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.

 

 

Brent Council seek to commercialise historic old buildings in Barham Park at expense of community groups

 

The Harrow Road frontage

The community library space

The attractive cluster of buildings - including artists' studios

The Veterans' Club

Nepalese Community Centre

The Children's Centre

When the planning application for the building of four 3 storey houses in Barham Park was approved there were warnings about setting a precedent that could be a threat to other parks and gave rise to a 1,000 plus petition calling on Brent Council to protect our parks. The news that the Barham Park Trustees were seeking to revise the covenant preventing building on the park reinforced fears and these seem to be borne out by a new threat.

Brent Council (not the  Cabinet members under the leadership of Muhammed Butt but who call tell the difference?)  have commissioned a feasibility study to refurbish the site to allow commercial development in order to maximise income by charging market rents. 

In the process it would  the whole feel and purpose of the buildings which once housed the Brent Council Parks Department and a Brent Council public library, closed by a previous Labour administration. The volunteer community library set up by a 'Save Our Libraries' campaign group, and offering many more community activities than just a library, would not be able to afford a commercial rent and its future would be threatened if the plans went ahead. A similar fate would await the other community groups that use the various buildings.

The brief is set out below with a key factor highlighted.

The key items considered within this report are:

•   Location of additional parking (including EV charging)

•   Partial demolition & rebuild of certain elements of the building (eg. the flat-roofed areas towards the rear) have insufficient potential to add value to the project as a whole and has been excluded from the project scope.

•   No full demolition & rebuild - design to relate to & incorporate existing building.

•   Not to consider existing tenancies and to consider the building as vacant.

•   Tracking and tracing of all underground drainage / pipe routes.

•   Topography survey and levelling to ensure sufficient drainage.

•   Structural constraints of the Barham Park Trust building

•   EPC C to be targeted.

•   Trees located within a conservation area that are not protected require written notice to the local planning authority.

 

When I visited this morning it was clear that few of the user groups had any knowledge of the plans that will be discussed by the Barham Park Trustees Committee at its meeting on Tuesday September 5th at 10am in Brent Civic Centre  The public can attend in person or on zoom LINK and everyone who cares about the future of Brent parks is urged to attend.

 

 AGENDA

 

The Feasibility Study suggests that the construction costs would be £3,161,537.50 but many key items are left out and it is likely to be more that £4m.

 

 

 

The suggested occupants of the site, rather bizarrely, include an Air B&B, when many councils are discouraging them as they take away permanent local housing provision. Four retail outlets including a supermarket are  proposed when this section of the Harrow Road has little footfall other than park users, and a restaurant (there is a large restaurant opposite that has recently been converted from a pub.  

 

The only non-commercial uses mentioned are a community hub with local information and a library. Whether the latter would be at an affordable rent and affordable service charges will be vital for the continuation of the Barham Park Community Library.  Considerable financial investment and volunteer hours have been invested in the current library as can be seen in the photograph above, taken just after a morning yoga session, one of many activities that take place there.

 

 

Like many Brent Council properties the buildings have been allowed to run down and fall into disrepair, although users have done their best to rectify the defects spending their own funds. This run down strategy can sometimes be used to justify demolition and rebuild as happened with the previous Willesden Green library, and on a smaller but widespread scale with garages on council estates.

 

There are buildings in many Brent parks with development planned in King Edward VII   Wembley pavilion and the Bowls Court in Roundwood Park being offered to potential users. Watch this space!

 

Boarded up windows

To enable the users I met today and other members of the public to see the full study I have embedded it  below.

 

 

 

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

The proposed George Irvin development of four 3 storey houses in Barham Park that would require the removal of the covenant

Trustees Meeting Agenda September 5th 2023

Reader will be familiar with the controversy over the proposal by funfair owner and property developer George Irvin to replace two  modest two storey park workers' houses  in Barham park with 4 three storey houses. At Planning Committee the elephant in the room was the restrictive covenant on developing the site, dismissed by officers as not a planning consideration. Planning permission was granted despite massive resident opposition.

Readers will also remember that the Trustees of Barham Park consist of Brent Council Cabinet members, chaired by Brent Council Leader, Muhammed Butt. Readers will also recall disquiet over Irvin giving free tickets away to councillors and concern over alleged social connections between Irvin and councillors, including Muhammed Butt.

Now the elephant in the room is due to make an appearance at the Barham Park Trustees meeting at the Civic Centre on Tuesday September 5th. 

The proposal by the existing owner, contrary to the terms of the restrictive covenants, is to seek consent from the Trust Committee to amend the restrictive covenants to enable him to demolish the existing buildings and erect 4 houses on the combined plot, whereas currently the restrictive covenants allow for only 2 dwellings on the combined plot.

However, the public and backbench councillors will not be allowed to know the size and value of the elephant/covenant as the result of an Independent Valuation has been 'restricted':

"Appendix 3 is not for publication as it contains the following category of exempt information as specified in Paragraph 3, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, namely: “Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information."

There is a clue to how it could be worked out in the papers for the meeting:

The varying of the restrictive covenants is a matter for the Trust Committee and Charity Commission. As beneficiary of the restrictive covenants, the Trust Committee can negotiate a monetary consideration for varying the restrictive covenants. Simply put, the monetary consideration is usually determined by what the market value of the 2 additional completed properties might be and deduct from that the estimated development costs to arrive at a gross development value. This gross development value is then typically split 50/50 between the Covenantor and Covenantee by negotiation and is the formula used in the valuation for varying the restrictive covenant.

Developer, George Irvin,  will of course be a beneficiary as well but the report attempts to sweeten the pill by suggesting that the proceeds from varying the  covenant will be used to the benefit of the park, which as Trustees would have to do anyway, although they only refer to 'potential':

Officers will explore the potential to reinvest the proceeds from varying the restrictive covenants in respect of 776-778 Harrow Road back into the Estate as part of developing a multi-faceted investment strategy for the refurbishment project. Accordingly, the proceeds would count as permanent endowment funds (capital funds which are held in trust for the benefit of the charity over the long term and are subject to restrictions as regards how they may be used).

Those proposals on  refurbishment are a separate part of the agenda for the meeting and will be covered in a separate blog post.

So is there any mention of the 1,000 signatures plus petition calling for the covenants to be upheld? No - neither in the report or as as a Petition Presentaton Agenda item. A new elephant in the room!?

A key question is whether the Agenda or accompanying reports leave open the possibility of the Trustees deciding not to vary the covenants at all and thus fulfill their role in protecting the Tutus Barham legacy. The answer is already implied - they will protect the legacy by using the covenant variation monies to improve the park not by refusing to negotiate  a variation.

So what do officers' recommend to the Barham Park Trust Committee?

Recommendation(s)

 

That the Barham Park Trust Committee RESOLVES

 

Agree for the Director for Environmental and Leisure Services in consultation with the Chair of the Trust Committee to negotiate in principle the variation of the restrictive covenant in respect of 776 and 778 Harrow Road for the best terms that can reasonably be obtained, subject to final approval by the Trust Committee, and any approval required by the Charity Commission under the Charities Act 2022 and 201l.

 

So the Committee is asked to agree to hand over negotiation to Muhammed Butt and the Director and, subject to Charity Commission approval,  will then rubber stamp it. All done by a small group of cabinet members, albeit wearing trustee hats - with, as I said at the beginning no resident or backbencher input.

 

There is one other area that may be considered by supporters of the covenant and critics of the process regarding whether the owner/developer is a 'connected person' and thus a conflict of interest arises. This is the relevant section of the report:

5.7 Use of s117, pre-supposes that the owner of the cottages is not a “connected person” within the meaning of section 118. Connected persons2 includes:

 

“Who at the time of the disposition in question, or at the time of any contract for the disposition in question are, for example—

(a) a charity trustee or trustee for the charity…

(c) a child, parent, grandchild, grandparent, brother or sister of any such trustee or donor,

(d) an officer, agent or employee of the charity…

(f) a person carrying on business in partnership with any person falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (e)”

 

5.8 In accordance with s120, any disposal of Trust land over seven years to a third party is also subject to similar requirement imposed by s119 above.

 

Furthermore, the disposal of charity land, or letting for more than two years to a third party or connected person requires consultation in the form of being notified in the local press and onsite and providing for at least one calendar month, from the date of the notice, for members of the public to make representations.

 

5.9 Accordingly, if the owner of the cottages is a connected person, or a conflict of interest is deemed to exist in the decision making process re the disposal (for example, amongst other things because payment of a capital sum to the Council (as trustee) for releasing the covenant would reduce the contribution required to be made in practice by the Council (as local authority) to subsidise the running of the charity), the Trustees should request the Charity Commission consider the Qualified Surveyor’s Report (referred to under the 2022 Act as the Designated Advisor’s Report (DARs) (valuation) and release or varying the restrictive covenant pursuant to their s105 Charity Act powers, to authorise dealings with the charity property.

 

On the same Agenda there is an item on governance which proposes the first update since 2013. The item makes clear that Brent Council is the corporate Trustee of Barham Park but must ensure that the management of the Charity and its interests is separate from its responsibility as the Council and its interests Decisions have to be made solely on the basis of the former. What is in the interests of the  Charity may not be in the electoral interests of the Council. See 10a Appendix A for the changes.

Interesting...

Review of Barham Park Trust Governance Document PDF 137 KB

• View the background to item 10.

This report sets out for review proposed updates to the Barham Park Trust Governance and Guidance Document. Primarily designed to reflect changes following organisational restructures in the council and updated guidance issued by the Charity Commission.

Additional documents:

• 10a. Appendix A - Reviewed Governance and Guidance Document 2013 PDF 865 KB
• 10b. Appendix A(i) Cllrs Guide to a Councils Role as Charity Trustee (Appendix B Trust Governance Document) PDF 253 KB
• 10c. Appendix A(ii) Charity Commission Guidance Conflict of Interests (Appendix C Trust Governance Document) PDF 511 KB
• 10d. Appendix A(iii) Charity Commission Essential Trustee Guidance (Appendix D Trust Governance Document) PDF 943 KB

 

 

Brent Council challenged on apparent attempt to restrict public information on the Barham Park restrictive covenant

 

The elephant in the room at the Planning Committee that approved George Irvin's planning application to build 4 three storey houses in Barham Park was the restrictive covenant on the two small park workers' houses on the site.

'Not a planning issue' residents were told by officers as they consigned the poor elephant to invisibility.

Perhaps not but the elephant was perhaps a fly in George Irvin's or Muhammed Butt's ointment.

Now a Barham Park Strategic Property Review, including the covenant, is to take place with Muhammed Butt heading it up as Leader of Brent Council. He is also Chair of the Barham park Trustees charged with preserving and enhancing the park for the benefit of residents in the spirit of the Titus Barham bequest. 

Unfortunately residents who hoped to see the elephant properly dealt with in an open and accountable manner may be kept in the dark as a restriction has been placed on publication and thus public discussion of any proposal:

Barham Park Strategic Property Review

By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Explanation of Reasons

• By Virtue of Paragraph 3

  Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

  Condition:

  Information falling within paragraph 3 above is not exempt information by virtue of that paragraph if it is required to be registered under-(a)the Companies Acts (as defined in section 2 of the Companies Act 2006); (b)the Friendly Societies Act 1974; (c)the Friendly Societies Act 1992; (d)the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1965 to 1978; (e)the Building Societies Act 1986; or (f)the Charities Act 1993

  Information is not exempt information if it relates to proposed development for which the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission pursuant to regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992

  Information which-(a)falls within any of paragraphs 1 to 7 above; and (b)is not prevented from being exempt by virtue of paragraph 8 or 9 above, is exempt information if and so long, as in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information

Cllr Paul Lorber is challening the claim in the restriction that:

....the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information

In a letter to Brent Council officers he says:

I note the latest Forward Plan mentions a number of Reports coming to the above meeting including on issues of the Covenant, Architects Report and Governance.

There is a suggestion that some of the information may be exempt and not provided in the public reports. 

As you are aware there is a great deal of public interest and concern in relation to these matters. 

In relation to all the matters to be reported on it is clear that the Public Interest in disclosing the information outweighs any public interest in maintains the exemption.

In view of this I trust that you will ensure that all information is published in full in all the reports to be presented to the meeting (including any information & advice given in pre meetings) on which any recommendations or decisions will be based.

If any information is to be withheld please provide a list of this information and the grounds on which it is withheld and the justification why the public interest withholding it outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. 

Please confirm that this will be done.

The Barham Park planning decision – Brent explains why three Cllrs. who declared an interest were allowed to take part in the 12 June meeting

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

General view of the 12 June Planning Committee meeting, from the webcast.

 

There were a number of blog articles last month about the Barham Park (776/778 Harrow Road) planning application, which was controversially approved at Brent’s Planning Committee meeting on 12 June. Some of the comments on them referred to connections which Committee members might have with the applicant, George Irvin, including free tickets received from him to one of his funfairs in April 2023. One committee member had declared receiving these.

 

I had written to Brent’s Corporate Director for Governance about this issue, and did so again a few days before the meeting. In her absence, my email was dealt with by Brent’s Head of Law. On 9 June I wrote this in an email to her:

 

‘Whatever value was estimated, by Cllr. Begum or others, for the gift they received in respect of the Funfair at Roe Green Park, just a few weeks ago, in order to receive that gift, councillors were given George Irvin's personal email address and mobile phone number, and had to contact him personally to obtain it. That should be sufficient to debar them from having any part in a decision on an application which if approved would be to Mr Irvin's financial benefit.

 

In case you are not already aware, application 22/4128 is a controversial one, strongly opposed by many residents, both individually and through their Residents' Associations. It is a sensitive matter, and one where it is important that the Council is seen to be dealing with it openly and fairly.’

 

 

The application details from the 12 June Planning Committee agenda.

 

Despite this, Cllr. Begum was allowed to take part in the Planning Committee meeting which decided Mr Irvin’s application, along with two other councillors, Saqib Butt and Akram, who had also declared some sort of connection with him at the start of the meeting. I requested a detailed explanation of why this had been allowed, and this is the response I received from Brent’s Head of Law on 5 July:

 

‘Cllr Begum was not required by the provisions of the Brent Member’s Code of Conduct (Code) to declare the gift, she did so in order to be transparent.  Although she was not required to refer to the gift at the meeting itself, she chose to do so, again in order to be transparent.  Cllr Begum was advised prior to the meeting that although the provisions of paragraph 34 of the Code did not apply, she might nonetheless choose to consider whether a member of the public knowing the facts about the gift would reasonably consider it likely to prejudice her judgement of the public interest. Cllr Begum chose to remain in the meeting and did not act contrary to the Code in doing so.

 

The information in the statement by Cllr Begum did not indicate that the applicant was a person connected to her under paragraph 30 of the Code.

 

In relation to Cllr Akram and Cllr S Butt, both in fact stated that the applicant and signatories on the petition had followed/connected with them on social media through their work as Councillors.  They were specifically asked to confirm that it was not a personal connection and they confirmed that it was not. It is clear from their statements that they were bringing the circumstances to the attention of the committee and the public in order to be transparent and were not declaring that the applicant or signatories on the petition were “connected persons” for the purposes of paragraph 30 of the Code.  Accordingly there was no reason for them to leave the committee meeting.’

 

I have replied, on 6 July, as follows:

 

‘Dear Ms Henry,

 

Thank you for your email of 5 July, which clarifies the basis on which Councillors Begum, Saqib Butt and Akram were allowed to take part in considering and deciding Mr Irvin's application at the Planning Committee meeting on 12 June.

 

You were aware, several days before the meeting, that there was public concern over Cllr. Begum's participation in considering and deciding this application, as she had received a gift of free funfair tickets from the applicant only two months beforehand. In those circumstances I have to express my surprise that she was allowed to choose whether to take part in the meeting - surely it would have been best to advise her not to take part.

 

You say that Cllrs. S. Butt and Akram were specifically asked to confirm that they had no personal connection with the applicant, and that they confirmed that they did not. However, it is strongly rumoured (though I have no hard evidence) that they do have a social connection with Mr Irvin, either directly or through their close relative, Cllr. M. Butt, the Council Leader and Chair of the Barham Park Trust Committee.

 

I will leave these views for you to consider, and will not pursue them further with you, but I will share the explanations provided in your email of 5 July with others who have an interest in this matter. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

In order to be transparent, Cllr. Rita Begum has declared a number of other items in her Register of Interests on the Council’s website, including that she is an ‘Ambassador for Gem environmental building services LTD and Paytap’ and a ‘Director of R.B Associates PVT LTD’.

 

Two examples from the “Who we work for” page of Gem’s website.

 

Gem Environmental Building Services Ltd’s (“Gem”) website describes the company as ‘one of the fastest-growing maintenance companies in London.’ Their clients include a number of London Boroughs, including Camden, Islington, Tower Hamlets and the City of Westminster (but not Brent – yet). But why do Gem need a Labour councillor as an ambassador?

 

The Companies House website shows that R.B Associates PVT Ltd (Company No. 14533968) was incorporated in December 2022, with a registered office at a private address in London NW10, and its sole director and shareholder Ms Rita Begum. The nature of its business is shown as ‘environmental consulting activities’. Perhaps that is where any fees for acting as an ambassador will be paid to? 

 

But, of course, Cllr. Begum has been transparent about these interests, so that’s fine, isn’t it?

Philip Grant.