Court finds in favour of Brent Council in Bridge Park Case

  

The community meeting that launched the campaign to prevent Brent Council from selling off Bridge Park

The High Court verdict in the Brent Council versus Bridge Park case was delivered virtually today. Michael Green QC found in favour of Brent Council's claim on the land and granted an injuction against any further claims.  The redevelopment can now go ahead.

Although admiring the initial concept of a community centre addressing the needs of the community at the time of the riots and paying tribute to Leonard Johnson's  charismatic leadership qualities he decided the case strictly on its legal merits, but at the end of his long judgment (posted in previous article) called for co-operation between the parties in the case. He said:

I do not want to end this judgment on that note. While I have been somewhat critical of the Defendants’ strategy of opposition to Brent’s proposals in relation to Bridge Park, I am saddened that it has been necessary for this dispute to be determined by me in a long judgment that deals with the legal position in relation to the ownership of Bridge Park. The fact that I am delivering this judgment means that the mediation and settlement talks have failed to reach an outcome satisfactory to both parties. As I said at the beginning of this judgment, a trial of the issues before me is not the way to resolve the real issues between the parties. This dispute has come to a head in the context of understandably heightened tensions within the black community and the important focus on the Black Lives Matter movement. While the parties may be able to take such matters into account in seeking to resolve their differences out of court, I cannot do so. I had to decide the case on the facts surrounding the acquisition nearly 40 years ago and the law. 

 

I totally understand that Bridge Park was Mr Johnson’s conception and that the critical aspect of it, if it was to work and the riots were to be avoided, was that it would be run and managed by the local community for the local community without any direct involvement of Brent. Brent understood this, as did central government and the GLC, and they all shared Mr Johnson’s and HPCC’s philosophy. Everyone wanted it to succeed in that way as the stakes were so high. And, for a time, it did succeed. But the failure to set up a community co-operative or to agree the terms of a lease to the Steering Group Company, then the break-down of relations between HPCC and Brent leading to Brent’s repossession of Bridge Park and, for the last 25 years, HPCC being completely uninvolved in its management, all undermine HPCC’s claims to a beneficial interest. Those facts also confirm that the absence of any reference in any of the documentation to Brent holding the Property on trust whether for charitable purposes or HPCC or anyone was deliberate, reflecting the understanding of the parties that Brent did not hold the Property on trust. Instead the Property was held beneficially by Brent for its statutory purposes which are essentially to act in the best interests of the community, as I believe Brent is striving to do with its proposals for Bridge Park. Mr Gutch, the Defendants’ witness, admitted that “at the end of the day, the asset was Brent’s” even if it was acquired so as to be run by the community and even if the community aspired at some stage to own it. 

 

It is obvious that something needs to be done to Bridge Park. Brent cannot just allow it to languish and be of diminishing use to the community. Brent has to respond to the current needs of the community but says it can only provide a newly enhanced leisure and community facility if it sells off part of the Property. It is not right, in my view, for Mr Johnson and HPCC to claim a veto on anything that Brent may wish to do with the Property based on an inaccurate recollection of what was said at the time of the acquisition. All of Brent’s witnesses paid glowing tributes to Mr Johnson and the tremendous achievements of HPCC. I do too. But now that the legal issues have been resolved in my judgment, I would again urge the parties to move on and seek to achieve, by mutual co-operation and agreement, the best outcome for Bridge Park and the local community.

Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, made a statement following publication of the Judgment:

It’s great that the court has made the legal position over the ownership of Bridge Park absolutely clear.We’ve always said that whatever the outcome of the court case, our door remains open to everyone in the community to discuss the future of Bridge Park and that absolutely remains the case.

What this result means is that we can now get back to work in delivering on the promise of unleashing the potential that’s been trapped for far too long in this treasured but crumbling site. This is the chance we’ve all been waiting for to come together as a community and finally revitalise this invaluable facility.

If you want to work with us on the future facility please do get in touch.

 The Bridge Park Campaign has been contacted for a comment.

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.

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.

Bridge Park: 'We own it - we must take it back!'

An angry, passionate account of the history of Bridge Park by one of its founders Leonard Johnson. He rallies the Black community to get behind the campaign for Bridge Park and calls on them to ignore rumours that attempt to undermine his reputation.