7
ITEM NO:
Executive
15th December 2008
Joint Report from the Directors of
Environment and Culture and
Finance and Corporate Resources
Wards Affected:
Dollis Hill/Dudden Hill/Mapesbury
Dollis Hill House – Update on Progress by Training for Life
Forward Plan Ref: E&C-08/09-015
1.0
Summary
1.1
This report provides members with an update on progress made by Training
for Life (TFL) on developing their proposal for the redevelopment of the Dollis
Hill House. It explains the recent decision by the London Mayor not to
contribute any capital funding to the scheme and the subsequent decision by
Training for Life to withdraw. It also reminds Members of the history of the
House and asks members to revisit the previous decision to apply for consent
to demolish.
2.0
Recommendations
Members are asked to
2.1
Note the progress since February 2008 made by Training for Life in
developing their business plan for the refurbishment of the Dollis Hill House
and that following the recent decision by the London Mayor that Training for
Life have decided to withdraw from the process.
2.2
Thank Training for Life for their work over the past year in developing their
proposal for the House.
2.3
confirm their decision at the September 2007 Executive to:
i) instruct officers to prepare an application for listed building consent to
demolish Dollis Hill House.
Meeting Exec
Version no. V4
Date 15-12-08
Date 2-12-08
ii) that if consent to demolish is granted, the Director of Environment and
Culture be authorised to take such steps as necessary to carry out demolition,
to landscape and grass the site and consult on a suitable memorial to the
association with Gladstone.
3.0
Detail
3.1
At the Executive meeting in February 2008, Members agreed to allow Training
for Life (TFL) twelve months in which to develop their business plan for the
refurbishment of the Dollis Hill House, including securing the necessary
capital funding and planning permission. In summary they proposed to
refurbish the House and adjacent Stable Block to provide a „social enterprise‟
restaurant, a cafe, functions rooms for hire, community rooms for hire and
space for exhibitions. The feasibility study submitted by TFL and considered
by members at the February Executive estimated capital costs for the
refurbishment to be approximately ÂŁ5.5M which TFL would secure from the
following sources:
GLA/LDA - ÂŁ2M
Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) - ÂŁ1M
Future Builders London - ÂŁ1.5M
Community Assets Programme – CAP (Big Lottery Fund) - £1m
3.2
As requested by the Executive, TFL have kept Council officers up to date with
progress on developing their business plan. Officers have supported TFL to
progress their plans in a number of areas including the submission of an
application for ÂŁ1M to the Capital Assets Programme, administered by the Big
Lottery Fund. In April 2008 TFL heard that they had not been successful with
securing this funding.
3.3
At the end of March 2008 TFL submitted an application to the Heritage Lottery
Fund (HLF) for just under ÂŁ1M. This showed match funding from CAP and the
GLA/LDA would be available. A copy of the application was supplied to the
Council. After an initial assessment the HLF did not feel it was sufficiently
detailed enough for them to support and they suggested that the application
should be switched to the two-stage application process. If successful at a
stage 1, TFL would be awarded revenue development funding to allow them
to work the bid up to RIBA stage E at which point a stage two application
would be submitted. In order for this work to be completed within the twelve
month council deadline (ie February 2009) they would have needed to submit
the stage two application to HLF in October 2008 in order to be assessed at
the December grant committee. HLF did not believe TFL could develop a bid
to RIBA stage E by October and suggested they submit it in December in
order to reach a March 2009 HLF grants committee. At a meeting with the
HLF in early May, Council Officers confirmed that as long as all else is in
place by February 2009 and all that needs confirming is final agreement from
HLF on the capital funding that a single month delay would have been
acceptable to the Council. On 4th June 2008, the HLF agreed to the stage 1
grant which provided TFL access to ÂŁ250K of HLF revenue funding towards
the development phase of the project which TFL estimate to cost ÂŁ520K in
total. This meant TFL needed to find the shortfall in this revenue funding of
Meeting Exec
Version no. V4
Date 15-12-08
Date 2-12-08
ÂŁ270K.
3.4
TFL the asked the Council for ÂŁ40K revenue support from the insurance fund
towards the shortfall which the Council refused as the proposal had been
submitted on the basis that no revenue was required from the Council for
either developing the business plan or as future subsidy should the scheme
be successful, the insurance fund needs to be retained should the TFL work
not be successful. TFL then secured an agreement from the Architectural
Heritage Fund for a loan of ÂŁ250K but this required underwriting. TFL asked
the Council to underwrite the loan but it was felt the risk was too great and
consequently the Council refused.
3.5
Members should remember that the initial TFL feasibility study was predicated
on the basis that the GLA/LDA would fund up to 50% of the capital costs of
the scheme. This assumption was based on letter dated September 2006
from the then Mayor of London offering to find up to 50% of the required
capital funding if the Council could find the remainder. In October this year,
TFL met with the Deputy Mayor of London to discuss this offer. The meeting
was also attended by the Council, the Dollis Hill House Trust, HLF and the
LDA. The meeting had been delayed from earlier in the year as a result of the
change in Mayor at the May elections. At this meeting the Deputy Mayor said
that due to current financial pressures the GLA/LDA would not be able to
provide any capital funding for the scheme as it did not provide London tax
payers with value for money as they could get a greater return on their
investment through other schemes. For example, it was suggested that for
this level of funding the creation of 400 jobs would be expected rather than
the number in the feasibility study.
3.6
The decision by the Mayor not to provide any capital funding towards this
proposal has been a major blow for the project. TFL submitted their original
feasibility study to the council on the basis that they believed this funding
source would be available. Similarly, the HLF grant was agreed on this basis.
It is likely now that the HLF will be forced to withdraw it‟s current offer as there
is such a gap in the level of match funding. TFL met with Council Officers to
discuss the implications of the Mayor‟s decision and how, if at all, the project
could move forward. The ÂŁ2M expected from the Mayor is a significant
amount of the overall ÂŁ5.5M capital required and there is no clear alternative
source. Given the current economic climate TFL can not guarantee that an
alternative funding source could be found or the timescales for doing so. TFL
are a charity. They have already committed significant resources to the project
and believe they can no longer commit further resources into a scheme where
there is no clear way of addressing the capital shortfall. As a consequence,
TFL have decided to withdraw.
3.7
At this point, it is worth a brief recap once again, on the history of the Dollis
Hill House since it was declared surplus to council needs in 1994 and the
attempts made during this time to secure its future.
June 1994
Declared surplus to needs by Council
Meeting Exec
Version no. V4
Date 15-12-08
Date 2-12-08
October 1994 Whitbread proposal
June 1995
First arson attack
June 1995
Planning permission submitted for Whitbread proposal
(withdrawn August 1995)
April 1996
Second arson attack
June 1999
Torkilsden & Barclay report concludes unlikely to succeed
without subsidy from Council
Nov 1999 –
Marketed on open market
March 2000
Nov 2000
Agreed 4 month delay to set up Dollis Hill House Trust
(DHHT)
Nov 2001
Council agrees ÂŁ30K from insurance fund for DHHT to
develop business plan and funding applications
Sept 2002
Council agrees ÂŁ28,350 from insurance fund to further
develop DHHT business plan
June 2003
Third arson attack
Dec 2003
Exec considers future of DHH – decision to demolish and
provide café/landscaping subject to capital being identified
Spring 2004
Brent PCT express interest in site as community health centre
June 2004
Gladstone Park Heritage Lottery Funded restoration scheme
completed
May 2005
Brent PCT decides not to progress their proposal
Sept 2005
Dollis Hill House Trust agree to submit revised business case
for consideration
Oct 2006
Council agrees to one final marketing exercise
July 2007
Final marketing exercise completed; no viable proposal
obtained.
Sept 2007
Training for Life given 3 months to submit a feasibility study
for the future of the House.
Officers instructed to prepare application for listed building
consent to demolish House subject to TFL work above.
Feb 2008
TFL given 12 months to develop full business plan, secure
Meeting Exec
Version no. V4
Date 15-12-08
Date 2-12-08
capital funding and obtain planning permission
3.8
During 2004 Gladstone Park, including areas surrounding the remains of the
House, underwent a significant refurbishment using a grant from the Heritage
Lottery Fund. The Park is considered one of the best Parks in the borough but
is spoilt by the remains of the House. In addition, it is costing money each
year just to address the health and safety issues of ensuring the remains are
kept in such a way as not to cause a danger to the public. This is becoming
increasingly difficult as the state of the remains deteriorates.
3.9
Should members decide to revisit the earlier decision to submit an application
for listed building consent to demolish the House permission will need to be
granted as outlined in section 5. Members will need to be mindful of the clear
approach to development, re-use or demolition of Listed Buildings that is set
out in government planning advice [Planning Policy Guidance Note No.15].
The preference is always for restoration of the original use, and Members will
need to be satisfied that if this cannot be achieved, alternative uses are
examined in detail. If Members are of the view that having given careful
consideration to the re-use of the building there is no viable alternative, only
then can demolition be properly considered as an option. Members can have
regard to the cost of repairing and maintaining the building relative to its
importance and to the value derived from its continued use. This sequential
approach is one that Members will need to apply and that the Council will
need to demonstrate to make the planning case for changes to the building or
the site.
3.10
When considering the above, Members should remember that the House is
listed for its historical connection to Gladstone rather than for it‟s architectural
importance. Since 1994 Officers have worked with English Heritage to
develop a sustainable and coherent future for the house and have kept them
up to date with the various schemes that have been considered. English
Heritage has recognised the difficulties experienced by the Council in finding a
viable future for the House and the position the project is now at. English
Heritage will be consulted as part of any application to demolish Dollis Hill
House and will expect that the Council has thoroughly and rigorously adhered
to the requirements of the “sequential test” required by the Planning (Listed
Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The test requires that the Council
has made all efforts to identify alternative uses to secure the future of the
building. The decision process will be administered by the Government Office
for London (GOL). Officers will work closely with representatives of English
Heritage and GOL during the application process.
3.11
Given the financial implications in section 4 it is recommended that the House
is demolished and the area made safe and landscaped. Officers will develop
proposals for a reinterpretation of the space and developing a feature to
commemorate the House and its associations. There is currently no funding
available for such a scheme (see paragraph 4.3 below). Officers would
explore the possibility of securing any external funding for such a proposal,
including funding from the GLA and HLF. Officers will liaise with the local
Meeting Exec
Version no. V4
Date 15-12-08
Date 2-12-08
residents and the Dollis Hill House Trust on any proposals.
4.0
Financial Implications
4.1
The TFL proposal estimated capital costs for the refurbishment of the House
at £5.5M. There is no provision within the Council‟s capital programme to
redevelop the House and as detailed above the Council has been
unsuccessful in trying to secure this funding from elsewhere. Even if capital
funding were secured it is likely that any proposal would require a revenue
subsidy and there is no revenue identified for this purpose.
4.2
No specific costs have been identified to pay for the demolition of the House
or for any landscaping or memorial to the House. Maintaining the remains of
the House in its current condition is covered by the insurance fund. The
insurance fund is the settlement received from external insurers and the
Council‟s own self-insurance for the two main arson attacks. The fund is
reducing at a rate of approximately ÂŁ20K per year. As of October 2008, it
stands at ÂŁ48K. It is likely that this will be required to maintain the House in a
safe condition over the next two years whilst an application to demolish is
processed.
4.3
The estimated total costs of demolishing the House and providing a
reinterpretation of the space with a memorial are ÂŁ90K and ÂŁ62.5K
respectively. An application to demolish will need to be made by a specialist
historic buildings consultant. The estimated cost of this work, including any
potential public inquiry, is ÂŁ25K. The total costs of demolishing and making
good the area is therefore estimated at ÂŁ177.5K. There is currently no budget
identified for this work, although any saving within the remaining „insurance
fund‟ by the end of the process could be offset against this.
5.0
Legal Implications
5.1
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 does not
impose a duty on the owners of listed buildings to keep them in good repair.
However, Local Authorities and The Secretary of State have powers to serve
“Urgent Works Notices” and “Repairs Notices” on Owners who wilfully neglect
their historic assets indeed, paragraph 3.3.7 of PPG 15 states “the Secretaries
of State ask authorities to deal with their own buildings in ways which will
provide examples of good practice to other owners. It is particularly important
that every effort should be made to maintain historic buildings in good
condition, and to find appropriate new uses for buildings in authority
ownership which are no longer in active use”.
5.2
There are legal covenants on the Dollis Hill House; the property is subject to
the Indenture dated 19th February 1900 between RA Finch and others and the
Willesden UDC. The land (Dollis Hill House and other properties) was
conveyed to the Council in “fee simple for the perpetual use thereof by the
public”. There has been debate over the years as to whether “for the
perpetual use thereof by the public” created a trust and had the effect of the
Council holding the land on charitable trust or not. A number of legal opinions
have been sought in the past. Given the time gap since the last legal opinion,
Meeting Exec
Version no. V4
Date 15-12-08
Date 2-12-08
the council sought further external Counsel‟s opinion in March 2006. This
concluded that the House is not held on a charitable trust. The Charity
Commission is of the view that the building is not held on a charitable trust but
it is open to the Attorney-General to seek a court declaration that there is a
charitable trust if she saw fit. However, the Treasury Solicitor (on behalf of the
Attorney General) has now confirmed that the Attorney General considers that
the House is not held on a charitable trust.
5.3
If the Council did decide to progress with demolition there are two approaches
that could be taken; de-list the building and then demolish or make an
application to demolish a listed building. Consent to demolish a listed building
is fairly exceptional and will require a strong justification that all efforts have
been made to retain the building and have failed. The council will need to
convince the Secretary of State that real efforts have been made to continue
use or seek an alternative use. This would include having tried to find a lessee
to take a long lease (125 years or more) at a price reflecting the building‟s
condition. The offer of a short lease only would be seen as having restricted
the chances of finding a new use. It is considered that the marketing exercise
previously undertaken and the subsequent negotiations with Training for Life
has met this requirement. If demolition of the House was authorised, the
Council would be required to give notice to the Royal Society for a period of at
least one month for the purposes of recording the building. The final decision
on demolition would rest with the Secretary of State. The decision could be
challenged by an appeal to the High Court. The appeal would have to be on
the same grounds as those for judicial review and it is unlikely that the
Secretary of State would deal with a decision in such a way as to make a
challenge likely.
5.4
If it is considered that demolition is the only option to take then it is felt that an
application to demolish rather than an application to de-list is the better route
to take. If an application to de-list was refused, the Council would then have to
start again with an application to demolish. It is therefore more sensible to
apply for permission to demolish in the first place.
.
5. 5
An unsuccessful application was submitted to register the park as a town
green during 2005. The House was not included within the area to be
registered. The application was refused on the basis that the necessary 20
year period of use by the public had not been shown. The applicant has now
submitted a further application. This again excludes the House. The
application was advertised as required by the relevant regulations and various
objections have been submitted to the Council which will now need to decide
on the application in its role as registration authority. However, as the House
is excluded from the application, this will not affect its future use (or any
proposal to demolish it).
6.0
Diversity Implications
6.1
None specific to this report.
Meeting Exec
Version no. V4
Date 15-12-08
Date 2-12-08
7.0
Staffing/Accommodation Implications
7.1
None.
Background Papers
Torkilsden & Barclay Leisure management report 20th June 1999
“Dollis Hill House – Development of a Community Trust” – report to the Public
Services deciding Committee, 27th June 2001
“Dollis Hill House Restoration Project” – Client Brief for Project Management
Consultancy
Dollis Hill House Project – Interim Report, May 2002 Dollis Hill House Steering
Group
Dollis Hill House Project - Outline Business Plan, July 2002 Dollis Hill House
Trust
Dollis Hill House – progress report on the development of a community trust
17th Sept 2002
Dollis Hill House progress report 2002-3
Dollis Hill house Trust Executive Summary of progress 2002
Dollis Hill House Business Plan –October 2003
Dollis Hill House and Stable Arts Gallery – Executive Report, December 2003
The Future of Dollis Hill House – Executive report, October 2006
Dollis Hill House: Update on Marketing Exercise – Executive Report, Jan 2007
Dollis Hill House – Results of Marketing Exercise 2007 – Executive Report,
Sept 2007
Dollis Hill House – Evaluation of Training for Life Feasibility Study – Executive
Report, Feb 2008
Training for life Feasibility Study December 2007
Contact Officers Any person wishing to inspect the above papers should contact Sue Harper
ext 5192/Richard Barrett, ext 1334
Richard Saunders
Duncan McLeod
Director of Environment and
Director of Finance and Corporate
Culture
Resources
Meeting Exec
Version no. V4
Date 15-12-08
Date 2-12-08
