Will Sir Bernard give us the latest on Met's Kensal Rise fraud investigation?

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, is visiting Brent on Wednesday. The visit is advertised as a chance to 'talk to him, listen to his vision for London and share your thoughts and ideas'.

The meeting is from 6.30pm-7.30pm (doors open 6pm) on July 16th at Alperton Community School, Stanley Avenue, Wembley.

In the absence of any other commmunication from the Met perhaps he can tell us how the investigation into the fraudulent emails in support the Kensal Rise Library development is going?

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.

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?

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.

Kensal Rise Library not on next Planning Committee Agenda

The controversial planning application for Kensal Rise Library, subject of vociferous debate on this blog, will not be heard at the last planning committee meeting before the local elections, The agenda for the meeting on May 14th has now been published LINK

The next meeting, subject to confirmation, will be on June 17th.

Campaigners argued for deferral of the item on the grounds that the application should not be heard until police investigations into fradulent emails suporting the developer's previous application had been received. Kensal Green Labour candidate, Dan Filson, revealed in a comment on this blog that the investigation had been 'slow-moving, owing to the ISP hosting the bogus email senders not cooperating with the police'.

It is unclear how Filson got this information as the police have said they report to the Council and not to individuals on  progress on their invstigation. As a candidate Filson is of course at present a private individual.,

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

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.

Kensal Rise Library, Copland and Representative Democracy

Guest blog by Guestropod

Anyone following the Kensal Rise Library correspondence on Wembley Matters LINK would be struck by two things:   1. the level of interest in the matter    2. the desire to communicate that interest and the related opinions to councillors, with  the implicit expectation that the elected representatives would respond to them.

A similar level of interest and a similar expectation of a response to their concerns also seems to have characterised  the involvement of Copland students in their opposition to the dismantling of their school and its takeover by the Ark academy business. This opposition was ultimately expressed in a letter which followed up a petition signed by well over 400 students and addressed to Brent Council's Head of Children and Families. Apparently, none of these students had participated in any similar action before and many would have been unaware that it was possible for them to do so. I would imagine that the experience was worth a term's worth of Citizenship lessons.  

The original petition was ‘lost’ by Brent council and further copies had to be provided.  A copy of the follow-up letter went to every Brent councillor. LINK

Out of the 60+ councillors who were sent the letter, I gather that a grand total of 3 (THREE) managed the courtesy of a reply, (2 Lib Dem, 1 Labour).

Anyone teaching in Brent at the 2010 General Election would have been impressed by the level of interest shown by 6^th form students keen to use their vote for the first time. The mock election staged at Copland and organised by Mr Allman was supported by local and national politicians and enthusiasm for the breath of fresh air and honesty which Nick Clegg appeared to be offering was palpable. Within a few months most of these students were in further education. And grants were tripled. A more effective way of disillusioning a generation of new voters is impossible to imagine.

None of those kids who signed the Copland anti-academy petition have the vote, so presumably they can be ignored. Those Copland 6^th formers who voted Lib Dem in 2010 did have the vote, but they were ignored and betrayed anyway. Those contributing to the Kensal Rise Library discussion on Wembley Matters and elsewhere no doubt all have the vote, probably used it last time and are likely to vote again on May 22nd. It’s good to see the faith they seem to still have in the democratic process and in their elected representatives’ responsiveness.

I would hope that Copland's current and past students could share that faith. But I can also imagine (and sympathise with) the reasons why they might not.

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

___________________________________

CID investigation of email fraud should delay Kensal Rise planning hearing

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt this afternoon tweeted 'Glad to hear Kensal Rise Library consultation fraud case is being taken forward by Met police CID'.

This confirmation arrives after substantial pressure from residents that the case should not be dropped, despite Andrew Gillick, the Kensal Rise developer, reaching an agreement with the Friends of Kensal Rise Library over community space in the building.

As argued previously on this blog, in the light of the investigation and possible prosecution, the planning hearing for Mr Gillick's development should be postponed until the outcome is known. A statement from Christine Gilbert, Brent Council's Acting Chief Executive, is awaited following consultations with Andrew Donald, head of Regeneration and Planning and Cllr Ketan Sheth, chair of the planning committee.

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.

Email Fraud: Will the new broom reach into some murky corners?

Guest blogger Meg Howarth continues to press for answers in 'The Case of the Fraudulent Emails'. It should be straightforward but...

New brooms generally sweep clean, so it's to be hoped that Brent police's freshly appointed borough commander, Chief Superintendent Michael Gallagher, has already put his officers to work on a thorough investigation into this affair (WM 13 March). Brent Council may technically be the 'victim' of this email scam but it's local residents whose addresses were stolen and abused (alongside some out-of-borough suspect comments). It's they who are the real victims. 

It shouldn't be forgotten, either, that it's Brent's incompetence that allowed its IT planning system to be spoofed in this way. While the council may have now got its online act together, some of its constituents are awaiting an answer to the question: who stole their addresses in an apparent attempt to aid developer Andrew Gillick's change-of-use planning application for Kensal Rise Library? Would matters have been cleared up sooner if the council originally passed all of its information to Action Fraud (WM 27 Feb, also 4 & 6 Feb)? Residents, not procedures, must now come first.

Given the on/off, toing and froing over this business - from no inquiry on 31 January to a change of police mind, the involvement of Kensington and Chelsea police, and finally Brent - the sad reality is that it seems as if the sifting of what police have termed the 'complex' evidence of apparent fraud has fallen to the local force. If its investigation can't be completed before Mr Gillick's latest planning application - submitted on 7 March - goes before Brent's planning committee, the developer's application must be put on hold pending the outcome of its inquiry. This is in everyone's interests, including that of the applicant himself. 

To date, the council has argued that under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 it

'has a responsibility and obligation to consider any valid planning application that is put forward from any individual(s). It must consider each on its merits in accordance with its statutory obligations'. 

As a member of Brent's Planning and Regeneration team has admitted, attempting to influence a planning decision (itself a criminal offence) through fake emails is 'not mentioned in the [1990] Act'. Bizarrely, instead of drawing what most would see as the obvious conclusion - putting an application on hold until an active police inquiry is complete - the officer concludes: 

'...consequently the LPA [local planning authority, in this case Brent] could not decide to decline any application that was submitted to it for consideration, providing that it met the validation requirements that apply to all planning application submissions'...!

Why not? Isn't an active police inquiry sufficient reason - just as someone might be suspended from a job while an  investigation into his/her conduct is underway? If Andrew Gillick is exonerated, his planning application can then be considered free from this long shadow. 

Footnote: Michael Gallagher began work as Brent's police boss on 3 March. A one-time member of Scotland Yard's Specialist Crime directorate, his previous posting was in Lewisham. Prior to that he was deployed in Lambeth.

All Souls College ordered to disclose Kensal Rise 'binding agreement'

Guest blog by Meg Howarth

Protest outside All Souls College, Oxford

All Souls College, Oxford, has been ordered by the Information Commissioner to provide a copy of its Option Agreement - also known as the ‘binding agreement’ - for the sale of historic Kensal Rise Library (KRL) to developer Andrew Gillick. Only the date of completion, price and names/personal details of those involved in the transaction can be withheld.

The Commissioner made his decision on 4 March, in response to a Freedom of Information request by a supporter of the campaign to save the Mark Twain library from conversion to yet more unaffordable housing. The college authorities have 35 days in which to comply with the request. Failure to do so could result in the Commissioner writing to the High Court where lack of compliance may be treated as contempt of court. 

The grounds for the decision are that ‘The Commissioner considers that there is a legitimate public interest in disclosure of information surrounding the transaction, to which there is significant opposition, to promote openness, accountability and increase public understanding’.

Wealthy All Souls was until recently the owner of the site following the closure of the historic library by Brent Council in 2012. Its sale to Andrew Gillick was conditional on vacant possession. This was achieved when the college sent in its heavies to remove the pop-up library - built partly on the site, part on the public highway - at 6am on 31 February this year. Completion of sale occurred on or soon after that date. 

All Souls’ cowardly dawn-raid echoed Brent’s own barbarism of 29 May 2012 when council contractors entered the library building at 3am, stripping it of its books and Mark Twain commemorative plaque. The aim in both instances was the same - to pre-empt local opposition to the respective actions. The anti-democratic leading the greedy... 

Indeed, the college’s principal argument against disclosure of the Option Agreement was that public knowledge of the date(s) for vacant possession and completion-of-sale - together with the price - ‘would result in increased protest and activism to try to prevent completions’. It argued that should the sale of the property not be completed - for whatever reason - disclosure ‘would also make it more difficult for the college to find an alternative purchaser for the property’. It justified its line of reasoning as follows:

‘the college relies on its income from its property assets to conduct its research activities...prejudicing the college’s ability to generate such income from the sale of property would make it less able to conduct research of a similar standard and scale [something] which would not be in the public interest’. 

Proof, if any is needed, that irony is not yet dead, is the title of such a piece of research by one of All Souls’ senior fellows. It was listed on the college’s website in July 2012 as nearing completion and was published by the university later that year - Restatement of the English Law of Unjust Enrichment! 

You couldn’t make it up. Not only did All Souls pay nothing towards the building of the library - that was financed from a mixture of public taxation and a handsome donation by Andrew Carnegie. But the land on which KRL was built was more likely an act of tax-avoidance, aimed to bypass the land tax in operation at the time, rather than the philanthropic act its donation to the-then borough of Willesden, now Brent, is reputed to have been. Folklore over realpolitik...?

The real philanthropy would, of course, have been for the college elders to have returned KRL to the borough of Brent. Too late for that now. Andrew Gillick is the new owner. His original change-of-use scheme was unanimously rejected by Brent’s planning committee last September. It is currently enmeshed in a Kensington and Chelsea police-led inquiry into fraudulent online support - the headquarters of Mr Gillick’s property firms Platinum Revolver and Kensal Properties is sited in the royal borough (see Wembley Matters, 27 February 2014). The developer is intending to submit a revised change-of-use planning application for the site. 

Footnote: While disclosure of the Option Agreement for the sale of Kensal Rise Library is awaited, it’s worth remembering that the only third party to date to have seen the document is Brent’s legal counsel. He was forbidden to make a copy. Whether he shared the significant information it contained with council officers and/or elected members is unknown but a waiting-game certainly seems to have been played regarding the securing of vacant possession by 31 January.

Democracy, eh - and elections are coming... 

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