LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT
PUBLIC SERVICES DECIDING COMMITTEE
27th June 2001
REPORT NO : 3
FROM THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CYCLE 01 – 01/02
FOR ACTION
NAME OF WARD
GLADSTONE
Report Title : DOLLIS HILL HOUSE – DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMUNITY TRUST
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
This report deals with a submission from the Dollis Hill House Steering Group to
develop proposals for a charitable Trust for the restoration and redevelopment of Dollis
Hill House.
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1
Members are asked to consider whether to give The Dollis Hill House Steering Group a
further nine months in order to develop proposals for the restoration of Dollis Hill House and
obtain funding for their scheme.
2.2
Members are asked to consider whether to allocate £30,000 from insurance funds to
appoint a project officer to work on fundraising and professional liaison.
2.3
Officers are instructed to report back to this Committee, when the proposals by the
Dollis Hill House Steering Group has been further developed, on proposals to allocate to a
Charitable Trust the remaining insurance funds and a long term lease for the House.
2.4
Members agree that the Deputy Director of Environmental Services, supported by the
Park’s Service Development Manager, should continue as the main point of contact for this
project.
3.0 FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
3.1
There is currently about £270,000 available from the insurance monies relating to the
fire damage to Dollis Hill House. If Members were to agree to the proposals from the
Dollis Hill House Steering Group there would be a cost of about £30,000 for the project
officer – salary and expenses. This would have to be drawn down from the remaining
insurance monies hence reducing funds available for any other schemes if the Steering
Group’s project were to fail.
.
Public Services Deciding Committee
Version 3.0
22/05/01

4.0
STAFFING IMPLICATIONS
4.1
If your Committee agree to proceed with the Steering Group’s proposals then we would
recruit a project officer to work on fundraising and professional liaison on a nine-month
contract.
5.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1
Any scheme that restores the house is likely to enhance the environment of the park.
However the community Trust option may introduce an element of car parking into the
park and reduce part of the open space but this would probably be much less car
parking than the Whitbread scheme.
6.0 LEGAL
IMPLICATIONS
6.1.
The Council has a number of options for dealing with this derelict site. One option is to
dispose of the site and secure a capital receipt, which could be used to fund other
capital schemes. Another is to transfer the site to a local charity group so that it can be
run as some sort of community facility. The Council has power to dispose of its land but
when it does so it must be satisifed that it has received market value for the land unless
it obtains prior consent from the secretary of state. There are also a number of general
consents, which might apply to such a disposal.
6.2.
In the event that the consent is given to a disposal at an undervalue members must still
exercise their fiduciary duty and consider whether the Council does in fact want to
dispose of the site at an undervalue. Members should weigh up the community benefits
against the potential capital receipt it will forego. The bid received some time ago is
now out of date and the council's property manager would need to advise members
how much they could possibly secure from the site as this may have gone up given
current market conditions.
6.3.
The land may be classed as open space. If so, there are additional requirements which
the Council will need to satisfy before it disposes of the land i.e. it must be advertised in
a local paper, etc.
6.4.
Any proposal to build on open space will require planing permission and it is generally
more difficult to secure planning permission for development on open space than in
other circumstances;
6.5.
The group are proposing that they will establish themselves as a charity i.e. a company
limited by guarantee and with charitable status. This is not an unusual mechanism and
is quite straightforward to achieve. If registered the charity may be able to benefit from
tax and VAT savings. The company would be regulated and monitored by the charities
commissioner.
6.6.
The Council is not yet in a position to decide whether it would like to grant a lease to
the group. The Council would need to be satisfied of a number of essential factors
before progressing this further, namely:
- there needs to be a business plan
- there needs to be identified capital funds
Public Services Deciding Committee
Version 3.0
22/05/01

- there needs to be a track record (individualy if nor corporately)
- adequate skills and expertise to run the facility
6.7.
The Council needs to be very clear about what it wants to achieve from the proposed
scheme in terms of community use. A charity-run cafe and function suite is not
necessarily opening the building up to more of the public than, say, a family restaurant.
The paper produced by the group talks of functions, conferences, concerts, weddings,
etc. but the Council needs to consider whether this fulfils its expectations of a
'community facility'. The Council would need to have a clear idea about the outputs it
would expect the organisation to deliver and will need to be clear that the property
could be taken back if those outputs were not delivered.
6.8.
The Council also needs to be clear about its requirements for any refurbishment i.e. a
specification for what the Council would want at the site. Again, failure to comply could
result in the building being taken back by the Council.
6.9.
In the event that the council did recover the property it would probably need to repay
some if not all of the investment to the charity or its backers. The Council would have to
find these funds from somewhere at that time and may have difficulty in doing so;
6.10. The Council might want to secure the right to nominate one of the trustees/directors if a
company is set up. The Council interest must remain below the threshold for influenced
companies, currently less than 20%, in order to avoid adverse capital finance
implications.
6.11. Basically, the charity option is one that can work provided there are sufficient capital
funds raised and provided the Council is satisfied that the group will be a good tenant
and provide a service to the community. However, it would be imprudent to transfer a
valuable site to a group without first be entirely satisfied that the outcomes can be
delivered, etc.
7.0 DETAIL
7.1
At the meeting of Public Services Deciding Committee on 8th November 2000,
Members considered a report on a public consultation exercise and options for the
future of Dollis Hill House. That Committee resolved:
“that neither the Whitbread or Café options be proceeded with for the present in order
to give community groups some time to develop a credible scheme to set up a
community based charitable trust for the restoration and redevelopment of Dollis Hill
House. The House could then be used for ‘community’ and ‘arts’ based activity
available to local people and the wider Brent Community.
To therefore recommend a maximum of four month delay (commencing on 9th October
to allow the groups to develop a charitable trust, subject to an agreed statement”.
Public Services Deciding Committee
Version 3.0
22/05/01

7.2
The present report deals with the submission made by the Dollis Hill House Steering
Group. The group was originally of set up about three years ago to consider the future
of the House and made up of six representatives from local community groups. Over
the last few months they have expanded to include other local organisations and
individuals in order to develop proposals for a charitable Trust for the restoration and
redevelopment of Dollis Hill House.
Proposals from the Dollis Hill House Steering Group
7.3
The Dollis House Steering Group have presented a report, “Out of the Ashes – Dollis
Hill House” (See Appendix A) outlining their proposals for the restoration of Dollis Hill
House. In essence, the group is suggesting that a charitable company be set up to
raise the required funds, restore the house to its Grade 2 listed status and run the
premises for the benefit of the local community. The group feel that the community in
that area “needs a space where they can share experiences and cultures, and offer
individuals the chance of lifelong learning and development. The provision of
performance and exhibition space, a venue for concerts, private events (environment,
arts, sculpture, dance, music) are all parts of the vision for the 21st century for this
historic house.”
7.4
The group have shown considerable enthusiasm, appear to have gathered significant
support from residents in the Dollis Hill area and the work done to prepare their
proposals has been of a good standard given the time limits. The original Steering
Group has worked with the Council on Dollis Hill House and on the successful lottery
bid for redevelopment of Gladstone Park. However the wider group is very new and as
such has a limited track record.
Restoration Proposals
7.5
The Group has produced estimates that the costs of restoration are likely to vary from
about £1.5m to £2m. The Council’s Property Manager suggests that the realistic cost
of restoration is likely to be of the order of £2m. The Group aims to raise a grant from
the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) which may provide 65 to 75% of the capital. Potential
funders identified to date are as follows:
Heritage Lottery Fund - assume 65% of £2m
£1,300k
Insurance funds (after Council expenses)

£200k
English Heritage

£35k
TOTAL
£1,535k
7.6
It should be noted that the HLF have indicated that the insurance funds cannot be used
as partnership funding which means that the group will probably have to raise an
another £70k. This leaves the Steering Group with having to raise at least £535k from
other sources in addition to HLF monies. This may be possible if they can get access
to various Trusts. However we should note that this is likely to be difficult and must be
regarded as an area of considerable risk.
Revenue funding
Public Services Deciding Committee
Version 3.0
22/05/01

7.7
The Steering Group has used Lauderdale House in Camden as a model and presented
a rough budget, which indicates that they could break even based on some optimistic
assumptions. Again this is an area of considerable risk. However the Steering Group
acknowledge that they have a lot of work to do here in order to develop a feasible
business plan and carry out further market research. They will also have to develop a
management plan for the premises.
Charitable Company
7.8
The Steering Group has proposed that a trust in the form of a charitable company be
set up to redevelop and operate Dollis Hill House. The Solicitor to the Council has
reviewed the proposals and her comments are set out in the legal implications of this
report.
Feedback from Heritage Lottery Fund
7.9
A meeting involving a Council Officer and representatives of DHH Steering Group was
held on 11th April with an officer from the Heritage Lottery Fund to review the prospects
of HLF funding the proposed scheme. HLF have written back making the following
main points:
- the project does have potential as a possible recipient of HLF grant monies
- the need to find partnership funding
- insurance funds would not count as partnership funding
- the house has historical connections therefore any restoration plan must reflect this
- critical to the scheme is a viable Business Plan and management structure.
Requests from DHH Streering Group
7.10
The Steering Group have made a number of specific requests to the Council as follows:
a) Express full public support for the Dollis Hill House project
b) Nominate a senior Council officer (preferably reporting to the Chief Executive) who
will provide a single point of liaison with the project contact and all Council
departments.
c) An in principle decision to hand over agreed insurance monies towards the capital
costs.
d) An in principle decision to grant a long lease to the Dollis Hill charitable company at
a peppercorn rent.
e) Agreement to appoint a (six month) project officer to work to the project on
fundraising and professional liaison.
7.11 Express full public support for the Dollis Hill House project. There are clearly
considerable risks to this project as mentioned above including the group’s capacity to
raise the required funding and the viability of the scheme following re-development.
The group will have to undertake considerably more work in order to make this a viable
project. However it has to be noted that since October, when the Council agreed to
give them four months to develop their project, the group has gained considerable local
support and they have carried out a significant amount of work.
Public Services Deciding Committee
Version 3.0
22/05/01

7.12  Members should also note that the offer from Whitbread is potentially still on the table
and they should consider whether Officers should recommence negotiations with this
company. Details of Whitbread’s offer are in the report, “Dollis Hill House – Marketing
Exercise” considered by your Committee on 2nd August 2000. In essence, Whitbread
are offering to spend about £2 million to restore the House and convert it into a
restaurant/ bar. It should be noted that Whitbread have indicated that if the Council
delay further they will have to reconsider their offer and that there has been significant
local opposition to their scheme .
7.13  The third alternative open to the Council is the demolition/ café option, an option that
your Committee also considered last year. This involves seeking permission from the
Secretary of State for the demolition of the grade 2 listed building, and using the
remaining insurance funds to build a café with toilet facilities for park users. However
this option is also likely to be controversial. English Heritage may regard as having
objections to the demolition of the building as they may prefer the other alternatives to
restore the building.
7.14  Nominate a senior officer to provide a single point of contact with the Council. It
is suggested that the Deputy Director of Environment, supported by the Park’s Service
Development Manager, should continue to perform this role.
7.15  Agree in principle to hand over insurance costs towards the capital costs. There
is about £270k available from the insurance funds. We could at this stage give an “in
principle” decision but it should be on the basis that while the council is keen to see this
project succeed, the funds would only be committed when the Council is satisfied of the
viability of the project and subject to concluding appropriate legal agreements
7.16  Agree an in principle decision to grant a long lease to the Dollis Hill House
charitable company.  The Solicitor to the Council advises that it is too early to make
such a decision as there is no incorporated body, no business plan and no money.
She says to make this decision would be inappropriate at this stage and will be
considered once further progress has been made by the group.
7.17  Agree to appoint a project officer for six months to carry out fundraising and
professional liaison.  Six months is unlikely to be sufficient to develop this project
fully. Officers consider a period of nine months would be more appropriate at a cost of
about £30k. You should note that there are no funds earmarked for this work and
unless the Council were to agree to allocate additional funds, the funds would need to
be deducted from the insurance funds, which decrease the funds available for other
solutions in future if this project fell through. Officers are recommending using £30k of
the insurance monies to fund this post.
Conclusions
7.18  The Council has considered the Trust option previously and concluded that it was
unlikely to succeed. The latest proposals, from the Dollis Hill House Steering Group,
has many of the risks considered in those previous reports. However the Group, whilst
it has a limited record, has demonstrated considerable enthusiasm, appears to have
gathered significant support in the locality and have done a considerable amount of
work to develop their proposals. In addition the Heritage Lottery fund have indicated
that the project does have potential as a possible recipient of their funding. In the
Public Services Deciding Committee
Version 3.0
22/05/01

circumstances and given that the Whitbread and café option are contentious Members
may wish to consider giving the Dollis Hill House Steering Group a further nine months
to develop their proposals and obtain the required funding.
8.0
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Details of Documents:
8.1
“Dollis Hill House – A Report”, August 1999 Torkilsden Barclay Leisure Management
“The Future of Dollis Hill House” – Report to the Environment Committee, 23rd
September 1999.
“Dollis Hill House – Marketing Exercise” – Report to the Public Services Deciding
Committee, 2nd August 2000 (NB This is a confidential report hence not available to the
public.)
“Dollis Hill House – Report on Consultation and Options for the Future” – report to the
Public Services Deciding Committee, 8th November 2000
8.2
Any person wishing to inspect the above papers should contact Suresh Kamath,
Environmental Services, Brent House, 349 High Road, Wembley, Middlesex HA9 6BZ,
Telephone: 0181 937 5001
Richard Saunders
Suresh Kamath
Director of Environmental Services
Deputy Director of Environmental
Services
Public Services Deciding Committee
Version 3.0
22/05/01

Document Outline