused.

This seems a point of law that needs further investigation.

Link to Brent officers report


Copy of QC response in Brent Officers report

5. In relation to the building being listed as an Asset of Community Value under the provisions of the
Localism Act 2011 and the relevance of the listing status vis a vie the decision to be taken on the
planning application the comments contained within the body of the report are duly noted by officers.
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.

Anonymous said...

What is the wager now on Cricklewood Old library. I bet "Odds On" once Gillick gets planning approval documents in his hold little hands, he immediately puts the building up for Auction !

His planning application was decided this week on Cricklewood. Anyone know the outcome ?

Anonymous said...

Any idea when the option agreement was signed and has anyone got a copy There seems to be an FOI but cant find link to published document ?

Martin Francis said...

Permission was granted. Decision letter here: https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=126153&Other1=693136&Other2=1

Anonymous said...

Judges work for free meg

Get out your cheque book

Anonymous said...

Brent reviewed this already and sound the option was entered into before the ACV listing

It's pretty basic you don't need to be a genius to figure out what was first

Anonymous said...

Can anyone read here?

Meg you have quoted the wrong paragraphs

All the documents are on the auction website

It's not difficult folks!

Anonymous said...

I really enjoy the community collaboration that is coming together in the quest to return the Old Library building to the local community.

It is a pity FKRL did not end up acting in the interests of the local community and were bought be a profiteering developer.

What money can't buy is local peoples resolve to see community assets of value stay as community assets.

There is a limit now to what money can buy. Money might be able to buy the best lawyers and influence etc but as a society do we really want the highest bidder taking common assets, so our future children go without ?

Kensal Rise Library is a very good test case for the limits to what money can buy. We must fight as hard as we, despite the exhuastion and dismay many may now feel. The odds are certianly against those without money as they are crushed by those with money. There are some who seem to have been bought for their silence. This should not stop the movement and we can't give up now.

Anonymous said...

Well the dates on when Option Agreement was signed will determine the legality of contract and the sale.

So far no authority has reviewed this very important detail.

Bad luck for Gillick if Land Registry fund contract was not lawful.

A big win for the community if Gillicks contract of sale was illegal

Anonymous said...

13.37: Suggest you read 09.33, above. And a reminder, as others have said elsewhere on the blog, that the legal counsel employed by Brent only ever saw a copy of the Option Agreement, not the original.

Anonymous said...

Wake up the library is sold and gone!

Have we a million to buy a library?

Anonymous said...

Well, Anon 13.35, perhaps you or FKRL would like to contribute to help finance a judge-led inquiry? I recall FKRL asking for and receiving 'pledges' before the group got in to bed with Gillick. It might like to reactivate those pledges?

Anonymous said...

What can we do before the auction? It's only 2 days away.

Who can help??

Martin Francis said...

Edited comment: Asset was listed 11/12/2012 Option was taken out 26/11/2012 So in plain English the building was sold 2 weeks before it was listed.

Anonymous said...

It's only 5 or 6 people here not a community.

Library is sold, will be sold again.

What part of that equates with the community getting a building for free.

More hassle we cause now less likely new owner is to even consider a community use in the building

You need to ease up on what you are smoking.

Anonymous said...

So what date was the option agreement signed ?

Anonymous said...

Well done Martin you have just found the missing piece of the puzzle.

Where do those dates come from ?

Is the FOI application published clearly showing the dates OP was signed ?

Be good to get some evidence of the dates so there is no dispute.

Anonymous said...

Be worth contacting all MP's regarding not just ACV but also loss of D1 community space.

There is an election in 6 months

Martin Francis said...

That was an Anonymous comment that I edited - not my research Sorry.

Anonymous said...

Yeah send them down the auction with a cheque book.

We can complain but that will get us no where.

This library is gone for good

Anonymous said...

Can you not read?

It's on the cover of the option agreement on the auction website

Anonymous said...

And the 2m to buy and develop the building......

FKRL haven't even got 500?

Meg Howarth said...

The option to purchase was not exercised until 31 January 2013, and the sale was not completed until 31 January 2014. 'Vacant possession' was a condition of the sale and this was secured by then-owner, All Souls, authorising the removal of the pop-up library early on the morning of 31 January this year.

Meg Howarth said...

I have quoted the paragraph I intended to quote, Anonymous 13.42.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you'd save everyone reading this blog the trouble of having to register with the auctioneer Alsopps for access to the 'documents' Alsopp has published. I'd hazard a guess that the Option Agreement is not amongst them, so unsure what the point of your comment is. Trying to sow confusion in to an increasingly heated blog? Unhelpful - at best.

Anonymous said...

I would not now put a penny into FKRL.

They have totally let down the local community and under estimated the power of lies from Gillick. He had not intention of a library.

He certainly is good at persuading people with his schemes that have led to nothing after over 2 years. Now he is selling up and leaving the local community with nothing.

If there is another group not FKRL, I would consider supporting them if thfir plan was the whole building as community use as we were all promised.

Anonymous said...


Be helpful if you could post a link to the evidence of option agreement as can't see any document on Allsop auctioneers website online catalogue.

Anonymous said...

Meg 16:16

post of moderated post indicates a date of 26/11/2012.

Has anyone seen this option to purchase document dated 26/11/2012 or is this the date All Souls and Gillick claim it was signed without anyone seeing it ?

A Ffreedom of Info request seems to have been issued but can't trace it.

Be helpful if you could post ever link possible to this very important issue.

Anonymous said...

Anon 19.33: link to scan of the hard-copy Option Agreement - posted several times previously on WM blogs and released on the directions of the Information Commissioner under FoI. The FoI cost Brent nothing, by the way - it was an order against All Souls College, the then-owner of KRL, not Brent. The document was redacted for dates/names/price, so you won't see the date. Be patient, please - more to come on the document soon


Anonymous said...

We'd still need to raise a million or two to buy the building and do it up.

Can't see it happening

Anonymous said...

Meg your dates are wrong

It's done from when the option is entered not ended.

As usual inaccurate info on this blog

Anonymous said...

FKRL were definitely notified well before it became public knowledge of Gillicks intention to sell.

The Brent list of Assets of Community Value has a logged notification from FKRL on 24/11/2014 request to be treated as a potential bidder.

Brent's public notice is dated 27/11/2014.

Therefore FKRL were notified well before other community groups in Brent.

This is another good reason why in practice the 6 week rule needs to be reviewed as all community organizations should be on an equal footing.

Anonymous said...

Brents list of Community Assets also has a date of 12/5/2016 as the end of protected period.

My interpretation of this is that Brent Council seem to be now accept Gillick can only sell to community groups up until end of protected period 12/5/2016.

The 18 month rule does apply, not a 6 month rule, as anon had previously suggested in their review of the legislation.

Clarification from Brent would be very helpful

A huge boost to the community, if there is now 18 months to secure the property and Gillick can't sell privately.

Anonymous said...

Well done Anon 21:09.

Any idea who has provided date of 26/11/2012 as date option agreement was signed ?

It seems very suspect original has not been disclosed. As assume dropbox link is only copy of agreement before signing.

From reports Brent did not see original, so all Looks very suspect and this agreement is what tips balance in favour of Gillick as a private purchase Rather than ACV kicking in.

It will definitely be à good test case.

Any further info be appreciated as there is no single placé where all documents can be located With so many posts in past 4 years.

Anonymous said...

Rather than yet again being highly critical of Meg, how about you being helpful for once and provide some evidence on dates !

At least Meg is being helpful

Anonymous said...

As some of us thought 18 months gives community time to resolve this matter and restore the building to community.

If after 18 months community are not able to rally together and are divided we all will then have to accept the fate of the building.

Until then we all soldier on.

Martin Francis said...

As I said above I am happy to post a Guest Blog from FKRL or anyone else who wants to state the facts as they see them clearly. It is becoming very hard to sort out the 'facts' from the very many comments and exchanges on this blog.

Anonymous said...

In support of Martin's moderation.

It is the facts that are needed to get to the bottom of this complete and utter mess.

Anonymous said...

FKRL is a registered charity. Its trustees have legal responsibilities. Why haven't they issued a public statement as to the dates i) they learnt of Andrew Gillick's intention to sell KRL and ii) the date they submitted a bid for the D1 space?

Anonymous said...

What harm is there in a new buyer buying the building.

It is then up to the community to negotiate a lease.

Having and paying for the whole building is not realistic.

We didn't get too far with All Souls or Gillick. There were objections when he bought the building and now when he sold it.

Excuse me but I don't see how it makes our plight worse, I would say better if anything.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting clause in Option Agreement 16.4 as follows

"If the Land Registry requires a copy of this Agreement to be provided in connection with
the Buyer's application for registration of the Transfer or as evidence in support of the Buyer's unilateral notice, then the Buyer shall apply to designate this Agreement an exempt information
document under Rule 136 of the Land Registration Rules 2003, excluding such information
as the Seller may reasonably require."

It actually prevents Land Registry from determining if the buyer and seller complied with ACV if they are not privy to this option agreement. This has to be challenged, as such agreements should be disclosed to Land Registry for them to decide if sale and transfer of title is lawful or unlawful, given that option agreement would not have been disclosed to Land Registry.

Anonymous said...

Anon 13 December 11.02/11.42

From public information on Andrew Gillick's Kensal Properties Ltd

'16/06/2014 Miss R.S. McKinnon has resigned as company secretary'.

This would appear to be the same person listed as a former director of Trehaven Group Ltd, the mortgagee named in the S106 Deed of Agreement:

'Miss Rebecca Sarah Elizabeth Mckinnon
Born 32 years ago: Jan 1982
Company Secretary, Chartered Accountant
15 Sep 2008 — 25 Mar 2014 (5 years, 6 months, 10 days)'

Retired' (public information from the DueDil website).

Both firms share the same address.

Small world, eh?

Meg Howarth said...

Indeed - and delighted someone has bothered to read the document!

You might like to google 'Assets of community value SN/PC/06366' (last updated: 1 August 2013) as it refers to registering land - sorry, can't post a link as it's a House of Commons Library PDF.