LETTER: Show your support for the park petition as it is presented at Brent Council meeting on Monday at the Civic Centre 6pm

 Dear Editor,

Support the Barham Park petition,

 

The Petition signed by 1,170 people will be presented to at the full Brent Council Meeting on Monday 18 September held at the Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley starting at 6p.m.

 

The Petition calls for Barham Park to be protected from development so that it can continue to provide "recreation for the public" as Titus Barham intended.

 

Local people are angry at Brent Council for granting planning permission for extra houses on the site of two cottages despite the Sudbury Neighbourhood Plan specifically forbidding this. They are also angry at the Council leadership considering lifting a covenant which the Council put in place itself just over 10 years ago to prevent more house building on the site.

 

Lastly local people are amazed that Labour Councillors spent £25,000 on an architects study and are now considering kicking out long established community groups operating from buildings in the park so that they can go ahead with a £3 to £4 million "hypothetical" scheme to build hotel rooms or convert spaces for Airbnb accommodation for visitors to Wembley Stadium.

 

In doing this the Labour Leadership are ignoring the wishes of Titus Barham who gifted his home and gardens in 1937 so that local people could have a Public Park for their enjoyment and recreation. Barham Park is the 3rd most visited Public Open Space in Brent.

 

While the original buildings may not be special, they do have important historical connections which are of interest.

 

1. Part of the buildings date back to 1780s and are known as Crabs House after their owner.

2. In 1801 the land and the House were bought by John Copland who was a bursar in the Royal Navy and served with Horatio Nelson in 1805 when Nelson lost his eye.

3. In the years up to his death in 1843 John Copland acquired around 350 acres of land in Sudbury/Wembley which stretched all the way from the site of the former Copland School (now Ark Elvin Academy) all the way to Harrow on the Hill.

4. John Copland is buried in one of the inaccessible vaults at Kensal Green Cemetery.

5. His only son was killed while also serving in the Royal Navy and his land was inherited by his two unmarried daughters.

6. The daughters were big local benefactors and over the years they paid for the building of St John's Church in Harrow Road Wembley (George Gilbert Scott was the architect), a local village school, a cottage hospital and a workers’ institute used to train apprentices, and which contained the first local library. They lived in Sudbury Lodge - a large house built in the middle of what is now Barham Park. They too are buried in Kensal Green.

7. On the death of the sisters in the early 1870s their House and lands passed on to General Robert Fitzgerald Copland-Crawford. The adding of the name Copland to Crawford was one of the requirements. The General was a son of a soldier who served with Wellington at the battle of Waterloo and in his later years General Robert Fitzgerald Copland-Crawford claimed that he was the last man alive who could remember the sound of British guns as they were defeating Napoleon Bonaparte.

8. Two of his sons (educated at Harrow School) were great sportsman and played both cricket and football. They represented Scotland in the first 4 friendly Scotland v England football internationals that took place between 1870 and 1872. One of them scored the very 1st Scottish goal against England.

9. Most of the family died out in the mid 1890s and there is a family monument to them in the grounds of St John's Church.

10. Sir George Barham, the founder of Express Dairies acquired Sudbury Lodge and most of the lands in 1895. An express Dairies Farm existed in the current area of One Tree Hill Open Space, Chaplin Road and Farm Avenue. Barham Primary School stands on part of the old farmland.

11. Sir George Barham is credited with modernising and cleaning up the milk industry. He was at the forefront of improving hygiene and many inventions - including the introduction of milk bottles.

12. On his death in 1913 the land passed on to his two surviving sons George (always known as Titus Barham) and Arthur. Arthur later became a partner in United Dairies (formed during the 1st World War) which later became Unigate.

13. Titus Barham continued to grow Express Dairies which in the years after his death became the biggest operator of Supermarkets in the UK under the name Premier.

14. It is however because of this involvement in community causes that Titus Barham deserves to be remembered. He was a successful and wealthy businessman who used his wealth to support good causes. He supported the building of Wembley Hospital, donated money to buy the Tennis Club in Sylvester Road, welcomed local people to his home for his "Rose Sundays". In 1936, a year before his death, 8000 local people attended his open house event.

15. Titus Barham is referred to as "Wembley's greatest benefactor".

16. In 1937 Wembley received its Charter to become a Borough Council. Titus was due to become the Wembley 'Charter' Mayor' and donated £4,000 (around £300,000 in today’s money) for the purchase of the Mace and Chains of Office regalia. Sadly, he died in July 1937 on the same day that Wembley was officially due to become a borough and he its Mayor. The ceremonywas postponed until October.

17. Titus was keen to ensure that all Wembley residents had an opportunity to celebrate the creation of the Borough Council and he had  paid in advance for a "tea party" for the tens of thousands attending the old Wembley Stadium on 2 October 1937: 

 

 

 

18. Even more importantly on his death Titus Barham decided to gift his home (now renamed Barham Mansion) and his beloved gardens to local people for "the recreation of the public". With the house came his 'eclectic' collection of items collected over many years which eventually formed the founding collection of items used for the creation of the Brent Museum at the Grange (now in Willesden Library)

19. His gift eventually became Barham Park. While Barham Mansion, used during the 2nd World War by the military, fell into disrepair and was demolished in 1955 the Park and the original buildings remain. They have been home to the Barham Veterans Club since 1946. The Barham Park Public Library was opened on 31 May 1952 and served local people for almost 60 years - but was sadly closed by Labour Councillors in 2011 when half of Brent's libraries disappeared.

20. On a sunny day Barham Park is full of people enjoying themselves. The old buildings are a hive of activity - with the Community Library, run by volunteers, serving our local community.

 

I hope that this brief summary - highlighting the lives and contribution of the people who lived in Barham Park - explains local people believe that Barham Park should continue to be used for the "recreation" of local people and not to for developers profit or commercial interests.

 

 Local people love their local park and will fight to preserve it to be enjoyed by local people now and in the future.

 

The views of local people should not be ignored. We do not want more house building in the park or hotels which only benefit developers and not local residents. Please support us.

 

With best wishes

Paul Lorber

for Barham Community Library

14 September 2013

 

Last minute Supplementary Report on Barham Park Planning Application - Brent Planning Officers still recommend approval. Barham family submission disregarded.

 

 

A Supplementary Report was published this afternoon by Brent Planning Officers regarding the application by George Irvin to build 4 three storey houses within the park on the site currently occupied by a modest pair of two storey houses. The Planning Committee in at 6pm on Monday June 12th. The public can attend in-person or on-line.

Some of the Supplementary Report is concerned with the actual boundaries of the site followed by a consideration of some of the 'further representations' that have been reported on this website:

 A number of further comments have been received in objection to the proposals since the publication of the committee report including comments from 4 people who commented previously. In total (including previously reported and new objections), 46 residents objected to the proposal in addition to the petition with 160 signatures, the Sudbury Court Residents’ Association, Wembley Central and Alperton Residents’ Association and Cllr Lorber. An objection has now also been received from the Brent Parks Forum. The objections include some issues previously raised and some additional concerns.

The Supplementary Report requires close scrutiny as the wording is often unclear or ambiguous. The officers continue to recommend that the application is approved and state that the covenant on the park is not a material planning consideration. They do not refer to the Barham family's submission. In my view they fail to adequately answer Philip Grant's allegation of misrepresentation of planning policies.

Philip Grant emailed the head of planning this evening having seen the Supplementary Report:

Dear Mr Ansell,

Further to my email to you last Tuesday morning, 6 June, attaching a copy of my objection comment about the Committee Report on the 776 & 778 Harrow Road application, I am frankly disgusted by the response in the Supplementary Report, which has appeared on Brent's website this evening.

This is my further comment on application 22/4128 this evening:

'I have just read the Supplementary Report, published on Brent Council's website this evening.

It is totally unacceptable that the objection comments which I made on 5 June, about the misrepresentation in the Committee Report over the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan policies. should be "dealt with" merely with an Officer Response of:

'This is discussed within paragraphs 5-16 of the main report.'

My comment had explained in detail why paragraph 13, in particular, was incorrect.

If Planning Officers are not prepared, or not able, to explain why Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan policies LGS1 & 2 and BP1 should not override the other policies which they rely on to support this application, then the application should not proceed to a decision at the Planning Committee meeting on 12 June.'

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.

 

 This is a link to the 'main report' LINK  A flavour is provided by the extract below which made my head hurt when I tried to grapple with it!

Paragraph 13

Are our parks and green spaces safe with Brent Council?

A meadow in Fryent Country Park was again used as a car park for football fans on Saturday. This time for those attending the FA Cup Final on the day of a rail workers' strike.  On social media  I expressed were concern about the use of a designated nature reserve for this purpose.

The meadow was  last used as a car park on another train strike day in June last year, this time for fans going to an Ed Sheeran concert. LINK

On that occasion Brent Council told Wembley Matters:

The event field at Fryent Country Park is available for commercial hire and events are very common there. Wembley Stadium approached the council to rent it on the basis the rail strike would create additional parking and traffic pressures in the Wembley area. The council agreed to its rental on the basis this would provide sensible relief across the wider area.

 

As well as a rental income to the council, the parking revenue was agreed to be ring-fenced to improve future event day management arrangements in the Wembley area, for example, more council enforcement, toilets and better fencing.

 

This is unlikely to be a regular occurrence, but the field is available for commercial hire as has always been the case.

 

 

Concern was heightened  by the news that Brent Council planners were recommending that Brent Planning Committee approve George Irvin's planning application to build four 3 storey houses in Barham Park. Liberal Democrat councillor for Sudbury ward, Paul Lorber, has written to Brent  Parks department asking whether this will set a precedent for other sites in the borough:

The Planning Officer recommendation on the Barham Park planning application going to Committee on 12 June 2023 suggests that the Council Housing Policies over rides this and the protection of Parks and Open Spaces is now a dead duck.

It is of some surprise to find that the Park Service made no representations on the Barham planning application and is silent on the issue and the implications for other Parks and Open Spaces.

Perhaps you can explain why?

In view of this can you provide the following:

1.  List of all of Brent’s Parks and Open Spaces which have residential buildings (I am aware of around wood Park and King Edward VII Park for example) and other buildings which on the basis of the Barham Park recommendation are now at risk.
2. How many of the above have been looked at and assessed as suitable for future housing development.
3. Whether in view of planning officers  recommendations the Protection of Parks and Open Spaces needs to be reviewed and strengthened.

Residents across Brent are now asking “is our Park/Open Space safe?” and they need reassurance.

I would appreciate an early reply.

Regards

Paul

PS. As you know there used to be a large House in the middle of Gladstone Park some years back. As it was used as a private residence is the site now suitable and acceptable for a residential development? Is the Council position on Barham Park (silence by the Parks Service and the Barham Park Charity managed by Council officers) a precedent of what residents can now expect in the future?

 

This is the relevant section of the Officers' Report. The promise of the first paragraph is dismissed in the subsequent paragraphs:

 

The Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan designated Barham Park including the land within the application site as a Local Green Space under Policy LGS1, with LGS2 relating to Barham Park. This policy highlights that the Local Green Spaces will be given long term protection and proposals for development which is not ancillary to the use of the land for recreational purposes will be resisted. The Local Green Space designation for Barham Park includes the houses and the majority of their curtilages as being within the designated space. It is set out within Neighbourhood Plan policy BP1 (Barham Park) that any proposals for the re-use or redevelopment of park buildings for residential us (Use Class C3) will not be supported.

 

Neighbourhood Plan Policies LGS1, LGS2 and BP1 are relevant to the proposal as the site is within the area defined as Local Green Space by the plan. However, the proposal does not result in the loss of any Local Green Space. The site contains house for which the authorised use is as dwellings within Use Class C3 and as such, the proposal is not considered to result in the redevelopment of park buildings.

The proposal is considered to accord with policies LGS1, LGS2 and BP1. Nevertheless, if one contended that Policy BP1 relates to all buildings within the area designated Local Green Space as opposed to all buildings within the park itself, it is noted that the fall-back position for the applicant would be the continued use of the houses and their curtilages for their current lawful use, for purposes withinUse Class C3. In this instance the proposed redevelopment of the site would continue to be acceptable having regard to the existing use of the site.

 

UPDATE:Lorber challenges attendance restriction. Brent Council recommends approval of application to build in Barham Park and restricts attendance at the Planning Committee considering it

 

The proposed four 3 storey houses in Barham Park

Residents who have made comments on funfair supremo and developer, George Irvin's, controversial application to build four 3 storey houses in  Barham Park, have been surprised to receive letters apparently restricting attendance at the Planning Committee that will decide the application on June 12th.

The letter (below) cites Covid restrictions but these were not in evidence at the Council's Annual General Meeting and currently not in evidence in the public areas of the Civic Centre.

The UK Government website says, 'There are no coronavirus (Covid-19) restrictions in the UK.' 

Despite widespread opposition to this proposal the Chief Planner is recommending approval.

 

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (as amended) THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

Re: 776 & 778, Harrow Road, Wembley, HA0 2HE 

 

I refer to the planning application for the above site which proposes:- 

 

Demolition of 2 existing dwellings and construction of 4x new three storey dwellinghouses, associated cycle and refuse storage, amenity space and boundary treatment 

 

The application will be formally considered at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 12 June, 2023 starting at 6pm. 

 

As a result of the current regulations allowing the Council to hold meetings of the Planning Committee remotely coming to an end, the Council is now required to hold this as a socially distanced physical (face to face) meeting. 

 

This meeting of the Committee has therefore been arranged to take place in the Conference Hall, at the Civic Centre. 

 

As we are still operating under existing Covid restrictions, capacity within the meeting venue has been strictly limited to ensure compliance with the necessary social distancing guidelines. 

 

We are therefore encouraging those who wish to observe proceedings to continue doing so via the live webstream which we will continue to make available on the Council’s website: 

 

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/democracy-in-brent/local-democracy/live-streaming/ 

 

It is possible to speak at the Committee Meeting, which (in advance of the current restrictions coming to an end) can continue to be undertaken online (including via the telephone) or now, as an alternative, in person at the meeting, subject to the restrictions set out in the Council's Standing Order. These provide for one objector and/or one supporter of the application to speak. The Chair has the discretion to increase this to two people from each side. In doing this, the Chair will give priority to occupiers nearest to the application site or representing a group of people. 

 

To address the committee you must notify Executive and Member Services by 5 pm on the working day before the committee meeting. Please email committee@brent.gov.uk or telephone the Executive and Member Services Officer, Mrs Dev Bhanji, on 07786 681276 during office hours. If you would prefer to attend the physical meeting to speak in person then please could you indicate this when notifying us of your request, as attendance will need to be strictly managed on the night. This may involve you having to wait in a separate area outside of the meeting room until you are called to speak.

 

The Chief Planner's recommendation for this application is to Grant Consent

 

 UPDATE:

 

Following expressions of concern from local residents about the restriction on attendance at the consideration of a very controversial planning application, Sudbury Lib Dem councillor Paul Lorber has written to Brent Council:

This is a very odd letter to be sent to Councillors and residents about a Planning Meeting.

There are no COVID restrictions in place and none were applied at the recent Council AGM.

This has confused resident concerned about this controversial Planning Application and given an impression that residents are being dissuaded from attending and show the strength of local opposition.

Can you please clarify the position and if the letter and references to COVID restrictions were sent in error a new notification sent out and if appropriate the item postponed to a later date.

Regards,

 

Paul Lorber

 

 

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt accused of having Scrutiny chairs 'in his pocket'

The Annual Meeting of Brent Council which had proceeded with its ceremonies as expected burst into life this week when it considered a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Council Constitution based on their interpretation of the 2017 recommendations of the  House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee on 'Effectiveness of local authority overview and scrutiny committees '(Extract above) Link to full report.

 

Cllr Georgiou moving the amendment said that that there needed be a real and visible indpendent role for scrutiny and proposed that Scrutiny Committe recommendations should be discussed at Full Council, rather just Cabinet. Further, the Liberal Democrats felt that just having two scrutiny committees, unlike some other councils, meant that their agenda were too packed for effective scrutiny. They proposed a further 3 scrutiny committes to spread the load and make scrutiny more effective. Given the political makeup of the council 3 should be chaired by Labour councillors and the other 2 by a Liberal Democrat and a Conservative  councillor. The leader of the Conservative group backed the call.

 

 

 

Responding, Brent Council leader Cllr Muhammed Butt said that this was a Labour Council chosen by the people of Brent. Gesturing to his Labour colleagues he said that on his side of the chamber 'we have the people's choice', and went on:

I have two great Scrutiny Chairs who are doing a superb job...we have no need to make any changes.

The Liberal Democrats had not taken account of the expense and officer time need for 3 more committees when there were financial constraints. The Labour Group would oppose the amendment.

 

 

 

Exercising the Lib Dem's right of reply Cllr Paul Lorber said:

Thank you for the advert for democracy in the borough.

He then jumped on the possessive ' I ' that Butt had used and asked, 'Are they [scrutiny chairs] excellent because they are independent or because they are in your pocket? Which is it Cllr Butt?'

Addressing all the councillors he said that non-executive councillors all had a responsibility to ensure there was effective scrutiny:

If the leader of this council has 'my' chairs of scrutiny in his pocket there can be no confidence that the scrutiny process is independent and fair because of the words he used. Because of the words of the leader we now know that scrutiny is a rubber stamping of everything, a 'yes' to everything and no effective scrutiny.

 

Cllr Miller raised a point of order asking that the Mayor (chairing her first council meeting)  should make Cllr Lorber apologise for his 'unparliamentary' language but this was ruled out on a technicality by the council's legal advisor.

 

Cllr Kelcher, chair of the planning committee, raising another point of order/information said that the chairs of scrutiny were elected  within the Labour Group on a vote that excluded members of the executive. Therefore a misleading picture had been painted about their independence.

 

The motion was put to the meeting and lost with as far as I could see only Lib Dem and Conservative councillors voting for it.

 

A  futher Lib Dem amendment on  the 6 Brent Connects area suggested that Wembley being much larger that the two others should be split into 2.  In addition, reflecting the  political representation in the areas that one of the Wembley areas should be chaired by a Lib Dem councillor and the kingsbury and Kenton by a Conservative councillor.

That amendment was also lost so the 5 Brent Connect areas remain chaired by Labour councillors.

 

 

 Extracts from the House of Commons Report (LINK)

We have found that the most significant factor in determining whether or not scrutiny committees are effective is the organisational culture of a particular council. Having a positive culture where it is universally recognised that scrutiny can play a productive part in the decision-making process is vital and such an approach is common in all of the examples of effective scrutiny that we identified. Senior councillors from both the administration and the opposition, and senior council officers, have a responsibility to set the tone and create an environment that welcomes constructive challenge and democratic accountability. When this does not happen and individuals seek to marginalise scrutiny, there is a risk of damaging the council’s reputation, and missing opportunities to use scrutiny to improve service outcomes. In extreme cases, ineffective scrutiny can contribute to severe service failures.

Our inquiry has identified a number of ways that establishing a positive culture can be made easier. For example, in many authorities, there is no parity of esteem between the executive and scrutiny functions, with a common perception among both members and officers being that the former is more important than the latter. We argue that this relationship should be more balanced and that in order to do so, scrutiny should have a greater independence from the executive. One way that this can be achieved is to change the lines of accountability, with scrutiny committees reporting to Full Council meetings, rather than the executive. We also consider how scrutiny committee chairs might have greater independence in order to dispel any suggestion that they are influenced by partisan motivations. Whilst we believe that there are many effective and impartial scrutiny chairs working across the country, we are concerned that how chairs are appointed can have the potential to contribute to lessening the independence and legitimacy of the scrutiny process.

 

The Centre for Public Scrutiny states that:

Legally, the Chairing and membership of overview and scrutiny committees is a matter for a council’s Annual General Meeting in May. Practically, Chairing in particular is entirely at the discretion of the majority party.

Majority parties can, if they wish, reserve all committee chairships (and vicechairships) to themselves ... the practice of reserving all positions of responsibility to the majority party is something which usually happens by default, and can harm perceptions of scrutiny’s credibility and impartiality.

 

Chairs from a majority party that are effectively appointed by their executive are just as capable at delivering impartial and effective scrutiny as an opposition councillor, but we have concerns that sometimes chairs can be chosen so as to cause as little disruption as possible for their Leaders. It is vital that the role of scrutiny chair is respected and viewed by all as being a key part of the decision-making process, rather than as a form of political patronage.

 

Newcastle City Council where all scrutiny chairs are opposition party members, states that:

This has taken place under administrations of different parties and we believe that it adds to the clout, effectiveness and independence of the scrutiny process; it gives opposition parties a formally-recognised role in the decision-making process of the authority as a whole, more effective access to officers, and arguably better uses their skills and expertise for the
benefit of the council.