RCDT ENEWS/EVENTS LISTING 6 September 2007
From
Feedback
‘Hi - delighted to
get another newsletter as u can imagine.’
‘Absolutely delighted to
see another edition of your excellent enews/events –
I really hope you get the
funds from somewhere to keep it going’
‘just to say thanks for your sterling efforts to keep up the news
events listing,
appreciated as always – and good luck!’
RIVERSIDE IT
DROP-IN USE
DURING SEPTEMBER
Monday to Thursday
Friday
125 Lambeth Walk (in the Square)
There will be resources available including ECDL, Web Design,
Photoshop and a range of exercises using Microsoft office. Help also
available with CV’s, Job search, Web design, setting up an email
account, etc. Please
phone Liam or Ellen on 020 7582 5322.
|
BEAUFOY BRIEFING SESSIONS – TOMORROW & TUESDAY
Lady
Margaret Hall Settlement (LMHS) two briefing
Sessions on the Charity Commission’s draft re-organisation
of
the Beaufoy Trusts are tomorrow Friday 7 (
(
Commission scheme see the 17 August ENews on
www.rcdt.org
It
has not been possible to organise a public meeting for next
week,
but
if as is being requested the Commission extends the
consultation period to 31 September then a joint meeting
will
be organised by the Settlement and Kennington Association.
FOR
DETAILED BRIEFING POINTS SEE BELOW
Do
you know any journalists who might
be
interested in the story? If so please
have
a word with them.
It
has been unfortunate that the Settlement’s email has had
problems which are being sorted. Meanwhile they can be
contacted on
ladymargarethallsettlement@googlemail.com; Tel:
020 7793 1110. |
CORPROATE
COMMITTEE DISCUSSES
BEAUFOY ON 12
SEPTEMBER
The
Council’s Corporate Committee is discussing the latest developments
with the Beaufoy at its meeting on 12 September.
It
states:
·
‘The Council owns a
number of surplus and underutilised sites in the north of the
borough. The Beaufoy Institute, together with the Beaufoy Annex and
the car park have been included in an innovative regeneration
proposal known as the Prince’s Ward Investment Strategy which was
approved by the Cabinet on 390 July.’
·
‘It is proposed to offer
a package of sites to a private developer (after a tendering
exercise) who will then develop the sites to provide a mixture of
housing and community facilities… the developer will be required to
refurbish the Beaufoy Institute and it will be used as a cultural
and community facility.’
·
Confidential financial
assessments have been given to the Charity Commission, showing that
if ‘marketed independently … to provide 50% new build affordable
housing on the site and a cultural and community resource… , the
potential surplus capital receipt resulting would be insufficient to
cover the cost of renovating the Beaufoy Institute building.’
·
Combined marketing with
the Lilian Baylis, Adventure Playground and Ethelred Youth Club
sites as envisaged in the Investment Strategy will provide enough
capital receipt to cover the costs of the proposed community
facilities on Lilian Baylis and Beaufoy sites.
·
The Council holds the
Beaufoy Institute in trust and is not the outright owner of the
site’ As such it is bound by charity law ‘to obtain the best
available price for the trust.’ ‘Council officers will appoint
independent consultants to represent the interests of the Trust and
a second form of consultants to represent the interests of the
Council.’ Each will independently value the 1907 building as (i) a
stand alone, (ii) with the 1930s annex and car park; and (iii) the
1907, the 1930s annex, the car park and the other Investment
Strategy package sites.
·
The Officers assume that
‘the Corporate Committee will only consider pursuing’ inclusion in
the Investment Strategy package if ‘The valuation exercise indicates
that a higher capital receipt will be received by the Trust’, and if
it ‘is willing to accept that to receive this enhanced receipt there
will be delay in receipt of the payment to the Trust which will be
influenced by the timetable of the Investment Strategy. The receipt
will only be paid to the Trust when the developer selected to take
forward the Investment
Strategy enters into a contract with the Council.’
·
The Committee is updated
on the discussions with the Charity Commission, with the details of
the consultation scheme for restructuring the Beaufoy Trusts
‘The Charity Commission has indicated that it cannot give a
reassurance in advance that a disposal as part of the Prince’s Ward
Investment Strategy will comply’ with the legal requirements. ‘They
have been notified on the proposal and have not raised any
objections. However, it is for ‘the Council as trustee to satisfy
itself that’ the law ‘is being compiled with.’
To
see the full report go to
www.lambeth.gov.uk – then click through to Council & Democracy,
then to Council reports, meetings and agendas archive, then to
Corporate Committee or try.
www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=115&MId=5829&Ver=4
Comment and Questions:
·
Financial implications.
Because the financial analysis has been provided to the Charity
Commission on a confidential basis it is not know whether any
account has been taken on the economics of selling and developing
the sites of the Grade II listing status of the Lilian Baylis and
the Beaufoy, in terms of the cost implications of new building
design and construction being sensitive to the Grade II listed
buildings.
·
Do the calculations of
selling the 1907 building by itself take into account the cost of
blocking up the access from it into the 1930s Annex, and whether any
services for it would have to be installed if they are currently
located on a shared basis in the 1930s building?
·
With all the constraints
involved: Grade II listing, 50% affordable housing and community
facilities, it is unlikely that a private commercial developer would
be regard the package as generating enough profit, which would leave
housing associations, which are unlikely to want long-term
involvement in the community facilities.
·
Trustee Status.
Presumably as the Council holds the 1907 Institute building in
Trust, then presumably all the Councillors are Trustees. Therefore
should they all be involved in the decisions? Should they meet as a
Trustee body separately from meeting as Councillors in full Council
meetings, even if on the same evening? When as Trustees meeting
separately did they delegate the detailed monitoring to the
Corporate Committee? Should the Corporate Committee not be meeting
as a sub-group of the Trustees in a meeting called separately from
that of the Council Corporate Committee, even if on the same night?
Is it possible for the
Corporate Committee Councillors to act in the best interests of the
Council and the Trust at the same time – do they not have a conflict
of interest between their roles? Therefore should not a Trustee
sub-group be comprised of Councillors who are not on the Corporate
Committee?
Can anyone go
and do a report for the next ENews please?
LOCAL
HISTORY FORUM
The Local History Forum is discussing a range of
activities to
contribute to the Vauxhall City Farm Anniversary
event. These
include: local history and second hand bookstalls,
displays,
talks, a walk, and the launch of a new pamphlet
on
to get involved please email
sean.creighton@btinternet.com.
DIARY
See 31
August ENews on
www.rcdt.org
plus new events above.
NEWS & NEW EVENTS
Art exhibition to 29
September: Sixth Form Art from
Archbishop Tenison's School. Tate Local, South Lambeth Library,
South Lambeth Road. Monday
Open
House London weekend: Saturday 15 and Sunday 16 September
Luis Carvajal and Annie
Davey/ 15mm Films
Opening hours 1-5pm.www.openhouse.org.uk/london/home.html
For Open House London 2007, two co-existing activities will take
place within the Beaconsfield venue at 22 Newport Street, each
performance reflecting the respective characters of two linked
sites: a 19th century school building that now houses Beaconsfield
in its remaining wing and the adjacent double railway arch.
The
former Lambeth Ragged School, Lower space
Luis Carvajal and Annie Davey: Puss and Mew London Dry Gin
Puss and Mew is an inter-disciplinary
project by
Luis Carvajal
and
Annie Davey
who have collaborated since 2004,
exploring the relation of gin to English social history through the
recreation and reinvention of cultural artefacts and phenomena. The
artists speculate that the
The
Arch space
15mm Films: The Way In
A semi-fictional film set in a
festering railway arch squat. A disability-led collective rehearse
scenes inspired by 1970's terror factions, contemporary reality TV
and lo-fi spontaneous performance art, for a disability terrorism
film they seem to be about to make.
15mm Films work collaboratively on a project basis and are linked by
a willingness to describe themselves as "disabled".
Artists:
Katherine
Araniello, Chloe Edwards, Charlie Fennell, Laurence Harvey, Simon
Raven, Juliet Robson, Philip Ryder and Aaron Williamson.
www.15mmfilms.com/
www.beaconsfield.ltd.uk/
Morley College Community Courses, starting September, January and
April
At Archbishop Summer School,
·
ESOL with IT.
Mondays
·
Dance Exercise.
Mondays
·
Salsa for
Beginners. Friday
·
Salsa Improvers.
Fridays
At Brit Oval Cricket Ground:
·
Basic Computing.
Saturdays
·
Communication
skills for work. Fridays
At Ethelred Nursery,
·
English with
Drama. Wednesdays.
At
·
Ballroom Dancing
Mondays 2.3.30pm
At
·
Painting and
Drawing for Fun Fridays
At
·
English Language
with Literacy Wednesdays
At
·
DJ Workshop Days
to be confirmed
·
Music Technology.
Days to be confirmed
To find out more, fees, fee
exemptions, etc, contact Morley College Community Development: 020
7450 1929.
communitydevelopment@morleycollege.ac.uk
LOCAL PLANNING APPLICATIONS & NEWS
Planning Applications
Week 2–8 September
(exc. entries to go up on
Friday 7)
289 -
3
31 Richborne Terrace.
Erection of single storey ground floor side infill extension and
installation of double doors to ground floor rear elevation. Ref:
07/03464/FUL
Royal Vauxhall Tavern
Public House,
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/publicaccess/dc/DcAplication/weeklylist_searchform.aspx.
If this link does not work then go to
www.lambeth.gov.uk and track through to Planning and
Public Access database. And to go and see any plans is easy from the
KOV area as the Town Planning Advice
Centre is at Phoenix House,
Planning Decisions
Week 2- 8 September
(not inc. entries to go up on Friday 7)
41
Lambeth Palace. 07/00867/LB. Structural repairs. Permitted.
170A
BEAUFOY BRIEFING
There are several ways you can respond to the Charity Commission
‘consultation’ on the restructuring of the Beaufoy Trusts:
·
The easiest without having to go into detailed critique is to
protest at the period given for consultation,
without any attempt to publicize it locally, and during the
holidays, and requesting/demanding it be extended to 30 September to
allow e.g. local organisations
members to meet and discuss the proposals. School holidays
etc. Their email reply form
is on
www.charitycommission.gov.uk/supportingcharities/schemes/sch000004.asp?P
·
For a possible detailed response to
help you decide whether to make a more detailed response please have
a look at background on
www.rcdt.org.uk,
including the 31 August ENews, and this following letter from Lady
Margaret Hall Settlement to the Charity Commission, Harmsworth
House,
‘We wish to
formally complain about the consultation for this new scheme
proposal is taking place in the August holiday.
Many of the local organisations who have been concerned in
numerous local campaigns to keep the Beaufoy in community use are
just coming back into activity from the summer.
As the Beaufoy has been a serious local issue for many years
the timing and speed of this process has dismayed many in the local
community, denying them the opportunity to consult their members.
In particular both the Kennington Association and the
Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall forums will not have the necessary
time to enable a real consultation to take place.
We are also
disappointed not to be told of the start of the consultation
exercise. There has been
no local publicity and despite having been in correspondence with
you for several years you did not have the courtesy to advise us
that, this stage had been reached.
The trustees (Lambeth Council) have taken no steps to
publicise the commencement of public consultation.
I understand the Beaufoy family have not been notified
either.
Our objections
are on record but we reiterate them.
1.
The new trust
proposal is too open and is too far from the settlers original
intentions. Any new
trust deed should remain true to the original intent of developing
and supporting skills/crafts training.
Lambeth houses the London College of Printing,
2.
It is the
Council’s stated intention to sell the building.
It is the clear local requirement that the trust should
retain the present Beaufoy Institute.
There is no support for LBC’s view that there is no demand
for the buildings use, which would not honour the founder’s
intention. The
‘exercise’ in marketing organised by the Council is widely held in
contempt since it was conducted at a time when the Councils
education department had a confirmed policy to retain the building
for a school decant programme.
3.
The proposal
that the Council remain the sole trustee is totally unacceptable.
We find it impossible to see how the Commission justifies
this proposal.
The Council
have under 4 different administrations totally failed to manage the
trust.
1.
They have
totally failed to separate the trusts interest from those of the
Council to disastrous effect.
They have
a)
lost or
misspent a £350,000 endowment fund handed over by the ILEA.
b)
allowed the
building to fall into a state where nearly £5 million pounds will
need to be spent to bring it to useable condition.
c)
have lost all
knowledge of the third trust.
They have
achieved all this by failing to see the dividing line between trust
and Council. In the role of trustee they did not give the education
department a proper lease and they did not insist on a schedule of
dilapidation when the department returned the property to the
trustees. They have not
kept the building weatherproof and it continues to deteriorate.
The Councils recent paper states that they are the only body
able to offer a professional management service but offer no
evidence to support this.
Within the last year they have mismanaged monies from the
sale of another charities assets which they manage.
Without an outside observe to defend the trusts objectives,
the tendency over time for officers and councillors to move on means
that relatively quickly they lose all sense of differentiation
between the trusts objects and the councils policies.
The Councils
paper further states that there are no possible trustees to be found
to fulfil an independent role in the area.
To our knowledge there are over 40 charitable and health
service bodies in the area with at least 200 people actively engaged
on similar committees.
The plain fact is no work has been done to give foundation to this
contemptuous assertion.
Both the Kennington Association and Kennington Oval and Vauxhall
forums have expressed the view they would have no trouble recruiting
a suitably qualified and experienced board for the Institute.
Such a board would be better placed to defend the Institutes
interest than a Council who have such deep-rooted conflicts of
interest and who seem determined to sweep these under the carpet.
We would also
point out that the Lambeth Endowed Charities are entirely local and
like us one of the founders of the Institute.
They have 300 years experience of giving educational grants
in the area and seem to us a more fit custodian than Lambeth who
offer no sense of continuity.
I would also point out that the Commissions own guidelines do
not favour Councils as sole trustees except in rare circumstances.
4.
Over and above
the questions of the new proposed scheme there are the unanswered
question in the documents put out for consultation.
These
questions are the subject of considerable local anger and centre on
the Councils past failure as trustee.
These can be summarised as follows.
1.
Will the Council pay back the £5 million it owes the trust?
2.
Will it pay back the £350,000 lost scholarship monies?
3.
How will it ascertain it has got market value without restoring the
building?
4.
Why are they proposing to market the two sites together and how will
individual value be defined.
5.
What community access to the building will there be after sale and how
will the Council guarantee it?
6.
How will the trustees report and account for their activities?
Finally there
are questions to be asked of the Commission.
In entering
into these negotiations a base position would have been a natural
scepticism about the Councils ability to reform itself and maintain
the integrity of the scheme.
The Councils only public comment on this is to say they have
appointed an officer to monitor the situation.
This is of course the old system which failed.
Both officers and councillors in Lambeth change at such short
intervals that cohesiveness is lost and then the rules get lost or
forgotten or worse expediency takes over and there is neglect which
is the Councils history of management of this trust.
Lambeth is a failed Council with one of the lowest star
ratings in the country.
It has a long way to go before its recognised problems are solved.
Adding the Beaufoy to its tasks would be a self-inflicted
wound.
We believe the
Commission have to show in such singular circumstances that it has
taken sufficient care to establish criteria.
1.
That the new Lambeth management system has proper checks and balances.
2.
That the new trust is properly recompensed by the Council for past usage
of the Beaufoy.
3.
That a proper ownership search is carried out to ascertain the true
ownership of the adjoining land.
4.
That the new scheme more closely adheres to the founder’s principles.
5.
And that all of the background work, which has led the Commission to
agree this new scheme, be made available for public examination.
Such is the
public anger with LBC in its role of trustee that there is going to
be a public meeting jointly chaired by the two associations and we
do not think any decision should be made until that meeting has
reported back.
LOCAL LINKS – see
www.rcdt.org
ENews/Events
Listing compiled and edited by Sean Creighton, RCDT
Unless stated
editorial comments do not reflect the views of the RCDT Board
RCDT is supported by
London Development Agency, and part-funded by Pedlar’s Acre Trust
(Lambeth Council)