Showing posts with label Bridge Park. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bridge Park. Show all posts

Thursday 4 January 2024

What is happening with the Bridge Park/Unisys redevelopment? Apparently, nothing.

 

Unisys House, Stonebridge

The death of Bridge Park fighter Leonard Johnson in November 2023 made me wonder where we were with redevelopment of the Bridge Park Leisure Centre and Unisys House. Unisys has been empty for decades and Brent Council made a deal with General Mediterranean Holdings to sell off its land as part of a scheme to redevelop the leisure centre and build housing and a hotel.

The community in Stonebridge waged a court battle over ownership of the Bridge Park Centre which had been set up by local black activists. The council won and seemed ready to go ahead. 

Questions were asked by Dan Filson, then chair of the Scrutiny Committee, about the wisom of dealing with GMH in the light of concerns over its owner and the companies Luxembourg registration. There was a concern about the effectivess of due diligence carried out by the Council and even Cllr Mike Pavey, then Deputy Leader of the Council,  had his doubts.

In an email in response to Philip Grant he said:

'I take your point on ethics and I for one am not comfortable dealing with companies registered in tax havens. Realistically though this is a much wider issue than this development. When you have companies like Starbucks, Amazon and Next routinely avoiding tax, it becomes difficult to hold this against any single company. We need national Government to lead a crackdown on legal tax avoidance and to insist on clearer transparency requirements. I don’t like dealing with companies registered in tax havens, but considering the size of the problem, I think the solution must come from the Government.’

 In September 2020 Ian Lunt, then the newly appointed Director of Regneration, signed off a Deed of Variation with Stonebridge Real Estate Development. LINK The Decision Form states that Shama Tatler. Cabinet Member for  Property, Planning and Regeneration was consulted

 Agreement to exchange a Deed of Variation to the Bridge Park Conditional Land Sale Agreement with “Stonebridge Real Estate Development” a UK-registered subsidiary company that has General Mediterranean Holdings SA as the parent company and Harborough InvestInc as the second guarantor.

The Decision Form states that Shama Tatler, Cabinet Member for  Property, Planning and Regeneration was consulted. However no details of the variation were released to the public:


Stonebridge Real Estate Development 2021 accounts have an interesting reference to its parent company GMH and its second guarantor Harborough Invest Inc LINK:

So it appears the Brent Council is in partnership with a subsidiary company that has doubts over its relationship with its guarantors: 'there can be no certainty that the support will continue to be available for the forseeable future.

This is GMH's account of the development and the agreement with Brent Council (undated) on its website LINK under the heading 'Land Development - UK':

Bridge Park Development

Known as Bridge Park, the 6.7 acre site area is located in easy walking distance from Stonebridge Park Station, in North West London. The development will have a Gross Development Value of circa £500 Million and will include more than 800 residential units, retail and a 198 room hotel, allied to a new leisure and community complex.

The development’s title ownership is divided between two parties, GMH Group, with the other being the London Borough of Brent (‘Council’). The GMH owned land includes a pair of imposing curvilinear office towers, one of which is ideally suited to conversion into a hotel and the other to residential, perhaps multi-family.

The Council ownership has an existing leisure and community centre and other commercial office buildings that are proposed to be demolished and replaced by a state of the art sports hall, swimming pool and other new community facilities, all of which are to be delivered by the Council at its expense.

GMH has exchanged contracts with the Council, subject to planning, to purchase the majority of the Council Land and develop both its ownership and the balance of the Bridge Park site into a new urban location with a range of much needed housing (including affordable), retail, a prominent hotel, as well a leisure and community facilities complex.

This important regeneration will bring jobs, homes and new community facilities, fully exploiting the great public transport links and general accessibility and prominence of the site.

The development seems a long way away now in 2024.

I asked Brent Council where the development was at present and they responded:

We don't any current planning applications. If that changes there will of course be public consultation.

Also there aren't any reports planned for Cabinet on the Forward Plan.

 




Saturday 23 April 2022

How many people know about the big (very tall) changes ahead for this corner of Tokyngton ward? WEM Tower residents in revolt

 

Wembley Point redeveloped into small apartments

Let's face it, you can't really miss Wembley Point on the North Circular Road - in fact it is right in your face. For years disused and under-used it has been converted into c400 small housing units.

It was sold to the Canda Israel Group for £43 in 2018 on behalf of off-shore clients of Bravo Investment Homes. Crucially the sale included overage, a payment to be made to the original land owner in the event that a valuable planning permission is granted. The payment will usually be a percentage of the difference between the market value of the land with the benefit of planning permission and without it.

Canada Israel, controlled by Barak Rosen and Assaf Tuchmeir (their private company, not to be confused with public company Israel Canada) has done its first deal in the UK. The company has purchased an office tower in the north-west London suburb of Wembley which it intends to convert to a residential tower at a total investment of £100 million. Canada Israel is paying £45 million for the property, and plans to build under an existing permit ("Permitted Development Rights") 440 small apartments (averaging 40 square meters) for an additional £55 million. Canada Israel plans to sell the apartments - studio and two-room apartments, for which there is high demand - for an average of about £300,000, and expects total sales proceeds of £130-150 million.
The existing office tower, with 20,000 square meters of built space, was bought as part of a 2.5 acre site for which Canada Israel plans to obtain residential planning rights to build 30,000 square meters. The property is adjacent to the Stonebridge Park Underground station, about twenty minutes journey time from central London, and is within walking distance of Wembley Stadium. LINK

Crucially the sale included overage, a payment to be made to the original land owner in the event that an additional  valuable planning permission is granted. for the site. The payment will usually be a percentage of the difference between the market value of the land with the benefit of planning permission and without it.

That additional planning permission is now being sought from Brent Council and would result in this transformation of the site: 

Impression of 'Stonebridge Place'

You will note that Wembley Point itself would be over-shadowed by an even taller block (32 storeys). The River Brent flows in front of it (now largely covered by a concrete platform) and the greenery to the left of the picture is the Wembley Brook which joins the River Brent somewhere beneath the concrete. The surburban housing and shops on the Harrow Road near the junction with the North Circular would also be over-shadowed.

Europe Real Estate LINK reported in March:

Canada Israel and Avanton have submitted a planning application to the London Borough of Brent for the regeneration of the 2.5-acre (1.26 hectare) Wembley Point site on Harrow Road to create a residential-led development known as Stonebridge Place with a GDV value of up to €297.6m (£250m) providing 515 new homes of mixed tenure, 1,200ft² of commercial space, new boxing gym with public café, landscaped gardens, pedestrian boulevards and new water features.

The Stonebridge Place proposals will deliver significant public realm improvements including a civic square, green pedestrian boulevard, children’s play spaces and resident’s gardens at ground and podium levels. The proposed new homes will be an addition to the already completed WEM Tower London, with its 439 new homes and fantastic amenities. Of the 515 new homes, 341 will be for market sale, with 35% allocated for affordable housing comprised of 57 shared ownership and 117 affordable rent homes.

Located to the south of Wembley Park and National Stadium, adjacent to Stonebridge Park Station (Bakerloo Underground Line), the new Stonebridge Place project will provide three striking new buildings. The first building is a 32 storey focal triangular tower with glass and green terracotta façade providing 266 one, two and three-bedroom market sale apartments over a new double-height residential lobby, complete with flexible commercial space.

The second stepped building, rising from 10 to 20 storeys, will have a glass and beige brick façade with balconies providing 249 mixed-tenure homes and flexible commercial space, with a large podium garden at the first-floor level. The partners will be building Stonebridge Boxing Club, an important local sports-led charity, a new facility. This will be located in the third new building on site which will be three storeys high providing a new boxing gym and public café with glass and bronzed-black terracotta façade.

The project’s significant public realm improvements include a new civic square, for food markets, a new Wembley outdoor Film Festival and Art & Antiques Market. Running through the site will be Stonebridge Place, a new green pedestrianised route linking the various buildings and landscaped areas.

Gil Selzer, Managing Director of Canada Israel UK said: “This proposed residential-led development at Wembley Point is a major urban regeneration project that will create a new destination for South Wembley. Stonebridge Place marks the next step in Canada Israel’s international expansion plans and building a strong real estate presence in the London property market.”

Omer Weinberger, CEO of Avanton commented: “Avanton are delighted to be partnering with international property company Canada Israel on this major urban regeneration scheme in Wembley which will provide market sale, BTR (Build to Rent) and social housing provision.”


Current residents of Wembley Point  (now marketed as WEM Tower) are not happy - in fact they feel misled and cheated by Canada Israel:

These are extracts from a typical comment on the Brent Planning website:

I am a new resident/tenant in the WEM Tower building and I am one of the many first ever tenants to reside in the WEM Tower building.
 

The owners and management of the premises did not and still do not disclose to potential new tenants/residents in the WEM Tower building about the proposed planning works that have been applied for permission to the Brent council during the viewings or at any point in time throughout the process of signing a contract or rental tenancy agreement with them!

This information is purposefully kept discreet and un-disclosed to all of new tenants/residents in the WEM Tower building! This is a very intentional act and behaviour of the management company and the owners and landlords of the flats in the WEM Tower building.

The entire grounds surrounding the outdoor premises of the WEM Tower building being the car park area will be subject to construction/maintenance/building work on the premises surrounding the WEM Tower building in which our flats are located/situated where we have been locked into 6-18 months rental tenancy agreement contacts!

If the planning for this project is authorised for a go ahead .. it will be extremely hazardous and injurious to our health and safety as residents residing in the WEM Tower building because we will all be surrounded by the on going construction all around the WEM Tower building premises! This is clearly unhealthy for us residents!

It is completely unfair for the management/landlords to expect us to live on a construction site! Either they decide to terminate our rental tenancy agreements of permission is granted to them for this project! Because the management/owners/landlords of the flats in WEM Tower building have not and did not disclose this information about the further construction on the premises, it was information that was kept discreet, un-disclosed concealed and withheld from us new tenants/residents currently residing within the flats in the WEM Tower building!

Please Brent Council, I am writing this appeal/objection on behalf of all several other current new residents/tenants in this building who are unhappy and dissatisfied for this project to go ahead or be given permission to go ahead!

We would like to suggest that if permission is given for this project than construction can only begin if all of us residents are evacuated from this WEM Tower building and released from our long term rental tenancy agreements! As our health and safety is at risk of construction is deemed to occur in the foreseeable future and if permission is given for this project.

Please Brent Council take this objection and appeal in serious consideration from all of us current new tenants/residents.

There are three pages of comments, mainly from WEM Tower residents and just one supporting the planning application:

I do not object to the proposal to continue to develop the Wembley Point site. The developer's plans to fully develop the land have been clear since they purchased the land. I trust that my rights as a tenant will not be infringed upon. To date, I have received prompt and helpful replies to all my emails to the Property Managers at Home-Made (who are responsible for WEM Tower), and I have no reason to believe at this time that Home-Made and/or Canada-Israel will act in a manner which is inappropriate to tenants. If the nature of this relationship changes, I have the right to complain to Home-Made and Canada-Israel as appropriate and/or report any unlawful or unethical practices to the Property Ombudsman or other relevant regulatory body. However, I have no reason at this time to expect to complain either to Home-Made and/or Canada-Israel, nor to the Property Ombudsman or relevant regulatory body.


My understanding of the proposal is such that I believe that no significant alteration will be made to the fabric of the building in which I live, that building being WEM Tower. My understanding is that the only building works which will happen at WEM Tower itself are those which are necessary for maintenance purposes (e.g. such works as would be expected by a landlord so as to fulfil their duties to tenant(s)). Therefore, I do not believe that the development of the disused car park will affect my safety or compromise my right to quiet enjoyment of the property I rent. Construction work is subject to time restrictions so as to avoid excessive discomfort to those nearby, and acoustic insulation boards can be used to minimise noise during the works. I reserve the right to complain to Home-Made (the Property Manager) and/or Canada-Israel (the Landlord) if my quiet enjoyment of the property or any other contractual or legal right is compromised for whatever reason and I am further empowered to complain to the Property Ombudsman or other relevant regulatory body if my initial complaint is handled inappropriately.


As far as I am aware, tenants have not been advised that the carpark which is currently present at the site is available for long-term use. Neither the WEM Tower website nor the WEM Tower resident app advertise parking. Indeed, the resident app stipulates that cars cannot park on the site other than for checking-in purposes and for deliveries. In my experience, both the Developer and Property Manager have been fair and flexible regarding the use of the car park, as I was allowed to park for free whilst I sold my car. Cars are inappropriate for London; I have replaced my car with a small electric moped, and I also own a bicycle, and it is my understanding that these greener modes of transportation are unaffected by the absence of car parking. I firmly believe that the Wembley Point development should be car-free, with the exemption of blue badge holders. I am a car enthusiast, but I am sentient to the negative environmental impact of car use in London and beyond and the issue of congestion, which cannot be resolved through the acquisition of an electric car (as cars are larger vehicles). It is my opinion that residents at this development should be encouraged to use (preferably electric) mopeds/motorcycles, as well as bicycles, when they are not using public transport. This would further reduce the potentially negative impact of increased population to other residents in the area and would encourage residents to make environmentally-conscious decisions. Those who need cars should hire them occasionally, and I understand that Zipcar will soon be available direct from this development. This meets my needs perfectly, and likely the needs of most or all other residents. There are a small number of cars currently parked at the development, but I have only seen one of these move and that was only on one single occasion. I am not omniscient, but my perspective is that current residents do not desperately need access to personal cars.


I believe the development of this land will have a positive impact on the area. Firstly, the property I rent at present is very well-presented; it is nicely equipped and thoughtfully designed. I have lived in both social and private rental properties my entire life, and my flat at WEM Tower is definitively the nicest, most well-equipped property I have ever occupied. The property is furnished to a higher standard than I have come to expect from a private landlord, and certainly to higher standard than any property I have ever rented or viewed, not only in London but nationwide. It is a shame that the approach taken by this developer is not used more widely, particularly by Local Authorities which ought to work more effectively to tackle the nationwide housing crisis, and should build genuinely comfortable homes for all. I grew up on a council estate, and I only wish that it had been half as nice as WEM Tower, as our standard of living would have been so much higher than it was. If WEM Tower is anything to go by, I firmly believe that the developer should be encouraged to improve run-down, disused, or poorly-developed land in Brent and beyond. They are succeeding here at Wembley Point, and I am in favour of good quality housing for all. Perhaps Brent Council could buy a few properties from the developer when they are completed?

The Wembley Towers development proposal will create jobs in the construction and hospitality sectors, both of which were hit hard by the pandemic. The staff working at WEM Tower, from the cleaners to the concierge, baristas to security guards, are fantastic. It is great to see jobs being created in Brent, and staff seem likely to be able to move onto other roles in their sector should they wish, as they are all excellent at what they do. The development, when complete, will also improve the lives of residents in the Wembley Towers; residents will be able to use both Brent River Park and the landscaped gardens at Wembley Towers, plus the health and well-being facilities which are intended.

I do not believe that the development of the carpark will infringe on my contractual and legal rights as a tenant of WEM Tower, and I understand what actions are necessary on my part should any of my rights be infringed upon for whatever reason. I plan to remain a long-term tenant of the development subject to my needs and I am enthused by the prospect of increased choice to properties on the development, and may indeed wish to migrate to another tower should it better suit my needs. I believe, based on the fairness and transparency exhibited to date, that the Landlord would consider a rent cap (that is, no increase to rent beyond the existing contractual period for the duration of another contract) should this prove appropriate and/or relevant to tenants who live onsite during the building works.

It is nice to see developers creating jobs without building on Green Belt land.

As I talk to people in Wembley it is remarkable how many do not know about planned developments - until work starts... I wonder if the WEM Tower and Monks Park residents know about the other pending tower in their corner of Tokyngton ward.

 Argenta House (opposite Stonebridge Park Station next to current bus stop)

This is a 24 storey tower that will replace the 2 storey Argenta House. The Wembley Brook runs close to the current building. The plans were approved by a much substituted Planning Committee back in October 2019. It was reduced from 28 storeys to 24. LINK

You can see Wembley Point behind the current building in this photograph but will need to imagine the 32 storey and the stepped 20 storey  buildings either side of WEM Tower as well as the impact of the 24 storey Argenta House on the light of all three. The artist's impression of a stand-alone Argenta House is more than a little misleading.

 

Argenta House on Argenta Way, opposite Stonebridge Park Station where the new block will be built. Wembley Point in the background.

This is not all of course. On the opposite side of the road we have the Unisys buildings which along with the Bridge Park Centre and some smaller sites is the site of a controversial major development by Brent Council with General Mediterranean Holding. Details have been held up by protected legal action as the community tried to secure its ownership of Bridge Park (use this blog's search facility for details).

 

The Unisys buildings

The  intial plans were for 800 residential units of a site said to be worth c£500m and GMH said one of the Unisys blocks could be refurbished as a hotel. In the light of the Stonebridge Place development and Brent's policy in favour of tall buildings and 'intensification corridors' this is likely to be revised by the developer.

Indeed a note on the Local Plan Tall Buildings Policy  (June 2021) goes further and includes Conduit Way on the opposite side of the road to the Unisys site LINK:

For Stonebridge Park an additional area adjacent to the site allocation BSSA7 Bridge Park and Unisys Building has been identified. This incorporates the Conduit Way estate. This extension is justified on the basis that the existing estate is of low density, lower quality homes which has the potential to be intensified to a higher density reflective of its higher public transport accessibility. This is particularly so along and in the areas adjacent to the Brentfield frontage. This will complement the taller buildings proposed on the Unisys and Bridge Park site and reinforce the gateway role from the North Circular of those entering the borough from further afield.


 

 

Wednesday 19 January 2022

Muhammed Butt hails High Court's Bridge Park Appeal ruling that Brent Council is the sole owner of the Centre

 From Brent Council website

Plans for a new community centre in Stonebridge Park can now go ahead after the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling that Brent Council solely owns Bridge Park Leisure Centre.

Leonard Johnson (first Defendant) and The Stonebridge Community Trust (HPCC) Limited (second Defendant) were granted permission to appeal the High Court decision by the Court of Appeal in March 2021. However, the Appeal was unsuccessful and has been dismissed in a judgement released yesterday.

The plans to create a new community centre – with much improved leisure facilities, community spaces and modern workspaces – in addition to new homes can now progress.

“The council is pleased with this outcome,” said Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council. “It means we can now continue working with local communities in Stonebridge and surrounding areas to realise the potential that’s been trapped in this treasured, but crumbling, site for far too long.

“It is time now for everyone to work together to help create a fairer and more equal Brent by providing the fantastic new leisure and employment centre that local people need and deserve.”

For more information visit: www.brent.gov.uk/bridgepark

Wednesday 15 December 2021

Bridge Park v Brent Council ends. Draft Order available in due course.

 I was unable to attend today because I had to impersonate a mythical person in connection with an imminent festival.

Thanks to an attendee who was able to provide this summary.

The hearing commenced at 10:30 with Katherine Holland, QC, for Brent Council summarising her final legal arguments begun yesterday.  Lord Justice Lewinson questioned her on the issues of the the deeds for the land being dated some 6 weeks after the transfer documents dated May 5th 1982,  when the sale was executed.  Neither Katherine Holland,  or her assistant Matthew Smith were able to provide answers to points raised.

There were further discussions on whether the real estate was at Brent’s free disposal, on legalities related to the deeds and to the matter of charitable trust.

Peter Crampin, QC, for Stonebridge Community Trist ended the legal arguments with,

“The question still remains ….a fiduciary obligation…owed to the public in Brent being the beneficiaries of a charitable trust…..something for the community in Brent to achieve…very ambitious political objectives, which the GLC had in mind”.

 

Lord Justice Lewinson ended the hearing at 11:43.

 

“Thank you for your interesting submissions…a lot of public interest seen by the attendance of a number of participants following remotely”.

The draft Order will be available in due course.

Jay Mastin of Stonebridge Community Trust appeals for community support as Bridge Park hearing enters second day

 

 At yesterday's Appeal Court hearing the case of Appellant 1, Leonard Johnson, against the findings of the High Court in the case of Bridge Park versus Brent Council was dismissed as having no legal basis.

The case of the second Appellant, Stonebridge Community Trust, began in the afternoon and continues this morning. It is based on the case made at the original hearing.

In the video above Jay Mastin, of Stonebridge Community Trust, laments the failure of attempts to get the two appellants to work together but urges the community to get behind the Trusts's case.

The hearing continutes at 10.30am this morning.  To attend the hearing virtually apply to katie.patel@justice.gov.uk

Tuesday 14 December 2021

LATEST: Bridge Park vs Brent Council Appeal

The case in the Appeal Court for Appellant 1, Leonard Johnson was declined this morning by the Appeal Court Justices.

The case for Appellant 2, Stonebridge Community Trust began this afternoon and will continue tomorrow from10.30am. 

To request to attend the virtual hearing apply to:  katie.patel@justice.gov.uk

Tuesday 15 June 2021

Mass vaccination at Bridge Park on Saturday - booking details (AstraZeneca & Pfizer available)

 



Massive vaccination event at Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre, Harrow Road, London. NW10 0RG

About this event

On Saturday, Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre will be turned into a mass vaccination venue so far for residents of North West London, with up to 2700 vaccinations ready to be administered on the day.

The event will take place from 10am to 17:30pm on Saturday 19 June 2021

IMPORTANT NOTICE: clients with bookings will be prioritised for vaccination, walk-ins will be managed based on vaccine availability

Remember to bring water with you, and keep an eye on the weather to plan what you need to bring with you.

If you have one, remember to bring your NHS number with you. This makes registration faster if you have it. You can find your NHS number at https://nhs.uk/nhs-services/online-services/find-nhs-number/ 

 BOOK HERE



Monday 22 February 2021

Does the 'Battle for Stonebridge' film provide additional evidence on the Bridge Park Complex ownership case?

 

 

This film from 1987, transferred from tape (the quality improves), is more than a unique historical document, it has a direct bearing on last year's court case about the disputed ownership of Bridge Park which found in favour of Brent Council.

The  film was made by Franco Rosso and narrated by Linton Kwesi Johnson (Dread, Beat & Blood) and puts the project in the context of the 1981 urban uprisings. 

Importantly it perhaps provides answers to some of the questions that were asked during the court case. I don't think the  film was submitted as evidence, or if such a submission is permissable.


The section on ownership of the Complex occurs at 35.00 but much of the rest of the film puts flesh on the arguments that were made in court.

The passion and achievement of the group of young people who formed the Harlesden Peoples Community Council shines through. A comment on  You Tube says:

Insightful information behind Stonebridge Complex. Stonebridge Complex's history and fight for this Centre to enhance and benefit the local community is commendable and refreshing. The HPCC deserve a big applause and massive respect👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽✊🏼🤝🏽. We thank-you HPCC. They never gave up or give in, remained consistent and stood together to accomplish a well used and great centre for the residents of Stonebridge and Brent❤🤎🖤🧡🤍. Local authorities always have their own way as they hold the purse strings. We see how they push out brown and black people as employees to work on the building development at Stonebridge Complex and failed to provide employment opportunities to those skilled & employable living in the local community. Unemployment still is a big issue. Regardless HPCC paved the way, initated the idea and project...they deserve huge recognition. Many good times and memories had at Complex including attending leisure facilties, meetings, wedding receptions , parties, music concerts, health & fitness and educational courses etc. STONEBRIDGE COMPLEX HAS TO REMAIN AND MUST FOR STONEBRIDGE & RESIDENTS OF BRENT!!

  

Monday 7 December 2020

Time to Talk about the Brent Black Community Action Plan - Tuesday December 8th 6-8.30pm

  From the Brent Council EventBrite page - I hope the Bridge Park campaigners get a look-in to hold the Council to account.

We will be reigniting the conversation on race, identity and the experiences of Black people in an honest and meaningful way.

About this Event

Keynote talks from Lord Simon Woolley and Akala.

Brent Council and Young Brent Foundation want to facilitate a genuinely community centred conversation on race, identity and the experiences of Black people in an honest and meaningful way. Given all that has happened around the world in relation to the issue of race and racism over the last few months, we believe this will be a very timely and pertinent conversation for people in the London Borough of Brent. We are the most diverse local authority area in the country and home to one of the oldest and largest African Caribbean communities in London.

Agenda as followed:

  • Keynote talk; Lord Simon Woolley (Founder, Operation Black Vote)
  • Video on the Brent Black Community Action Plan
  • Panel discussion with Brent-based panel members; Ashley Theophane (British Boxer), Liz Mitchell (Lead Singer, Boney M), Danny Coyle (Headteacher), Deji Adeoshun (Youth & Community Manager), Martina Jean-Jacques (Psychotherapist)
  • In Conversation with Akala & David Okoro; Akala (Artist, Writer & Historian) & David Okoro (Co-founder and Director of Westside Young Leaders Academy)

This event is open to local residents, partners and professionals, and we want the conversation to build on the Brent Black Community Action Plan. This action plan was developed by and for Brent’s Black community and we want to use this event to help the community to continue to hold the council accountable for delivering the actions, which are aimed at addressing racial inequality.

Registration: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/time-to-talk-about-the-brent-black-community-action-plan-tickets-129327143969

Tuesday 1 September 2020

New Regeneration Director signs off variation to Bridge Park land deal with GMH

Brent Council announced via its website today that Alan Lunt, the new Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment,  has signed of an agreement to exchange a Deed of Variation for the land sale of Bridge Park ahead of the announcement of the High Court judgment on Brent Council vs Bridge Park which is due this month.

The Officer Key Decision Form reads
 Agreement to exchange a Deed of Variation to the Bridge Park Conditional Land Sale Agreement with “Stonebridge Real Estate Development” a UK-registered subsidiary company that has General Mediterranean Holdings SA as the parent company and Harborough InvestInc as the second guarantor.
The Decision Form states that Shama Tatler. Cabinet Member for  Property, Planning and Regeneration was consulted.

If you are wondering what the variation is, then hard luck. Brent has 'fully' exempted the Report from publication:


The Council states that exemption is  'By virtue of paragraph(s) 3, 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.'

Back in 2015 when the Cabinet approved the initial move to do a deal with General Mediterranean Holdings, the then Chair of Scrutiny, Cllr Dan Filson, raised warned about doing a deal with a 'convicted fraudster'  LINK.  On the Wembley Matters report on the matter Filson made the following additional comment:
I must say I was surprised that whilst mentioning the two companies involved were neither incorporated nor registered in the UK, the Cabinet paper did not mention that they were registered in tax havens namely Luxembourg and the BVI, nor that the leading shareholder in the holding company was a convicted fraudster. A quick Google search revealed this.

Possibly the council officers preparing the report felt these issues did not matter given the safeguarding phrase that the decision of Cabinet would be subject to meeting financial scrutiny (quite how these financial checks would succeed given that they had not succeeded in the months leading up to Cabinet was not made clear!).

The wider issue of the ethics of dealing with tax haven companies wasn't touched upon at all nor the fraudster angle. I understand Councillor Pavey's position that it needs government action to deal with tax haven companies (to say nothing of persons being company directors of overseas companies who, by my book, should be disqualified from holding any positions of trust in any company trading or owning land in this country).

However Brent can have its own policies; but what should they be here? The land south of the North Circular Road at Stonebridge Park has been a derelict eyesore for a couple of decades. Brent can engineer development here by intervention using such land as it has as a bargaining tool. If we take the ethical route and don't treat with tax haven companies will we get better or worse terms from other companies? Conceivably could Councillors be surcharged for not getting "best value" in a deal? Will any action happen on this site at all for another decade?

I don't know how I would respond on these issues. My disappointment was that no attempt has been made to address them before this particular decision came to Cabinet despite the identity of these 2 companies being known for some time, years even. So the Cabinet was obliged to agree to a deal involving these two companies without a financial appraisal in front if it and without a stated policy on dealing with tax haven companies. It leaves an unpleasant taste.

In another comment Philip Grant wrote:
I sent my comment of 29 July at 19:59, asking whether it is ethical for Brent Council to be dealing with a company in a tax haven, to Cllr. Michael Pavey, the Deputy Leader who chaired the Cabinet meeting on Monday 27 July. Unlike some of his colleagues, Cllr. Pavey is willing to engage in dialogue, and (with his permission) here is his reply:
‘The article on Wembley Matters doesn't give a full account of the discussion. Cllr Filson made a series of excellent points. I imagine you've read the Cabinet report, so you'll know that section 4.6 states that "Finalisation of negotiations and entering into Heads of Terms with these companies will be subject to soconfirmation of satisfactory financial standing."

At the Cabinet meeting I sought specific legal advice on whether this point provided sufficient protection against the concerns raised by Cllr Filson. The legal representative stated that in his view, it did. Myself and my colleagues certainly had concerns on this front, but the legal advice was categorical. We will certainly keep an eye on this moving forward.

Martin quotes Andy Donald's somewhat derogatory comments about the decision makers not reading the papers. I certainly always read every single page of Cabinet papers and I know colleagues also prepare comprehensively. We have discussed Bridge Park in detail on many occasions and had a full discussion on Monday evening about issues such as trying to limit foreign ownership of the flats, the proportion of affordable housing and the sustainability of the new leisure centre.

I take your point on ethics and I for one am not comfortable dealing with companies registered in tax havens. Realistically though this is a much wider issue than this development. When you have companies like Starbucks, Amazon and Next routinely avoiding tax, it becomes difficult to hold this against any single company. We need national Government to lead a crackdown on legal tax avoidance and to insist on clearer transparency requirements. I don’t like dealing with companies registered in tax havens, but considering the size of the problem, I think the solution must come from the Government.’
It would help us have some faith in the process of this very controversial land sale if information was available to press and public and even more so to councillors.  The decision could be called-in - it is another test of our councillors to see if they have the courage to do so.


Saturday 8 August 2020

Colindale Police Station 4Front protest - lessons for Brent?




4Front is a youth project based in Grahaeme Park, Barnet.  Yesterday the project hit social media when a 14 year old youth was arrested by police and youth workers intervened.

This was the police account of the incident.
A 14-year-old boy [A] was arrested on suspicion of possession of cannabis. As officers carried out the arrest, a group began to gather around officers and obstructed the police vehicle from leaving the scene. Further police units attended.

A further two people, a 23-year-old man [B] and a 25-year-old man [C] were arrested on suspicion of obstruction of a constable. The police vehicle left the scene and the group followed on foot to Colindale Police Station; a group of approximately 30 to 40 people remained outside the building.
A cordon is in place around the police station and a Section 35 dispersal order was authorised and further officers are supporting the dispersal of the group. 
4Front have previously complained about 'over policing' of the area and they are taking legal action over a previous incident when head of Community Support, Kusia Rahul, was arrested when he went to support a user of the project being questioned by police.  He had showed his ID on a 4Front lanyard but police demanded his car licence, which he said was not necessary as he'd established his ID. DETAILS

4Front released a video and preliminary statement about yesterday's event on Instagram HERE

According to the Huffington Post LINK, Project member Temi Mwale, named by September's Vogue as one of Britain's most influential activists, said at the scene:
We’ve been assaulted so many times here today. We have two members of my staff team that have been arrested.

We have several young people who have also been arrested. This is what we’re dealing with and I’ve told them we want it to be deescalated and yet they’ve refused.

This community is sick and tired of the way we’re being treated and now we need your support. We’re meant to be out there tomorrow, Tottenham police station, but instead we’re out here at Colindale police station right now.
Those arrested have been released pending investigation.

Co-leader of the Green Party, Sian Berry said on Twitter:
This news that police are raiding a well-respected London community project the day before a protest about police violence is extremely concerning. Strong arm tactics are not the way to reduce tension or build confidence.
The incident is relevant because, although it happened in the London Borough of Barnet, the police Basic Control Unit (NorthWestBCU) also covers Brent and Harrow.

A number of factors combine at the moment: oppressive summer heat, Black Lives Matter concern over police conduct towards the black community (not helped by the Fryent Country Park incident), and frustration at the continuing lockdown.

Good police-community relations  really matter at such a time. Back in 1986 with riots in Brixton and Bristol, Brent avoided riots because of the action of a small group of black youngsters in  setting up the Bridge Park project.  Significantly at the time their efforts were strongly backed by Brent Council and the local police commander.

Now in Brent we are awaiting the court's judgment on the battle in which Brent Council is fighting the original Bridge Park campaigners and their successors for possession of the site, and people are waiting to see if the police, who took pictures of the bodies of the women at the Fryent Country Park murder scene, are going to be brought to justice.

Borough youth facilities have been cut back  rwith just a remnant at Roundwood,  Stonebridge Adventure Playground has been closed and the land sold off, the playschemes that used to operate across the borough in the summer, are now largely closed.

Section 60 orders are creating tension in some areas of the borough.

It was not clear at the Bridge Park trial that the current Brent Council understands what a formidable achievement it was that the young campaigners of the time addressed groups of youth on our estates stopping a riot with the slogan, 'Build Don't Burn.'  The presentation of the Council case paid lip service to the founders of Bridge Park but there were moments when the mask slipped: 'Answer my question - this is not a street meeting' to one of the founders  and a reference to the new development catering for the demographic of today - not the 1980s.  Both QCs, the judge and most of the council witnesses were white. The defendants black.  None of the current Harlesden or Stonebridge councillors supported the Bridge Park campaign in court.

Surely there is a need for councillors at this crucial moment to get out into the community, make links with the young, hear about their concerns and act on them.   The network they build may be vital over the hot summer ahead.



Thursday 30 July 2020

Judgment in Brent Council v Bridge Park case not expected until September. HPCC blow when constitution not found

After hearing closing submissions from the Counsels for Brent Council and Leonard Johnson the Judge, Michael Green QC,  said he was unlikely to deliver his Judgment before September.  He said that he would decide on a legal basis if the defendants had a beneficial interest in the Bridge Park site but said that in itself that would not resolve the issues between the parties.  He said that the parties needed to talk together: 'Everyone needs to move on.'

The issue of whether HPCC had a constitution in its early days remained unresolved today when Mr Cottle admitted to the Judge that a search yesterday had failed to come up with a copy. They had found a copy of a draft working ducment for the Bus Garage Steering Group, a later organisation that included HPCC members.

The constitution was vital to establishing the status of HPCC and thus its claim for an interest in the land which is the nub of the case.

The Judge told Mr Cottle that if there was a document he needed to know. He said, 'Perhaps the other side would have wanted to ask  Mr Johnson and Mr Anderson questions about it.' The Judge said the document needed to be located and handed over to the Court. It was amazing that the council had not insisted on a constitution befor handing money over to HPCC.

The two sides in the dispute had sent the Judge  more than 100 pages of written closing submissions which enabled proceedings to take less time than expected.  It did mean for those observing the case remotely exchanges were harder to follow today with frequent references to the submissions, ancillary documents and legal precedents.

Mr Cottle asked to submit amendments to the Bridge Park case one of which related to Mr Leonard Johnson's status.  Cottle said this would be signed tomorrow and the Judge asked that it be signed and a photograph of it sent to him.

The submissions related to the issues that have already been reported on here and included the conflict between the parties on the status of HPCC and its charitable purpose and aims; whether HPCC could be said to have an interest  in the land and the status of 'an aspiration' to buy the lease; who actually owned the project, the implications of the Covenant required by the GLC and its implications for future use of the land and whether it was indented for charitable purposes,; the role of Brent Council in the early stages of the project and the implications of the different funding streams in terms of ownership and any subsequent breaches of conditions; whether there was a conditional trust at the commencement of the project and many more complex issues accompaned by references to rulings in previous cases and legislation one side or the other thought was relevant.

Brent Council was anxious to prevent any future action by the defendant in terms of a restriction on the land arising from the claim and said that their development project was 'respectful of the Bridge Park legacy.'




Wednesday 29 July 2020

Stonebridge 1981: 'Don't burn it down - let's build!' The Brent Council v Leonard Johnson hearing

The young campaigners at the disused Stonebridge bus garage
Paul Anderson, who worked with Leonard Johnson from the beginning of the project in 1981, was cross-examine don his witness statement by Ms Holland, Brent Council's Counsel.

He said he had attended a youth club on Stonebridge which put on lots of activities against the background of agitation and riots elsewhere in the country.

Anderson said that HPCC did have a written constitution, he had seen it and many activities were borne out of that constitution. 'We were young 20-22, and talented and worked with the CDA (Co-operative Development Agency). We couldn't have been part of Itec if we didn’t have a constitution.'

He could not give the exact date of the constitution but said it was produced around 1981-8.

Holland asked if it could have been the Steering Group constitution he was remembering. Anderson said, no, HPCC still had their own constitution. They had a General Meeting to elect people and had to put something together to say how they would operate. The constitution developed, 'We were active in stopping people destroying our community. We did it our way. Alice Holt (CDA) would have known what HPCC stood for, we were part of the Steering Group. We had so many activities that we had to have rules and regulations - we did it our way. We knew we had to have some sort of governance to the best of our understanding. As we developed, we got all sorts of professionals coming in to help is.'

He added, 'I'm passionate about this. It's an asset and they're trying to take it away.'

The Judge asked if there was any document that covered aims and objectives, financial controls, voting etc.

Paul Anderson said they did. They had to have a quorum and voted for chair, treasurer.  The contributed what they could. HPCC was on a learning curve - he was there.

Anderson was asked if he had the constitution with him. He said he hadn't brought it. He would have to look in the attic but they'd had a constitution to this this day.  He promised to try and get it for the court.

When he appeared to go off the point Ms Holland said sharply, 'Answer my questions. This isn't a street protest.'

Anderson said, 'I am a member of Bridge Park. I believe we own Bridge Park, we put a lot into it. Bridge Park belongs to the community.' He denied that there was any monetary in the case for him personally. He said he did not see himself reaping any financial benefit from the asset as it was for the community.

He continued, 'We had a vision to become self-sufficient. That's what we told the community: "Don't burn it down - let's build!" We campaigned to get the old bus garage, ran classes. When we got it, the message went out that this belongs to the community - not just to HPCC. We made the building what it is.'

Ms Holland asked about the vision, generation of revenue and aim for self-sufficiency within 5 years. She asked if Anderson was part of a project aiming to purchase the site.

Mr Anderson said the vision was making what the community wanted happen. A place for education, performance, training -'It was ours. People were inspired and helped to build the project.'

Holland said, 'You didn’t think you were owners. You could have sold it.'

Anderson said it hadn't crossed their minds that they could sell it.

Holland challenged, 'It didn't cross your minds because you didn't own it.'

Anderson: 'Nobody thought we'd sell it. It was the community's.'

The Judge intervened asking, 'You didn’t think the property was yours?'

Mr Anderson responded that they expected at one point they would get it. 'The message was that it was ours. We own it but we weren't going to sell it.'

Holland put it to him that they knew they didn't own the land but sometime in the future it could happen.

Anderson said he accepted that.

Holland continued, 'The anticipation was for the Community Co-operative, not HPCC.' Anderson replied that HPCC represented the community. Whatever mechanism allowed that to happen.'

Challenged by Counsel that only two mentions of his name could be found in documents and that he wasn’t involved in setting up Bridge Park, Anderson said there were many facets in the project and different roles. He was involved in the Itec and put his heart and soul into it: 'To see that taken away. Turned my back and it was gone. It was awful.'

He said he was not directly involved in meeting with the council [setting up Bridge Park] but involved in working with the DTI and council for the IT project.  He was not involved in setting up the HPCC but was a living witness of the campaign and getting the community behind the project. 'It was beautiful.'

Mr Cottle asked Anderson about a document written by representatives of the HPCC in July-October 1981 entitled, 'Realities of Life in Stonebridge' and another with the same title dated December 1981. Anderson said the two were slightly different.  The Stonebridge Bus Garage Steering Group document was more about what would be put in there, the other was a contextual report.

The next witness was former Labour councillor Bertha Joseph, who switched to the Conservatives in 2007.

Ms Joseph said that at a Labour Group meeting held when Merle Amory (now Abbott) was leader in 1986/87, Amory informed those present that HPCC was planning to buy the bus garage. Joseph had joined the council in 1986.

Holland pointed out that the garage had been bought by the council 4 years before - that didn’t make sense.  Joseph said she remembered Amory saying it at the time.

Holland suggested it was the Steering Group that could buy, not HPCC. Joseph said it was the HPCC that was around at the time. She had known about their work before becoming a councillor and the awful lot of work they did for young people at Bridge Park.  She was a 24-year-old councillor and had never heard that it belonged to the council. It was a community project. When the community heard that HPCC was buying the garage they were excited. The council didn’t have a connection with young people. She saw Leonard as the leader - the President.  The police had no control. There was no riot because of the project.

She added that taking it away now would be devastating for the community.

The next witness was Richard Gutch who had worked for the council but for a few years after he left continued to offer pro bono advice to the project when they requested it., and again more recently. He had met with the new project manager at the time and as an outside helped them assess contractors,

Gutch has asked to amend his witness statement because following Carolyn Downs' cross-examination he now knew the proposed development involved more than a swimming pool. He had thought it was a private development contrary to community use.

Ms Holland asked about the transfer of land to Brent Council from London Transport: 'Are you clear that Brent accepted the land?'

Gutch agreed but said HPCC were working very well as partners and when resources allowed would be legal owners. He understood that there was an expectation that they may be able to get a lease with an option to buy but that would be dependent on the project's sustainability. Brent were the legal owners.

Mr Gutch said that Johnson recognised that initially with help from funders Johnson recognised that that the land would be in the name of Brent. Gutch's advice was that it was great to have a vision but to take one step at a time.

Holland quoted a 1982 document with a factual statement that the council was purchasing the bus garage for this project. Gutch said, 'Yes but would be run and eventually purchased by HPCC.'

Ms Holland followed up stating it was always ultimately the council's property.  Gutch agreed and said as the council was making a contribution, they set out safeguards on how a potentially risk situation went.  Safeguarding ownership rested with Brent as was true of all Urban Projects.

Turning to the issue of Mr Watkins of Watts County Holland said that the significance of his meeting with him was about ownership.  Gutch said that Watkins had a number of facilities in Watts. He told HPCC that ownership enables you to do more things. It inspired Johnson and others to that aim.

Holland questioned Gutch again about ownership and the Urban Programme funds. Summing up she said that the asset was ultimately the council’s at the end of the day. Gutch agreed. She quoted GLC conditions, 'acquired for and controlled and run by the community.' Gutch agreed.

Gutch told Mr Cottle that he stood by his statement that it was 'not for the benefit of Brent [Council] in its own right.' The point was that it was being run by HPCC as a community-controlled project which had impressed funders who would not normally be politically sympathetic.

Both Counsels are preparing written submissions today and the hearing will continue tomorrow, (Thursday)