Sudbury Court Residents Association: No more deferral of the Mumbai Junction application at Planning Committee - REFUSE IT!

 

Claimed improvements to original plan

 

The Sudbury Court Residents   Association have added several further submissions to the Brent Council Portal on the Mumbai Junction (formerly John Lyon pub) site planning application.

This morning the total number of comments, mainly objections, stood at 546.

 

This is a follow up objection by the SCRA as the documents and reports have altered since the Consultation Period closed.

The SCRA believe and demand that this application is refused at the next Planning Committee Meeting and not deferred any longer because of the following reasons, but not excluding many other valid reasons previously articulated to the Planning Department:

The current building design, materials and finishes matched the Conservation Area properties across the road and can be seen from Carlton Avenue West, The Crescent, Watford Road and Pasture Road, well over twenty properties within the Conservation Area will be able to plainly see this development from their homes. For some reason that remains unexplained the Brent Heritage Officer has changed his view from it damaging the Gateway to the Conservation Area, to not doing so and not being visible from the Conservation Area which is clearly untrue. Meanwhile 266 Watford Road's red roof tiles as a replacement for the original green tiles are being enforced against as it damages the Conservation Area.

The applicant states in mitigation of the size and massing that the representations of the proposed building allow for 10 years growth of the surrounding trees. The surrounding trees are approaching 100 years in age, the majority having reached maturity and will not increase in size. The out of character building will not be hidden by trees.

The officers state that the benefit of the building somehow out ways the damage caused by is height and massing along with it being out of character. This is the view of some planning officers; however, several hundred residents disagree with them along with the SCRA who represent circa 3,000 homes. Officers should reread the Local Plan 6.5.22

Although not a Planning Issue as such there is a large telecom installation in front of the site. Recently trees in front of the site were substantially pollarded, the reason used to gain Council approval was that the trees were affecting the Emergency Telecom signals from the installation. The proposed building is substantially higher and the top two storeys appear to be clad in metal which would almost certainly interrupt the Emergency telecom signals.

Page 11 para 5 of the officers committee report attempts to justify the extreme massing and height because it is near a roundabout, but totally ignores the surroundings of mainly two store buildings, many now known to be within the Conservation Area (evidence can be provide on the ground and from Streetview and Google Earth. The Design Council's workshop with the Developer and Brent Council stated the building was far too large for the site and would not meet carbon targets, nor transport emission targets. Interestingly almost all the objections to the proposal consider the proposal to be too tall and bulky.

The Officers state: The building is of good design quality, relating well to its context and would enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Unfortunately the are at complete odds with local residents on this point as the building is totally out of character and belongs with buildings of a similar bland design tenet and not in the midst of Metroland.

Officers state that there will be no loss of amenity to surrounding properties; however, all residents surrounding the site strongly disagree and will have to provide themselves with forms of shielding to regain their privacy and amenity.

The Met Police were consulted and recommended not using on street parking because of the friction that would be created with other users of the service roads and surrounding residential streets. Basically, the officer is saying that the Design Council and Police are wrong! Additionally, it has not been proven that there is available parking other than after 2am in the morning.

Page 13 para 1 Highways state that "All servicing arrangements are acceptable and safe" This statement is completely unfounded as there are no servicing arrangements on site; all forty two flats will have to be serviced from the busy and the constantly heavily parked service road as the onsite service road is now to be a car park. Furthermore, the bin store opens out across the very narrow pavement in front of the site, itself an illegal obstacle and in addition it would open onto the designated as the unmanaged pedestrian crossing, and the proposed Zebra Crossing funded by a S106. One wonders if officers actually visited the site or fully deciphered the plans presented to them.

The EMF Report regarding the Sub-station is so porous it should be ignored as meaningless. SCRA extrapolations show the EMF levels to be outside the SAGE recommended levels even without being monitored under peak loads which are normally expected in the mornings and evenings. Variations in EMF reading already provided to Planning Comments show a 1446% variation in EMF emissions outside of peak loads.

Ignoring the wildlife corridor running at the rear of Sudbury Court Drive and Amery Road which joins the SINC of Harrow School and Northwick Park is unforgivable even if it is not a designated wildlife protected area.  No bat survey has been completed regarding this foraging and commuting route and therefore the law protecting bats may well be breached if the development is allowed with its current height and massing along with substantial increase in light levels. It is the Council's duty to ensure that the bat foraging/commuting route is protected. There is no doubt that bats utilise the current restaurant's kitchen warmth as an adhoc and winter roost which would not have been noticed during the internal inspection.

Sudbury Court Drive and the John Lyon roundabout had been flooding for several years after and during heavy rainfall a video is available. The manhole cover near Bengeworth Road is ejected due to the large volumes of water travelling at speed down the hill of Sudbury Court Drive and Bengeworth Road. It is becoming obvious that the surface water drain is now overloaded at peak times, possibly due to all the recent explosion of property extensions and paving of gardens to provide parking due to the very heavy on street parking demand. The proposed building would require a flood defence and a substantial SUDS to reduce the flood risk to the ground floor flats, some of which are deemed accessible.

Page 13 para 3  Of the fire statement states: "All floors are served by a central protected stair including an evacuation lift. The stair is accessed by common corridors that do not exceed 15m in length."  Unfortunately the distance from the front doors of flats 1.06, 1.07, 2.06, 2.07, 3.06 and 3.07 are in excess of 18mtrs from the protected stairwell and therefore the building does not comply with London Plan Policy D5(B5) (7), BS9991 (6), ADB 2019 (3).

London Fire Brigade Guidance Notes GN29 - should be used to plan for new premises. As the proposed development site sits behind a narrow heavily parked service road and a large telecom site it has a very limited access for Fire Brigade vehicles and therefore does not comply with the GN29 guidance notes.  Furthermore, as the frontage of the building (within its curtilage) has now been turned from an access/service road into a car park the Fire Brigade would have to access the building from the external service road which is, because of the afore mentioned problems, is an impossibility. The SCRA therefore believe that the proposed building with regards Fire Safety is unsafe and dangerous.

The Highways Officer's report state that the area is not an accident hotspot because very little is recorded on Crashmap. Everyone knows that many accidents are not shown on Crashmap and to utilise its data id just lazy. The Crashmap data does not mean that the area is not a black spot. In the real world - during the last twelve months there have been circa 12 single vehicle RTAs within the locale, with several gardens being entered, bus stops and pedestrian crossings demolished along with street trees. Utilising Streetmap we have found evidence of many accidents on the John Lyon Roundabout over the last ten years including the felling of a substantial tree, a lamp post and several road signs demolished. On at least two occasions vehicles have been overturned and left blocking the pavements. Not more than a hundred yards away a lady was killed performing at right turn at the junction with The Green. The local chemist was attempting a right turn into their driveway on Watford Road just in front of the application site and has hit in the rear and pushed across the road and hit again in the front. The son of the local garage operator was involved in a collision on the service road at the entrance to the application site, besides being a dangerous cross road the concrete of the service road offers no grip in the wet.  Without doubt this is not a safe area for motor vehicles handling as it does 30,000 VPD on the A404 a London Distributor Road and 15,000 VPD on the A4127 a Local Distributor Road, one must not forget that the service road is used as a rat run to avoid queues at the John Lyon roundabout.

The SCRA are extremely concerned that staff at local businesses have been told by the owners of Mumbai Junction that they will get Planning Permission is very concerning, especially as the Developer met with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and the Planning Committee privately while residents were not allowed to approach the Planning Committee themselves.

The SCRA are also concerned at the lack of affordable housing on site nor a contribution to affordable housing. We suggest if the building were reduced to say three stories then the margins per unit and viability would increase due to lower building costs at these lower levels, this would obviously be at the expense of the overall profit to the Developers.

 

 

 

The Planning Committee Report dated 12th July Page 9 para 2 states "The refuse storage area would be sited to the property's frontage"



We would comment as follows:

Having referred to the plans, the refuse store gates open outward across the narrow pavement (highway) at the site of the current unregulated crossing of the service road and Watford Road.



Obviously this is totally unacceptable positioning and function and the use of the gates would block the Highway - The fundamental public right upon a highway is to pass and re-pass, and the obstruction of a highway can also be a criminal offence as well as a tort. Highway authorities are under a statutory duty to prevent, so far as possible, the stopping up or obstruction of highways in their areas.

 

 

 This is an additional objection by the SCRA having reviewed the revised documents published after the end of the Formal Consultation by the applicant and the planning officer.



The Planning Committee Report dated 12th July and the Daylight Sunlight Consulting letter.



9. Page 11 para 6 This statement about good levels of outlook and light are at complete odds with the letter from Daylight Sunlight Consulting Ltd that states that not all the properties have sufficient light. The Design Council stated that the health and wellbeing of residents will be harmed by the long corridors without any natural light or ventilation. Additionally, nearly half the flats are only single aspect and at least three of the flats will have very little natural light to the living area windows as the windows are positioned in corners on the northwest side of the building and have very poor outlooks over the car park and garage next door.

 

It is with great disappointment that we have to yet again point out that the EMF report applies to the current substation and not the new/replacement one mentioned in the previous officer report.

Additionally no mention has been made about the emergency telecom signals from in front of the site which required the pollarding of trees which were half the hight of the proposed  building.

We residents within the SCRA despair at the lack of meaningful consultation over our valid concerns and the council's total intransigence regarding this application. Several residents have put their properties up for sale this month already as the believe this is a done deal.

 

 

The current EMF Report describes the current substation and current usage and emissions from the Sub Station. Unfortunately, as detailed in the Officer Report to Committee it transpires that the substation will need upgrading due to the application property and no doubt for the adjoining site which according to the report will be subject of a future planning application.

It is therefore true to say that the current EMF report will not apply to the proposed building and therefore we must be sure that the future substation does not put residents at a high risk of developing leukaemia from the emissions of the new substation for which there is NO report.

The current substation apparently has negligible risk, presumably an enlargement of the substation could well increase the  risk to low or medium. We therefore recommend that this application is not determined until a new report is produced which includes a substantial increase in power usage. To ignore this request could potentially and knowingly put people’s lives and well-being at risk well into the future.

 

Six education unions ask urgent questions of Gillian Keegan about RAAC-affected schools

 The general secretaries of six unions representing school workers, including heads, teachers and support staff – GMB, NAHT, NASUWT, NEU, UNISON and Unite – have written a joint letter to the Secretary of State for Education calling for an update on the extent of her Department’s research into RAAC-affected schools. They ask six urgent questions:

1. How many schools at risk of RAAC have not had an investigation?
2. How many schools suspect they could have RAAC?
3. How many schools with suspected RAAC have yet to be surveyed?
4. How long does the Government expect it to take for all at-risk schools to be investigated?
5. How long does the Government think it will take for all schools with suspected RAAC to be surveyed?
6. What deadline has been set to clear RAAC from every school?

 

The full text is below:

 

Dear Secretary of State,

 

Last week you published a small amount of information on the progress with the crisis in schools caused by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC). Your department told us:

• more than 90 per cent of schools are covered by responsible bodies that have completed the RAAC questionnaire (1);
• in 156 schools it was confirmed that RAAC was present (2); and
• 52 of 156 schools have mitigations in place to protect pupils and staff from RAAC. (3)

 

However, this does not appear to reflect the full extent of the problem. In May, the Department for Education (DfE) told the National Audit Office (NAO) (4):

• 86 per cent of schools are covered by responsible bodies that have completed the RAAC questionnaire;
• 14,900 schools are at risk of containing RAAC;
• 6,300 of 14,900 schools had been walked round to identify possible RAAC;
• 572 of 6,300 schools suspected they had RAAC
• 196 of 572 schools had been surveyed to determine if they had RAAC;
• 65 of 196 schools had confirmed RAAC was present; and
• 24 of 65 schools required mitigations to protect pupils and staff from RAAC.

 

We believe it is incumbent on the DfE to update the figures it has published in order to eliminate misunderstanding of the scale of the problem.

 

Using the data the DfE provided to the NAO, we estimate that hundreds more schools could have RAAC (5) and we presume this is why you told the Today programme there could be “hundreds“ more schools with RAAC (6). If the Government does not increase funding for the school rebuilding programme which is currently refurbishing 50 schools a year, then the RAAC problem will not be resolved until the 2030s.

 

Please could you answer the following urgent questions:

1. How many schools at risk of RAAC have not had an investigation?
2. How many schools suspect they could have RAAC?
3. How many schools with suspected RAAC have yet to be surveyed?
4. How long does the Government expect it to take for all at-risk schools to be investigated?
5. How long does the Government think it will take for all schools with suspected RAAC to be surveyed?
6. What deadline has been set to clear RAAC from every school?

 

We would be grateful if you could reply within the next week.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Daniel Kebede
General Secretary, National Education Union

Paul Whiteman
General Secretary, NAHT

Christina McAnea
General Secretary, UNISON

Dr Patrick Roach
General Secretary, NASUWT

Gary Smith
General Secretary, GMB

Sharon Graham
General Secretary, UNITE

Letter: Barham Community Library will stand by our community - 'We will not be surrendering our lease'

 The painting of Titus Barham that hangs in the community library

 

Dear Editor

 

The events on Tuesday morning at the Civic Centre highlight the fact that local people and existing users of the Barham Park Complex support Barham Park as a local place that provides them with recreation as Titus Barham intended.

 

Barham Park and its buildings used to be the home of the Barham family. Titus Barham was a big local benefactor supporting local causes including Wembley Hospital, the Tennis Club in Sylvester Road and many more. Barham Primary School, where I have been a School Governor since 1994, stands on land that belonged to Titus Barham.

 

Titus was a keen Roses grower and every year he opened up his Gardens to local people for "Rose Sunday". In 1936, a year before his death, 8,000 local people attended.

 

He was due to become the Charter Mayor of Wembley in 1937 when Wembley became a Borough Council. He donated the Mace and Chains of Office and wanted all residents of Wembley (around 80,000 at the time)  to participate in the Ceremony. Sadly he died on the very day he was due to become Mayor. Wembley Borough Council went ahead with the Celebrations later and over 50,000 local people attended at tea party at the old Wembley Stadium later in the year.

 

On his death in July 1937 Titus Barham donated his home and gardens for the enjoyment of local people. The donation was made to the Wembley Borough Council.

 

It is now the responsibility of Brent Council to manage the Park and buildings as any other Park in Brent. It is the current Labour Administration that closed the Council run Barham Park Library which served the area for almost 60 years in 2011. It is the same Labour Administration that has neglected the buildings and areas of the Park since - despite wasting tens of thousands of pounds on consultants whose previous reports. are collecting the dust.

 

it is Councillor Butt and his colleagues who decided to spend another £25,000 of public money on the latest "hypothetical" Architects study without checking some very basic facts. The aim of the Architects proposals seems to be the achievement of commercial income from redevelopment for Hotel rooms, Shops, Airbnb, Offices etc. The existing tenants would be kicked out because the redevelopment would require a completely vacant site and the requisitioning of the public car park near the children area for a building materials depot.

 

The existing tenants were not consulted and when Francis Henry, from Friends of Barham Library tried to ask some relevant questions, he was interrupted and prevented from speaking by the Leader of Brent Council.

 

Brent Council pays lip service to community engagement, diversity or to being a Dementia Friendly Borough. We have already been deprived of space in Barham Park to provide an advice and outreach base for people with Dementia and their Carers. The latest proposals are aimed to deprive local people of community space which serves the diverse community in the Sudbury & Wembley area and beyond.

 

As I said earlier - the Architects have said that their re-development proposals can only progress if they have a fully vacant site. Friends of Barham Library are not going anywhere. Barham Community Library serves our community and will continue to do so. We are STANDING UP for our community and our neighbours in Barham Park - the Barham Veterans Club, The ex Gurkhas and all the others. 

 

As our email to officers of Brent Council makes clear our Lease has another 8 years to go and we have absolutely no intention of moving out.

 

The wishes of Titus Barham are clear. Barham Park - his home and gardens - are for the recreation of local people and not for Hotels or Airbnb for visitors to Wembley Stadium or shops and supermarkets that no one has asked for.

 

Our Community Library will continue to serve local people. We now need every one who cares for Barham Park (and all our Parks to rally round - so come and support us and come and support our beautiful Barham Park.

 

With best wishes

 

Paul Lorber

for Friends of Barham Library

 

 

Email to Brent Council

 

 

We write as Trustees of Friends of Barham Library in reference to yesterday's AGM of the Barham Park Trust, and in particular, the Report at Item 7 and the recommendation to Trustees at paragraph 2.2.1. 

 

It seems that, following production of the outline specification, that  the Trustees have accepted that recommendation, and are proceeding with the "Silver" option.

 

Mention was made in the meeting of the Trust generating officer time. It is clear that further officer time will be generated in connection with this recommendation. It also now seems entirely possible that the Trust (and/or the Council (Capital Grant funds)) may incur yet further consultant's fees. Appreciating the responsibilities of charity trustees ourselves, we would clearly like to assist in preventing  unnecessary expenditure, whether of officer time, scarce Trust unrestricted funds or indeed Capital Grant funds. 

 

We had hoped to inform the Trustees at the meeting as part of Francis Henry's contribution on our behalf, that FoBL has a Lease of Unit 4 at Barham Park and full exclusive possession until 6th October 2031. There is no landlord break clause in that Lease.

 

Not having previously been asked about our position,  as charity trustees, we thought it only responsible now to inform you that FoBL will not be surrendering its Lease - nor, therefore, giving vacant possession of Unit 4 at any point prior to expiry of our contractual term.  We shall also, of course, expect the Barham Park Trust as our Landlord to meet in full its obligations of quiet enjoyment under our Lease.

 

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Francis Henry

Paul Lorber

Robert Wharton

Trustees of Friends of Barham Library.

 

PS. You may wish to advise all the Trustees.

 

Call for volunteers to help green spaces near Willesden Junction Station

 

Energy Garden is a community run volunteering programme that empowers local communities to enhance biodiversity and cultivate food in community spaces close to tube and train stations.

 

They are currently looking for local people to participate in greening local spaces near Willesden Junction station. 

 

Email callum@energygarden.org.uk to register your interest and find out more about Energy Garden and their work here

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.

 

 

Wembley Central and Alperton Fun Day at Barham Library on Saturday

 

Barham Park Trust accounts 'fundamentally flawed'

A member's enquiry by Cllr Paul Lorber has revealed errors in the Barham Park Trust accounts as published on the Brent Council website. Lorber reacted with the following comment to Brent Council officers:

It is clear from this reply that the Barham Park Trust was being presented with  Accounts and supporting report which were fundamentally flawed.

 

Had questions not been asked the Accounts would have been rubber stamped and sent to the Charity Commission.

 

Although the Accounts may have been corrected and the numbers may now agree with what is in the books the Accounts (and past Accounts) do not give a ‘True and Fair’ view of the state of affairs of the Barham Park Trust.

 

In my view there are fundamental errors in the way the finances and assets of the Trust are dealt with and a proper ‘arms length’ arrangements are not in place.

 

The scope of the ‘Independent Review’ is clearly not sufficient to have identified these arrows and the much bigger problem and failure to properly represent the financial arrangements between the Trust and Brent Council.

 

A more fundamental review is therefore needed to correct past errors and to properly reflect the correct income that is due to the Trust as a result of its relationship with the Council.

 

For a start the cost of providing a Public Park in the Sudbury/Wembley are should be paid for by the Council and the Trust - in the same way that the Council pays for all the Parks in Brent.

 

If the Trust’s position was properly reflected in Financial Statements and its accounts showed the correct level of income then the wasteful approach of spending money on consultants to presenting pie in the sky proposals which cannot be delivered in for many years anyway would not be necessary.

 

Cllr Lorber's Questions and Officer's Answers (in red)

 

1. There is an inconsistency between the Annual report and the Accounts. In Section E it is stated that of the £575,183 the sum of £222,031 relates to restricted funds and £353,152 to unrestricted funds. This is wrong as the Accounts themselves show the correct designation as £222,031 as unrestricted and £353,152 as restricted.

This needs to be corrected and the trustees advised.
 

Section E of the Charity Commission template updated with correct figures as per the accounts - £222,031 unrestricted funds and £ 353,152 restricted funds (attached).

2. The Receipts and Payments accounts fail to show the Fun Fair income on the correct line. We know that Funfairs were held during the year because the Trustee Report says so. Where is that income and can it be put in the correct place. Once again the Trustees need to be advised.

Funfairs income for 2022/23 was £36,337, which was included under the ‘Property Rental Income’ heading.  This has now been reclassified under the ‘Fun Fair’ income line. 

 

3. Can you confirm whether you carried out any checks to ensure that the Barham Park Trust received the correct amount of income due to it from the Fairs? The Fairs are arranged by the Park Department and the charges are set out in a Licence Agreement. there was an agreement for the period 2017 to 2022 and a new one from 2022. The daily fee should be adjusted upwards in line with RPI.
 

The daily fee is to be based on the new 2022 agreement and reflecting for inflation.   There was a daily rate agreed in the licence doc agreed between the parties.  The calculation is daily rate x number of operating days. For each ongoing year in an agreement, the RPIX rate is added to the daily rate charge for the duration of the agreement.

Can you confirm the number of days the Funfair was in Barham Park (actual days of the Fairs and the days of set up and dismantling), the daily rate charged (correctly adjusted for RPI), calculation of the charges should have been applied (number of days multiplied by the day rate) and the charges actually paid by the Funfair and included in the accounts. If the amount received is not correct please advise the relevant officer to ensure that a further recovery is made. The accounts may need to be amended to reflect the correct income and the year end debtor.

The reported 2022 funfair dates were: 

Fun fairs: Irvin’s Fun Fair were at Barham Park:
Operating days between the 20th May to 5th June 2022 (on site 12th May to 6th June);
Operating days between the 19th August to 4th September 2022 (and will be on site until a few days later). 

For reference the 2023 operating days were / are expected to be:

Fun fairs: Irvin’s Fun Fair were at Barham Park:
Operating between 26th May to 4th June (10 days); and onsite from 20th May 2023.
Operating days between 18 Aug to 3rd September (17 days); and onsite from 7th August 2023.

Note that the arrival and departure dates may be amended in practice to enable the funfair to access and egress the site during better weather conditions.

I would like to be satisfied that the Barham Park Trust received the correct income form the let of its land for the Funfairs in 2022/23 and all previous years.
 

The invoices are calculated and issued reflecting the agreements. 

4. As you may be aware the another report to the trustee Meeting makes the point that the trust is not generating enough income. You may be aware that the Funfair obtains its water via a long hose pipe from a water point near the Harrow frontage . This water point was damaged as a result of this use and repaired. There are two issues here:

a. who paid for the repair, how much was it and was it recharged to the Operator?
 

It should be said that while a recent leak became apparent at the same time as use by the FunFair; attributing the cause of the leak, for example to that use or to a longer-term infrastructure issue, was not practical. Arrangements for the repair were managed by the Parks Service and the cost of the repair was paid by the Parks Service from their revenue budget.  The cost of the repairs that was met by the Parks Service from their revenue budget was £795.

b. the normal Council Police of letting Parks for events states that should the renter require water supplies these would be available for a charge. Can you check and confirm that the Funfair is being charged and pays for all the water that they consume. If they are not then the Trust is incurring costs which it should not do.
 

While there may be provision for the separate assessment of water used by the visiting FunFair, the measurement of water use would involve resources and the recent practice has been to assume that water is included in the overall charge. To be fair and accurate, the water meter would need to be read at the start and end of the funfair’s use – and the water use for the Walled Garden, which is on the same mains and meter, netted-off from the sub-total.

5. Paragraph 3.4 to Agenda item 6 refers to unpaid rental income of £29,625 as at 31 March 2023. Why is this amount shown in the Accounts within the Cash balance rather than as a Debtor? This is incorrect and misleading. Can this be corrected.

This will be communicated to the Trust members separately, but it has been identified that an incorrect Charity Commission template has been used to prepare the accounts, which will require a small change to the Trust’s debtors and creditors.  In order to rectify this issue, a corrective exercise needs to be carried out to recognise transactions on a cash basis rather than an accruals basis.

6. In relation to the above para 3.4 refers to "tenants". Last year there was discussion about rent owed by ACAVA which they agreed to settle over two years. Can you please confirm if all of the £29,625 related to ACAVA or which of the other tenants also owed money as at 31 march 2023,

 

The total debt is £29,625.   Information on individual tenant debt is commercially sensitive and is not disclosable in the public domain.  As you will be aware, we are also not able to share commercially sensitive information to Members unless the information is pertinent to their ward and even when we do share the information, the information remains non-disclosable in the public domain.

7. In relation to para 3.9 of Agenda item 6 refers rental income of £19,459 being reflected in the wrong year. Can you please explain what this relates to and how it arose.
 

In 2021/22 we have received a payment in advance.  This income should have been recognised as a ‘receipt in advance’ and deferred to 22/23, however this has not been reflected. In essence, this means that 21/22 income was overstated by this amount, and 22/23 income was understated.

 

This doesn’t have an impact on the Trust’s funds overall.

8. Can you please confirm how much income was received in 2022/23 from parking charges in the car park and where this income is shown in the Trust Accounts.
 

There is no parking charges income reflected in the accounts.  Parking Charges income is managed centrally by the parking provider and not by the Parks Service nor the Barham Park Trust.

9. According to para 3.7 of Agenda item 7 during the 2002/23 year Thames Water used part of the Park for a works depot while working on the embankment. How much were they charged for rental of the Park land and where is this income reflected in the Trust Accounts?
 

The Thames Water work and that by their contractors was at intervals and spread over more than one financial year. (We have not had time to trace the figures and deposits at this stage. Some of the information may be commercially confidential).

10. The 2011/22 Accounts show "ad-hoc lettings" of £14,625. There is no similar income shown in the 2022/23 accounts. What did the £14,625 relate to?
 

The £14,625 represents a reversal of a manual accrual done in 2020/21 to recognise commercial property receipts in advance. This is a misclassification and it should have been recorded under ‘Rental Income – Other’.

11. Para 3. 3 of Agenda item 8 refers to various Religious and cultural festivals being held in the Park. Can you confirm the type and dates of these vents, the amount of the income charged & received and where this is shown in the Accounts.
 

There were three events during 2022/23. The individual charging for each event is not provided here.

12. Although amount of Cash Balances have increased and there has been a rise in interest rates the amount interest income received by the Trust has only risen by a relatively small amount.

Can you explain what investigation you carried out to ensure that the trust is receiving the correct amount of interest or has lost out because of the current arrangements of holding its cash balances with the Council itself. What interest could the trust have earned had it made its won arrangements and placed the money on deposit directly with 3rd parties in either instant or term accounts?
 

Every year, an interest charge is calculated on the average cash balance and credited to the Trust’s account. In 2017 is has been agreed by the Trust that interest will be based on 2% of average reserve balances. At the time this was higher than the Council obtained. It is now lower, however the arrangement has not changed.

13. Paragraph 3.15 of Agenda Item 15 refers to extra work relating to surface drainage using Verti drainage. What was the cost of this work and who paid for it?
 

To date verti-draining has been trialled on two occasions at £304.56 per occasion, which has been paid by the Barham Park Trust.  

The current License for lets requires a deposit and allows for recovery of costs arising from damage. Have the above costs been met or recovered from the Fair operator?
 

We do not tend to take a deposit as we are able to use ongoing bookings across the borough as leverage if required.  As we don’t have in house grounds maintenance, we raise works required with the fair and they have in the past used our external contractor for resolution (payments would have been between those companies). 

14. As you know the arrangements between the Council and the trust have to be at arms length. The Council uses Barham Park every year for the Annual Remembrance Service when Marquees and seating is arranged etc, Has the Council been charged a normal hire fee for this, has it been paid and where is it shown in the Accounts?
 

Income for the Remembrance Day is charged via internal recharge, though low amounts are not normally charged between services.  It would simply be £65 - £72 in recent years.

 

 

BREAKING: Two fundamental questions that should be answered before the Barham Park Trustees meeting goes ahead tomorrow