Gaynor Lloyd challenges proposal to consider amending the restrictive covenant on development of 776/778 Harrow Road in Barham Park

Gaynor Lloyd sent this comment on my earlier post on the possible removal of the restrictive covenant on 776/778 Harrow Road, the houses in Barham Park that were the subject of a controverial planning application to demolish them and build a block of flats in their place. LINK

As ever, thank you for highlighting a point of great local interest. The Trust Committee  has commented in the past about how much of the Council’s resources in staff time is taken up administering the Barham Trust. Of course, the site is complex with various lettings and maintenance issues and a building crying out for repair. It is a pity the Trust was unsuccessful in its recent NCIL bid. Perhaps it was hoping for  a windfall from “developers” instead. 

 

I wonder, however,  what time (and possible expenditure on advice) will be given to consideration in principle of this application to the First Tier Tribunal to get the covenant lifted/modified. And then of course, independent advice on costs, valuation aspects, timing, overall negotiating position and even choice of “developers”.

 

Leaving aside whether this is appropriate, would such an application be fully funded by these “developers” ? How do you choose which? And  what are the prospects? It has now been many years since I was in practice but I can’t see a snowball in hell’s chance  of the Tribunal finding the covenant is obsolete  - even  just on the substantial evidence of the huge  and demonstrable level of opposition to the recent Planning application. Including, very vocally,  by local (& other)  Labour Councillors and our local MP. 

 

The most concerning point is that it appears to be a  proposal that the Barham Trust (or a developer with the approval of the Barham Trust) applies to lift the covenant the Trust imposed for the protection of the Park - and which the purchaser accepted, paying a price appropriate to the limited use. The only apparent "benefit for the Trust" being getting money in from this queue of developers. (I was only aware of the current landowner’s interest but you live and learn.) I wonder what consultation there has been with the local Councillors or even Park users. 

 

The Charity Commission provides a useful "Councillors' Guide :to a Council's role as Charity Trustee." https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/351608/council_as_charity_trustee_overview.pdf

 

This interesting publication outlines why Local Authorities make such eminently suitable trustees of gifted assets of land - "rooted in the local community; open and transparent in their dealings; highly accountable for their actions." 

 

The Guide also says: "Depending on the size and circumstances of the charity, it may make sense for a committee of councillors to be allocated this task. It must not be forgotten, however, that responsibility continues to rest with the whole council."

 

Planning (as a council function) is separate from the business of council as charitable trustee. Nonetheless, by way of background, the Trust Committee is referred to the withdrawn proposal to build a block of flats in the Park..The Committee is not, however,  referred to the large and sustained public objection from residents and statutory consultees alike. Bearing in mind that the charity's objects for Barham Park are "to preserve the same for the recreation of the public in such manner and subject to such regulations in all respects as the Council may from time to time think proper ", the Committee is asked  to "provide a steer as to how  such re-development proposals, which include seeking to amend the terms of the restrictive covenant, should be considered in the future as the site appears to be attracting the interest of developers".  

 

Last time I looked, Barham Park was not a "development site"; it is a charitable asset entrusted to the Council on particular trusts. The benefit of the restrictive covenant is an asset of the charity. If the Trust Committee is asked to consider that asset's disposal, shouldn't the guidance of the Charity Commission be considered first? The Charity Commission might suggest that the views of the beneficiaries be considered; even if the Charity Commission doesn't, wouldn't the "whole council" acting for their residents? If any of these considerations have been thought about, it's not on the face of the report.

 

Despite appearances to the contrary, I really don't want to spend my life moaning to public bodies. However, if the Trust Committee decides this is a good wheeze, I guess I'll just have to think about sharpening my quill and raising with the Charity Commission both the unpopular proposal to  lift the restrictive covenant to facilitate a development within Barham Park but, even more immediately, the suggestion of  the Committee delegating " a decision to officers in future as to whether to amend the restrictive covenant in respect of 776-778 Harrow Road and on what terms" . As the Charity Commission Councillors' Guide says: "While ongoing management may be delegated to officers, responsibility for  decision-making and oversight rests with the councillors". 

 

For me, this proposal goes to the heart of  the charity's objects. There is overwhelming and recent evidence of widespread, local opposition to the very idea of redevelopment on the Park - let alone that - borrowing words from the Report  " reaching agreement to amend the restricting covenants on that property" would be "for the benefit of the Trust".  

Shocking report on impact of Covid19 on Brent's BAME residents will be scrutinised on Tuesday

 

With warnings of a second wave of Covid19 infections a report going to the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday September 15th (Virtual 6pm) assumes great importance LINK. The committee continues under the chairmanship of Cllr Ketan Sheth but with some changes in personnel including the inclusion of veteran health campaigner Cllr Gaynor Lloyd, elected at the Barnhill by-election. They will have the huge responsibility of assessing lessons from the way the pandemic has been handled so far, preparations for dealing with a second wave, and addressing the health and social inequalities revealed by the disproportionate impact on Brent’s BAME population. A task, I would suggest, much more of  a priority for Brent Council than the renaming of a local park.

 

These are some key extracts from the report:

 

BAME populations in England and Wales are younger than white populations and as age is a strong influence on death rates, it is important to take account of age. When this is done:

·Black males are 4.2 times more likely to die from a COVID-19-related death than White males;

·Black females are 4.3 times more likely to die from a COVID-19 related death than White females

 

As BAME populations tend to be more deprived, it is important to adjust for the influence of deprivation in looking at the impact of ethnicity. Doing so allows us to compare the risk for a black male living in an area of deprivation compared to one living in an affluent area: 

 

·Black males are 1.9 times more likely to die from a COVID-19-related death than White males;

·Black females are 1.9 times more likely to die from a COVID-19 related death than White females.

 

After taking into account age and socioeconomic circumstances or deprivation:

 

·Bangladeshi and Pakistani ethnic group males are 1.8 times more likely to die from a COVID-19-related death than White males;

·Bangladeshi and Pakistani ethnic group females are 1.6 times more likely to die from a COVID-19-related death than White females

 

Possible reasons for the disproportionate impact

 

There are three possible reasons for the disproportionate impact of COVID on BAME communities:

1.Increased exposure to the virus

2.Increased susceptibility to severe disease

3.Access to and use of health care

 

Exposure to the virus

1.Brent BAME population are high users of public transport. Buses in particular remained crowded during the pandemic as did bus stops in the Wembley and Harlesden area.

2.Brent BAME communities have high levels of inter-generational living with those at risk including the elderly and those with long-term conditions being exposed more than those in smaller households.

3.BAME communities have high attendance to temples, churches, mosques and other places of worship with large communal activities such as services, weddings and funerals. These were implicated in spread elsewhere and it is likely were these were factors in the early part of the epidemic

4.BAME community members are less likely to be working from home and often in zero hour contracts or cash in hand situations therefore less likely to be able to social distance or self- isolate.

5.BAME community members are more likely to be frontline workers and less likely to be managers and able to influence their working conditions.

 

Susceptibility to severe infection

1.While levels of adult obesity are relatively low in Brent (compared to England), 50% of residents are overweight or obese. It is estimated that over 11% of the adult population has diabetes, compared to an England rate of 8.5%. Diabetes is more prevalent in Black and South Asian patients, and our high levels of diabetes may be one reason for the higher death rate seen locally.

2.Fewer patients are recorded on their GP records as having high blood pressure than is the case for England (12.4% compared to 14%). While this may indicate a lower prevalence, the size of our Black and South Asian communities who would be expected to have higher rates of hypertension might suggest under diagnosis. Of those who are diagnosed, significantly fewer patients have their blood pressure controlled in Brent than nationally.

 

Access to and use of health services

1.It has been hypothesised that more deprived communities may have poorer access to health care and that this could have played a part in the pattern of mortality (the inverse care law). Early in the pandemic, NHS England instructed primary care to move away from face to face appointments in favour of telephone and on line access. There was a concern that this model of care may have disadvantaged the digitally excluded.

2.There is some evidence from elsewhere that Black men were particularly unwell on presentation to hospital and more likely to be admitted direct to ITU. This could indicate a reluctance to seek help earlier or a more rapid progression of disease in this group of patients. There is no evidence of poorer outcomes for BAME patients admitted to secondary care locally. However the completeness of recording ethnicity limits our ability to analyse this.

 

Themes from the Church End and Alperton community engagement events

 

Church End

 ·Participants praised Northwick Park Hospital’s response to the pandemic.

·People are still afraid to visit public buildings.

·Some of are not fully informed of information/advice therefore educating residents is crucial.

·Many people are not wearing masks, particularly on Church Road. Messages around facemasks need to be clear without offending people.

·Question of whether health services play a key role for self-care and those with long-term conditions (such as diabetes and hypertension)

·Need to invest in Church Road and the local community, as the area is unappealing. This is reflected by local drug dealing, crime, poor employment opportunities and run down businesses.

·Many people face multiple issues even before the pandemic including stress and financial issues.

·New people are approaching foodbanks.

·People tested for Covid-19 are not reflective of the local community – question of what we are doing to encourage people to take tests.

·Young people face mental health issues, which is a primary reason for large gatherings and house parties in the area. Young people are aware of the risks but they are battling with their mental health. Need role models/influential people from area through to communicate through songs and messages. Need to think about education, prospects and access to networks.

·Access to GPs online has been difficult, especially for those whose first language is not English. Confidence in services is low.

·Older people are more isolated now.

·Worry that people are being forgotten about if they need medical help but don’t engage with health services or local support. A helpline was suggested so people’s needs can be explored to signpost them to support and services. Need to build local people’s knowledge.

·Concern over people who are not eligible for support services but housed in HMOs.

·Educating and raising knowledge of landlords will help maintain hygiene standards.

·Need to hear from those who have lost people. ·Attendees are happy to be a part of the solution by working with us as community champions.

 

Alperton

·Messaging needs to be reinforced and shaped for people who do not speak English as their first language.

·Channelling tailored messages through places of worship and Asian radios would be effective. Could work with the Multi-faith forum.

·Measures are not being followed on high road - displays and signboards are insufficient. Signs on shops are usually handwritten. Some shops are doing well which could be replicated by other shops.

·Need to work with community leaders to identify vulnerable people eg create register of HMOs.

·Strategy needs to focus on prevention and long-term outcomes.

·Community is pessimistic as opposed to central government, which changes guidelines frequently.

·Many organic community groups exist which need to be engaged with.

·More enforcement needed where people aren’t following measures.

·Easy to get GP appointments, however many people are nervous. They need health services but uptake is low. Lack of internet and no phone line is another issue.

·National Covid-19 test system was down and busy highlighting the barriers to securing a test. Testing may not be reflective of local communities – may need to encourage people to take tests and raise awareness of sites.

·Issue of people having symptoms but not getting tested due to risk of losing job or income.

·There are opportunities despite the negatives – people are walking and being active whilst maintaining social distancing measures.

·Attendees look forward to working with us to find solution

The meeting can be observed here: https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/democracy-in-brent/local-democracy/live-streaming/

 

Contact details for new councillors in Alperton, Barnhill and Wembley Central

By-elections over it's time to put our new councillors to work.  Here are their contact details.

Cllr Anton Georgiou (Alperton)
Correspondence address: 
c/o Liberal Democrat Office
Brent Civic Centre
Engineers Way
Wembley
HA9 0FJ
Email:  cllr.anton.georgiou@brent.gov.uk
Mobile:  07436704463 

Cllr Gaynor Lloyd (Barnhill)

Correspondence address: 
c/o Labour Group Office
Brent Civic Centre
Engineers Way
Wembley
HA9 0FJ
Email:  Cllr.gaynor.lloyd@brent.gov.uk
Mobile:  07436704476 

Cllr Mansoor Akram (Barnhill)
Correspondence address: 
c/o Labour Group Office
Brent Civic Centre
Engineers Way
Wembley
HA9 0FJ
Email:  cllr.mansoor.akram@brent.gov.uk
Mobile:  07436704480 

Cllr Sonia Shah (Wembley Central)
Correspondence address: 
c/o Labour Group Office
Brent Civic Centre
Engineers Way
Wembley
HA9 0FJ
Email:  Cllr.sonia.shah@brent.gov.uk
Mobile:  07436704517

Northwick Park development. The question they didn't want you to hear.

Brent Council is involved in several multi-million regeneration and development projects with wide repercussions for the community. When it comes to making representations about them to Planning Committee they are limited to just a few minutes to speak on extremely complex issues while the Planning Officers involved have plenty of time to sing the praises of applications that they are backing.  The only way a representation can be extended is by the councillors on the committee asking questions of the person making representations to enable them to elaborate on their case. In my experience this seldom happens.

Last night at Full Council Gaynor Lloyd was informed without prior notice that she had just one minute to ask a supplementary question about the One Public Estate regeneration of Northwick Park. Despite her request for more time (she had rehearsed her question and got it down to 2 minutes) she was told she had just one minute and was not able to ask her full question. You can see the exchange HERE.

In the interests of local democracy and the public interest I publish below Gaynor's full question that she was unable to complete:

I am grateful for the opportunity to ask a supplemental question on the Council’s response to my original question. It may assist the Deputy Leader if I outline some further background, as my question relates to public consultation on the OPE proposals, in particular, the access road and Metropolitan Open Land swap – and when it will take place and on what basis?

I have just received a response to my FOI request to which  Councillor Butt kindly directed me at the August Cabinet meeting . 

I have seen some illuminating emails and sections of reports – even though at least half of over 1400 pages has been blacked out. Firstly, I saw that, when approving a press release for the February Cabinet on OPE, Ms Downs asked whether it had to “mention all green land, including play golf? Can’t we just say it is protected and any plans will fully take this into account?” To which the lead officer responded, “I agree with Carolyn, keep the statement brief and positive. I would be inclined not to mention MOL at all. It is opening us up to further question.” 

I also learned that the 4 current partners in the OPE project (Brent Council, Network Housing, London North West University Healthcare Trust and University of Westminster) employed GVA, the consultants who (I believe) are the lead advisers on the OPE project to prepare professional representations on behalf of  those 4 partners for the Council’s  first consultation on the Local Plan. This Consultations and Options Paper was published in February 2018, for response by all residents and others by March 2018.

As lead adviser, GVA was fully briefed on all the proposals including the proposed reallocation of Northwick Park for “regeneration”; potential sites for the access road across the Ducker, or through the  golf course; the alterations to Watford Road to make right turns into the Hospital; and Metropolitan open land swap. By contrast, the public were in complete ignorance. No mention was made in either the papers put out for Local Plan public consultation to residents, or at the Northwick Park ward Local Plan public “consultation” meeting. There was  no reference to Northwick Park in any document, apart from its propensity to flooding. Northwick Park was, however, apparently consulted on in something called a Developer’s Forum. According to the Consultation outcomes document (1.17), it is in a list of sites about where housing should be put and whether at high or low density. 

As to the access road, and MOL swap, discussions have been going on since at least  early 2017. Roads through the Ducker Pool and the golf course are suggested but , amongst the emails about eventual consultation, a lead officer mentions putting 3 options in relation to the access road so that residents would “feel genuinely consulted”.  The Council met the GLA re  swapping the pavilion (which is on MOL anyway)  for the triangle by the tube station  on 15 March 2017. 

The Council paid public money to their own professional advisers to put in representations to the first Local Plan consultation to prepare the way for a “regeneration” allocation. It briefed a “Developers Forum” about developing on Northwick Park - but those living next to the Park were kept in the dark  for their Local Plan consultation. When the Consultation results were published, there is no mention at all of the GVA representations on behalf of the Council & its partners. When the Cabinet agreed the grant application for £9.9 million - and all the work that will need to be done by Council officers,  there was no public mention of what the grant is for: to widen Watford Road to allow for a right turn into the Hospital and provide other access across Northwick Park - to improve the PTAL rating and justify “reallocating” Northwick park for high density development as a “regeneration” area. Even a Cabinet press release had to be sanitised to minimise reference to green land.

Cllor McLennan is fortunately a Ward member from Northwick Park and knows both the Park and her residents (as mature and sensible a group of people as you would ever wish to meet) . My question is when is all this going to be shared with us residents - who will be most immediately affected - and consulted on? 

Is Northwick Park open space safe? Cllr McLennan's response

This is the written reply to Gaynor Lloyd's question regarding the futire of open space in Northwick Park in the light of the One Public Estate Plans for redevelopment. She is allowed a supplementary question if she attends tonight's Council Meeeting. The meeting can be viewed on-line live HERE (if the broadcast does not go wrong again). Towards the end of the meeting there is a potentially controversial (and poorly formulated) motion reaffirming Brent Council support for the IHRA definition of anti-semitism which doesn't actually mention adopting the examples.

Question from Mrs Elizabeth Gaynor Lloyd to Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader of the Council:

In the light of (1) the change in Cabinet member responsibility since the assurance given by Councillor Tatler at the Cabinet meeting in August that the Metropolitan Open Land/ open space at Northwick Park was safe, and (2) her comments to the Harrow Times that all proposals will be made in consultation with residents which is scheduled for the coming months, and (3) the fact that a Transport Viability study was carried out almost a year ago indicating the possibility of an access road through the Ducker pool area or the golf course or the Fairway (all of which would involve a road across Metropolitan Open Land), can the Cabinet Member now vested with responsibility for this project please either confirm that these access road proposals have been abandoned or, if not, please publish a simple indication of the rough alternative routes for the access road to the Northwick Park Regeneration area proposed?

If the open space is safe, can the Cabinet member also confirm that there will be no development on the SINC Grade 1 Northwick park & the Ducker Pool B103 area and open space protected under CP18, and that these areas will be fully protected so that their value is not prejudiced by the adjoining/nearby development?

Response:

Peter Brett Associates (transport and infrastructure consultants) have been engaged by the four landowners under the One Public Estate Initiative to work alongside other consultants, to assess the transportation issues that affect the Northwick Park site and its surroundings.

Part of this study included access to the site. A number of options were considered by Peter Brett, with advantages and disadvantages of each given careful consideration. The format and details of future public consultation has yet to be agreed, but this is likely to include access options for discussion and feedback.

The February 2018 Cabinet paper, updating members of progress at Northwick Park, confirms current proposals consider a possible “land swap” of Metropolitan Open Space, subject to the necessary consents. In broad terms this would involve swapping the area currently occupied by the sports pavilion and car park, with an equivalent area immediately to the south of Northwick Park station.

(Para 4.7 Appendix One of February 2018 cabinet report):

“.... include the smaller MOL swap involving the existing pavilion area and the area immediately to the south of Northwick Park station.”

This too would form part of any public consultation.

Mrs Lloyd may be reassured by para 3.2 and 3.3 of the same report, which stated:

3.2 All of the Council freehold ownership, and the Ducker Pond, is designated as Metropolitan Open Land (‘MOL’). This effectively affords it the same planning status as Green Belt, where development for uses other than those deemed appropriate for the Green Belt will be refused unless there are exceptional circumstances. The same land area is also designated as local open space.

3.3 The Ducker Pond area is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Grade I, being of high biodiversity value. This designation extends to part of the Playgolf site, particularly the hedged area at the boundary. Part of the site also forms a section of the Capital Ring public walkway. Policy seeks to preserve and enhance the habitats in these areas.

Full Council – 17 September 2018 Motion selected by the Conservative Group

With anti-Semitic hate crimes rising across London and the United Kingdom – this Council expresses that it is appalled at the increase in anti-Semitic Hate Crimes, and reiterates its support for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism.

This Council is shocked at the recent spate of anti-Semitic posters that have been going up across TfL run bus stops, and it is further shocked at the recent comments by those who have described the recent condemnation of anti-Semitic language and behaviour as a ‘Zionist’ movement – using anti-Semitic language and imagery in campaigning and online, further enflaming anti-Semitic hatred across the Borough.

This Council will immediately adopt, into its councillor and public workers code of conduct, the full and complete IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, and implement policies to ensure that hate crimes against Jewish people are acted upon quickly and decisively.

Councillor Michael Maurice Kenton Ward

-->