Friday, 14 February 2025

BREAKING: Barham Park Trustees' £200,000 deal with George Irvin to enable him to build four 3 storey houses in Barham Park

 

The houses proposed for Barham Park

 

The long-running campaign by local residents in Sudbury to resist the building of houses  in Barham Park will come to a head at the Barham Park Trust Committee on February 24th 2025.

 A deal with funfair and property developer George Irvin will see him pay the Trust £200,000 for removal of the covenant that prevented building of four 3 storey houses on the site presently occupied by two modest 2 storey cottages at 776-778 Harrow Road.

The deal also involves vehicular access into the park and eretion of other facilities. Details are below:

 Recommendations:

The Barham Park Trust Committee RESOLVES to

2.1 Approve the modification of the restrictive covenants at 776 and 778 Harrow Road, as detailed in paragraphs 3.8-3.11 and delegate authority to the Director of Property and Assets to execute a deed with Zenaster Properties Ltd for the agreed sum of £200,000, subject to 2.2 below.

2.2 If required, approve seeking Charity Commission consideration of the Qualified Surveyor’s Report (Appendix 1) and authorisation under Section 105 of the Charities Act to modify or discharge the covenants.

 

Existing Covenants (extract from single plot):

 

*Not to use the Property otherwise than as a single private dwelling house and the garage for any purpose other than as an 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 meters (sic) and of not greater height than 3 meters (sic) 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.

*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.

 

Proposed Modification (combined plots):

 

3.9 The deed (to be prepared in accordance with the planning committee report dated 12 June 2023 and decision notice dated 13 June 2023—see Appendices 3 and 4) will amend these covenants to permit the development of four houses.

3.10 A revised version of the restrictive covenants that would enable the proposed redevelopment in accordance with the granted planning permission is set out below and may be subject to further refinement.

 

Permitted Use:

 

*The Property may be used for residential purposes, permitting the construction and occupation of up to four residential dwellings, together with any ancillary buildings, structures, and facilities required for their use in accordance with the planning permission granted under reference 22/4128.

 


 From Application 22/4128

 

Subdivision of the Property:

 

*The restriction on dividing the Property into multiple dwellings is removed, approved under planning permission 22/4128.

 

Construction of Buildings and Structures:

 

*The restriction on erecting buildings or structures is modified to permit the construction of four residential dwellings and any associated infrastructure, including garages, outbuildings, and landscaping, in accordance with planning permission 22/4128.

 

Vehicle and Storage Restrictions:

 

* The restriction on standing or supporting vehicles, commercial vehicle trailers, mobile homes, caravans, trailers, carts, or boats on the Property is modified to permit reasonable residential use, including the parking of vehicles by residents and visitors in designated parking areas as approved under planning permission 22/4128.

 

Permitted Development:

 

*The restriction on carrying out development within the meaning of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is removed to allow the construction and occupation of four residential dwellings in accordance with planning permission 22/4128.

 

Accessway and Parking Restrictions:

 

*The restriction on parking and obstruction of the accessway hatched yellow and hatched green or any part of the Retained Land is modified to allow vehicular and pedestrian access as required for the lawful residential use of the Property, ensuring that any access arrangements comply with planning permission 22/4128 and any subsequent highway or planning authority requirements.

 

3.11 These modifications preserve reasonable protections while enabling the approved redevelopment. The precise wording of the changes may be further refined or amended during the legal conveyancing process.

 

Timeline

 

3.12 The overall timeline for these steps is expected to span several months. Suppose the Trust Committee approves the restrictive covenants’ modification and/or discharge. In that case, completion may be subject to obtaining Charity Commission approval, if required, and the conclusion of legal formalities by the parties. This includes Zenaster applying to the Land Registry to register the Deed and effect the necessary changes.

 

3.13 The modification or discharge of the restrictive covenants is subject to the satisfactory reinstatement of the boundary in respect of 776 and 778 Harrow Road and return of the Barham Park Trust land to open space as agreed by way of surveyor’s aerial plan signed by George Irvin on behalf of Zenaster on 28th August 2024.

 

Zenastar Properties Ltd (previously Aventor) business is listed as

  •      Buying and selling of own real estate
  • Other letting and operating of own or leased real estate
  • Management of real estate on a fee or contract basis  

Retained profits at January 2024: £3,781,976


Current officers


Campaigners will be looking for grounds on which to challenge to covenant deal. The report to Trustees discusses the role of the Charity Commission:

Compliance with the Charities Act 2011

 

3.4 The two key legal requirements under the Charities Act for land disposal have also been met:

 

*Independent advice: A report has been obtained from a qualified Designated Adviser acting solely in the interests of the Trust.

*Best terms achieved: The proposed transaction represents the best

financial terms reasonably obtainable by the Trust.

 

Requirement for Charity Commission Approval

 

3.5 Under the Charities Act 2011, charities do not typically require prior Charity Commission approval for land disposals where the two legal requirements above are satisfied. However, approval may be required in specific circumstances, including:

 

*Disposals to a "connected person" (as defined in the Charities Act).

*Disposals involving designated land in most cases

 The last two points regarding 'specific circumstances' may be considered grounds for challenge given previous allegations of a close relationship between Muhammed Butt, Chair of the Trustees and  George Irvin, Director of Zenastar, and argumets over designated land.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

London Borough of B~ent, what surprise.

Anonymous said...

Will the money be spent on the park? Because it desperately needs it

Anonymous said...

Just £200K - what a farce!!! That won't even cover the cost of all the work the Brent Council planning and legal departments have done over the years dealing with all the various planning applications submitted for this site by Mr Irvin!!!

Anonymous said...

Brent Council are intent on taking away areas of recreation and green spaces from Brent residents. First they target Northwick Park for a large festival and now they have re targetted Barham Park again for a development. Each of these will have a wider impact than just the proposed use of these sites. Park land will be lost and damaged, so preventing enjoyment by local people, damage to local wildlife and habitat, with little added benefit for the local intended users.
Much of this is taking place before residents of the area get notice of their plans and at short notice with limited time to consider the plans and make their comments to Brent Planners. I wonder why?

Anonymous said...

To be spent on yet more surveyors no doubt

Anonymous said...

Highway Robbery

Anonymous said...

Maybe with all his profit on this, he can start paying a proper rent and rectification charges for use of Brent Parks and his free advertising 😉 and not with presents

Anonymous said...

The £630K Brent Council received from selling Irvin the two existing ex park keepers cottages has been frittered away by Brent Council with no sign of any real improvements to the park so don't expect to see much from this £200K 😞

Irvin bought the two existing ex park keeper cottages at an 'auction' that none of us residents knew anything about - loads of local residents would have jumped at the chance to buy two 3 bedroom houses for that small amount of money.

He as sold the houses cheap on the basis that he couldn't develop the site because of the restrictive covenant and will now pay Brent Council peanuts to remove this covenant - result is he now has a prime bit of development land with planning permission and he can push to get a bigger development there or he can sell it to another property developer at profit and leave them to push for a bigger development on the site.

Well done Brent Council you've been well and truly stitched up!!!

Philip Grant said...

Sadly, the plans for these four houses were approved about 18 months ago, despite widespread and valid opposition from local residents and local councillors (both Labour and LibDem).

Plenty of comments were submitted to Brent's Planners, but they misrepresented the Local Neighbourhood Plan policies, which should have prevented this overdevelopment in a heritage asset park, to Brent Planning Committee.

Councillors with links to the applicant, including Rita Begum who had received free tickets to one of his funfairs from George Irving just months before, were allowed by Brent Council lawyers to take part in the Planning Committee meeting (and vote in favour of the application!).

That is the reality of Brent Council under its current Leader. If residents wish to change things for the better, they need to vote for change as soon as they have the chance to do that.

Anonymous said...

Local MP Barry Gardiner was vehemently against the two houses being sold off (used the story as part of his election campaign at the time) and was then against all the previous planning applications but very oddly he made no comments against the latest planning application that was approved, despite residents urging him to do so - when pressed he said that the restrictive covenant would stop the actual development going ahead but it would appear that he's not campaigned against the removal of the restrictive covenant either??? Does make you wonder why???

Anonymous said...

Who pays all the legal fees for this? Hope it's not us council tax payers!

Anonymous said...

What do you expect from Barry Gardiner. This Labour MP pleaded for votes just a few months ago and promised to "protect pensioners" - then he voted to support the decision by the Labour Government to deprive Pensioners of their winter fuel allowance. AND this is the same man who took advantage of having us taxpayers to pay for his 2nd home for years and the same man who employees his wife at our expense to deal with his casework. Being an MP is a gravy train for some and principles and promises do not mean a thing.

Anonymous said...

Can we be reminded about the allegations made about the close relationship between Muhammed Butt and George Irvin. Has these been reported to the Chief Executive of Brent Council?

Anonymous said...

And what has happened? Nothing.

Paul Lorber said...

Brent Planners are very keen on so called "car free" developments. The site of the two cottages is:
1. Right next door to a bus stop for 4 bus routes
2. Right opposite the Marylebone line station
3. 5 minutes walk from Sudbury Town Underground station.

The nearby Keelers development of 26 flats will have just 1 car parking spaces.

WHY did the Brent Planners and the Planning Committee allow the building of 4 car parking spaces for just 4 houses inside Barham Park.

There seems something very odd about the Planning process in Brent and its double standards.

Philip Grant said...

Anonymous (15 February at 21:16) asks whether the allegations of Cllr. Muhammed Butt's close relationship have been reported to Brent's Chief Executive.

Both the Chief Executive and Corporate Director of Governance / Monitoring Officer are fully aware of the allegations, but they are only allegations. What would be needed is hard evidence of a relationship which could be considered likely to influence the decisions which the Council Leader makes on any matter involving George Irvin, such as the covenant or his earlier planning application.

Does anyone have such evidence, rather than just rumours or allegations? If so, you might like to share it with Martin (email address under "Guest blogs" in the right-hand column)!

If there is a close relationship, which is not disclosed when a decision is made that is, or could reasonably be seen to have been, influenced by that relationship, that would be a serious breach of the Brent Members' Code of Conduct.

In practice, as long as a possible conflict of interests is stated, Brent's Monitoring Officer appears to be satisfied if the councillor involved says that it would not affect their judgement when they are making a decision.

That is what happened with the planning application over the four houses in Barham Park. Three Labour members of the Planning Committee (including Saqib Butt and Rita Begum) declared a connection with George Irvin, but were still allowed to take part in considering the application by his company, and to vote on it.

They were allowed to do that because they said the connection would not affect the way in which they weighed up the points for or against the application. It just so happens that they all voted to approve the application, but I'm sure they would claim this was merely because that was what Brent's Planning Officers had recommended (even though several speakers at the meeting had pointed out why the Planning Officers had got it wrong!).

Anonymous said...

They voted in favour because Cllr Mo Butt Leader of Brent Council who's also Chair of The Barham Park Trust told them to 😡

Anonymous said...

London Borough of B~ent

Anonymous said...

Money, money, money. I bet they play that Abba track every day. How many other areas of our parks have been redesignated as development land while we haven't been watching, along with constitution changes.

Anonymous said...

Dick Turpin can be found in Brent

Anonymous said...

Does he have a house in Barham Park? Or is the one that's seen in wondering around that big building in Wembley?