Heartless property company evicts church, nursery and foodbank

 The Pentecostal City Mission Church, long time occupier of 2 Scrubs Lane, Willesden, has been evicted by developers, Fruition Properties. The Mission is a registered Community Asset and operates a nursery, foodbank, dementia care and other local community services which leaves this vital community lifeline in jeopardy. See previous coverage of the threat to the church HERE.

 

The Mayor’s Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC), local MP Andy Slaughter, the GLA’s Culture at Risk team and other community groups have been campaigning to save the church and the services it provides to one of London’s most disadvantaged communities. 

 

Fruition Properties, the developers who are looking to redevelop the site, sought planning permission in 2018. Critical to that permission was that Fruition secured replacement space for the Pentecostal City Mission Church and associated community services as part of the new development. 

 

OPDC, as the local planning authority, has always been very clear that its planning policy requires the re-provision of community floorspace for the Pentecostal City Mission Church within any future scheme on the site. 

 

It is understood that Fruition evicted without warning, on Wednesday 23rd March, entering the building at 7.30 in the morning and changing all the locks, leaving parents unable to drop off their children at the nursery and staff unable to retrieve personal belongings. 

 

Reverend Desmond Hall of Pentecostal City Mission Church said:

We are shocked and saddened that Fruition took possession of this beloved church and vital lifeline for so many community members. As well as a valued place of worship, many families and young children rely on us for support services and food donations. During busy times, we can cater to up to a 1,000 people across one day. What will they do now that Fruition have changed the locks? 

 

We won’t give up hope and with the support of the community, we’ll continue to fight for Pentecostal City Mission Church.

 

David Lunts, CEO of OPDC said: 

 

It is shocking that Fruition Properties have evicted the church. It's hard to believe that with so much local need for services such as this, especially at a time of increasing hardship, any developer could act with such heartlessness. It’s all the more outrageous as our planning policy makes quite clear that space for the church and its community facilities must be part of any redevelopment.

 

I have attempted to engage with Fruition to seek an amicable resolution with the Church, but they have refused to meet.

 

Andy Slaughter MP for Hammersmith said: 

 

It’s unacceptable and quite frankly unbelievable news to hear that a developer has evicted a church, nursery and foodbank at a time where so many families are under financial strain to put food on the table. I have made my position to Fruition abundantly clear on numerous occasions and they have refused to meet to reach a solution, despite the planning policy clearly requiring provision for the church. 

 

 Cllr Matt Kelcher said:

Councillors, Brent Council, the OPDC and local MPs are all in agreement on this issue and Fruition are doing themselves terrible damage by pursuing this – but there is currently a legal process that needs to be gone through first. When this is resolved we’ll be best placed to plan any next steps.

 

I’m pleased that in the meantime, Brent and OPDC are helping the church to find alternative local premises where possible.

 

"A farrago, a sham, an utterly dishonest exercise"

It reminded me of those Victorian pictures of the ragged, scrawny child, barefoot in the snow, with nose pressed against a restaurant window staring at the big-bellied rich tucking into their suppers in a warm glow of complacency.

We were in the opulent surroundings of a ballroom in the Hilton Metropole, Edgware Road trying to tell the smooth, expensively suited gentlemen from NW London NHS on the platform just what untold damage their 'Shaping A Healthier Future' (SAHF) proposals would do the people of Harlesden and Stonebridge, two of London's poorest wards. The whole consultation exercise to reach a foregone conclusion has cost £7,000,000

We were presented with a IPSO/MORI consultation report that ignored the thousands who had signed petitions against the proposals but instead went on to suggest that that the far fewer people who had submitted a response to Options A, B or C (all rejected by the petitioners) somehow represented some kind of democratic endorsement. 66,000 signatories on 18 petitions were apparently counted as 18 responses.

Andy Slaughter MP summed it up:

This is a complete farrago,  a complete sham, a completely and utterly dishonest exercise!

This was the beginning of many exchanges about the consultation which I felt rather let IPSO/MORI take the fire that should have been aimed at NW London NHS for the inadequacy and downright dangerousness and dishonesty of their proposals.

Ann Drinkell, put her finger on the dangers towards the end of the Q and A session. She claimed that SAHF had been dishonest about the ability of community care being suddenly able to pick up on the slack when fewer people were admitted to hospital or stayed for a shorter period.

Everyone know we aspire to good community care, good palliative care, but everyone also knows how difficult it is.  It is disingenuous to suddenly think it will be unproblematic. The impact of restructuring and budget cuts on community care and social care will be enormous. You are treating us like children.

Dr Mark Spencer then proceeded to do just that, treating us to a couple of anodyne PowerPoint slides on the 'Programme of Work' and 'Clinical Review of Responses' that would now begin. We were not allowed to ask questi9ons about this.

After a buffet supper (those ragamuffins in my head again) we went into 'Stakeholder Workshops'. These were introduced by Lucy Ivimy, Chair of the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee, a Conservative councillor in Hammersmith and Fulham.

She said that the initial impetus for the proposals had been the rationalisation of Accident and Emergency wards in the area and the fall out was a consequence of this, The virtual closure of two hospitals had been hidden deep in the plans, Given the wide geographical area and the propensity of people wanting to protect their own local facilities it had not been possible for the Committee to reach agreement.

She said that there were two main concerns:
1. SAHF was premised on success of the out of hospital strategy. This had been promoted for years but in real life admissions had continued to rise. We need more evidence on the strategy and a firm path to follow.
2. Transport was a big issue. Although there was a claim from the ambulance survey that there was little impact on the 'blue light' journeys the majority of journeys to hospital are by other means including public transport. There had been no analysis of these journeys.

A skirmish followed about whether this represented the committee and it emerged that an initial very critical report had been replaced by a much sifter version which was the 'official report'.

The workshops that followed were actually very interesting and dealt with issues that should have been discussed prior to the formulation of the plans. The public were feeding back on their real lived experiences - not going through a desk-top exercise. The world turned upside down.

In the workshop I attended I protested once again that schools as stakeholder had not been consulted at all and that children had been left out at a time when the child population is rising and they will be making demands on the health service. Gurjinder Sandhu, a specialist in infectious diseases, working at Ealing Hospital backed this up describing the importance being able to access hospitals and their presence aiding recovery, how A&E picked up child protection issues and that the difficulty schools would have in trying to deal with fragmenting services.  A&E had a role in detecting TB which was very high in Southall and Ealing - not to mention  HIV.

In the workshop on Urgent Care Centre a disagreement became apparent between practitioners about how reliable UCCs were with a suggestion that staffing levels and expertise were poor and that this represented a risk to patients. This was even more so when there was no A&E on the same site as will be the case with Central Middlesex Hospital.

The strong underlying thread was that health services and access to health services would worsen for the most vulnerable. The ragamuffin has been left out in the cold.

Consultation feedback below: