WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
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, 5th 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:
- What alternative premises are being offered to all existing tenants?
- Why were the tenants not consulted or involved?
- Will the existing tenants be guaranteed same size space on affordable rents once completed?
- Why do the officer recommended plans in the Silver Option not show a Community Library when the Library is shown in the Gold Option?
- What is the earliest possible date you can obtain vacant possession of all the Units?
- 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.
- Why has the bronze option not been presented to the Trustees?
- 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.
- Have the Brent Planners confirmed that shops, restaurants, hotels and offices comply with Planning Policies for green spaces and the Sudbury Neighbourhood Plan?
- What sources of funding have been identified or been pursued to meet the expected costs?
- 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.
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.
Anger is building amongst residents and community organisations over the Barham Park Trustees management of the park and its assets, as more issues have emerged. The Cabinet members who make up the Trustees Committee are charged with what amounts to arrogance and disdain of the local community.
Despite the 1,000 signature petition calling for the Covenant that prevents building development of the park to be honoured in the spirit of the Titus Barham bequest, and Brent parks to be protected the Committee will be making decisions on:
1. Removal of the Covenant in order allow George Irvin to go ahead with building four three story houses on the site of the present modest pair of two storey houses. The amount to be paid for the removal of the covenant has been kept secret. The removal of the covenant has previously been opposed by ward councillors and Barry Gardiner MP. There have been questions about the influence on Brent councillors of the developer, fun fair owner George Irvin.
2. Plans for major development of the present cluster of one and two storey buildings used by voluntary community organisations to displace most of those those organisation in favour of a development that includes a boutique hotel/AirB&B and four retail units. There has been absolutely no consultation about the plans which have come as a shock to those organisations. The £25,000 study is framed around the Trustees' briefing aimed at achieving commercial rents for the properties.
3. A review of Governance arrangements that keeps all power in the hands of the Cabinet and rejects any independent or community representation on the Trustees Commiuee.
4. Published accounts that includes errors and omissions, particularly around income from George Irvin's uses of Barham Park for fun fairs.
As a correspondent from elsewhere in the borough remarked in an email to Wembley Matters:
Local people and community groups being disregarded and the possibility of losing their meeting spaces—is shameful.
Brent Council, to me have neglected Wembley High Road over the years in terms of design and the “shopping offer” and for them then to suggest to have hotels/ supermarket in a park which was bequeathed to locals, is an obscene idea
Parks to me, belong to Brent residents and we need the green open spaces. I am very angry about what is being considered. Also the potential for this to be replicated
My words don’t actually sum up all my concerns but it is more than well covered in your blog.
Unfortunately the Brent and Kilburn Times has not picked up on this issue at all so do spread the word and get along to the meeting tomorrow (Tuesday September 5th) at 10am at the Civic Centre Conference Hall to show your concern or observe on-line HERE
I am publishing, with permission, the text of an email sent to Brent's Head of Internal Audit and Investigations:
Dear Mr Armstrong,
I am sorry for the short notice, but I have been reading the papers for the Barham Park Trust Committee meeting on Tuesday 5 September at 10am.
There are a couple of points arising from the Trust accounts for 2022/23 which I believe need to be explained to the Committee and the public at that meeting (even though I will only be able to watch it when the webcast is available to view online later in the week).
You were the Independent Examiner of those accounts, and at para. 4.2 of your Supplementary Audit Review, you have stated that:
'No matter has come to my attention, which gives me reasonable cause to believe that, in any material respect, the requirement:
... To which, in my opinion, attention should be drawn in order to enable a proper understanding of the accounts to be reached.'
Although I have been accustomed to reading accounts for many years, there are two points with the 2022/23 Barham Park Trust accounts which I think are material for a proper understanding of them:
1. Fun Fair Receipts - The 2022/23 accounts show no Fun Fair receipts (previous year £28,172), but the Trustee's Annual Report (6a Appendix 1) states that 'The park hosted a Fun Fair on two occasions.'
The General Update Report to the September 2022 Trust Committee meeting gave
these details: '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).'
How much was payable by Irvin's Fun Fair for its use of Barham Park for
those two periods in 2022/23, and why does this amount not appear in the
Trust's 2022/23 accounts?
2. Consultancy Payments - The 2022/23 accounts show Consultancy payments of £21,244 out of the Trust's unrestricted funds. The Officer Report to the Committee on the Trust's Annual Report and Accounts refers to: 'additional one-off costs have been incurred associated with commissioning a Barham Park Feasibility study to consider the use of the Barham Park building and its condition in the long-term.'
It is clear from earlier meetings of the Barham Park Trust Committee,
particularly that of 27 January 2022, that the Trust had agreed to
appoint Rider Levett Bucknall ("RLB") architects to produce a
feasibility study on the future of the Barham Park buildings. It was also clear
that it had been agreed the £25,000 cost of this would be met as capital
expenditure by Brent Council.
The results of the RLB report are to be considered at the Trust Committee
meeting on 5 September, but to understand the 2022/23 accounts properly, more
explanation is needed. The meeting on Tuesday should be told, and the answers
minuted, on who the £21,244 was paid to, what services were provided to the
Trust in return for that payment (and where is the evidence for those
services?), who authorised this expenditure and where that authorisation is
recorded.
Thank you, in advance, for your prompt attention to the points I have raised. I am copying this email to other Council Officers who may need to be involved in ensuring that these points are dealt with at Tuesday's meeting.
Best wishes,
Philip Grant.
