Questions of accountability for Barham Park Trust meeting tomorrow

The Barham Park Trust will be meeting tomorrow to consider its future governance arrangements and recommendation on the future of the buildings in the park.

Having spent possibly thousands of pounds on advice from Bircham Dyson Bell, specialists in the law of trusts and charities, five options are discussed, and maintenance of the status quo recommended by officers.

This maintains a structure which gives control of the Trust to Labour Cabinet members with no alternative councillor or community trustee voices.

Titus Barham of course gave his home for the benefit of residents of Wembley and future use of the buildings is passionately disputed.

The Trustees will be considering a number of recommendations to market the buildings. 

Recommendations
2.1       That the Trust approve the marketing of the Card Room (Unit 1) for a possible Café A3 and/or D1 use and to authorise the Property Adviser to the Trust in conjunction with the Trust Chair to select and let the unit to a suitable tenant on terms to be agreed.
2.2       That the Lounge (Unit 4) be marketed for a D1 and/or an A3 Use depending on the outcome of the marketing of the Card Room, or marketed in conjunction with the Card Room as a D1 use and to authorise the Property Adviser to the Trust in conjunction with the Trust Chair to select and let the unit to a suitable tenant on terms to be agreed.
2.3       That the Trust directly lease the Snooker and Billiard Rooms, (Unit 2), to the current occupiers, The Barham Park Veterans’ Club (Wembley), under appropriate leasing arrangements to ensure compliance with the aims of the Charitable Trust. The terms of the lease to be as set out below in Para 3.6 or as amended by the Property Adviser to the Trust in conjunction with the Trust Chair/
2.4       To obtain an independent valuation of the terms proposed between the Council and the Trust so that another application can be made to the Charity Commission for consent to lease the Children’s Centre (Unit 8) to the Council as Nursery Education Grant funded childcare open 5 days per week with children centre sessions being delivered in evenings and at weekends and to agree the Council can sub-let the space to a third party for similar use only. 

The 15 year lease granted to ACAVA (Association for Cultural Advancement through Visual Art) for a number of units on the site has been opposed by many local people as not benefiting local people in the spirit of Barham's legacy. This followed a Planning Appeal that cost £9,000 which I understand the Trust (and it is claimed therefore Brent Council) will pay, rather than ACAVA. The rental income (before service charges) is below that officers first projected.

In the light of the controversy over the Welsh School's bid to set up their school on the Bowling Green Pavilion site at King Edward VII these proposals are clearly important in terms of setting a precedent for other parks.

The Friends of Barham Library have been campaigning for the use of one of the Barham buildings as a community library having successfully run libraries at Sudbury Town station and a shop in Wembley High Road.

The report states:

The Trust has already received an offer from the Friends of Barham Library, (FOBL), for the Card Room and the Trust maybe minded to pursue this offer as the FOBL has charitable status with similar aims, in certain respects, to the Trust’s.

Alternatively the Trust could suggest to the FOBL that they may wish to consider participating in the tender process, should the Trust decide to approve the recommendation to instruct officers to conduct another marketing campaign for this Unit.
As mentioned above the Vets currently make occasional informal use of this space and they will be similarly advised of the intention to market the space should the Trust so approve.

(iii) It should be noted that The Card Room, is of a simple timber frame construction.  It is in poor condition and will require considerable expenditure to secure any long term use. Any ingoing tenant will need to not only install catering facilities, but will also need to expend a comparatively large sum of money on the Unit to carry out basic and essential improvements. Thus if a suitable tenant is not procured through this marketing process, it may then be necessary to consider demolition of the building as the cost of repair would not be economic for the Trust to undertake as a speculative project.

Local people have argued for some time that the Trust had been neglecting the buildings and letting them fall into disrepair as they prevaricated over their  future.  There are claims that after spending £220,000 on repairs and refurbishment that water has damaged newly refurbished floors and ceilings.

Brent Council should work with the community on Barham Park Library

Guest blog by Philip Grant following the Barham Park Planning Committee decision and the Freinds of Barham Library's statement that they would challenge any appeal by the Trustees of Barham Park Trust

As at 3pm on 16 December, Brent's Planning Department had not been notified of any appeal by the Planning Inspectorate (to whom any appeal by the Barham Park Trust, or by a Brent Council Officer in Regeneration's Property and Asset Management section on their behalf) would be made. However, as I doubt whether the "Friends" would put out this Statement without firm evidence of the facts, I will comment on the basis that an appeal has been made.

A blog item on the original Planning Committee decision can be found at: http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/planning-committee-upholds-community.html
I am convinced that Brent's Planning Committee made the right decision, and that the Planning Officer's recommendation to give consent to the change of use was wrong because it relied on a document which was dishonest. 

At the Civic Centre on the evening of the meeting I spoke with people from both sides of the argument. Although she has been criticised for supporting the application, Cllr. Mary Daly did so only because she saw the Trustees deal with ACAVA as the only way to get the Barham Park buildings back into use quickly. She, like me and others, is concerned that the longer the buildings remain empty, the more chance there is that they will fall into disrepair, and suffer the fate of Titus Barham's mansion in the park, which was demolished in the 1950's after years of neglect by Wembley Council, to whom it had been gifted for the benefit of local people, along with the park and remaining buildings in it, in 1937.

I did not think that letting all of the space to ACAVA for artists' studios was the only answer, and after speaking to representatives of Pivot Point and FoBPL, I wrote to all of the Barham Park Trustees on 15 November. I suggested to them that they should invite ACAVA to join them in an attempt to find a solution, by sitting down with the two local community groups who also wished to use part of the buildings, on a "without prejudice" basis, to see whether they could agree a workable way in which they could all share the facilities currently allocated solely to ACAVA. If they could agree how they would share the buildings, Council Officers should be instructed to draw up the necessary agreements to allow this to happen as soon as possible.

There may be some people within Brent Council who regard my efforts to get involved and give advice (on matters where I feel I have the knowledge or experience to make sensible suggestions) as "troublemaking", but here I was definitely trying to help as a "troubleshooter". I genuinely thought that 'given goodwill on all sides, this could be the way to get the buildings back into use, for ACAVA and for the local community, producing rental income to contribute to the refurbishment costs and help pay for the future maintenance of the buildings and to bring life back into the park.'

I have not heard back from any of the five Trustees (Cllrs Crane, Denselow, Hirani, Mashari and Ruth Moher), or from anyone at the Council on their behalf. If they have taken up my suggestion, I have not heard any word of it. I had said in my email to them: 'I realise that you may wish to take advice from Council Officers on my suggestions, but please remember that you are the Trustees, and the decisions are yours.' Despite this, it looks as if the Council Officers have got the upper hand (with the support or acquiescence of our elected Councillors, with their Trustee hats on). Their plans have been thwarted, quite rightly, by Brent’s Planning Committee, but they are determined that at whatever cost in (Council Taxpayers') money, and whatever the delay, and potential consequences in terms of the future of the Barham Park buildings, their will must prevail. 

Sadly, it makes the final comment in my email to the Barham Park Trustees of 15 November seem prophetic: 'I believe that the time of Officers would be better spent in working on a solution to the problem, rather than in searching for reasons to try to justify a scheme which is not a solution to it, and will only prolong the discord between Council and local community, rather than healing it.' 

Can anyone, please, explain why Brent Council makes it so difficult for Councillors, Council Officers and local people to work together for the mutual benefit of our community?

Philip Grant.