Agenda item

Following the report that was presented to members of the Barham Park Trust Committee on 15 October 2014 and after obtaining specialist legal advice, this report sets out for consideration alternative models in relation to the future governance and management of the Barham Park Trust.

RESOLVED:

i) That the governance and management options detailed in the report from the Strategic Director, Environment and Neighbourhoods and the Director of Legal and Procurement be noted.

ii) That the current governance and management arrangements (option 1) as detailed in the report from the Strategic Director, Environment and Neighbourhoods and Director of Legal and Procurement be continued.

iii) That the governance and management arrangements for the Barham Park Trust be reviewed after a period of twelve months.

The report before the committee detailed options for alternative models of governance for the Barham Park Trust. The committee had commissioned the report at its meeting on 15 October 2014 and had directed that specialist legal advice be sought in its preparation. Following receipt of this advice, five options had been identified for members’ consideration. The Chair expressed frustration that the report presented was not what members had requested. members had asked officers to prepare a neutral report inviting them to make their own decision between the various options. Members had specifically requested that the report did not include a recommended option from officers, and it was extremely disappointing to see that this request had not been followed.

Arnold Meagher (Principal Housing and Litigation Lawyer) introduced the report to the committee and outlined the advantages and disadvantages of each option, advising that if the committee wished to pursue an alternative model of governance for the Trust, Cabinet approval would be required. The five options encompassed maintenance of the status quo (option 1); the appointment of additional trustees alongside the council (option 2); the appointment of a corporate trustee (option 3); the creation of a new corporate charity to take ownership of Barham Park (option 4); and outright transfer to another charity (option 5).

In the subsequent discussion, members raised several queries regarding the options presented. Further information was requested regarding the cost implications of option 3. With reference to option 4, a member queried why a charity, in becoming too independent of the council, would risk loosing the subsidy currently received by the Trust. Noting that option 2 resulted in an additional layer of decision making for the Trust, it was queried whether this could be mitigated by the removal of the Barham Park Trust Committee.

The Chair invited contributions from the audience. Mrs Lloyd (Friends of Barham Park Library) noted that the Trust ran at a loss and expressed doubt that a separate body would wish to assume this responsibility. If the trust were transferred to another body however, Mrs Lloyd questioned whether the park would be leased to the council to support its continued maintenance. Mr Lorber (Friends of Barham Park Library) advised that residents’ concerns extended to the proper maintenance of the park and not to the governance arrangements of the trust. Councillor Daly highlighted the risk of transferring control of the park to an external body and removing the council’s ability to protect the park from neglect or development.

Responding to the queries raised Arnold Meagher advised that the costs of option 3 would likely amount to thousands of pounds as it would be necessary to set up a company and company structure. With regard to option 4, the council might chose to withdraw a subsidy from an independent organisation on the basis that the organisation would have greater recourse to external funds. Option 2 resulted in a an additional layer of decision making for the Trust because, as a sub-committee of the Cabinet, the committee could not incorporate independent trustees. It would therefore be necessary to establish a separate body to consider decisions in addition to the committee.  Removing the Barham Park Trust Committee would not simplify this dual decision making structure as decisions would revert to the Cabinet in the absence of the committee. Arnold Meagher confirmed that if the Trust were transferred to an external organisation, as in option 5, this would include transfer of the Trust’s assets including the park. For options 3, 4 and 5, an external organisation would be responsible for the  maintenance of the park, unless an agreement to the contrary was made with the council.

RESOLVED:

i) That the governance and management options detailed in the report from the Strategic Director, Environment and Neighbourhoods and the Director of Legal and Procurement be noted.

ii) That the current governance and management arrangements (option 1) as detailed in the report from the Strategic Director, Environment and Neighbourhoods and Director of Legal and Procurement be continued.

iii) That the governance and management arrangements for the Barham Park Trust be reviewed after a period of twelve months.