This is very interesting and odd.
On the face of it while I was fighting for a covenant on Barham Park development through the meetings process, the idea was ultimately rejected.
So why did the Covenant still end up in the sales documentation?
Was it a rogue lawyer who inserted it?
Or was it just a cock up that no one noticed (it is normal when drafting a legal document to use a standard pro forma which includes everything under the sun and as part of the process the lawyer strikes out any paragraphs not required or requested).
The answer may be important especially if the Council was forced to include it by any of the outsiders?
The next meeting of the Trustees Committee to approve the corrected account sis on September 26th.
I have written to Debra Norman seeking clarification before the meeting:
One key issue outstanding which requires a clear answer is the question as to why the Covenant was put in place.
If you review the Barham Park Trust Minutes when the decision to sell the two houses was made you will notice that I argued that a restriction on further development on the site should be out in place. The Trust Committee rejected my proposal.
That decision was called in went to Scrutiny. If you check the minutes of that meeting, you will note that I argued the case and that Scrutiny agreed that a restriction should be put in place.
The recommendation from Scrutiny then went back to Cabinet but the Scrutiny recommendation was not accepted.
On the face of it the proposal for a restriction or covenant was not to be pursued.
So how did it come about that such strongly worded restrictive covenant ended up in the sale document relation to 776/778 Harrow Road houses?
Approval for the sale was required from the Charity Commission. Did the Charity Commission insist on the restrictive covenant before approving the sale?
Did the District Valuer insist on this and approve the valuation on this basis?
Was there subsequent advice from the Brent solicitors?
Was there a political change if heart because of pressure from within the Labour Party?
I would like this to be fully investigated as the reason is crucial to understanding whether the covenant can now be negotiated away or whether there are compelling reasons why it needs to be retained.
I would appreciate your answer on this before 26 September.
Cllr Paul Lorber