The sad story of Wembley Hill Lodge and the current view from the upper deck of the 297 bus

After a passing bus passenger said that she had seen the landmark Wembley Hill Lodge being demolished there was a flurry of activity on social media. The Victorian Society tweeted concern as it is a listed building.   In fact back in January 2023 Brent Council planning officers had approved partial demolition and rebuild of the listed but fire damaged Lodge as well as permission for a two storey house to be built in the grounds.

The Victorian Society does not appear to have been consulted despite the cottage's listed status. LINK

 

The site today

 

I took a photograph of the current state of the site from the 297 bus this lunchtime and it is indeed a sad sight. Foundations for the new house were being prepared before restoration work has begun. The architect, Alex Nacu used an archaic form of the word 'restoration' in their planning statement. There was no reference to the new house in that statement so I had to go to the plans. Wembley Hill Lodge was not listed on their 'Projects' links.

The restored Lodge and the new 2 storey building

 

Work is in progress but it is worth referring back to the documentation of the January 2023 decision to see what is being envisaged, recommendations and in particular the Conditions appended to the approval. Are they being adhered to?  Work appears to have begun on the footings for the 'New House' before restoration of the cottage. The cottage was left open to the elements and resulting damage, which made it less likely to survive.

 

Historic England’s Position

 

This application reflects the results of our pre-application discussions and therefore Historic England is pleased to support these proposals as presented. In our view the accurate restoration / reconstruction of the lodge would deliver clear heritage related public benefits, securing the building's long term future and returning it to its optimum viable use. The proposals would also likely lead to the building's removal from the Heritage at Risk Register.

 

The restoration of the lodge is of the highest priority and therefore should your council be minded to approve the application, it’s essential in our view that the proposed new building to the rear of 114 Wembley Hill Road is clearly linked to the repair and delivery of the listed building, secured through conditions and/or legal agreement. We would consider the phased repair and restoration of the listed building prior to the delivery and/or occupation of the new building would comprise a significant public

benefit that should be taken into account when weighing the application in the planning balance.

 

We would further recommend the following safeguards are secured through discussions with the applicant to ensure the repair is executed in a scholarly and faithful manner.

 

*Detailed building recording is carried out prior to any demolition to inform the reconstruction of the listed cottage.

 

 *Method statements concerning the dismantling of the existing structure and repairs to the remaining historic fabric using approved conservation techniques, ensuring adequate protection throughout.

 

 

 

 

Officers’ Report

 

The NPPF (2021) recognises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and seeks to conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. It further states that when considering the impact of the development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the assets conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Policy BH1 of the London Plan states that where heritage assets have been identified as being 'At Risk', boroughs should identify specific opportunities for them to contribute to regeneration and place-making, and they should set out strategies for their repair and re-use.

 

A Structural Survey/ Inspection Report has been submitted as part of this application, detailing the site conditions at the time of submission of this application in which no works have been undertaken to protect or preserve the site since the fire in 2013. The report notes that the building is in extreme poor structural condition as it remained unprotected from weather conditions with only the footprint, chimney and external walls remaining -the surviving windows and doors exposed to moisture and fungal attack, the load bearing walls are unstable, external cracks are also evident on some of the building's walls with shrubs propogating through the cracks in several locations which indicates that the building is experiencing cracking and movements. The building is dangerous and at the risk of collapsing.

 

The Heritage Statement submitted with this application, sets out the need to demolish and reconstruct the surviving portion of the lodge that burnt down and to build a new addition of the footprint of the 1930s extension and a New House on-site. The design approach follows the conservation philosophy of reconstruction and addition to historic structure. As per the Listed Building Consent (21/2009) granted in 2021, the design approach towards the Listed Building remains unchanged -with the only difference for this Listed Building Consent application is the removal of the proposed basements in the 'Lodge' and 'New House' that was granted full planning permission. The Council's Heritage Conservation officer notes that the plans submitted with this Listed Building Consent application does not provide a basement level, and that the 'Lodge' never had an original basement to begin with so the removal of the proposed basement would not harm the significance of the building.The Heritage Conservation Officer is overall satisfied with the proposed works which would preserve the character and setting of the Listed building as a building of special architectural or historical interest.

 

Notwithstanding this, conditions would be issued with any consent to ensure that the restoration and reconstruction works to the 'Lodge' is completed before works before works for the 'New House' can commence. This would ensure that the restoration of the lodge is prioritized within the proposed development.

 

On balance, and considering the existing 'At Risk' state of the building and the restoration/ proposed works to restore the building, the proposal is considered acceptable in principle

 

CONDITIONS

 

4. No development shall take place before detailed building recording (internally and externally) is carried out prior to any demolition to inform the reconstruction of the listed Lodge. This should be submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the architectural or historic interest, necessary repair work and significance of the Listed Building.

 

5 No development shall take place before a method statement has been provided concerning the dismantling of the existing structure and repairs to the remaining historic fabric of the listed lodge using approved conservation techniques. This should also illustrate adequate protection of the surviving fabric.

 

The report(s) should be submitted with a phased schedule of works for the whole site and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To safeguard the architectural or historic interest, necessary repair work and significance of the Listed Building.

 

6 No development shall take place before specialist contractors in restoration and repair works have been agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the architectural or historic interest, necessary repair work and significance of the Listed Building.

 

7 No development shall take place before sample panels of brickwork for the listed Lodge and the new build demonstrating the colour, texture, bond and pointing of the brickwork have been provided onsite for inspection and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the colour, texture, bond and pointing of the brickwork and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a high quality design and to protect the character of the listed buildings the visual amenity of the area.

 

8 No development to the listed Lodge shall take place before the following has been provided and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

· A window and door schedule including sections at scale 1:10.

Reason: To safeguard the architectural or historic interest, character, appearance and significance of the Listed Building

 

Philip Grant wrote a guest post in 2021 regarding the first planning submission for the site and thought that though not perfect, it offered a reasonable solution to  the problem of what to do with the house and site. LINK

 
 

New Petition: Save Barham Park from commercial development

 

A new petition has been launched on the petition site change.org LINK

 The Petition

Barham Park in Wembley/Sudbury (Brent) was donated to the 'public' for their recreation by Titus Barham the owner of Express Dairies in 1937.

The original buildings, some dating back to 1780, are currently rented out to local groups including Barham Community Library run by volunteers. The Leadership of Brent Council wants to get rid off all of the existing community groups and redevelop the buildings for commercial uses such as hotel rooms, supermarket, shops and commercial office space.

Local people oppose these plans and want to see them scrapped.

Barham Park used to be the home and gardens of the Barham family. We want the Titus Barham gift & legacy to be preserved for the enjoyment of the public.

Support our campaigning and help us send a message to Brent Council - HANDS OFF OUR PARK

 

Barham Park Trust accounts rubber stamped despite detailed anaylsis revealing many problems with them

 Paul Lorber was refused permission to present this paper on the Barham Park Trust accounts at today's meeting. The meeting lasted less than 10 minutes. Officers said that representations had been dealt with in previous correspondence and the accounts were fine. Cabinet members in the guise of trustees asked no questions and then rubber stamped them.

 

PAUL LORBER'S PRESENTATION

 

The revised accounts for the year 2022/23 are fundamentally wrong and should not be approved. They are inconsistent with previous years, do not reflect the correct income due to the Charity, overstate the Charity expenses and do not provide information in an understandable and clear way that makes review and scrutiny of those accounts easy.

 

I deal with some of the key issue in detail below and summarise the other issues in need of investigation.

 

Rental Income presentation problem (the income is not confidential and can be easily ascertained from past public reports)

 

Excluding the £11,300 rental income from the Children centre, £6,500 from Virgin Media, casual rentals and income from the funfair the Rental Income due from the four tenants occupying the Barham Park buildings is as follows:

ACAVA                                    £43,000

Friends of Barham Library         £7,000

Barham Veterans Club                £3,000

Tamu Samaj                                 £1,500

TOTAL                                       £54,500

 

This income has remained unchanged for some years. According the Officers the Accounts are presented on a Cash “received” basis rather than on the more usual” arrears” basis.

 

This income is shown in the accounts on the line described as “Rental Income – other”

The amounts shown are:

17/18               £50,373

18/19               £52,500

19/20               £51,500

20/21               £51,500

21/22               £50,009

22/23                 £1,625

 

None of the years 17/18 to 21/22 agree with the expected income suggesting that some rents were not collected. The officers may want to explain which tenant did not pay and why or what the discrepancy with the expected £54,500 p.a. is for each of the years.

 

The amount for the year 2022/23 looks very odd compared to all the previous years. The officers claim that the Accounts for the Trust are prepared on a cash basis (i.e. they show income in terms of cash received and payments in terms of cash paid rather than on the traditional accruals basis of showing the income expected to be received in the year with any amount not received shown in debtors.)

 

This explanation does not stand up to scrutiny when you look at the extracts from the minutes dealing with the 2020/21 accounts. Minute 3.5 clearly states “the majority of the rental income for 2020/21 is still outstanding”. If this is so why is the supposedly “cash received” figure for the year showing £51,500 when most of the rental income “has not yet been paid”.

 

The rental income for 2019/20 of £51,500 too is clearly also NOT the “cash received” as note 3.6 below states that at 31 March 2021 …..£76k of the rental income has not yet been received. As ACAVA’s annual rent is £43,000 this means that £33,000 (£76,000 less £43,000) of the amount outstanding as unpaid must relate to 2019/20 – which in turn means that the £51,500 clearly cannot possibly represent the “cash received” in respect of rent in that year.

Extract from 2020/21 Accounts

3.4 During 2020/21 the Trust incurred expenditure of £96,283 on maintenance of the building complex and the park. This is made up of £60,383 of unrestricted funds expenditure and £35,900 of restricted funds. The Trust generated £81,300 receipts from rental income and interest earned.

3.5 This includes rental income that is due but has not yet been paid. The majority of rental income for 2020/21 is still outstanding. The cumulative rental income due but not paid as at 31 March 2021 was £76,291.

3.6 This means that as at 31 March 2021, the Trust had assets of: (i) £58k unrestricted funds cash (ii) £353k restricted funds cash (iii) £76k rental income due but not yet received (unrestricted funds) (iv) £939k valuation of Barham Park Building Complex

3.7 This means that if the rental income arrears are not received, the Trust would have only £58k of unrestricted cash. If the arrears continue building up, the £58k would be enough to cover around 12 months of maintenance and wardens costs.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Accounts for all years to 2021/22 have been produced on an accruals basis (they show the rent due and not the cash income received).

 

The revised 2022/23 Accounts presented to you on Tuesday 25 September 2023 are wrong as they are being presented on an inconsistent and a totally incomprehensible basis.

 

The 2022/23 figures are attempting to show some form of ‘cash basis’ whereas the comparative figures for 2021/22 are clearly on the correct accruals basis.

 

Even if officers were correct to present the 2022/23 on a cash received basis to make the accounts consistent and for them to make sense they would have to revise the 2021/22 comparatives to a cash basis too.

 

IT MAKES NO SENSE

 

In terms of the size of its transactions the Barham Park Charity should prepare its accounts on an accruals basis as in relation to rental income the accounts would show the rents due in the year and any amounts uncollected/owing would be shown as a debtor and any rents paid in advance/prepaid would be shown as a creditor.

 

This makes it straight forward to make comparisons between the years in respect of both income and expenditure figures making it easy for Trustees and 3^rd party observer to see the trends between years and ask questions if unusual variations arise.

 

OTHER ISSUES

 

Various reports claim that the Council provides the Barham Park Charity with a subsidy. This cannot be substantiated because none of this is reflected in the Barham Park Trust Accounts.

 

Charity Commission Guidance covers this issue:

 

CHARITIES SORP (FRS 102)

 

Accounting and Reporting by Charities: Statement of Recommended Practice applicable to charities preparing their accounts in accordance with the Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK

 

Accounting for donated facilities and services, including volunteers

6.13. If a charity is given facilities and services for its own use which it would otherwise have purchased, these must be included in the charity’s accounts when received, provided the value of the gift can be measured reliably.

6.14. Measuring donated services using fair value would not be practical as such services cannot be resold and the use of fair value may result in an overstatement of the value of the donation to the charity. Donated facilities and services are therefore measured and included in accounts on the basis of the value of the gift to the charity.

 6.15. Value to the charity is the amount that the charity would pay in the open market for an alternative item that would provide a benefit to the charity equivalent to the donated item. Value to the charity may be lower than, but cannot exceed, the price the charity would pay in the open market for the item. Accounting and Reporting by Charities Page 62

6.16. Donated facilities and services that are consumed immediately must be recognised as income, with an equivalent amount recognised as an expense under the appropriate heading in the statement of financial activities (SoFA).

6.17. Facilities such as office accommodation or services supplied by an individual or an entity as part of their trade or profession can usually be reasonably quantified and must be included in a charity’s accounts.

6.18. Charities often rely on the contribution of unpaid general volunteers in carrying out their activities. However, placing a monetary value on their contribution presents significant difficulties. For example, charities might not employ additional staff were volunteers not available, or volunteers might complement the work of paid staff rather than replace them. These factors, together with the lack of a market comparator price for general volunteers, make it impractical for their contribution to be measured reliably for accounting purposes. Given the absence of a reliable measurement basis, the contribution of general volunteers must not be included as income in charity accounts.

6.19. However, it is important that the user of the accounts understands the nature and scale of the role played by general volunteers. Charities must include a description of the role played by general volunteers and provide an indication of the nature of their contribution in a note to the accounts

 

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

 

If substantial – and the Council implies this by always refering to providing the Barham Park Charity with a subsidy – the services provided by the Council to the Charity must be valued and shown both as Donated Income on one side and ‘deemed’ expense on the other.

 

While the net impact is £0 any reader of the accounts become aware of the true cost of managing the Charity.

 

NETTING OFF OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE?

 

Do the trustees know or understand what the figure described as cash advance” of £27,092 represents?

 

According to the report the £27,092 is actually a net figure made up of the remaining balance of rent owed by one of the tenants of £39k offset by an unpaid consultancy fees of £12k due to the Architects for their recent work on the ‘hypothetical’ project.

 

It is described this way in the Report:

3.11 As at 31 March 2023, the Trust had a rental debtor of £39,625 and a £12,533 payment that was due but not yet paid. These have been recognised as debtors and creditors on the Council’s side and the Council gave a net £27,092 cash advance to the Trust in order to aid the Trust’s cashflow position and avoid a detrimental effect of outstanding debt on the Trust’s financial position. In 2022/23 the cash advance has been reported on a separate line in the income section to aid transparency. The Council has also paid interest to the Trust on the cash advance. The Trust continues liaising with tenants and expects all arrears to be cleared by March 2024.

 

In my view the netting off of these two figures and their presentation is wrong. Income should be shown in the Income section and the Expense in the Expense section. More importantly it hides the fact that £12,533 of consultancy costs on top of the £8,711 already shown in the accounts (Total £21,244) – and there may be more paid and charged in 2023/24 to the Barham Park Charity when they should NOT be.

 

The treatment of the estimated costs of £25,000 for the architects working on the recent Barham Park vision study was agreed and confirmed at the Trust Meeting of 27 January 2022. This is what the minutes say:

Having authorised officers (in September 21) to prepare a financial strategy in respect of the Trust, approval was now being sought to the appointment of an architect in order to lead development of a more holistic options appraisal relating to the feasibility of improvements to the buildings comprising the Estate and impact on current occupation uses and tenancies.  The cost identified for the architectural services required had been £25,000 which it was proposed to fund from the Council’s Capital Programme rather than directly by the Trust, given the existing commitments on its available restricted and unrestricted funds.

 

CLEARLY AN ERROR IN THE 2022/23 ACCOUNTS

 

If it was agreed to charge the Architects cost to the “Council’s Capital Programme” why are £21,244 of the costs charged to the Barham Park Charity in its 2022/23 accounts.

 

The Charity’s surplus for the year and its unrestricted funds are clearly being reduced by this substantial amount.

 

The 2022/23 Accounts are therefore materially wrong on this point alone and need to be corrected.

 

OTHER CUMULATIVE ERRORS IN THESE ACCOUNTS

 

I will just list a few issues here that need investigation, should concern the Trustees and should lead to more questions.

1.      The Barham Park Charity has been deprived of correct Interest Income. The amount paid to it by Brent Council for the use of over £500,000 of cash balances does not represent a fair arms length price. I estimate that in the current year The Charity has been deprived of at least £5,000 of extra income and the amount will be at least double that if this is allowed to continue.

 

2.     The so called ‘arms length’ rent paid by the Council to the Charity for the use of the former Children Centre has not changed for years. As the sub lease has expired a true market rent should be charged each year. The Council has failed to follow correct procedures in ensuring that an ‘arms length rent’ is paid.

 

3.      It is also not clear why the Children Centre is not paying service charges for services such as refuse collection, water etc that it receives. There is no reason why the Charity should be paying for this.

 

4.     There has been a failure to implement rent reviews due some years ago. The cumulative cost of this failure runs into tens of thousands of pounds in lost rental income to the Charity.

 

5.      The Charity has had a benefit of NCIL Grants to upgrade the QE II Silver Jubilee Gardens and the Pond in the Park. The value of these Grant is well in excess of £100,000. The accounts for the current and previous years for failing to reflect both the Grant Income received and the expenditure on which the Grant was spent on.

 

6.     The Accounts fail to show enough detail in relation to the expenditure line of “maintenance and wardens”. This heading includes some expenditures which have nothing to do with maintenance and include items which should be included in the lines – including utilities, waste disposal etc. Without this information the Trustees and others cannot be certain if some of these costs should not have been recharged.

7.      

Why is the Charity incurring an insurance charge of £2,500 – should not some or all of this have been recharged?

 

Conclusion:

 

I have tried to engage with Council officers to highlight these issues. My views and concerns have been ignored. As a result the revised Accounts as presented are fundamentally wrong.

 

1.     They are prepared on the wrong and inconsistent basis.

 

2.     They do not comply with acceptable accounting policies as advised by the Charity commission.

 

3.     The figures are wrong.

 

4.     They understate the Charity’s Income

 

5.     They overstate the Charity’s expenses

 

6.     As a result of 4 & 5 above they understate the net worth of the charity (its net assets).

 

These accounts should NOT be approved or submitted to the Charity Commission in their current state.

 

Councillor Paul Lorber

25 September 2023

 

 

Murder investigation after Olympic Way fatal stabbing late yesterday. Witnesses sought by Met

 

From the Metropolitan Police

Detectives are appealing for witnesses and information following a murder in north London.
Police were called just after 23.00hrs on Sunday, 24 September to Olympic Way, Wembley to reports of a stabbing.

Officers attended the location where they discovered a man – aged in his mid-20s - with stab injuries. They immediately commenced CPR ahead of the arrival, a short time later, of colleagues from the London Ambulance Service, who continued to treat the victim. He was taken by ambulance to a north London hospital, but was sadly pronounced dead shortly after arrival.
 

The victim’s next of kin have been informed, however we await formal identification at this time. A post mortem examination will be held in due course.
 

Detectives from Specialist Crime North have launched an investigation and are carrying out various lines of inquiry as they attempt to identify those responsible.

No arrests have been made at this time.

Detective Chief Inspector Mark Rogers said: 

"My team are working at pace to establish what has led to this tragic incident, and as we continue to carry out numerous inquiries to trace and speak to witnesses, as well as analysing CCTV footage, we are appealing to the public to help us.

"We understand the victim was chased and attacked by a group of suspects. Were you in the area at the time? Did you see anything suspicious? Any detail – no matter how small – could assist us with our investigation so please do come forward and speak to police. Information can also be passed on anonymously via Crimestoppers.”

Chief Superintendent Dan Knowles, who is in charge of policing in Brent, said:
 

“My thoughts, and those of all my officers, are with the family and friends of this young man who has very tragically lost his life far too soon. I know that this incident will raise serious concern and worry in the community, and want to assure the all those affected that our colleagues from the Specialist Crime Command are working tirelessly to find those responsible, and local officers are assisting them in every way possible.

"The public can help us in this endeavour by speaking to officers if they have any information which could be relevant to the investigation. There will be more officers in and around the area in the coming days to provide reassurance. Please do speak to them with any concerns you have or information you would like to pass on."
 

Anyone with information which could assist the investigation team is asked
to call the incident room on 0208 345 3715 or 101 - quoting CAD7764/24Sep. To remain anonymous call Crimestoppers on 0800 555  111

Butt again refuses representations on Barham Park. Time for the Charity Commission to intervene?

 

 Thanks to Rucksack Traveller for this video taken a year ago LINK

 

The Barham Parks Trustees Committee meets again tomorrow (10am Brent Civic Centre) as a result of the Trusts's accounts being pulled from the last agenda because of a considerable number of errors. 

 

Francis Henry requested to speak at tomorrow's meeting but the request was refused by Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council and Chair of Trustees.

 

It is normal practice that representations can be made to local council committees on items that are on the Agenda of a particulat meeting. At the previous meeting Muhammed Butt refused representations (and indeed stopped Francis Henry from making them) on the plans for the future of the parks that were on the agenda. This time Butt refused despite the fact that the only item on the agenda is the accounts and Henry's submission deals  with serious shortcomings regarding them.

Surely it is time for the Charity Commission to look into compliance issues around the Trust. LINK

 

Henry wrote to the Council to express his diasppointment:

 

 

It is disappointing that once again Councillor Butt is refusing to listen to a local representative of local people who uses and cares about Barham Park.

 

It is clear that he wants to hide and not acknowledge that Barham Park is being neglected and mismanaged and faces ruin under his stewardship.

 

We will not allow this to happen.

 

I enclose a summary of the issues I want you to present to the Trustees and to be reproduced as a submission (in full )as part of the minutes of the meeting.

 

Regards

Francis Henry

 

 

 

Dear Councillor Butt and other Trustees

 

I am writing in my capacity as Chair of a recently formed Friends of Barham Park (FoBP). The President of FoBP is Allan Barham who is the great grandson of one of Titus Barham's cousins. His grandfather worked for Arthur Barham (brother of Titus Barham ) who was the Managing Director of United Dairies (later Unigate). in the late 1800s and early 1900s both Titus and Arthur lived in the buildings currently occupied by Friends of Barham Library and the other tenants. He is concerned about what his going on with the Titus Barham bequest and wishes that the memory of Titus and his contribution was better looked after.

 

In the short time since its creation FoBP has signed up 150 supporters. The number is growing every day. We also have the support of numerous local groups operating in the Sudbury and Wembley area.

 

I originally came to speak to the Barham Park Trust Meeting on 5 September following an invitation from the Council. That invitation did not give any restrictions on what issues I could speak on.

 

It has always been the practice for invited representatives of existing tenants to speak on any issue of concern on the Agenda. The minutes of previous meeting (Page 1 of the Agenda that was before you) make this absolutely clear.

 

I came  to speak on behalf of Friends of Barham Library (FOBL) - an active community organisation providing invaluable services to local people from our premises in Barham Park.

Despite of this you both interrupted my contribution and them prevented me from speaking. I came to raise concerns about the recommendations before you that will deprive Barham Community Library, run by FOBL, of our hard won space in Barham Park.

 

FOBL, and the tenants were neither informed or consulted about the proposals before the Meeting on 5 September. What are now described as "hypothetical" proposals require all tenants to be removed with no guarantee of return.

 

Officers failed to advise you that the proposals could not be implemented in the foreseeable future because has ACAVA has 6 years remaining on their Lease and FOBL has 8 years to go. There are no break clauses in favour of the Trusts and the tenants have the right of "quiet enjoyment" - i.e. no noisy or disruptive building work permitted. The £20,000 + cost of this consultancy work (apparently charged to the Trust) has been wasted. While the recommendations may be "hypothetical" the large sum of money spent is real and could have been used on much needed repairs instead.

 

There have been earlier consultancy "vision" exercises and condition surveys in the past 10 years. These also recommended pie in the sky ideas - a large pond with a viewing platform for example. This was never implemented for obvious reasons - it was a mad idea.

 

Recommendations to carry out essential repairs and maintenance to the plaster work and wooden features of the buildings and repair and upgrading of the crumbling paths and walls have never been carried. Instead of undertaking essential works the Trust under your stewardship has wasted around £40,000 on these type of pointless consultancy exercises.

 

Barham Park is neglected and faces ruin. Yet the bronze option which was meant to develop a repair and maintenance plan has been inexplicably dropped.

 

The excuse for this is the claim that the Trust is not generating enough income. This is partly because it is YOU who decided to implement a policy of rents based on social value and because officers have failed for years to collect the correct income that is due to the Trust. ACAVA was allowed to build up rent arrears equal to much more than their annual rent due. They were not charged interest on these arrears. Their rent review due in 2019 was overlooked - losing the Trust in excess of £5,000 in rent each year since then. (£20,000 lost income in the 4 years since). Who made the decision to forget or ignore the terms of their lease?

 

There are many more examples where correct income has not been charged or recoverable expenses have not been recovered. Officers do not bother to tell you and none of the Trustees bother to find out the truth.

 

Local people love Barham Park and are angry at the way Brent Council as Trustee and Managers of the Park allow it be neglected and run down. 

 

Those local people, with much greater local knowledge than either you or the other Trustees, are ignored or not allowed to speak at the Trust meetings.  

 

The Accounts presented to the Trustees are misleading and fundamentally wrong. They had to be pulled at the last moment on 5 September. The revised Accounts are still wrong as they do not reflect the reality and are completely misleading.

 

Where for example in those accounts or those for previous years does it show the Income (grants) received to undertake the work on the Barham Park Pond or the ongoing work on the QE II Silver Jubilee Garden and where is the expenditure shown and included. The total sums involved exceed £100,000 and yet the accounts do not show any of this financial activity. In both cases the Accounts should show 'restricted' income and the ongoing expenditure that the income is being used for.

 

As Paul Lorber has already pointed out to officers the 2022/23 revised Accounts being presented are wrong and misleading. The Trustees should NOT approve them and ask for an accountant with knowledge of Charity accounting & reporting to review the financial affairs of the Barham Park Trust and assist in the preparation of accounts that reflect the true position of the Income & Expenditure of the Trust for the year to 31 March 2023 and the Trusts financial position as at 31 March 2023.

 

There is a long list of failures to highlight in the way Barham Park has been mismanaged and money wasted. The Trustees are not being told the truth and you and the others are failing to ask the right questions.

 

If you either want to know the truth and have a genuine commitment to improve Barham Park and its building and recreation of local people as Titus Barham intended, then you have to start listening and engaging with people who know a great deal about Barham Park and whole heartedly care for its future.

 

Regards

 

Francis Henry

for Friends of Barham Park

representing the views of local people

 

Readers having been present at the last meeting or seen the video or media reports may be interested in how the Minutes record what happened.