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!)

An eyesore at one of Brent's hidden gems

 

Old St Andrew's Church in Kingsbury dates from the 12th century but a church is believed to have been on the site since Saxon times.  It is Brent's only Grade 1 listed building and has recently bee brought back into use as a place of worship by Brent's Romanian Community. A new tarmac path to the church from Old Church Lane was completed a couple of days ago.

The church yard around the old church is overgrown but kept in check by regular visits from Community Payback. It is quite a nature reserve noted in the Spring for its snowdrops, violets and bluebells. It still has the air of a country church yard in the middle of suburbia.

A long established footpath leads from the church, behind St Andrew's nursery, to St Andrew's Road.

It is as the path wends towards St Andrew's Road that the beguiled visitor is jolted by the sight of a regular fly tip, adjacent to the public right of way, behind the nursery.  Brent Council has been informed about this frequently but the fly tipping continues. It appears to be in 'no man's land' with nobody owning up to responsibility for clearing it up.

A pity, because it spoils one of Brent's hidden gems.

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.

Barham Library Campaign calls for support on planning appeal

Paul Lorber, leader of Brent Liberal Democrats has written to local library campaigners on behalf of the Barham Library Campaign about the former Barham Library. He tells them that  despite all the opposition from local people...

Labour Councillors have decided to spend £10,000 of Brent taxpayers money to Appeal a decision made by Brent's Planning Committee to REFUSE the Planning application to change of use of the Barham Park Buildings (including the library space) from D1 community uses.

A Planning Inspector has been appointed to deal with the Apeal and we now need YOUR help again. We need as many local people as posible to send objections to the Inspector as possible.

We will help draft objections and will meet from 7p.m. on Wednesday 16 April at the Barham Lounge 660 Harrow Road Wembley (this is the building at the front and on the left of the Barham Buildings on the edge of Harrow Road as you face it - opposite Chaplin Road) Buses 18, 92, 182 stop nearby.

If you cannot come you can also send your appeal by email to teamp13@pins.gsi.gov.uk
 or in writing to:

Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN

In both cases you must quote reference: APP/T5150/A/14/2216244

A simple objection could be as follows (although please use your own words):

 Dear Inspector

Barham Buildings - APP/T5150/A/14/2216244

I object and oppose the Appeal against the decision to REFUSE the planning application for the Barham Park buildings in London Borough of Brent on the grounds of material loss of access to the buldings by the local community.

The buildings and the park were a gift to local people for their enjoyment. Local people have had access since 1937 and for most of the time (almost 60 years) there was a public library which received around 60,000 visist from local people each year.

The change of use from D1 to B1 to allow a takeover of large parts of the building by one organisation will deprive the local community of much needed general access. The suggestion that 2 open days a year compensates for the loss of the general access is laughable.

(IF YOU HAVE A PERSONAL and SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE OF USING THE BUILDINGS - BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY USED TO VISIT PLEASE ADD IT HERE).

The local library provided a much needed community space for the local diverse community. It was used by people of all ages. Young people especially lost because their libray closed as they were deprived of study space and in case of younger children access to books. Older people lost a safe meeting place.

I support the campaign by Friends of Barham Library to reopen the Library for the benefit of local people. Friends of barham Library already operate volunteer libraries in temporary (and far too small) premises in Sudbury and Wembley proving the need for such a facility.

The Planning Committee received representations from local people who argued strongly for the protection of the Barham Buildings for general community use. By a large majority the Brent Planning Committee supported that call and REFUSED the application.

By pursuing the appeal Brent Council is going against the wishes of local people and I urge you to REJECT the Appeal.

Yours faithfully

 Your signature"
 
 If you cannot come on the 16th please come to either our Sudbury Town Underground Station or 428 Wembley High Road volunteer libraries where we can help you with a letter or email.

The site had been suggested for a secondary special school by a charity set up by Brent parents LINK

Copland land deal for rebuild and academisation

Ariel view of site. Copland is at the top on the High Road, St Josephs top right at end of  Chatsworth/Waverley and Elsley bottom right at end of Tokyngton

The Brent Executive on April 22nd LINK will discuss a land deal for the Copland Community School site and adjacent lands. Copland is due to become the Ark Elvin academy on September 1st 2014. Government money has been made available for a rebuild which also involves adding another form of entry.   Copland has suffered from an inadequate building for a long time and this has been mentioned in its Ofsted reports.

The previous headteacher Sir Alan Davies and the governing body had plans for redevelopment approved in 2006 which included the 'Copland Village' but these plans were never realised.  The land involved is currently in multi-ownership:

The Council intends to hand the land over to Ark on a 125 year lease and at the same time secure land for the necessary playspace and land for the expansion of Elsley Primary school which will double in size from two forms of entry to four. Current consultation on Elsley's expansion has been halted until the land issue is resolved.

The report states:

Copand Community School is a foundation school and therefore the land and buildings are mainly in the ownership of the school itself, the responsibility for which is vested in the Interim Executive Boards. The IEB has expressed agreement to transfer the freehold of the site which it currently owns to the Council instead, in order for the Council to rationalise the ownership and use of the site overall, ensuring an optimum footprint for the school. The ARK would under these proposals be granted a 125 year lease on the final school site.

 As part of these transactions, the Council would secure enough land from the overall site to facilitate the proposed expansion of Elsley Primary School.

On completion of the freehold transfer the Council will grant the ARK an interim lease agreement to allow occupation of the existing school building until the new building is completed. Following this a 125 year lease arrangement will be granted. The transfer from the IEB needs to happen before the conversion to Academy Status, because the IEB will cease to exist on the conversion date, proposed for 1st September.

The land transaction proposals in the report are dependent on the Secretary of State for Education agreeing to disposal of education land, and specific consent surrounding disposal of school playing fields, this is an absolutely critical point referred to further in section 6 below and the confidential appendix 1.

Section 6 outlines how school playing field disposal has to be approved by the Secretary of State. Because most of the appendices have been declared confidential it is not easy to see just how much of the playing fields will be needed for the new build. There will have to be a statutory  consultation:

Therefore, prior to any disposal or change of use of school land the relevant statutory process will need to be followed. The relevant statutory process that applies will depend upon who owns the said land (for example a governing body of a school, or local authority), and whether the land is playing field land, or non-playing field land. Each process for consent and/or notification has its own specific requirements and complexities.

The scheme would involve commercial development and housing on the present Wembley High road site of the school realising the Wembley Plan's vision of a shopping street from Wembley Central Station to the London Designer Outlet close to Wembley Stadium. The amount of housing and the proportion of it that will be affordable is not stated in the public documentation.

The report says that the new school building  will be behind the present one as envisaged in the plans approved in 2006. (Below) Note the East-West orientation of this plan:

Wembley French School fuelling house price inflation?

Work underway to convert Brent Town Hall into a school

The Guardian recently reported that percentage house price increases in Brent were the highest in London, fed by the gentrification of some areas in the south of the borough.  LINK

The lack of affordable housing in new developments such as Willesden Green Library, Bridge Park and Moberly Sports Centre is a real issue. Brent Council have agreed that developers are excused the usual 50% affordable (although there is a debate about what exactly is an affordable rent) allocation in exchange for the 'free' building of community amenities such as cultural centres and sports centres. We need the amenities but we also need housing.

Now it appears that the Wembley French School is contributing to rising house prices in some areas of the borough. Parents of pupils due to attend the private fee paying school have been reported looking for properties in Queens Park, Kensal Rise and Dollis Hill.  One estate agent serving those wards told me that the would be purchasers 'have plenty of money'.  Agents in Wembley Park, close to the actual school, told me that they have not discerned any interest from French purchasers in the local area.

The proposed private sector landlord licensing scheme (to be discussed at the April 21st Executive) may have the unintended consequence of reducing the amount of private rental as the Council acts against over-crowding and illegal conversions in the sector. Again we need to act against exploitative landlords and poor quality housing but also need to be providing alternative accommodation for those likely to be hit.

Against the background of the Panorama programme and the forced movement of families out of the borough into accommodation in Birmingham, Milton Kenyes and Luton it does seem that major demographic changes are in process.

West Hendon Estate residents resist social cleansing

I have previously covered the situation at the West Hendon Estate LINK where Barratt Homes are knocking down the social housing to build luxury flats on the banks of the Welsh Harp, fully supported by Barnet's ultra-Tory Council..

Today angry residents and supporters marched on the surgey of local MP Matthew Offord to protest agains the plans which one protester said would mean only 15% of current residents would remain on the estate. The others would be torn away from their community to be rehoused elsewhere in the borough in private rented accommodation in the area or beyond

As with other communities residents have already been hit by the benefit cap and the bedroom tax.

Matthew Offord declared his surgery a private meeting and dived into a police car to be sped away rather than face the people's wrath or listen to their grievances.

Full accounts of the march are HERE  and  HERE

This video shows a  strong community defending itself: A longer video from Barnet Rebel is available HERE

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.