The Barham Park Trust – there is another way to run it!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Minute of the previous Review of Future Governance, 7 March 2018.

 

Although it is not the headline item on the agenda for next Tuesday’s Barham Park Trust Committee meeting, the periodic review of the way in which the Trust is managed is still an important one. Brent Council is the sole Trustee, and all of the Trust’s decisions are currently made by a sub-committee of Brent’s Cabinet, whose members are appointed by Brent’s Cabinet, and can only be Cabinet members. 

 

In April this year, as part of an Open Letter to Brent’s Governance Chief, Debra Norman, about the implications of free fun fair tickets from George Irvin to Brent Councillors, I raised the suggested that the membership and voting rights for the Barham Park Trust Committee should be the subject of an independent review. I followed this up with further suggestions for including local people in the decision-making process.

 

I was pleased to see that a review of the Trust’s governance was on the agenda (item 9) for the 5 September meeting, but disappointed to see that it made no mention of the suggestions I’d made. In fact, the Report on this subject is virtually a “copy and paste” of that made in 2018, when the Committee voted for Option 1, to maintain the status quo (see minute above).

 

The description of Option 1, from the Report to the 5 September 2023 meeting.

 

As I think there is greater scope for involving the local community than that which I’ve highlighted in the current Report above, I wrote to the Committee’s Governance Officer, seeking an opportunity to have my ideas considered at Tuesday’s meeting:

 

‘Dear Ms Shinhmar,

 

I am writing to request that I be allowed to make a short statement to next Tuesday's (5 September) meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee. I am copying this email to Cllr. Muhammed Butt, the current Chair of the Committee, for his information, as you will probably wish to check with him before replying.

 

The item I would like to make a representation on, please, is item 9 on the agenda, the Review of Alternative Administration & Governance Models. 

 

Earlier this year, I wrote to the Corporate Director for Governance with some suggestions which would be relevant to the Committee's consideration of Option 2 (paras. 4.3 to 4.5 of the Report), but these do not appear to have been passed on to Chris Whyte and Bianca Robinson, the authors of the Report. 

 

I think it would be helpful if those ideas could be brought to the Committee's attention, before they decide on the recommendation at 2.2 in the Report.

 

Unfortunately, because of a prior appointment, I will not be able to attend the 10am meeting, either in person or online. I would therefore ask that I be allowed to submit a short written statement, which would be read to the Committee, by yourself or another Officer, at the start of item 9 on the agenda.

 

I understand that members of the public speaking at the meeting are normally allowed two minutes to make their presentation. I would make my statement no more than 250 words long, which is what I would expect to present if I were speaking.

 

I hope that this will be acceptable to you, and the Committee, and look forward to receiving your confirmation as early as possible. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.
(A Brent resident for 40 years).’

 

Option 2 (of five) was to “Appoint additional Trustees alongside the Council”. The Report appears to advise against that option, but I think it could be made to work (with “independent advisors”, rather than formal Trustees).

 

The disadvantages of Option 2, from the Report to the 5 September 2023 meeting.

 

After an initial holding reply, I received this response to my request on Friday 1 September:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant

 

Following on from our exchange of emails yesterday, if you can let me have a copy of the representations you wish to submit for consideration in relation to Item 9 on the Barham Park Trust Committee agenda (Review of Alternative Administration & Governance Models) I’d be happy to ensure these are circulated to the relevant officers and Trust Committee members in advance of next week’s meeting.

 

Having consulted with Councillor Butt, whilst advice will be taken from officers (as considered to be relevant) on the points included within any submission it has not been agreed that the submission should be read out in full at the meeting.

 

Although I know you’re unable to attend the meeting, you will be able to follow proceedings via the live webcast or to view the recording following the meeting via the following link: Home - Brent Council Webcasting (public-i.tv).

 

I hope this helps to clarify the position and look forward to receiving any representations you wish to make.

 

Kind regards,

Abby Shinhmar
Governance Officer’

 

It appears that Councillor Muhammed Butt does not want my views to be “on the record” at the meeting. My suggestion for a better way to run the Trust will only be mentioned if the Council Officers advising them consider them relevant!

 

Nevertheless, I sent Ms Shinmar my submission on Friday evening. I’ve had no acknowledgement from her, and as it may be Monday before she is able to deal with it, I sent copies of the document ‘to the relevant officers and Trust Committee members’ myself, on Saturday afternoon. I hoped it would give them the opportunity to consider my short submission, ‘(250 words, so it will only take a couple of minutes to read)’, in plenty of time before the meeting.

 

As my submission will not be made public by Brent Council, here it is, for anyone to read, and know the alternative to “maintain the status quo” which is available to the Trust Committee:

 

‘Thank you for agreeing to consider this submission.

 

Chris Whyte’s Report sets out five options for the future governance of the Trust. It does not include an idea I suggested to Brent’s Corporate Director for Governance earlier this year, which I believe would improve the present arrangements.

 

Option 2, to appoint additional independent trustees alongside the Council, is shown to have several advantages, such as allowing individuals to be selected for their particular skills or expertise. 

 

The Report seems to warn against this option in para. 4.5, but my suggestion does away with most of the disadvantages, by using a model which already works well at Brent - the pairing of the Audit and Standards Committee with its Advisory Committee. 

 

In this case, the existing Trust Committee would meet immediately following on from the Barham Park Trust Advisory Committee, of which they would be members, to take the formal decisions legally required to be made by the Council as Trustee.

 

The Advisory Committee would have an independent Chair (preferably someone with a parks background) and independent members, including some nominated by local community groups and Barham Park users.

 

This would provide both expertise and local knowledge among Advisory Committee members, who could easily be consulted by Council staff engaged in the day-to-day management of the park, whereas Trust Committee members must prioritise their Cabinet portfolio and Ward responsibilities.

 

Please recommend this version of Option 2 ‘for further consideration and consultation’ under para. 2.2 of the Report. Thank you.’

 

If you have a view on this, please feel free to put a comment below. 

 

But the Committee Report, when describing Option 1, states that: ‘members of the community have been accustomed to being consulted on decisions’. Has anyone been consulted about the decision the Trust Committee will be making about its future governance arrangements? Para. 5 of the Report answers that question:

 

Paragraph 5, from the Report to the 5 September 2023 meeting.

 

If, having read this post, you feel you would like to have been consulted, there may still be time (up to 5pm on Monday?) for you to let the Committee know your views.

 

For example, if you wanted to support the suggestion I have made, you could send a short (but polite, please) email to the Committee members (not Cllr. Mili Patel, as an “out of office” message I received says she is on maternity leave until Spring 2024), saying something along the lines of: 

 

I support the suggestion in Philip Grant’s submission on the future governance of the Barham Park Trust.

 

If you don’t have their email addresses handy, they are: 

cllr.muhammed.butt@brent.gov.uk ,
Cllr.Fleur.Donnelly-Jackson@brent.gov.uk ,
cllr.krupa.sheth@brent.gov.uk , and
cllr.shama.tatler@brent.gov.uk .

 

So that the key Council Officers know that you’ve shared your views on this, you could copy your email to:

The Director, Environment and Leisure, whose Report it is: Chris.Whyte@brent.gov.uk
Corporate Director – Governance: debra.norman@brent.gov.uk , and
Brent Council’s Chief Executive: Kim.Wright@brent.gov.uk .

Philip Grant.

 

 

Wembley Matters readers make clear the Barham Park battle is not over yet

 The houses that could still be redeveloped

Sometimes comments are received on Wembley Matters stories some time after they have been published and I thought these two were worh publishing in their own right. They are reactions to the news that the Brent Cabinet, in the guise of their sole membership of the Barham Park Trust Committee, agreed to  a proposal to investigate the removal of the covenant on  776/778 Harrow Road so that development could take place LINK.

Anonymous wrote

I have found that there is a recording of the  Barham Park Trust Committee meeting on Brent's "livestreaming", which you can watch HERE:

I have watched it, and one of the most sensible things I heard said was a brief suggestion from Cllr Harbi Farah, asking if arrangements could be made for the committee members to visit Barham Park, and be shown round, and have the issues explained to them. [My observation: so that they might have some idea of what they were talking about!]

The main point that the members seemed to pick up on over the restrictive covenant was that their decision to let Officers negotiate over it was not a final one. Any recommendation to possibly amend it would have to come back to the Trust Committee for a decision.

Whether it was wise to even start on that road, because the restrictive covenant had been put in place to protect the park, was not considered.

The only reference to that aspect was Cllr. Butt saying that the Trust had to consider all options. This appeared to be on the basis that some money to fund the park could be raised by allowing a loosening of the restrictive covenant.

How much the process of actually trying to change the restrictive covenant would cost (whether "successful" or not), was not referred to in the Officer's Report, or by the Council Officers who advised the committee at the meeting. That question was not raised by Cllr. Butt, or any other members.

The terms of a restrictive covenant over 776/778 Harrow Road would not (legally) be a material consideration in any future planning application (although that wasn't mentioned either).

However, I can't imagine the current owner, or any other prospective developer, being willing to pay a significant sum to the Trust to get the terms of the restrictive covenant changed, if there wasn't a "side deal" over Brent Council being willing to accept a planning application that matched what the weakened covenant would allow them to build.

The Barham Park Trust Committee, now chaired by the Council Leader himself, have stepped onto a slippery slope. It could see them sliding down into conflict with the local community, and with the wishes of the benefactor who left his Sudbury Park estate for the benefit of the people of Wembley.

Paul Lorber said...

 

From the way the Trust Meeting was conducted it is clear that there was a pre meeting where they had detailed discussions and where they made their decisions in advance - in ignorance of all the facts.

The suggestion by one Trustee that they should inspect the buildings gives a clue as to how little they know. Anyone with any common sense would recognise that the site meeting should of course have taken before the decision making Trust meeting so that they could make decisions (rather than put them off) especially as the Trustees only meet once a year.

In terms of the issue of building on the Park and the covenant the comment by one of the Sudbury Councillors (at around 39 minutes into the recording) was also revealing of what residents can expect - he suggested that the two houses were outside of the Park. This is clearly NOT true.

The Covenant was put in place by Labour Councillors in 2011 when they made the decision to complete the sale of the two houses. One obvious question which should have been asked but was not was "why did we put the Covenant in place in the first place and why are we considering changing it just 10 years later?" The answer is simple - there was a recognition at the time that the houses should not have been there in the first place and that any enlargement or expansion should NOT be considered or allowed.

The two houses were built by Brent Council without permission some 50 years ago. For years the Council treated the Park and its buildings as its own forgetting their Charity obligations.

No one bothered to ask why the buildings were allowed to get into such a poor state of disrepair. The answer might have shocked them - as in 2011 the Trust paid £2,500 for a detailed condition survey into the state of the old buildings - some of which date back to 1780s - and yet 10 years later most of the priority repairs identified have still not been carried out.

Now we are also told that ACAVA, the tenant which Brent Council itself brought into most of the building after Labour Councillors closed the Council run Barham Library in 2011, in preference to Brent based organisations, have not paid their rent for almost 2 years and owed £76,000 as at 31 March 2021 - and presumably even more some 5 months later.

Brent Council does not bother to inform or consult local people about anything. There is no information about the closed Children Centre for example. It is hardly surprising that local residents feel ignored and have no confidence or trust in the Councillors in charge.

When I challenged and raised my concerns with the Brent Council's Chief Executive about the way the Council and its appointed Trustees were handling issues relating to the Park and its neglected buildings she told me that she would not discuss the issue any further. That is how Open Government works in Brent these days.

It is clearly down to local people to keep fighting for their Park. Our thanks need to go to Philip Grant for highlighting the issue, for Martin for publishing so as not to let Brent Councillors get away with things without proper scrutiny.

Barham Park library decision tomorrow - meeting open to the public

The meeting of the Barham Park Trust that will decide whether the Barham library campaign will be granted the lease on the Lounge for a community library takes place tomorrow (Thursday)  at 3pm at Brent Civic Centre (Boardroom 2) LINK

The meeting is open to the public but attendance will be limited by it taking place during working hours.

See Gaynor's Lloyd's guest blog on the campaign HERE

See Friends of Barham Library's bid for the lease HERE 

Barham Park planning appeal – the Community fights for its Community Facilities

Guest blog by Philip Grant

It is now more than eight months since Brent’s Planning Committee refused an application by the Barham Park Trust (sole corporate trustee – Brent Council) for a change of use of the former Barham Park library building from community use to business use. On 3 December 2013, the Trustees (five members of Brent’s then Executive) accepted the recommendation of a senior Council Officer to appeal against that decision, but it was only last Tuesday, 22 July, when a Planning Inspector finally held an informal hearing of that appeal at the Civic Centre. The delay was due in part to the Trust’s appeal not being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate until the end of March 2014 (it has been suggested that this was to ensure that the appeal could not be decided before the local elections on 22 May). 

Around thirty local people attended the hearing (including two of the Brent Cabinet members who now have Trustee responsibility, for parts of the proceedings), and although less than half of these came forward to speak when given the opportunity by the Inspector, this impressive display of support for the former library building remaining available for local community use will have been noted by him. This was a planning appeal, so the fact that many of them were Friends of Barham Library was only relevant to the extent that it showed a need and demand for the sort of community facility which could be available on a permanent basis in Sudbury, but there were many other reasons shown to the Inspector why Brent’s planning policy CP23, aimed at protecting existing community and cultural facilities that meet the needs of Brent’s diverse community, should be upheld, as the Planning Committee had already decided.