UPDATED with proposal for better Governance that Cllr Butt refused to be heard by Trustees. 'Barham Park? Nothing to see here. Carry on.' - Scrutiny Committee verdict

 Funfair owner and developer George Irvin was the elephant in the room that popped up now and again at yesterday's Scrutiny Committee. He first emerged  when Cllr Paul Lorber mentioned him as a lobbyist in his declaration of interests when setting out the reasons for the Call-in of the Strategic and Operational aspects of the Barham Park Trustees performance.

Irvin came up again in ex-Labour councillor Gaynor Lloyd'a presentation when she focused on Trustees' plans to remove 'restrictive aspects' of the covenant on commercial development of the Barham Park park and buildings.

Removal would enable George Irvin to go ahead with the development of the two park workers' houses in the park that he purchased some time ago LINK as well as enable the Trustees to convert some of the park buildings for commercial use.

Gaynor Lloyd said:

Barham Park, its buildings, and these valuable covenants are all ASSETS of  a charity. Charity Commission consent is needed for any change in the restrictive covenants. There is a process to get that consent but Trustees must comply with  requirements of charity law  to get to a decision. To quote  from the  Charity commission website,  Trustees must be able to show they have based their decisions on enough relevant information; they are expected to think about the impact and risks of the decision, including on  their charity’s property or reputation, the costs  involved, whether the decision may be controversial. Trustees must  get professional advice and consult beneficiaries : in this case, the residents of Wembley.

George Irvin had written to a local residents' association saying that he had bought the houses to protect the park from overdevelopment that  would affect his two annual funfairs.

 

All a little strange with the developer and Trustees both having an interest in doing away with the covenant for different reasons, but both with a commercial interest.

 

Gaynor Lloyd pointed out that the Trustee beneficiaries, the people of Wembley, had not been consulted but were clearly opposed to development along with four councillors and the local MP.  

 

 Paul Lorber reiterated his case about mismanagement of the Trust by Trustees and misleading or wrong advice from officers who now have delegated responsibility for the relevant matters. See Call-in notice HERE

There were presentations from current voluntary groups making use of the Barham Park buildings who face increases in rents and imposition of service charges that had not been collected previously. The Memory Lounge, Gurkha's  Group and Veterans' Club all gave moving accounts of their work and the impact on users if the property could no longer be afforded.

When Trust Chair and Council Leader Muhammed Butt said how good it was to get the views of users, Cllr Geogiou made a fierce intervention pointing out that Cllr Butt had not allowed representations from users, particularly Barham Library, at the two recent Trustees meetings.

Butt said that they would be consulted once the basic proposal outline had been approved and management of the various projects would be at liberty to meet with their members ahead of any meetings with officers. There was a determination to talk with each group separately 'as their needs were different' (thus opening the way to divide and rule?).  Cllr Geogiou asked again why they had not been allowed to address the Trustees' meeting. When Cllr Butt started repeating his earlier statement about future consultation Georgiou said it was not worth him going on as he was not answering the question.

Cllr Janice Long (extract on video above)  suggested that the Barham Park buildings were a millstone around the Council's neck. Cllr Butt expressed some sympathy with her views.

Cllr Mary Mitchell disagreed strongly  and underlined the importance of social value of such facilities during a funding crisis. She then asked some  pertinent questions about the financial risk involved in the move to remove the covenant, the £20,000 spent on the architects' report in 2023 for a project that not would happen until 2031 (the £20k was first going to be paid by the Council but would now be paid for by the Trustees), and no business case had been developed. She remarked that under Climate Change implications the report said 'Nil' and wondered if that was true.

An officer in response to a question about the claw-back of Sure Start funds for the Children's Centre that was no longer operating in one of the buildings, said that Brent Council would have to meet the cost which was currently £93,000 but would reduce over time.

Another empty building on the site' known as Unit 7, that had been earmarked for a Dementia Advice Unit after Friends of Barham Library had secured funding, had been delayed for 6 years officers said while a strategic plan was formulated to 'better understand' how it would fit in with the estate.

Officers and Cllr Butt pointed out that the Gold and Silver options would have meant more commercialisation and would have undermined the aims of the Trust. They claimed the Bronze option balanced the need to generate income with the maintenance of the Trust's responsibilities to fulfil its aims.

Cllr Mitchell asked about Governance and why the Trust had delegated powers to officers rather than recruiting new Trustees. Debra Norman, Head of Governance, said Governance reviews had taken  place regularly. Cllr Butt said that this came up every year and he had looked around for alternatives but he had struggled to find anything better.

The Scrutiny Committee voted against sending the items back for further consideration. Cllr Georgiou voted for, stating that issues had not be sufficiently addressed (rent arrears, failure to collect service charges, unit 7 six lost years etc). He did not have confidence  in  the Trustees or in the officers' advice.

Cllr Mary Mitchell and Cllr Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam abstained.

UPDATE

Philip Grant has commented below regarding a proposal he put to the Barham Park Trust (or wanted brought to their attention) in early 2023. He writes:

 Early in 2023, I had suggested what I believe would be a better and workable alternative governance arrangement for the Barham Park Trust. This was not mentioned in the governance report that went to the September 2023 Trust Committee meeting, so I wanted to bring it to their attention.

I was not able to attend that meeting, but I had requested that I could "speak" for two minutes through a short statement read out on my behalf. the Chair of the Committee, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, refused to agree, so my suggestion was not voiced at the meeting, and not reflected in any official record of it.

This is the proposal:

Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease – When is a complaint not a complaint?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Final slide from petition presentation, asking 28 May Cabinet meeting to choose Option A.

 

On 2 September, Martin published a guest post, giving details of the formal complaint I had made to Brent’s Chief Executive over the advertising lease award. The main grounds for the complaint were that as well as being biased in favour of “Option B”, the main author of the Report and recommendation, which Council Leader Muhammed Butt had accepted (in the name of his Cabinet), had not disclosed his conflict of interests, in that he was the Head of the Council Department which benefitted financially from “Option B”.

A further guest post on 11 September set out Brent Council’s response, from the Corporate Director Finance and Resources (covering for the Chief Executive). He told me ‘that the report was drafted and agreed in accordance with the council’s standard practices,’ and expressed his confidence ‘that this procurement was open and fair and that the award of the contract will therefore stand, as formally agreed by Cabinet.’ 

“How complaints are dealt with – Stage 1” from Brent Council’s website.

 

The email did not actually address the main points I had raised, and did not even refer to my open letter of 30 August being a formal complaint, or what I should do if I was not satisfied with the Council’s response to it. I ended that article by asking (jokingly, I thought!): ‘Is Brent Council now dealing with complaints by not even treating them as complaints?’

 

As I found out that Kim Wright, Brent’s Chief Executive, was on leave until 25 September, I waited until then to write, requesting a Stage 2 final review of my complaint. I included the text of my email to her as a “for information” comment under my 11 September guest post, but this is the relevant section of it:

Extract from my email to Kim Wright of 25 September 2024.

 

Earlier in my email, I had said: ‘I realise that there will be other matters awaiting your attention on your return from leave, so do not mind waiting for up to twenty working days for your final review response.’ I was surprised when I received her response only two days later, and even more surprised by what it said:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your emails. I understand that my office and Minesh Patel, covering for me, replied to you on 9 September outlining a response.

 

Whilst I do not dispute the significance of the issue at hand, I regret to inform you that this issue does not fall within the scope of the Council's normal complaints procedure. The complaints procedure is intended to deal with cases where a member of the public has suffered personal injustice as a result of the Council's actions or inactions. This is also the criteria that the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) uses to decide whether to investigate a complaint. This is mentioned on the LGSCO’s website and in the Council’s Complaints policy.

 

The policy states under section 3.2 “Who can make a complaint? Anyone who uses and/or is individually affected by our services can make a complaint. We cannot investigate complaints where there has been no personal injustice (in other words, where the complainant has not been directly affected by the matter raised).” In this particular case you have not suffered a greater degree of personal injustice than anyone else affected by the matter raised. Your concerns were therefore not logged as a formal complaint but were addressed in the response provided to you by the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources whilst I was on a period of annual leave. I do apologise that this was not explained to you at the outset. If you disagree with the way we have addressed your concerns, you can if you wish approach the LGSCO to ask them to review our decision to not treat your concerns as a formal complaint.

 

I understand that you have submitted a number of FOI requests concerning the Bobby Moore Bridge lease, including one relating to the signing of the lease, and you will receive replies to these within the usual deadline.

 

Kind regards

Kim Wright (she/her)

 
Chief Executive, Brent Council’

 

The Policy Statement from the Brent Council Complaints Policy (August 2024).

 

That response does not fit well with Brent Council’s stated policy of welcoming complaints, aiming to resolve them quickly and using the information gained from them to improve the quality of what they do!

 

I don’t agree that I have not suffered any personal injustice, (or as the Local Government Ombudsman’s website actually describes it ‘not affected you personally or caused you an injustice), but if I try to argue with the Chief Executive on that point she will just “kick the problem down the road”. 

 

I believe that there has been an injustice in this case, not just to me personally, but to everyone who signed the petition (which was ignored and not even considered by Brent’s Cabinet) in support of “Option A”, and also to every Brent resident and visitor to Wembley Park who continues to be denied the enjoyment of the tile murals in the subway from the station to Olympic Way which celebrate Wembley’s sports and entertainment heritage.

 

If Brent won’t consider my complaint, by abusing the words of its Complaints Policy to pretend that it is not a complaint, how else can that injustice to be dealt with? That is the issue I took up in my reply to the Chief Executive on 27 September:

 

‘Dear Ms Wright,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Without prejudice to the question of whether or not I have suffered a personal injustice in this matter, please to me have your answer to the following question.

 

If this significant issue does not fall within the Council's complaints procedure, under what Brent Council process can the 114 citizens of the borough, who were signatories of the petition which I presented at the Cabinet meeting on 28 May, seek redress for the collective injustice which they suffered, as a result of the actions by Council Officers (and the Council Leader) set out in my formal complaint letter to you of 30 August 2024?

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

Please feel free to add your comments below on this particular matter, or on how Brent Council has dealt with (or not) a complaint that you have made.

 

In answer to my own question of “When is a complaint not a complaint?”, I would say “When Brent Council knows it is wrong, but is afraid to admit it, or to put it right.”

Philip Grant.

 

Why Barham Park Matters - paper ahead of tonight's Scrutiny Meeting

 

Ahead of tonight's Call-in at Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Paul Lorber has provided a background paper for members of the Committee. The meeting can be attended in person or on-line HERE:

Where is the pond and viewing platform in Barham Park?

 

I ask this question for a good reason.

 

Over the past 12 years or so various Trustees (Brent Councillors) have taken officer advice and spent large sums of money – in each case well over £10,000 – on Consultants “Visions” and condition surveys into Barham Park.

 

Over 10 years ago officers proudly presented one of these visions with a Pond and a viewing platform in one of these expensive documents. The drawing showing this were quite appealing, and the Trustees approved this plan.

 

THERE IS NO POND AND NO VIEWING PLATFORM!

 

Subsequent reports highlighted the condition of the Barham Buildings and stressed the need to carry out works. These works were all costed, and a program timeline was produced. Much was to be done over the next 3 year. In reality very little was actually done to protect and preserve the exterior of the buildings. The outside has not been painted for at least 15 years.

 

Why – there is no Champion for Barham Park within the Trustees or the Officer Team. Barham Park is not a priority – it is a nuisance to be brushed under the carpet.

 

This LINK link takes you to pictures highlighting current disrepair and neglect in Barham Park.

 

Those of us who care for Barham Park want the time wasting and the neglect to stop.

 

BACKGROUND – WHY DOES IT MATTER

 

Once upon a time the whole of Sudbury was part of the Sudbury Common which stretched from long way down in Wembley all the way to Harrow on the Hill. 

 

An Archbishop Canterbury was the Lord of the Manor of much of the land here a few hundreds of years ago.

 

The oldest part of the buildings in Barham Park dates back to between 1760 and 1780 (say 250 years ago).

 

In 1801 John Copland – a Purser (Accountant/Officer Manager) – on Royal Navy Ships who once served on one of Lord Horacio Nelson’s vessels at the 1805 battle of the Nile bough Crabs House in what is now Barham Park.

 

He prospered over the years and acquired more land so that by the time of his death in 1843 he owned over 350 acres of land which stretched from The Triangle in Wembley all the way to bottom of Harrow on the Hill. He built a new house on his land called Sudbury Lodge. John Copland bought a crypt in the newly opened Kensal Green Cemetery where he is buried.

 

His only son also joined the Royal Navy too but died very young. John Copland was survived by two daughters. They never married and became great local benefactors paying for the building of St John’s Church, a cottage hospital. School rooms and much more – even a small reference library.

 

On their death in early 1870s General Robert Fitzgerald Crawford took over on condition he changed his name to Crawford-Copland. His two sons played football for Scotland in the very first official game against England.

 

On his passing in 1895 the land was acquired by George Barham the owner of Express Dairies. Most of the land in Sudbury was still farmland, with the area opposite (Chaplin Road/Farm Avenue) a large farm. Sir George as he became later is famous for building up the Express Dairy Company and also for cleaning up the milk industry.

 

On his death n 1913 his two sons took over, but it was the older one also George – but always known as Titus – who lived here and developed his home and gardens. He too was a major benefactor and was involved in almost everything that went on locally. He donated part of his farmland for the site of Wembley Hospital (subject to new plans shortly), he contributed to the local Tennis Club, Barham Primary Scholl stands on his land and much more.

 

In 1937 when Wembley received its Charter to become a Borough he was due to become Wembley’s Charter Mayor. Sadly, he died on the very day this was due to be celebrated.

 

Anticipating death, he had the good vision to enter into agreement with the new Wembley Council to accept the gift of his home and gardens for the “enjoyment of the public”. He was a modest man and did not want any fuss. There is no statue of him and until recently he is remembered by the existence of Barham Park, Barham Primary School, Barham Close and Barham Court.

 

His portrait hands in the Brent Museum which was in fact created in 1965 with many of his gifted possessions as the initial core of the collection – including a coat of armour.

 

A few months ago, volunteers from Friends of Barham Park organised a public collection and erected a Blue Plaque in his memory.

 

DOES HISTORY MATTER?

 

For some the Barham buildings are just an old pile of bricks and even a nuisance. For the lovers of Barham Park, they are however much more. They tell a story of local people who made a contribution to our community.

 

This is why some of us despair at the neglect, and the waste of money and opportunities to improve things.

 

WHAT ARE THE BARHAM PARK BUILDINGS FOR?

 

One part is occupied by Barham Veterans Club formed in 1947 by Wembley and Middlesex County Council to provide a place for elderly men to socialise as part of tackling loneliness. In the early days the Club paid no rent and received a generous grant from the Council. The grant was stopped many years ago and the Club is charged rent and service charges.

 

Officer let the lease lapse and now recommend a new lease on market value terms for a short period of time until 2031. The Bronze drawings do not show the Barham Veterans Club so presumably the idea or expectations is that it will not exist beyond 2031.

 

The wooden building (former Card Room) is occupied by Tamu Samaj UK and ex Gurkha Nepalese Group. They run a wide range of activities for their members of all ages and also hire out the space to other small groups.

 

Their Lease has just expired, and they also face a short lease at market rent.

 

The Public Library was closed by the Labour Administration in 2011. Friends of Barham Library opened a Community Library in another part. The library acts as a hub for many community activities, knitting, art, book club groups. Yoga and Pilates and many others and most importantly is the home of the Memory Lounge – a growing group providing activities, support and advice for people with dementia and their carers.

 

The Bronze option drawing approved by the Trustees have wiped the library from existence. The children library would be a shop and the rest of the space is a bit unclear.

 

The former Children Centre closed many years ago. The Lease is between the Barham Park Trust and the Council, and the Council is desperate to keep up the pretence of ‘children centre’ use to avoid clawback of Sure Start Grant.

 

The rest of the building is leased to ACAVA – an out of Brent organisation who converted their space into 29 smaller units which they let to artists – most of whom are also outside of Brent.

 

When this decision was made in 2013 Officers and Councillors were convinced that this would benefit the local area. Current Councillors can judge this for themselves. The artists contribute very little to Brent art, they are not local and most if not all of the rent owed (over £60,000 according to recent reports) is owed by ACAVA.

 

HERE WE ARE TODAY

 

After tens of thousands of pounds spent on surveys and consultants most of whose reports collect dust in some forgotten draw and the pictures tell their own story.

Opportunities to extract large sums of money from the heritage Lottery Fund and others have been missed.

The buildings are neglected.

Community Groups who provide local services to local people face the threat of being kicked out as consultants think and Brent Officers and Trustees concur with this – that shops or hotel rooms that no one asked for and the area does not need are more important than a Community Library, a Club for elderly residents and a base for a group of loyal and hard working ex Gurkhas – without whom the annual Remembrance March would be rather short of any marchers!

2^nd CHANCE TO SET A BETTER DIRECTION

Decisions by Barham Park Trustees were called in last year. They have been called in again this time.

The Barham Park Trust 2022/23 Accounts were challenged and had to be withdrawn for corrections. Officers persuaded you that nothing was wrong. A year later the 2023/24 Accounts were withdrawn right at the beginning of the Barham Park Trust Meeting.

To get it wrong once is unfortunate. To get it wrong the 2^nd time should set the ALARM bells ringing.

The accounts are wrong and misleading. The way the Barham Trust is managed is wrong and very damaging. Wrong Accounts and misleading information lead to wrong and bad decisions.

If there is any point to Scrutiny than the Members of Scrutiny need to take their responsibilities seriously and grab an opportunity to challenge the poor decisions and poor actions for the sake of ensuring a future for the Barham Park Charity and Barham Park and its buildings.

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO?

Ask your self a few simple questions:

If Barham Park was YOUR home and gardens and you depended on it being well managed, would you:

1.     Waste tens of thousands of pounds on surveys and consultants reports which collect dust and cannot and will not ever be implemented?

2.     Ignore legal agreements (Leases) and not bother to revise rents when due?

3.     Allow the building up of rental debt of over £60,000?

4.     Fail to charge interest on the rent debt in line with the Lease terms?

5.     Spend over £20,000 on consultants’ fees on proposals which you could not start working on for 8 years and which are at major risk of economic and other factors?

6.     Allow your subordinates not to recharge costs that you have incurred without being informed and without your agreement?

7.     Spend large sums of money on valuations and legal fees without knowing what you might get in return?

If your answer to any of these questions is NO than you agree that something is badly wrong, and change is needed.

As a starting point you will then agree with the grounds for the Call-in and agree to refer the decisions back to the Barham Park Trust with clear instructions  that all the issues raised are fully investigated and honest and full answers provided to enable the Trustees to make decisions based on facts, that meet their fiduciary duties to the Barham Park Charity and which meet the expectations of and wishes of Titus Barham who gifted his Home and Gardens for everyone’s enjoyment.