After reading this http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/01/property-developers-affordable-housing-councils-empty-building will Gillick decide the building was empty all along?
Not only that but Knight Frank in their brochure on the sale are suggesting there will be an 'opportunity' to reduce the community space currently being offered through planning to make room for another dwelling. Can't see FKRL and the community accepting that.
Judging by this comment from Stephanie Schonfield on FKRL's Facebook page, it seems the group hasn't learnt anything about Andrew Gillick since it first got into bed with him aka entering 'negotiations':
'ALERT: Has anyone else spotted something rather sinister/misleading on the agents' website description of this property? They're suggesting there's an opportunity to decrease the D1 community space. Pardon?!! One of the fundamental reasons Council officers and Planning Committee turned down the original proposal was because the space the developer reserved for D1use was too small, as FKRL had pointed out. I suspect the community - including Ward Councillors, with the backing of Brent Planning - will strongly resist any such attempt to decrease the space!. Cheek!'
Hilarious from FKRL's Ms Schonfield, who did a lot of mud-slinging at opponents of FKRL's deals with Gillick - particularly Jodi Gramigni and Meg Howarth - now realising the group's mistakes, perhaps, and asking residents to 'Rise Up'...
'The immediate important point - not party politicking history - is the developer shadily and shabbily suggesting through his agent to any prospective buyer that there's an opportunity to reduce our community D1space. Kensal Rise, rise up!!'
It seems from Anon below 12.14 that FKRL already talking to developers who have apparently expressed interest in the building via the now-pulled Knight Frank ad...
It's a self-limiting definition, Anon 17.40 - those with whom FKRL agree, excluding all other, to paraphrase the Protestant marriage ceremony - which seems apt in light of tonight's episode of Wolf Hall.
I wish I had the money to buy this and do something amazing with it, like turn it into a library for the community to use and staff it with qualified librarians.
Let's not forget that the almost certainly rigged aka phantom bidding at Alsopp's November auction helped push up the asking price by £100k, from £1.15-£1.25m.
What's happened to the lease that All Souls College's Seaman declaimed - on the eve of last November's auction - would be 'raised' with whoever was the owner of the building? Or was that nothing more than an attempt at face saving? Perhaps FKRL could update. It seemed to take bursar Seaman at face value.
"On the subject of FOI - an astonishing and worrying response from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the body legally empowered 'to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals':
'FOIA does not cover the accuracy of information held'.
Unsurprisingly, All Souls doesn't want to play ball, while requests to Brent's chief executive, Christine Gilbert, to oversee a viewing of the original document by two Brent residents at the college's solicitor, Farrer, have been stone-walled. The weary reason given by both parties is that Brent Council employed independent legal counsel to check the document. What neither Brent nor All Souls will admit is that the independent counsel was only ever shown a copy. Without sight of the original, the authenticity of the Option Agreement, and therefore the sale of the former library building to Andrew Gillick can never be confirmed'.
The ICO's disclaimer re the 'accuracy of information' effectively reduces the FOIA to a charlatan's charter, the age-old question of who guards the guards raising its head once again".
The complete comment was sent directly to both Brent Council's CE and All Souls College. Neither has responded.
Brent Council's position is deeply to be regretted, particularly in light of the police findings re fraudulent support for Andrew Gillick's original planning application (blog on latest to follow soon), and unfathomable in light of the action of the previous administration in closing six of the boroughs libraries allegedly to help fund the building of the £100m Civic Centre, aka the town hall - an entire floor of which is now rented out, to AirFrance, I believe. Does the council top brass think that failing to do the right thing will help its reputation at the forthcoming election? If so, that demonstrates the familiar arrogant attitude towards residents which can be found in every 'safe' electoral seat. But as Syriza has shown - the times they are a'changing. Elected politicians/party members ignore this at their peril.
I realise that this is going off at a tangent from Meg's comment, but I could not let there reference to Christine Gilbert and independent legal advice pass.
Ms Gilbert has admitted that she signed off the notice to Brent's staff, and the press, on 26 September 2014 which stated that the decision to appeal against the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal judgement had been made: 'following independent legal advice'.
It was later established, after an FoI request, that 'the advice was given by Edward Kemp, barrister, of Littleton Chambers and provided to Ms Gilbert (Chief Executive), Ms Davani (HR Director) Fiona Ledden (Director of Legal and Procurement)'. Mr Kemp was the barrister who had represented Brent Council (and Cara Davani) at the Tribunal hearing which they had lost. Would you call that 'independent legal advice'?
Seems like so called Barristers and QC's are giving advice Brent might want to year Rather than a detailed critique of the merita both good and bad.
It seems similar to me of the conflict of interest of rating agencies such as Moody's Just before the financial system self destructed. The rating agencies were giving the Green light as a financial interest started overiding any Real obligation to speak the truth.
Brent be warned, as the financial system destroyed itself Brent Council seems to be following a similar path.
Thanks for this info, Anon 20.20. Have just checked Zac Goldsmith's Twitter page where he posted this on 2 Feb:
'Back Heathrow has thanked me for signing their petition (clearly I did not). Sheds new light on their absurd '65,000 backers' claim'.
Have contacted the MP re the KRL fraud with a view to encouraging CPS to instigate a test-case prosecution under identity theft as online planning fraud clearly something to be watched out for.
Here's Zac Goldsmith's latest tweet on the fraudulent support:
'So now it seems residents who wrote to Back Heathrow to OPPOSE expansion have ended up on their 'supporter' list (a highly suspect '65,000')' @ZacGoldsmith 4 Feb approx 16.26.
This follows his previous tweet on 2 Feb:
"Back Heathrow has thanked me for signing their petition (clearly I did not). Sheds new light on their absurd '65,000 backers' claim'".
The CPS needs to mount a test-case prosecution case of stolen identity as this kind of planning-support fraud increases. The groundwork has really been done in the case of the Andrew Gillick planning-support case backing change of use of Kensal Rise Library.
That didn't last long. The library has now disappeared from Knight Frank's brochure, where the following notice has been posted:
'This property information is not available'.
Bad publicity...? Or perhaps Mr G failed to give full details to the auctioneer... Or maybe the unresolved matter of the Option Agreement has become an obstacle to sale...?
'...We have spoken to some of the developers who have expressed an interest in the building. As the intended tenants of the D1 space, as per our agreement with All Souls College, we recognise the necessity of a good relationship with whoever owns the building and we have been pleased that a number of the developers have indicated their willingness to work with us and the community'.
FKRL and developers - what can possibly go wrong... Seems like the group has learnt nothing from getting into bed with Gillick. As for 'the lease arrangement with All Souls' - what lease arrangement? The one Thomas Seaman asserted that the college would 'raise' with whoever the new owner might be. And FKRL as the 'intended tenants'? I believe ACV-listing regulations preclude this, a point, I understand, both Gillick's and FKRL's lawyers agreed upon. So why keep reiterating what is, at best, wishful thinking?
And the D1 (cupboard) space? Any developer will seek to have this removed - and is likely to succeed. ASC can puff and pant all it likes about its face-saving lease but it's the college that chose Gillick over (a then-united) FKRL business proposal for the library building. The college has, I believe, been advised of the CPS' findings in to the fraudulent email affair. It must rue the day it chose to short-sell the-then FKRL for Andrew Gillick.
I'm sorry, but rump-FKRL seems willing to believe anything it's told by interested parties regarding the library building in defiance of experience, the latest FB statement reading more like a long ego-trip than an attempt to inform its readers.
'This attempt to reduce the amount of community space is indicative of the disregard that the current owner has for the community' Margaret Bailey in today's Brent and Kilburn Times
It is far top late for FKRL to be issuing statements like this the horse Has bolted, and FKRL too k the side of Gillick Rather than those in the community.
It would be helpful if FKRL actually stood up and said to the community they got it horribly wrong and did not listen to the community.
Agreed 14.38, particularly as FKRL is already talking about having contacted more developers (as result of the Knight Frank ad, now pulled). Will the group never learn? A united community is what's needed, not the divided one that resulted from FKRL's 'negotiations' with Gillick.
Seems exec cllr James Denselow is a paid-up member of FKRL - judging by the lock, stock and faithful wholesale reproduction on his own blog of Margaret Bailey's latest FKRL Facebook 'Update', both dated 4 Feb -
But pray note (I've been watching Wolf Hall, 'tis true) - as the ambitious councillor and techy expert behind the BrentLive blog states categorically - 'Comments are closed'. What the good councillor meant is that comments were never open. Silly behaviour for an alleged democrat - who'll doubtless be knocking on doors asking Queen's Park residents to vote Labour in the election that's on its way.
Which leads to the obvious question - who do these pseudo-democrats think they are (rhetorical question, but feel free to answer)? And in particular, what could the Cllr Denselow possibly fear from open comments on his blog? Ridicule for following in Roxanne Mashari's political steps and encouraging 'negotiations' between FKRL and Andrew Gillick? Loss of Queen's Park to Labour?
Whatever - both Denselow and Mashari owe the formerly well-regarded FKRL an apology for encouraging them get under the sheets with Gillick. Remember - a previous WM blog updated readers on the police investigation in to the fraudulent email affair in which it was noted that 'the Council did provide the Police with all the IP addresses and details of how Council officers had linked these to Mr Gillick or his company via open source research'
I love Wembley Matters. Superb writing, excellent information. This is what grassroots debate looks like. It's doubtful, however, that either James Denselow or Roxanne Mashari have the guts to answer on the blog for misleading FKRL.
Here we go again. The library building is still on sale - bid date closes noon, 5 March
http://www.inst.knightfrank.com/view/kensal
It was, moreover, never withdrawn from sale, so which anonymous spox at Knight Frank told this week's BKT that "Knight Frank is no longer involved in the sale of this property” and, more importantly, why?
LOL - 'Guide Price: Excess £1,250,000' - remember, that was an Alsopp auction-eve increase of £100k, the (phantom/rigged?) bidding on the day reaching £1.2m. A pity the police can't demand the video of last November's auction to ID who the two bidders were in an effort to resolve whether or not the bidders were genuine.
Meantime, viewings of Mr G's latest sale effort are as follows:
After reading this http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/01/property-developers-affordable-housing-councils-empty-building
ReplyDeletewill Gillick decide the building was empty all along?
Not only that but Knight Frank in their brochure on the sale are suggesting there will be an 'opportunity' to reduce the community space currently being offered through planning to make room for another dwelling.
ReplyDeleteCan't see FKRL and the community accepting that.
Told you so FKRL.
DeleteYou would not believe the community when they objected to the original deal with Gillick.
Don't think it will be down to the community.
ReplyDeleteI am sure we can guess who is holding all the cards and it is not the community.
He who pays the piper calls the tunes.
Other option is for FKRL to stump up a nice big rent...
I thought the 6 month moratorium had been triggered. No mention of this.
ReplyDeleteHow can they get away with this false advertising.
I letter to Trading Standards.
Judging by this comment from Stephanie Schonfield on FKRL's Facebook page, it seems the group hasn't learnt anything about Andrew Gillick since it first got into bed with him aka entering 'negotiations':
ReplyDelete'ALERT: Has anyone else spotted something rather sinister/misleading on the agents' website description of this property? They're suggesting there's an opportunity to decrease the D1 community space. Pardon?!! One of the fundamental reasons Council officers and Planning Committee turned down the original proposal was because the space the developer reserved for D1use was too small, as FKRL had pointed out. I suspect the community - including Ward Councillors, with the backing of Brent Planning - will strongly resist any such attempt to decrease the space!. Cheek!'
Hilarious from FKRL's Ms Schonfield, who did a lot of mud-slinging at opponents of FKRL's deals with Gillick - particularly Jodi Gramigni and Meg Howarth - now realising the group's mistakes, perhaps, and asking residents to 'Rise Up'...
Delete'The immediate important point - not party politicking history - is the developer shadily and shabbily suggesting through his agent to any prospective buyer that there's an opportunity to reduce our community D1space. Kensal Rise, rise up!!'
It seems from Anon below 12.14 that FKRL already talking to developers who have apparently expressed interest in the building via the now-pulled Knight Frank ad...
DeleteMs Schonfield refers to 'our community', as does Margaret Bailey. What/who do they mean?
DeleteIt's a self-limiting definition, Anon 17.40 - those with whom FKRL agree, excluding all other, to paraphrase the Protestant marriage ceremony - which seems apt in light of tonight's episode of Wolf Hall.
DeleteSelf-limiting indeed - bit like Wembley Matters' critics.
DeleteI am surprised with all the 'support' that these commenters have they have not started a new group and saved the library already.
I wish I had the money to buy this and do something amazing with it, like turn it into a library for the community to use and staff it with qualified librarians.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible.
DeleteBut first thé community needs to show thé option agreement was unlawful.
In other words Gillick does not actually own thé property.
Difficult but not impossible.
Let's not forget that the almost certainly rigged aka phantom bidding at Alsopp's November auction helped push up the asking price by £100k, from £1.15-£1.25m.
DeleteWhat's happened to the lease that All Souls College's Seaman declaimed - on the eve of last November's auction - would be 'raised' with whoever was the owner of the building? Or was that nothing more than an attempt at face saving? Perhaps FKRL could update. It seemed to take bursar Seaman at face value.
ReplyDeleteThis is a complete Joke.
ReplyDeleteWhy did we ever bother to listening to FKRL when they jumped into bed with Gillick !
I fully agree.
DeleteWe should never had agreed to this proposal.
We have been totally misled.
Anon 09.32 - extract from previous blog-comment
ReplyDeletehttp://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/fo-about-foi-to-brent-council-results.html (28 January, 12.14)
re the still-disputed Option Agreement:
"On the subject of FOI - an astonishing and worrying response from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the body legally empowered 'to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals':
'FOIA does not cover the accuracy of information held'.
Unsurprisingly, All Souls doesn't want to play ball, while requests to Brent's chief executive, Christine Gilbert, to oversee a viewing of the original document by two Brent residents at the college's solicitor, Farrer, have been stone-walled. The weary reason given by both parties is that Brent Council employed independent legal counsel to check the document. What neither Brent nor All Souls will admit is that the independent counsel was only ever shown a copy. Without sight of the original, the authenticity of the Option Agreement, and therefore the sale of the former library building to Andrew Gillick can never be confirmed'.
The ICO's disclaimer re the 'accuracy of information' effectively reduces the FOIA to a charlatan's charter, the age-old question of who guards the guards raising its head once again".
The complete comment was sent directly to both Brent Council's CE and All Souls College. Neither has responded.
Brent Council's position is deeply to be regretted, particularly in light of the police findings re fraudulent support for Andrew Gillick's original planning application (blog on latest to follow soon), and unfathomable in light of the action of the previous administration in closing six of the boroughs libraries allegedly to help fund the building of the £100m Civic Centre, aka the town hall - an entire floor of which is now rented out, to AirFrance, I believe. Does the council top brass think that failing to do the right thing will help its reputation at the forthcoming election? If so, that demonstrates the familiar arrogant attitude towards residents which can be found in every 'safe' electoral seat. But as Syriza has shown - the times they are a'changing. Elected politicians/party members ignore this at their peril.
Well said Meg
DeletePasok in Greece that stood for Labour values was destroyed.
UK Labour nationally could be destroyed. Wake up Barry Gardiner and kick Brent Labour into shape or face electoral worth.
I realise that this is going off at a tangent from Meg's comment, but I could not let there reference to Christine Gilbert and independent legal advice pass.
DeleteMs Gilbert has admitted that she signed off the notice to Brent's staff, and the press, on 26 September 2014 which stated that the decision to appeal against the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal judgement had been made: 'following independent legal advice'.
It was later established, after an FoI request, that 'the advice was given by Edward Kemp, barrister, of Littleton Chambers and provided to Ms Gilbert (Chief Executive), Ms Davani (HR Director) Fiona Ledden (Director of Legal and Procurement)'. Mr Kemp was the barrister who had represented Brent Council (and Cara Davani) at the Tribunal hearing which they had lost. Would you call that 'independent legal advice'?
Philip Grant.
Seems like so called Barristers and QC's are giving advice Brent might want to year Rather than a detailed critique of the merita both good and bad.
DeleteIt seems similar to me of the conflict of interest of rating agencies such as Moody's Just before the financial system self destructed. The rating agencies were giving the Green light as a financial interest started overiding any Real obligation to speak the truth.
Brent be warned, as the financial system destroyed itself Brent Council seems to be following a similar path.
Tonights Evening Standard gives a mention ZAC Goldsmiths received an email thanking for backing Heathrow Expansion when he did not sign up.
ReplyDeleteSounds very similar to Kensal Rise Library fake emails claiming support for a proposal.
This has to be investigated by the police.
Thanks for this info, Anon 20.20. Have just checked Zac Goldsmith's Twitter page where he posted this on 2 Feb:
Delete'Back Heathrow has thanked me for signing their petition (clearly I did not). Sheds new light on their absurd '65,000 backers' claim'.
Have contacted the MP re the KRL fraud with a view to encouraging CPS to instigate a test-case prosecution under identity theft as online planning fraud clearly something to be watched out for.
Here's Zac Goldsmith's latest tweet on the fraudulent support:
Delete'So now it seems residents who wrote to Back Heathrow to OPPOSE expansion have ended up on their 'supporter' list (a highly suspect '65,000')' @ZacGoldsmith 4 Feb approx 16.26.
This follows his previous tweet on 2 Feb:
"Back Heathrow has thanked me for signing their petition (clearly I did not). Sheds new light on their absurd '65,000 backers' claim'".
The CPS needs to mount a test-case prosecution case of stolen identity as this kind of planning-support fraud increases. The groundwork has really been done in the case of the Andrew Gillick planning-support case backing change of use of Kensal Rise Library.
Well done Meg.
DeleteIt is a Pitt Barry Gardiner sita around like a Lemon and does nothing apart from a few opportune photo appearances in Brent.
Give my vote to the Greens in Brent this time.
That didn't last long. The library has now disappeared from Knight Frank's brochure, where the following notice has been posted:
ReplyDelete'This property information is not available'.
Bad publicity...? Or perhaps Mr G failed to give full details to the auctioneer... Or maybe the unresolved matter of the Option Agreement has become an obstacle to sale...?
The Invisible Hand I suspect.
DeleteStatement from Margaret Bailey on FKRL's FB page:
ReplyDelete'...We have spoken to some of the developers who have expressed an interest in the building. As the intended tenants of the D1 space, as per our agreement with All Souls College, we recognise the necessity of a good relationship with whoever owns the building and we have been pleased that a number of the developers have indicated their willingness to work with us and the community'.
FKRL and developers - what can possibly go wrong... Seems like the group has learnt nothing from getting into bed with Gillick. As for 'the lease arrangement with All Souls' - what lease arrangement? The one Thomas Seaman asserted that the college would 'raise' with whoever the new owner might be. And FKRL as the 'intended tenants'? I believe ACV-listing regulations preclude this, a point, I understand, both Gillick's and FKRL's lawyers agreed upon. So why keep reiterating what is, at best, wishful thinking?
And the D1 (cupboard) space? Any developer will seek to have this removed - and is likely to succeed. ASC can puff and pant all it likes about its face-saving lease but it's the college that chose Gillick over (a then-united) FKRL business proposal for the library building. The college has, I believe, been advised of the CPS' findings in to the fraudulent email affair. It must rue the day it chose to short-sell the-then FKRL for Andrew Gillick.
I'm sorry, but rump-FKRL seems willing to believe anything it's told by interested parties regarding the library building in defiance of experience, the latest FB statement reading more like a long ego-trip than an attempt to inform its readers.
I have switched off from bother to read FKRL as they have lost my respect.
DeleteThey are not interested in seeking the return of the building for the enjoyment of the whole community.
i my opinion this was not a genuine attempt to sell for the 2nd time round, this has been almost certainly confirmed by the early withdrawal
ReplyDeleteAn attempt at cheap publicity for Gillick, Francis? According to Anon 12.14 above, some interest already by 'developers'/property speculators.
DeleteSeems FKRL and Mo Butt have one thing in common - both appear to dislike Wembley Matters as forum for debate.
ReplyDelete'This attempt to reduce the amount of community space is indicative of the disregard that the current owner has for the community' Margaret Bailey in today's Brent and Kilburn Times
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/environment/campaigners_prepare_for_battle_as_kensal_rise_library_is_placed_on_the_market_again_1_3943263
So FKRL has finally woken up and seen Andrew Gillick for what he is...
It is far top late for FKRL to be issuing statements like this the horse Has bolted, and FKRL too k the side of Gillick Rather than those in the community.
DeleteIt would be helpful if FKRL actually stood up and said to the community they got it horribly wrong and did not listen to the community.
I might then have a little more respect for FKRL.
Agreed 14.38, particularly as FKRL is already talking about having contacted more developers (as result of the Knight Frank ad, now pulled). Will the group never learn? A united community is what's needed, not the divided one that resulted from FKRL's 'negotiations' with Gillick.
DeleteWell, well, well... who'd have thunk it?
ReplyDeleteSeems exec cllr James Denselow is a paid-up member of FKRL - judging by the lock, stock and faithful wholesale reproduction on his own blog of Margaret Bailey's latest FKRL Facebook 'Update', both dated 4 Feb -
www.cllrdenselow.com/update-friends-kensal-rise-library
But pray note (I've been watching Wolf Hall, 'tis true) - as the ambitious councillor and techy expert behind the BrentLive blog states categorically - 'Comments are closed'. What the good councillor meant is that comments were never open. Silly behaviour for an alleged democrat - who'll doubtless be knocking on doors asking Queen's Park residents to vote Labour in the election that's on its way.
Which leads to the obvious question - who do these pseudo-democrats think they are (rhetorical question, but feel free to answer)? And in particular, what could the Cllr Denselow possibly fear from open comments on his blog? Ridicule for following in Roxanne Mashari's political steps and encouraging 'negotiations' between FKRL and Andrew Gillick? Loss of Queen's Park to Labour?
Whatever - both Denselow and Mashari owe the formerly well-regarded FKRL an apology for encouraging them get under the sheets with Gillick. Remember - a previous WM blog updated readers on the police investigation in to the fraudulent email affair in which it was noted that 'the Council did provide the Police with all the IP addresses and details of how Council officers had linked these to Mr Gillick or his company via open source research'
http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/more-details-emerge-on-brent-councils.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+WembleyMatters+(WEMBLEY+MATTERS)
Cllrs Denselow and Mashari have much to answer for.
I love Wembley Matters. Superb writing, excellent information. This is what grassroots debate looks like. It's doubtful, however, that either James Denselow or Roxanne Mashari have the guts to answer on the blog for misleading FKRL.
ReplyDeleteHere we go again. The library building is still on sale - bid date closes noon, 5 March
ReplyDeletehttp://www.inst.knightfrank.com/view/kensal
It was, moreover, never withdrawn from sale, so which anonymous spox at Knight Frank told this week's BKT that "Knight Frank is no longer involved in the sale of this property” and, more importantly, why?
I Just cant believe It when the moratorium Has been
ReplyDeletetriggered they can still advertise For Sale !
Wonder if apparent on/off sale result of Knight Frank doing the necessary 'due diligence' on Gillick?
DeleteLOL - 'Guide Price: Excess £1,250,000' - remember, that was an Alsopp auction-eve increase of £100k, the (phantom/rigged?) bidding on the day reaching £1.2m. A pity the police can't demand the video of last November's auction to ID who the two bidders were in an effort to resolve whether or not the bidders were genuine.
ReplyDeleteMeantime, viewings of Mr G's latest sale effort are as follows:
Monday 9th of February from 2pm - 3.30pm'.
Tuesday 17th February from 11.30am - 1pm
Wednesday 25th February from 11 30am - 1pm
Monday 2nd March from 11.30am - 1pm
Apparently it is by appointment only.
DeleteApparently it is by appointment only.
Delete