Friday, 28 April 2023

UPDATED with questions for the Barham Park Trustees from Cllr Paul Lorber - Brent Council on Barham Park Covenant: 'Move along, nothing to see here.'

 The is a covenant on the plot in Barham Park which is the subject of a planning application to demolish two 2 storey houses and replace with four 3 storey houses. The restrictive covenant may have to be removed to allow development, so I put in an FoI request to Brent Council on its valuation.

This is the answer received today:

 1. Please confirm if you have acquired a professional valuation of the
Covenant attached to the two  properties at 776-778 Harrow Road, Barham
Park that were sold to George Irwin.

 
Response: The Council has not acquired a professional valuation of the
covenant attached to the two properties at 776-778 Harrow Road, Barham
Park. 


2. If not, have Brent Council officers made their own valuation and
informed the Trustees of  Barham Park accordingly? 


Response: No. 


3. If either have been done, what is the valuation of the Covenant?
 

Response: This is not known as a valuation has not been carried out.


UPDATE Cllr Paul Lorber has submitted the following comment with some vital questions for the Trustees of Barham Park.

Thanks to Martin for asking for information which should not be cloaked in secrecy.

I am would be surprised if none of the Trustees (5 Labour Councillors who sit in the Cabinet) asked for a valuation of the Covenant. The 5 Trustees/Councillors have a clear fiduciary duty to protect the value of the Charity assets and the Covenant may well be the Barham Park Charity's most valuable asset.

As the applicant also confirmed that they do not currently own ALL the land to which the latest application applies there is clearly some land owned by the Barham Park Charity they wish to build or take ownership off.

If I was one of the Trustees I would certainly ask for full legal and financial advice on the implications of both the Planning Applications, The Covenants (including it value) and the land not currently in the applicants' ownership which may be lost to the Park should the application be approved.

Aside of the Panning Application we therefore have 2 very clear issues for the Trustees to consider and to be properly advised on:

1. Will the Trustees stand by the Covenant and block any expansion of building in Barham Park?
2. If not why not?
3. If not what price will they charge instead of enforcing the Covenant?
4. Will they protect Barham Park in line with Council policies in relation to Open Spaces and refuse to sell any part of the Park that the applicant clearly needs as part of the current planning permission?
5. If they are mindful to sell the extra land needed by the applicant what price will they require to do so?

The Trustees duty in this case is to the Barham Park Charity and NOT to the Council and they will no doubt be reminded of this. The Council Officers may well feel obliged to obtain expert legal advice and possibly guidance from the Charity Commission to ensure that the Trustees act in the best interests of the Charity and no one else - even if this means blocking any building in the Park irrespective of what planning permission is granted.

As the land is part of a charitable endowment there are complex issues to consider as simply granting planning permission will not be the end of the matter - after all somehow a planning permission to demolish the two houses and replace them with more slipped through in 2017 and was never implemented.

The issues of the Covenant is also not simply as there are numerous beneficiaries to whom the Covenant may relate to - including possibly all the current leaseholders of the parts of the other buildings in Barham Park.

One of those leaseholders is Barham Community Library which pays rent to the Barham Park Charity.

I am one of the Trustees of Barham Community Library and as such am especially keen to ensure that Brent Council Officers managing the Barham Park Charity deal with this matter properly, obtain all the necessary advice and be transparent in all their dealings.

Hopefully Martin's questions will now prompt Brent Council officers to obtain the Valuations and advice they and the Trustees will need.

4 comments:

  1. Thanks to Martin for asking for information which should not be cloaked in secrecy.

    I am would be surprised if none of the Trustees (5 Labour Councillors who sit in the Cabinet) asked for a valuation of the Covenant. The 5 Trustees/Councillors have a clear fiduciary duty to protect the value of the Charity assets and the Covenant may well be the Barham Park Charity's most valuable asset.

    As the applicant also confirmed that they do not currently own ALL the land to which the latest application applies there is clearly some land owned by the Barham Park Charity they wish to build or take ownership off.

    If I was one of the Trustees I would certainly ask for full legal and financial advice on the implications of both the Planning Applications, The Covenants (including it value) and the land not currently in the applicants' ownership which may be lost to the Park should the application be approved.

    Aside of the Panning Application we therefore have 2 very clear issues for the Trustees to consider and to be properly advised on:

    1. Will the Trustees stand by the Covenant and block any expansion of building in Barham Park?
    2. If not why not?
    3. If not what price will they charge instead of enforcing the Covenant?
    4. Will they protect Barham Park in line with Council policies in relation to Open Spaces and refuse to sell any part of the Park that the applicant clearly needs as part of the current planning permission?
    5. If they are mindful to sell the extra land needed by the applicant what price will they require to do so?

    The Trustees duty in this case is to the Barham Park Charity and NOT to the Council and they will no doubt be reminded of this. The Council Officers may well feel obliged to obtain expert legal advice and possibly guidance from the Charity Commission to ensure that the Trustees act in the best interests of the Charity and no one else - even if this means blocking any building in the Park irrespective of what planning permission is granted.

    As the land is part of a charitable endowment there are complex issues to consider as simply granting planning permission will not be the end of the matter - after all somehow a planning permission to demolish the two houses and replace them with more slipped through in 2017 and was never implemented.

    The issues of the Covenant is also not simply as there are numerous beneficiaries to whom the Covenant may relate to - including possibly all the current leaseholders of the parts of the other buildings in Barham Park.

    One of those leaseholders is Barham Community Library which pays rent to the Barham Park Charity.

    I am one of the Trustees of Barham Community Library and as such am especially keen to ensure that Brent Council Officers managing the Barham Park Charity deal with this matter properly, obtain all the necessary advice and be transparent in all their dealings.

    Hopefully Martin's questions will now prompt Brent Council officers to obtain the Valuations and advice they and the Trustees will need.



    ReplyDelete
  2. Hopefully Brent Council Planning Officers, the Brent Council Legal Team, the Brent Council Chief Executive and maybe even some investigative journalists will also look into the very close connections between Brent Councillors who are on the Barham Park Trust Committee and Brent Councillors who are on the Brent Council Planning Committee...

    Apparently...

    Cllr Mo Butt, Leader of Brent Council is currently Chair of the Barham Park Trust which is trying to get protective covenants removed for this development to go ahead, when they should instead be protecting this historic park!

    His brother Cllr Saqib Butt and his brother-in-law Cllr Ajmal Akram are both on the Brent Council Planning Committee.

    Cllr Mili Patel is Deputy Leader of the Council and she is also on the Barham Park Trust while her husband is Cllr Matt Kelcher is Chair of the Brent Council Planning Committee.

    Cllr Mo Butt's fellow Tokyngton Cllr, Krupa Sheth, is also on the Barham Park Trust while her uncle Cllr Ketan Sheth is a Wembley Central councillor - Barham Park was recently moved into Wembley Central ward due to boundary changes.

    Another Wembley Central Cllr Rajan-Seelan is also on the Brent Council Planning Committee.

    All of this needs full disclosure and these seeming 'compromised' closely connected Councillors should NOT be able to decide on this planning application

    ReplyDelete
  3. Talk about keeping it in the family, it's all getting a bit incestuous at Brent Council meetings, especially Planning and Scrutiny which I doubt there is much of on any level.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Agree, that all the above matter should be disclosed.

    ReplyDelete