Clerkenwell Liberal Democrats

A well-attended public meeting in St Mark’s Church last night (16th January 2012) heard Labour Cllr Paul Convery give his assessment of the bizarre Myddelton Square situation.  (New readers see the end of this post for the story so far.)

Cllr Convery was careful to air-brush away my role in getting the issue publicly debated, but a little information emerged which will be new to readers of this site.  A summary would be these:

1. the Council is likely to go ahead with some works to the Gardens, such as re-turfing and path improvements, in defiance of the freeholder’s attempt to ban them, because the lease also requires the Council to maintain the gardens. (Download a copy of the lease below).  Go figure, m’Lud!
2. the Labour administration will not however commit to spending the full £238,000 (previously allocated by the Lib Dem administration) from the Angel Centre s.106 agreement  because this would arguably go further than could be allowed under (1).  This is a major concern – see below;
3. The Council will “consider” compulsory purchase but only after other avenues, notably the normal lease-renewal process under the Landlord & Tenant Act, have been pursued;
4. Cllr Convery is trying to use his influence over Derwent’s plans for future development in Islington to get Derwent to  make amends for its astonishing – and so far unexplained – decision to sell the freehold of the Gardens in 2008 without offering them to the Council.  Cllr Convery is meeting David Silverman, a board member of Derwent London, on Friday (20^th January).

Meanwhile, Robert Rayne, Chair of Derwent London, has not so far answered my request for an explanation of this – sent on 23rd November 2011.   I look forward to his response.

Bolt Cutters not required!

There were a lot of questions from residents about whether Mr Cooper would try to lock the gates to exclude the public when the lease expires next year, and whether local residents would have to resort to wielding bolt-cutters to get in.

The answer is no.   Under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954, the lease continues until the procedure under the Act comes to an end, whether or not its expiry date has come and gone.  So as long as the Council lawyers serve the relevant notices requesting an extension to the lease in 2013, no-one need invest in bolt-cutters.

Mr Cooper can’t oppose the renewal of the lease unless the leaseholder (ie the Council) has committed serious breaches of the lease – notably failure to repair or failure to pay the rent – or where he wants to redevelop.   None of these is likely to apply to the Gardens.

What the Act doesn’t do is impose rent control.  If the freeholder and leaseholder can’t agree, the Court decides the rent, on the basis of various assumptions set out there.  That could keep our learned friends,  their surveyor witnesses and the judiciary arguing for a long time.

See the facts for yourself here!

If you want to see the basic documents, here they are.  Download the Council’s Myddelton Gardens Lease, and the Angel S106 here.  The effect of the London Squares Preservation Act 1931 and the Planning policies can be viewed here.

Major Concerns remain

Cllr Convery’s gave his “commitment” to “identify” alternative resources to be spent on the improvement of Myddelton Square, if the council should be obliged to spend £238,000 s. 106 money from the Angel Centre elsewhere before a “sunset” clause allows Derwent to ask for it back in 2015.  But just how cast iron is such a “commitment?

Cllr Convery has ”previous” on this.  In the 1980s, he was part of the Labour administration which raided the s.106 pot from a development in Cowcross St,  near Farringdon station,  intended to improve local amenities – and used it to build the Archway leisure pool, at the other end of the Borough.  Local people have never forgotten this.

The danger is thus that the money is spent on something else – and the Council then goes through the motions of “identifying” other funds before – amid much wringing of hands – it announces that it hasn’t suceeded, times are hard, the Government has tied its hands etc – and then reneges on Cllr Convery’s “commitment”.  No-one can commit Council capital resources years ahead like this.

My other concerns are more technical.  What good will re-turfing do if the grass doesn’t grow properly under the trees?  Will the money be wasted?

What Cllr Convery should do

I have asked Cllr Convery to request Derwent to remove the “sunset” clause in the s.106 agreement, whereby – if the money isn’t spent by 2015 – Derwent can simply ask for it back.  (It’s clause 1.2 on page 18).   That is one thing which Derwent can do which will cost it nothing and nevertheless avoid the need for us to depend on a somewhat dodgy “commitment” by the Labour administration to “identify” alternative sources of £238k for improvements to the Gardens.

New readers start here!

In about 2008, Derwent London, mega-property developer, owner of the Angel Centre and successor in title to the New River Company, the company which built London’s water supply, quietly sold the Gardens in Myddelton Square – probably for a few thousand pounds – to an aggressive property developer, Marcus Cooper, who regards the gardens as being worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, despite their protection from development, and is determined to extract this from the Council, either as an equivalent in rent or as an offer for the freehold, under threat of terminating the Council’s lease which notionally expires in 2013.  Meanwhile he is refusing permission to the Council to demolish a dilapidated former gardener’s hut currently surrounded by unsightly hoardings and preventing the expenditure of the full £238k in improvement money.

The Gardens are heavily protected from any development by the London Squares Preservation Act 1931 and innumerable Planning policy documents (see above).  The Council’s lease can be renewed, if necessary under a court order, but potentially at a higher rent.

In December I went house-to-house round the Square gathering signatures for a petition demanding an immediate start to compulsory purchase proceedings unless negotiations were promptly successful, and on 8^th December I presented this to the Council, which had a full debate on  a motion I put down.   See my previous post about this elsewhere on this site.

Community Rid to Bid – a suitable case?

An intriguing possibility was raised at the meeting by a resident.  The Coalition Government’s Localism Act gives any community the right to apply to the local authority to list any building or land as an “asset of community value”.  If accepted, this puts a brake on the freeholder’s ability to sell or lease the land to anyone else, without giving the community time to mount a rival bid.

I am examining this possibility closely to see if it could add anything to the already formidable protection the Gardens already have.  It is likely to come into force in April.

Transport for London, Mayor Boris Johnson’s transport agency, has announced here that it is to conduct a “strategic review” of the road system around Kings Cross, starting in the New Year and getting properly under way in the Spring.

In the meantime, extensive works are to take place over Christmas and New Year to try to improve safety, in advance of the Olympics and in view of recent fatalities.

The review will include a review of the gyratory system in the area – something the area has endured since the 1970s.

A number of such systems have been removed by TfL in recent years – notably the one in Shoreditch. These schemes looked good on road engineers’ drawings and increased the “capacity” – ie the ability to move even larger numbers of vehicles around – but with terrible consequences for the environment, the quality of life for local residents and the safety of vulnerable road users.

The limitations of such systems are best demonstrated when there are road works, or a burst water main, or – sadly, all too often – a major accident.   The entire system then gridlocks itself – triggering a whole set of new problems far worse than a two-way system, from huge disruption to road rage incidents and outbreaks of mass horn-hooting.

It is quite normal for traffic to speed up on one-way roads.  Seeing it come down Penton Rise is often terrifying for people trying to cross at the foot of the hill, even with the benefit of traffic-controlled crossings.

A number of attempts have been made by Islington in recent years to get the gyratory reviewed.   I remember chairing a lively public meeting about it in 2002– but all have come to grief because of objections from both Camden and TfL.

The system is now part of the boundary of the Congestion Charge Zone, and carries large numbers of vehicles trying to avoid the £10 daily charge.

On the south side, westbound traffic other than buses has to go round three sides of a square formed by Penton Rise, SwintonSt/ Acton St and Gray’s Inn Road.  Small wonder our air quality is so poor.

Doing away with the gyratory north of Kings Cross is far easier to achieve than the southern part, largely because Pentonville Road is so small.

Virtually all Clerkenwell residents will be affected to some extent by any changes and I will be keeping a close eye on developments, with the help of my Lib Dem colleagues on the Greater London Assembly in City Hall.

Cllr Paul Convery last night refused to give any assurance that Islington’s Labour administration will start the compulsory purchase of Myddelton Square, Clerkenwell, any time soon, or at all.

He also refused, again, to give any assurance that the “section 106” planning gain money arising from the Angel Centre redevelopment will be used to refurbish the gardens.

At the Council meeting, I presented the petition, of 113 names, and introduced a debate on the motion I had put down – in line with the petition – asking that he start these proceedings soon, so that local people could continue to enjoy the gardens in perpetuity.

I described how it had emerged that Derwent London had sold the freehold to Marcus Cooper, without offering it to the Borough, despite all its much-professed investment in Islington, and how Mr Cooper was now causing blight and refusing to allow upgrades to the square, as part of his attempt to extract “maximum value” from the the public purse and in pursuit of his belief that London’s garden squares are worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, despite their heavy protection from development.

The Chair of Derwent London had not so far responded to my request for an explanation.

Mr Cooper could not build on the gardens, or throw the Council and public out (without proving certain legal grounds) but he had already started blighting the square and would demand rent.

I asked for two categoric assurances: first that compulsory purchase would start within a short time if negotiations produce no result, and secondly, that the s.106 money earmarked by the former  Lib Dem administation would be spent on the Square.

Instead, Cllr Convery introduced an amendment which, after reciting some of the legal processes and protections the gardens enjoy, claimed that “negotiations” had already started with Mr Cooper and that compulsory purchase “could” take place. You can read his amendment here: Motion 6 Amendments (final ammendments)

In his speech he claimed that I must have been aware years ago that Derwent had sold the freehold, because they had started offering their residential freeholds to leaseholders in the area. Cllr Allan is therefore, personally,  responsible for the mess that we are now in, he told the Council.

He then went on to say that Cllr Allan should not communicate with Mr Cooper, as this might “upset” Cllr Convery’s  negotiations which, he insisted, had already started (an apparent reference to the £10k offer contemptuously rejected by Mr Cooper some time ago.)

He said nothing in reply to my request for the two assurances.

Cllr Raphael Andrews, Clerkenwell Labour councillor, seconded the motion. Calling for something to start that had already started showed how out of touch the Lib Dems were, and why they had lost control of the Council in May 2010, he said.

In reply, I totally rejected the suggestion that I was in some way responsible for the current situation.  I also rejected Cllr Convery’s desire to dictate who I can and cannot speak to in the course of my duties.   We agreed that compulsory purchase is long-winded and complex, but that this is precisely why it had to start soon in order to make use of the available s. 106 funds (which have to be spent by June 2015 or Derwent can demand them back).

I pointed out that this was now the fourth time he had refused to give either of the assurances I asked for.

The amendment was carried by Labour’s block vote and the Lib Dems reluctantly voted for the amended motion.

So What happens now?

Blight and decay, as far as I can see.  While Cllr Convery “negotiates” on a price  somewhere between the Council’s offer of £10k and Mr Cooper’s vision of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The uncertainty caused by these indeterminate “negotiations” will prevent the available funds being spent, or applications to bodies like the Heritage Lottery Fund for extra money.

I can be fairly certain that Labour will now divert the s.106 funds away from the Square.  They have to, if they can’t guarantee that they are able to spend them on the square by June 2015; and if they think they could beat the deadline – why won’t they give the assurances I asked for?

Worst Case Scenarios

The first is that Myddelton Square is eventually, in 4 years’ time, bought from Mr Cooper,  at a price which reduces the s.106 funds so much that nothing is left for a major facelift.

The second is that the blight and uncertainty means the money is diverted elsewhere. the CPO  is never started, or is abandoned, and the Square remains in the hands of Mr Cooper or anyone he chooses to sell it to.  The lease is renewed (at a significant rent, causing cuts elsewhere)  but this unsatisfactory situation continues indefinitely.

The way forward would have been resolute action.   But we aren’t getting it.

Lib Dem Leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has outlined a £1 billion pound Youth Contract to tackle youth unemployment. The aim is to ensure that all jobless young people are earning or learning again before long-term damage is done.

• Over three years, the Youth Contract will provide at least 410,000 new work places for 18 to 24 year olds into work. Starting April 2012
• Including 160,000 wage subsidies and 250,000 new work experience placements.
• In addition, there will be at least 20,000 more incentive payments to encourage employers to take on young apprentices.
• A new programme to help the most disengaged 16 and 17 year olds – getting them back to school or college, onto an apprenticeship or into a job with training.

The controversial attempt by property developer Marcus Cooper to extract large sums from Islington Council by buying the gardens in Myddelton Square is to be debated at the next meeting of Islington Council at the Town Hall on Thursday 8th December.

I have put down a motion calling on Mr Cooper to enter into realistic talks with the Council and calling on the Council’s Executive – its cabinet of senior councillors  – to start compulsory purchase proceedings if any such talks do not result in its prompt acquisition by the Council.

I am also planning to present my petition to the Council then.  Signatures to the e-petition here are coming in at a gratifying rate, and I am planning to come door-to-door soon to get lots more.

If you would like to come to the Council meeting,  please do – although please bear in mind there isn’t any debate as such on a petition, and the  motion – on which there is a debate – may not be until 9.30pm.

Meanwhile, I will be asking some searching questions about how we have got here: notably, why the New River Company, alias Derwent, sold the freehold to Mr Cooper despite Derwent’s long involvement in the Borough.

The dispute over the development of the New River Head site’s famous Pump House has taken several turns since my last post.

The Planning Committee meeting at which it was to have been discussed was cancelled, so nothing has been decided.

Some of the parties in the dispute have met for talks, and a site meeting has been arranged for Councillors on the planning committee.   It is not yet clear whether these talks have resulted in any sort of agreement.

Watch this space!

The Pump House from the interpretation area off Myddelton Passage

Repeated undertakings from Thames Water and the developers of the New River Head site about the creation of a heritage centre in its historic Pump House have been ripped up  – and are now about to be abandoned by Islington Council.

In the 1990s, Islington Council allowed the New River Head site to be intensively developed for residential buildings – but only because part of the site was reserved for use as a Heritage Centre.

The Planning Brief making this proposal was adopted with massive public support in 1999.

Now Thames Water and a local developer are tearing up all the agreements and proposing a development of the historic Pump House and adjoining buildings to create 8 residential units.

Islington’s planning officers want to let them get away with it.  This is a slap in the face for the hundreds of Islington residents who  supported the conservation proposals when they were consulted about them.

The applications for planning permission and listed building consent are coming up at a meeting of Planning Committee “B” on 15th November 2011.  The relevant papers can be seen here:

http://www.islington.gov.uk/democracy/meetings/meetingdetail.asp?meetingID=2950

The Islington Building Preservation Trust even holds £100,000 paid by the former developer and intended for this precise purpose, while another conservation group – the Heritage of London Trust – is believed to be keen to take on the project.

The proposed application flatly contradicts two agreements between the developers and the Council in 1997 and 2000 and two planning briefs for the site issued by the Borough in 1991 and 1999.

The Planners have issued a report saying that because the last Planning Brief is 12 years old, they do not consider that permission can be refused for the application’s failure to provide for a heritage centre (para 43 of their report).

In planning terms, this was only yesterday.  I think the Islington planners forgot about all the agreements and are now too embarrassed to admit they have made a major blunder.

I will be supporting local people and a broad alliance of local conservation groups in opposing this application vigorously at the meeting on Tuesday 15th November and I hope anyone concerned about it will come along (7.30pm at Islington Town Hall, Upper Street).

It is not too late to look at the plans and register your objection to the proposal.

Go to this web site and search for planning application P102766. Then click on the “comment on this application” button and have your say!

A millionaire property developer has bought the gardens in the middle of Myddelton Square and threatens to make Islington Council pay him hundreds of thousands of pounds to allow the public to continue to enjoy them.

I have started a campaign to prevent this, and I would be grateful for your support by signing the petition I plan to take to the Council urging it to start compulsory purchase proceedings immediately.

Islington Council wants to spend nearly £250,000 upgrading it – using planning gain money allocated by the former Lib Dem administration arising from the adjacent Angel Centre development – but the developer, Marcus Cooper, is having none of it.

He  refuses to allow the Council to do anything with the gardens until he is paid a large sum of money – without any guarantee he will even approve the upgrades.  He has turned down an offer of £10,000  from the Council for the freehold.

This is the extraordinary situation which has unfolded over the last couple of years during which Council officials have tried to negotiate with him.

And there are two time bombs ticking away.   One is that the Council’s lease ends on 28th August 2013 and the developer wants to end the lease then, thus ending Clerkenwell people’s right to use the gardens.

The second is that the planning gain must be used by June 2015, otherwise it reverts back to the developer of the Angel Centre, Derwent Properties.

So my plan is that Islington compulsorily purchases Myddelton Square – for as little as possible – using the funds earmarked for its upgrade.

As no-one can seriously suggest building in the gardens,  the cost should not be great and the planned upgrade could then proceed with Myddelton Square saved for the people of Clerkenwell and Islington, in perpetuity.

Why don’t we own it already?

Myddelton Square was developed in the late 1820s by the New River Company – which brought the New River from Hertfordshire to Clerkenwell in the early 17th century.  It continued to build and own property in the area until it was bought by a developer in the 1980s (for the site of the Angel Centre) and the residential property it owned was sold to Islington Council and became council housing.  But the gardens in the Square seem to have been retained and sold on – and have never in fact been owned by Islington Council, which has only ever had a lease.

It is inconceivable that anyone could build anything on the square. In fact, it’s the law.

To quote from page 208 of  Islington’s latest proposed planning policy document:

“The London Squares Preservation Act 1931 listed over 400 of London’s squares.  The 1931 Act states that a protected square may not be used for any purposes other than an ornamental garden, pleasure ground or ground for play, rest or recreation, and that no building, structure or erection shall be created or placed on or over any protected square except as may be necessary or convenient for the use or maintenance of the square for an authorised purpose.  “

Myddelton Square is duly listed as one of the protected squares.   So it would take a (private) Act of Parliament to build anything there.

So one has to ask: why does a developer buy somewhere that can’t be developed?  What is his game?

What does Mr Cooper want to do with the Square?

I have spoken to Mr Cooper and the answer seems to be that he thinks garden squares are worth hundreds of thousands of pounds,  even without the ability to do anything with them, and that this should in some way be paid to him in recognition of his purchase of it.   He appears to think that every deal he does should be money-making, however misconceived.

I am therefore starting a campaign to have the gardens compulsorily purchased by Islington Council so that this nonsense can be terminated as quickly as possible.

Sadly, such proceedings are not fast – and Mr Cooper told me he will use every legal opportunity in the book to prolong them.  So we had better get started straight away.  If he really thinks that Myddelton Square is worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, then he will have the right to argue this  before a succession of valuers and Government inspectors, and probably judges too.  One would think this a waste of his ultra-valuable time and a distraction from his role in making money, but apparently not.

Please support my campaign by signing my on-line petition, which I plan to present to a future meeting of the Council.

Deputy Prime Minister addresses the Party Conference in Birmingham. You can read the full text of the speech here.

Thousands of Liberal Democrats gathered for their annual conference in Birmingham this week. They discussed what has been achieved in the first 500 days of Government and policies for the future. Highlights include:

• After decades of campaigning, and thanks to Lynne Featherstone: Equal marriage, straight or gay.
• More power for consumers over the energy companies
• Calling time on rewards for failure in boardrooms
• New powers to turn empty homes back into family homes.
• A £500m investment in growth.