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.

The murk behind Brent Council's Bridge Park deal that was opposed by the community last week

Bridge Park Complex with Unisys on the horizon

The Kilburn Times LINK today reports on a heated consultation meeting regarding the redevelopment of Bridge Park, Stonebridge, and the surrounding area including the Unisys landmark building. There were demands for the land sale to be halted.

The newspaper quotes Jay Martin of the Bridge Park Community Council as saying:
This is not a consultation, it's a fait accompli. It looks like this deal has already been done and decided. There are moral questions and legal questions to answer. There's the possibility that this whole thing might end up in a judicial hearing. 

 The moral and questions that Martin refers to are presumably directed at Brent Council's off-shore partners in this development.

The late and sorely missed Cllr Dan Filson who, while a Labour councillor, had a strong streak of independence, responded to Cllr Pavey's suggestion that tax havens had to be tackled at national level rather than local government, with this comment on Wembly Matters LINK:

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.

Ex Inspector of Taxes, Philip Grant, LINK revealed a link with Quintain:

 When offshore companies are involved, that will always raise suspicions about who is really behind them, and whether tax avoidance may be involved, although in this case you can read a little about GMH on Wikipedia:-

'The General Mediterranean Holding (GMH) is a financial holding company established in 1979 in Luxembourg City, in southern Luxembourg, founded by Anglo-Iraqi businessman Nadhmi Auchi.

GMH is a diverse business group with activities in Banking & Finance, Real Estate & Construction, Hotel & Leisure, Industrial, Trading & Pharmaceuticals, Communications & IT and Aviation.'

The (publicly available) details do not say in which overseas territory Harborough Invest Inc. is incorporated, or resident for tax purposes.

By chance, I have come across GMH's "agent", Nick Shattock, before, when I was an Inspector of Taxes, and he was a director of Quintain Estates and Developments Plc (having previously been a partner in a firm of City solicitors). That information is on public record, and (of course) I cannot disclose anything which happened when I was responsible for dealing with the Quintain group's company tax affairs, because of Civil Service confidentiality.

As a (past) director of Quintain (the developer behind Wembley Park), it is likely that Mr Shattock has already had dealings with Brent's Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth, Andy Donald. The report to Cabinet proposes that negotiations over the "deal" between Brent and GMH should be left in the hands of Mr Donald (as the "deal" with Galliford Try over the Willesden Green Library Centre redevelopment was).

Persuaded? Definitely not!

In January of this year Cabinet approved the land deal for Bridge Park nd Labour defeated Cllr John Warren's move at Full Council to have it debated. The is an extract from my report of the meeting:

In the course of the resultant discussion Cllr Warren, speaking to Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, referred to 'Your friend Mr Auchi'.  Sir Nadhmi Shakir Auchi is Chairman of the off-shore British Virgin Islands company General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH) which is Brent Council's partner in the redevelopment of Bridge Park.  Muhammed Butt is the lead member for the conditional land sale of the Bridge Park site to GMH.

At the Brent Cabinet on January 16th Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader of the Council, said that she was 'thrilled' by the Bridge Park deal. LINK

Auchi is controversial because of a 2003 allegation of  fraud LINK and of course the whole issue of tax havens and tax avoidance is a current political issue with Jeremy Corbyn promising action by a future Labour Government.

Cllr Thomas intervened to call for Cllr Warren to withdraw his statement about 'Your friend Mr Auchi' directed at his leader, as the Council Meeting was being streamed and he wouldn't want a 'wrong impression' to be given. Warren, saying he couldn't remember exactly what  he'd said,went on to say, 'Mr Auchi has connections with the Labour Party. Let me say that. That is what I was referring to.'

The alleged link goes back to 2001 when the Guardian published an article entitled 'A Tycoon, a Minister and Interpol' LINK and involved Keith Vaz MP.

Controversial Bridge Park regeneration consultation - November sessions

Readers will remember the controversy over the Bridge Park (Stonebridge) development when Brent Council entered agreements with what some felt were rather dodgy overseas registered property companies. LINK

In particular concern centred around General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH)  and its Chairman Sir Nadhmi Avichi who had faced fraud allegations in 2003. Cllr John Warren in January tried to get a debate on the issue, and in particular Avichi's links with the Labour Party LINK but his motion was defeated by the overwhelming majority of the Labour Group.

The proposals include a new hotel and housing that  is unlikely to be truly affordable for local people.  There will be no space for the small businesses that are currently housed on site and apart from the added swimming pool at the Leisure Centre  I understand overall space is smaller as function rooms will not be provided.  The question arises about whether the replacement will be a public facility or run by a private company.

Now the proposals are coming up for public consultation  (two for Lead Members, ward councillors and local residents took place earlier this week)  This is the consultation notice as it appears on Brent Council's website:

2 November 2017, 6.30pm to 9pm, Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre

See events in: Public consultations

Top of Form

Public Consultation on the redevelopment of Bridge Park

• Update residents on progress with the sale of the land
• Share information on the wider Bridge Park redevelopment proposals
• Seek input on the emerging design for the new leisure centre

Date: Thursday 2 November

Location: Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre

Time: 6.30pm -7pm (Presentation) 7pm - 9pm (Drop-in session)

Have your say on the Bridge Park redevelopment, complete our online consultation survey before 3 December 2017.

Bridge Park redevelopment

Brent Council is working with the owners of the Unisys site situated adjacent to the Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre in Stonebridge on exciting proposals to regenerate the site for new homes, businesses and a brand new leisure centre with improved facilities.

Background

In June 2013, Brent Council looked at options for developing the Unisys and Bridge Park sites for residential and commercial development to fund a new sports centre. In February 2014, council consulted with the public on four options for the layout of the new facility. Option three was chosen and includes:

• four court sports hall     
• 65 station gym
• Smaller separate gym
• Children’s soft play area and party room      
• Sauna and steam rooms
• Studios
• Spin studio
• Small meeting room
• 50 car parking spaces      
• Four lane swimming pool with moveable floor

In June 2017, the Council entered into a Conditional Land Sale Agreement (CLSA) with the purchaser.

What’s next?

• Progress plans for the new leisure centre and re-development proposals
• Further consultation events with the public 
• Purchase additional land

Information about public consultation dates will be publicised widely.

Contact

For further information about the project contact

• Project Manager- Tanveer Ghani 
• Email- Tanveer.ghani@brent.gov.uk

FAQs

What is the Conditional Land Sale Agreement (CLSA)?    

The CLSA is a time-limited contract between the Council and the developer. The CLSA includes a range of terms and conditions that need to be met in order to complete the sale of Council land to the developer. Please refer to the reports highlighted in the ‘Things to Read’ section for further information about the CLSA.

When will the current Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre (BPCLC) close?  

The Council’s plan is to keep the current Bridge Park Leisure Centre open until the CLSA is completed. We expect BPCLC to be kept open until the Summer of 2019 and further communications will be provided in due course.

Will BPCLC close once the CLSA is completed? 

Yes, the current facility will have to close for redevelopment to start.

When is the redevelopment expected to begin and how long will it last?  

 It is too early to say at this stage although we don’t expect anything to happen on the site until 2019 at the earliest. The immediate target is satisfy the terms and conditions for completing the CLSA. At key milestones of the project, the Council will continue to publish updates online and through local press.

What will the new leisure centre, hotel and housing look like?

Architects Roberts Limbrick will consult with members of the public on design proposals for the new leisure centre.

Detailed consultation plans are below (Click bottom right to enlarge):

Move to discuss Bridge Park land sale to GMH defeated by Brent Labour

I drew attention to the above notice that was posted on the Agenda of Monday's Council Meeting in a recent article LINK claiming that the public interest was not served by curtailing discussion on these important items.

At the Council Meeting Cllr Warren moved the suspension of Standing Orders to allow discussion to take place but this was heavily defeated by Labour and other councillors.

In the course of the discussion Cllr Warren, speaking to Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, referred to 'Your friend Mr Auchi'.  Sir Nadhmi Shakir Auchi is Chairman of the off-shore British Virgin Islands company General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH) which is Brent Council's partner in the redevelopment of Bridge Park.  Muhammed Butt is the lead member for the conditional land sale of the Bridge Park site to GMH.

At the Brent Cabinet on January 16th Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader of the Council, said that she was 'thrilled' by the Bridge Park deal. LINK

Auchi is controversial because of a 2003 allegation of  fraud LINK and of course the whole issue of tax havens and tax avoidance is a current political issue with Jeremy Corbyn promising action by a future Labour Government.

Cllr Thomas intervened to call for Cllr Warren to withdraw his statement about 'Your friend Mr Auchi' directed at his leader, as the Council Meeting was being streamed and he wouldn't want a 'wrong impression' to be given. Warren, saying he couldn't remember exactly what  he'd said,went on to say, 'Mr Auchi has connections with the Labur Party. Let me say that. That is what I was referring to.'

The alleged link goes back to 2001 when the Guardian published an article entitled 'A Tycoon, a Minister and Interpol' LINK and involved Keith Vaz MP.

You can see the live stream and the vote on suspensions of standing orders here:

Brent Cabinet 'thrilled' by land deal with off-shore companies

A Cabinet meeting tonight, which devoted about 3 minutes to each item on the agenda, approved the Council's controversial Stonebridge-Bridge Park land deal with off-shore companies.  The Lead Member for the issue is Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, who now appears to be leading on Regeneration, and he spoke glowingly of the project, the removal of the 'eye sore' Unisys and the opportunities it offered to the Council.

In a rushed but stumbling speech Cllr Butt claimed that the off-shore risk was mitigated by  the creation of a UK subsidiary company by the off-shore GMH with off-shore Harborough Invest acting as the second guarantor.

The issue was covered by the Kilburn Times LINK today as well as by Wembley Matters LINK a week ago but this stimulated no questionning by any members of the Cabinet and Deputy Leader Margaret McLennan outdid her leader in euphoria declaring that she was 'thrilled' by the deal. No questions were asked and no discussion took place before the proposal was rubber-stamped.

For 'those who have eyes to see' there were plenty of between the lines reservations in the report from Officers and I have heard the Cabinet's decision described as 'ill-advised rather than illegal'.

All other business went through without any discussion apart from expressions of mutual admiration from  Cabinet members.

The Scrutiny recommendations on the controversial Sustainability and Transformation Plan (a cover for cuts or a brave new integrated world) were about process rather than content and were approved:

1. An update be provided to the committee on the OnePublic Estate, including an update on the Central Middlesex and Willesden Hubs.

2. Efforts be made to engage with health scrutiny across north-west London with regard to the Sustainability and Transformation Plan.

3. Consideration be given to collaborative work with Healthwatch groups to support engagement around the Sustainability and Transformation Plan.

4. A regular progress report on the Sustainability and Transformation Plan be provided to the committee, the first of these to be provided six months from the date of the current meeting.

There was no discussion on the One Public Estate Plan where the position of voluntary organisations being charged market rents for use of NHS Estate's property has caused much consternation in the sector. Muhammed Butt is also the Lead Member on this issue.

The Budget Task Group's recommendations would be 'taken into consideration' and Cllr Southwood promised dialogue but made no promise on the Task Group's opposition to bulk collection charges.

Cllr Mitchell-Murray, lead member for Children and Families sent her apologies to the meeting LINK. Muhammed Butt took over her role in December with the Council stating that she hoped to retrun in January 2017.

New lead member for Regeneration, Cllr Shama Tatler was present and seemed extremely happy to be at the top table but made only a very minor contribution. The demarcation between her role and that of Muhammed Butt, which led to the conflict between Butt and Cllr Mashari, still seems unclear.

Council's Bridge Park deal with developers indicates little affordable housing & no transparency

The site including Unisys, Bridge Park, Technology House and car breakers

Last week the Planning Committee discussed how to increase the amount of affordable housing provided by developers to meet the 50% affordable target and to make the issue of Viability Assessments mores transparent LINK.

Tomorrow the Cabinet will discuss a report LINK on the Unisys-Bridge Park-Technology House development which admits that the amount of affordable housing will be much lower than 50% and where an Appendix with a 'sliding scale' of affordable house is 'restricted' and not available to the public.  The scheme consists of c500 homes, hotel and leisure centre.

The scheme is rather similar to the Willesden Library development where the Council gets a piece of infrastructure in exchange for providing land. As readers will know the Willesden Green flats contain no affordable units and were sold to overseas investors by Singapore agents. In exchange we got a small 'Cultural Centre' which by coincidence is due to open tomorrow. The community lost a good local bookshop, a cinema and an open space.

At Bridge Park a new leisure centre will be built with a much needed swimming pool, but other features of the current centre will not be provided.

Among the lost facilities will be the function hall, small business units, nursery and meeting rooms for faith groups.  PLIAS Resettlement , a community based not for profit organisation that provides services primary targeting offenders and ex-offenders to enable them to integrate them back into society, will lose its base.  They join Stonebridge Adventure Playground and the Welsh School that lost their premises through the redevelopment just up the road. The report admits that despite a pledge to Cabinet in June 2013 to help the nursery find new premises, that has not been done.

The report's Equalities Assessment claims that a positive aspect is:

With a high young population, the provision of new housing in the local area which the population could take advantage of is a positive in that it provides the opportunity for young people to move out of their family home bit also provides the opportunity to stay in the local community.

Even the officers seem to recognise that this might be seen as disingenuous:

However, it is not known if new housing would be affordable, especially given that Stonebridge ranks as the lowest ward in terms of median household incomes.

Of course it won't be affordable, which is presumably what your secret Appendix says!

Another aspect that might set the noses of ex-Tax Inspectors Dan Filson and Philip Grant twitching, are the developer and finance details.

The ex-Unisys site is owned by Harborough Invest INC (Harborough) to whom General Mediterranean Holdings SA (GMH) are a parent company).  The Council will sell part of its own site (Technology House) to Harborough/GMH.

In June 2013 the Cabinet agreed to pursue this option with a different subsidiary company of GMH: 'Tucan, a special purpose vehicle proposed for the purposes of this development'.  GMH now say that Tucan Investments is no longer in the picture and the Council state 'GMH have explained that it would be sensible for the landowner to be party in the agreement rather than a new development vehicle.'

The main report Financial Status Checks (4.6) states

General Mediterranean Holdings SA and Harborough Invest Inc are both in overseas ownership and not registered at Companies House, As such the process for carrying out financial checks on these companies cannot be completed in the normal manner and the required financial information in an appropriate format is awaited. Finalisation of negotiations and entering into Heads of Terms with these companies will be subject to confirmation of satisfactory financial standing.

Another aspects is of course ensuring that the Council (or rather we residents) are getting value for money. The reports says (3.6):

Since the June 2013 Executive, negotiations with GMH have been ongoing through their agent Nick Shattock Real Estate (NSRE) (now Chainwork Capital) [another change of name] to ensure that the Council receives best value for its lands. As a result the Heads of Terms have changed and it is proposed that the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth concludes negotiations and enters into Heads of Terms with GMH and Harborough Invest Inc in substantially the form set out in Appendix 3 of this report [which is restricted].

The Council employed Deloitte LLP in June 2014 to see if the disposal of their land to GMH represented 'best consideration' - Deloitte concluded it did not. the report goes on (4.4)

Deloitte LLP re-engaged with GMH, via their agent NSRE to seek in principal agreement to the various development costs, revenues and timescales. This exercise resulted in the Council receiving a revised offer from GMH as at September 2014. as a result of the discussions between DRE and NSRE, Deloitte LLP conclusion was that whilst they did not necessarily agree with all of the points raised in the NSRE offer letter, the Revised GMH offer for the Land at Bridge Park was above that of Deloittee revised opinion of value (Appendix 4) [yes, restricted of course].

The report goes on (5.6)

Through pursuing a deal with GMH the Council is not releasing the option of disposing of the Council land to the market and not giving other organisations the chance to bid for the opportunity if this had been available  on the open market. The land price has been robustly tested in order to align with best market price and external consultants to Brent have undertaken detailed development appraisal, valuation and sensitivity resting work confirming the GMH & Harborough proposal to represent best value.

The consultant's report has not been published.

Persuaded?