How many affordable homes did Brent Council deliver in 2024/25? - Was it 530, or 434, or just 26?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Brent Council would like you to believe that the answer is 530 new affordable homes. That is the number they included in the leaflet they sent out to every household in the borough last month, with our Council Tax bills for 2025/26. The claim that 530 affordable homes were delivered is on a page headed “Where Your Council Tax Goes”, directly following the words ‘Here’s how we spent your council tax last year’, so there should not be any doubt that it relates to homes delivered by Brent Council itself. But that claim is untrue!

 

When I saw that figure, I couldn’t understand where all those homes had been completed in the borough during the past year, so I put in an FoI request. Here is the answer (in red) that I received to the first point, which as well as confirming that the claim relates to the year 2024/25 says that 530 affordable homes was actually 434.

 

Extract from email of 31 March 2025 from Brent’s Strategic Housing Partnerships Manager.

 

I realise that, as the leaflet had to be printed around two months before the year end, there had to be some estimating, but to publish a figure of 530, more than 22 per cent higher than the actual number at 31 March is stretching the facts. Brent has claimed, in response to being challenged on the figures by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, that 530 was ‘correct at the time of going to press’, but that can’t be true either.

 

But the situation gets worse for the Council, as the second point I raised in my FoI request was where these affordable homes were “delivered”, and whether they were built by Brent or by another registered provider of social housing (such as a housing association). This is the response I received:

 

 

So, there it is, in black and white. Brent Council did not deliver 530 affordable homes in the year to 31 March 2025, and not even 434, the revised total of all of the affordable homes completed in the borough in that year. The Council itself delivered just 26 affordable homes in the year, less than 5% of the number its leaflet to Council Taxpayers would have you believe!

 

When Brent set out its five-year New Council Homes plan in 2019, it promised to deliver 1,000 new homes at “genuinely affordable” rents between 2019 and 2024. It failed to do that, and quietly changed the target to 1,000 “affordable” homes by 2028, just one example of the misleading information they have given over affordable housing. In the third part of my FoI request, I asked for a breakdown of the different types of affordable housing included in the 530 (or 434) figure, This was the answer:

 

This shows that only 101 out of 434 of the new affordable homes was at the “genuinely affordable” London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) level, that is just over 23% of the total. Brent Council has a planning policy which states that at least 70% of affordable homes provided (and 50% of new homes in developments of 10+ homes are meant to be “affordable”) should be genuinely affordable, so our planning system is clearly failing to deliver on what is an identified need for the people of Brent.

 

More than half of the affordable homes delivered were not even homes for rent, but shared ownership (45% of the total) and discount market sale (14%). ‘Discounted market sales housing’, which like shared ownership technically counts as “affordable housing”, even though it is not affordable to most people in housing need in Brent, is defined as homes which are sold ‘at a discount of at least 20% below local market value.’

 

The other claim over housing in the Council Tax leaflet is that ‘1,000 new council homes [are] being built this year.’ I asked for the details behind that claim as well, and this is the answer I received:

 

You will note that, again, between sending the leaflet to the printers and 31 March, the Council had to revise its figure down from 1,000 to 899. These are ‘expected completions’, and who knows how many more of these will not actually be completed by 31 March 2026? 

 

From the names and addresses of these ‘new council homes’ being built, at least three large sites, Alperton Bus Garage, Fulton Road and Quay Walk, amounting to 564 homes (62.5% of the total) are private developments, where Brent is borrowing large amounts of money to buy flats from the developers, rather than building new homes itself.

 

And this is the odd thing. It is (or should be) much cheaper to build new homes on land that you already own, but instead of building all of the homes on the Council owned former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue for rent (at the genuinely affordable rents which local people need), Brent has agreed that Wates, the contractor building them for the Council, can sell 150 of the 237 homes there privately. Only 56 of the new homes there (just over 23%) will be for renting to Brent families at the “genuinely affordable” LAR level.

 

Brent also owns all of the blocks of housing, and the land on which they stand, which are part of its long-running and much delayed South Kilburn Regeneration programme. In the latest deal for this, with Countryside, the developer will get more than half of the homes to be built on the site of Neville and Winterleys, to sell privately. The homes retained by the Council will all be for social rent, which sounds like a good thing, but that is because they will all be for existing Council tenants, being rehoused so that their homes can be demolished. There will be no new homes available for rent to families on the Council’s waiting list.

 

These dishonest housing claims, which have gone out to every home in the borough, give the impression that Brent Council is providing much more affordable housing itself than is actually the case. Who benefits from this deception? The principal beneficiaries are Cllr. Muhammed Butt (whose “Dear Resident” letter is on page 3 of the leaflet, saying what a good job his Council is doing, despite the huge cuts to its Central Government funding since 2010) and his Labour councillors. This propaganda on their behalf is in an official Brent Council leaflet, paid for out of our Council Tax, as they sent us the bill for this year’s increased amount!

 

The back cover of the leaflet contains an advert about Brent’s campaign against fly-tipping, featuring a photograph with “the usual suspects”. As the leaflet contains the lies I’ve exposed above, I will end this piece with an amended version of that advert.

 

Parody of the back cover advert. (Image by Brent Council, amendments by the author)

Philip Grant.

 

 

 

UPDATED WITH VITAL INFORMATION: Changes to the Barham Park restricted covenant for payment of £200,000 goes ahead allowing the building of four 3 storey houses in the park

 

 Planning Committee  preliminaries and the section on the restrictive covenant.      (Video by Brent Council including  rather irritating facial focus. Captions by Wembley Matters)

At last night's Scrutiny Committee it was interesting to see Muhammed Butt, as chair of Barham Park Trustees sitting on the opposite side of the table to his brother Cllr Saqib Butt, a member of the Scrutiny Committee that was scrutinising the Trust's actions.

In the event, as the video shows, Cllr S. Butt, along with Cllr Dixon and Clr Maurice were excluded from the section of the meeting regarding the restrive covenant because they were members of the Planning Committee that had approved George Irvin's planning application to build four 3 storey houses in Barham Park. A decision that could only implemented by removal/amendment of the restrictive covenant, an action subsequentally approved by the Barham Park Trustees on payment of £200,000. Cllr S. Butt is vice chair of the Planning Committee. Legal officers felt that the three should not take part because of how a possibe conflict of interest could be perceived by the public.

Cllr Lorber declared an interest but continued to take part as a member of the Scrutiny Committee after being warned by legal officers that a complaint might be made about his participation.

Sorry if this is confusing, it is complicated, but Philip Grant's address to the Committee, read for him by former Labour councillor Gaynor Lloyd, sets out the issues:

The Report to the 24 February Trust Committee meeting states:

‘The restrictive covenants were imposed in August 2011 to preserve the area's character and limit development.’

Those aims are just as important now as they were in 2011.  Barham Park is one of Brent’s Historic Parks and Landscapes, a heritage asset which  the Council promised to protect.

The covenant does that by prohibiting ‘any development in or upon the Property’, which is inside the park and a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. Planning Committee were misled into granting the development consent in 2023 and I’ll explain why if you ask, so the covenant is the last line of protection.

The Trust’s February decisions appear to mirror the Council’s Property Strategy, which Cabinet approved last year. They do not reflect the charitable aims of the Trust, or the wishes of residents who are meant to be its beneficiaries.

The Charity Commission recommended local people should have a voice in the Trust’s decisions, and two years ago I suggested to Debra Norman how this could be achieved. My idea was ignored in the Governance review later that year, and the Chair refused to allow my suggestion to be heard by the Trust Committee in September 2023.

Other residents and councillors have also had requests to speak refused. Brent Council is the sole Trustee, and as the Trust Committee are not acting in the Trust’s best interests, I would ask you, please, to refer the matter back for further consideration.

When officers were challenged by Paul Lorber to publish Charity Commission advice on the covenant removal they referred to Commission's inquiries after a complaint from a member of the public. They had sent a response and the Commission was satisfied with the Trust's processes.  They appeared to be referring to the letter published on Wembley Matters  where the Commission said they were taking not further action 'at this time' but would keep the complaint on file in case there were other concerns in the future. LINK.

The detailed discussion included much confusion, particularly over whether the proposed development was car/garage free or not and comments made by the Planning Legal Officer that statements could have been drafted more clearly, can be heard in the video.

The final decision, made by the the Scrutiny Committee's three members left standing - Cllr Long, Mitchell and Malloy, plus Chair Cllr Daniel Kennelly voted NOT to refer the matters covered in the Call-in back to the decision maker, Barham Park Trust, or Full Council. Cllr Lorber voted to refer it back.

The decision took immediate effect so the changes to the restricted covenant and its purchase goes ahead and the four houses will be built.

 

 UPDATE WITH COMMENT FROM PAUL LORBER

 This comment was too long for the normal comment word limit so published here instead: 

Anne Wade (comment below the article) explains very clearly how important Barham Park is to local people and why it is important to keep up the fight to preserve it for the benefit of local people and not of private developers or Councillors who simply do not care.

If the Labour Councillors who act as Trustees or Council Officers managed the affairs of the Barham Park Trust ( a charity) effectively there would be no issues and no need to carry out any Scrutiny.

As I have pointed out for some time (and Wembley Matters has covered my concerns) the Barham Park Trust is managed very badly by both the Labour Trustees and by Brent Council Officers. I will give you some examples:

1. When Labour closed the Public Library in Barham Park they brought in a tenant who took over the Library space and most of the rest of the building. The Council claimed that dealing with just one tenant would make things simpler.

Over a number of years that tenant failed to pay their rent and built up arrears of over £60,000. A large amount is still outstanding today - this has cost the Council/Trust thousands of pounds in lost interest.

2. Most tenants occupying the building have Leases which state their rent and the service charges. The rents are subject to regular reviews. Council Officers working on behalf of the Trust failed to carry out rent reviews (until I pointed it out to them) and failed to charge service charges. This has cost the trust many thousands of pounds.

 

3. The Trust was persuaded to employ consultants at a cost of over £20,000 to undertake a major feasibility study to upgrade the buildings to generate commercial rents. The proposal is to replace the space occupied by long standing community organisations with Hotel Rooms and Shops. The Trust was told that a Silver Option would cost £3,162,000 and the Labour Trustees gave this a go ahead. While the consultants said that to deliver this option would require 'vacant possession' NO one bothered to ask when vacant possession could be achieved. As  the Barham Community Library lease does not expire until October 2031 and much can change in 7 years this was a pointless exercise.

 

BUT it gets worse. Having told the trustees that the Council and not the Charity would pay the £20,000 consultancy fee - they charged the £20,000 to the Charity anyway "because the Council had no authority to pay it". Yet it is the same Councillors and same Officers who advise and make decisions for the Trust and for the Council.

 

AND to top it all - 2 years after the £20,000 was spent on the consultants and the Trustees accepted the £3 million option it turns out that the £3,162,000 cost is exclusive of VAT and that the  Barham Park Trust would have to cough up over £600,000 in VAT extra on top if the daft project was proceeded with.

I could go on listing a catalogue of disasters inflicted on the Barham Park Trust as a result of poor management and poor  oversight by the Trustees but I will save that for another day.

I will however say something about the saga of the Covenant.

The first point to make is that it was put in place to prevent further building work in the Park. It was part of the deal with George Irvin and he knew full well what the restrictions were when he bought the two existing houses. That was it - NO more!

If he does not like it he could always sell the two houses back to the Council - after all the Council has two Companies specifically buying up properties in the open market and there is nothing to stop the purchase of these two with the restrictive covenant in place.

The Council has now been dealing with the Covenant issue for 4 years. Council officers have spent vast amount of their time on this. Their time has not been costed but it won't be cheap and is met by Council Taxpayers and not by George Irvin.

Almost two years ago Council Officers advised the Trustees that it is normal for the development gain arising from varying the Covenant to be split on a 50/50 basis. The Trustees agreed to proceed on the basis of this advice.

The Trustees were presented with a 'revised' (it is not clear why it was revised) valuation showing the Development Gain/Profit that would arise after all the demolition, rebuilding and other costs at their meeting in February 2025. They have decided to keep the valuation and the figures confidential from the eyes of the public.

Members of the Scrutiny Committee were provided with a copy of the valuation a few days before the Scrutiny Meeting.

At the Scrutiny meeting I challenged Councillor Butt, Chair of the Trustees and Councillor Officers about the 50/50 advice and why the Trustees (all members of the Labour Cabinet) were prepared to accept a gross payment of £200,000 when this was a very long way from a 50/50 split. While I cannot disclose the exact figures I can say that my intervention at the Scrutiny Meeting was because the difference is MASSIVE! - and it is the Barham Park Charity which is the big loser.

On a final point it is important to stress that the £200,000 selling price is the 'gross' amount before expenses of the valuation and much more. The Trust will therefore benefit by much less than £200,000 although through another 'oversight' this is not mentioned in the Trustee Meetings either.

I (and others) have now been challenging Brent Council about the mismanagement of the Barham Park Trust and the neglect of Barham Park since at least 2011 (the year they closed Barham Park Library). Vast amount of money has been wasted on mismanagement and pointless consultants reports.

I am sorry to say that Barham Park is not safe in the hands of Brent Council or its self appointed group of Labour Councillors as Trustees.

It came as no surprise that the Labour Councillors on the Scrutiny Committee voted on block in support of their Leader.

There is however only so much that can be covered up. Watch this space.

 

 

Muhammed Butt takes on Number 10 Task Force role

 As it is after Noon on April 1st I can confirm that this was an April Fool.

Muhammed Butt poses for the cameras after being offered new role

 

Brent Council leader, Muhammed Butt,  was yesterday appointed to a part-time role as head of a government task force on 'mobile entertainment'.

Government sources said that funfairs, circuses and outdoor pop festivals were a neglected area of potential growth that could add thousands of pounds to local economies and utilise under-used parks and open spaces.

 

A Brent funfair that took place last summer

 

Butt's experience in Brent was cited as a key factor in his appointment. He told Wembley Matters, 'Fortunately I have direct access to one of the most experienced and successful entrepreneurs in the field and I am sure they will help me add value to my role. I look forward to the Brent model spreading across the country and contributing to Labour's commitment to growing the UK economy.'

 He added, 'It is an honour to work for Sir Keir who I think is the greatest Labour leader since Sir Stafford Cripps.'

Recently Brent Council came close to securing a lucrative contract with a Korean Pop Festival company. Although the K-Pop  Festival was postponed, Stage 1 Licensing Permission was granted by Brent Licensing Sub-committee and subject to conditions is expected to take place in 2026. LINK

Muhammed Butt's appointment is not expected to affect his role as Leader of Brent Council.

 

Cllr Butt 'not minded' once again to allow democracy and scrutiny over Barham Park Trustees' action - this time removing covenant protecting the park from development for a payment of £200,000 by developer George Irvin

 

George Irvin's plans for houses in Barham Park

Readers of this blog will know that many questions have been raised about Cllr Muhammed Butt's refusal to allow any scrutiny of Trustees' actions over Barham Park.

Barham Park was gifted to the people of Wembley by Titus Barham (HISTORY HERE) but Butt gained control of the Trustees by making himself their Chair and other members of his Cabinet fellow Trustees. They claim that they represent the people of Wembley and refuse any other representation.

In his role as the all-powerful Chair, Cllr Butt has refused to let people speak at meetings of the Trustees to raise issues over the accounts, plans to redevelop and privately market park buildings, his relationship with the developer and fairground entrepeneur George Irvin, the sale of two workers' cottages in the park to Irvin, and Irvin's gifts of free fairground ride tickers to councillors (see links below).

There is a Trustees' meeting on Monday morning where a payment bu Irvin  to the Trustees of £200,000 will allow a restrictive covenant protecting Barham Park to be removed, enabling Irvin to build four three storey houses inside the park on the site of the cottages. (CGI above). Irvin has already received planning permission for them from the Council pending settlement of the covenant issue.  Observers reckon given the sale value of the proposed private houses, situated in a beautiful park with vehicle access and nearby rail connections,  the payment is quite a bargain.

Unsurprisingly, local councillor Paul Lorber has asked to speak to the Trustees about the issues raised. Equally unsurprisingly Chair of Trustees and Leader of the Council, Cllr Muhammed Butt has refused:

The Brent Officer concerned responded:

As is usual practice I’ve consulted with the Chair and, as a result, can advise he is not currently minded to allow any requests to speak at Monday’s meeting.  Whilst it will not, therefore, be possible for you to address the meeting in person you’ll obviously still be more than welcome to attend to observe proceedings.  We’ll also be webcasting the meeting live, which you’ll be able to follow, as an alternative, via the following link:

Home - Brent Council Webcasting

In other words you are at liberty to silently watch us sell out the people of Wembley...

 

BREAKING: Barham Park Trustees' £200,000 deal with George Irvin to enable him to build four 3 storey houses in Barham Park

Trustees set to rubber stamp process to remove covenant restriction on building in Barham Park

Brent Council on Barham Park Covenant: 'Move along, nothing to see here.'

Barham Park Trustees approve original accounts in 7-1/2 minute meeting after refusing representations

Butt again refuses representations on Barham Park. Time for the CharityCommission to intervene?

Be Fair on the Fun – An open Letter to Brent on councillors’ free rides 

 

Butt gets a bruising in Alperton by-election. Lib Dems win with increased vote share

 Charlie Clinton (Lib Dem) speaks after vote declaration

 

Charlie Clinton swept to victory in the Alperton by-election yesterday with an increased vote share. The by-election took place in unusual circumstances following the resignation of Anton Georgiou as a result of pressures on his personal life casued by the release from jail of a stalker.

Brent Greens decided not to field a candidate and called on other parties to do the same as a principled stand against violence in public life.  In the event Conservatives and Labour went ahead and Reform joined them.

Cllr Muhammed Butt had allegedly received the news of Georgiou's resignation with glee and Labour threw everything into the campaign. Barry Gardiner MP and Labour councillors joined party members in a huge effort to gain the seat for their 19 year old candidate, daughter of a former councillor.

 

 

Charlie Clinton outside the blue blocks in which he lives opposite Alperton Station

 

 Paul Lorber, Leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Brent Council said:

The stunning victory for Charlie Clinton and the Liberal Democrats is down to the amazing had work by Anton Georgiou and the Lib Dem team for Alperton over many years.

Winning over twice as many votes as Labour was beyond our expectations but shows how much trouble Labour are in since the formation of their Government. Things will get even worse for Labour as they put up taxes and cut services. 

With Charlie's election the Lib Dem Group is back to 3 on Brent Council and we will continue to punch above our weight in challenging the Labour Leadership on the many bad decisions they are making.

We are grateful to the Brent Green Party for their solidarity with Anton Georgiou by not putting up a candidate in Alperton.

 

An ex-Brent Labour Party member reviewed the result for Wembley Matters:

 

As a long-term resident of Brent, an ex-Labour Party member and a lifelong trade unionist I have watched with horror what has been happening in Brent Labour since 2010 when the current administration come into power. I am very aware that the Tory Party austerity policies has put local councils, especially metropolitan boroughs, and Labour controlled ones and suffer financially. However, some of the decisions and direction of travel in Brent have not been what most of us would consider being aligned with Labour Party values, nor for the good of residents.

 

The campaign in Alperton was a prime example of Brent Labour’s lack of care about Labour Party values and the residents they are supposed to represent. 

 

There were several messages spawned by Brent Labour that were untrue and misrepresented.

 

Blaming the LibDems for the general untidiness of the ward, along with fly tipping etc is unbelievable. Brent Labour has the tools at their disposal to sort these issues, not the LibDems, all a LibDem councillor can do is make a noise to Council Officers, whereas, a Brent Labour Councillor, such as they have in Alperton, can request the Leader and Cabinet Member to rectify these issues by directing Council resources to where they are needed in the ward. That didn’t happen, so the mess in Alperton is down to Brent Labour, so electing another one is pointless?

 

Telling us we need Social Housing while allowing all the available land to be turned into either flats for sale, or more likely private rentals is not the way to go. We are told that Brent is supplying hundreds of Affordable Homes, 80% of an unaffordable rent is still too high for Brent’s housing waiting list applicants, as are even London Affordable at is it 60% of the inflated rental values. Then there are the Shared Ownership properties, these are known to be overpriced and very difficult to sell and realise even the original investments for those that buy in.

 

Basically, in the eyes of Brent residents they see Brent Labour as being the out and out supporter and facilitator of their best friends the developers and private landlords (such as many of their own councillors). The Leadership are not shy of accepting gifts (Irvin’s fairs, lunches, receptions and more no doubt) and why would the Council (Barham Trustees, chaired by the Leader) remove the covenant off the park warden buildings in Barham Park for a paltry £200,000?  I look at Ealing Road library forecourt and wonder how they are getting away with that ridiculous occupation. Maybe they know someone?

 

Brent Labour have let Brent’s environmental services decline into an ineffective service while spending ridiculous amounts of money on the Civic Centre, publicity, and other unnecessary spending. There are so many other failings of this Brent Labour led council that are wrong, it is not surprising that residents don’t vote Labour in sufficient numbers anymore, as shown in recent elections, even before the Labour nationally lost a lot of their support over its recent ineptitude. Citing the Labour Government as an issue is partially true, but it is far from the real issue for Labour in Brent, Brent residents need a Council that listens, does the right thing, tells the truth because it is worth telling and represents the electorate first.

 

I really believe that this Labour group believe what they are doing is the right thing and that they lost Alperton because residents don’t understand how wonderful the council is!!!! 

 

BREAKING: Barham Park Trustees' £200,000 deal with George Irvin to enable him to build four 3 storey houses in Barham Park

 

The houses proposed for Barham Park

 

The long-running campaign by local residents in Sudbury to resist the building of houses  in Barham Park will come to a head at the Barham Park Trust Committee on February 24th 2025.

 A deal with funfair and property developer George Irvin will see him pay the Trust £200,000 for removal of the covenant that prevented building of four 3 storey houses on the site presently occupied by two modest 2 storey cottages at 776-778 Harrow Road.

The deal also involves vehicular access into the park and eretion of other facilities. Details are below:

 Recommendations:

The Barham Park Trust Committee RESOLVES to

2.1 Approve the modification of the restrictive covenants at 776 and 778 Harrow Road, as detailed in paragraphs 3.8-3.11 and delegate authority to the Director of Property and Assets to execute a deed with Zenaster Properties Ltd for the agreed sum of £200,000, subject to 2.2 below.

2.2 If required, approve seeking Charity Commission consideration of the Qualified Surveyor’s Report (Appendix 1) and authorisation under Section 105 of the Charities Act to modify or discharge the covenants.

 

Existing Covenants (extract from single plot):

 

*Not to use the Property otherwise than as a single private dwelling house and the garage for any purpose other than as an ancillary private garage.

*Not to divide the Property into two or more dwellings or residential units.

*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 meters (sic) and of not greater height than 3 meters (sic) or permit or suffer any person under the Transferor’s control to do so.

*Not to stand or support any vehicle, commercial vehicle trailer, mobile home, caravan, trailer, cart or boat on any part of the Property.

*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.

* 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.

 

Proposed Modification (combined plots):

 

3.9 The deed (to be prepared in accordance with the planning committee report dated 12 June 2023 and decision notice dated 13 June 2023—see Appendices 3 and 4) will amend these covenants to permit the development of four houses.

3.10 A revised version of the restrictive covenants that would enable the proposed redevelopment in accordance with the granted planning permission is set out below and may be subject to further refinement.

 

Permitted Use:

 

*The Property may be used for residential purposes, permitting the construction and occupation of up to four residential dwellings, together with any ancillary buildings, structures, and facilities required for their use in accordance with the planning permission granted under reference 22/4128.

 

 From Application 22/4128

 

Subdivision of the Property:

 

*The restriction on dividing the Property into multiple dwellings is removed, approved under planning permission 22/4128.

 

Construction of Buildings and Structures:

 

*The restriction on erecting buildings or structures is modified to permit the construction of four residential dwellings and any associated infrastructure, including garages, outbuildings, and landscaping, in accordance with planning permission 22/4128.

 

Vehicle and Storage Restrictions:

 

* The restriction on standing or supporting vehicles, commercial vehicle trailers, mobile homes, caravans, trailers, carts, or boats on the Property is modified to permit reasonable residential use, including the parking of vehicles by residents and visitors in designated parking areas as approved under planning permission 22/4128.

 

Permitted Development:

 

*The restriction on carrying out development within the meaning of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is removed to allow the construction and occupation of four residential dwellings in accordance with planning permission 22/4128.

 

Accessway and Parking Restrictions:

 

*The restriction on parking and obstruction of the accessway hatched yellow and hatched green or any part of the Retained Land is modified to allow vehicular and pedestrian access as required for the lawful residential use of the Property, ensuring that any access arrangements comply with planning permission 22/4128 and any subsequent highway or planning authority requirements.

 

3.11 These modifications preserve reasonable protections while enabling the approved redevelopment. The precise wording of the changes may be further refined or amended during the legal conveyancing process.

 

Timeline

 

3.12 The overall timeline for these steps is expected to span several months. Suppose the Trust Committee approves the restrictive covenants’ modification and/or discharge. In that case, completion may be subject to obtaining Charity Commission approval, if required, and the conclusion of legal formalities by the parties. This includes Zenaster applying to the Land Registry to register the Deed and effect the necessary changes.

 

3.13 The modification or discharge of the restrictive covenants is subject to the satisfactory reinstatement of the boundary in respect of 776 and 778 Harrow Road and return of the Barham Park Trust land to open space as agreed by way of surveyor’s aerial plan signed by George Irvin on behalf of Zenaster on 28th August 2024.

 

Zenastar Properties Ltd (previously Aventor) business is listed as

•      Buying and selling of own real estate
• Other letting and operating of own or leased real estate
• Management of real estate on a fee or contract basis  
  

Retained profits at January 2024: £3,781,976

Current officers

Campaigners will be looking for grounds on which to challenge to covenant deal. The report to Trustees discusses the role of the Charity Commission:

Compliance with the Charities Act 2011

 

3.4 The two key legal requirements under the Charities Act for land disposal have also been met:

 

*Independent advice: A report has been obtained from a qualified Designated Adviser acting solely in the interests of the Trust.

*Best terms achieved: The proposed transaction represents the best

financial terms reasonably obtainable by the Trust.

 

Requirement for Charity Commission Approval

 

3.5 Under the Charities Act 2011, charities do not typically require prior Charity Commission approval for land disposals where the two legal requirements above are satisfied. However, approval may be required in specific circumstances, including:

 

*Disposals to a "connected person" (as defined in the Charities Act).

*Disposals involving designated land in most cases

 The last two points regarding 'specific circumstances' may be considered grounds for challenge given previous allegations of a close relationship between Muhammed Butt, Chair of the Trustees and  George Irvin, Director of Zenastar, and argumets over designated land.