Showing posts with label Barham Park Trust Committee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barham Park Trust Committee. Show all posts

Wednesday 1 September 2021

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 A previous application to demolish the flats and build a block of flats had been withdrawn by the developer after local protests in what noew looks like a short-lived 'triumph' LINK.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.

Thursday 13 May 2021

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)