Brent opposition parties call in decisions made by Barham Park Trust Committee

Opposition parties on Brent Council have combined to call-in decisions made by Barham Park Trustees and Brent Officers regarding property in Barham Park. The Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee will consider the issue next week at a special meeting on Wednesday October 2nd. LINK

Call-in requires the setting out of concerns over a decision and suggestions for alternative action.

One of the central suggestions is:

Refer this decision back to the Trust Committee to reconsider with a recommendation that the Council should once again review the Governance arrangements for the Trust and appoint Trustees with sufficient knowledge, experience and interest who will manage the affairs of the Trust better than has been done in recent years.

 

Delegation to Council Officers should also be deferred until this has been done and until the losses made by the Trust, as a result of the delegation of powers to officers, have been identified and evaluated and a revised set of duties and responsibilities have been listed to avoid similar failures in the future.

The call-in request is embedded below:

Barham Park Trust Committee moves to revise charitable purposes to allow for income boosting activities

 

Barham Park Studios - ACAVA

 

The Barham Park Trust Committee (made up solely of Brent Labour Cabinet Members) will approach the Charity Commission to widen the Trust's purposes. A report to the Committee that meets on Tuesday September 10th LINK  states:

The Trust's charitable purposes, primarily to serve public recreation, restrict broader activities that can generate revenue, limiting potential income.

Earlier proposals for the park buildings that included a boutique hotel and a small supermarket aroused local opposition as did the building of four houses on the site inside the park, currently occupied by two park workers' houses.

The Trust has realised that it cannot get full vacant possesion of the park properties, let to voluntary groups, until 2031 so is opting for a new strategy. This involves introducing service charges for all current occupants of the buildings, revising rents and leases and adopting a tougher approach to those in debt to the council:

Discussions are ongoing to establish a repayment plan with tenants who have fallen into arrears. However, the Trust Committee should be aware that proactive measures, including forfeiture or legal action, may be necessary for tenants who fail to comply with payment plans or do not settle their arrears. The delegated officer (Director of Property and Assets) will actively enforce contractual obligations. The total debt is approximately £62,3551 as of Q2 2024/25 financial year.

Given that Trust income is insufficient to carry out the necessary maintenance of the site one wonders why the arrears have been allowed to mount to this level. One debtor owed £44,500 so Brent Council gave the Trust this sum as a cash advance to aid the Trusts' cash flow position. The council is paying the Trust interest on the advance...

Two lease renewals are due and Brent Council will issue Section 25 notices (See our recent story on Brent Property Strategy LINK)

Lease Renewals for Unit 1 (Tamu Samaj UK), Unit 2 (Veterans’ Club

(Wembley), and Unit 8 (Brent Council - Children Centre)

Tenants currently occupying these units on expired leases are to be offered the opportunity to renew their leases. Officers will commission independent valuations and issue Section 25 notices to ensure lease renewals occur within statutory time limits, with independent valuations guiding negotiations. These renewals will align with strategic objectives, ensuring leases terminate before the anticipated redevelopment in 2031. They will include appropriate breakclauses and exclusion from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to obtain vacant possession at the proper time.

Whether the current occupants will be able to afford the new rates remains to be seen.

 The Officers' Report states:

The recommendation is that the Trust Committee defers the investment options proposed by RLB [boutique hotel etc] until vacant possession of the whole building can be acquired in 2031 (due to existing fixed-term leases with the longest one expiring in October 2031) at the latest and seeks to implement the vision in a phased approach, starting with regularising leases, carrying out urgent repairs and, subject to Charity Commission approval, expanding the permitted uses to attract a broader range of tenants to improve cash flow. This phased and incremental investment approach addresses immediate concerns and sets the stage for sustainable long-term growth and success. It is the most responsible, pragmatic and strategic path forward for the future vision of Barham Park.

Clearly there is much that the public and current occupants of the buildings would like to question but such contributions have been barely tolerated recently.  Most importantly, do the Brent public support the moves to change the charity purpose to allow for more development, probably commercial, to boost income? 

Will they be asked their views?

 

 

Butt & Co approve talks with developer to amend covenant restrictions on building on Barham Park

 

The site in Barham park that could be developed as a result of today's Barham Park Trust Committee Decision

 

Thanks to Philip Grant for drawing this decision to my attention.

In articles by myself LINK and Gaynor Lloyd LINK and comments on the articles by local residents both on this blog and on social media attention has been drawn to the danger posed to Barham Park, and by implication other Brent parks, of development on the open space of 776 and 778 Harrow Road (above). A previous application to demolish the flats and build a block of flats had been withdrawn by the developer after local protests in what noew looks like a short-lived 'triumph' LINK.

Not withstanding these objections, a comprehensive email from Philip Grant to the Cabinet members who serve on the Barham Park Trust Committee has received no response.  This morning the Committee, under the chairmanship of Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt, approved the recommendation LINK: 

 

 To authorise the Operational Director for Environmental Services to enter into discussions with the owners of 776-778 Harrow Road to explore the possibilities of reaching agreement to amend the restricting covenants on that property for the benefit of the Trust.'

 

Councillor Stephens declared a personal interest as a Sudbury local ward councillor.

Councillor Krupa Sheth, Lead Member for the Environment, was elected Vice Chair of the Trust Committee. As mentioned in previous articles on this subject, all the Trust Committee members are also members of the Brent Cabinet.

Until the full minutes are released we will not know how much discussion, if any, there was on this important point of principle, with potentially serious consequences for future building development within Barham Park and other Brent parks.

Although this is not deemed to be a Key Decision, IT IS SUBJECT TO CALL-IN, see LINK

 

The decision will take effect on 9th September, if it is not "called-in" by Wednesday 8th September.

 

Let's hope some of our braver and more environmentally committed Councillors organise a call-in and challenge the developers' facilitators.

Should Barham Park Trust Committee be protecting the open space from over-development of its two covenanted houses?

 

The Barham Park houses 

 

The Trustees of the Barham Park Trust are all Brent Council Cabinet members: Cllr Muhammed Butt, Cllr Thomas Stephens, Cllr Margaret McLennan, Cllr Harbi Farah and Cllr Krupa Sheth. 

Cllr Butt has joined the Barham Park Trust Committee since their last meeting in September 2020 and from the listing on the Council's website appears to have taken over from Cllr McLennan as Chair. I have found no public explanation for this change.

The Barham Park Trust Committee is 'responsible for the trustee functions in relation to Barham  Parham Park Trust, including taking decisions on the disposal of land, varying or ceasing the charitable purpose and changing the trust.'

 So pretty powerful...

This  is significant as one would expect the Trust Committee to defend the Barham Park Open Space from development if it is to ensure the protecting of Titus Barham's 'enduring gift' to the people of Brent, and of course there is a proposal to replace the two houses (above) with a much larger development (below).

 

The Restrictive Covenants on the houses (776 and 778 Harrow Road) suggest the proposals infringe the conditions:

Restrictive Covenants as filed with the Land Registry and belonging to the Barham Trust on 776 Harrow Road (778 is the same)

 

12.4

Restrictive covenants by the Transferee

12.4.1

The Transferee covenants with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982 to observe and perform the restrictions contained in clause 12.4.2 ('The Restrictions') and it is agreed and declared that:

12.4.1.1

the benefit of this covenant is to be attached to and enure for each and every part of the Retained Land that remains unsold by the Transferor or has been sold by the Transferor (or by any person claiming through the Transferor otherwise than by a transfer on sale) with the express benefit of this covenant

12.4.1.2

the burden of this covenant is intended to bind and binds each and every part of the Property into whosoever hands it may come

12.4.1.3

an obligation in the Restrictions not to do any act or thing includes an obligation not to permit or suffer that act or thing to be done by another person

12.4.2

The Restrictions are the following: 

12.4.2.1 

not to use the Property otherwise than as a single private dwelling house and the garage for any purpose other than as a ancillary private garage

12.4.2.2 

not to divide the Property into two or more dwellings or residential units

12.4.2.3 

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 metres and of not greater height than 3 metres or permit or suffer any person under the Transferor's control to do so

12.4.2.4 

not to stand or support any vehicle, commercial vehicle trailer, mobile home, caravan, trailer, cart or boat on any part of the Property, and

12.4.2.5 

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

12.4.2.6 

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

12.5

Positive covenants by the Transferee

The Transferee covenants on behalf of itself and its successors in title with the Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of the Retained Land and each and every part of the Retained Land and with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982

12.5.1

to contribute and pay within 14 days of demand (ll) fifty percent (50%) of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing the accessway shown hatched yellow on the Plan

(b) a fair and due proportion of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing sewers drains pipes cables party walls and all other structures apparatus or installations which service the Property in common with any neighbouring or adjoining property

12.5.2

to maintain repair and renew at all times hereafter to the satisfaction of Transferor

12.5.2.1

a good and sufficient metal palisade fence and timber fence or wall on any of the boundaries of the Property marked with ''T'' (if any) within the boundaries of the said plan.

12.5.2.2

the pathway hatched brown stippled red and the accessway hatched green stippled red on the Plan to a reasonable standard

12.5.3

not to transfer the Property or grant a lease of the Property or the Transferee's freehold estate in the Property or any other estate or interest in it to any person without first ensuring that the person has executed a deed directly with Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of each and every part of the Retained Land containing the covenants and provisions of clause 12.5. mutatis mutandis including this present covenant 12.5.3.

 

Well clearly the proposed block of flats is not a greenhouse or shed...

 

 The entry from the Land Registry is embedded below and I am sure will be of interest to those opposing the plans. (Click bottom right for full page)