Thursday, 13 May 2021

Should Barham Park Trust Committee be protecting the open space from over-development of its two covenanted houses?


The Barham Park houses 


The Trustees of the Barham Park Trust are all Brent Council Cabinet members: Cllr Muhammed Butt, Cllr Thomas Stephens, Cllr Margaret McLennan, Cllr Harbi Farah and Cllr Krupa Sheth. 

Cllr Butt has joined the Barham Park Trust Committee since their last meeting in September 2020 and from the listing on the Council's website appears to have taken over from Cllr McLennan as Chair. I have found no public explanation for this change.

The Barham Park Trust Committee is 'responsible for the trustee functions in relation to Barham  Parham Park Trust, including taking decisions on the disposal of land, varying or ceasing the charitable purpose and changing the trust.'

 So pretty powerful...

This  is significant as one would expect the Trust Committee to defend the Barham Park Open Space from development if it is to ensure the protecting of Titus Barham's 'enduring gift' to the people of Brent, and of course there is a proposal to replace the two houses (above) with a much larger development (below).


The Restrictive Covenants on the houses (776 and 778 Harrow Road) suggest the proposals infringe the conditions:

Restrictive Covenants as filed with the Land Registry and belonging to the Barham Trust on 776 Harrow Road (778 is the same)



Restrictive covenants by the Transferee


The Transferee covenants with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982 to observe and perform the restrictions contained in clause 12.4.2 ('The Restrictions') and it is agreed and declared that:

the benefit of this covenant is to be attached to and enure for each and every part of the Retained Land that remains unsold by the Transferor or has been sold by the Transferor (or by any person claiming through the Transferor otherwise than by a transfer on sale) with the express benefit of this covenant

the burden of this covenant is intended to bind and binds each and every part of the Property into whosoever hands it may come

an obligation in the Restrictions not to do any act or thing includes an obligation not to permit or suffer that act or thing to be done by another person


The Restrictions are the following: 

not to use the Property otherwise than as a single private dwelling house and the garage for any purpose other than as a ancillary private garage 

not to divide the Property into two or more dwellings or residential units 

not to erect or cause to be erected on the Property any building or structure whatsoever except a greenhouse or shed of not greater length than 4 metres and of not greater height than 3 metres or permit or suffer any person under the Transferor's control to do so 

not to stand or support any vehicle, commercial vehicle trailer, mobile home, caravan, trailer, cart or boat on any part of the Property, and 

not to carry out any development within the meaning of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in or upon the Property 

not to park any motor vehicle on or otherwise obstruct any part of the accessway hatched yellow and hatched green or any part of the Retained Land at any time


Positive covenants by the Transferee

The Transferee covenants on behalf of itself and its successors in title with the Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of the Retained Land and each and every part of the Retained Land and with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982


to contribute and pay within 14 days of demand (ll) fifty percent (50%) of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing the accessway shown hatched yellow on the Plan

(b) a fair and due proportion of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing sewers drains pipes cables party walls and all other structures apparatus or installations which service the Property in common with any neighbouring or adjoining property


to maintain repair and renew at all times hereafter to the satisfaction of Transferor

a good and sufficient metal palisade fence and timber fence or wall on any of the boundaries of the Property marked with ''T'' (if any) within the boundaries of the said plan.

the pathway hatched brown stippled red and the accessway hatched green stippled red on the Plan to a reasonable standard


not to transfer the Property or grant a lease of the Property or the Transferee's freehold estate in the Property or any other estate or interest in it to any person without first ensuring that the person has executed a deed directly with Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of each and every part of the Retained Land containing the covenants and provisions of clause 12.5. mutatis mutandis including this present covenant 12.5.3.


Well clearly the proposed block of flats is not a greenhouse or shed...


 The entry from the Land Registry is embedded below and I am sure will be of interest to those opposing the plans. (Click bottom right for full page)



Philip Grant said...

In case anyone is in any doubt about the meaning of the restrictive covenant in clause
'not to carry out any development within the meaning of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in or upon the Property,'
here is what Section 55 says:

'55 - Meaning of “development” and “new development”.
(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, in this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, “development,” means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land.'

Since signing that covenant in August 2011, it appears that George Irvin, or companies that he is a director of, have made at least four applications which would involve carrying out development at 776/778 Harrow Road.

Have the Barham Park Trustees ever tried to hold him to that covenant? If not, why not?

SCRA Treasurer said...

The SCRA committee strongly objects to this and it is in direct contradiction to the restrictive covenants, we cannot see any case for this development being approved.