Showing posts with label Paul Lorber. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Lorber. Show all posts

Monday, 12 January 2026

LETTER: When is 9.9% NOT 9.9%? Brent's core funding increase claim challenged.

 


Dear Editor,

On 21 December Wembley Matters posted a story based on Labour spin.

Stating that Brent is to get an increase of 9.9% in “core funding”.

Sadly this is not true.

The Labour Government has juggled Grants and other Government funding and came up with a figure for Brent’s ‘core spending power’.

The 9,9% assumes that the Council imposes the full 5% Council Tax rise. So the 9.9% core spending increase includes the extra local people will need to pay as part of the latest Council Tax rise and at a briefing with Finance Officers we were told that the Council Tax rise represent about a 3rd of this 9.9%. So only 6.6% - and NO Labour did not simply invert the numbers. The Labour Deputy Leader was simply not telling the truth.

The situation is even worse than this. 3 months ago we were told the overspend this year stands at £9 million. Now the Cabinet is being told on Monday the most up to date overspend is £12.5 million. An increase of £3.5 million! 

And the reason for the £3.5 million is mostly in social care - care packages more expensive because providers are passing on the higher costs of energy and staffing. And why is cost employees going up? - because Labour hiked up employers National Insurance. So Local Government is being hit the same way as the hospitality sector and any other service reliant on people to provide it.

Because these extra costs are recurring year on year the so called 9.9% (actually only 6.6%) has already been wiped out.

So the Brent Labour claims that things would get better under a Labour Government are pure fiction. 

The Lead Member for Finance is clearly completely out of her depth. Tried to mislead us on the true figures, has no control of the Brent Budget and should  resign or be sacked. 


All the best,

  
Paul Lorber (Leader of Brent Council Liberal Democrat Group)
 

Friday, 9 May 2025

Labour Leadership incompetence in the management of the Barham Park Trust could have lost residents up to £100,000 in income, claims Paul Lorber

Another potential  failure in the effective and responsible management of the Barham Park Trust has been revealed by Brent Liberal Democrat Leader, Paul Lorber. Readers will know that the Trustees are all members of the Brent Labour Cabinet with no representation from the community that is supposed to benefit from the Barham bequest.

In an email to Brent CEO, Kim Wright, Lorber alleges that the Trust failed to arrange a lease and collect rent from a Barham Park building occupied by the Young Brent Foundation, thus depriving the Trust of income.

Cllr Lorber asks for an Internal Audit based on the following:

  1.  The Council has had a Lease of the former Children Centre space in Barham Park Complex for many years.
  2. When that use ceased the space was made available to Brent Young Foundation who were allowed to take occupation before a Lease was prepared and signed.
  3. Officers were instructed to prepare and finalise a Lease some 4 years ago but never did. (I expect there were exchanges documenting the terms and basis on which YBF could use the building in advance of the Lease - an unusual situation not available to others). They were due to pay a rent equal to the rent paid by the Council to Barham Park Trust - originally £11,300pa but at some point subject to a review. 
  4. Young Brent Foundation were in occupation until now - it is not clear if proper legal process for termination was followed and the space is still being cleared as I write. (Termination was referred to at a recent Barham Park Trust Meeting). 
  5. The answers received to date (but not complete and slow in coming) suggest that Young Brent Foundation did not pay any rent, any business rates, any service charges and possibly no utility costs for electricity, gas or water or contribution to insurance.
  6. It is also not clear who paid for any of the above.
  7. I estimate that the loss mainly to Brent Council but also partly to the Barham Park Trust may be in the region of £100,000.
  8. An independent investigation is required as Property and Finance are implicated and YBF clearly has other debts owing to the Council and others including possibly HMRC and the Pensions Authority.  Letters from all these are coming through Barham Community Library and have been passed by me to the Property Unit.
  9. The investigation needs to ask a number of questions including why was occupation by YBF allowed without a lease being in place, why was no rent collected, who paid the costs of the business rates and utilities and others. What action is being taken to recover all the debts and losses sustained by Brent Council and Barham Park Trust.
  10. I consider this a major failing by various Units of Brent Council. It seems that if you are well connected as people in YBF were you get anything and you get away with anything without effective scrutiny or action. 
  11.  It is particularly galling because well established organisations in my Sudbury Ward or in Barham Park which have provided services to local people for years - East Lane Theatre Club, LNER Sports Club and Barham Veterans Club are under threat of closures because of unfair and unrealistic rent demands from the Brent Property Unit. All of these should have had lease renewals a long time ago well before the new Brent Council Property Strategy was out in place which fails to take into account the contribution these organisations provide for local people.  

 Cllr Lorber adds:

In view of the above I trust that you will instruct Internal Audit to investigate and for Property and Finance respond fully to my outstanding enquiries.


I am making my request public as part of my Scrutiny duty as the Scrutiny arrangements in Brent Council are ineffective and frankly a waste of time as recent Call Ins clearly show. Labour Councillors are cleared whipped and will never agree to refer an item back to Cabinet however flawed the original decision.

 

Saturday, 22 February 2025

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 

 


Wednesday, 2 October 2024

Why Barham Park Matters - paper ahead of tonight's Scrutiny Meeting

 

Ahead of tonight's Call-in at Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Paul Lorber has provided a background paper for members of the Committee. The meeting can be attended in person or on-line HERE:

Where is the pond and viewing platform in Barham Park?

 

I ask this question for a good reason.

 

Over the past 12 years or so various Trustees (Brent Councillors) have taken officer advice and spent large sums of money – in each case well over £10,000 – on Consultants “Visions” and condition surveys into Barham Park.

 

Over 10 years ago officers proudly presented one of these visions with a Pond and a viewing platform in one of these expensive documents. The drawing showing this were quite appealing, and the Trustees approved this plan.

 

THERE IS NO POND AND NO VIEWING PLATFORM!

 

Subsequent reports highlighted the condition of the Barham Buildings and stressed the need to carry out works. These works were all costed, and a program timeline was produced. Much was to be done over the next 3 year. In reality very little was actually done to protect and preserve the exterior of the buildings. The outside has not been painted for at least 15 years.

 

Why – there is no Champion for Barham Park within the Trustees or the Officer Team. Barham Park is not a priority – it is a nuisance to be brushed under the carpet.

 

This LINK link takes you to pictures highlighting current disrepair and neglect in Barham Park.

 

Those of us who care for Barham Park want the time wasting and the neglect to stop.

 

BACKGROUND – WHY DOES IT MATTER

 

Once upon a time the whole of Sudbury was part of the Sudbury Common which stretched from long way down in Wembley all the way to Harrow on the Hill. 

 

An Archbishop Canterbury was the Lord of the Manor of much of the land here a few hundreds of years ago.

 

The oldest part of the buildings in Barham Park dates back to between 1760 and 1780 (say 250 years ago).

 

In 1801 John Copland – a Purser (Accountant/Officer Manager) – on Royal Navy Ships who once served on one of Lord Horacio Nelson’s vessels at the 1805 battle of the Nile bough Crabs House in what is now Barham Park.

 

He prospered over the years and acquired more land so that by the time of his death in 1843 he owned over 350 acres of land which stretched from The Triangle in Wembley all the way to bottom of Harrow on the Hill. He built a new house on his land called Sudbury Lodge. John Copland bought a crypt in the newly opened Kensal Green Cemetery where he is buried.

 

His only son also joined the Royal Navy too but died very young. John Copland was survived by two daughters. They never married and became great local benefactors paying for the building of St John’s Church, a cottage hospital. School rooms and much more – even a small reference library.

 

On their death in early 1870s General Robert Fitzgerald Crawford took over on condition he changed his name to Crawford-Copland. His two sons played football for Scotland in the very first official game against England.

 

On his passing in 1895 the land was acquired by George Barham the owner of Express Dairies. Most of the land in Sudbury was still farmland, with the area opposite (Chaplin Road/Farm Avenue) a large farm. Sir George as he became later is famous for building up the Express Dairy Company and also for cleaning up the milk industry.

 

On his death n 1913 his two sons took over, but it was the older one also George – but always known as Titus – who lived here and developed his home and gardens. He too was a major benefactor and was involved in almost everything that went on locally. He donated part of his farmland for the site of Wembley Hospital (subject to new plans shortly), he contributed to the local Tennis Club, Barham Primary Scholl stands on his land and much more.

 

In 1937 when Wembley received its Charter to become a Borough he was due to become Wembley’s Charter Mayor. Sadly, he died on the very day this was due to be celebrated.

 

Anticipating death, he had the good vision to enter into agreement with the new Wembley Council to accept the gift of his home and gardens for the “enjoyment of the public”. He was a modest man and did not want any fuss. There is no statue of him and until recently he is remembered by the existence of Barham Park, Barham Primary School, Barham Close and Barham Court.

 

His portrait hands in the Brent Museum which was in fact created in 1965 with many of his gifted possessions as the initial core of the collection – including a coat of armour.

 

A few months ago, volunteers from Friends of Barham Park organised a public collection and erected a Blue Plaque in his memory.

 

DOES HISTORY MATTER?

 

For some the Barham buildings are just an old pile of bricks and even a nuisance. For the lovers of Barham Park, they are however much more. They tell a story of local people who made a contribution to our community.

 

This is why some of us despair at the neglect, and the waste of money and opportunities to improve things.

 

WHAT ARE THE BARHAM PARK BUILDINGS FOR?

 

One part is occupied by Barham Veterans Club formed in 1947 by Wembley and Middlesex County Council to provide a place for elderly men to socialise as part of tackling loneliness. In the early days the Club paid no rent and received a generous grant from the Council. The grant was stopped many years ago and the Club is charged rent and service charges.

 

Officer let the lease lapse and now recommend a new lease on market value terms for a short period of time until 2031. The Bronze drawings do not show the Barham Veterans Club so presumably the idea or expectations is that it will not exist beyond 2031.

 

The wooden building (former Card Room) is occupied by Tamu Samaj UK and ex Gurkha Nepalese Group. They run a wide range of activities for their members of all ages and also hire out the space to other small groups.

 

Their Lease has just expired, and they also face a short lease at market rent.

 

The Public Library was closed by the Labour Administration in 2011. Friends of Barham Library opened a Community Library in another part. The library acts as a hub for many community activities, knitting, art, book club groups. Yoga and Pilates and many others and most importantly is the home of the Memory Lounge – a growing group providing activities, support and advice for people with dementia and their carers.

 

The Bronze option drawing approved by the Trustees have wiped the library from existence. The children library would be a shop and the rest of the space is a bit unclear.

 

The former Children Centre closed many years ago. The Lease is between the Barham Park Trust and the Council, and the Council is desperate to keep up the pretence of ‘children centre’ use to avoid clawback of Sure Start Grant.

 

The rest of the building is leased to ACAVA – an out of Brent organisation who converted their space into 29 smaller units which they let to artists – most of whom are also outside of Brent.

 

When this decision was made in 2013 Officers and Councillors were convinced that this would benefit the local area. Current Councillors can judge this for themselves. The artists contribute very little to Brent art, they are not local and most if not all of the rent owed (over £60,000 according to recent reports) is owed by ACAVA.

 

HERE WE ARE TODAY

 

After tens of thousands of pounds spent on surveys and consultants most of whose reports collect dust in some forgotten draw and the pictures tell their own story.

Opportunities to extract large sums of money from the heritage Lottery Fund and others have been missed.

The buildings are neglected.

Community Groups who provide local services to local people face the threat of being kicked out as consultants think and Brent Officers and Trustees concur with this – that shops or hotel rooms that no one asked for and the area does not need are more important than a Community Library, a Club for elderly residents and a base for a group of loyal and hard working ex Gurkhas – without whom the annual Remembrance March would be rather short of any marchers!

2nd CHANCE TO SET A BETTER DIRECTION

Decisions by Barham Park Trustees were called in last year. They have been called in again this time.

The Barham Park Trust 2022/23 Accounts were challenged and had to be withdrawn for corrections. Officers persuaded you that nothing was wrong. A year later the 2023/24 Accounts were withdrawn right at the beginning of the Barham Park Trust Meeting.

To get it wrong once is unfortunate. To get it wrong the 2nd time should set the ALARM bells ringing.

The accounts are wrong and misleading. The way the Barham Trust is managed is wrong and very damaging. Wrong Accounts and misleading information lead to wrong and bad decisions.

If there is any point to Scrutiny than the Members of Scrutiny need to take their responsibilities seriously and grab an opportunity to challenge the poor decisions and poor actions for the sake of ensuring a future for the Barham Park Charity and Barham Park and its buildings.

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO?

Ask your self a few simple questions:

If Barham Park was YOUR home and gardens and you depended on it being well managed, would you:

1.     Waste tens of thousands of pounds on surveys and consultants reports which collect dust and cannot and will not ever be implemented?

2.     Ignore legal agreements (Leases) and not bother to revise rents when due?

3.     Allow the building up of rental debt of over £60,000?

4.     Fail to charge interest on the rent debt in line with the Lease terms?

5.     Spend over £20,000 on consultants’ fees on proposals which you could not start working on for 8 years and which are at major risk of economic and other factors?

6.     Allow your subordinates not to recharge costs that you have incurred without being informed and without your agreement?

7.     Spend large sums of money on valuations and legal fees without knowing what you might get in return?

If your answer to any of these questions is NO than you agree that something is badly wrong, and change is needed.

As a starting point you will then agree with the grounds for the Call-in and agree to refer the decisions back to the Barham Park Trust with clear instructions  that all the issues raised are fully investigated and honest and full answers provided to enable the Trustees to make decisions based on facts, that meet their fiduciary duties to the Barham Park Charity and which meet the expectations of and wishes of Titus Barham who gifted his Home and Gardens for everyone’s enjoyment.

Thursday, 19 September 2024

LETTER: Transparency needed on Peppercorn Rents vs Market Rents for Brent Council properties

 Dear Editor,

Following widespread public interest and concern, including on Wembley Matters, regarding the impact of Brent Council's Strategy Review on the voluntary and community sector, I have written (below) to the  appropriate council officer:

I am writing in my capacity as a Councillor concerned about the potentially damaging impact of the new Property Strategy and it’s implementation on the Brent voluntary sector.

The Property Strategy agreed by Cabinet last week indicates that expired rents will be charged based on market values and that Section 25 Notices will be issued as part of the process to achieve this.

As you know your officers started issuing Section 25 Notices to a number of community organisations in Brent and you officers suggested a completely off the wall (some people may say off their heads) figures.

In the case of the East Lane Theatre Club in my Sudbury Ward a new rent of £75,000 Per year has been suggested.

I know of other organisations in Sudbury subject to the same Property Unit approach.

What assurance can you give that this approach will be applied consistently and that community organisations will be treated fairly and equally.

The Leader of the Council has suggested that “ELTC has been in the fortunate position of being able to have space since 1992 for the sun of £1,500 ….and I can assure you that there are many organisations past and present that would love to have been in that position of having had that space”.

He than also claims that “we must start at open market rents”.

He is clearly ignorant of the facts or has not bothered to find out or has not been briefed properly. As you know there a number of organisations in Brent - many occupying larger premises and since before 1992 - that do not pay any rent for properties which belong to Brent Council and for which the Council is the landlord.

As you know one of these properties is The Kiln Theatre (formerly Tricycle Theatre) with a much larger Theatre building of which Brent Council is the freeholder the rent for which is £1 peppercorn.

You have and should be able to publish the full list of all the Brent Council owned buildings where £1 or nominal rent is paid.

Is it the intention of the Corporate Property Policy to review all these subsidised rents too so as to put all  community organisations on the same basis or is it the intention to penalise some with a Market Rent while favouring others with no rent at all?

You will appreciate that will all look very odd to any independent observer who may question the fairness of an approach the aim of which seems to be to deprive long standing organisations of their premises while others continue to receive favoured treatment. 

Perhaps if the Cabinet were informed of this strange situation they may have asked some questions and perhaps even made a different decision.

Because of the public interest in this matter I am publishing this email and will also publish your response.

 

Cllr Paul Lorber