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:
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.
-->
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.
