Community bulb planting at Barham Park on Saturday

 

Barham Park accounts, Council tax on empty and second homes, Vale Farm contract - decisions coming soon

 The Brent Forward Plan gives a note but no details on decisions to be made in the near future.

Coming up in 2024:

Reconsider the accounts of Barham Park Trust 2022-2023

 

To reconsider, following their reference back by the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee under the call-in process, the accounts for the Barham Park Trust 2022-23.

 

 24 Jan 2024 by Barham Park Trust Committee 

 

Lead member: Leader

Lead director: Corporate Director of Finance & Resources

 

Council Tax - Empty and Second Homes Premium 

 To consider a recommendation to charge 100% on empty homes from one year, rather than two years as at present, and to provide 12 months’ notice of the Council’s intention to charge a premium of 100% on Second Homes from 1 April 2025.

 

5^th February Cabinet

 

Vale Farm Leisure Centre Procurement Options 

to consider the various methods of providing the Leisure Centre facilities from 2025 onwards and agree on a method of service provision. 

 

8^th April 2024 Cabinet

 

Commercialisation of our parks in Brent Council's budget proposals

 The Council's proposals for Barham Park included plans to commercialise the buildings to include a  boutique hotel and supermarket along with charging market rents for some of the voluntary groups and charities that presently occupy them. The proposals resulted in a massive campaign, a petition and council debate.

Undaunted Brent Council is now consulting on its 2024-25/25-26 budget that includes (page references are the budget document that can be found HERE) :

1. Increase in events in parks to generate income - review (increase) for those organising their own events in parks.  (p130)

2. Commercialise existing ‘under-used’ property space within parks to generate income (p132)

3. Market commercial advertising within parks to generate income  (p134)

Letting of parks for events - Income generated 2024-25 (my highlighting)

The new grounds maintenance contract with Continental includes a requirement to support the council in creating, advertising, and facilitating a programme of commercial events in parks and open spaces. This can be supported by a revision of fees and charges for those applying to organise their own events in parks.

How would this affect users of this service?

There would be no impact on service users, other than there being a more comprehensive programme of events and activities in our parks. Those seeking to organise their own events in parks would be required to meet a higher cost for that access.

Key milestones

Revised fees would be submitted for consultation and decision as part of the corporate budget setting process for 2024/25 and would be implemented from April 2024. 

 I would challenge the zero impact on service users as parts of the park would be inaccessible to residents (remember Fryent Country Park when used for car parking and Barham Park for funfairs). The Council thinks that there is a trade-off as the events would be attended by paying customers from the borough.

Commercialisation of parks is already a problem for community groups/voluntary organisations that  being charged rates they find difficult to meet including Daniels Den, Roundwood Forest and Families, Bush Farm collective)

 Commercialise existing ‘under-used’ property space within parks to generate income (£30,000 2024-2025)

This proposal would seek to raise income from commercialising existing unused property space within parks.

How would this affect users of this service?

There would be minimal impact on users of the service other than some benefit from the upgrade of unused facilities and the opportunity to make use of property space for a variety of purposes.

Key milestones

Oct 2023: Survey of existing unused space.
Oct 2023: Schedule of usable space drawn up.
Oct 2023 - March 2024: Any adaptations agreed and undertaken. April 2024: Vacant space advertised and offered for use.

There are empty buildings in a number of Brent parks including Roundwood (Bowls Pavilion) and King Edwards VII. Bowls Club pavilion and the football pavilion. Utilisation for charities and non-profit organisations would be socially useful but commercialisation (market rents) is the intention.

Market commercial advertising within parks to generate income - £40,000 2024-25

 This saving is based on a new offer of space for commercial advertising in parks

How would this affect users of this service?

There would be no impact on service users other than advertising being more visible at locations within parks.

Key milestones

Oct 2023: Survey of suitable space.
Oct 2023: Schedule of usable space drawn up.
April 2024: Vacant space advertised and offered for use.

Key consultations

Awareness of this intention should be raised to any Friends of Groups that are relevant to any park in Brent to which this saving might apply.

This raises many questions not least the aesthetics of advertising banners etc within parks and the nature of the advertising.  Advertising along Olympic Way in Wembley may give us a clue.

Call-in on Thursday to hold Brent Council accountable for alleged errors in the Barham Park Trust accounts

The saga of the Barham Park Trust accounts continues on Thursday when the Public Realm and Resources Scrutiny Committee considers a call-in of the Council decision to approve the accounts because of alleged inaccuracies which could lead to reputational damage.

The call-in follows attempts by councillors to query and correct the accounts at meetings of the Trust Committee which is headed by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt and composed solely of members of his Cabinet. LINK

 

The call-in has been made by opposition members. 

 

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

 

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.

 

 

The Barham Park Trust – two important questions that still need answers!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

On 4 September, ahead of the Barham Park Trust Committee meeting the following day, Martin published (with my permission) a copy of an Open Letter I had sent to Brent’s Chief Executive and the members of the Committee. I will ask Martin to attach the letter again, below.

 

Ground floor plan for the “Silver”, preferred option, redevelopment of the Barham Park buildings.

 

The Trust had already spent £25,000 of Brent Council money on a feasibility study, described as a Strategic Property Review. This was basically a plan to redevelop the Barham Park buildings, estimated to cost £3.2m, to generate more income for the Trust. It would do this by creating offices (in blue), shops (pink), a café (orange, where the present Barham Community Library is located) and two community spaces (light green, but which would be expected to pay commercial rents). The first floor plan showed all commercial business uses.

 

My Open Letter had raised two fundamental questions, which Council Officers and Trust Committee members did not appear to have asked themselves. If the answer to either of those questions was “No”, then any expenditure on this project (which the Trust still claims is ‘hypothetical’) would be a waste of money, because it could never happen.

 

Although Cllr. Muhammed Butt, the Chair of the Trust Committee, had acknowledged receipt of my Open Letter, I’ve received no answer to the questions, and there is no evidence that they have even been considered. With another meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee scheduled for Tuesday 26 September, I sent this email to Kim Wright, Brent’s Chief Executive, this morning (Thursday 21 September):-

 

‘Barham Park Trust Committee on 26 September - Fundamental Questions to which answers are still needed

 

This is an open email

 

Dear Ms Wright,

 

I am addressing this email to you, as you are the Chief Executive of the London Borough of Brent, which is the Sole Trustee of the Barham Park Trust.

 

I'm attaching again a copy of an open letter which I sent to you, and the members of the Barham Park Trust Committee, on 4 September. I realise that time was very short to answer the two questions my letter raised, before the Trust Committee meeting on 5 September, and they were not mentioned or answered at that meeting. ( And they have not been answered since then.)

 

These two questions are still fundamental ones, which need to be answered, and the answers considered, before the Trust, or Brent Council, spend any more money on the Strategic Property Review. 

 

1. Would it be lawful for the Trust to carry out the proposed redevelopment? 

 

2. Would the proposed redevelopment comply with Brent’s Local Plan? 

 

The 5 September meeting resolved to allow the Director for Environment and Leisure Services in consultation with the Chair of the Trust Committee to spend more money, without considering these key points. If the answer to either, or both, of these questions is "No", spending more money on this "hypothetical" project would be a reckless waste of Council and/or Barham Park Trust funds.

 

These two questions need urgent consideration, and I would urge you to arrange for the relevant Council Officers to consider them, honestly, and present reports, and any recommendations, on them to the Barham Park Trust Committee meeting on 26 September. 2023.

 

I realise that these questions are not on the agenda for the meeting, but I am sure you can arrange with the Head of Executive and Member Services (I'm afraid that I don't know who she is now) to include them under item 7, Any Other Urgent Business. The urgency is to avoid the risk of unnecessary and wasted expenditure.

 

I would hope that the Committee Reports on these two questions can be published, with the agenda on the Council's website, by Monday afternoon, 25 September. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

Second 'Friends of Barham Park' announced at Monday's Council Meeting to collaborate with the Trustees

 

The Sudbury Matters Forum Friends of Barham Park 'official' website

The Sudbury Matters Forum made a presentation to the Brent Council meeting on Monday in which they announced,because of the feasibility plans being explored for Barham Park by Brent Council, they had set up a Friends of Barham Park.

On September 15th I had received first notification from Francis Henry, of Barham Community Lbrary  that a Friends of Barham park had been set up to protect the park.

 

 

The Sudbury Matters presentation emphasised that their FoBP would be 'independent, inclusive, non-partisan and representative of the diverse communities that make up Brent' perhaps hinting that they felt the other FoBBwas none of these things.  However, it appears that some current and former Brent Labour councillors have been involved in setting up the second Friends.

Sudbury Matters  revealed that they had already engaged with the Trustees and council officers and said, 'We are committed to ensuring this (their oral emphasis) Friends Group is managed by residents whose sole aim is to preserve the integrity of this inheritance for current and future generations.'

Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, could not have been more effusive (in stark contrast to how he later reacted to the presentation by Liberal Democrat Paul Lorber of the 1,000 Save Our Parks petition) welcoming the 'hand of friendship', the 'positive' initiative' and 'embracing the culture of collaboration'.

He swiftly tweeted his gratitude:

Although, the Sudbury Matters FoBP styled themselves 'official' it is unclear what this means and whether there is any established procedure regarding recognition by the council or other relevant organisations.

As I suggested to people from both FoFB groups outside of the meeting, it is really important that they work together to avoid classic divide and rule tactics by the council.

A Wembley Matters reader contacted me to  ask me to add these questions to any piece I was writing about the situation.

 I'm puzzled. 

• Has the Sudbury Town Residents' Association, which was effectively the neighbourhood forum for that area, ceased to exist?
  
• If not, what do they think about it? 
• Is Brent Council, and its leadership, trying to sideline STRA, and replace it with a more compliant body?
  
• Is the name, Sudbury Matters, an acknowledgement that residents have come to trust what they read on Wembley Matters, rather than anything issued by Brent Council, and attempt to hijack that trust for itself?

LETTER: Barham Park new covenant mystery

 

Dear Editor.

 

This is very interesting and odd.

 

On the face of it while I was fighting for a covenant on Barham Park development through the meetings process, the idea was ultimately rejected.

 

So why did the Covenant still end up in the sales documentation?

 

Was it a rogue lawyer who inserted it?

 

Or was it just a cock up that no one noticed (it is normal when drafting a legal document to use a standard pro forma which includes everything under the sun and as part of the process the lawyer strikes out any paragraphs not required or requested).

 

The answer may be important especially if the Council was forced to include it by any of the outsiders?

 

The next meeting of the Trustees Committee to approve the corrected account sis on September 26^th.

 

I have written to Debra Norman seeking clarification before the meeting:

 

One key issue outstanding which requires a clear answer is the question as to why the Covenant was put in place.

 

If you review the Barham Park Trust Minutes when the decision to sell the two houses was made you will notice that I argued that a restriction on further development on the site should be out in place. The Trust Committee rejected my proposal.

 

That decision was called in went to Scrutiny. If you check the minutes of that meeting, you will note that I argued the case and that Scrutiny agreed that a restriction should be put in place.

 

The recommendation from Scrutiny then went back to Cabinet but the Scrutiny recommendation was not accepted.

 

On the face of it the proposal for a restriction or covenant was not to be pursued.

 

So how did it come about that such strongly worded restrictive covenant ended up in the sale document relation to 776/778 Harrow Road houses?

 

Approval for the sale was required from the Charity Commission. Did the Charity Commission insist on the restrictive covenant before approving the sale?

 

Did the District Valuer insist on this and approve the valuation on this basis?

 

Was there subsequent advice from the Brent solicitors?

 

Was there a political change if heart because of pressure from within the Labour Party?

 

I would like this to be fully investigated as the reason is crucial to understanding whether the covenant can now be negotiated away or whether there are compelling reasons why it needs to be retained.

 

I would appreciate your answer on this before 26 September.

 

Cllr Paul Lorber

 

 

Friends of Barham Park formed ahead of 1,000 plus petition to Brent Council on Monday

 Supporters of Barham Park have formed a Friends of Barham Park Group in the face of what they see as threats to the continuation of the park as left as a bequest to the people of Wembley by Titus Barham.

EMAIL: friendsofbarhampark@gmail.com

LETTER: Show your support for the park petition as it is presented at Brent Council meeting on Monday at the Civic Centre 6pm

 Dear Editor,

Support the Barham Park petition,

 

The Petition signed by 1,170 people will be presented to at the full Brent Council Meeting on Monday 18 September held at the Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley starting at 6p.m.

 

The Petition calls for Barham Park to be protected from development so that it can continue to provide "recreation for the public" as Titus Barham intended.

 

Local people are angry at Brent Council for granting planning permission for extra houses on the site of two cottages despite the Sudbury Neighbourhood Plan specifically forbidding this. They are also angry at the Council leadership considering lifting a covenant which the Council put in place itself just over 10 years ago to prevent more house building on the site.

 

Lastly local people are amazed that Labour Councillors spent £25,000 on an architects study and are now considering kicking out long established community groups operating from buildings in the park so that they can go ahead with a £3 to £4 million "hypothetical" scheme to build hotel rooms or convert spaces for Airbnb accommodation for visitors to Wembley Stadium.

 

In doing this the Labour Leadership are ignoring the wishes of Titus Barham who gifted his home and gardens in 1937 so that local people could have a Public Park for their enjoyment and recreation. Barham Park is the 3rd most visited Public Open Space in Brent.

 

While the original buildings may not be special, they do have important historical connections which are of interest.

 

1. Part of the buildings date back to 1780s and are known as Crabs House after their owner.

2. In 1801 the land and the House were bought by John Copland who was a bursar in the Royal Navy and served with Horatio Nelson in 1805 when Nelson lost his eye.

3. In the years up to his death in 1843 John Copland acquired around 350 acres of land in Sudbury/Wembley which stretched all the way from the site of the former Copland School (now Ark Elvin Academy) all the way to Harrow on the Hill.

4. John Copland is buried in one of the inaccessible vaults at Kensal Green Cemetery.

5. His only son was killed while also serving in the Royal Navy and his land was inherited by his two unmarried daughters.

6. The daughters were big local benefactors and over the years they paid for the building of St John's Church in Harrow Road Wembley (George Gilbert Scott was the architect), a local village school, a cottage hospital and a workers’ institute used to train apprentices, and which contained the first local library. They lived in Sudbury Lodge - a large house built in the middle of what is now Barham Park. They too are buried in Kensal Green.

7. On the death of the sisters in the early 1870s their House and lands passed on to General Robert Fitzgerald Copland-Crawford. The adding of the name Copland to Crawford was one of the requirements. The General was a son of a soldier who served with Wellington at the battle of Waterloo and in his later years General Robert Fitzgerald Copland-Crawford claimed that he was the last man alive who could remember the sound of British guns as they were defeating Napoleon Bonaparte.

8. Two of his sons (educated at Harrow School) were great sportsman and played both cricket and football. They represented Scotland in the first 4 friendly Scotland v England football internationals that took place between 1870 and 1872. One of them scored the very 1st Scottish goal against England.

9. Most of the family died out in the mid 1890s and there is a family monument to them in the grounds of St John's Church.

10. Sir George Barham, the founder of Express Dairies acquired Sudbury Lodge and most of the lands in 1895. An express Dairies Farm existed in the current area of One Tree Hill Open Space, Chaplin Road and Farm Avenue. Barham Primary School stands on part of the old farmland.

11. Sir George Barham is credited with modernising and cleaning up the milk industry. He was at the forefront of improving hygiene and many inventions - including the introduction of milk bottles.

12. On his death in 1913 the land passed on to his two surviving sons George (always known as Titus Barham) and Arthur. Arthur later became a partner in United Dairies (formed during the 1st World War) which later became Unigate.

13. Titus Barham continued to grow Express Dairies which in the years after his death became the biggest operator of Supermarkets in the UK under the name Premier.

14. It is however because of this involvement in community causes that Titus Barham deserves to be remembered. He was a successful and wealthy businessman who used his wealth to support good causes. He supported the building of Wembley Hospital, donated money to buy the Tennis Club in Sylvester Road, welcomed local people to his home for his "Rose Sundays". In 1936, a year before his death, 8000 local people attended his open house event.

15. Titus Barham is referred to as "Wembley's greatest benefactor".

16. In 1937 Wembley received its Charter to become a Borough Council. Titus was due to become the Wembley 'Charter' Mayor' and donated £4,000 (around £300,000 in today’s money) for the purchase of the Mace and Chains of Office regalia. Sadly, he died in July 1937 on the same day that Wembley was officially due to become a borough and he its Mayor. The ceremonywas postponed until October.

17. Titus was keen to ensure that all Wembley residents had an opportunity to celebrate the creation of the Borough Council and he had  paid in advance for a "tea party" for the tens of thousands attending the old Wembley Stadium on 2 October 1937: 

 

 

 

18. Even more importantly on his death Titus Barham decided to gift his home (now renamed Barham Mansion) and his beloved gardens to local people for "the recreation of the public". With the house came his 'eclectic' collection of items collected over many years which eventually formed the founding collection of items used for the creation of the Brent Museum at the Grange (now in Willesden Library)

19. His gift eventually became Barham Park. While Barham Mansion, used during the 2nd World War by the military, fell into disrepair and was demolished in 1955 the Park and the original buildings remain. They have been home to the Barham Veterans Club since 1946. The Barham Park Public Library was opened on 31 May 1952 and served local people for almost 60 years - but was sadly closed by Labour Councillors in 2011 when half of Brent's libraries disappeared.

20. On a sunny day Barham Park is full of people enjoying themselves. The old buildings are a hive of activity - with the Community Library, run by volunteers, serving our local community.

 

I hope that this brief summary - highlighting the lives and contribution of the people who lived in Barham Park - explains local people believe that Barham Park should continue to be used for the "recreation" of local people and not to for developers profit or commercial interests.

 

 Local people love their local park and will fight to preserve it to be enjoyed by local people now and in the future.

 

The views of local people should not be ignored. We do not want more house building in the park or hotels which only benefit developers and not local residents. Please support us.

 

With best wishes

Paul Lorber

for Barham Community Library

14 September 2013