Ealing Road blocks replacing bank and public house approved by Brent Planning Committee

 

Brent Planning Committee approved the plans for  245-249 and 253 Ealing Road at Wednesday's meeting. Two members voted against approval. There were representations  against the development from nearby residents and from ward councillor Anton Georgiou. The sound quality of the Coucil recording was very poor so Cllr Geogiou has let me have a copy of his representation:

I am here, once again, to be a voice for the residents in Alperton who are fed up with the intense development in this particular part of the ward. An area that has already had to endure years of construction works, that are still ongoing causing misery to the lives of local people. If any of you have visited recently – you will understand why.

 

As a ward Councillor, I often come to these meetings to voice opposition to the wrong type of development and am often attacked by the Chair and others for not understanding the pressures we face as a local authority with regards to our housing needs – these attacks are totally unwarranted.

 

It is important to recognise that the bulk of the development that has occurred to date has not and will not address the genuine and growing housing need in our community. It has though compounded existing issues in my ward whether that is a lack of infrastructure to deal with the increasing population, or the problems that present for existing residents and even our newer residents who are living in some of the new blocks that have been thrown up.

 

Firstly, I think that it is important to read the letter from my resident Alexandra, who is unable to be here today, which outlines her and her neighbours, objections to this development. The issues she highlights are all genuine planning considerations, loss of light, privacy and overlooking issues, the cumulative effect that ongoing development has had and will have on this area. I do believe that before you make a decision tonight you should read her letter and listen to the comments Mathew, another resident at 243 Ealing Road will make, who will also be speaking in opposition.

 

If I could get into the final details of this application, I think it’s important to recognise that whilst some affordable housing is provided, not all of it is the genuinely affordable provision we need. I continue to take issue with the Council’s view that shared ownership is an affordable housing tenure. It is not. 

 

Shared Ownership is a scam, and you only have to speak to the 1000’s of residents in Brent who have been trapped by the false pretence that Shared Ownership is affordable to see this. In the application it is proposed that there will be 10 Shared Ownership units. In my view that is enough of a reason to reject this version of the application entirely. 

 

Whilst I recognise the scheme proposes a 35% affordable housing offer, as an authority we should be pushing for much more from developers if we are serious about addressing our growing housing need. We do not need 56 more private units at market value, who are they for, who can afford them? It is time this Committee stopped saturating the local housing market with what we do not need.

 

Moving to existing issues in some of the new blocks in Alperton, I would like to ask this Committee if they follow up on the developments that have already been approved. If you had you would realise that most new residents are having to already contend with difficulties in new buildings, such as broken lifts, anti-social behaviour in communal spaces, lack of access to communal areas due to safety issues, significant construction issues, including with cladding, the list goes on.

 

My point is that this Committee is approving new developments without recognising that most of these developments from the offset have major, inherent issues with them. You are effectively allowing residents to move into the ward and into Brent who are then forced to cope with a myriad of problems in their new homes from day one. 

 

Is the Council holding the developers, housing associations and construction/ building companies to account – when they make commitments to us at this stage of the process? I am personally having to intervene when issues present in new blocks and it seems unbelievable, frankly a dereliction of the Council’s duty towards residents, that new developments keep being approved despite there being such flaws in new builds. Enough is enough.

 

I would finally like to turn to the financial contributions offered alongside this development.

 

The papers indicate a £45,00 towards a CPZ close to the site, I would like the Committee to tell me if they know where the existing CPZ is, and whether the mentioned extension will simply be imposed on residents. Before accepting more money for CPZ’s I would suggest the Council gets its act together in progressing schemes – they take too long to implement and in the meantime parking havoc ensues on local roads.

 

£7,000 for off street tree planting is welcome but are the Council committing maintenance and upkeep, rather than letting new trees die?

 

£10,000 for improvements to open spaces within the borough but not solely for the ward so again money generated in Alperton being spent elsewhere. This is not fair.

 

Another £150,000 for step free access at Alperton tube. Welcomed. But will it actually happen. TfL are good at sending out press releases on this, but how long will it take? Issues at the station are present now, local people cannot wait any longer.

 

CIL contribution again welcomed, but how much will actually be spent on infrastructure in my ward, to mitigate the impact of this development. Will the Council not be tempted, as it has been to date, to just grow the overall pot and resist spending it on immediate needs?

 

These financial sweeteners are simply not reason enough to justify even more development in Alperton.

 

I will close by saying, the proposed site used to house a public house and bank. Both great amenities, that local people want and need. The worrying trend of pubs closing down and being redeveloped into unaffordable housing will continue if you approve this application. I am sure many of you have fought to save such amenities in your wards. Why doesn’t Alperton deserve the same fight?

 

This Committee is making my ward a place for people to sleep in but not live. It is a concrete jungle, with little to no community vibe. Please pause and think again before agreeing to two more tower blocks here.

Colin Road/Dudden Hill/High Road development at Planning Committee Wednesday evening

The first of the major Church End/Neasden Stations Growth Areas applikcations comes to Planning Committee on Wednesday evening:

The Proposal

The proposal is for six new blocks varying in height and mass set within a significant amount of new public realm comprising hard and soft landscaping, play equipment and new walking routes. The scheme would deliver a total of 301 residential homes, replacement light industrial floorspace and retail/ commercial floorspace within each of the blocks as summarised below:

 

Buildings A and B: Two 6-storey (plus mezzanine level) primarily residential buildings towards the northern end of the site, closest to Dudden Hill Lane. The buildings would contain a total of 58 homes comprising 14 no. one bedroom homes, 19 no. two bedroom homes and 25 no three bedroom homes, with 48 of these being affordable (all at a London Affordable Rent) and the remainder (in Block B) being private. A supermarket would be provided at ground floor level, with a GIA of approximately 1,639 sqm, and cycle/ refuse storage and lobby entrances to the residential blocks. A communal podium would be provided between the blocks to provide external amenity space.

 

Building C: This would be a part 9, part 13- storey rectilinear building (with lower shoulder and podium) situated along the same northern edge as Blocks A and B, which has a podium garden situated on top of the shoulder building. The block would contain a total of 92 homes comprising 44 no. one bedroom homes, 44 no. two bedroom homes, and 4 no. three bedroom homes, with all of these being private. The main residential lobby to the block and bin/cycle storage would be contained at ground floor, as well as the blue badge car parking serving the residential homes. A communal podium would be provided between Blocks B and C to provide external amenity space.

 

Buildings D and E: These blocks would again have a primarily residential use, with Building D having a maximum height of 19 storeys, stepping down to a shoulder height of 13 storeys, while Block E would abut this block to the immediate south-west and would be five storeys, stepping down to two storeys on the High Road frontage. The buildings would contain a total of 133 homes, comprising 46 no. one bedroom homes, 74 no. two bedroom homes and 13 no. three bedroom homes, with all of these being private.

 

The majority of the light industrial floorspace (approximately 1,931 sqm in total) would be contained within the ground floor of Building E and the rear of Building D, looking onto an industrial yard accessed from High Road. The ground floor of Building D fronting the main parade would contain a cafe (Use Class E(b)) of 66.3 sqm GIA and the residential entrances, as well as bin and cycle storage. Finally, a gym (Use Class E(d)) would be provided over ground and mezzanine levels, which has a proposed GIA of approximately 971 sqm.

 

Building F: This would be a part-3, part-5 storey building on the southern and western edges of the site, with a light industrial unit at ground floor level nearest to the High Road/ public courtyard access, and flexible Class E use (approximately 106 sqm) fronting Colin Road. The upper floors would be in residential use, containing 18 homes in total. These would comprise four no. one bedroom homes, 12 no. two bedroom homes, and two no. three bedroom homes. All these units would be private.

 

Significant landscaping is proposed throughout the site which is publicly accessible and would also contain areas for play. The landscaped areas have also been designed to form a part of the surface water strategy given that the site is in a flood risk area. The proposal would include 24 parking spaces associated with the supermarket use, accessed from Dudden Hill Lane, with a further space linked to the light industrial yard, and 9 spaces for Blue Badge parking associated with the residential homes. Cycle parking has been proposed to meet London Plan standards.

 It offers only 15.9% (per unit) affordable housing based on London Affordable Rent (LAR). 25 of the 48 LAR units will be 5 person 3 bedroom units.

 

 

The officers' report elaborates:

 

As discussed above, there have been specific constraints on the scheme which officers accept have had an impact on viability, and therefore the overall level of Affordable Housing proposed. In order to maximise the number of low-cost homes on the site, the proposal does not include any intermediate homes, and therefore the proposed Affordable tenure split (i.e. 100% London Affordable Rent) does not strictly meet London Plan policy requirements in terms of providing a 70:30 LAR: intermediate ratio. However, officers support the 100% weighting towards affordable rented homes given the significant need for lower-cost housing within Brent, and particularly with this being skewed towards family sized units. The GLA has also confirmed they are happy with this approach, despite the policy conflict.

 

Current

With development

Current

With development

 

The development does not meet amenity guidelines and there are loss of light issues on neighbouring properties on Colin Road, Dudden Hill and the High Road.

 

The site is not within a designated Tall Building Zone but the officers' report says:

The Local Plan does not identify the site within a Tall Building Zone, although it is located within the Church End Growth Area (CEGA) which accepts development will be taller than the surrounding context. The CEGA Masterplan SPD outlines an indicative maximum height of 10 storeys on the site, although this is largely based on the layout and massing of the blocks which were proposed under the now withdrawn 2018 scheme. Policy BD2 highlights that in all cases a tall building (one that is more than 30m in height above ground level) s must be shown to be positive additions to the skyline that would enhance the overall character of the area. They should be of exceptional design quality, consistent with London Plan Policy requirements in showing how they positively address their visual, functional, environmental and cumulative impacts. With regards to intensification corridors, policy BD2 notes that developments of a general height of 15m above ground level could be acceptable.

... Overall, the environmental impacts of the proposed tall buildings are considered acceptable.

 

Officer's Report Conclusion:

346. The proposals would result in a mixed-use re-development of an existing industrial site which is allocated within the Local Plan, and would accord with the key policy objectives of the site allocation including replacement industrial floorspace provision (including affordable workspace), new commercial uses and the provision of 301 new homes. The scheme has successfully demonstrated that it would not compromise the re-development of the other parts of the Masterplan site.

347. The new homes would include 48 affordable homes, all provided at a London Affordable Rent, with approximately 45% of these being 3-bed units. A financial viability assessment has been submitted to support the application which found that the scheme is deficit. This was evaluated by consultants commissioned by the Council who concluded that the level of deficit is lower than that set out by the applicant, but nevertheless, it is significantly in deficit. Officers consider that the amount of Affordable Housing proposed is the maximum amount that the scheme could viably deliver. Early and late stage review mechanisms are recommended to ensure that any uplift in viability is captured.

348. In terms of housing size mix, the overall proportion of family sized homes is below council policy targets, with the applicant citing the impact of the delivery of more family sized private homes on development viability and therefore Affordable Housing. The proportion of family sized affordable homes is above targets. In this instance, officers weigh the benefits of providing more Affordable homes above the deficit of private family sized homes in the scheme.

349. The proposal will result in the provision of a high quality public realm, with routes and spaces proposed at ground level which are publicly accessible. These include routes through the site together with a "square" and play spaces, and are considered to represent a significant benefit of the scheme. The architectural quality of the buildings is considered to be high, and the approach to building height, massing and composition is well considered. Although heights and massing are in conflict with the Church End Growth Area Masterplan and outside the tall building zone, it has been successfully demonstrated that the design approach is suitable and meets the key criteria of London Plan policy D9.
 

350. The quality of the homes is considered to be good, with homes meeting internal space standards and other quality factors considered and discussed in this report. Officers acknowledge that the proposal will result in some daylight and sunlight impacts, some of which will go beyond targets within BRE guidance. However, the level of impact is not considered to be excessive given the policy allocations and designations, and the benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the harm.

351. Following the above discussion, officers consider that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

Note that further up Dudden Hill the College of North West London site is due to be redeveloped with blocks of flats when the College moves to Wembley Park.

CONSULTATION LUNCHTIME TODAY ONLINE: Plans for a 4 storey block of 13 flats on the corner of Queens Walk and Salmon Street - consultation this evening and tomorrow lunchtime

 A large house at 26 Salmon Street, Kingsbury NW9, built within the last 10 years, is set to be replaced by a four storey block of  13 flats.

Wembley Matters warned that the approval of Krishna Court, a block of flats that replaced a family  house on the opposite corner of Queens Walk, could lead to similar applications. Krishna Court, claimed to have been an addition to Brent housing stock, is in fact an AirB&B and despite being notificed as far as I know Brent Council has taken no enforcement action on it. Krishna Court is 8 flats. The application for 26 Salmon Street (image below) is for 13 flats.

 

 

Developers are consulting with the public this evening and tomorrow about their plans. See LINK

Monday October 2nd 7pm BOOK A PLACE

Tuesday October 3rd 1pm BOOK A PLACE

 From the website: 

We are proud to bring forward this development of much need high quality homes, having undertaken a significant design process for this new building.  We are looking forward to meeting our neighbours, hearing your comments, and considering them before submitting an application in the autumn.

This proposal, for much-needed homes, is for a four-storey building with 13 new homes including:

Two studio flats

Three 1-bed flats

Four 2-bedroom flats

Four 3-bedroom flats

Community Amenity Area and Play Space

We are including a secluded courtyard and community amenity area and play space at the rear of the site.

At the ground floor, large amenity areas for all residents are provided fronting onto Salmon Street and adjacent to 43 Queens Walk.

Parking

Parking will be provided at the side of the property on the Queens Walk elevation. We are including 7 car parking spaces and 23 cycle spaces.

When residents commented that this post was the first they had heard of the proposal I rang the PR company and they say they wrote to neighbours on Salmon Street, Queens Walk, Deanscroft Avenue, Tudor Close, Bruno Place and part of Kingsmere Park.

On the other side of Salmon Street at Number 39. It says it is a family home...

 

 

Muhammed Butt: You are not allowed to mention our plans to sell out the Barham Park covenant or proposals to destroy community facilities

 

Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt made an unconvincing effort not to notice the large attendance at the Barham Park Trustees Meeeting this morning - there were more present than shown in this photograph and extra chairs had to be wheeled into the room.

Residents were there to protect their park and said afterwards they had not been impressed by the proceedings.

The meeting began with an announcement that the agenda item on the accounts was to be deferred to the next meeting. The whole meeting should have been deferred as Trustee activities and their plans hang on the financial viability of the Trust. That proposition was rejected and the meeting continued.

Users of the community facilities were only allowed to report on their activities and forbidden by Cllr Butt  (Chair of the Trustees)  to comment on the proposals that were on the Agenda.  Cllr Lorber appealed to legal officers to comment on this ruling as no such restriction had been communicated but no response was forthcoming. An ill-tempered Butt interrupted Francis Henry when he quietly and politely tried to raise concerns.

 

 Butt interrupted several times when Francis Henry wanted to talk about the items on the agenda that would impact on tenants and threaten the future of the Barham Library and its community activites:

 

Butt: I am going to stop you again. You are here, right, as I said the offer was made to the people within that building to come here and talk about the  work that they have done in the previous year leading up to today.

I am not talking about the meeting. I am not talking about the agenda. I am not talking about the report.  I am talking about the work you have done in the building as part of your trustee role.

This is what Francis would have said if he was not interrupted. They are questions he and other tenants of the community buildings would like answered:

Barham Park Trust Meeting, 5^th September 2023

Presentation by Friends of Barham Library

 

My name is Francis Henry, a resident of Wembley with a business in the area for over 30 years. I was the Chair of the Brent Sustainability Forum; I am currently the Chair of the Wembley Traders Association.

 

Today I am speaking as a Trustee of Friends of Barham Library who have been running a popular Community Library and Activity Centre in Barham Park since 2016 where hundreds of local people take part in a wide range of recreational activities.

 

In relation to Item 7, I wish to make the following points and raise some questions.

 

In my professional view as an local estate agent, no business person would contemplate making a decision involving around £4 million of public money on the inadequate information before Trustees today.

 

Can you please answer questions that any responsible Trustee would ask:

 

1. What alternative premises are being offered to all existing tenants?

 

2. Why were the tenants not consulted or involved?

 

3. Will the existing tenants be guaranteed same size space on affordable rents once completed?

 

4. Why do the officer recommended plans in the Silver Option not show a Community Library when the Library is shown in the Gold Option?

 

5. What is the earliest possible date you can obtain vacant possession of all the Units?

 

6. Is the £3.2 million cost estimate based on current year prices and what is the cost estimate in the earliest year the work can start.

 

7. Why has the bronze option not been presented to the Trustees?

 

8. The Report claims gross income of £300,000 to £400,000 from the completed development. What is the net income after interest and costs of managing the new facility.

 

9. Have the Brent Planners confirmed that shops, restaurants, hotels and offices comply with Planning Policies for green spaces and the Sudbury Neighbourhood Plan?

 

10. What sources of funding have been identified or been pursued to meet the expected costs?

 

11. You have spent £25,000 on Architects fees, unspecified costs on the windows survey. How much more in consultancy fees will be incurred before you know if this project is financially viable?

 

In my opinion no responsible Trustee would consider committing any more Charity or Public money to this idea before these questions are answered or recommendation 2.5 on the covenant is pursued.

 

Thank you for your time.

The Trustees decided to go ahead with further work on the development proposals that officers described as 'hypothetical' - having spent £25K on a hypothetical report they now committed to spending  more with an initial investigation into funding streams that would enable developments to take place. Only after that will tenants of the community buildings be consulted on proposals which does suggest they will be involved in shaping the proposals.

The plans to remove the covenant restricting development of the plot containg two small houses will also go ahead enabling fun fair owner George Irvin to build four 3 storey houses on the site are going ahead.

On Governance the Committee opted to continue the status quo, giving the Brent Cabinet sole control of the Trustees. Cllr Butt nodded along as an officer inaudibly went through the reasons why the alternatives would not be effective or efficient. A suggestion that a Friends of Barham Park should be set up was the only sop to local people and no actual representation (apart from the Buttocracy) on the Trustees was rejected.

There was a rare moment when Cllr Krupesh Sheth, who is lead members for the environment and thus of parks, actually spoke - but only to correct the title of one of the officers.

There was no mention of any submission by Barry Gardiner MP who had previously strongly opposed the removal of the covenant and Wembley Central ward councillors, the ward now includes Barham Park,  did not make any representations.

 

 

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