Save Our Ticket Offices - March to Downing Street Thursday - Assemble 5pm

 

From Private Eye

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"Appendix 3 is not for publication as it contains the following category of exempt information as specified in Paragraph 3, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, namely: “Information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

 

 

BREAKING: St Mungo's workers win 10.74% pay increase

 

Unite the Union in a press release today hailed a victory in the long running St Mungo's strike. The strikers won support locally for the workers at their Willesden facility, close to the bus station. LINK

 

Unite secures inflation beating pay deal to end long running strike at St Mungo’s 

 

Hundreds of workers employed by homelessness charity St Mungo’s have ended their long running strike victorious after accepting an inflation beating pay increase.

 

After three months of strike action and tireless campaigning the workers have agreed to a pay increase which works out at 10.74 per cent based on a median wage or £3,125 in cash terms. Plus, the total financial gain includes a one-off payment of £700 for most workers.

 

The cash-based deal also means the lower paid workers will get a bigger share of the pot and Unite’s campaign of industrial action has made certain that executive directors at the Charity agree to a pay freeze for 2023/24.

 

Unite general secretary, Sharon Graham said:  

 

This was a hard-fought battle resulting in victory for St. Mungo’s workers who are dedicated to helping the homeless.

 

The workers took action because they were under huge financial and mental pressure and they weren’t being listened to by management.

 

Unite will continue to defend workers when employers refuse to do so, in the fight for better jobs, pay and conditions for our members.

 

St Mungo’s workers’ pay is normally pegged to local authority pay rates under the NJC agreement but the strike action has, for the first time, delivered a pay increase above the NJC rate.

 

Unite national lead officer, Onay Kasab said: 

 

The reps and activists have delivered a fantastic result plus hundreds of new Unite members. The pay deal isn’t just inflation beating it goes above and beyond previous pay deals at St Mungo’s which always matched local authority agreements.

 

The workers are to be congratulated for their resilience and determination.

In search of grass and green space in Wembley Park

Descending from Barn Hill to Wembley Park

There was a tweet from Brent Council recently boasting of their new green planning guidance - unfortunately it showed what was clearly plastic grass.

Today's sunshine was a good opportunity to have a walk around Quintainland to see how things are going. The trees along Olympic Way are thriving and there are lots of container shrubs. Children were enjoying themselves splashing in the fountains outside the Wembley Arena but still a lot of hot concrete.

Children and families were clearly out and about enjoying the sunshine so I was interested in how they were enjoying the green 'amenity spaces' provided by the developers. I could not find one child playing on the plastic grass - the spaces were deserted.

The spaces are private - for people in the blocks only. Perhaps there are no children because the blocks do not contain families?

 

It resembles all those bicycle parking places provided in new developments that never have a single bicycle in them.

I thought it would be worth checking out Union Park on Engineers Way (Buses 92, 206, and  440 stop next to the park). I started from the stadium and walked down towards Engineer's Way and at first saw  - a deserted  tennis court and a deserted plastic grass playground (some real plants and trees though). 

 

But hey! I could hear people and children giggling.

The paddling pool looked fun and there were some plants but no grass.

Heading north towards Engineer's Way there was a water feature and plenty of natural grass (although there are some drain covers disguised with plastic grass). There's a lot of water works here as this is a SuDs (Sustainable Drainage System) that provide an alternative to the direct channelling of surface water through networks of pipes and sewers to nearby watercourses. (see last image)

Clearly good for the environment and the prevention of  flooding but whether it is enough to mitigate all the non-permeable concrete will only be tested by time as extreme weather contnues to develop.

 

Some thought has gone into planting here and it looks promising for biodiversity. There is even a bug hotel:

There were still only few people here and the nearby cafe reported no increase in customers in the fine weather. Felt a little strange - only a couple of people sunbathing on the grass.

On the west side of the park things were more lively at a small children's playspace. Unfortunately the nearest toilets are at Brent Civic Centre.

 

 

The water cascades  into drainage on Engineer's Way - the hoardings are in fron of the site for the second half of the park - currently called North Park which will have a small lake.

This is how the two parks will combine, with Engineer's Way running between them. The North Park will be surrounded by tall towers which will reduce sunlight but you would not think that from the artist's impression below with its shimmering misty tower blocks. The park is on the site of the former Yellow Car Park.

 

 Bottom right North End Road and Bridge Road Junction

 

Shimmering towers and sunlit grass

I hoped to see some progress had been made on the North Park but was disappointed to see that the site appeared to be mainly used for storage with no work going on to prepare the ground for the park. Quite a contrast from the above image!

Given that the aim was for Wembley Stadium to be a mainly public transport destination I was surpised to see this boast:

 

Recent controversy over densification of the tall buildings reducing light are brought home in streets such as Rutherwood Way. The developer's artist's impression shows it as tree-lined!

If the weather is fine and the kids are bored in the last week or so of the summer holiday it might be worth taking them down to Wembley Park. Union Park is only a short walk from Wembley Park Station. Head down Olympic Way and turn left at Engineer's Way.

 

 

The Union Park SuDs system:

 

The road at the bottom is Engineer's Way

Underdevelopment of Wembley Steps undercroft for community benefit

 

 

Undercroft Activities from the developer's Design and Access Statement September 4th 2018

 

Every now and again I decide to check up on whether some of the promises included in planning applications and planning officer reports (designed to persuade the Planning Committee of the benefits of the development) actually come about.

These have included artist's impressions of the attractive banks of the Wealdstone Brook flowing through s development where you can imagine dipping your toes into the cool water- that turns out to be steep banked concrete conduits full of rubbish and polluted water. Even that is 'Private'.

The steps that replaced the Stadium  Pedway were a highly controversial project and one of the benefits claimed was the use of the 'undercroft' beneath for various activities that would increase income for Brent Council.

This was meant to soften resentment at the £18m of Community Infrastructure Levy that Brent Council handed over for the steps replacement and other 'improvements'. 

Officers Final Report  4^th September 2018

 

The 33.5m wide pedestrian link area beneath the landing of the steps (‘The Undercroft’) has been identified as an area that could provide for community activities and ‘pop ups’. It is considered acceptable as it maintains permeability across the front of the stadium for pedestrians on Stadium Event Days.

 

This covered area is also proposed to be used as an occasional event space and for use as play space and/or a market area. Incorporated into the steps at concourse level would be roof lights to provide lighting for the undercroft in addition to the LED downlights proposed

 

Nearly five years on here is the undercroft today:

 

 

 

Utilising 'dead spaces' - empty shops and offices - for community use - Zoom call 29th August 7pm-9pm

 

Wembley Matters readers aware of the number of 'dead spaces' in Brent may be interested in this discussion:

From City Hall Greens - Tuesday 29th August 7pm-9pm

High streets and office buildings are all too often blighted by empty shops and unused office space. Yet, your community probably has a multitude of ideas for bringing it back to life, maybe as a filmmaking studio, upcycling zone, food waste project, climate emergency centre, library of things, repair café, gallery space, charity hub, and so much more. So many possibilities, but so many barriers to accessing the site. 

 

This online event – following on from Sian Berry’s Dead Spaces report exposing 100s of empty publicly owned buildings and facilities across London – will help you make this happen. Come and hear from the four teams of speakers we have assembled, who have first-hand experience of bringing unused properties back into use by communities, and meet other people like you to share knowledge and advice.

 

The event will be introduced by Assembly Member Sian Berry. Each speaker will tell their story for 10 minutes, followed by a 20-minute question-and-answer session. There will then be breakout rooms for discussion and networking with each of the speakers for 30 minutes, based around the following topics:

• Community activism – Halima Tuli and Maria Cordara-Soanes, Think & Do Somers Town
• Offices and councils – Mahmud Sonny Shahnawaz, The Utilize Project
• High streets and retail – Shaylesh Patel, ASTOP and TUAID
• Young people – Azzees Minott, 2-3 Degrees
  

 

Sign up to our Zoom event now to grab your place. The Zoom invite will be sent to you 24 hours beforehand.

 

SIGN UP

LETTER: Please let me know your views on the impact of redevelopment in Wembley - positives and negatives

 Dear Readers,

I’m an A level student studying Geography.

As a part of my studies, I have undertaken a research project on the Positive and Negative impacts of the redevelopment of Wembley for the local community.

As local residents, your views would give me a very accurate picture of the perspectives of the local residents 

What has changed since the regeneration projects have seen tall tower blocks sprung up?

 

How safe do you feel? Has anything changed in your sense of belonging to the place?

Your input and comments would really mean a lot!

The data will be used only for academic purposes and will be completely anonymous.

I will also share my findings of these data collection for you to gauge an overall picture of the perception of the local residents.

The following are the links to short survey questions.

Many thanks in advance

 

Questionnaire for access to green spaces in Wembley

 Survey-Community engagement and sense of belonging in Wembley after regeneration

 

LETTER: Now is the time for Brent Council to publish all the documents required under the Building Safety Act

Dear Editor,

Now that the government have published almost all of the Building Safety Act, including the 5 sections that were laid before parliament yesterday, can Brent Council now publish all their documents covering the Act as well.

A Brent resident (details supplied) 

DLUHC Publishes Five Regulations Under Building Safety Act

17 August 2023

Newsflash

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, has published the following five Regulations under the Building Safety Act 2022 online:

 

• The Building Regulations etc. (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023,
• The Building Regulations (Higher-Risk Building Procedures) (England) 2023
• The Building (Approved Inspectors etc. And Review of Decisions) (England) Regulations 2023
• The Higher-Risk Buildings (Management of Safety Risks etc) (England) Regulations 2023
• The Building Safety Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments etc.) Regulations 2023

 

 

The regulations deliver the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt in her report Building A Safer Future and cover the technical detail underpinning the new, more stringent regime for the design and construction of higher-risk buildings, wider changes to the building regulations for all buildings and the details of the new in-occupation safety regime for higher-risk buildings.