Time to work with Affinity on issues around water supply to the thousands of new homes planned for Wembley, Alperton and Northwick Park

There was some confusion at this week's Planning Committee when councillors discussed the Atlip, Alperton planning application. Cllr Saqib Butt asked about concerns raised by Thames Water over a previous application on the site. He was puzzled that they had raised no concerns over the revised application which was double the size of the original.

 

I went back to the recording to try and clarify what was said. It appear that the reference to Thames Water is about foul water capacity and the officer's reply merely says that there must have been some work on capacity in the meantime. 

In the north of Brent water is supplied by Affinity Water and dispersal of foul water by Thames.

The Committee papers show no consultation with Affinity as the suppliers on water  supply capacity and no assurance that they have to capacity to supply such a large development.

This is obviously crucial and can be set against the works on Watford Road that Affinity is currently undertaking to improve supply.

 Brent Council has confirmed that the works are essential to deliver the required water for the growth of development in Wembley and Alperton consisting of large blocks of flats and apartment which are built rapidly.

Currently there are 2,293 properties under construction and Affinity are aware of 3,905 proposed future developments. I am not sure if this includes the regeneration underway in Northwick Park.

Without the reinforcement works taking place immediately it has been modelled that an estimated 2,916 properties could experience periods without water and 5,084 with poor presssure within the Wembley area.

Some areas in the north of the borough already experience low pressure so it seems essential that Affinity are consulted at the planning stage of new developments and perhaps invited to Scrutiny to clarify the issues as Thames Water was in the past.

 

Another Scrutiny Call-in over Barham Park Trust Commitee decisions - scheduled for Thursday April 3rd, 2025

Persistence is the name of the game regarding the much-questioned decisions of the Barham Park Trust following the meeting on Monday 24th February where applications by councillors and public to speak were refused.

Now a combination of opposition councillors has submitted a detailed Call-in for an additional meeting of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee that has been approved. It covers the restricted covenants of 776 and 778 Harrow Road that the Trust is seeking to remove after a payment by developer and funfair owner,  George Irvin, as well as other operational issues.

The meeting will take place at 6pm on Thursday April 3rd in the Grand Hall at Brent Civic Centre.   

The Call-in Details:

 

 

Wembley Matters top 10 stories in 2024 - a review

These are the stories on Wembley Matters that gained the most views during 2024 and represent a cross-section of the issues covered by the blog. Remember if you have a story you wish to share that you don't think has received the attention it deserves contact Wembley Matters at wembleymatters@virginmedia.com

If you have missed stories during 2024 remember that you can subscribe for free daily updates. See the side panel.

Thanks you to readers and contributors who have supported Wembley Matters with number of page views since the start of the blog approaching 7,000,000.
 

Brent councillor Shama Tatler moves into national spotlight as she is parachuted into sacked candidate Faiza Shaheen's seat 

 

Cllr Shama Tatler came under fire from local members of the Labour Party in Chingford and Woodford Green when she became their centrally imposed General Election candidate. They pointed to her record as 'Towerblock Tatler' in Brent as well as accusing her of opportunism. Towerblocks seems to over-shadow her career because they also caused problems in Watford when she sought that nomination. Labour there were campaiging against the Lib Dem Mayor and calling him 'Tower Taylor'. 

Faiza Shaheen stood as an Independent and the split vote enabled Tory Ian Duncan-Smith to retain the seat. Cllr Tatler moved to a new job in the Labour Office of the Local Government Association and resigned as Brent Council lead member for planning, regeneration and growth buts remains a councillor. She wished her succesor well: 'Thank you to all my Cabinet colleagues, past and present and I wish my successor all the best in continuing to deliver progressive Regeneration and Planning for Brent's residents.' Her successor? None other than the Leader of Brent Council, Muhammed Butt who awarded himself the portfolio.

Is Muhammed Butt's attempt at increasing the number of councillors required to call decisions in for scrutiny an abuse of democracy?

Muhammed Butt himself ran into difficulties when he tried to make changes in the rules regarding 'Call-In' when backbenchers can refer a Cabinet decision for further consideration by the council's Scrutiny Committee. In a move to reduce the number of call-ins, whether for financial or political reasons, he wanted any call-in to be valid only if it was signed by some Labour members in addition to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat opposition. (10 signatories would be required and the total opposition councillors is 8) Observers noted that with Labour members whipped this was very unlikely and there was an outcry that this undermined democracy and reinforced Butt's tendency to want to gather more and more power to himself.

The proposal was watered down but still means that without support from councillors from  other parties that the Liberal Democrat Group cannot call-in a decison on their own.

UPDATED: Organising in process to defend Harrow from right-wing disruption 

The country was rocked in the summer by far right rioting mainly organised over social media.

The riots followed misinformation spread about the identity of the person responsible for the terrible murder of young children in Southport.

Rumours spread about plans for an attack on a Muslim Centre in North Harrow and as in other areas of the country a community counter-demonstration  was rapidly organised. In the event the far right did not turn up, or if they did rapidly retreated when they saw the size of the resistance.

Concerned by the anti-Muslim nature of the far right attacks a group of young Muslims, wrote a guest post on Wembley Matters about their concern that Brent Council was not doing enough to combat Islamophobia: 'The community want to meet the council leadership, speak to them and hold them to account. They want to know what are their short and long term aims in fighting Islamophobia.'

 

Village Mews: A story of neglect, lack of maintenance and poor communication by a series of housing associations that leaves residents in a desperate situation 

  

 The case of neglect by the housing association at Village Mews was just one of many cases covered by Wembley Matters which highlighted poor conditions in both housing association and council properties.

Failing to get satisfaction from the managers of their properties they have turned to Wembley Matters in desperation. Concerns are not just about old properties but new build by groups such as L&Q with failing heating systems and fire safety issues. 

Temporary accommodation in private rentals for homeless families continues to be a source of some appalling conditions particularly affecting the physical and mental health of children,

Letter: Brent Council is using heavily biased language in its Paddington Old Cemetery dog PSPO consultation - what are their real plans?

Wembley Matters publishes the occasional letter from individuals or groups that want to bring an issue to the attention of readers.

Paddington Old Cemetery is a much appreciated green space that has long been championed by local people and many will remember the campaign by Cllr John Duffy about asbestos that was dumped there.

The Cemetery is used by dog walkers to exercise their animals but the Council is seeking to end an exemption that allowed them to be walked off leash.

There are a range of opinions on the proposal as can be seen from the many comments on the story, but a major contention was the wording of the consultation that campaignrs claimed was biased.

 

Northwick Park's development into a small town begins 

 

One of the reasons I started the Wembley Matters blog was that I realised many people were not aware of what was happening in the borough as it underwent rapid change. There used to be three local newspapers that covered the borough but only one, reduced in size, remains and a local TV channel was shorted lived.

The Northwick Park 'One Public Estate' development involvedsBrent Council, NW London NHS, University of Westminster and Network Housing is a project that seems to have crept up on people. Some have been puzzled, shocked or intrigued when visting Northwick  Park to see the beginning of a major development that will see tall blocks on the perimeter of the site and the area undegoing substantial change. 

An emerging issue is the financial viability of the project by Countryside pictured in its early stages above. Vistry the parent company has issued three profit warnings recently and is reviewing its portfolio. This may mean that to ensure profitability the tenure of developments may change in favour of private sales.

 

BREAKING: Application for 3 day Korean Pop Music Festival in Northwick Park summer 2025

 

Wembley Matters broke this story just before the holiday and comments are still open on the Licensing application. Up to 15,000 might attend. There are concerns about possible issues around congested access to the site from Northwick Park and South Kenton tube stations as well as loss of a major part of the park to the public during the summer.  Others of course welcome something to entertain us during the summer holiday.

A previous application for a different festival in Fryent Country Park in the summer was withdrawn twice - first because it coincided with a Wembley Event Day and when changed to a different day due to the large number of objections.  Brent Council has a policy to earn money from its parks due to its financial crisis so this issue may continue on a number of fronts in the future.

 

Dreams and Nightmares on the South Kilburn Estate 

 

Wembley Matters regularly hears from both long-term and new residents on the South Kilburn estate as the major regeneration continues.  The original residents are experiencing the joys of living long-term on a building site, with noise, dust and disruption part of daily life as well as an increase in anti-social behaviour with some blocks broken into by squatters who light fires or sleep in the public areas.

New residents battle with what they see as flats that have been built quickly with corners cuts and resulting issues over  heating, condensation  and unsafe balaconies and windows amongst others. 

 

Bobby Moore Bridge – formal complaint submitted over advertising lease award 

 

Philip Grant is a regular contributor to Wembey Matters as a local historian and in his private capacity. Philip has no party political affiliation but in his private capacity is a passionate believer in adherence to the Nolan Principles of public life. 

He is committed to ensuring that Brent Council sticks to these principles and demonstrates transparency and integrity. 

The Bobby Moore Bridge mural has featured in many of his posts, most recently concerned the procurement of advertising that replaces part of the mural and the use of the funds earned from that advertising. He has also taken up the lack of social housing on the Cecil Avenue site and the future of the Altimira Victorian Villa in Stonebridge.

I would like to publicly thank Philip for all his contributions and for his painstaking work as a proactive Brent Citizen.

 

Another South Kilburn disaster revealed - £15m claim on Swift House and George House goes to mediation 

 

This is a fairly typical story from South Kilburn illustrating the building problems outlined above and the problems with deciding who is responsible for remediation of building defects. The problem is particularly complex when a building changes hands and new owners are faced with defects that they claim are the responsibility of earlier owners.

Granville New Homes was an early example when Brent Council purchased the buildings but later found that the cost of remediation was more than they paid for them.  Changes in the law could mean that Brent Council, given the will, could claim compensation on behalf of Brent council tax payers.

 

 

Still time to respond to Brent Council's proposed service cuts and fees increases

 Brent Council is running a consultation on its Draft Budget that includes some increases in charges as well as service cutbacks. Council Tax is to be increased by 4.99% and Council Tax Support for the vulnerable reduced.

The Council's website explains:

Councils across London are facing a series of unprecedented financial challenges, caused by a perfect storm of continued high inflation, rapidly increasing demand for services and reduced government funding since 2010. 

Across all budgets and service areas, London Councils estimates that boroughs will overspend on their original budget plans by over £600m in 2024/25. 

Brent is not immune to these pressures, with an expensive adult social care bill getting more so every year because of an ageing population as well as soaring levels of homelessness, with around 150 new families presenting as homeless most weeks. 

On top of £222m of cuts made since 2010, a further £16 million must be saved in 2025-26 to balance the books.  

The council has pulled together budget proposals which aim to protect the services residents rely on most as far as possible and protect the organisation’s longstanding healthy financial position. It is now asking for local people’s views on these proposals. 

Proposals in the draft budget include: 

• Increase charge for bulky waste collection from £40 to £55 
• Increase garden waste annual subscription from £65 to £69 
• A 4.99% increase in council tax, with 2% ring-fenced for adult social care 
• Changes to our Council Tax Support Scheme: https://www.brent.gov.uk/news-in-brent/2024/october/council-tax-support-scheme-consultation-gets-the-green-light

View draft budget proposals: Issue - items at meetings - Draft Budget 2025/26

 

BUDGET CONSULTATION ONLINE SESSIONS
THE WEBSITE SAYS CONSULTATION WILL RUN UNTIL DECEMBER 15TH BUT AS YOU CAN SEE THE WILLESDEN EVENT IS IN JANUARY!

Harlesden Connects Online November 26^th 6pm to 7pm

Kingsbury and Kenton Connects Online December 2^nd 6pm-7pm

Kilburn Connects Online December 12^th 6pm-7pm

Willesden Connects Online January 9^th 6pm-7pm

The Wembley Connects took place last week attended by 5 people.

Apart from the charges above there are other charges in the proposal including charging the elderly monthly  for Telecare services (they vary widely across councils) and increases for mortuary and bereavement services.  A £1m cut is based on wider use of reablement services to keep people from reliance on long-term care services and additional respite capacity for individuals with learning disabilities and reduce reliance on residential respite placements.

Care leavers aso suffer  with proposals to halve the number of weekends offered at Gordon Brown Centre for courses to support their independence and a reduction in spend on the SafeBase that supports the health and wellbeing of care leavers in higher education. Given the concerns about the vulnerability of care leavers this seems short-sighted.

 Apart from the Environment Services fee rise above there is a proposal for a £5 delivery charge for new or replacement binsand a proposal to cease the subscription to the online Recylopedia  resource which recieves 12,000 clicks a month.

A staffing and structural review of Public Realm posts results in the deletion of 3-4 posts which apparently will lead to 'local solutions for local problems.'  I hope Scrutiny Committee will explore what that means.

It is proposed to use an agency for occupational health service:

It is anticipated that a saving £100,000 could be delivered through the outsourcing of the OH contract.  By switching to an external provider, we would only pay the costs for our actual usage. We also pay high agency rates as OH specialists are hard to recruit and there is a national skills shortag. There is a downside in the Risk Assessment:Reduced service and longer waiting times to be seen by an OH professional as the service won’t be inhouse and bespoke. This will be mitigated as far as possible through close monitoring of performance. 

The deletion of 5 posts in Finance and Resorces is mitigated by 'automation'.

Check the list in Appendix below for the proposals  and if you want more details note the reference number and go to Appendix B. Click bottom right corner for full page.

 

 Appendix B - detailed proposals with risk assessments.

 

 

 

'He's got the whole of Brent in his hands' - Muhammed Butt grabs more power

 

It  had been suggested that Cllr Muhammed Butt has taken on Cllr Shama Tatler's portfolio only temporarily until a new Cabinet member was appointed. However, in an updated Full Council Agenda yesterday it appears that this is permanent arrangement.

Cllr Butt has granted himself direct power over Regeneration, Planning and Growth in addition to Housing which he took over when Cllr Promise Knight went on maternity leave.

Given the number of controversial developments and planning decisions in Brent this might be seen as too much power and influence for one person. Cllr Butt hs been pro-active in early meetings with developers before applications get to Planning Committee but now has a formal role. What price the independence of Brent Planning Commitee?

Other changes were notified on the Agenda following the resignation from Committee positions of ex-Deputy Mayor Cllr Diana Collymore:

 

Full Council – 18 November 2024
 

Agenda Item 5 – Appointments to Committees & Outside Bodies
Standing Order 30(g) states that, if necessary, Full Council is required to agree appointments to committees and outside bodies. In addition to the changes listed Council is being asked to confirm the appointment of an Independent Person.

Such appointments are set out below:

Cabinet Membership
 

Council is asked to note that effective from 8 November 2024 the Leader of the Council has incorporated the role of Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Growth within his remit following Councillor Shama Tatler having stood down from her role as a Cabinet Member.
 

Committee Appointments:

1. Audit & Standards Advisory Committee and Audit & Standards Committee – Councillor Lesley Smith to replace Councillor Teo Benea as a full member.
 

2. Community & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee – Councillor Teo Benea to replace Councillor Diana Collymore as a full member
 

3. Corporate Parenting Committee – Councillor Lesley Smith to replace Councillor Diana Collymore as a full member.
 

4. Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee - Councillor Teo Benea to replace Councillor Diana Collymore as a substitute
member

Brent Council tries to stop South Kilburn regeneration from hitting the buffers via a single developer and more private homes

 

The map shows how many sites are still to be developed 20 years after the 2004 Masterplan.

 

The South Kilburn Regeneration began as a concept in the late 1990s, with the New Deal for Communities adopted in 2001.

The first South Kilburn Masterplan was approved on the 12th July 2004 so the project has been going for 20 years and completion may take at least another ten.

The Minutes of the 12th July Executive Meeting show that non-Executive members were concerned that the Masterplan had not gone to the Scrutiny Committee. LINK

Tomorrow's Cabinet starts at 10am and South Kilburn is Item 12 out of 15 items LINK. The meeting will be livestreamed HERE.

Cabinet will be asked to approve a new chapter with the council seeking a single developer rather than a multiplicity of developers for the sites that remain. They include Queens Park & Cullen House, William Dunbar House and William Saville House, Masefield House, Wordsworth House and Dickens House, Craik Court, Crone Court and Zangwill House, Hereford House and Exeter Court, Austin House and Blake Court and John Radcliffe House.  

The Cabinet are told that Early Pre-market Engagement has indicated interest from several companies to take on the very large task with attendant risks in the current climate. Economies of scale are cited as an advantage but there are still risks regarding viability

The regeneration programme is based on the cross-subsidy model where the receipts from market housing funds the delivery of affordable housing, social and public infrastructure.  It is however notable that the programme has up until now benefitted from rapidly rising sales values as regeneration improved the area, but the sales values are now flattening out. 

Meanwhile construction cost inflation has risen steeply and continues to remain high, this alongside the recent regulatory changes, specifically the second staircase, is putting viability under extreme pressures. Also, interest rate rises have affected both development market and purchaser demand. Affordability of the programme is expected to remain challenging and will need to be carefully monitored and robustly managed.

There are still tenants waiting to be rehoused on the estate in line with the Landlord Promise made by the Council that they would be rehoused on the estate. It appears that 164 will have to wait until after 2028:

933 tenants have been permanently rehoused in a new home in South Kilburn. Approximately 200 tenants have been permanently rehoused outside South Kilburn in a new build or an existing home around the borough in areas such as Harlesden, Willesden, Cricklewood, Willesden Green, Kensal Rise, Kensal Green, Brondesbury and Kilburn. 

 At time of writing there are 284 tenants across Austin, Blake, Dickens, Craik, Crone, Zangwill, John Radcliffe, William Dunbar and William Saville remaining to be rehoused. 120 of the 284 will have the opportunity to be rehoused between 2025 and 2028 in the developments under construction at NWCC, C&G and Peel. The rehousing team is working with tenants at Austin, Blake and Dickens as a priority for the next phase of rehousing as these blocks are in the poorest condition.

The report is franker that previously about the difficulties encountered, partly in support of the single developer proposal:

 In a small number of developments however residents have experienced disruptive build quality issues. At Granville New Homes, Franklin, Chase and Hollister House, there have been issues with water leakage, supply of hot water and heating, poor workmanship and use of poor-quality material. Elsewhere, at Merle Court and George and Swift House fire safety issues with cladding has required significant remediation works.  

Multiplicity of landlords and managing agents arising from the site-by-site development model is also reflected in the inconsistent and variable standards of management and maintenance of the public realm across the neighbourhood and sometimes on opposite sides of the street. This inconsistent approach has marred the community's experience of living, working and visiting South Kilburn.  

Parts of South Kilburn have a concentration of sites at various stages of redevelopment - sites which are hoarded up and under construction, sites which are part or fully vacant. There areas have been experiencing increased levels of anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping and squatting. Alongside this is the noise, dust, vibration, and traffic disruption arising from the construction itself.  

Whilst these are the inevitable consequences of large-scale, long-term regeneration programmes, it presents significant disruption to the day-to-day experience of residents and erodes their sense of safety, community and ownership.

21. The delivery programme as set out in the 2016 Masterplan review has been delayed due to economic and viability challenges and recent regulatory changes requiring extensive design amendments. Beyond the sites which are currently under construction there is no future pipeline of new homes. For residents (tenants and leaseholders) remaining in the existing blocks the uncertainty of not knowing when and where they are going to move is frustrating, particularly for residents living in overcrowded and poor quality homes.

For viability there will be an increase in the private homes quota as well as an increase in densification.

According to the 2016 Masterplan, the remaining sites can provide a further 1,400 homes. An initial review of the Masterplan has indicated that there are opportunities for optimisation, densification to deliver more housing The remainder of programme will include a higher percentage of private housing to re- balance the overall distribution of housing tenure and front loading of affordable homes provision in the earlier phases of the programme. The level of private housing will be critical to the viability of future phases.

 

There is never much discussion, and certainly not debate, at Cabinet - that is all done in private with officers at a private pre-Cabinet meeting, so this complex and risky proposal is likely to go through in a few minutes. It is important that Scrutiny Commitee (unlike in 2005) considers it at the appropriate time.

 

Progressing Climate Emergency Action in Brent

 

Wembley flood risk areas 

Today's warning

Brent Cabinet will consider the Climate and Ecological Emergency  Programme 2024-2026 at next week's meeting. It is a hefty document but discussion will probably be limited to two proposals requiring Cabinet approval with a much deeper consideration at a future Scrutiny Committee:

Approve £3m  CIL expenditure for the implementation of the Church End & Roundwood Green Corridors Scheme.

Removal of current weightings in the Brent Carbon Offset Fund Allocations Policy to provide flexibility to maximise overall funding.

There is much more in the documentation and I embed two of the key documents below which outline the plans and progress.

An interesting addition is New Green Neighbourhood Action Plans linked to development for St Raphael's Estate and South Kilburn.

In his forward to the Cabinet paper LINK Jake Rubin, lead member for Climate Action, says:

Achieving carbon neutrality by 2030 remains extremely challenging, requiring a massive upscaling in nationally funded infrastructure programmes as well as concerted action and behaviour change from all sectors and individuals across society. Regardless of whether this aspiration is considered achievable, the climate science tells us that every action taken now to either directly reduce carbon emissions or to improve Brent’s resilience to climate change will help to lessen the worst impacts of climate change in future.

 

We also know that the adverse impacts of climate change, such as the severe flooding and heatwaves that we have already experienced in recent years, will affect working class communities and those with the greatest needs the most, while action to tackle the climate and ecological emergency has the potential to bring positive change for the whole local community on many of the issues that matter most to people, such as cleaner air, greener spaces, warmer homes, healthier travel and a thriving local economy. Our Climate Programme is therefore vital in improving lives and livelihoods, promoting health and wellbeing and environmental and social justice.

The programme reflects difficulties regarding direct funding at a time of a local government finance crisis. The retrofitting of council homes, for example, is confined to a small pilot although it could significantly impact reduce energy bills for residents across the borough. It is very much an 'invest to save' issue. On the Dashboard below it is well worth paying close attention to the items where Brent Council has 'Direct' powers.

An area that requires cooperation with another body is provision of cycling lanes where Brent Council and TfL/GLA have a joint responsibility. Brent urgently needs a network of safe cycle lanes in addition to the Wembley to Harlesden project recently consulted on.

 

The papers. (Click on the cross bottom right for full page view)

UPDATED with proposal for better Governance that Cllr Butt refused to be heard by Trustees. 'Barham Park? Nothing to see here. Carry on.' - Scrutiny Committee verdict

 Funfair owner and developer George Irvin was the elephant in the room that popped up now and again at yesterday's Scrutiny Committee. He first emerged  when Cllr Paul Lorber mentioned him as a lobbyist in his declaration of interests when setting out the reasons for the Call-in of the Strategic and Operational aspects of the Barham Park Trustees performance.

Irvin came up again in ex-Labour councillor Gaynor Lloyd'a presentation when she focused on Trustees' plans to remove 'restrictive aspects' of the covenant on commercial development of the Barham Park park and buildings.

Removal would enable George Irvin to go ahead with the development of the two park workers' houses in the park that he purchased some time ago LINK as well as enable the Trustees to convert some of the park buildings for commercial use.

Gaynor Lloyd said:

Barham Park, its buildings, and these valuable covenants are all ASSETS of  a charity. Charity Commission consent is needed for any change in the restrictive covenants. There is a process to get that consent but Trustees must comply with  requirements of charity law  to get to a decision. To quote  from the  Charity commission website,  Trustees must be able to show they have based their decisions on enough relevant information; they are expected to think about the impact and risks of the decision, including on  their charity’s property or reputation, the costs  involved, whether the decision may be controversial. Trustees must  get professional advice and consult beneficiaries : in this case, the residents of Wembley.

 See Gaynor Lloyd's guest blog post on this issue in 2021 LINK.

George Irvin had written to a local residents' association saying that he had bought the houses to protect the park from overdevelopment that  would affect his two annual funfairs.

 

All a little strange with the developer and Trustees both having an interest in doing away with the covenant for different reasons, but both with a commercial interest.

 

Gaynor Lloyd pointed out that the Trustee beneficiaries, the people of Wembley, had not been consulted but were clearly opposed to development along with four councillors and the local MP.  

 

 Paul Lorber reiterated his case about mismanagement of the Trust by Trustees and misleading or wrong advice from officers who now have delegated responsibility for the relevant matters. See Call-in notice HERE

There were presentations from current voluntary groups making use of the Barham Park buildings who face increases in rents and imposition of service charges that had not been collected previously. The Memory Lounge, Gurkha's  Group and Veterans' Club all gave moving accounts of their work and the impact on users if the property could no longer be afforded.

When Trust Chair and Council Leader Muhammed Butt said how good it was to get the views of users, Cllr Geogiou made a fierce intervention pointing out that Cllr Butt had not allowed representations from users, particularly Barham Library, at the two recent Trustees meetings.

Butt said that they would be consulted once the basic proposal outline had been approved and management of the various projects would be at liberty to meet with their members ahead of any meetings with officers. There was a determination to talk with each group separately 'as their needs were different' (thus opening the way to divide and rule?).  Cllr Geogiou asked again why they had not been allowed to address the Trustees' meeting. When Cllr Butt started repeating his earlier statement about future consultation Georgiou said it was not worth him going on as he was not answering the question.

Cllr Janice Long (extract on video above)  suggested that the Barham Park buildings were a millstone around the Council's neck. Cllr Butt expressed some sympathy with her views.

Cllr Mary Mitchell disagreed strongly  and underlined the importance of social value of such facilities during a funding crisis. She then asked some  pertinent questions about the financial risk involved in the move to remove the covenant, the £20,000 spent on the architects' report in 2023 for a project that not would happen until 2031 (the £20k was first going to be paid by the Council but would now be paid for by the Trustees), and no business case had been developed. She remarked that under Climate Change implications the report said 'Nil' and wondered if that was true.

An officer in response to a question about the claw-back of Sure Start funds for the Children's Centre that was no longer operating in one of the buildings, said that Brent Council would have to meet the cost which was currently £93,000 but would reduce over time.

Another empty building on the site' known as Unit 7, that had been earmarked for a Dementia Advice Unit after Friends of Barham Library had secured funding, had been delayed for 6 years officers said while a strategic plan was formulated to 'better understand' how it would fit in with the estate.

Officers and Cllr Butt pointed out that the Gold and Silver options would have meant more commercialisation and would have undermined the aims of the Trust. They claimed the Bronze option balanced the need to generate income with the maintenance of the Trust's responsibilities to fulfil its aims.

Cllr Mitchell asked about Governance and why the Trust had delegated powers to officers rather than recruiting new Trustees. Debra Norman, Head of Governance, said Governance reviews had taken  place regularly. Cllr Butt said that this came up every year and he had looked around for alternatives but he had struggled to find anything better.

The Scrutiny Committee voted against sending the items back for further consideration. Cllr Georgiou voted for, stating that issues had not be sufficiently addressed (rent arrears, failure to collect service charges, unit 7 six lost years etc). He did not have confidence  in  the Trustees or in the officers' advice.

Cllr Mary Mitchell and Cllr Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam abstained.

UPDATE

Philip Grant has commented below regarding a proposal he put to the Barham Park Trust (or wanted brought to their attention) in early 2023. He writes:

 Early in 2023, I had suggested what I believe would be a better and workable alternative governance arrangement for the Barham Park Trust. This was not mentioned in the governance report that went to the September 2023 Trust Committee meeting, so I wanted to bring it to their attention.

I was not able to attend that meeting, but I had requested that I could "speak" for two minutes through a short statement read out on my behalf. the Chair of the Committee, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, refused to agree, so my suggestion was not voiced at the meeting, and not reflected in any official record of it.

This is the proposal:

Why Barham Park Matters - paper ahead of tonight's Scrutiny Meeting

 

Ahead of tonight's Call-in at Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Paul Lorber has provided a background paper for members of the Committee. The meeting can be attended in person or on-line HERE:

Where is the pond and viewing platform in Barham Park?

 

I ask this question for a good reason.

 

Over the past 12 years or so various Trustees (Brent Councillors) have taken officer advice and spent large sums of money – in each case well over £10,000 – on Consultants “Visions” and condition surveys into Barham Park.

 

Over 10 years ago officers proudly presented one of these visions with a Pond and a viewing platform in one of these expensive documents. The drawing showing this were quite appealing, and the Trustees approved this plan.

 

THERE IS NO POND AND NO VIEWING PLATFORM!

 

Subsequent reports highlighted the condition of the Barham Buildings and stressed the need to carry out works. These works were all costed, and a program timeline was produced. Much was to be done over the next 3 year. In reality very little was actually done to protect and preserve the exterior of the buildings. The outside has not been painted for at least 15 years.

 

Why – there is no Champion for Barham Park within the Trustees or the Officer Team. Barham Park is not a priority – it is a nuisance to be brushed under the carpet.

 

This LINK link takes you to pictures highlighting current disrepair and neglect in Barham Park.

 

Those of us who care for Barham Park want the time wasting and the neglect to stop.

 

BACKGROUND – WHY DOES IT MATTER

 

Once upon a time the whole of Sudbury was part of the Sudbury Common which stretched from long way down in Wembley all the way to Harrow on the Hill. 

 

An Archbishop Canterbury was the Lord of the Manor of much of the land here a few hundreds of years ago.

 

The oldest part of the buildings in Barham Park dates back to between 1760 and 1780 (say 250 years ago).

 

In 1801 John Copland – a Purser (Accountant/Officer Manager) – on Royal Navy Ships who once served on one of Lord Horacio Nelson’s vessels at the 1805 battle of the Nile bough Crabs House in what is now Barham Park.

 

He prospered over the years and acquired more land so that by the time of his death in 1843 he owned over 350 acres of land which stretched from The Triangle in Wembley all the way to bottom of Harrow on the Hill. He built a new house on his land called Sudbury Lodge. John Copland bought a crypt in the newly opened Kensal Green Cemetery where he is buried.

 

His only son also joined the Royal Navy too but died very young. John Copland was survived by two daughters. They never married and became great local benefactors paying for the building of St John’s Church, a cottage hospital. School rooms and much more – even a small reference library.

 

On their death in early 1870s General Robert Fitzgerald Crawford took over on condition he changed his name to Crawford-Copland. His two sons played football for Scotland in the very first official game against England.

 

On his passing in 1895 the land was acquired by George Barham the owner of Express Dairies. Most of the land in Sudbury was still farmland, with the area opposite (Chaplin Road/Farm Avenue) a large farm. Sir George as he became later is famous for building up the Express Dairy Company and also for cleaning up the milk industry.

 

On his death n 1913 his two sons took over, but it was the older one also George – but always known as Titus – who lived here and developed his home and gardens. He too was a major benefactor and was involved in almost everything that went on locally. He donated part of his farmland for the site of Wembley Hospital (subject to new plans shortly), he contributed to the local Tennis Club, Barham Primary Scholl stands on his land and much more.

 

In 1937 when Wembley received its Charter to become a Borough he was due to become Wembley’s Charter Mayor. Sadly, he died on the very day this was due to be celebrated.

 

Anticipating death, he had the good vision to enter into agreement with the new Wembley Council to accept the gift of his home and gardens for the “enjoyment of the public”. He was a modest man and did not want any fuss. There is no statue of him and until recently he is remembered by the existence of Barham Park, Barham Primary School, Barham Close and Barham Court.

 

His portrait hands in the Brent Museum which was in fact created in 1965 with many of his gifted possessions as the initial core of the collection – including a coat of armour.

 

A few months ago, volunteers from Friends of Barham Park organised a public collection and erected a Blue Plaque in his memory.

 

DOES HISTORY MATTER?

 

For some the Barham buildings are just an old pile of bricks and even a nuisance. For the lovers of Barham Park, they are however much more. They tell a story of local people who made a contribution to our community.

 

This is why some of us despair at the neglect, and the waste of money and opportunities to improve things.

 

WHAT ARE THE BARHAM PARK BUILDINGS FOR?

 

One part is occupied by Barham Veterans Club formed in 1947 by Wembley and Middlesex County Council to provide a place for elderly men to socialise as part of tackling loneliness. In the early days the Club paid no rent and received a generous grant from the Council. The grant was stopped many years ago and the Club is charged rent and service charges.

 

Officer let the lease lapse and now recommend a new lease on market value terms for a short period of time until 2031. The Bronze drawings do not show the Barham Veterans Club so presumably the idea or expectations is that it will not exist beyond 2031.

 

The wooden building (former Card Room) is occupied by Tamu Samaj UK and ex Gurkha Nepalese Group. They run a wide range of activities for their members of all ages and also hire out the space to other small groups.

 

Their Lease has just expired, and they also face a short lease at market rent.

 

The Public Library was closed by the Labour Administration in 2011. Friends of Barham Library opened a Community Library in another part. The library acts as a hub for many community activities, knitting, art, book club groups. Yoga and Pilates and many others and most importantly is the home of the Memory Lounge – a growing group providing activities, support and advice for people with dementia and their carers.

 

The Bronze option drawing approved by the Trustees have wiped the library from existence. The children library would be a shop and the rest of the space is a bit unclear.

 

The former Children Centre closed many years ago. The Lease is between the Barham Park Trust and the Council, and the Council is desperate to keep up the pretence of ‘children centre’ use to avoid clawback of Sure Start Grant.

 

The rest of the building is leased to ACAVA – an out of Brent organisation who converted their space into 29 smaller units which they let to artists – most of whom are also outside of Brent.

 

When this decision was made in 2013 Officers and Councillors were convinced that this would benefit the local area. Current Councillors can judge this for themselves. The artists contribute very little to Brent art, they are not local and most if not all of the rent owed (over £60,000 according to recent reports) is owed by ACAVA.

 

HERE WE ARE TODAY

 

After tens of thousands of pounds spent on surveys and consultants most of whose reports collect dust in some forgotten draw and the pictures tell their own story.

Opportunities to extract large sums of money from the heritage Lottery Fund and others have been missed.

The buildings are neglected.

Community Groups who provide local services to local people face the threat of being kicked out as consultants think and Brent Officers and Trustees concur with this – that shops or hotel rooms that no one asked for and the area does not need are more important than a Community Library, a Club for elderly residents and a base for a group of loyal and hard working ex Gurkhas – without whom the annual Remembrance March would be rather short of any marchers!

2^nd CHANCE TO SET A BETTER DIRECTION

Decisions by Barham Park Trustees were called in last year. They have been called in again this time.

The Barham Park Trust 2022/23 Accounts were challenged and had to be withdrawn for corrections. Officers persuaded you that nothing was wrong. A year later the 2023/24 Accounts were withdrawn right at the beginning of the Barham Park Trust Meeting.

To get it wrong once is unfortunate. To get it wrong the 2^nd time should set the ALARM bells ringing.

The accounts are wrong and misleading. The way the Barham Trust is managed is wrong and very damaging. Wrong Accounts and misleading information lead to wrong and bad decisions.

If there is any point to Scrutiny than the Members of Scrutiny need to take their responsibilities seriously and grab an opportunity to challenge the poor decisions and poor actions for the sake of ensuring a future for the Barham Park Charity and Barham Park and its buildings.

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO?

Ask your self a few simple questions:

If Barham Park was YOUR home and gardens and you depended on it being well managed, would you:

1.     Waste tens of thousands of pounds on surveys and consultants reports which collect dust and cannot and will not ever be implemented?

2.     Ignore legal agreements (Leases) and not bother to revise rents when due?

3.     Allow the building up of rental debt of over £60,000?

4.     Fail to charge interest on the rent debt in line with the Lease terms?

5.     Spend over £20,000 on consultants’ fees on proposals which you could not start working on for 8 years and which are at major risk of economic and other factors?

6.     Allow your subordinates not to recharge costs that you have incurred without being informed and without your agreement?

7.     Spend large sums of money on valuations and legal fees without knowing what you might get in return?

If your answer to any of these questions is NO than you agree that something is badly wrong, and change is needed.

As a starting point you will then agree with the grounds for the Call-in and agree to refer the decisions back to the Barham Park Trust with clear instructions  that all the issues raised are fully investigated and honest and full answers provided to enable the Trustees to make decisions based on facts, that meet their fiduciary duties to the Barham Park Charity and which meet the expectations of and wishes of Titus Barham who gifted his Home and Gardens for everyone’s enjoyment.