Kensal Rise Library back on the market after failed auction

Kensal Rise Library is back on the market after failing to meet the £1.25m reserve price at auction last year LINK

More details emerge on Brent Council's investigation into Kensal Rise Library emails

Guest blog by Meg Howarth

New information has come to light about the data Brent Council handed to the police in the case of the Kensal Rise Library alleged fraudulent email affair. In a response to a query about the five ISP addresses used to post the fake comments in support of Andrew Gillick's original planning application, a senior council officer has revealed 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'.

This is the full text of the response:

Dear Ms Howarth

I write further to your previous emails resting with your email dated 16 January 2015 and I apologise for the delay in responding to you.

In response to your query,  Council officers did not obtain the ISP subscriber details. The Council does not have the power to force the ISP Providers to disclose the subscriber details. However, 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.

As for the Police and the CPS, you will need to raise those queries with them.

As I stated previously in my e-mail dated 23 December 2014, if you have any queries regarding the decision of the CPS not to pursue this matter, they should be addressed to the partnership Brent Borough Chief Inspector, Andy Jones.

Yours sincerely

As stated on a previous blog (No prosecution in the Kensal Rise Library case - December  23rd 2014) 'it seems that the key to ultimately tracking back an IP address to a user is to engage with the ISP and get it (or force it via a judge) to release the data showing which client was issued with what IP address at a particular time of day'.  The question is, therefore: did Brent police seek the ISP subscriber details before handing over its dossier to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)? If not, why not? 

It was on 19 December 2014, in the run-up to the Xmas holidays, that the CPS advised Brent's Audit and Investigation Unit that 'there is insufficient evidence to proceed against Andrew Gillick'. In a New Year's Day interview with the Brent and Kilburn Times, a CPS spokesman elaborated: 'Having carefully considered all the material supplied we have decided there was insufficient evidence to support a realistic prospect of conviction in this case. The evidence did not prove this to the required standard and we therefore advised the police that no further action should be taken'.

So if Brent police didn't seek the ISP subscriber details, did the CPS do so instead? If it didn't, how could it conclude that the 'required standard' of evidence for a prosecution in the fraudulent email affair was unproven? A reply from Brent's partnership borough chief inspector and the CPS is awaited. 

'No prosecution' decision in Kensal Rise Library email fraud investigation provokes anger

--> Brent Council has been informed that the Crown Prosecution Service is to take no action regarding the fraudulent emails sent in support of Andrew Gillick's original planning application for Kensal Rise Library.
Arnold Meagher, Brent Council's Principal Lawyer, Housing and Litigation Team wrote:

I write to advise that the Council has been informed of the outcome of the investigation regarding Mr Gillick and the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service.

The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that there is insufficient evidence to support any prosecution against Mr Gillick and therefore, no further action will be taken against him.

The Council has been advised by the Metropolitan Police that the partnership Brent Borough Chief Inspector, Andy Jones, is aware of this decision. The Metropolitan Police has requested that any queries regarding the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service go through Andy Jones.

70 or so fraudulent emails had been sent including one using the name and address of local business woman Kirsty Slattery.

Reacting to the news this afternoon she said:

I think the whole process has been purposely drawn out and detrimental to the people and businesses it affected. 

So somehow no one is responsible for these acts of fraud (?) according to the CPS and at no point has anyone even received an apology from Brent Council. 

The fraud affected my business as it misrepresented my standing in the community. This should never have been allowed to happen, someone ought to have been held accountable for these deceitful actions and the very least I would expect is a sincere apology. 

Kensal Rise Councillor Dan Filson was even more scathing: 

This news seems released by the CPS deliberately at a time when attention is elsewhere. Shame on the CPS.

I am appalled that an attempt - by whoever, though the email thread heading may offer a clue - to pervert the planning process had not resulted in a prosecution. 

It would be useful to know if the reason for this decision is insufficient evidence linking the alleged perpetrator to the offence(s) or an unclear charge upon which a prosecution could be hung? 

A dangerous precedent has been set, that a fraudulent attempt to mislead a planning authority as to the level of support for a planning application from the community and as to who in that community is supporting it by way of impersonation. We don't now know whether this stunt has been pulled in respect of other applications in this or other boroughs.

Questions should be asked in the House of Commons

The issue of the fraudulent emails has been a long and complicated affair. In September 2013 The Save Kensal Rise Library Campaign wrote on their website:

We are expecting the council to pursue the origins of the fraudulent submissions of support for the planning submission as reported in The Kilburn Times and The Evening Standard last week.
We have been promised an investigation and report as soon as possible.

Help us to keep up the pressure on the council to find out where this dodgy support comes from by writing to the Leader of the Council and your local councillors asking them to make sure the council makes every effort to find out who is guilty of this fraudulent support. We can’t allow local democracy to be undermined  by such abuse of the consultative processes of the council.

The police later appeared to have dropped the investigation but after the demolition of the pop up library in February 2014 both the Council and Muhammed Butt made statements to the Willesden and Wembley Observer:

A spokesman for Brent Council said:

The council undertook its own detailed enquiries before referring the matter to the police and provided the police with a summary of the outcome as part of the agreed referral process through the National Fraud Reporting Centre. The council remains very concerned about the way that the planning portal was used on this occasion and has subsequently made changes to forestall future problems arising. The council wants to continue to maintain the highest level of integrity with its planning process, since the authority continues to have statutory responsibilities to consider planning applications that are submitted. 

Labour leader of the council Muhammed Butt said:

It is bitterly disappointing that the police have chosen to ignore the evidence found in the council’s own inquiries and drop their investigation. When the future of the building affects hundreds of Brent residents and the entire Kensal Rise community, any issue of alleged fraud must surely be a priority in order to maintain the trust of local people. 

Whilst I know that this Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government has cut the police force by a fifth in the last three years, I am troubled that this investigation has not been carried out as a matter of urgency. Brent Council will be writing to demand that the police review their original decision and launch an appropriate investigation.

The investigation was reinstated with various sections of the police  responsible at any one time and recently there has been a long silence on the matter despite frequent requests for information.
I agree that the final outcome is far from satisfactory.

Disputing the facts in the Kensal Rise Library case

There have now been 175 comments on the recent blog on the twists and turns of the Kensal Rise Library saga.  It has become increasingly hard to follow the discussion so I asked Meg Howarth to write a Guest Blog on the disputed facts of the matter and what she thinks are the repercussion stemming from this.  I will be happy to publish a similar Guest blog, preferably from a named person, who wishes to counter some of the factual evidence or interpretation.

As once again comments got heated I plead with people making comments to keep personal issues out of it and stick to the evidence and principles involved.

Thanks you

Martin Francis

GUEST BLOG BY MEG HOWARTH

Former Kensal Rise Library (KRL) is listed for auction in two days' time - Wednesday, 17 December. This blog is an attempt to respond to questions, misunderstandings and concerns which are again being raised about the Option Agreement (OA) document to purchase KRL:

- the OA allegedly came in to force on 26 November 2012 between KRL's then-owner, ASC, and property developer, Andrew Gilick; no-one other than the seller (ASC), the buyer (Andrew Gillick) and their lawyers has ever seen the original document. An OA is not a sale contract - it does what it says on the tin: it's an 'option' to buy;

- a contract for the sale of KRL was made only when Andrew Gillick exercised the option to buy contained in the OA; this appears to have been in January 2013, and was conditional on 'vacant possession' of KRL;

- vacant possession was secured by the seller, ASC, only this year, on 31 January 2014, with the demolition of the pop-up library early on the morning of 31 January; 

- the sale of KRL was completed on or immediately after that date;

- any statement that KRL was sold to Andrew Gillick before KRL was listed as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) on 11 December 2012 is untrue; 

- under ACV regulations, an OA carries the same weight as a sale, ie if an OA is made before a listing, then ACV regulations do not apply. This means that a listed 'asset' is exempt from the moratorium restrictions on its sale. 

Unresolved concerns about the Option Agreement (OA) are its date and whether it was signed off. The Information Commissioner ordered the release of the OA on 4 March 2014 after a successful appeal against then-owner All Souls College (ASC) refusal to publish the document. This was to be redacted for date, names and price only. I was sent a hard-copy redacted copy of the OA on 31 March 2014. There are two problems:

- there are no redactions for the date or the signing off of the document. Any redacted copy of the original OA  should, in my opinion and that of others, have shown clearly where those redactions have been made, just as  redactions for names and price are clear elsewhere in the document. This LINK  is to a scan of the document I was sent It has been posted on  previous WM blogs;

- if the OA was never signed off, then it has no legal status

A request for a meeting with Brent's CE Christine Gilbert has been made to try to resolve these matters. With KRL slated for auction in two days time, it's important that these doubts about the legality of the original sale be resolved. Only a viewing of the original Option Agreement can do this.

Footnote: 

There is no doubt in my mind that the OA was drawn up to bypass the application of the ACV moratorium regulations on ASC's sale of the library. Ironically - or not, depending on legal opinion - paras 6.1/6.2 of the OA state:

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. 

LATE ADDITION - Letter from Farrers re signing of Option Agreement

Late addition. Brent Council Legal view on auction as sent to Friends of Kensal Rise Library on December 15th:

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.

Guide Auction Price of £1,150,000 For Kensal Rise Library

Further news is coming in regarding the sale of Kensal Rise Library by Andrew Gillick. The building has appeared on Zoopla LINK for auction on December 17th. It has a guide price of £1,150,000.

This gives very little time for Friends of Kensal Rise Library or any other community interest group to make up their minds and enter a bid.  As there is supposed to be a six week initial moratorium before sale to allow an organisation to signal their intention to bid for an Asset of Community Value the question arises as to when Brent Council were first informed by Gillick of his intention to sell.

Police pass Kensal Rise e-mail fraud information to CPS

Andrew Donald, Brent's Director of Regeneration and Mayor Projects, has told local campaigner Meg Howarth that the Brent police have passed information regarding the Kensal Rise Library Development fraudulent e-mails on to the Crown Prosecution service for their consideration.

It is not known when any further information will be available.

Fruadulent e-mails using the names and addresses of local people were submitted in support of Andrew Gillick's first planning application for the redevelopment of Kensal Rise Librray which was closed down by Brent Council.

Subsequently Brent Legal ruled that the police investigation was not something that the Brent Planning Committee could take into consideration in its decision making and Gillick's second planning application for the library site was approved.

The news comes just as the Guardian publishes a scathing article on the pressures on planning officers and local councillors from ruthless developers LINK:

One former planning officer is frank about the reality of the imbalance in our confrontational system. “If you throw enough resources at a planning application, you’re going to manage to tire everyone out,” he says. “The documentation gets more and more extensive, the phone calls get more frequent and more aggressive, the letters ever more litigious. The weight of stuff just bludgeons everyone aside, and the natural inclination is to say, ‘Oh yeah okay, I’ve had enough of this one,’ and just let it through. It’s like a war of attrition.”

It is a long article but well worth reading for local residents interested in the Quintain-Wembley, Willesden Green Library , Queensbury, Bridge Park, Alperton developments and the failure to build genuinely affordable housing or achieve amenity gains for the community.

Kensal Rise Fake Email Investigation: Brent Council knows about progress but haven't told the public

Regular readers will remember that the Mystery of the Fake E-mails has not been solved. Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council,  having avidly pursued the matter early on seems to have lost his appetite for an answer to the question of who wrote the fake emails and to whose benefit? 

The emails were written in support of an earlier planning application for the redevelopment of Kensal Rise Library. Despite the investigation not being completed Brent Planning Committee approved the  recent planning application by the developer Andrew Gillick.

Now a Freedom of Information request has established that Simon Lane, Head of Audit and Investigations Team at Brent Council was last updated by Brent Police on the investigation on July 16th 2014.

Brent Council had no information on when the investigation was likely to be completed.

Surely it is of the utmost public interest for Brent Council  and Brent police to pursue this matter. An attempt was made to subvert the Council's planning process and in the course of this the identities of Brent citizens were stolen.

Rather than a Miss Marple mystery we now seem to have a rerun of the Hancock classic,The Last Page:

Brent's legal flip-flopping over Kensal Rise Library planning application

In this Guest Blog Meg Howarth tries to disentangle the various interpretations of the law involved in the Kensal Rise Library development planning process.

Last week, Brent's planning committee gave the go-ahead to Andrew Gillick's latest plans for the Kensal Rise Library building he now owns. Brent & Kilburn Times report HERE - 

Regarding the still-unresolved fraudulent email affair surrounding the developer's original scheme - there's currently some speculation that matters might now be in the hands of the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service). This is unconfirmed, however, and shouldn't stop anyone from writing to their ward councillors to ensure that Brent police's investigation isn't quietly dropped on the back of last Wednesday's planning consent.

Last Wednesday's decision was made in the face of apparently contradictory advice from the council's lawyers about the relevance of ACV (Asset of Community Value) legislation to the application - the library building was listed as an ACV in December 2012. The committee's legal advisor told the committee that the Localism Act and ACV was 'separate legislation' and 'not under the consideration of this committee'. This is not only untrue, as Jodi Gramigni says on the following Wembley Matters' blog  LINK

The advice appears also appears to contradict points 7 & 8 of the planning officer's report. These state unequivocally that 'in this case [KTR planning application] the fact that the building is listed as a Asset of Community value is...a material planning consideration' and 'is also relevant...as a partial change of use to residential is proposed' - link to report HERE 

But the most glaring evidence of Brent legal's flip-flopping regarding ACV legislation comes in the statement from Andrew Gillick's spokesman on the eve of the planning committee: 'Further to advice provided by the LPA [Brent local planning authority] in respect of the Assets of Community Value Regulations 2012, I am pleased to advise that the applicant [the developer] has today confirmed that he is naming FKRL as the "actual" tenant, as opposed to his "preferred" tenant'.

So less than 24 hours before the Localism Act and ACV was declared 'separate legislation', it had been  used by Brent's planners to enable a shift from 'preferred' to 'actual' tenant status for FKRL. Why, then, did committee members fail to probe these inconsistencies? Were they asleep on the job? The 2012 legislation either applied to the application or it didn't.

In the event, the shift to the much-heralded status of 'actual' tenant appears to have been little more than a PR move to encourage support for Mr Gillick's latest attempt to convert the library building into unaffordable residential flats. As his spokesman said: 'We trust this ['actual' over 'preferred' tenant status] goes some way to giving the Council, the FKRL and the local community the confidence to support this application'. But as Jodi Gramigni says: there's no 'legally binding requirement to reinstate a library [in the KRL building] or agree a lease with FKRL, confirmed by committee member, Cllr Kasangra, when he said clearly at the meeting that a lease is not part of the planning conditions. 

Those with long memories will here recall the developer's apparent untrustworthiness when, in his original change-of-use application for the Mark Twain library - the one linked to the fake email support - he offered D1 space in the basement of the-then publicly funded building in breach of the legally binding contract he'd signed with then-owner All Souls College: 'none [of the D1 space shall be] in the basement of the Property)' (Option Agreement para 15.1). Jodi's appeal for 'vigilance' is surely spot on.

A further point regarding the Localism Act: if a property is listed as an Asset of Community Value before a sale is agreed, the property is subject to the Community Right to Bid - a 6-month period to enable community groups to prepare alternative sale proposals. Brent's legal counsel argued that the Option Agreement to purchase Kensal Rise Library from All Souls College, allegedly signed in November 2012, preceded the building's ACV-listing in December, and that the building was therefore exempt from the right-to-bid period. But the Option Agreement wasn't a sale contract. That wasn't signed until later, almost certainly in January 2013. So it's arguable that the 6-month bidding process should have started then, enabling FKRL to exercise a bid. For clarification of this alone and/or other aspects of Brent's handling of the application or the police investigation, it might be worth requesting the Secretary of State to call in the planning committee's decision for reconsideration advice on how to do so HERE

Kensal Rise Library planning application approved with new conditions

Brent Planning Committe tonight unanimously approved the planning application for Kensal Rise Library submitted by Andrew Gillick. The Committee attached new conditions to the application with an amendment on the marketing of the D1 space. Cllr Shafique Choudhary and Cllr Dan Filson declared that they had made previous statements  of opinion about the application and withdrew from the meeting.

Cllr Sarah Marquis, chair, in a statement said that on further legal advice, as requested by the commitee's previous meeting, that they would not take the ongoing police investigation into fraudulent emails into account.

A supplementary report by officers, tabled at the meeting, made several key points:

1. The Heads of Terms would be changed so that instead of saying that if the marketing campaign failed to prduce an occupier of the Kensal Rise Library D1 space Brent Council would be given first refusal, after 'internal discussion' this would now give CVS Brent first refusal to prepare a bid for the space.
2. The naming of Friends of Kensal Rise Library as the 'actual' tenant rather than 'preferred' tenant 'is not an issue the committee should purport to determine as part of the planning process.'
3. The applicant will provide the D1 space as a plastered shell with the main services capped off plus an earmarked sum of £3,000 for the teant to fit out the space.
4. A member of the public had asked that committee members be made aware of the Option Agreement to purchase Kensal Rise Library made between All Souls Collge and the developer when considering the current planning application.

Jodi Gramigni made a representation pointing the the importance of the Asset of Community Value status of the Kensal Rise building. She said that the commitee should take this into account as a material consideration  and called on Brent Council to exercise the political will to make this status mean something.

Stephanie Schonfield for Friends of Kensal Rise Library disputed the supllementary officer's report's comment on the naming of FKRL as 'actual tenant' and said FKRL were 'thrilled and relieved' at the agreement and loked forward to occupying the space and endsing four years of campaigning.

Councillors questions mainly centred around detailed issues arising from their site visit. The Committe eventually voted for a number of conditions including widening the chimney breast entrance space to admit buggies and wheelchairs, increased parking space for cycles, and waste storage space to be provided on the ground floor rather than the basement thus reducing the need to use the list and thus reducing the £2,500 service charge.

Steve Weeks of the Planning Department suggested that due to the 'actual' tenant agreement and the giving of CSV first refusal if marketing failed, that the requirement to market the space could be reduced to a fall-back if agreement was not reached on the initial occupier.

No refence was made during the meeting to the Option Agreement, although it may have been discussed at the pre-meeting.

The meeting was subdued with no triumphalism apparent, and several of the people involved on either aside of the battle made concilatory comments to each other after the meeting.

It appears that after a bruising controversey the community will now try and make the best of what some regard as a not very good deal, and others the best deal available in the circumstance.

Meanwhile the outcome of the police investigation into fraudulent emails is still awaited...

Round 3 of Kensal Rise Library planning debate tonight as FKRL negotiate named 'actual' tenancy

 

-->The controversial Kensal Rise Library planning application returns to the Planning Committee tonight, 7pm Conference Room, Brent Civic Centre LINK
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

Kensal Rise Library application to be heard following legal advice

The controversial planning application for Kensal Rise Library has been tabled for the Planning Committee Meeting of July 16th following legal advice. The item had been deferred at the last meeting LINK in order to seek further legal advice on whether the investigation into fraudulent emails supporting the developer's previous application was a 'material consideration'.

The new report LINK states:

1.     The Council has obtained advice from leading Counsel, Richard Drabble QC, since deferral of the decision by Members on the 17 June. The advice was required to establish whether the Committee could lawfully determine the current application having regard to the fraudulent emails, in support of the application, received during the consultation process in respect of planning application reference 13/2058. Counsel has endorsed the views given by officers, by correctly identifying that such claims of fraudulent activity, are not a material consideration for the purposes of assessing the current application.

2.     Counsel contends that he can see no reason why the grant of planning permission on the current application should prejudice the police investigation into whether earlier representations were bogus or fraudulent. In these circumstances Members are obliged to determine the application on an objective assessment of material planning considerations alone.

3.     3.The Council’s statutory duty also extends to determine planning applications within a reasonable period of time. Accordingly, any unreasonable delay by Members in deciding the current application second time around could result in the developer lodging an appeal to the Secretary of State (Planning Inspectorate) under section 78 (2) of the Act on the grounds of non-determination. Effectively, the Secretary of State would step into the shoes of the Council as Local Planning Authority and determine the application. If the matter were deferred again without proper justification for doing so, the Council will inevitably incur legal costs in dealing with and defending the appeal. The Council may well have to pay the developers professional costs as part of this process, if an order for costs was made on that basis. However, it is very difficult to predict what the overall costs are likely to be, but an estimated guess could run into thousands of pounds. In this respect Members should be mindful of the Councils fiduciary duty towards the local tax payer when balancing the degree of risk.

4.     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.

5.     In summary, and for the avoidance of doubt, Members are under a statutory duty to determine the planning application within a reasonable period of time; and that neither the requirements of coming to a proper planning decision or any need to avoid prejudice to the police investigation require any further delay.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal Services and Procurement.

Revised plans for Cricklewood Library

Hot on the heels of the Kensal Rise plamming application, revised architect plans for Cricklewood Library have been drawn up (above). The plans show that the community space has been increased slightly bu 30m2 to 180m2. The  library internal space of the current building was almost 300m2 on the ground floor with additional upstairs storage.

The revision includes outside space to the front and rear of the new development and includes a possible 'picture window' facing on to the landscape space.

One apartment has been deleted leaving one at the rear of the ground floor, two  each on the 1st and 2nd floors and one apartment only on the 3rd floor.

The Friends of Cricklewood Library Committee will be meeting soon and the plans are likely to be lodged with Brent planning today.
 
In October 2013 developer Andrew Gillick withdrew plans at the last minute LINK after campaigners said the community space was too small.

Police investigations are continuing into fraudulent emails supporting Gillick's previous planning application for Kensal Rise Library.

Barnet planning email fraud allegation withdrawn

Barnet Today LINK reported yesterday that a woman and her husband had their identities stolen in fake emails sent in support of a planning application for a development by Bespoke Solutions.

The case bears a strong resemblance to the Kensal Rise fraudulent email issue and raises a concern that this may be a more widespread tactic that anyone has realised. It certainly suggests that the police should give a higher priority to the Kensal Rise investigation.

STOP PRESS The report has now been removed so the link above will not work. North London Press said:

 The woman retracted the allegation and requested the story be removed

This is all very strange as the woman's allegation was specific and detailed saying that her address and email had been used in support of the development, as well as the work address of her husband, in submissions that they had not sent.

There's only one thing for it: call Miss Marple

Kensal Rise Library development decision deferred pending legal advice on fraud

The planning application by Andrew Gillick  for the redevelopment of Kensal Rise Library, closed by Brent Council, was deferred tonight at a dramatic meeting of Brent Planning Committee,

Committee membership was reduced by two members when Cllr Shafique Choudhary and Cllr Dan Filson withdrew on the basis that they had expressed strong views prior to joining the Committee.
This left 5 members, including the chair Sarah Marquis, to make the decision.

It had seemed that the fraudulent email investigation had been ignored when the meeting went ahead without any statement about deferment pending the outcome of the current police investigation into fraudulent emails that had supported Mr Gillick's last application.

Karl Abeyasekera, speaking as a member of the public drew members' attention to the fraudulent email issue saying that the 'guilty party' could benefit materially from this application. He called for the Committee to defer pending the outcome of the police investigation.

Stephanie Schonfield of the Friends of Kensal Rise Library spoke in support of the application  and said they had put their trust in All Souls College and the developer and hoped they would reciprocate by supporting FKRL to manage the community space. She regretted that they were only the preferred bidder and not the named occupant.

Horatio Chance, the Committee's legal adviser  told members that the 'binding agreement' with All Souls College was excempt from the Localism Act and had no relevance to the Kensal Rise building's Asset of Community Value status.

Following other contribututions, including a question from Cllr Amer Agha about the email investigation, and the developer's agent saying the community space had to be offered to other voluntary organisations  and ot resreved for FKRL, it looked as if the Committee was about the vote when chair Sara Marquis dropped her bombshell. She made a statement from the chair. She said that despite legal advice to the contrary she could not see why an ongoing police investigation into the previous application could NOT be a material consideration.

There followed a potentially testy but lawyerly interchange with Horation Chance, the Committee's legal adviser, on whether the Committee were legally bound to make a decision on the application on purely planning grounds, ignoring the email investigation. Chance in near exasperation declared that the legal advice  was clear and had come from no less a person than Fiona Ledden.

Marquis insisted the Committee needed further legal advice on whether the fraud investigation should be taken into account and when Chance could add nothing further she said that the Committee should vote on deferment. Various officers warned that the applicant might appeal to thre Secretary of State over the delay and seek compensation.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari, a Cabinet member and former lead member for Environment, who played a large part in brokering the deal with FKRL, made a late attempt to speak. Cllr Marquis rejected the request as the section for contributions had finished and she pointed out that the councillor had had the chance to put in a request to speak with the two days notice required of councillors.

The Committee voted on whether to hear the planning application, and only Cllr Kasangara, perhaps reflecting Conservative values, said that fraud was of no account and the vote on the application should go ahead.

The Committee then voted 3 for  (Cllrs Marquis, Agha, Hylton), 1 against  (Cllr Kasangara)and 1 abstention (Cllr Lia Colacicco) on the motion to defer the decision on the application until further legal advice had been obtained. This will mean the application  returning on the next cycle to the Committee that meets on July 16th.

This was not a vote to await the outcome of the police investigation but to decide if the investigation was something that the Committee should take into account.

It was also clear from the councillors' questions, or lack of them, that they were only concerned about minor aspects of the application itself, so it looks likely to eventually go through given the number of supporting letters. Unless there are further developments...

Cllr Sarah Marquis deserves credit for showing the sort of independence and toughness that one should expect from a Chair of Planning.

Marquis is a lawyer and specialises in fraud and white collar crime.

As a newly elected councillor, chairing her first committee, she has already made her mark.

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

Curioser and curioser - Kensal Rise library occupied by tenants despite no change of use granted

Despite calls for the Kensal Rise Library planning application to be postponed until the police investigation into fraudulent emails has been concluded, the new application (by the same developer) will be heard at Brent Planning Committee next week.

For those without long memories, here is how the issue was reported by the Kilburn Times at the time of the last application, just 8 months ago LINK :

Council chiefs have called in the police over claims that emails supporting plans to develop an axed library branch were faked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Margaret Bailey, chair of FKRL, said:

“We applaud the action of our council and it’s willingness to take seriously this attempt to subvert local democracy and mislead the public.

“Our community is strongly against this development for the library building and these fraudulent emails of support for the development were an attempt to divide and denigrate this community.

“Fraud is illegal and we support a thorough investigation by the police.”

Cllr Mashari added: 

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

“I am ready to work with the community and any stakeholder to ensure that this happens and that it is viable and sustainable.”

The alleged illegality seems to have been forgotten, or swept under the carpet, with both Brent Council Planning officers and FKRL supporting Gillick's new application.

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

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

What does she think?