Parents win stay of execution for Swaminarayan School

The Kilburn Times LINK is reporting that following a 3,000 signature petition  organised by parents asking Trustees and Governors to keep theSwaminarayan schools open it has been decided to keep both the primary and secondary schools open until at least 2020.

The signatures were achieved despite a text message circulated around Swaminarayan Temple volunteers asking people not to sign the petition or pass it on to other groups because it would affect the reputation of the Swaminarayan organisation.

A governor, Tarun Patel, told the Kilburn Times:

We had a review after meeting the parents and came to the conclusion that we will keep both schools open until July 2020.

This will be welcome news for parents in years 4, 5 and 6 as it will allow students to complete their prep-school education.

If it’s feasible and circumstances allow, we will look to keep the prep school open for a further year until 2021.

Parents have put together a business plan that they claim would keep the school open for  another 7 years and are due to discuss their proposals with Trustees and Governors tomorrow.

Now Barham Community Library faces difficulties

We have already covered the threat to Preston Community Library and allegations from the volunteers that Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has broken an election promise, now the Council is in conflict with Friends of Barham Library (FoBL).

Tomorrow the  Barham Trust will consider a report (extract below) which gives details of a dispute over a rent free period and the fitting out costs for a community library:

The Trust Committee decided to grant the lease in respect of Unit 4, The Lounge, to The Friends of Barham Library (FoBL) at its meeting on 8 October 2015 on the general terms set out in the marketing particulars and the specific terms offered in the bid submitted by FoBL. The marketing particulars did not offer a rent free period. Nor did the bid submitted by FoBL propose a rent free period for the first year of the term of the lease. 


Subsequently, during the lease document preparation process, the FoBL requested a rent free period. The FoBL argued that the Vets had been offered a 12 month rent free period and therefore in the interests of fairness they should be offered the same terms. The FoBL also relied upon the fact that in order for them to operate their library services they would need to incur substantial fitting out costs. 


Consistent with the Trust Committee’s decision, the Heads of Terms prepared by the Council and dated 19 January 2016, and which the FoBL agreed, did not include a rent free period. However, a draft lease prepared by the Council in March of this year inadvertently included a 12 month rent free period. According to the FoBL the inclusion of a rent free period was not a mistake. They argue that they asked for it and it appeared in the lease and therefore it has been agreed and they have relied upon it in good faith and to their detriment ever since. 


The Council would maintain, however, that a rent free period has not been agreed. It was obvious to officers that the basis upon which the Trust Committee decided to grant a lease to the FoBL did not permit officers to forfeit rental income totalling £7,000. In the circumstances, there can be little doubt that officers had neither the actual or ostensible authority to do so. 


The officers concerned have confirmed that a rent free period had not been agreed and the extensive correspondence between the Council and the FoBL bears that out. The inclusion of the rent free clause in the lease was a mistake and when it came to light, albeit some months later, the FoBL were informed. 


The Council’s Heads of Terms were expressly marked ‘without prejudice’ and ‘subject to contract’. Although the draft copies of the lease were not, in accordance with legal convention and general legal principles, they did not need to be. A draft lease, contract etc. has no legal force and is not legally binding during the drafting process. It becomes legally binding upon its completion. If a prospective tenant chooses to incur expenses and changes their position on reliance of a draft lease, they do so at their own risk. 


The various Units at Barham Park have been let individually and subject to different letting processes and terms depending on the different commercial and other considerations unique to that Unit. The contention that FoBL should have a rent free period just because it has been approved in respect of a different Unit is not sustainable. Different terms for different Units do not amount to unfairness. 


FoBL competed in an open competition in order to realise their ambition to take up occupation of the Lounge. A rent free period was not on offer and no such concession was requested prior to the acceptance of the successful bid submitted by FoBL. In these circumstances, it is incumbent on all bidders to anticipate start-up and running costs in any bid submitted to ensure that bids can be assessed on an equal footing. 


In the circumstances, the Trust Committee need to consider whether to grant a rent free period to FoBL and, if so, for how long. This is a matter for the Trust Committee to decide consistent with the Council’s obligations as trustee which include acting in the best interests of the Trust and in accordance with its fiduciary duties. The Council also has to act in accordance with public law principles. 


Whatever the technical legal arguments, as the Trust Committee will appreciate, there is considerably more at stake. The letting of the Lounge has already been a protracted process demanding a disproportionate amount of resources both at Trust Committee and officer level. Any further delay will only add to the costs incurred by both the Council and the FoBL. 


If the Trust Committee were to agree to the request for a rent free period, the Trust would suffer a loss in rental income. The amount would of course depend on the period. A 12 month rent free period would cost the Trust £7,000. 


In addition, the Trust Committee should note that during the lease negotiation period, the FoBL sought permission “to move items in for storage” because they had to vacate their former premises. This was allowed and since then, in preparation of their occupation, FoBL have already incurred fitting out costs. This, they would argue clearly evidences their commitment to complete the lease and ensure they can be up and running without any further delay. 


That being the case, it is equally important from the point of view of the Trust that the impasse between the Council and the FoBL is resolved once and for all. It is suggested that the FoBL be given the opportunity to complete a lease of the Lounge on the terms set by the Trust Committee by no later than 16 September 2016. If the lease is not completed, it is suggested that the offer of a lease to the FoBL be withdrawn and that the Trust’s Property Adviser be authorised to review the other bids received in 2015 and return to the Trust Committee with recommendations 


You may think fair enough, independent Trustees will be able to adjudicate but all the Trustees are members of the Brent Labour Cabinet and the chair is Margaret McLennan, deputy leader of the Council.

Marian Centre: What's the story behind this restricted item?

My curiosity has been aroused by this item from the Cabinet Agenda for March 14th. The item is 'restricted' which means we, the public, are not allowed to know about something that seems to be costing us money.

Anyone know?

From Cabinet Agenda:

To consider proposals for the settlement of an adverse possession submitted by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate Trustees Limited (The Oblates) in respect of the Marian Centre, Stafford Road, South Kilburn, NW6 5RS

Decision type: Key
Reason Key: Signficant expenditure/savings > 30% of budget for the function in question;
Decision status: For Determination
Wards affected: Kilburn;
Notice of proposed decision first published: 09/02/2016
Anticipated restriction: Fully exempt  - View reasons
Decision due: 14 Mar 2016 by Cabinet
Lead member: Lead Member for Regeneration and Housing
Lead director: Strategic Director, Resources

Brent Advocacy Concerns is looking for new trustees

                                    

Are looking for New Trustees

   BAC has been supporting Disabled People in Brent since 1988 and are looking for trustees who can help take us forward in these challenging times.

  We are seeking people who:

·      Feel they can support the aims and objectives of the organisation and the social model of disability.

·      Have a knowledge of disability issues either by personal experience or by close association with disabled people (75% of our trustees should define as disabled)

·      Are able to commit to 6 meetings a year at a mutually agreed time.

·      Feel a connection to our work and will spread the word

·      Would like to help to develop the organisation

·      Could be pro-active in helping to raise funding, sponsorship etc.

·      Could support the organisation with any skills they may have e.g. experience of disability, organising, IT, website design, management or business skills, legal knowledge, accounting, social media etc.

·      Live in the GLA area

We can offer:

·      Disability, equality awareness training

·      Management Committee training and out of pocket expenses

·      The chance to make a difference for disabled people in Brent and surrounding areas.

·      An opportunity to improve skills.

If you, or anyone you know, is interested in joining us please contact John Healy by 3^rd April 2015.

020 8459 1493

bacadvocacy@outlook.com     or       innit67@icloud.co

Brent Advocacy Concerns, Willesden Centre for Health and Care, Robson Avenue, London NW10 3RY. Registered Charity Number 1001369

Questions of accountability for Barham Park Trust meeting tomorrow

The Barham Park Trust will be meeting tomorrow to consider its future governance arrangements and recommendation on the future of the buildings in the park.

Having spent possibly thousands of pounds on advice from Bircham Dyson Bell, specialists in the law of trusts and charities, five options are discussed, and maintenance of the status quo recommended by officers.

This maintains a structure which gives control of the Trust to Labour Cabinet members with no alternative councillor or community trustee voices.

Titus Barham of course gave his home for the benefit of residents of Wembley and future use of the buildings is passionately disputed.

The Trustees will be considering a number of recommendations to market the buildings. 

Recommendations
2.1       That the Trust approve the marketing of the Card Room (Unit 1) for a possible Café A3 and/or D1 use and to authorise the Property Adviser to the Trust in conjunction with the Trust Chair to select and let the unit to a suitable tenant on terms to be agreed.
2.2       That the Lounge (Unit 4) be marketed for a D1 and/or an A3 Use depending on the outcome of the marketing of the Card Room, or marketed in conjunction with the Card Room as a D1 use and to authorise the Property Adviser to the Trust in conjunction with the Trust Chair to select and let the unit to a suitable tenant on terms to be agreed.
2.3       That the Trust directly lease the Snooker and Billiard Rooms, (Unit 2), to the current occupiers, The Barham Park Veterans’ Club (Wembley), under appropriate leasing arrangements to ensure compliance with the aims of the Charitable Trust. The terms of the lease to be as set out below in Para 3.6 or as amended by the Property Adviser to the Trust in conjunction with the Trust Chair/
2.4       To obtain an independent valuation of the terms proposed between the Council and the Trust so that another application can be made to the Charity Commission for consent to lease the Children’s Centre (Unit 8) to the Council as Nursery Education Grant funded childcare open 5 days per week with children centre sessions being delivered in evenings and at weekends and to agree the Council can sub-let the space to a third party for similar use only. 

The 15 year lease granted to ACAVA (Association for Cultural Advancement through Visual Art) for a number of units on the site has been opposed by many local people as not benefiting local people in the spirit of Barham's legacy. This followed a Planning Appeal that cost £9,000 which I understand the Trust (and it is claimed therefore Brent Council) will pay, rather than ACAVA. The rental income (before service charges) is below that officers first projected.

In the light of the controversy over the Welsh School's bid to set up their school on the Bowling Green Pavilion site at King Edward VII these proposals are clearly important in terms of setting a precedent for other parks.

The Friends of Barham Library have been campaigning for the use of one of the Barham buildings as a community library having successfully run libraries at Sudbury Town station and a shop in Wembley High Road.

The report states:

The Trust has already received an offer from the Friends of Barham Library, (FOBL), for the Card Room and the Trust maybe minded to pursue this offer as the FOBL has charitable status with similar aims, in certain respects, to the Trust’s.

Alternatively the Trust could suggest to the FOBL that they may wish to consider participating in the tender process, should the Trust decide to approve the recommendation to instruct officers to conduct another marketing campaign for this Unit.
As mentioned above the Vets currently make occasional informal use of this space and they will be similarly advised of the intention to market the space should the Trust so approve.

(iii) It should be noted that The Card Room, is of a simple timber frame construction.  It is in poor condition and will require considerable expenditure to secure any long term use. Any ingoing tenant will need to not only install catering facilities, but will also need to expend a comparatively large sum of money on the Unit to carry out basic and essential improvements. Thus if a suitable tenant is not procured through this marketing process, it may then be necessary to consider demolition of the building as the cost of repair would not be economic for the Trust to undertake as a speculative project.

Local people have argued for some time that the Trust had been neglecting the buildings and letting them fall into disrepair as they prevaricated over their  future.  There are claims that after spending £220,000 on repairs and refurbishment that water has damaged newly refurbished floors and ceilings.

Barham Park Library Planning Appeal – Brent Council v. Our Community.

Guest blog by Philip Grant

It is nearly six months since I wrote a blog for this site: “Planning Committee upholds community use of Barham Park Library”. http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/planning-committee-upholds-community.html)  Brent’s Chief Planner had recommended at the meeting on 13 November 2013 that they should agree a change to business use, based on a Community Facilities Assessment. This document (which I called ‘dishonest’ in an objection comment at the time) had been produced for the Barham Park Trust by anonymous Council Officers, but as I reported:

It was plainly obvious to committee members from evidence given to them by objectors ... that there was a need and demand for community facilities in the area which required full-time use (not a couple of hours a week) of at least parts of the building. To give all of the space to the arts charity ACAVA to let out as artists studios would deprive local people of those existing community facilities.

That should have been the end of the planning process, with the Trust and the Council (effectively one and the same, as Brent is the ‘corporate sole Trustee’ of the Barham Park Trust) working with their preferred tenant, ACAVA, and the local community groups who also wanted to rent space at the Barham Park buildings to find a compromise solution. Instead, on 3 December, the Barham Park Trust Committee (five members of Brent’s Executive) accepted a report from Richard Barrett (Brent’s Operational Director, Property and Projects, and a member of the Barham Park Management Group, a group of Senior Council Officers), and resolved: 

To pursue an appeal against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the change of use of the premises.

Although Mr Barrett said in his report to the Trustees that ‘... there does remain a significant risk that the appeal will be refused’, when questioned about the risk at the meeting he said that, having taken informal advice, ‘... the risks were perceived as being lower than indicated in the report.’ The reason he believed the risks were less was because the Planning Committee had not followed the Planning Officer’s recommendation.

Five months later, there is some bad news for Mr Barrett, and for the Barham Park Trust, and some very good news for the objectors, including the Friends of Barham Library. Last Sunday was the final day of the four week period during which people interested in the planning appeal could submit comments on it to the Planning Inspector. Someone at Brent’s Planning Department must have been working overtime, because that was the day when the Council’s Appeal Statement (as Local Planning Authority) was submitted, and posted on the full details webpage for the Barham Park application 13/2179: https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=101150&reference=112613&st=PL .

Brent’s Planning Officer, who originally accepted the Community Facilities Assessment at face value, has now considered the evidence put forward by objectors, and agrees that the Planning Committee decision was the correct one! This is one of many similar extracts from the Statement to the Planning Inspector:

'...  the Local Planning Authority consider that the Community Facilities Assessment does not demonstrate that the existing community floorspace is not required to meet the needs of the local community and as such, it is considered that this proposal is contrary to Policy CP23 of the Brent LDF Core Strategy 2010.'

The planning appeal by the Barham Park Trust raises some important questions:

Why would Brent Council want to appeal against its own Planning Committee’s decision, especially when that decision was based on upholding one of Brent’s core planning policies (CP23 – Protecting Existing Community and Cultural Facilities)?

 Why would the Trustees of a Council-run charity, that claims to want to put the Barham Park buildings back into productive use, delay resolving the issue for months, losing rental income that would help to maintain the property and incurring an estimated £10,000 in fees (out of “charity funds”) to a planning consultant to present the appeal for them? 

and (does this make me a three “whys” man?):

Why did it take so long for the Barham Park Trust’s appeal to be lodged with the Planning Inspectorate?

Here are what I believe to be the answers to these questions. There is a chance that I am wrong on some of the points, and if so, I would invite anyone who feels aggrieved by what I have written to add a comment, or to ask Martin for a “right of reply”.

The Barham Park Management Group is chaired by Jenny Isaac (Operational Director, Neighbourhoods), who as well as being “in charge” of Brent’s parks has overall responsibility for Brent’s library service. She may have wished to prevent any undermining of the Council’s Libraries Transformation Project. Richard Barrett is “in charge” of Brent’s properties, and probably considered that letting the Barham Park buildings to a single tenant, with no local community involvement, was in Brent’s best business interests. They would also have realised that such a proposal would be an attractive proposition for the Labour Executive members on the Barham Park Trust Committee, as any letting to the Friends of Barham Library would suggest that the Executive’s decision to close six libraries in 2011 had been wrong, and might be seen as a “victory” for Cllr. Lorber, the leader of the main opposition party on the Brent Council.

It was the Senior Officers, not the “Trustees”, who put in the planning application in order to make their plans for a single letting to ACAVA possible. They have no interest in Brent’s planning policies, if those policies get in the way of what they want, and did not like being “shown up” by having the planning application rejected. The Officers therefore gave the “Trustees” only two options for how the Barham Park Trust should respond to the Planning Committee decision, but made these more attractive to the Executive members by saying that either would take six months. Even though the Trust Committee members knew that there were other options which should also have been considered, they went along with their Officer’s advice, accepting the delay, loss of rental income and extra costs of a planning appeal because this would put off a resolution of this embarrassing problem until after the local elections in May 2014.

The appeal appears to have been Mr Barrett’s “preferred option”. I was puzzled as to why it should take six months, as it was a relatively straightforward matter and I thought that the appeal could probably have been lodged by the end of January. However, if the Barham Park Trust did not actually appeal until after mid-March, there would not be time for it to be decided until after 22 May. As it was, the appeal was lodged at the end of March 2014, giving a four week period from 7 April to 4 May for objectors and others to submit their comments on the appeal. Was it a coincidence that this might be a period when Cllr. Lorber and his supporters would perhaps be too busy preparing for the local elections to be able to respond effectively with their written representations?

If I am only half right in the “answers” I have given to the questions I raised, I think that this calls into doubt the actions of both the Council Officers and the Brent Executive members who between them run the Barham Park Trust. The Trust is meant to be a charity whose object is ‘the provision of Barham Park and its buildings for recreational purposes’. Titus Barham, who left the property to Wembley on his death in 1937, clearly saw this as being for the benefit of the people of the district in which he had made his home. The way in which the letting of the buildings, the planning application and the planning appeal have been handled by the Trust could be seen as an abuse of power, putting the interests of Brent Council and of its current ruling politicians ahead of the interests of the local community.

The appeal has still to be decided by the Planning Inspector, but there is now a very strong case for it to be rejected, and for Brent Planning Committee’s original decision to stand. This will ensure that the former Barham Park library must be used as “community facilities”, but it does not guarantee that all, or part, of it will be made available for the Friends of Barham Library and their volunteer-run library service. That will depend on who is elected in the Brent Council poll on 22 May, and whether whoever controls the Council after those elections is willing to stand up to Senior Council Officers who have become used to getting their own way. 

I hope that thought will motivate you to use your vote for candidates who are committed in practice to local councillors, Council Officers and local people working together for the benefit of our community, rather than to a situation that we have seen too often in recent years of Brent Council v. Our Community

Barham Library campaign to oppose Trustees' Appeal

Statement from Friends of Barham Library

The attempt to change the planning designation from 'community use'  for the Barham Library building  failed when the Planning Committee voted by 6 votes to 1 to REFUSE the planning application on the grounds that there would then be far too little genuine 'community space' in the remaining parts of the building.

Sadly the Labour Councillors who sit as Trustees of the Barham Park Charity (the Charity and not the Council own the building) have now decided to spend around £10,000 on an Appeal against the decision of the Planning Committee. The Appeal will now be heard by an independent Planning Inspector from Bristol but not for another 6 months.

The Barham Library building has now been empty for over 26 months and will now remain empty for another 6 while we await the Appeal Hearing. This is just an appalling waste of time and money.

We will of course oppose the Appeal and keep up the fight to get Barham Library reopened.

Join the Trust and help enhance Chalkhill's future

A notification from the Chalklhill Community Trust:

During the regeneration of Chalkhill Estate  over £1.4 Million was raised through land sales intended to ensure the continued development of Chalkhill. This fund has since been managed by a board of trustees, including community representatives. We are now seeking to bring 3 new trustees on board, 2 representing the local community and 1 representing local business. In this role you will be able to influence where and how this money is being invested, as well as steer the Trust’s policy on the management of the fund.

The successful applicants will receive formal trustee training, but will need some of the following attributes:

- Be committed to the Chalkhill Community Trust Fund and its objectives.
- Have the ability to remain impartial when making decisions, not allowing your personal views or prejudice to affect your conduct as a trustee.
- Have an open mind when seeking solutions.
- Be able to attend at least 4 meetings per year during office hours, as well as any additional meetings as required by the Trust.
- Either live within, or run a business local to, the area of benefit of the Chalkhill Community Trust Fund.
- Be committed and dedicated to further the aims of the charity.
- Have a strategic vision and be able to contribute to the continuance of the Chalkhill Community Trust Fund and its future success.
- Have good, independent judgement so as not to compromise the proper management of the organisation and/or adversely affect the reputation of the Chalkhill Community Trust Fund.
- Have an understanding and acceptance of the legal duties, responsibilities and liabilities of a trustee.
- Be able to demonstrate an ability to act with integrity, objectivity, openness and honesty.
- Have the ability to keep certain matters confidential.

Closing date November 20th. Application pack HERE