Disputing the facts in the Kensal Rise Library case

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

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

Thanks you

Martin Francis

GUEST BLOG BY MEG HOWARTH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote: 

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

6.1 The Seller may not create any encumbrance over the Property at any time during the Option Period without the consent of the Buyer. 

6.2 An encumbrance includes, without limitation, any easement, restrictive covenant, lease or other right of occupation, use or enjoyment of the whole or part of the Property but for the avoidance of doubt any listing of the premises as an asset of community value under the Localism Act 2011 is excluded. 

LATE ADDITION - Letter from Farrers re signing of Option Agreement

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

Brent Council workers gagged from speaking to councillors over employment discrimination issues

I am, as regular readers will know, a militant opponent of the Tory Party, but I was pleased that the Brondesbury Conservative group raised the issue of an independent investigation into the Brent Council Human Resources department at Full Council last week.

I would of course have much preferred it to be raised by principled members of the Labour group.

It is a call that has also been made by Brent Green Party, Brent Trade Union Council, and Brent Anti Racism Campaign.

I know through messages and phone calls to Wembley Matters that many Brent Council staff do not have confidence in Michael Pavey's internal investigation and that they do not feel they have an avenue for complaints that does not put them at risk of retribution.

Cllr John Warren at Full Council offered staff the opportunity to raise issues with him. He has since received a letter from Brent Council's Legal Department advising him that staff doing so would be in breach of the Brent Officers' Code of Conduct and could put them at risk of disciplinary action:

I am writing, as Deputy Monitoring Officer, following the Full Council meeting on Monday 8th December when you invited employees to contact you confidentially if they wanted to discuss any dissatisfaction they felt or discrimination which they had experienced in the course of their employment.

I am very concerned that encouraging staff to follow this course of action crosses the boundary between the respective roles of Members and Officers in relation to matters concerning the employment of staff.  As you may be aware the Protocol for Members and Officer Relations formed part of the agenda at Standards Committee on Tuesday evening.  The Protocol reminds both Members and Officers of the Brent Council Officers' Code of Conduct which contains clear restrictions on employees raising matters relating to employment with Members.   By encouraging staff to contact you in the way suggested you are encouraging staff to breach the Brent Council Officers' Code of Conduct and could place employees at risk of disciplinary action.

I would request that you do not repeat the invitation to employees and, if you are approached by any employees, they are instead advised to raise any issues through the proper communication channels and reminded of the provisions of the Brent Council Officers' Code of Conduct.

This is essentially a gag on any members of staff contacting any councillor to discuss their concerns. It would not be an issue if staff had confidence in the Council's internal procedures but this is clearly not the case.

It is even more important at a time when Cara Davani, who had a key role in the Council's actions that resulted in an Employment Tribunal finding of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal, is managing the process of the restructuring of the Council's senior management and will be handling redundancies arising from the forthcoming budget cuts. An appeal hearing dismissed Brent Coucil's grounds for appeal against the judgment.

An independent investigation is the only way to ensure that staff are heard and justice achieved.

'Mr Butt, you have our number' Stonebridge Adventure Playground tells Council leader

In his budget speech at Brent Council last week Muhammed Butt said:

I respect those for whom the (Stonebridge) adventure playground remains a key part of their community. I admire how people have stepped forward to say ‘this matters to me, this matters to my family.’ The reality is that we cannot continue to fund projects like this in the way we once did.

Over the last few months, we have asked those who run the adventure playground to work with us to see whether supervised play can continue on that site or be relocated. And so, we hope the adventure playground will respond to our call, to work with us for the good of the people of Stonebridge and Brent.

Doug Lee of Brent Play Association, responded on the Stonebridge Adventure Playground Facebook page:

We have always not just worked with Brent Council but also supported and worked with many other voluntary groups and charities in Brent. This is because we are part of that family. This is because we love and respect our brothers and sisters. We always strive and battle for justice whatever the odds and expect Cllr. Muhammed Butt and his administration to do the same thing AND FIND a way to keep the playground OPEN and Funded by using all their powers and their relationships with all the other organisations involved in the school expansion and new housing project.

It is not their job to roll over and give in. It is their job to find a solution and if they need our help TALK to us INVOLVE us instead of rhetoric. Our community has the strength and wisdom to help you find the outcome to keep this provision for many generations to come .Together we CAN and will SUCCEED. Mr Butt you have our phone numbers.

What does Barry Gardiner think of environmental cuts in his own backyard?

Guest blog by Scott Bartle, Green Party candidate for Brent North
 

In Brent Labour’s local election  manifesto contract they pledged “better cleaner, greener, healthier spaces’. As Barry Gardiner Labour MP for North Brent is the shadow minister for Natural Environment, Fisheries and Climate Change and signatory to this contract you might have thought he could explain to his local party why this pledge is important to keep. 

As a reminder on the 15^th December the Brent Labour Cabinet will start to consider a set of proposals that includes: 

·         Closing Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre

·         No litter clearing on residential roads

·         No weekend litter service in parks

·         Deleting Environment Projects and Policy Team and

·         Ceasing a grant to Energy Solutions

A public attitudes survey from the Department of Energy and Climate change found that nearly half of people (47%) reported they were fairly concerned about the impact of climate change. The same proportion of people recognise that Climate Change is partly caused by natural processes and partly caused by human activity. Yet the same survey shows that it is near the bottom of people’s priorities list.  It is understandable, that when people’s primary needs are not being met it can be difficult to think about aesthetic and altruistic matters such as climate change and the environment.  However, Greens understand that the world is interconnected and as such believe that there does not have to be a choice of either / or.  Green policies are such that can have a beneficial impact upon our well-being, save money in the long run and create prosperity.

If, as the public attitudes survey shows that unemployment is top of people’s priorities, what sense does it make to close Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre which amongst other courses inspires children about renewable energy and how to conserve it.  It is only the Greens that will kickstart our economy through investing in a renewable energy, creating Green Jobs perhaps for these very children. 

The second highest concern relates to the NHS and it shouldn’t take The Department of Health to run a advertising campaign to reiterate that food scraps and other rubbish have lots of germs and sometimes parasites upon them. The spread of disease can be exacerbated by weather as well as our wildlife creatures and at a time where our local hospitals A&E departments are under increasing pressure it should be clear to most that litter clearing in Brent is a protective factor.

At a time when 10.4% of British Households are in fuel poverty, in a borough that is the 12^th most deprived in London support provided by the council to help people improve energy efficiency, which is a key driver of fuel poverty should only have a beneficial impact on people experiencing inequality.

Whilst the Labour Group makes a choice to implement the cuts, blaming the Tory and Lib Dem Coalition, the reality remains that each of them have pledged to continue the flawed economic policy of austerity. There is of course another way, one where people and the environment take precedence and faceless corporations are made to pay their way when trading in our country. 

For that, you’d have to vote Green.