Another anonymous and bad tempered comment can be found here. It would be nice if people could sign their names, but I though I would do a short post outlining why the transfer of ownership of the buildings was automatic in the case of both the former Kensal Rise Library and the former Cricklewood Library.
The conditions under which the one building in 1900 and the second in 1928 were used by the Council was solely for use as a library. This was known to the campaign groups who showed me correspondence with All Souls College to that effect. It also became apparent in 2008, when a scheme to share Cricklewood Library with a Childrens Centre was stymied by the condition. The College wrote to Brent Council stating they would see this as a breach and the property would automatically revert to them. They stated on various occasions, I think accurately, that the reversion is not a matter of volition but automatic.
Their position following the 2011 decision on Brent Libraries was, as I understand it, that as soon as uncertainty about the validity of that decision was removed the conditions would kick in. This implies that ownership transferred to All Souls College on 3 February 2012, when the litigation ended. The College wrote to the Council shortly afterwards to that effect. The Borough Solicitor responded on 10 April 2012 that we would not contest their position.
The campaigners sought to deny this view for a considerable time afterward, as can be seen by this letter to the Warden of All Souls. The fifth paragraph suggests that the reverter is not triggered, although I think it is noteworthy that it does not refer to legal advice, although the rest of the letter refers extensively to legal advice around charity law.
By August that year, the campaigners appear to have accepted that the ownership of the building had indeed transferred. I infer this as they made a bid to the College for a lease of the building (which was turned down), and that can only make sense if you accept that the College own the building. Similarly, the validity of the contract between the current applicant and the College signed in November 2012 would only hold if the College owned the building. Again, no one doubts that situation.
The suggestion that the building was "given away" is therefore simply false. It automatically transferred following the definitive end of its use as a library.
The final point is one of timing. If the College indeed owned the building in August, as everyone accepts it did, it is hard to see that it cannot have transferred at any other point than in February 2012.
UPDATE
The comment below rather misses the point. If ownership transferred from Febraury 2012, which everyone seems to now accept, Brent Council had no choice but to vacate the building and hand the keys to the lawful owner. Claims that it was "given away" are based on a false premise.
ANOTHER UPDATE
As it is a related issue I am supplyingt the reasons for the refusal of the original FKRL offer to take over the building here.
2 comments:
Bad tempered? Can live with that pathetic put-down.
The campaigners were not trying to 'deny' anything. They were trying last ditch attempts to get you to listen to them.
The fact is that the College would have let the community run a library - it was the council who were adamant that the community would not.
All the actions the campaign took were to try and get you to change your mind. Fruitless.
Campaigners were simply trying to keep the library going, keep that building for the community. You could have at least let them try. You knew best didn't you?
Still your patronising, arrogant old self. No wonder you were not re-selected to stand as a councillor anywhere in Brent.
At least the campaign achieved that much.
Well Said Anonymous.
Mr Powney you must feel a bit let down by Brent Labour not re-selecting you -
How could they?
What possible reason could they have given?
Post a Comment