Leonard Johnson at Bridge Park hearing: 'This was going to be a legacy for our community - for the future' Blames Council's 'skulduggery' for project's downfall

Annoyingly, and not good in terms of seeing and hearing justice being done, on-line observers could not hear the first 15 minutes of today's cross examination of Leonard Johnson, the defendant by Brent Council's Counsel.

Ms Holland QC for Brent Council suggested the fact that the council had to give the Bus Depot Steering Group a licence to enter the site showed that permission had to come from them because they had no rights to the property.

Mr Johnson replied the project could not have continued without such a licence because they were part of the tendering.

Holland returned to the now familiar refrain that HPCC was managing and running the project. There was no community ownership by HPCC or any other entity.

Johnson retorted that it was theirs because it was they who went for the depot. If they'd got professionals involved, they could have done it for themselves. 'It was our project but the council dropped on us. It was for the community.'

He said, 'The council should be the defendant, not us. The council gave us licence and lease but I don't agree they were the owner. The council was a big enough organisation to help us but we could have got developers to do it, just like the council is doing now.'

Answering a further question Johnson said, 'All along I had confidence in the council to do what we wanted. We were naive - we were youngsters.'

Turning to the lease on the depot, Holland said there was no documentation about signing the lease on condition of it including a right to buy the freehold.  Mr Johnson said he did not sign the lease because they didn't get the freehold.  His experience was that you couldn't trust the council when it came to leases.

The Judge asked if there was any correspondence regarding the lease. Johnson replied that he went to the EC (European Community) to get the full amount. He didn't want the MEP to represent HPCC.

Holland reiterated that it was Brent Council's case that there was no understanding, no representations, no agreement that there was a lease giving an option to buy.  She went on to ask Johnson what entity had interest in the property.

He replied that it was the organisation they were going to setup to take over the running of the project. not the Steering Group, that would transfer to a new organisation. This would be for the whole community - not just parts of it. It was never set up. This was council 'skulduggery'. 'They have a poisonous tongue that goes back into their belly.'

He concluded, 'We fully accepted that it would go to the community. It was our building - our project. The Black African Caribbean contribution has been not just for a few years but for hundreds of years - it was our money as well.'

Referring to Charles Wood, former Brent CEO, Mr Johnson said that he had no credibility, 'He never expected us to succeed.'

Questioned further he said that the council had helped, the leader of the council was excited about their visions. It was a partnership: 'where is that partnership now? '"This is what we are going to do to you and your community."'

Johnson said that they believed this project was going to be a legacy for 'our community - for the future.'

When Ms Holland said the assets were down to the nature of the vision - 'not because you felt you had an option for the freehold?' Johnson said he did not agree, 'All the assets, licence, leases, freehold - everything we did was about owning the project - not a nice place for the council to claim the credit for.'

Holland repeated there was no documentation regarding ownership and no record of any representations. Johnson replied, 'I have said before, it was our initiative, we were doing it for ourselves.  We were going on our own and the council got involved. They let the building deteriorate. They wanted to make us obsolete. They are stealing from us if I can it that strongly.'

Holland suggested that they were benefiting from being able to take the profit from Bridge Park. Johnson retorted that they were paying back bank loans at a high rate of interest. Loans that were unnecessary because the council could have gone out with them to get a loan.  When Holland pointed out they had income from Bridge Park before then Johnson said they had ploughed it back into the project.  'We were helping people set up businesses. The income helped us retain what we were trying to achieve.'

The Judge asked if the loan was repaid and Holland replied that the council had paid it, including interest.

Johnson said at the time of the Midland Bank loan things were haywire at the project. Money was being taken away. He said the council were the author of their own misfortune. They were looking down the road at a £50m project sold for £12m to a developer. The loan was nothing in comparison to the contract the council was now engaged in.

Ms Holland about the document written by Charles Wood that summarised the complex reasons why the project failed. Johnson said that Wood was 'being economical with the truth'. He organised the downfall of the project with the councillor on the board (mentioned yesterday).  Lettings to various groups stopped. 'When the councillor came on the board, that's when our downfall began.'

Johnson said that reports about him and the project were what orchestrated the failure. Allegations that millions had been stolen from the project. 'Mr Wood, no one from the council, refuted the allegations. It was in the Daily Mail, the local paper..'

The Judge intervened to say that Mr Cottle, the defendant's Counsel, had not wanted him to see the press cuttings as he didn’t think they were relevant. Turning to Mr Johnson he said, 'I understand you don’t accept the council's account of the end of the project. We are just going to have to disagree on that. The fact is that it did fail in the 90s.'

Ms Holland turned to the subject of charities.  She said HPCC was not a charity but had an aspiration that the future organisation would have charitable status. That is the only reference to charity in the case.

Johnson said that HPCC had charitable aims, they were doing charitable work as volunteers. They were never a private organisation working for profit.

Holland pressed, 'There was no question or discussion that the property was being held by a charitable trust at the outset.'  Johnson replied that they had been volunteers from day1, donations and all been voluntary. Holland quoted Charles Wood's evidence that he didn’t recall any discussion of charitable status or that it was held on trust.  All witnesses at the time said the same thing. HPCC was not a charity. Johnson replied that they and to be a charity to get the money - 'we were a voluntary organisation.'

Ms Holland said that the application for restriction on the sale was made in 2018 but Johnson had not done anything or layed claim regarding the property. Johnson said, 'We wasn't consulted. They just told people what they wanted to do.'

The next interchange was about Johnson's status as a trustee with the existence of a constitution for HPCC being doubted by the Brent Council Counsel and affirmed by Johnson. Holland referred to the original report that said the HPCC council was 10 people, elected by 60 young black adults, - it had no written constitution. Mr Johnson said that they were developing a constitution at the time. They wanted to be unincorporated - not part of something bigger.  Holland responded that they didn’t want to be like other organisations.

Johnson then claimed that there was a constitution and Holland asked why it hadn’t been revealed in the papers. The Judge intervened to say it might be in the second tranche and they needed to get to the bottom of the issue of whether there was a constitution.

Holland then asked for evidence that Johnson was a trustee.  Johnson said he had always been a trustee but didn't know if it had been written down. There was a document appointing him Chair of HPCC.  The Judge asked if there were minutes of HPCC meetings. Holland said there was one document that was not described as minutes but may serve as one.

Attention turned to Leonard Johnsons' Defence Statement and Holland pointed out it said, 'Mr Johnsons should not be a party in these proceedings. She said, 'Why shouldn't you?'

Johnson said, 'I’ve never seen the document. I can see my name there; I can see I signed. Maybe, there is a gentleman called Mr Mastin, the thing is...'

The Judge asked if he disagreed with the content of the document.  Johnson said that he had gone through days of reading documents. He wasn't well. Holland challenged asking, 'Are you saying you don't read them? You don't really care what they say?'

Johnson: 'I do read them and I do care.'

Holland said, ‘The document says that as HPCC is unincorporated you are not a trustee. Are you disagreeing with that statement?'

Johnson asked for time to read the document again. He thought he had read it before he came to court.  After reading he said, 'I'm trying to think why I signed this.'

Holland quoted, 'HPCC is and always was unincorporated' and 'was not a trustee.' The Judge interjected to say that it could be a legal statement.

Asked by Holland about the statement that he should not be a party to the case, Johnson said he didn't know how he had missed the 'not'. He said he had been working and had asked for more time to get witnesses and Brent Council refused.

Holland then asked him about the statement that he'd resigned from Bridge Park, saying that it must have come from him. Johnson replied, 'I don't know what I have done here.'

Johnson was then asked about the transfer of HPCC to Stonebridge Community Trust (HPPC) Limited.  The transfer had taken place before any claims to the property.  Johnson couldn't remember if the committee had put it together without any legal advice.

Referring to the dates on the document Holland said two predated 8th May 2019 when there was a claim that SCT (HPCC) had an interest.

John said that was the vehicle they were using now.  It is still one and the same organisation.  The Trust is the organisation HPCC were transferring everything to.

Re-examining Mr Cottle checked which document Johnson was refusing to sign and he said the lease document which didn’t include an option to buy. Cottle asked who Ted Watkin was. Johnson said that was an American entrepreneur from Watts County.  He told HPCC what he was doing at a meeting at Hill Top. He gave a presentation about independence and self-sufficiency in front the of the Chief Executive and councillors. They had performances and put on a show.  Johnson said, 'The idea of having assets came from us, He agreed. Richard Gotch shared a document on how we could own our own assets.' The report by Tom Bryson refers to an understanding that lease should have an option to acquire the freehold. 'The meeting with Ted Watkins allowed us to look at ownership, He made several trips to advise us.'

Cottle referred to the GLC document that spoke of a 'unique idea'. Johnson said he had met Ken Livingstone and his deputy and told them about their aims. Mike Bichard was there. They all agreed and Ken Livingstone backed the whole programme.

Cottle asked about Wimpey surfacing the Bridge Park car park and whether there had been more private funders. Johnson said there were a number but remember them off the top of his head.  They contributed to construction work.

The next section was distorted by unmuted phones and phone conversations taking place and I can’t report on it with accuracy.

Johnson said he was a trustee and chair of HPCC.  The reason he was sitting here now was because he had been called back by the community and the leader of the Conservative Party in Brent. 'They said, "They're going to sell Bridge Park," I said, "They're not!" '

The Judge asked what HPCC had been doing since the 1990s. Mr Johnson said they had run training programmes, events, work with churches, activities. A number of things had been going on.

The Judge asked if since that time he had heard about Brent’s plans. Did he have a continuing interest?

Johnson said there was a continuing interest. Funds were cut, the bar was closed, because it had become a free for all, undesirable people began to infiltrate. People who there by then couldn’t control it. That culture took over. He had thought that the council going back would flush them out but they also threw out the new group that wanted to work with them.

The Judge asked if at any time he had said to the council that they still had an interest in the property.

Johnson replied that HPCC members still used the building. They still had an office there and put on activities.

The Judge asked it if was only when council released the [redevelopment] plans that Johnson was re-energised. Johnson said it was when the council began to run it down. People were saying the council was trying to sell it. They were taking leases away from people and issuing CPOs 'I came back and said it's not fair.'

The Judge then asked Johnson what he wanted out of it. Johnson replied, 'I want a partnership. I want the council to reform the partnership.  We get the freehold and we work with developers.'

The Judge asked, 'You want to reinstate what was there in the 80s?' Johnson replied, 'I think there's a dynamic group of people who could work together with the developers.'

The Judge remarked, 'This case is going to need more work between the parties - encourage them to get together.'

Johnson told Mr Cottle, who had resumed re-examining, that they had continued to meet in the building. 'I told the council you can't stop us having a meeting there.  I made it clear it wasn't their building.'

The Judge told Mr Cottle it would be helpful if Mr Johnson could find the constitution.

There was a break at this point. I will write about the evidence of Paul Anderson, Bertha Joseph and Richard Gotch tomorrow.


There is no hearing tomorrow.  The court resumes on Thursday.

Leonard Johnson's marathon appearance at Bridge Park hearing and more to come tomorrow

The day started with a brief conversation about  Counsel and some court room staff appeared now wearing facebooks.  Apparently guidance was issued last on Friday.  The Judge decided he was sufficiently social distanced not to have to wear one!  The combination of an echo on the sound and the masks made it very hard to hear properly but that was eventually remedied.

Mr Cottle for the defendants said that he was 'parking' the possible amendment to change the pleading.  The change appears to be switching from a claim that HPCC and successor organisations owned the property, to one that they were granted a lease that stipulated an option to eventually buy the freehold, with the expectation that they would do so. The legal point being argued  is whether that is sufficient for them to be deemed to have an interest in the land.

After Mr Cottle detailed issues around the plea the Judge said, 'We now know what the point is, whether it's a good one or not...'

The first and only witness today was Leonard Johnson recognised as the young man in 1981 who spearheaded the campaign for the Harlesden/Stonebridge community to have a physical base of its own at the Stonebridge Bus Depot site from which  they would run a community organisation providing a range of activities for the black community of the area.  His close cross-examination, with three breaks, lasted all day and will resume tomorrow.

Ms Holland, Counsel for Brent went straight into the issue of ownership of the site producing a 1985 document  about the Steering Group, which Johnson has signed, that she claimed showed the council owned all the site.  She said that if HPCC had an interest in the property it would have stated so in the document.

Mr Johnson said that this was the only way, the council had told them (in 1982) that HPCC couldn't sign because they were not incorporated. Holland said the council had by then owned it for 3 years. By signing it Johnson had acknowledged that the council had ownership.

Johnson said that perhaps they had been naive at the time. 'If we knew we would have no rights we wouldn't have signed.  The council was a legal entitiy and we were not.  The council had come on board saying, we wil work with you and get the garage.'

Ms Holland asked if Johnson had been a director of the Steering Group all the way through. He responded that he had resigned in 1991 and 1992 and for the last time in 1994.  He had done this at a public meeting of about 400 people when he felt his character was being assassinated. The Kilburn Times has asked, 'Was he pushed or did he jump?'  He had resigned for the good of the community so the project could continue.

Mr Johnson said that a councillor has been elected to the Steering Group board and was one of those who attacked him, 'He was a racist and slandered me.'  After that he had not been involved with the steering group but the HPCC still had a majority on the board. He was involved in other HPCC projects in the community.

There was then a discussion about whether the board had professional legal advice and whether the adviser was experienced in property law.  Johnson said, 'Brent had top lawyers, we couldn't afford that.'

HPCC  had legal advice over management  training, business units and contracts.

Ms Holland then put it to Johnson that if HPCC had a legal interest in the property the adviser would have raised it. He replied that it wa raised many times. 'The lease and the freehold had been spoken about and we wrote into the lease that we had an option to purchase - first priority as we had got the majority of the funds.'  Holland said if there was some entitlement to the building, the legal adviser would have raised it and it would be documented.

Mr Johnson claimed it was documented. The old campaign had been about getting the building. 'I was happy getting the money for the building, the staff and getting it up and running.  Brent had to take control as we were unincorporated but we always believed we owned the building.'

Ms Holland said 'You have changed your case very recently and very substantially, It is an extensive change in the last few days.  The claim throughout was that you [HPCC?] were the sole beneficiary but you now claim that HPCC would have the lease and one day have an option to buy the freehold.'


Mr Johnson said, 'All I am saying is that the council were going to get the project for us and after a while they wanted their money back. Bridge Park is unique - it is not just a leisure centre.'

Holland then referred to Mr Johnson's Witness Statement  which she said made no reference to an option to buy. It argued that the defendants owned the entire beneficial interest in the property. 'You made a statement that what you said was true. The claim was that you were the owner of the freehold. You never claimed in the statement that you had an option to buy the freehold. This was nine months after you claimed to register the restriction. Did you care if it was true?'

Johnson: 'It's true.'

Ms Holland referred to a 1988 Brent Council Policy and Resources report that stated the project had dropped the request to purchase the freehold 'for the time being.'  Johnson said he didn't remember it.

Holland said there had been no reference to any request on option to buy until 1986 and then dropped in 1988. It was then not raised again until June 2020. She told Johnson that the reference in his evidence was not until June 2020.  It had never been raised until then and so the claim had no credibility.

Mr Johnson said 'for the time being' may have been due to legal work that needed to be done of Brent Council finances,

Challenged that if there had been an option it would have been raised frequently. Johnson said it had been raised frequently.  'We went along with it because at the time the council was working with us. All along we felt we owned the property.  I know in my heart we weren't working for the council - we were working for the community.'

Ms Holland returned to the issue that June 2020 was the first time the claim had been made.  Johnson said, '2020 was when we had to build our case.' Holland pressed the point that he hadn't  been involved in Bridge Park since 1992 - the council had started consultation about it in 2013.  'You had never put in a claim  in all those years.'

Johnson answered tht he had only been engaged with the HPCC. He was called back when the council wanted to sell the land. 'The leader of the Conservative Party said, "You need to get back" '
There had been a meeting about the future of Bridge Park called by Cllr Butt (Leader of Brent Council,  attended by Dawn Butler MP (Brent Central), and he had refused what they offered.

There was further discussion about Johnson's involvement later when and Johnson said he was unwell and in hospital so he couldn't ger involved, the extent of his knowledge was via one or two individuals. He was called back when Bridge Park was threated.

Holland challenged that he was underplaying his involvement and had more knowledge that he was saying. Johnson denied that this was the case.

Speaking about the intial campaign Leonard Johnson said, 'We saw ourselves as the oweners.  As young boys we had to have ownership but it was in trust until we got older and more mature.  Brent were taking care of our part in the project and waiting for us to mature.  We employed professional staff but everyone trained up an apprentice to take over.'

Ms Holland said that all documentation since the time of acquisition indicated that all parties were proceeding on the understanding that the council acquired the property.  Johnson replied, 'We were unincorporated, people off the street, we couldn't buy it. The council had to do it for us. It was only after we stopped the riots that the council said, "How can we support you?" and we said they could help us get the bus garage.'

When Holland said that ownership was always going to be with the council, Johnson replied that if that had been the case 'we would have had nothing to do with it.'

Referring to the document about the project which had a preface signed by Johnson, Holland said it stated that Brent Council would buy the property and HPCC would manage it: management is different from ownership.  Mr Johnson said in the long-term the project would be self-financing and they were committed to buying the freehold. In the short-term it need an injection of hard cash. 'We were always commited to enggaing with the council. They were our main partners.'

Holland reiterated, 'It is clear ownership and acquisition was with the council and the project was managed by HPCC.'

Johnson  said he totally disagreed. Responding to the Judge he said the document had been drafted by Brent Council. Holland pointed out the document made it clear  it had been drafted with the assistance of the HPCC. There had been a distinction from the start between ownership and management. In the short-term with HPCC and then with the community co-operative.

Johnson retorted, 'No way we were prepared to just manage for Brent Council, 'manage' doesn't mean we didn't see ourselves as owning it.

In a long section dealing with the sale by LT of the bus garage and whether it had been at a discounted rate, Johnson said, 'The council couldn't have bought it for themselves. The council had no use for it. We had the vision.'  Holland quoted evidence that there had been 16 other conditional offers for the bus garage - it hadn't been taken off the market as Johnson claimed.

At this point Johnson made a mention of the Covenant on the sale which protected BPCC's interests in the community development and was inserted at the instigation of the GLC. (1)

There had been problem regarding planning permisison for other applications but LT constitutionally had to realise the market value and that, according to Holland, was what happened.

After the lunch break Ms Holland asked Mr Johnson complex questions about the latest judgment in the case, repossession and circumstances around the lease, leading him to exclaim, 'To be honest I haven't a clue what you're talking about!'

Johnson said they were all volunteers, working for the community 'out of the heart, not for income: that's our culture.'  Going back to 1981 he said the vision was self-sufficiency, 'developing our own economy, our own sustainability. We made clear we wanted nothing to do with the council but the council came to us, they literally had to beg us. How did you stop the riots?  They were mesmerised. We didn't want the council to control us. We wanted them to recognise that we had talent.  They got involved with us - not us with them. We were going for bus garage purchase before they even knew. we were going for it. We wrote up plans via community involvement we met with Harlesden Forum, Stonebridge Forum, Chalkhill.  I said [to the council], ' Let's try and do something with us. Be fair to us. Not bully us. The council has no claim whatsoever in terms of Bridge Park.'

Challenged that it had been Brent Council land from the start Mr Johnson said. 'No. The Urban Programme, GLC, only came on board because of HPCC.  Brent knew it was the only way to get the money.' He said he had got people on board, talked to Chair of Wimpey and got the car park surfaced free: 'Wasn't that money?'

The  Judge suggsted a 10 minute break. Johnson apologised for his passion.

On resumption Ms Holland said that there was absolutely no refernce in any of the documents to the council gifting the land to the HPCC.   In response Mr Johnson claimed that the document said they could eventually purchase the freehold. 'I don't believe at any time Brent owned the land. They bought it, yes, if you are saying that because their names are on it.'

He cited Lord Young's support for the project and HPCC's invitation to Prince Charles to open the building and his putting him on th Prince's Trust.

Holland put it to Johnson that he had said the only reason HPCC was not on the documentation was because they were unincorporated but all documents showed it was Brent property and it was they who received the  grant funding. Johnson responded that if it hadn't been for the HPCC Brent wouldn't have got the funding.  'It is absolutely clear in all the documents. We are named in the acquisition of the bus garage. Named on all the documents.  We made a presentation to the council: "You are the problem. Let us have have an economical foundation for our community. Others have something. We are at the bottom of the pit."  They unanimously agreed. We wanted an asset, a stake, to run businesses.'

The Judge asked, 'Isn't running a business an asset?'

Leonard Johnson replied, 'We were the only ones who didn't have an asset. We told people we are the owners.'

Ms Holland said that if the intention was for HPCC to be the owners they would be named in the documents.  Johnson replied that this was because Brent council was 'indulging in skulduggery and put a racist on the board.'  In answer to a further question he  said that the council knew what they were up to: 'get HPCC to get the asset. Then when they've got it, get rid of it for themselves.'

Holland pointed out that it was for the community, not for HPCC,

Mr Johnson replied that HPCC represented the community. They were the only organisation that linked with everyone. The only organisation that could get 1,000 people into Brent Town Hall to hear his report.

Holland pursued the point saying, 'You were a significant person - you were not the community.  The council does have a role in community - you do not.'

Johnson said that the recent meeting about Bridge Park achieved 1,200 people at three week's notice.

The next exchange covered previous ground over sources of funding and whether it went to the council or HPCC. Holland suggested that HPCC was only named on the Urban Aid documentation because the council had to refer to social needs to get the grant. Mr Johnson said,' I want to work with the council but I don't need them to take our assets away.  Brent locked themselves into a corner with GMH. Why didn't they come to use for help?  We want to work with them.'

Ms Holland suggested that community entity some time acquring the property was just a hope.

Johnson, 'No, it was a belief. We thought the council would make sure we got it.'

Holland, 'An aspiration, not an entitlement.'

Johnson, 'Our community don't see that - the opposite.'

Holland then quoted Leonard Johnson's Witness Statement in which he used 'aspiration' to hold the property. This had also been the word used by council witnesses.

Johnson responded that the CEO at the time had said there was no objection in principle to them acquiring the freehold. They couldn't at the time until the whole organisation had been trained up to be professional.   He said they wanted to be in a position to pay the council back.

Johnson said that they had an accountant for the details of the grants, 'I opened the door to the funders.'

Holland pointed out that there had been no promise or assurances over HPCC acquisition. Just because it was mentioned  it didn't mean they would definitely get the freehold.

Johnson said that there had been assurances at a council meeting. The witnesses were being economical with the truth.  These people were there.  We looked at ourselves in terms of Watt County, we had a man come over from there. If they were telling the truth, they would say they agreed that HPCC would get the freehold.'

Ms Holland argued that if HPCC had an interest in the property they would not have needed a license to occupy. Johnson resplied that this was just a management procedure to make sure they were covered by insurance.

He added, 'The community are saying the council sold Bridge Park to an off-shore company and they are absolutely livid about it.'

(1) Brent Council applied to the GLC successor body, Bromley Council, for removal of the Covenant and this was granted.

Bridge Park Hearing Resumes Today

The hearing of the Brent Council v Leonard Johnson  Bridge Park case resumes at 10.30am this morning. The case is timetabled to last until Friday and will begin with witnesses for the defendants.

In the background there will also be the possible request by the defendant's QC, Mr Cottle, to amend the basis of the case and the judge's and Brent Council's QC's reaction to that request, as well as the need to clear up confusion over the various entities referred to in the case.

On Friday Judge Green warned Cottle that if he applied for amendments he might refuse them if he felt they were wholly misconceived.

It is not yet clear, to me at any rate, why there may have been a change in the defendant's instructions to their solicitor.

FULL REPORT - Day 4: Judge warns Bridge Park Counsel over 'difficulties' in his case. Kathleen Fraser Jackson speaks about the black community's pride in the project

Judge Michael Green QC, at the end of today's hearing warned Mr Cottle, Counsel for Leonard Johnson and Bridge Park, that he would face difficulties in running his case after representations from Ms Holland, Brent Council's Counsel and Cottle's earlier warning that he might wish to amend the basis of the defendant's case.

The judge said there were issues over inconsistencies in the case, confusion over the various entities referred to and the establishment of a case for the defendant's interest in the land.  Cottle was facing considerable dificulties and he, as the judge, would need a lot of persuasion.

He told Cottle he needed to work out what his case is. Cottle said that there had been inconsistencies there from the beginning and the judge responded that if he thought that he should have ironed them out.

Judge Green warned Cottle that if he applied for amendments he might refuse them if he felt they were wholly misconceived.

The first witness was yet another former Brent Chief Executive. Lord Bichard went on to head the Benefits Agency, was a non-Executive Director of the National Audit Office, chaired an inquiry into the Soham murders and was most recently in the news for advocating a form of compulsory voluntary service for pensioners to reduce their 'burden on the state'.

Bichard said that the purchase of the bus depot site at Stonebridge had been an achievement and the HPCC was an important part of that achievement.  The outcome may have been different if they were not involved.  It was always clear that the community were involved in the development and management of the project and the DoE and GLC wanted to provide funding for a project on Stonebridge.

The project was for the community and not for a particular group.  He agreed that he had a good relationship with Leonard Johnson, Merle Amory and others.

Bichard said his memory was less precise because this was 38 years ago but there was a concern after the Brixton riots and many felt that Brent was vulnerable to a similar situation. There was no question that Harlesen Peoples Community Cooperative played a very positive role. He recalled his first meeting was at the bus depot with members of the community. In the Summer of 1981 there was an important meeting with Johnson and others and he returned to the council to speak about a possoble project at the garage.

At a meeting at the council on 13th October 1981 with HPCC representatives Chief Inpsecor Carey supported HPCC efforts to create a better life in Stonebridge and its campaign to purchase the garage.

There has been unanimous support at the highest level and London Transport was asked not to dispose of the depot and hold off the sale. A lead officer worked on a feasibility study involving the council and the community. Sir George Young MP visited the Hill Top Club and had a good relationship with Johnson. He was keen to see the project succeed.

Bichard said that the long-term aim was for the project to be self-financing and an aspiration some time in the future  for HPCC to acquire the freehold. It was not the main issues at the time though a commendable aspiration.


HPCC had members on the Bus Station Steering Group along with other members of the community. The council wanted community ownership of the initiative and greater community involvement in the leisure centre than was normal.

Bichard agreed that Johnson played a key role and there was high level support.  Urban Aid was paid to the council not to the project. The council was behind the project and acted as guarantor. The council was not merely a 'postman' for the project. The government would not have given money directly to a new project.

Counsel suggested that the community understood that Urban Aid was for the purchase of the depot which later they might acquire. Bichard said that Johnson in particular had a sophisticated understanding of the negotiations but couldn't say what was in his mind.

There was a late separate Industrial and Commercial Urban Aid application that Bichard said was for  of setting up an IT facility, not acquisition of the site itself, but for a two storey building for workshops.

Questioned further Bichard said that the community co-operative would have been able to apply for charitable status to achieve a reduction in rates and Counsel challenged whther the council had looked into that.

Bichard said he had no recollection of any discussion on an option to buy the freehold. He was just an officer who produced reports. It was not his role to persuade the council to do anything.  The aspiration to buy the freehold was commendable but there had been no conversations about that and it never happened because the project never became sustainable. If the project became self-financing that could be discussed but that was different from saying that there was an option to buy. He said there wasn't a shared understanding that it would be bought by the project.

Counsel quoted a GLC report that he thought suggested that they understood the purchase of the freehold was the co-operatives' long term aim. Bichard said it was not his report and he couldn't remember seeing it but there was no difference in his view. The report doesn't say the aim was shared by the council.  Counsel quoted Bichard's successor Charles Wood as saying that the council had no objection in principle to acquisition if the project was sustainable in the long term and certain conditions met. Counsel suggested that the community understood the long-term aims was to purchase.  Bichard replied that it was not raised at the time as a significant item.

Counsel asked Bichard to look at the Deeds. Bichard could not remember seeing it but agreed that the facilities outlined were what was intended when they bought the property for the community project. The money was for Brent to acquire the land so that the community could manage the  project on the site.

Counsel quoted a report from the Property Board of the GLC that interest had been expressed by other organisation to acquire the bus depot. Bichard said he was aware  but the council argued for sale to them because of the nature of the project and the sensitivity of the area.  There was some juggling between different organisations. HPCC was an important part of the community but not the only part of the community.

Bichard said the Goverment, GLC and Brussels would have expected the council to own the property. Counsel suggested that Johnson didn't know that.  Bichard said he would be surpised if Johnson was not aware that they would have reservations about putting money into an untried group.

A 1984 report by a Mr Cowley claimed the DoE had funding reservations.  HPCC compiled a report aimed at addressing Cowley's concerns and Brent Council responded to the DoE showing that they supported the project. The visit by Prince Charles to open the project was an important statement of support.

The Judge asked Lord Bichard how the project was to become self-financing. Bichard said there would be income from tenants of the building and the cafe and bar would generate income. There was a question of whether that would be sufficient to buy the site. In order to get a mortgage the bank would have to be satisfied that there was enough income to maintain payments. The council was committed to the project and would consider subsidising to some degree or other.

When the court resumed after lunch there was a discussion involving both Counsels about possible amendments changing  the grounds of the Bridge Park case over the basis of their interest in the land. Counsel for Bridge Park said he wanted to see how the case went before making a commitment. The Judge drily told Brent Council's Counsel that she now knew what the case wasn't but not what it is. They decided to carry on with the next witness.

Kathleen Fraser Jackson had been on the steering group of the project before becoming a councillor in 1988 and became a director of the Stonebridge Bus Depot Steering Group Limited.  She  was a member of most committees on the council and Chair of Youth and Community.  She was concerned about the community gaining tax payer funding and then losing it. She said the whole community was involved in the acquisition of the site and her heart was involved in the project.

Although not directly involved in the acquisition of the land everyone knew about it from the newspapers. She was inspired by the group. She responded to a remark by Brent Council's Counsel assertively saying that she understood the paper work, She'd had unduction when she joined the Board so she could contribute properly and the same with council committees.

She said it was the HPCC that acquired the property - the council came in as guarantor as HPCC had not track record.  The council had come in to give it a sense of order. She was a volunteer with the steering group at the time.  They had acquired the land and needed to get the community behind them to build the compex.

Asked about as 1982 legal document that showed ownership of the asset she said she distinctly remembered being told about how it was worded and that HPCC were worried.  She didn't know then but realised now, why they were worried.

When Counsel asked Fraser Jackson how she was involved in 1982 she replied that first she was a volunteer for HPCC in the community link department, then a Director, before being nominated by the council.  She said she had not been involved in the acquisition of the land and asked Counsel, 'Are you getting me confused with someone else?'

She said that Brent Council wanted a lease and HPCC felt that the council was going to take the asset 'away from them, short change or diddle them out of the land.'  There was always that threat they wanted to take it away and do something else with it.  It had happened at Central Middlesex Hospital when they sold the land off.

Counsel commented, 'You couldn't seriously think that HPCC after acquisition would want to sell it?' Fraser Jackson replied that they wouldn't want to as they wanted to run the project.  It would be self-sufficient and there for the future to train up young people to get proper jobs.

She continued that in her mind the land was virtually given to HPCC as it was below markert price. Civil unrest was down to the community not owning anything.  Counsel suggsted that it was bought for the community, not HPCC, not part of the community.

Fired up,  Fraser Jackson told Counsel, 'If that's your argument, that's really sad as a lot of people put  a lot into it. It's not worth looking at because you're saying we're not worth it. We read about it in news reports. What HPCC did was newsworthy - you watched the news. It was an achievement - there weren't many black people on the news at the time.'

The GLC had put money into the land for the HPCC project. The GLC funded a mini-bus on a neighbouring estate - we thought it was our own. There was always the caveat that if the organisation stopped  existing ownership would revert to the funder. Same for Bridge Park, if the project stopped existing, money would have to go back to the DoE and GLC.  There was always this matter of whether we could completely trust the council.

When the GLC gave money to HPCC it was in the news.  At the time it was a big thing for black people of my age - in the news for doing something good and constructive!

Counsel put it to Fraser Jackson that it was the project you wanted to own - not the land.  She responded with the example of the Learie Constantine Centre that was always held up as somewhere black people ran. She thought Bridge Park would be the same: sports hall (national standard), training, social centre, business centre - all the opportunities people need.  Hundreds came and volunteered.  We had to get money to build the structure, we were told it would last 120 years.

Counsel asked if Fraser Jackson had read the consultation document about the council's development proposal.  She replied that it only went to Stonebridge, if it had gone wider, she hadn't seen it. Asked what she thought it proposed she replied, 'If it's anything like Chalkhill I wouldn't think much of it. We had three community centes, now only one that we have to pay for.'

The Judge asked Fraser Jackson if she had mistrusted the council's intentions, had she raised these concerns when she became a councillor. She replied that she had done initially as she didnt know why there was mistrust. I was almost told, 'Don't worry about the wording. That's the way reports are written. I was assured that the council had the community's interests at heart.'

Day 3- Brent Council v Bridge Park

Much of today's cross-examination of witnesses from the Brent Council of the 1980s appeared inconclusive. Counsel for Bridge Park campaign seemed to shift the grounds on which they based their claim for an interest in the site, which would mean Brent Council could not dispose of it without further neogtoiation.

Initially the case appeared to be that the monies raised by the steering group and succeeding organisation meant that they had an interest as those funds contributed to the acquisition of the land at the former bus depot.  Latterly the argument seemed to be that an option to buy out Brent Council's share of the freehold gave them an interest.

At the end of today's hearing Counsel for Brent Council and the Judge sought clarity on the grounds on which the case was being argued by Bridge Park's Counsel. They will return to the issue tomorrow morning.

The parade of ex-Brent Council officers began with Meredith Thomson, Solicitor, who could not say whether Brent Council was amenable to a clause in the lease on Bridge Park giving the Steering Group/Harlesden Peoples Community Cooperative (HPCC)  an option to buy out Brent's share of the freehold of the site.  Thomson said she did not deal with HPCC, just the limited company that was wound up. The Steering Group was not the the body that would hold the asset.

Next up was George Benham, Director of Education at the time, and later CEO.  He confirmed that he had invited businesses to get involved in Bridge Park and had organised training sessions for headteachers there as well as getting involved in Itec. He recognised the strength of community involvement and said he was very much aware of the emotional attachment the community had to Bridge Park.

Charles Wood, another ex-CEO in Brent, spoke about Brent Council's concern that funds were properly accounted for. Brent Council funded Bridge Park at £350k a year, had to finance an over-draft of £130k, and rates were waived. A financial adviser was put in to assist them.  Counsel for Bridge Park said that a Deloittes report recommended changes that were not implemented by the council.  They had recommended the granting of a long lease at Bridge Park to ensure stability. Wood argued that it was the organisation that did not implement the recommendations but the council had followed the recommendation to continue to fund the project.

Counsel said that Deloittes had recommended funding beyond 1982. Wood responded that the council could not accept that as the situation had deteriorated and confidence reduced. The situation regarding the finances (as set out above) could not be allowed to continue. The organisation had not met recommendations regarding wider community involvement, better financial controls and provision of a range of services.  By that time the Deloittes recommendation was out of date.

Wood accepted that Brent Council had no objection in principle to HPCC having a long term aim of buying out the council's share of the freehold but given financial constraints of the time that was something for the future.   They never came back to it as far as Wood could recollect. Counsel put it to Wood that Leonard Johnson had refused to sign the lease because it did not contain a buy-out option. Wood said that there may have been other reasons for him not to sign.

Counsel then asked Wood about a 1992 report about the implications of discontinuation of the project and whether the council would have a £700k liability to pay funds back to the London Residuary Body (LRB) responsible for the GLC assets after abolition. Wood couldn't recall what was said at the time and what legal advice had been given but it was a fair point that the LRB would not have hesitated to get the money back.  The GLC had set out the covenant that this was council land to be managed on behalf of the community.

Wood said that the council wanted the project to be community led and community run, but not by the group currently running it. It was not ending the use of the centre.  He 'imagined' that the council stance was not breaking the covenant but continuing  the work with a different group.

Wood stated that he had worked for Brent for 9 years from 1986 and in that time no one from the group or community had raised the matter of their right to purchase the freehold.  If there had been a prior commitment it would have come back to him. He confirmed that there had been no discussion of the terms of a buy-out and an option of a buy-out only being included in the lease for a new group - 'not Mr Johnson's.' Wood said this was not what was important at the time.

The main issue was the need for the  involvement of the wider community and the group's determination to keep  control. When CEO he had seen that this was a fantastic group of young people and the council, which had reputational problems, was a great supporter of the project.  In 1982 there was a desire to support the setting up of local businesses at the centre and everyone shared the enthusiasm.  The Sports Council, London Marathon, private funding and fund-raising all contributed.

Counsel suggested that HPCC had played a 'huge role' in fundraising. Wood responded that HPCC and Brent Council had both played an important role - 'the two together.' Leonard Johnson was very charismatic. Almost as an aside, Wood stated that the organisation could over-estimate its impact and that Johnson's claim that there had been a rival offer for the bus depot of £3m was wrong -'there wasn't an offer.' Wood agreed that the project would not have happened without HPCC's actions, their credibility at the time and the support they had.

Counsel, quoting a letter sent by Head of Housing, Mr McQueen, to the Housing Action Trust (HAT) on Stonebridge, said that it conveyed a recognition that Bridge Park belonged to the community and not to Brent Council. Charles Wood responded that the council had made it clear that it was important that Bridge Park remained independent, was run by a wider group and provided services.

There was a further exchange about an internal audit report on Bridge Park. Wood said that it did what auditors do, investigate and report their findings. Counsel maintained that the findings were untested and therefore unfair.

Asked by Counsel about his not arranging a meeting with Mr Johnso when he visited Bridge Park. Wood said he had gone there with a  community worker and had been dismayed by the lack of activity there. He hadn't planned to visit Mr Johnson.

Wood reiterated that the withdrawal of the grant had been based on a failure to involve the wider community, failure to improve financial management and failure to provide the intended services.  As non-political CEO he had made the recommendation but the decision was a political one made by the council committee. Counsel suggsted that they would not have made that decision if they knew they had a potential liability to pay £700m to the GLC.

The Judge pointed out that the liability would depend on whether a project continued to be run from the premises.

There was then an exchange between the Judge and both Counsel. The Judge said that to be honest he was finding it hard to follow where the Bridge Park Counsel was going with his case.  Counsel pointed out that there was a difference between purchasing the freehold and getting the option to buy the freehold.  Counsel for Brent Council said  that public funding was at the heart of the matter and in law the defendants were not able to have an interest in the land.

That discussion will continue tomorrow before Brent Council Counsel cross-examines.

Day 2 - Brent Council v Bridge Park

The cross-examination of ex Brent Council Leader Thomas Bryson continued when the Court resumed this morning. Bridge Park's Counsel was trying to establish that the HPCC (Harlesden People's Community Co-operative) had the aim of eventually buying the freehold of the former bus depot site.  Bryson said that ownership of the land had not been discussed at presentations on the project. It was a partnership whereby both the Council and HPCC wanted it for the community. He knew of it as a long-term aim but did not sign up to it. He did not remember the purchase of the freehold by HPCC becoming a factor in any discussion.

The financial assistance had been for the HPCC and Brent Council was the conduit.  Asked about a note on the financial risk involved Bryson  said that any scheme had risks  - it was a fact of life - but concern was not expressed at any presentation. It involved a great amount of money without a great deal of experience in those proposing to run it. He assumed the council was satisfied with the organisation but couldn't remember.

Bryson agreed with the proposition that Stonebridge and the local area remained quiet because of the effects of the community project.  He said ownership of the freehold remained with the council, if that was to change there would have to be a buy out,

The next witness was Carolyn Downs, Brent Council's current Chief Executive. Having worked on the Inner Urban Programme for Haringey Council she said her understanding was that voluntary organisations worked with LAs in partnership and that the property never belonged to anyone but the council. Asked if the Department of the Environment would  judge whether monies went to private organisations, she that in the HPCC case it didn't. Brent couldn't buy the bus garage on its own but was expected to provide matched funding. Money was provided to purchase the asset and HPCC took the responsibility for running it.

Downs did not accept that Brent Council was merely a conduit for the cash - all Inner Urban Programmes had sponsors outside the council.  Challenged by Counsel that if HPCC had not applied the council would not be in the possession of the land, Downs said this was true of all Urban Programmes - everything the council does is for the benefit of the community. Since she had been employed by the council she had never regarded Bridge Park as a charitable asset,

On the issue of consultation with the community Downs said the council had employed an independent external company to consult with the community. Counsel quoted her 2017 statement that Brent Council was not going to negotiate with Brdige Park campaigners over the land ownership because there was nothing to negotiate about. Downs responded that the council had made numerous attempts to meet with the defendants.

Since 2013 plans had been changed to provide a larger facility in response to the community feedback.  Profits from the scheme would be invested locally, however litigation had halted a lot of the negotiations taking place. The £80m project had been on the point of signing. Counsel asked how much flexibility had GMH holdings shown over provision of business units and function rooms in the facility, At this point a council officer intervened to make a point about commercial confidentiality.  Counsel asked if it was possible to take the community on board via the charity but Downs said she could not speak for GMH.

Counsel suggested that Brent Council was taking a facility away from the community. Downs responded that this was not true - the community were getting a modern, enhanced facility and the council was remaining true to the Bridge Park legacy.

Questioned over demographic changes Downs said that Brent Council's job was to serve the community as it is now - not as it was in 1981.  Documents at the time had expressed concern that HPCC did not reflect the whole of the community.

Asked if it would have been possible for Brent Council to grant HPCC an interest in the land, Downs said, 'Yes, but it didn't.'

The next witness was Arthur Boulter (apologies if I did not get the spelling right - the name was not displayed on Skype) who is now 91 and was Director of Finance in Brent Council in 1981 having started with the borough in 1976.

Counsel asked Boulter about whether HPCC had obtained charitable status at the time. He said he wasn't involved in any discussion about that but if it had been a charitable trust it would have had to be kept separate in accounts otherwise it would have been picked up by the District Auditor.

He said Bridge Park was a corporate asset owened by the London Borough of Brent.  There was no discussion of the land being purchasd for charitable purposes. He dealt with the finances rather than the legal side, his job was to get the money.  Asked if Urban Aid was financial assistance for HPCC he said, 'No never! It was an application made by Brent, for Brent and for the purposes of Brent.'

Counsel asked if the money had to be passed on to HPCC. Boulter said that it was entirely within Brent Council. HPCC were not able to apply for it themselves. When Counsel suggested, 'They had to give it to HPCC. It was conditional that it went to HPCC.' Boulter said firmly, 'I don't agree.'

Urban Aid was directed at specific projects, in this case the purchase of the bus depot. Brent Council would have found it difficult to find the resources for the alternative course of action of buying the depot itself. Boulter said the facts were that Urban Aid was applied for and the council had got it along with money fro the GLC and other grants.

Boulter said that HPCC were extremely helpful in helping get Urban Aid for the council but he would not say that they had played a leading role. Everyone at the time wanted to promote harmony. Given the needs of the time it was extremely likely that Brent would have got the money with our without HPCC, although he acknowledged their contribution. He wasn;t aware the HPCC wanted to buy the freehold.

Boulter disageed with Counsel that this was an HPCC project, it was also Brent Council's whose aim was to benefit all the community. He said, I do not agree the bus garage was bought because of the assitance if HPCC, it was with their assistance.

The Judge asked if there was an obligation to pay back the 25%  required by Urban Aid; did Brent ever think to recover that from HPCC. Boulter said there was no intention of recocovering the funds but if HPCC had acquired the freehold the money would have come back to Brent. The GLC and other grant money would also have had to be repaid.

Merle Abbott (Amory) previously leader of Brent Council was the next witness.  She was elected for Stonebridge ward in a by-election in 1981. She was aware of the Hill Top Club on Stonebridge as  well as HPCC. She was aware of Leonard Johnson but no other HPCC members. With Brixton and Toxteth erupting they wanted to ensure it did not happen in Brent. She had heard that Mr Johnson took a microphone to disperse a crowd on the estate, although she had not seen that for herself.  At the time the council was going to all the estates where youth were disaffected. Johnson attended a meeting on the estate organised by David Haslma of Harlesden Methodist church and she would not wish to downplay Johnson's role in linking youth with the local authority. 

The council and HPCC worked together to purchase the garage site. HPCC had been really helpful in getting the money and they worked together to get a grant from the European Social Fund in 1982. They wanted to develop a project for the community.  Counsel reminded Abbott about a US visitor who spoke about enpowerment and control - the community should do things for themselves  rather than have things done for them.

It was not Abbott's understanding that HPCC wanted the freehold. She was a supporter of developing the garage as a community project, HPCC were active in presenting their joint  vision for a project that would benefit the community.  The mindset of national and local government (GLC) at the time was that they need to supoort projects in disadvantaged areas so she could not say that Brent would not have received the funding anyway, in view of what was happening nationally,  It had been Brent Council and HPCC campaigning together for the depot.

Abbott told Counsel that he was not making a distinction between HPCC and the community. There were other groups in the steering group apart from HPCC. HPCC was not The Community.  She said that she did not know that HPCC had aspirations to own the freehold but by 1982 she was deputy leader and less involved as she had wider responsibilites.

Day 1: Brent Council v Bridge Park -Technical problems force early adjournment

The first full day hearing of Brent Council vs Leonard Johnson (representing Bridge Park campaigners) was beset by technical problems. There was a small attendance of barristers etc and a witness in the socially distanced  court; but many others, including the Kilburn Times and Wembley Matters, Muhammed Butt, Margaret McLellan, Carolyn Downs and other Brent officers plus Bridge Park supporters, were observing on Skype.

Unfortunately the sound was very poor, breaking up and fading in and out, and the physically present witness, Ms Henry's responses to the Bridge Park Counsel's questions could not be heard at all.

To misquote, surely justice must be heard to be done?

The day started with Brent Council's Counsel questioning the status of the Bridge Park campaigners, pointing out the various entities:  Bridge Park Community Council,  Harlesden Peoples Community Council, Stonebridge Community Trust and made the case that as an unincoporated association they had no status to make a claim on the property.

She also questioned the status of Leonard Johnson claiming that he had stated he was no longer a Trustee of the HPCC, although it was he who had launched the original campaign in 1981 and was named as defendant today.

Michael Green QC, who is hearing the case,  said that if the defendants had a potential beneficial interest in the land it would be unfortunate if it was ruled out on a technicality.

Brent Council submitted that the acquisition of the property (the former bus depot) and its funding was by them.  Other uses had been considered and council documents referred to the site as a 'property that formed a substantial asset' for them.  Counsel for Leonard Johnson pointed out that acquisition of a freehold can be subject to a pre-acquisition agreement that would name it as a community resource.

Brent Council Counsel claimed that Bridge Park was in disrepair, expensive to run and would cost £4m to maintain over the next 5 years.

Counsel for Johnson claimed that Brent Council was moving forward with its plans without taking into account its obligations to the charitable purposes for which the HPCC was set up. He said the context of the original acquisition of the land should be taken into account.  The original campaign sought to set up a community resource that would enable Stonebridge to avert the riots that had engulfed Brixton and Toxteth in 1981.  Brent Council would acquire for the Steering Group that would then be incorporated.  There was an option for them to acquire the freeehold of the site but they could not afford the £1m plus needed.  The purchase had been funded from various sources with the Council only paying half.

We could not hear the responses of a witness, Brent Council solicitor Marsha Henry, who was asked about the original purchase.  She was physically in court and inaudible, but the next witness, Thomas Bryson, Leader of Brent Council at the time, could be heard loud and clear over Skype.

He said there had been a fear of riots in Stonebridge in Spring 1981 and the council had flooded the area with community workers supported by Leonard Johnson, a local youth, and others.  The alternative would have been the riot squad moving in which was something the council did not want.

Leonard Johnson had been in the forefront of setting up the HPCC and  a community campaign to  purchase the bus depot site for a community centre.  The proposal had been supported by the local police ('not those in Whitehall') with whom the council had a good relationship.

The then London Transport Executive had given the Council a deadline for purchase, after which it would go on the open market. The help of Ken Livingston and the late Illtyd Harrington, who were then at the GLC, enabled the council to get a good price.

The Stonebridge Bus Deport Report at the time had been signed by Tom Bryson with Leonard Johnson signing the Forward.  Questioned, Bryson said it was a partnership, neither of them could have done it on their own.

He said that at the time money was tight, Brent Council was unable to fund the purchase from its own resources (they had to impose a 58% rate rise in 1982) and so he 'took my boys' to Brussels to get some funding, as well as asking the government and GLC money.

At this point a recording or telephone conversation interrupted proceedings, drowning out counsel and witness, and the hearing was adjourned until 10am tomorrow morning.

Brent Council must attend mediation with Bridge Park campaigners before July 20th High Court hearing

The High Court Hearing to hear litigation between Bridge Park campaigners and Brent Council LINK will take place on July 20th.

Am Emergency Notice on Brent Council Forward Plan gives the Chief Executive as the decision maker and states that before July 20th a date has to be fixed for  mediation between the parties:

The hearing in respect of the litigation will commence on 20 July 2020. This was uncertain until the conclusion of a hearing on 6 July 2020. No date for the mediation, which is intended to take place prior to the hearing commencing, has yet been fixed. The date of the hearing has been fixed by the Court and the mediation process requires that the Chief Executive be in a position to reach a binding agreement with the other parties to the litigation, hence the need for the usual period of notice in relation to the Forward Plan along with call-in to be waived.

Next week will be busy with the  recount for the Barnhill by-election taking place in the Royal Courts of Justice  on July 17th and 18th. The Chief Executive was the Returning Officer for the by-election.

Save Bridge Park hails a milestone legal victory as their case against Brent Council continues

http://bridgeparkcomplex.com/blog/

Behind the scenes at Brent Council's food distribution depot

From Brent Council's YouTube channel

This video gives a behind-the-scenes look at Brent Council's food delivery operation at the Bridge Park Distribution Hub, where staff are working hard to package and deliver food parcels for vulnerable residents who cannot get access to food because of coronavirus.

Thanks to everyone who has donated food or supplies to the Bridge Park Distribution Hub. We have plenty of fresh food, but are always looking for non-perishable food donations, so if you’re thinking of making a non-perishable food donation, please call 020 8937 6792.

Green Jobs for Now and for Tomorrow - Public Meeting at Bridge Park September 11th

Please note that the meeting will be subject to a change of format if it falls within a General Election purdah period. Register for the meeting HERE

Brent People's Revolt on three fronts

If Muhammed Butt thought that achieving 60 out of 63 seats on Brent Council at the local council election would mean a quiet life with no opposition to his one party rule, he has had a nasty surprise.

He is currently faced with three 'people's revolts', in Stonebridge, St Raphael's Estate and South Kilburn.  Not coincidentally these are three areas of Brent with, to use the jargon, 'disadvantaged' populations:  diverse, ethnic minority and working class.  They feel failed and marginalised by the Labour Council but are organising and fighting back.

Far from accepting Brent Council's back door attempt to remove the Bridge Park Complex from the community, Stonebridge residents have won the first round of a legal challenge in the High Court and mobilised mass support, most evident in the public meeting, covered by this blog, of more than 1,000 people. They have not just mobilised people but have raised funds and attracted professional support in their battle. At the heart of the campaign is  anger at the council's lack of consultation with the community and a disrespect for local people.

Across the North Circular residents on the St Raphael's Estate are also organising with two public meetings tonight on the council's proposals to demolish the estate and rebuild partly financed by private housing. Residents see the proposals as backdoor gentrification which would mean the destruction of the existing solid community and loss of green space. They instead favour a refurbishment of the existing buildings but  fear that this is not really an options as far as the council is concerned. They too have had over-flowing meetings of local residents and are distrustful of the consultation process. Their billing of the meeting as 'by the people, for the people' shows where they are coming from.

South Kilburn has long been a thorn in Councillor Butt's side and having seen off Cllr Duffy he might have thought he was in the driving seat on regeneration proposals. Not so. The crowded public gallery at last week's Scrutiny Committee on the Carlton-Granville proposals, the record number of speakers from the public, and the representation of the community's opposition by two ward councillors was a powerful demonstration of people power. They raised fundamental questions about the council's consultation strategy as well as the lack of democratic accountability of the South Kilburn Trust.

Carlton-Granville comes back to the Cabinet on Monday April 15th with a report on the Scrutiny Committee's recommendations (incidentally not yet available on the council's website).

Both the Bridge Park and Carlton-Granville campaigners have put together well-researched alternative proposals to the council's and St Raphael's residents are developing their own vision for the refurbishment of their estate.

As far as I know there are currently no formal links between the three campaigns but if they came together they would represent a formidable force. Watch out Uncle Mo!

UPDATED: Celebration as Bridge Park case referred to Attorney General

Campaigners to stop Brent Council from selling off the Bridge Park Complex won a round of the battle today when Brent Council's attempt to thwart the campaigners through a summary hearing at the High Court failed. The campaign has won the right to go to full trial over their claim that the Complex is protected by a covenant.

The judge referred the matter to the Attorney General and denied the Council the right to appeal. This does not mean the campaigners have won the battle to retain control of the site but it is a step forward. The community deserves recognition for their tenacity and resourcefulness. 

I was unable to attend the hearing as I was speaking at a meeting about climate change so please see the Kilburn Times website for full details. HERE

James Mastin's statement after the hearing on video HERE

Read the Judgment HERE  

Full report on the Guardian website HERE

UPDATE

Today, Friday, Dawn Butler MP for Brent Central told the Kilburn Times that she would not like to see the case go to full trial and would like to facilitate a mediation between the campaigners and Brent Council. She hopes to arrange an informal meeting next week. LINK 

There is no information on how much Brent Council has spent on the case so far but it must be considerable (see comments below). If the case can be solved through mediation it would save Brent council tax payers a lot of money that could be used for the benefit of the community.

Brent Cabinet presses ahead with Bridge Park plans despite huge community opposition

Artist's impression of the replacement Bridge Park

You wouldn't know about the massive community opposition to Brent Council's seizure of the Bridge Park Complex site from the local community, the massive opposition to their plans witb a dodgy off-shore company, or the forthcoming High Court action if you take Brent Council's complacent Press release at face value.

All is well in Brent Council's fairy land!

Here is the press release as published on the Council website:

Plans to create a community hub on the Bridge Park site are now one a step closer after the council's cabinet last night (Monday 11 February) agreed to an enhanced proposal for the Stonebridge site. 

The new plan sets out to offer better leisure facilities, including a 6 lane pool, flexible business spaces, a café, accommodation and more.

The New Bridge Park Centre will have:

• A six lane swimming pool with a moveable floor
• Modern community facilities including 2 function halls and meeting rooms - more than twice the size of current provision
• Flexible business space to support local enterprise
• 72 space car park
• Up to 104 new homes to help vulnerable residents live independently
• 4 Court Sports Hall
• Sauna & steam rooms
• Bigger Fitness Gym with up to 100 stations
• Children's Soft Play Area & Party Room
• A new Clip & Climb
• Café Area
• Studios
• Spin Studio
• Changing Facilities
• Toning Suite
• Consultation Rooms

Cllr Krupesh Hirani, Cabinet Member for Public Health, Culture & Leisure, said: "I am pleased that these enhanced plans have been approved by cabinet and delighted that residents could soon get to enjoy a local swimming pool, better community facilities and modern flexible business spaces.

"We are a step closer to delivering a hub that caters for the needs of residents now and in the future. Brent has a growing and aging population and the new independent living homes in this proposal together with the additional housing that the neighbouring Unisys buildings will bring, once rebuilt, with help many residents."

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

-->

Brent Momentum: 'Dismay' over Labour Council's failure to implement national policy

Brent Momentum's first bulletin issued today hits the nail on the head as far as a critique of the  Labour Council goes - I would have added more on planning and the Council's failure to secure sufficient truly affordable housing in new developments and the Council's proposal for a further reduction in Council Tax Support.