Fundraiser for Blue Plaque to honour Titus Barham

 

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

 

Barham family urge Planning Committee to protect Titus Barham's gift to the people of Wembley that stipulated 'his gardens should be used for the enjoyment of local people and nothing else'

 

Letter published with permission

Dear Councillor Kelcher,

I am writing on behalf of the Barham family to object to the building of even more houses within Barham Park.

As you will know Barham Park was the family home of the Barham family from around 1895 to 1937. From 1913 it was the home of Titus Barham and his wife Florence who spent a great deal of time and money to plant and improve the gardens. While it was a gated and fenced private home and gardens Titus would open it to the public on a regular basis. As supporters and founders of the then recently built Wembley Hospital, Titus and Florence held many fundraising events in their home and gardens.

As you will also know Titus and his wife were major benefactors, supporting many worthwhile causes in Wembley and Sudbury. In recognition of this Titus was selected to become the Charter Mayor of the newly formed Wembley Borough Council. Sadly he died on the very day the Charter was to come into effect.

Prior to his death in 1937 Titus had arranged to gift his home and gardens expressly “for the enjoyment of local people” . This gift became Barham Park.

As you will also know this charitable endowment placed responsibility on Wembley, and later Brent Councils, to manage and look after the Park in the best interests of local people.

The two houses in the Park close to the railway were built specifically to house Parks Department workers who helped to maintain and look after the Park. The building of those two houses, although maybe questionable at the time, could be justified because of the link with the Park and it’s purpose. No such link exists now and will not certainly exist if and when the two houses are replaced by the proposed 4 taller buildings whose sole purpose is not to house Parks Department workers working in Barham Park, but simply to generate a rental income for their owners.

I also understand that the Council has had a long-standing policy of protecting Parks from intrusive development. While the original building of the two houses may have been questionable the proposed building of 4 larger and taller houses is an affront to the wishes of Titus Barham.

As Councillors, you and members of the Planning Committee reflect on the action of one of your predecessors, namely Titus who was a Wembley Councillor for 4 years, and continue to respect and protect his generosity specifically for the enjoyment of local people.

On behalf of the Barham family I would therefore urge you and your Council colleagues to REJECT the latest Planning Application and to uphold Titus Barham’s express wish that his gardens should be used for the enjoyment of local people and nothing else.

Please present my appeal as outlined in this message to all Councillors in Brent and especially to the members of the Brent Planning Committee.

Yours sincerely

Allan Barham
On behalf of the Barham family

 

From loo to The Louvre as Sudbury brightened up in homage to Covid19 workers & volunteers

From Paul Lorber

Following on from Philip Grant’s excellent Wembley history series - especially the last one about Sudbury, perhaps I can provide an update on Butler’s Green.

A very large part of Sudbury was originally massive green open space called the Sudbury Common with a large number of farms being established over the years.

John Copland who was a Purser (Sort of accountant/purchase manager) on British Navy ships and served during Horatio Nelson’s time at the Battle of the Nile acquired a property called Crabbs House on what is now Barham Park. Over the next 40 years he continued to acquire land in the area and at his death in 1843 (he is buried in a vault in Kensal Green cemetery) he owned around 350 acres  of  land stretching from the Triangle in Wembley all the way to the bottom of Harrow on the Hill - this must have also included what is now Butler's Green.

At some point in the 1870s that part was acquired by William Perkin when he moved into Sudbury near to the present Methodist Church.

Sir William Perkin (he was Knighted in Early 1900s) is probably Sudbury’s most famous person in the world.

As a young boy he was very keen to pursue scientific education. While experimenting with tar (residue of coal) trying to create a substitute for anodyne he accidentally created a purple liquid substance. When trying it on some cloths he realised that he actually created a first synthetic dye for colouring cloth. Following a few more experiments, tests and refinements his dye product turned out to be much more reliable and longer lasting than natural dyes used at the time.

He set up a factory in Greenford and started manufacturing dyes as a business. It was a big success and young William is claimed to be the founder of the modern clothing industry which his colour dyes revolutionised.

In the 1870s when he moved to Sudbury the population was tiny and most of the land was still open fields. Like in other nearby places the population explosion came as part of the arrival of the Railways with the Sudbury & Harrow Road station opened in 1903 and Sudbury Town a year later.

Sir William Perkin died in 1907 and the land that is now Butler's Green was purchased by Wembley District Council in 1920 from the Trustees of his Estate. As Philip mentioned in his article it was renamed Butlers Green after Edwin Butler who became the first Mayor of the newly formed Wembley Borough Council in 1937.

He only became the 1st Mayor because Titus Barham who was due to be the “Charter Mayor” and who paid £4,000 for the mace and chains of office (over £250,000 in today’s money) died on the very day he was due to take up the his office.

I am one of the Trustees of Barham Community Library based in Barham Park. Philip Grant has kindly presented a number of his history talks in our library and we hope for more in the future. We are always keen to help local people learn of the local history of our area but also to pursue improvements with a bit of art.

Despite its important local history Butlers Green has been somewhat neglected in recent years. 

We therefore decided to bring a bit of colour to the area by creating a Thank You Mural to all the workers and volunteers who continued to support our community during the Covid 19 crisis, on hoarding erected around a disused toilet block.

The Mural was designed by Alessandra Grasso, who is Barham Community Library ‘artist in residence’ with the help of her sister Francesca and others.

The idea was supported by Sudbury Town Residents Association and Daniels Estate Agents. It has been paid by a small Love Where You Live Grant and donations from local people.

Barham Community Library and Sudbury Town Residents Association plan more murals to brighten up the Sudbury area and are identifying more sites and raising funds.

Artists Alessandra on the left and Francesca on the right.

The disused toilet block is leased by Brent to U.K. Power Networks. Hoardings had to be placed on 3 sides as the brickwork is cracking up.

They were painted white with fading paint and a bit unsightly.

We decided on a colourful makeover with people, animals and flowers. Young children passing by love the animals and the overall reaction was positive.

We also painted other bits and provided a Notice Board for local history and local information.

We asked the Council to improve the outlook of the 2nd disused toilet next door which is also unsightly.

The bear in the picture is our mascot ‘Titus Bear’ after Titus Barham. The bear was part of the Barham Coat of Arms.

Wembley’s hospitals and the NHS 70th Birthday

Guest blog by Philip Grant

July 5^th 2018 sees the 70^th anniversary of the founding of the National Health Service, and there will be a community tea party in Wembley’s Yellow Pavilion the following day (Friday 6^th July, from 1pm to 4pm) to celebrate the event:-

But what medical facilities did the ordinary folk of Wembley have before the NHS was set up, and who provided these? I was invited to provide some “local history” information for this NHS70 event, and I would like to share some of it with “Wembley Matters” readers here.

Ever since Tudor times (after Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries who had often provided some health care to the areas around them) the Church of England parishes were expected to provide care to poor people within their district. Every year each parish appointed two or three local men to serve as Overseers of the Poor, raising money to meet the costs of providing “relief” and (if they were lucky) some basic medical care.

Most of Wembley was in the Harrow parish, but in the 1840’s two spinster sisters, Anne and Francis Copland, who had inherited their father’s estate at what is now Barham Park, campaigned for Wembley and Sudbury to be made a separate parish, and paid to have St John’s Church built in Harrow Road, not far from their home. They were great philanthropists, providing money for a school, and a workmen’s hall (including a small library).

Anne Copland, c.1860

In 1871 (the year before she died) Anne Copland gave money to build and endow a Village Hospital. The site is now Wilkinsons, in Wembley High Road, near the junction with Park Lane.

Charles Goddard, 

Unfortunately, Anne had said that only the interest (at 4%) from the investments she had given the hospital could be used to fund its running costs, and the hospital had to stop taking inpatients in 1883. After that, the building became a doctor’s house, at which the sick could be seen, and given medicines from a dispensary.

The doctor living in the former cottage hospital, Charles Goddard, became Wembley’s first Medical Officer of Health, when it was made a separate District Council in 1895. He held that post for around forty years, and in 1924 he called a public meeting to propose that a new hospital be built. There was a lot of support from local people, and Titus Barham (who owned the Express Dairy Company, and lived at Sudbury Park, which had been the home of the Copland sisters) donated land at Chaplin Road, which was part of his own dairy farm, as a site for the new Wembley Hospital. Barham also donated £2,000 towards the cost of building it, and he and his wife Florence were active in organising fund-raising events for the project as well.

The foundation stone for the hospital was laid in October 1926, a Board of Management for the hospital was set up, and the new hospital was opened on 2 June 1928 by the Duke and Duchess of York (later King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, who became the Queen Mother when their daughter succeeded to the throne in 1952).

Wembley Hospital, around 1950.

When Titus Barham, who had been the hospital’s president, died in 1937, he left a further £20,000 to Wembley Hospital in his will. But as a charity (a bit like St Luke’s Hospice today), it needed to regularly raise money from other sources. One of the ways this was done was by holding an annual hospital carnival week, with a Carnival Queen, street parade and various fundraising events. Another important source of funds was a “hospital savings scheme”, where by paying contributions of sixpence a month (made by 20,000 of the 90,000 residents in Wembley and Kingsbury in the late 1930’s) local people were entitled to free treatment in the “public wards”.

The Anne Copland Ward at Wembley Hospital, around 1950.

When the NHS was set up in 1948, Wembley Hospital was absorbed into this new service, but although its management had changed, it still provided the same type of care to its patients. Like many other hospitals, as well as training local young women as nurses (under the supervision of the Matron), Wembley also benefitted from some who came from the Caribbean (another 70^th Anniversary! – LINK

 

 

Christmas time in the Children’s Ward, Wembley Hospital, 1950’s

Wembley Hospital’s role diminished over time, especially after the new District Hospital at Northwick Park was built in the late 1960’s, but its site in Chaplin Road is still providing a range of health services for local people (me included!) as the Wembley Centre for Health and Care. So, Happy 70^th birthday NHS, and thank you.

Philip Grant

Acknowledgement

All images are  from the Wembley History Society Collection at Brent Archives.

-->

Strawberries and scones celebrate 80th anniversary of Titus Barham's gift to Wembley

From Friends of Barham Library

Saturday 8 July was the 80th Anniversary since Titus Barham "Wembley's Greatest Benefactor" donated his home and gardens in Sudbury which became Barham Park.

Friends of Barham Library held a Celebration 'Vintage' Tea Party in honour of Titus Barham as a Thank You for his generous gift. As the gift took place in 1937 thirty seven lucky people, whose names were drawn out of a hat, including 6 members of the Barham family, were served a traditional afternoon tea. The Tea Party was held inside the Community Library itself specially decorated for the occasion.

Gaynor Lloyd and Paul Lorber, two Trustees of Friends of Barham Library, and the waitresses dressed up in a traditional 1937 way, to serve and entertain the invited guests.

To make sure that no one missed out the following day Friends of Barham Library opened their doors to their Community Library in Barham Park and served strawberies and traditional scones with cream and jam to around 150 people who came to a picnic in Barham Park and watched a Kino Van showing films of how people lived in the 1930s.

Milk & More, a Muller Company which took over part of the former Express Dairy business, donated the cream, jam and many other items for the Party. All the work putting on the event was carried out by local Volunteers.

Barham Park Library Planning Appeal – Brent Council v. Our Community.

Guest blog by Philip Grant

It is nearly six months since I wrote a blog for this site: “Planning Committee upholds community use of Barham Park Library”. http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/planning-committee-upholds-community.html)  Brent’s Chief Planner had recommended at the meeting on 13 November 2013 that they should agree a change to business use, based on a Community Facilities Assessment. This document (which I called ‘dishonest’ in an objection comment at the time) had been produced for the Barham Park Trust by anonymous Council Officers, but as I reported:

It was plainly obvious to committee members from evidence given to them by objectors ... that there was a need and demand for community facilities in the area which required full-time use (not a couple of hours a week) of at least parts of the building. To give all of the space to the arts charity ACAVA to let out as artists studios would deprive local people of those existing community facilities.

That should have been the end of the planning process, with the Trust and the Council (effectively one and the same, as Brent is the ‘corporate sole Trustee’ of the Barham Park Trust) working with their preferred tenant, ACAVA, and the local community groups who also wanted to rent space at the Barham Park buildings to find a compromise solution. Instead, on 3 December, the Barham Park Trust Committee (five members of Brent’s Executive) accepted a report from Richard Barrett (Brent’s Operational Director, Property and Projects, and a member of the Barham Park Management Group, a group of Senior Council Officers), and resolved: 

To pursue an appeal against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the change of use of the premises.

Although Mr Barrett said in his report to the Trustees that ‘... there does remain a significant risk that the appeal will be refused’, when questioned about the risk at the meeting he said that, having taken informal advice, ‘... the risks were perceived as being lower than indicated in the report.’ The reason he believed the risks were less was because the Planning Committee had not followed the Planning Officer’s recommendation.

Five months later, there is some bad news for Mr Barrett, and for the Barham Park Trust, and some very good news for the objectors, including the Friends of Barham Library. Last Sunday was the final day of the four week period during which people interested in the planning appeal could submit comments on it to the Planning Inspector. Someone at Brent’s Planning Department must have been working overtime, because that was the day when the Council’s Appeal Statement (as Local Planning Authority) was submitted, and posted on the full details webpage for the Barham Park application 13/2179: https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=101150&reference=112613&st=PL .

Brent’s Planning Officer, who originally accepted the Community Facilities Assessment at face value, has now considered the evidence put forward by objectors, and agrees that the Planning Committee decision was the correct one! This is one of many similar extracts from the Statement to the Planning Inspector:

'...  the Local Planning Authority consider that the Community Facilities Assessment does not demonstrate that the existing community floorspace is not required to meet the needs of the local community and as such, it is considered that this proposal is contrary to Policy CP23 of the Brent LDF Core Strategy 2010.'

The planning appeal by the Barham Park Trust raises some important questions:

Why would Brent Council want to appeal against its own Planning Committee’s decision, especially when that decision was based on upholding one of Brent’s core planning policies (CP23 – Protecting Existing Community and Cultural Facilities)?

 Why would the Trustees of a Council-run charity, that claims to want to put the Barham Park buildings back into productive use, delay resolving the issue for months, losing rental income that would help to maintain the property and incurring an estimated £10,000 in fees (out of “charity funds”) to a planning consultant to present the appeal for them? 

and (does this make me a three “whys” man?):

Why did it take so long for the Barham Park Trust’s appeal to be lodged with the Planning Inspectorate?

Here are what I believe to be the answers to these questions. There is a chance that I am wrong on some of the points, and if so, I would invite anyone who feels aggrieved by what I have written to add a comment, or to ask Martin for a “right of reply”.

The Barham Park Management Group is chaired by Jenny Isaac (Operational Director, Neighbourhoods), who as well as being “in charge” of Brent’s parks has overall responsibility for Brent’s library service. She may have wished to prevent any undermining of the Council’s Libraries Transformation Project. Richard Barrett is “in charge” of Brent’s properties, and probably considered that letting the Barham Park buildings to a single tenant, with no local community involvement, was in Brent’s best business interests. They would also have realised that such a proposal would be an attractive proposition for the Labour Executive members on the Barham Park Trust Committee, as any letting to the Friends of Barham Library would suggest that the Executive’s decision to close six libraries in 2011 had been wrong, and might be seen as a “victory” for Cllr. Lorber, the leader of the main opposition party on the Brent Council.

It was the Senior Officers, not the “Trustees”, who put in the planning application in order to make their plans for a single letting to ACAVA possible. They have no interest in Brent’s planning policies, if those policies get in the way of what they want, and did not like being “shown up” by having the planning application rejected. The Officers therefore gave the “Trustees” only two options for how the Barham Park Trust should respond to the Planning Committee decision, but made these more attractive to the Executive members by saying that either would take six months. Even though the Trust Committee members knew that there were other options which should also have been considered, they went along with their Officer’s advice, accepting the delay, loss of rental income and extra costs of a planning appeal because this would put off a resolution of this embarrassing problem until after the local elections in May 2014.

The appeal appears to have been Mr Barrett’s “preferred option”. I was puzzled as to why it should take six months, as it was a relatively straightforward matter and I thought that the appeal could probably have been lodged by the end of January. However, if the Barham Park Trust did not actually appeal until after mid-March, there would not be time for it to be decided until after 22 May. As it was, the appeal was lodged at the end of March 2014, giving a four week period from 7 April to 4 May for objectors and others to submit their comments on the appeal. Was it a coincidence that this might be a period when Cllr. Lorber and his supporters would perhaps be too busy preparing for the local elections to be able to respond effectively with their written representations?

If I am only half right in the “answers” I have given to the questions I raised, I think that this calls into doubt the actions of both the Council Officers and the Brent Executive members who between them run the Barham Park Trust. The Trust is meant to be a charity whose object is ‘the provision of Barham Park and its buildings for recreational purposes’. Titus Barham, who left the property to Wembley on his death in 1937, clearly saw this as being for the benefit of the people of the district in which he had made his home. The way in which the letting of the buildings, the planning application and the planning appeal have been handled by the Trust could be seen as an abuse of power, putting the interests of Brent Council and of its current ruling politicians ahead of the interests of the local community.

The appeal has still to be decided by the Planning Inspector, but there is now a very strong case for it to be rejected, and for Brent Planning Committee’s original decision to stand. This will ensure that the former Barham Park library must be used as “community facilities”, but it does not guarantee that all, or part, of it will be made available for the Friends of Barham Library and their volunteer-run library service. That will depend on who is elected in the Brent Council poll on 22 May, and whether whoever controls the Council after those elections is willing to stand up to Senior Council Officers who have become used to getting their own way. 

I hope that thought will motivate you to use your vote for candidates who are committed in practice to local councillors, Council Officers and local people working together for the benefit of our community, rather than to a situation that we have seen too often in recent years of Brent Council v. Our Community

Brent Council should work with the community on Barham Park Library

Guest blog by Philip Grant following the Barham Park Planning Committee decision and the Freinds of Barham Library's statement that they would challenge any appeal by the Trustees of Barham Park Trust

As at 3pm on 16 December, Brent's Planning Department had not been notified of any appeal by the Planning Inspectorate (to whom any appeal by the Barham Park Trust, or by a Brent Council Officer in Regeneration's Property and Asset Management section on their behalf) would be made. However, as I doubt whether the "Friends" would put out this Statement without firm evidence of the facts, I will comment on the basis that an appeal has been made.

A blog item on the original Planning Committee decision can be found at: http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/planning-committee-upholds-community.html
I am convinced that Brent's Planning Committee made the right decision, and that the Planning Officer's recommendation to give consent to the change of use was wrong because it relied on a document which was dishonest. 

At the Civic Centre on the evening of the meeting I spoke with people from both sides of the argument. Although she has been criticised for supporting the application, Cllr. Mary Daly did so only because she saw the Trustees deal with ACAVA as the only way to get the Barham Park buildings back into use quickly. She, like me and others, is concerned that the longer the buildings remain empty, the more chance there is that they will fall into disrepair, and suffer the fate of Titus Barham's mansion in the park, which was demolished in the 1950's after years of neglect by Wembley Council, to whom it had been gifted for the benefit of local people, along with the park and remaining buildings in it, in 1937.

I did not think that letting all of the space to ACAVA for artists' studios was the only answer, and after speaking to representatives of Pivot Point and FoBPL, I wrote to all of the Barham Park Trustees on 15 November. I suggested to them that they should invite ACAVA to join them in an attempt to find a solution, by sitting down with the two local community groups who also wished to use part of the buildings, on a "without prejudice" basis, to see whether they could agree a workable way in which they could all share the facilities currently allocated solely to ACAVA. If they could agree how they would share the buildings, Council Officers should be instructed to draw up the necessary agreements to allow this to happen as soon as possible.

There may be some people within Brent Council who regard my efforts to get involved and give advice (on matters where I feel I have the knowledge or experience to make sensible suggestions) as "troublemaking", but here I was definitely trying to help as a "troubleshooter". I genuinely thought that 'given goodwill on all sides, this could be the way to get the buildings back into use, for ACAVA and for the local community, producing rental income to contribute to the refurbishment costs and help pay for the future maintenance of the buildings and to bring life back into the park.'

I have not heard back from any of the five Trustees (Cllrs Crane, Denselow, Hirani, Mashari and Ruth Moher), or from anyone at the Council on their behalf. If they have taken up my suggestion, I have not heard any word of it. I had said in my email to them: 'I realise that you may wish to take advice from Council Officers on my suggestions, but please remember that you are the Trustees, and the decisions are yours.' Despite this, it looks as if the Council Officers have got the upper hand (with the support or acquiescence of our elected Councillors, with their Trustee hats on). Their plans have been thwarted, quite rightly, by Brent’s Planning Committee, but they are determined that at whatever cost in (Council Taxpayers') money, and whatever the delay, and potential consequences in terms of the future of the Barham Park buildings, their will must prevail. 

Sadly, it makes the final comment in my email to the Barham Park Trustees of 15 November seem prophetic: 'I believe that the time of Officers would be better spent in working on a solution to the problem, rather than in searching for reasons to try to justify a scheme which is not a solution to it, and will only prolong the discord between Council and local community, rather than healing it.' 

Can anyone, please, explain why Brent Council makes it so difficult for Councillors, Council Officers and local people to work together for the mutual benefit of our community?

Philip Grant.