Funfair owner and developer George Irvin was the elephant in the room that popped up now and again at yesterday's Scrutiny Committee. He first emerged when Cllr Paul Lorber mentioned him as a lobbyist in his declaration of interests when setting out the reasons for the Call-in of the Strategic and Operational aspects of the Barham Park Trustees performance.
Irvin came up again in ex-Labour councillor Gaynor Lloyd'a presentation when she focused on Trustees' plans to remove 'restrictive aspects' of the covenant on commercial development of the Barham Park park and buildings.
Removal would enable George Irvin to go ahead with the development of the two park workers' houses in the park that he purchased some time ago LINK as well as enable the Trustees to convert some of the park buildings for commercial use.
Gaynor Lloyd said:
Barham Park, its buildings, and these valuable covenants are all ASSETS of a charity. Charity Commission consent is needed for any change in the restrictive covenants. There is a process to get that consent but Trustees must comply with requirements of charity law to get to a decision. To quote from the Charity commission website, Trustees must be able to show they have based their decisions on enough relevant information; they are expected to think about the impact and risks of the decision, including on their charity’s property or reputation, the costs involved, whether the decision may be controversial. Trustees must get professional advice and consult beneficiaries : in this case, the residents of Wembley.
See Gaynor Lloyd's guest blog post on this issue in 2021 LINK.
George Irvin had written to a local residents' association saying that he had bought the houses to protect the park from overdevelopment that would affect his two annual funfairs.
All a little strange with the developer and Trustees both having an interest in doing away with the covenant for different reasons, but both with a commercial interest.
Gaynor Lloyd pointed out that the Trustee beneficiaries, the people of Wembley, had not been consulted but were clearly opposed to development along with four councillors and the local MP.
Paul Lorber reiterated his case about mismanagement of the Trust by Trustees and misleading or wrong advice from officers who now have delegated responsibility for the relevant matters. See Call-in notice HERE
There were presentations from current voluntary groups making use of the Barham Park buildings who face increases in rents and imposition of service charges that had not been collected previously. The Memory Lounge, Gurkha's Group and Veterans' Club all gave moving accounts of their work and the impact on users if the property could no longer be afforded.
When Trust Chair and Council Leader Muhammed Butt said how good it was to get the views of users, Cllr Geogiou made a fierce intervention pointing out that Cllr Butt had not allowed representations from users, particularly Barham Library, at the two recent Trustees meetings.
Butt said that they would be consulted once the basic proposal outline had been approved and management of the various projects would be at liberty to meet with their members ahead of any meetings with officers. There was a determination to talk with each group separately 'as their needs were different' (thus opening the way to divide and rule?). Cllr Geogiou asked again why they had not been allowed to address the Trustees' meeting. When Cllr Butt started repeating his earlier statement about future consultation Georgiou said it was not worth him going on as he was not answering the question.
Cllr Janice Long (extract on video above) suggested that the Barham Park buildings were a millstone around the Council's neck. Cllr Butt expressed some sympathy with her views.
Cllr Mary Mitchell disagreed strongly and underlined the importance of social value of such facilities during a funding crisis. She then asked some pertinent questions about the financial risk involved in the move to remove the covenant, the £20,000 spent on the architects' report in 2023 for a project that not would happen until 2031 (the £20k was first going to be paid by the Council but would now be paid for by the Trustees), and no business case had been developed. She remarked that under Climate Change implications the report said 'Nil' and wondered if that was true.
An officer in response to a question about the claw-back of Sure Start funds for the Children's Centre that was no longer operating in one of the buildings, said that Brent Council would have to meet the cost which was currently £93,000 but would reduce over time.
Another empty building on the site' known as Unit 7, that had been earmarked for a Dementia Advice Unit after Friends of Barham Library had secured funding, had been delayed for 6 years officers said while a strategic plan was formulated to 'better understand' how it would fit in with the estate.
Officers and Cllr Butt pointed out that the Gold and Silver options would have meant more commercialisation and would have undermined the aims of the Trust. They claimed the Bronze option balanced the need to generate income with the maintenance of the Trust's responsibilities to fulfil its aims.
Cllr Mitchell asked about Governance and why the Trust had delegated powers to officers rather than recruiting new Trustees. Debra Norman, Head of Governance, said Governance reviews had taken place regularly. Cllr Butt said that this came up every year and he had looked around for alternatives but he had struggled to find anything better.
The Scrutiny Committee voted against sending the items back for further consideration. Cllr Georgiou voted for, stating that issues had not be sufficiently addressed (rent arrears, failure to collect service charges, unit 7 six lost years etc). He did not have confidence in the Trustees or in the officers' advice.
Cllr Mary Mitchell and Cllr Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam abstained.
UPDATE
Philip Grant has commented below regarding a proposal he put to the Barham Park Trust (or wanted brought to their attention) in early 2023. He writes:
Early in 2023, I had suggested what I believe would be a better and workable alternative governance arrangement for the Barham Park Trust. This was not mentioned in the governance report that went to the September 2023 Trust Committee meeting, so I wanted to bring it to their attention.
I was not able to attend that meeting, but I had requested that I could "speak" for two minutes through a short statement read out on my behalf. the Chair of the Committee, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, refused to agree, so my suggestion was not voiced at the meeting, and not reflected in any official record of it.
This is the proposal: