Kensal Rise Library application a baptism of fire for the new Planning Committee

The controversial planning application for the Kensal Rise Library development appears to be scheduled for the new Planning Committee on June 17th, despite the police not having yet reported on their investigation of fraudulent emails submitted on the previous application.

Planning officers are recommending that the committee grant consent 'subject to legal agreement'. What this means will become clearer when their full report is published a week before the meeting.

The new Planning Committee, which is supposed to operate independently of the Council and is not whipped, is chaired by newly elected Barnhill councillor, Sarah Marquis who is a lawyer.

This is the composition of the Committee which consists of 7 Labour and one Conservative councillor:

Sarah Marquis, Amer Agha, Shafique Choudhary, Lia Colacicco, Dan Filson, Orleen Hylton, Suresh Kansagra and Arshad Mahmood.

One issue that immediately strikes me is that the Standing Orders for the Committee LINK, approved as part of the constitutional changes adoped at Full Council, is whether a hearing on June 17th gives enough time for the training of new councillors on the Planning Committee that is now required. A good grounding would seem to be required in such a controversial and complex case.

The Declarations of Interest for new councillors have yet to be posted LINK

The full list of comments on the  planning application can be seen on the planning portal LINK

Meanwhile here are some of the comments which will give readers an idea of the issues involved.

-->

Support: I despair that this historic library, opened by Mark Twain, funded by public subscription; with help from Andrew Carnegie, fought for by so many in the community, and now designated a community asset, is to be carved up into a residential development for private profit, with token space set aside for its original use. If the choice is between nothing and something, then of course I support the Planning Application 14/0846 and FKRL as tenants of the space. But the ethics of the closure remain far from clear to me.

Support: Support for planning application 14/0846 I give my support re Planning Application 14/0846: 1. For D1 community library and space 2. For FKRL to be tenants of the space in the belief that this is the best practical way to use the Kensal Rise library building as a community asset. I hope the planning committee has more relevant information than me, and can better judge these issues: * Is a community library a practical, sustainable activity in the space envisaged? * Would the community get sufficient benefit from a library in the space envisaged to respect the "asset of community value" status? * Does the committee believe that the community could get better value from the building (that was funded by public subscription) in another way; i.e. that it should it reject the planning application or defer a decision until after the end of May when further funding options can be discussed? I await the decision and your reasons with interest

Objection: I object to the planning application 14/0846: 1) The application conflicts with the building's Asset of Community Value ("ACV") listing: The whole building is listed as an ACV. The applicant's/develper's plan for flats occupying almost the entire space within the building (less about 185sqm on the ground floor) conflicts with the requirement of the building's ACV listing for future non-ancillary community use. Were the applicant to succeed, most of the building's potential use as a future community facility would be lost to us forever, and in its place we would have the applicant's provision of an ancillary "D1 community space"; this contravenes the ACV requirement that future use of the building for the community be non-ancillary. 2) The impact on local employment and skills: The applicant's plan will damage the employment prospects of local people. In converting almost the whole building to residential use, the applicant is denying the future use of that space to local companies and organisations which could offer the learning of diverse skills not only to those they employ but those who would use their services; in contrast, the small space offered by the applicant cannot offer the same sustainable and diverse business, education, skills and employment opportunities to local people - and such a loss always affects poorer people most. I note that the Friends of Kensal Rise Library (FKRL) is the developer's "preferred bidder" for the space, however its model for financial sustainability is weak because it relies almost exclusively on volunteer support - this is because there is little space for it to generate revenue to run a library in the D1 space offered by the developer in this application. 3) Not much more D1 space than in developer's first rejected application on the building in August 2013: The D1 space offered now is little more than what was offered in the developer's first planning application when it was rejected by the planning officers on the grounds of insufficient D1 space. At that time, the developer offered D1 space partly in a basement and partly on the ground floor; as a percentage of total floor space available, the D1 space offered now isn't much more than what was offered then - in fact it's probably less because there is now less basement space in the developer's current application. Therefore, if the planning officers rejected the first application after having concluded that it conceded insufficient D1 space, then it only makes sense for the sake of consistency to reject the current application as well. 4) The police's current fraud investigation potentially exposes planning officers and committee to civil proceedings against them: Has the council considered the legal consequences to it of assigning residential status to any part of the building - and therefore immediately enriching the applicant - while there is an on-going police investigation into email and identity fraud around the applicant's support for his first application in August 2013? While the financial implications of assigning residential status to a currently D1-only building are not a matter for the planning officers and committee, the consequences of doing so while an investigation, which could possibly result in criminal charges, might be. 5) The D1 space is unattractive, small, and will not generate a sustained level of interest from the community because the space is too limited in what it can offer; it is essentially a narrow corridor separating two relatively small rooms - which will be small once essential public facilites such as toilets, staff room, and circulation are factored in. The proposed entrance to the D1 area is in a chimney flue, leaving the better and larger entrance for the few flat owners.

Support: This supporting comment is being submitted on behalf of the Kensal Triangle Residents Association. While,like everyone else, we deeply regret that the whole building is not to be saved for community use, as it was originally gifted to the local community, we consider that the FKRL who have worked tirelessly for the last four years have arrived at the best outcome which still retains a library on the site. We wish for the Friends of Kensal Rise Library to be the tenants of the space and to run the Library. Commenting on purely physical details, we agree with many others that the proposed entrance (through the existing chimney flue) creates a cramped space with poor flow, which will not help with optimisation of the space available: surely some way can be found of creating secure entrances to the flats and the Library through the existing main door.

Support: Time to Win the Peace? We have been involved in campaigns for Kensal Rise Library library since 1988, when the people occupied the building. Now is the turning point. Do we support the developer¿s planning application with the proviso that there be a rent-free space for community use on the ground floor whose preferred tenants are the Friends of Kensal Rise Library? For us the answer is a ¿Yes¿. We know and trust the Friends of Kensal Rise Library, who have fought so hard to save this building and who kept the Pop-up Library running in all weathers, a hard and unglamorous task. Thanks to their tireless negotiations with the developer and All Souls, the space offered has been increased to around two-thirds of the original space the library took up. No war ever achieves all its objectives. Ideally we would all like to keep the whole building for community use. But a moral victory is useless if there is no library at the end of it. The Friends and Trustees of Kensal Rise Library have taken the very difficult decision to support the planning application. After years of saying 'No' to an Oxford College, a Council and a developer, it is hard to say ¿Yes¿. But what were we fighting for? A library. Not an embattled plastic tent, brilliant as it was, but a warm, dry space where books, company and computers are free. A space where parents can bring young children, where older school children can do their home-work. The end-game was always a peace, not a war. My husband, the writer Nicholas Rankin, and I believe it is time to win the peace. It is an act of faith. But every library is an act of faith that when people work together, good things can happen that are not just about profit or advantage. We want Kensal Rise to have a real library back and we think the best chance of it now is to support the planning application.

PLEASE NOTE THAT BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS ILL-TEMPERED ANONYMOUS COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH AROUSED STRONG FEELINGS ON BOTH SIDES, I WILL ONLY PUBLISH COMMENTS WHICH INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE COMMENTER.

Comments closed on Kensal Rise Library debate

There has been extensive debate about the Kensal Rise Library development on this blog which at times has been heated and even vixperous. I have decided to close comments now and instead will post on any new developments ahead of the May planning committee meeting.

Martin Francis

Blunt speaking in favour of Friends of Kensal Rise Library

Guest post by Gaynor Lloyd
 

OK, I had decided to hold back from comment on this. I am "just" a Brent SOS library campaigner from the other end of the Borough. I have  been involved more or less from the beginning but "my" library is Barham - which Brent Council and its Labour councillors treat somewhat differently from Kensal Rise. However, I am not bitter! I rejoice at the return of ANY library to the Brent library circuit and look forward to Kensal Rise re-opening even if it is “only” on the ground floor. I apologise if that offends some people and can take being told to butt out..

But I claim some right to comment from a position of knowledge. In my working life up to retirement last year, I was a commercial  property lawyer, experienced in development, sales and landlord and tenant matters in a Central London firm for over 33 years – including “against” the solicitors All Souls use – Farrers. I acted for P&O, Chelsfield, Laing, Sun Life Assurance and many developers and investors small and large. 

I was “lucky” enough to be allowed to go to some of Cricklewood ‘s meetings - including at Savills with the Cricklewood team, where I met the (in)famous Mr Seaman and his advisers, and also – in a  separate meeting – the legendary Mr Gillick.

The day that All Souls exchanged contracts with Andrew Gillick’s property company in respect of the Kensal Rise Library, the die was cast in terms of what bargain could be made for the library. People may not like it but that is the position at law. Nobody at Kensal Rise – the Friends of Kensal Rise (FKRL) or otherwise – nor at Brent Council had any control whatsoever. The legal position is what it is. All Souls sold to Andrew Gillick’s company. The contract was not subject to planning, and Gillick could buy, with the only protection for the library as set out in the Option Agreement. Thanks to the campaigners’ persistence, that Option Agreement has become public – but only just. FKRL had no knowledge of what protective provisions there might be to preserve their beloved library. They had no power whatsoever to impose anything, or change what All Souls  and Gillick had agreed.

However, thanks, in my view, to the fantastic campaigning by FKRL, through its Trustees and the community– it turns out that – All Souls kept back a provision for community space in that Option Agreement – essentially the binding contract for the disposal (as Gillick exercised his option). The Trustees – from the sight I have had as a member of Brent SOS steering group from the beginning have, in my opinion,  played an absolute blinder with constant risks and with essentially a blooming awful hand once Brent was daft enough to trigger the reverter. What they have achieved thus far was  against impossible odds 

 The provisions as to space and terms on which it can be obtained for community are set in the contract. It simply was not possible for anyone to improve on that position. All Souls and Gillick entered into their Option Agreement . FKRL was not and could not be at the table for that agreement. Essentially, that was that. All that hard work to get Kensal Rise classified as an Asset of Community Value was defeated. FKRL had no position from which legally to negotiate.

So – sorry for my bluntness – but the Trustees of FKRL couldn’t change that. Anyone who thinks that  it was in the legal control of FKRL to get any better position is plainly wrong. The contract between All Souls and  Gillick’s company is enforceable in law, and FKRL has no standing in that contract.

If people want to object to the planning application, that is up to them. There may be tactical considerations but it is hardly my place to comment on that – I don’t know all the facts nor am I a Kensal Rise campaigner nor resident in Kensal Rise. But – from the (involved and caring) outsider’s position, forgive me for saying this. The Brent SOS campaign has brought so many magnificent hard working people together, forged alliances across party lines and worked very hard for the public of Brent . Because of that, Kensal Rise MAY well actually get a library. Can people celebrate that? I am sure that they will work together to ensure that will happen.

But may I personally pay a huge tribute to my chief contacts – firstly, the truly magnificent, totally committed, fearsome and fearless - and hard working beyond all measure - Margaret Bailey   Apart from all her physical work  along with others “manning” the much lamented and iconic pop-up library, I have been in contact with her, as she sat up all night for days getting documents drafted and  in , e.g. on the planning) .And  - let us not forget – it was Margaret. who took the risk on the court case in her name. As a lawyer, I understand the courage and genuine risk  of that - however much she may minimise it, in her inimitable fashion.   And, of course, Laura Collignon , who has  in addition to all her work in the complex, lengthy and multi-layered campaign for Kensal Rise, marshalled the mixed , feisty and totally committed  members of the Brent SOS  overall  steering group in some of the best run meetings I have ever witnessed .  

Two women who truly deserve accolades for the extraordinary position that FKRL has got itself to. (With many apologies to those who have doubtless also worked very hard in the campaign!)

Time for a public debate on Kensal Rise Library issues

At the beginning of this month I carried a 'Guest Blog'  LINK from trustees of the Friends of Kensal Rise Library on why they had reached an agreement with the developer, Andrew Gillick. This has attracted many comments with the debate becoming quite heated at times. I posted an update on the planning application for the redevelopment of the library building on Saturday LINK which has also attracted debate.  The revelation of the option agreemment between All Souls and Andrew Gillick LINK added another dimension to the discussion.

There are three main questions arising from the debate as far as I can see:

1. Is the agreement the best deal possible for the campaign to safeguard a community library space in the building, is it secure and will the Friends be able to raise the necessary funds for the upkeep and running of the space?
2. Should the police investigation into the fraudulent emails supporting Andrew Gillick's first planning application be concluded before the Brent Planning Committee considers this planning application and would a delay put the acquisition of the community space in jeopardy?
3. What are the ramifications of the option agreement and should it be submitted as evidence to the Planning Committee?

Having hosted this debate on Wembly Matters I do recognise that it has reached only a small number of people but concerns a whole local community.

As the issue is clearly controversial with strong opinions voiced on both sides, I wonder of there should be a public meeting where some of these matters can be thrashed out, starting from the assumption that everyone wants to retain a library presence in the building?

The consultation closes on April 28th and there is a possibility that the application will go to the May 14th Planning Committee, a week before the local elections.

28th April deadline for Kensal Rise Library development comments

Brent Council is currently consulting on Andrew Gillick’s latest controversial planning application for the Kensal Rise Library building - LINK

It seems likely that the council planning committee will consider the application on 14^th May, the week before the local election, and before the Metropolitan Police CID has reported on the fake emails which were submitted at the time of Mr Gillick’s original application.

The consultation is being conducted over the Easter/school-holiday period and many residents, both those for and against, may be disenfranchised as a result of being away. Some consultation letters dated 21st March were arriving only in week beginning 7th April. With only 21 days for response some may not bother, believing 11th April as the final date. The cut-off date is, in fact, 28th April, as the site-notice states LINK

So far most of the comments published publicly on the Brent Planning portal are against the proposal. When making a comment remember to state 'Objection', 'Support' or 'Comment'.

• 11/04/2014 - 102 Liddell Gardens , London , NW10 3QE. Objection: I would like to object to this planning application to change the former Kensal library into flats. My business address and email address was used fraudulently in the previous planning application for this same building, (used as a supportive vote and comments made by another person, not myself, also in support of the application) which was very upsetting and detrimental to my business re our standing in the community here. This matter of the fraud from the previous application has STILL not been resolved, with very little communication with me, and for this reason I am strongly against the granting of the planning permission to these people wanting to convert the library, leaving the area without one.
• 10/04/2014 - 2 Bathurst Gardens , London , NW10 5JA. Objection: I vehement to the change of use of this building from a public community space into apartments for a number of reasons. This loss of a public building, given in perpetuity to the people of Brent, shut by a weak unimaginative council because it was a soft target brought about by Government spending cuts due to a recession fuelled by greedy bankers, betrayed by the owners, the very wealthy All Souls college, and sold to an unscrupulous developer who is accused of making fraudulent comments on his previous application for permission. I object to these peoples actions. What a sad state of affairs and what a sorry bunch they all are. Who looses out? The community, the elderly, unemployed but most of all the children, who gains the wealthy college, unscrupulous developer and the pathetic unimaginative council who save a little money to take and waste elsewhere. The building was built as a public building not as a residence it is in close proximity to and overlooks other properties previously not overlooked by residents. Some of the windows overlooking adjoining properties are on the application said to be partially obscured this needs clarification what does partially obscured mean? There will be additional cars in what is an already very busy street and at a very busy junction. There would seem to be no provision for additional parking for, what could be up to 5 cars. The appearance of the former library will be changed forever if the proposed plans go ahead, the roof line, roof terrace and "community hub" entrance are not in keeping with the style and period of the library and will remain as a scar on the beauty of the building. There are serious low pressure issues with the water and it is often reduced to a trickle in the morning or early evenings pressure is lower than during the rest of the day. The addition of five more residential apartments in this building will potentially exacerbate this issue. I dont want 5-10 (?) new neighbours on my doorstep, I bought my property 28 years ago and part of the attraction was that it was end of terrace and next to a library and therefore a reasonably quite location, this development will put an end to this, we will lose this peaceful corner of Kensal Green.
• 10/04/2014 - 4 Bathurst Gardens , Willesden , London , NW10 5JA. Objection: I object to the development of Kensal Rise on the following grounds. 1) change of use, this is a community building and should remain so, this should not now be used for residential. 2) the neighbourhood is already densely populated and the council is barely able to fulfil it role for current tenants and residents,, clearly they do not have the ability to handle more. 3)building is not fir for the purpose of residential as it is positioned too close to other properties. 4) if the building is developed it will overlook my property and be an invasion of my privacy. 5) There are no provisions for the parking facilities that would be required for this number of additional residents, the number of cars and parking is already at maximum capacity. 6) the proposed development will increase activity on a very busy junction. This is a major health and safety concern. 7) Proposed structural changes to roof and proposed community hub entrance are not in keeping with this period of property, will be aesthetic eye sore. 8)Proposed development will contribute to the loss of a much needed community space in the area for which council tax payments are received annually. 9) developer did not get permission for hoarding before erection, which suggests already a level of dishonesty and lack of integrity. 10) failure of the council to allow the developer to put hoarding up and remain there without permission suggests the council may either be on the payroll of developer and thus biased and corrupt in its judgement of this development. 11) water pressure and supply already compromised by the densely populated area. 12) sanitation additional garbage of added residence will added to vermin issue that council has not managed to control. 13) I know from the survey conducted on my property in 2008 I was told to beware of building close to mine developing upwards as foundations in the immediate vicinity of my property could not withstand additional weight. Thus additional stories on the Library would pose increased risk to land stability of my property and risk of subsidence.
• 10/04/2014 - 4 Bathurst Gardens , Willesden , London , NW10 5JA. Objection: I object to the development of Kensal Rise on the following grounds. 1) change of use, this is a community building and should remain so, this should not now be used for residential. 2) the neighbourhood is already densely populated and the council is barely able to fulfil it role for current tenants and residents,, clearly they do not have the ability to handle more. 3)building is not fir for the purpose of residential as it is positioned too close to other properties. 4) if the building is developed it will overlook my property and be an invasion of my privacy. 5) There are no provisions for the parking facilities that would be required for this number of additional residents, the number of cars and parking is already at maximum capacity. 6) the proposed development will increase activity on a very busy junction. This is a major health and safety concern. 7) Proposed structural changes to roof and proposed community hub entrance are not in keeping with this period of property, will be aesthetic eye sore. 8)Proposed development will contribute to the loss of a much needed community space in the area for which council tax payments are received annually. 9) developer did not get permission for hoarding before erection, which suggests already a level of dishonesty and lack of integrity. 10) failure of the council to allow the developer to put hoarding up and remain there without permission suggests the council may either be on the payroll of developer and thus biased and corrupt in its judgement of this development. 11) water pressure and supply already compromised by the densely populated area. 12) sanitation additional garbage of added residence will added to vermin issue that council has not managed to control. 13) I know from the survey conducted on my property in 2008 I was told to beware of building close to mine developing upwards as foundations in the immediate vicinity of my property could not withstand additional weight. Thus additional stories on the Library would pose increased risk to land stability of my property and risk of subsidence.
• 10/04/2014 - 2 Bathurst Gardens , London , NW10 5JA. Objection: I vehement to the change of use of this building from a public community space into apartments for a number of reasons. This loss of a public building, given in perpetuity to the people of Brent, shut by a weak unimaginative council because it was a soft target brought about by Government spending cuts due to a recession fuelled by greedy bankers, betrayed by the owners, the very wealthy All Souls college, and sold to an unscrupulous developer who is accused of making fraudulent comments on his previous application for permission. I object to these peoples actions. What a sad state of affairs and what a sorry bunch they all are. Who looses out? The community, the elderly, unemployed but most of all the children, who gains the wealthy college, unscrupulous developer and the pathetic unimaginative council who save a little money to take and waste elsewhere. The building was built as a public building not as a residence it is in close proximity to and overlooks other properties previously not overlooked by residents. Some of the windows overlooking adjoining properties are on the application said to be partially obscured this needs clarification what does partially obscured mean? There will be additional cars in what is an already very busy street and at a very busy junction. There would seem to be no provision for additional parking for, what could be up to 5 cars. The appearance of the former library will be changed forever if the proposed plans go ahead, the roof line, roof terrace and "community hub" entrance are not in keeping with the style and period of the library and will remain as a scar on the beauty of the building. There are serious low pressure issues with the water and it is often reduced to a trickle in the morning or early evenings pressure is lower than during the rest of the day. The addition of five more residential apartments in this building will potentially exacerbate this issue. I dont want 5-10 (?) new neighbours on my doorstep, I bought my property 28 years ago and part of the attraction was that it was end of terrace and next to a library and therefore a reasonably quiet location, this development will put an end to this, we will lose this peaceful corner of Kensal Green.
• 08/04/2014 - 18 College Road , Kensal Green , NW10 5EP. Objection
• 03/04/2014 - 72 Liddell Gardens , London , NW10 3QE. Support
• 02/04/2014 - 101A Wrottesley Road , London , NW10 5TY. Objection: I object wholeheartedly to this planning application (formerly Kensal Green Library). I vehemently oppose this application for a number of reasons but principally because I do not want it to lose its community value forever - the library was a great asset to our incredible community. The value of this building is surely not just going to be reduced to a useful revenue stream - it was an artery serving the community. I beg you to reconsider.
• 01/04/2014 - 9 Victoria Mansions Sumatra Road , London , NW6 1PD . Support: It's a beautiful building that shouldn't sit empty. There are far too many people that need a home so it will be lovely to see it restored.
• 01/04/2014 - Liddell Gardens NW10 3QD. Objection: This building is currently classified as non residential and community use D1 - and has been since the library was build with a combination of philanthropy and community contribution. The change of use of a community owned asset to private dwellings, in which a developer stands to make significant profit is a mis-use of the existing resources of the community and for Brent council. Ensuring that 75% of the ground floor will continue to be D1 usage is not enough of a commitment to community use. I feel that the entire building should remain as D1 usage. However if that is not possible then the D1 usage should be at least 50% of the floor space of the building, the complete ground floor and some room upstairs and the residential units should include social housing. Changing a community asset from D1 usage to private dwellings is a serious loss to our area - and I strongly oppose it. In terms of details in the proposal - the large door and hallway to the D1 space, in the plans has been proposed to be used by residents and a much smaller door for the community space, likely a library. This seems an extra-ordinary way of dividing the building - to ensure a few residences use a large doorway and hallway and leave a much smaller more awkward door for a public building likely to have significant numbers of daily visitors .The proposed flats (if approved) should have an entrance hall to the side of the building - possibly where the extension and extra residential building is proposed. Does there really need to be so many flats proposed ? The proposed D1 ground floor space is also an awkward U shape - not at all suitable to maintaining a community space, that maybe used for community meetings, classes. this seems to be determined by maintaining the large entrance for a few residential flats The plans look like they are pushing as many individual residences into the space rather than a vision of practical co-living. Lastly the lack of parking spaces for 5 new flats will cause significant parking place squeeze in the area.
• 31/03/2014 - 27 Chelmsford Square , London , NW10 3AP. Objection
• 28/03/2014 - 31 Chelmsford Square NW10 3AP. Objection: Former Kensal Rise Branch Library, Bathurst Gardens, London NW10 5JA I object to the proposed planning application for three basic reasons. Firstly, The entire community has come together to oppose the removal of our beloved library. Despite campaign after campaign and petition and demonstration after petition and demonstration, all our efforts have fallen on deaf ears. The Council¿s consultation process is a sham. The Council consults because it is legally obliged to do so and then totally ignores the results of that consultation Secondly, this library was opened by Mark Twain and was under a covenant to be a free reading room and NOTHING ELSE. Mark Twain, the American writer, who educated himself in libraries, was invited to open the Public Reading Room in 1900 by the Kensal Rise Libraries Committee of the then Willesden Council. The land was donated with a restricted covenant by All Souls College who, at that time, obviously believed in education. The covenant said that the land could only be used as a free public reading room and library. The Reading Room was extended into a library in 1904 by Andrew Carnegie, the Scottish philanthropist. It is also relevant that the building has been listed as an Asset of Community Value. This applies to the whole building and means that the planners must take into account that the building has been listed in this way. It is not enough for just the ground floor to be an Asset of Community Value. The change of use affects some of the most vulnerable of the community. There are so many children who used the library as a safe place to do their homework as they had no other place available to them There will be a major impact on traffic safety and congestion with effects on parking provision and a change to the character of the area. And finally, I understand that there is an on-going police investigation concerning the alleged fraudulent attempt to influence the first planning application I feel that is is most inappropriate to consider any further planning application until the police investigation has run its course.
• 27/03/2014 - 69 Crundale Avenue , London , NW9 9PJ . Comment: Although I have not considered all of the planning policy aspects of this application, I feel that the new design, with a much better D1 community use space solely on the ground floor and fewer residential units, is a great improvement on the previously rejected proposals. Commitments have been given in the detailed commentary on the application, to lease back the D1 space to All Souls' College, with that College then leasing the space to FKRL, or another community group, which will undertake to make good use of the space, for a peppercorn rent. In my opinion, that will now satisfy Brent's Core Policy CP23. For me, this application takes on board the points which I made in objecting to the previous application, and still retains the good points of the previous design in respecting the important late Victorian building which it proposes to convert. A point has been raised by others that this planning application should not be allowed to proceed until the investigation into the alleged fraud over bogus comments in support of the previous application in respect of this property has been concluded. My personal view is that this new application should not be delayed for that reason, so that if it is approved, work can go ahead and the building be brought back into use, for a mixture of residential and community purposes, as soon as possible. If there was fraud in respect of the previous application, that can be dealt with in law as a separate matter. Philip Grant.

REVEALED: All Souls/Gillick Kensal Rise Library option agreement

Guest blog by Meg Howarth
 
All Souls College (ASC) has released the Option Agreement (OA) to buy Kensal Rise Library which it signed with Andrew Gillick on 26 November 2012. It was ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner following a successful appeal against its refusal to disclose the document under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request - details of that decision have been published on the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) website.

 Failure to comply with the commissioner's decision could have resulted in ASC being reported to the High Court. Though the college was permitted to redact the names, dates and sale-price from disclosure, ironically it's only the price Andrew Gillick paid for Kensal Rise Library that's still unknown. As of today, the Land Registry records haven't been updated since the sale to Mr Gillick was completed on/after 31 January this year but currently reveal:

'Option Agreement dated 26 November 2012 made between 

(1) Andrew Gillick and (2) The Warden and College of the Souls of All 

Faithful People Deceased in the University of Oxford expiring on 31 

January 2013' 

and that the value of the property 

 'at 5 July 2012 was stated to be under £100,000'. 

Interestingly, the OA shows that Mr Gillick paid a deposit of £105,000 which was to be deducted from the sale-price of the building.

Dated                2012

THE WARDEN AND COLLEGE OF THE SOULS OF ALL FAITHFUL PEOPLE DECEASED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD (1)

--------------------(2)

__________________________________

                OPTION AGREEMENT

         to purchase Kensal Rise Library

___________________________________

Why Friends of Kensal Rise Library accepted developer's offer of space

In this guest blog the Trustees of  Friends of Kensal Rise Library explain why they they decided to accept the developer's offer of space in the building.

Many of you know that the FKRL Trustees recently decided to support the community (D1) aspect of the library building's re-development. We signed an agreement in good faith with All Souls College and the developer to this effect, trusting this would strengthen our position as future operators of the library and community space.

The proposal provides approximately two thirds (186m2) of the ground floor for community use, with FKRL as the 'preferred' tenants. The London Evening Standard called this: 'a landmark agreement with developers that could save Kensal Rise Library' (25th March 2014).

We feel you should know how we came to make this momentous decision and the factors that we were obliged to take into account.

Throughout almost four years of campaigning and negotiating, initially with Brent Council, and more recently with All Souls College and the developer, FKRL's objectives has been, and will remain, to re-establish a library and community space in the building. We trust and hope that our decision offers the community the best chance of this.

The decision is not without risk. However, there were risks involved in the other options open to us which we ultimately rejected. These included the following:

1. HOLDING OUT FOR MORE SPACE

• The provision of rent-free space is an important factor for the sustainability of a community library. The current proposal is for rent-free community space, as this forms part of the agreement between All Souls College and the developer. Even if further space were to be available for community use, there is no guarantee that it would be rent-free.
• Although the upstairs parts of the library were used for archive and staff purposes until the library closed, the ground floor is the only part of the library that has been accessible to the public in recent years, and planning officers noted and remarked on this when we met them in October 2013.

2. TRUSTING IN ACV

• FKRL worked hard to persuade the Council to protect the entire building as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) in 2012. Just before the Council designated it as an ACV the College and the developer entered into a binding agreement that meant the moratorium period of six months that we might have used to prepare a bid for the building could not apply.
• We may have prepared a bid to buy the building, but there would have been no obligation on the College to accept our bid.
• If change of use from community to part-residential/part-community use was refused and the whole building remained in D1 (community) use as an ACV, the developer could rent it out for other community uses: for example, as a religious place of worship, doctor's surgery, or school. The planning process cannot dictate that the community space must be used as a library.
• There is no guarantee that any of the space will be used for a library or for anything that this community might want or need, nor who will be able to use the space.
• ACV does not determine ownership. The owner remains the same. The community does not own the building.

3.  HOPING THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS REJECTED

• If the most recent planning application is rejected, the developer could go to Appeal or submit another planning application. This could continue for years, during which there would probably not be any community access to the building.

4. HOPING THE DEVELOPER SELLS THE BUILDING

• If the developer decided to sell the building, substantial seven figure sums would be needed not only to purchase but also to refurbish. The developer would be under no obligation to sell it to FKRL or to the community.
• There is no guarantee that any new purchaser would be obliged to grant a rent free space space to the community.

FKRL made their decision after very carefully analysing the risk of losing the space proposed in the latest planning application, We have always endeavoured to act fairly, honestly and openly in our negotiations with the other parties and have entered into this agreement in good faith.

Kensal Rise Library's last librarian - before it was closed - said of FKRL's achievement and of the space currently on offer:

I'm sorry you weren't able to get as much space as you wanted, obviously the more the better. I think though that you've still got enough space to have a really good community library. There are certainly nice libraries that are smaller than the area you've got.

You have done a fantastic job in my opinion in saving the library. I really hope that as a group you don't let any disappointment about not getting everything you wanted overshadow what you have achieved. The odds were stacked against you and the people running Brent Libraries were determined Kensal should close. I'm sure that you will make a success of running the library. It really will be valued by local people after the fight that has been put up to save it.

Karl Hemsley (25 March 2014).

We are encouraged by the support of the Lead Member for Libraries at Brent Council, Cllr Roxanne Tessa Awe, Mashari, and by the present and future backing of Ms Tessa Awe, CEO of Brent CVS (Community, Voluntary Sector). There is tremendous community support for the library and the campaign to save it, and we know local people will embrace a new community library if, as we hope, we are given the opportunity to run it.

(FKRL have not been asked to comment on the whole of the planing application, only on the space proposed for D1 (community) use in the redevelopment. The Council is consulting the local community about the planning application in the usual way and everyone is free to comment on all aspects of the proposal.)

WE TRUST THAT THE ABOVE WILL GIVE ALL OUR SUPPORTERS AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE REASONING BEHIND OUR ADOPTING THIS POSITION AND WE VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO OPERATING A COMMUNITY LIBRARY FROM THE D1 SPACE IN DUE COURSE.

Trustees of Friends of Kensal Rise Library

Kensal Rise campaigners celebrate but reservations remain

The agreement between the Friends of  Kensal Rise Library and All Souls College and Andrew Gillick of Kensal Properties Ltd has been widely welcomed as it provides D1 space for a community library in exchange for support for that aspect of the developer's planning application. LINK

Clearly to have got this far is a tremendous achievement for a campaign that has kept going through thick and thin, including dawn raids by both Brent Council and the developers and the demolition of the pop up library.

The main fly in the ointment is that police investigations into alleged fraudulent emails has still not been concluded. As the outcome of the investigation is not yet known, and criminal proceedings against persons yet unknown are possible, it seems clear to many that the planning application should not be heard until the matters is cleared up once for all. It would be a disaster if the planning application, incorporating the community space agreement,  was heard and was successful, only to be thrown into doubt by court proceedings.

The alleged fraud was perpetrated not just against Brent Council and the planning department, but also against those whose identities were stolen or hijacked. The question remains: who stood to benefit?

Other reservations voiced over Twitter during the afternoon concerned thecommunity library being accessed via a door cut into a chimney flue, rather than the main building door and the amount of main space used as a circulation area restricting flexibility of use. There was also worry that the agreement is far from watertight with the developer treating the Friends of Kensal Rise Library as preferred tenant for a limited period only.

The campaign wll continue until a satisfactory outcome is safely in the bag.

Has email planning fraud probe been downgraded?

Guest blog by Meg Howarth
 

It seems that the investigation in to the fake online email support around Andrew Gillick’s original planning application for Kensal Rise Library is now in the hands of Brent police. To date, it had been understood that the Kensington and Chelsea force - the developer’s office is sited in the borough - was dealing with the matter after it was passed evidence and information about the misuse of addresses by the City Police National Fraud and Investigation Bureau (NFIB) - Wembley Matters, 27 February.

Today, however, west London journalist Hannah Bewley is reporting that the local force is now in charge of the inquiry in to whether the allegation of fraud can be substantiated. This is allegedly because Brent Council is technically the ‘victim’ in this sordid affair - it was to the council planning department that the emails were sent. 

As the council spokesman quoted in the Local Government Chronicle on 6 November 2013 stated: ‘It is clear that a number of the emails came from bogus email addresses but, unfortunately, it is not so clear that this necessarily constitutes a criminal offence’ LINK

Evidence of misuse of addresses was first brought to the council’s attention in September of last year, and today’s update suggests a police decision is likely to take some time yet: ‘Due to the complex nature of the evidence, the [Brent police] review may take a while for a decision to be arrived at’. It is six months since the matter was reported to the council, How much longer must local residents wait? 

To some local residents the handing over of the inquiry to Brent police appears like a downgrading of the affair. If Brent Council is the victim, why was the matter ever sent over to the Kensington and Chelsea force? Was this incompetence by the NFIB or a misunderstanding?

Meantime, Andrew Gillick submitted a revised change-of-use planning application for the Kensal Rise Library site on 7 March...

Delay continues over Kensal Rise email fraud: some niggling questions

Guest post by Meg Howarth

On 13 February, Brent council confirmed that ‘we have passed the police all the information they have requested in connection with Kensal Rise Library and that we continue to co-operate fully with their enquiries’. The police had previously stated that ‘[we]have been informed that there is further evidence to support the allegation of fraud and are awaiting receipt thereof. A decision whether to progress the allegation will be made after all the evidence has been scrutinised’ (Police may look again at email fraud evidence in Kensal Rise development, Wembley Matters 6 February).

So a police investigation in to the apparent fraudulent use of local, and other, residents’ addresses in support of a change-of-use planning application for the Mark Twain library is finally underway - five months after the Friends of Kensal Rise Library and others first reported the matter to the council. The Kensington and Chelsea force is handling the affair - developer Andrew Gillick’s head-office for his Platinum Revolver/Kensal Properties firms is in the royal borough.

There is currently no indication of when the police will decide whether or not a prosecution will follow.

Mr Gillick’s original planning application for one of Brent’s few remaining historic buildings was unanimously rejected by the council’s planning committee last September but it’s understood he has a revised application in the offing. That is why a speedy resolution to this tawdry affair is required. Despite the council’s official line that it,  

has a responsibility and obligation to consider any valid planning application that is put forward from any individual(s)...consider[ing] each on its merits in accordance with its statutory obligations’ (Christine Gilbert, acting chief executive)

most people will find it incomprehensible if the planning committee is asked to determine a further application before the outcome of an active police inquiry is known. Speed does not, of course, mean cutting corners. 

Meantime, some niggling questions remain:

Why wasn’t all the information and evidence the council had amassed handed to the police in the first instance, instead of what appears to have been a summary of its findings?

Would an investigation have been launched sooner if the police had received a complete dossier earlier?

Why did it take 10 days before council leader Muhammed Butt’s late-night tweet on 31 January stating that the police weren’t pursuing the investigation - the first (and last) anyone’s heard of the City Police’s NFIB (National Fraud and Investigation Bureau) initial decision to take no further action? The head of Brent’s Audit and Investigation department was informed of this on 21 January but was taking ‘advice’ on what he was ‘able to disclose’. In the event, he never disclosed anything. Did the council want to ensure vacant possession of the site by landlord All Souls College, Oxford)? It knew the completion of the sale of the building to Andrew Gillick was conditional on vacant possession and that the final date for this was 31 January - its lawyers are the only third party to have seen the Binding Agreement to sell the building to this developer. Vacant possession was, of course, achieved by All Souls sending in its heavies at 6am to demolish the pop-up.

Back at the beginning of October, Brent’s legal boss, Fiona Ledden wrote about Brent’s own inquiry into the fraudulent emails that: The [council’s] investigation is continuing and there have been some complications in relation to the work undertaken. It would not be usual to publish findings of any investigation, there may however be some conclusions that we will be able to share’.

At that stage, it seems the council didn’t anticipate police involvement. 

So what changed, and when? Was it the information the council received early in November that a property owned by Andrew Gillick in St Mary’s Terrace, Paddington was sub-let at the time an online-comment using that address appeared in support of the council’s own planning application for the Barham Library Complex? Mr Gillick, the only supporter of that proposed development, was slated to speak at the planning hearing but failed to attend. It was this same address that was previously used twice to support his own change-of-use application for Kensal Rise Library. Any developer is entitled to support her/his own application but if the comments using the developer’s W2 address were submitted in his name when someone else was living there, that surely could give rise to allegations of fraud? 

Information about this, like the theft of Kensal Rise businesswoman Kirsty Slattery’s address which was used to support the developer’s change-of-use application for the 110-year old library building, appears to have been sent to the police only this month.

Why?

Determined and defiant Kensal Rise clears mess left by All Souls College

My National Libraries Day visit to the three events organised by campaigners fighting to reopen libraries closed by Brent Council turned out to be an emotional roller coaster. Common to all of them was determination to carry on the struggle and the immense value they place on books and community.

The wind and rain did not deter early arrivals at Kensal Rise intent on clearing up the mess left by All Souls College

Kensal Rise after the events of this week deserves a posting of its own. I arrived in the rain  this morning  to find people already working at clearing up the mess left by security guards hired by All Souls College.  They were under orders to clear the pop up library so that that All Souls could hand over the site to developer Andrew Gillick on the completion of the sale. The sale went through despite the on/off police investigation into fraudulent emails that supported Gillick's planning application for the site..

A large number of books ruined by exposure to the rain were being thrown into a skip bag while volunteers were sorting through others. The pop up's piano was also ruined beyond repair. Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has arranged with the Campaign to get the books removed to a safe and dry place this coming Monday. Unfortunately too late for some of the books.

The ruined books and pianos ended up in a skip

By the late afternoon the surviving books and shelves had been neatly packaged ready for transfer

Campaigners remain defiant as sun replaces the rain

Wall of Shame around Kensal Rise Library as developer annexes community asset

Gillick's Wall of Shame going up around Kensal Rise Library today

The Bursar of All Souls College, Thomas Seaman, has confirmed that the sale of Kensal Rise Library to developer Andrew Gillick has been completed.

All Souls College therefore has no further role having facilitated Gillick's possession of the site by demolishing the pop up library. They appear to have ignored pleas that the sale should not be completed until police investigations had reached a conclusion.

They have washed their hands of the problem but it won't go away as we wait for confirmation that the police are definitely going to investigate the fraudulent emails in Mr Gillick's previous planning application.

Police may look again at email fraud evidence in Kensal Rise development

The Evening Standard LINK  is reporting tonight that the police are set to launch an inquiry into the fraudulent emails that supported developer Andrew Gillick's planning application for the Kensal Rise Library building.

Hannah Bewley, who reports on Brent for the Harrow Observer, however has uploaded a story LINK that states:

A spokesman for Kensington and Chelsea police, which is dealing with the investigation, said: “Police have been informed that there is further evidence to support the allegation of fraud and are awaiting receipt thereof. A decision whether to progress the allegation will be made after all the evidence has been scrutinised.”

Clearly that raises the question of whether all the information was handed over by Brent Council  or perhaps the 'further evidence' is from individuals whose names and addresses were used without their consent. 

Whatever the case news that the police are now taking the issue seriously after their earlier dismissive attitude is welcome.

All Souls shouldn't complete Kensal Rise sale before investigation complete

Guest Post from Meg Howarth

A crucial question now is whether All Souls College (ASC) will proceed to complete its ‘binding agreement to sell’ the historic Kensal Rise Library (KRL) site to Andrew Gillick’s Kensal Properties Ltd (Platinum Revolver in another guise?). Completion of sale was conditional on vacant possession, so once ASC was told the police investigation was off, it appears to have wasted no time in sending in its heavies to demolish the pop-up - thus securing the necessary vacant possession and enabling the sale contract with Mr Gillick to be completed. 

The embarrassment to ASC that will be caused by any re-opening of the fraudulent email inquiry is incalculable, particularly if completion has taken place over the last two days. Already on the defensive because of the adverse publicity surrounding events last Friday, ASC has tried to blame the council for its barbarity, citing a seven-months-old enforcement letter 27 June 2013 to justify its action. LINK

And here’s the text of an even-earlier letter - May 2012 - this time from ASC’s bursar to a horrified newspaper reader who’d contacted the college on hearing of Brent’s own now-notorious dawn raid on the KRL site:

Yes, the College became aware of what happened yesterday and we find it distressing.  We had told the Council that we would have been happy for them to have kept the Library open, possibly through cooperation with the Friends of Kensal Rise Library, who had developed an interesting business plan.

This was not to be however.

The law by which we originally donated the land dictates that the site now reverts to the College’s freehold.  This is not something we ever wanted to see happen, but because it is the law, is something we cannot change either’.

Does this once-prestigious institution, noted for its famous Codrington library, really want to go down in history as the wealthiest of Oxford’s colleges that couldn’t wait to gain vacant possession in a civilised fashion before sealing a deal with its chosen developer who’s not yet been cleared of involvement in the fraudulent email affair? 

‘Fools rush in where angels fear to tread’ inevitably springs to mind.

Brent Council's fraud evidence demands a proper police investigation and potential prosecution

The case of the fraudulent emails in support of Andrew Gillick's planning application for Kensal Rise Library, owned by All Soul's College and closed down by Brent Council,appear to be coming to a head.

Below you will find a redacted version of the evidence sent by Brent Council to police through the National Fraud Reporting Centre:

Council’s Supporting Information Statement to Police

The attempted fraud concerns false representation to get planning application approved by submitting false supporting comments to the council. The application has been made by a developer, Andrew Gillick, of Platinum Land Ltd, for conversion of the existing vacant building to provide 3 one-bed flats, 3 two-bed flat & one two-bed house and community space on ground floor and basement. The planning application was made by Kensal Rise Properties Ltd, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. On all applications the council has consultation with residents and others and received a significant number of objections to the proposal. Unusually, the council also received a high number, 176, supporting comments through its on-line consultation system. Almost all of these are false. They emanate from 5 separate IP addresses, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The names and addresses given on the supporting comments do not match with official records held by the council, i.e. false names have been associated with real addresses and the email addresses provided do not exist. Although the planning application was refused, the supporting comments may have affected the process. The attempted financial gain associated with the fraud is not known but would represent the profit on sale after conversion. Much of the investigation work into the IP addresses has already been done.

It is clear from this that the Council know the IP addresses and as the last sentence states much of the investigation work had already been done. They also make clear that there would be financial gain from the fraud ' the profit on sale after conversion. Clearly a considerable sum/

However in its statement to the Council the Police Service stated:

The Police Service has finite resources and it is only right that these resources are directed towards crimes that are solvable with a proportionate level of investigation.

As a Police Service we also need to channel our efforts towards preventing and detecting certain crime types that the people of London and Central Government have identified as being policing priorities.

I have examined your allegation and considered a wide range of factors when deciding if this matter should be further investigated by police. Included in my consideration is the likelihood of detecting and bring an offender to justice.

 It appears that the Police Service think a form of identify theft, possibly carried out for financial gain, in a planning application process, is of no concern to the people of London or Central Government.


Surely our three MPs, Glenda Jackson, Barry Gardiner and Sarah Teather, should get behind the Council's request to the police to think again about taking the investigation further, and to a conclusion.  It is certainly a demand that I am right behind.


Meanwhile the upcoming second Andrew Gillick planning application process must be halted until the case is concluded one way or another.