Persistence is the name of the game regarding the much-questioned decisions of the Barham Park Trust following the meeting on Monday 24th February where applications by councillors and public to speak were refused.
Now a combination of opposition councillors has submitted a detailed Call-in for an additional meeting of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee that has been approved. It covers the restricted covenants of 776 and 778 Harrow Road that the Trust is seeking to remove after a payment by developer and funfair owner, George Irvin, as well as other operational issues.
The meeting will take place at 6pm on Thursday April 3rd in the Grand Hall at Brent Civic Centre.
The Call-in Details:
13 comments:
Blimey, Butt's hubris will either explode or deflate. He's bound to fight for his mate though, and money is no object while Brent residents are paying the bill.
The opening sentence of the "details" section of the Report to the Barham Park Trust Committee meeting on 24 February stated:
'The restrictive covenants were imposed in August 2011 to preserve the area's character and limit development.'
The reason for the 776/778 Harrow Road (the park keepers' cottages inside Barham Park) restrictive covenants is just as important now as it was in 2011.
I hope that many Wembley residents will attend this meeting, to show their support for the call-in, and their dissatisfaction with the Barham Park Trust Committee's decision to "vary" (in effect to remove) the covenants which have so far prevented the unwanted (except by Mr Irvin) property development within Barham Park.
Members of the public can request to speak at the Scrutiny meeting (I have already done so). If you feel strongly that Brent Council (which is the sole Trustee of the Barham Park Trust, NOT the Trust Committee dominated by the Council Leader), I'd encourage you to ask to have your say as well. You can do that by email to: rebecca.reid@brent.gov.uk and/or james.kinsella@brent.gov.uk
There is also an online petition on the Council's website, asking the Council to respect the wishes of Titus Barham, who gifted his home and gardens for the enjoyment and recreation of the people of Wembley, and not to remove the covenant which was put in place to protect the park from inappropriate developments. You can add your name to that petition here:
https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=318&RPID=184058915&HPID=184058915
Wow - what an amazingly detailed critique of the failings of the 5 Labour Councillors who act as Trustees of the Barham Park Trust. They clearly do not understand their duties and responsibilities, never seem to do their homework and never ask any relevant questions and never listen to the views of local people.
When will they finally realise that this Park was donated to benefit the people of Wembley and NOT to a select few individuals wanting to make money.
HANDS OFF OUR PARK!
6pm on a Thursday at the Civic Centre - not easy for most full time working people to get to particularly with the High Road closed.
Better than 10am on Monday morning, when Cabinet and Trust Committee meetings held.
Some of these trustees have shown they haven't got a clue and didn't read the papers
Why not have meetings at the weekend which would be easier for working people to attend?
Anonymous (14 March at 11:19) says: 'Some of these trustees have shown they haven't got a clue and didn't read the papers.'
Ordinary members of the Barham Park Trust Committee (who are all also Cabinet members) may not bother to spend much time reading all the papers their decisions are meant to be based on. That is because they know that the decision will always be what the Chair, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, wants it to be.
They don't have to speak, or do any active consideration of what is on the agenda, unless they actually want to. All they have to do is sit there.
There is no need to even raise their hand, or say "aye", when it comes to a "vote", because the Chair will just say 'Is that agreed - that's agreed', without pausing for breath. (I saw that in practice at the Cabinet meeting I attended last May!)
One interesting thing about the Barham Park Trust Committee meeting on 24 February (I watched the whole 10 minutes of it on the webcast catch up) was the few words contributed by Cllr Mili Patel. She asked for (and was given) an assurance that permission would be obtained from the Charity Commission before the Trust actually did its £200k deal with George Irvin over the restrictive covenants.
Why would she do that? I suspect that she knows it is something which the Trust should not be doing, and is afraid that she could get surcharged (made to pay financial compensation) as one of the people (supposedly) making the decision, on behalf of the Council as sole Trustee, if that decision is unlawful.
I may be wrong with that suggestion, and if Cllr. Mili Patel wishes to give her own reason for raising that point, she is welcome to do so in reply to this comment.
Fat chance of that Philip, you need Butt's support to be the Deputy Leader
Why not email her and post the reply here instead? No use posting here hoping for a response is there.
Thank you for your suggestion Anonymous (14 March at 20:52).
You must be a mind reader! Or perhaps you are a regular reader of Wembley Matters, who has noticed that letting councillors know when I've written about them in a guest post or comment, and offering them a right of reply, is the sort of thing I would do.
I try not to do anything online after 8pm, in order to relax a bit before I go to bed, so it was my intention to email Cllr. Mili Patel today. Watch this space!
Can you please promote this petition re Barham Park more widely: https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=318&RPID=186879584&HPID=186879584
We need as many people as possible to sign this - thank you 😊🙏
Another fine example of Butt's B~ent for all to see. However, we are not be able to do anything about his self serving decisions, as he's accumulated so much power over the years and believes he can do anything he wants. He has all the officers and councillors in his pocket and they'll do nothing about his 'bad' decisions/instructions even though many know he's wrong.
Post a Comment