Unanswered question on the financial viability of the Bridge Park/Unisys redevelopment

 The Minutes of the Brent Council Meeting on September 19th have been published for approval this evening.

This is Cllr Butt's answer to my question regarding the development of the Bridge Park/Unisys site. You will note that the financial viability part of the question was not answered:

 

In thanking Councillor Tatler for the written response provided, Martin Francis in asking his supplementary question began by taking the opportunity to highlight that it had been nearly 10 years since former Councillor Dan Filson had warned against dealing with General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH) and 7 years since the Conditional Land Sale Agreement relating to Bridge Park had been approved. Referring to the latest accounts from Stonebridge Real Estate Development Ltd (Subsidiary of GMH registered in Luxembourg) he pointed out these had shown a reduction in valuation of the company from £36m to £29.5m.

 

Members were also reminded of the aim outlined within the Council’s original decision notice relating to the agreement back in 2013 which, he pointed out, had been for the council pursue the option of GMH (and its subsidiary company) developing the Unisys and Bridge Park sites for residential and commercial development to fund a new Bridge Park sports centre with the site value of Bridge Park put at £4m and the cost of a new Sports Centre at £9m and the difference made up from the GMH agreement and Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (SCIL). Given the financial update provided he therefore asked whether Bridge Park was still felt to be financially viable and if an update was available on the timeline for completion of the financial viability assessment of the GMH plans and when they were expected to go to planning.

 

In responding on behalf of Councillor Tatler, Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leaderof the Council), thanked Martin Francis for his question and attendance at the meeting along with the reference to former Councillor Dan Filson. In terms of the current position, he advised that the Council were still in discussions with GMH as part of the process in reviewing the plans for Bridge Park so could not give a precise date, at this stage, as to when final design proposals were likely to be submitted to planning. Confirmation was, however, provided on the Council’s intention to undertake consultation regarding the general principles of the development at Bridge Park in order to gauge views, with the Council remaining committed to realising the wider opportunities and potential available through the Bridge Park development recognising the commitment of key stakeholders in seeking to progress the original development proposals. In terms of more detailed timescales, the Leader advised he would be willing to provide these once they had been finalised.