BIG UP HARLESDEN Saturday 12 noon - 4pm, Tavistock Hall, Harlesden

 

A 'One Love' community event.

EVENTBRITE BOOKING

Hyde tenants on Stonebridge, hit by huge faulty energy bills, put forward their demands

Some of the residents faced with massive bills

Residents of the Hyde Housing Company's development in Stonebridge are in despair over huge gas bills that have put many tenants in arrears with no hope of being able to pay.

Hyde boasted of the energy efficiency of the district heating network that supplies the homes but this appears not to be reflected in residents' bills.

The situation has left residents accumulating arrears of between £1,500 and £3,000 plus.

 

The energy network is supplied by Switch2 and supplies heating and hot water to more than 50 homes. Tenants reported erratic billing and Switch2 admitted that 22 homes had been given estimated bills because their meters were not working properly. Tenants think it is many more homes than this.

As reported before on Wembley Matters heating networks are classed as commercial when they have a shared system, rather than domestic when the flat or house has its own boiler. This means that residents  served by a heating network do not benefit from the energy price cap that applies only to domestic customers.

Residents told me that their complaints about erratic and inaccurate billing have been passed backwards and forwards between Hyde Housing and Switch2, leaving them with nowhere to go to resolve the problem.

The energy supplier is procured by Hyde and tenants have no say regarding the supplier and were not consulted when Hyde recently renewed the contract, despite high levels of of dissatisfaction.  Residents are able to seek the best deal for their electricity supplier.

Some residents stopped heating their social housing properties because of the high bills, putting their own health and that of their children at risk.

Some of the Hyde social housing

Hyde told residents in an email:

Hyde only passes on the unit cost of the heat per kw/hr (plus 5% VAT), the utility provider's standing charge) plus 5% VAT and Switch 2's metering and billing costs (plus 20% VAT). Hyde's energy costs went up significantly in 2022 due to the conflict in Ukraine when both electricity and gas cost increased due to shortage of supply and other market forces. Hyde does not make any surplus on these costs and there are no 'hidden' charges.

The last sentence appears to refer to the practice of some housing providers that get a percentage of bills back from energy providers that they procure - thus having a motivation to support higher bills.

The Standing Charge on the bills shown to me by one tenant was £8.87 a month previously and reduced to £7.37 via the new contract from  July. That is an annual standing charge of £88.44 for heating and hot water before any metering charge.  In contrast OVO energy's gas standing charge for domestic customers is £5.82 per month, £69.84 annually.

Some residents said their standing charge had been much higher and said that Hyde failed to give them full information about the heating system at the beginning of their let. 

I turned to Trust Pilot to see how Switch 2 fared in terms of customer experience.

 

 The reviews are mixed but this very recent review seems to reflect the experience of Hyde tenants:

This company needs to be honest and take the comments and complaints of the customers seriously. Switch2 company is the most ineffective and expensive energy provider in the UK. They are ripping off and send brutally high charges to customers. In terms of customer services and dealing with inquiries of the customers they are the worst.

Date of experience: 05 August 2023

And this:

They have increased standard unit price by 350% and increased a standing charge from 40p to around 1 pound a day meaning that in average I would have to pay 700£ just for standing charge a year that's no gas usage included. Not even given the fact that the current unit price at 31p is three times bigger than current average of around 7-10p per kWh

Date of experience: 31 July 2023

 

The Hyde tenants have decided to put a number of demands to the Hyde and Switch2:

1. Switch 2 to check ALL meters (not just those identified by Switch2) and replace where necessary, providing Smart Meters to be provided for all residents.

2. Because of the unreliability of billing, faulty meters and administrative errors Switch2 to write off accumulated customers' debt and start the new contract with a clean slate.

3. Hyde to consider changing the heating network supplier in consulation with residents.

Morland Gardens – an alternative solution (open email to Brent Council Leader)

 A guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

1 Morland Gardens and the community garden across the Hillside junction, September 2022.

 

Martin has already highlighted the £18m in cuts/savings which is the main item for next Monday’s Brent Cabinet meeting, but another report, which was added to the agenda on Tuesday afternoon, may be just as important. 

 

The “Update on the supply of New Affordable Homes” is far more than its bland title suggests. I hope to write a separate post about that, but first I would like to share with you an open email which I sent on Wednesday afternoon to the Council Leader and Lead Member for Housing. It offers an alternative solution to that proposed in the report by Council Officers for the Council’s controversial, hugely delayed and badly flawed Morland Gardens project. I have added some relevant illustrations, to break up the email’s text:-

 

Dear Councillor Butt and Councillor Knight,

 

The report to next Monday’s Cabinet meeting, Update on the supply of New Affordable Homes, shows that there are problems with a number of the Council’s schemes, including Morland Gardens at para. 4.26. The problems with that project are even worse than admitted in the report. I am writing to suggest an alternative solution, which I hope that you, and Council Officers, will seriously consider.

 

The Morland Gardens paragraph from the Update Report to Cabinet.
[ SO = Shared Ownership.  OMS = Open Market Sale.]

 

The report admits that the current scheme is not viable, and offers ‘to value engineer the scheme during the PCSA process’ as a possible solution. What it does not admit is that the scheme is likely to lose the £6.5m GLA funding, which was part of the original basis for Cabinet approving it in January 2020. It will lose that funding because it will not be possible for the project to “start on site” by 31 March 2023. 

 

At the moment, the Council does not have a “site” there. 1 Morland Gardens and its grounds are legally occupied, until at least January 2023, by Live-in Guardians. The Public Realm outside the property, including the Harlesden City Challenge Community Garden, which would form part of the site, has not been appropriated for planning purposes. It cannot be appropriated unless a section of highway crossing it can be stopped-up, and the proposed Order for that is the subject of objections which will not be resolved until after 31 March 2023.

 

Alan Lunt’s email of 2 June 2021.

 

In an email of 2 June 2021, copied to you both, and which is in the public domain, the then Strategic Director for Regeneration, Alan Lunt, wrote: ‘I confirm that the demolition of “Altamira” [the locally listed heritage Victorian villa] will not take place until all of the legal pre-requisites are in place.’ No work can commence before matters such as the stopping-up are resolved, and that will be too late for the GLA funding deadline.

 

Converting some of the proposed 65 homes to shared ownership, or trying to squeeze more homes into the building, instead of affordable workspace, would both need planning consent. This would mean further delay and expense. It would be throwing good money after bad, just as Alan Lunt’s risk of awarding a two-stage Design & Build contract, which Cabinet approved last June, for a project which did not have a legal site was a waste of at least £1.2m (the estimated cost of the PCSA process).

 

This project has been flawed from its early stages. It breached the Council’s adopted heritage assets policy, which was only justified for planning purposes by the “benefit” of 65 affordable homes at London Affordable Rent. If there is any change to that “benefit”, then that justification no longer exists.

 

Councillor Knight will remember that, at the Planning Committee meeting on 12 August 2020, her colleague Cllr. Aden, on behalf of all three Stonebridge councillors, was neutral on the Morland Gardens application. Although he welcomed the prospect of 100% LAR housing, he was against the loss of the important heritage asset, the overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of local residents and the inadequate parking and servicing provision, which would cause traffic congestion at the busy Hillside / Brentfield Road junction.

 

Councillor Aden’s submission, from the Planning Committee minutes, 12 August 2020.

 

It is time to rethink this project, as I suggested even before the planning decision in 2020, in detail to Stonebridge Ward councillors in June 2021 (with copy to the Leader and then Lead Member), and again to you as Council Leader and Alan Lunt in January 2022.

 

Extract from my email to Stonebridge Ward councillors on 19 June 2021 (which Cllr. Knight replied to).

 

The main reason for the 1 Morland Gardens scheme was to provide the Brent Start college with more modern facilities than those provided in the 1990s in the sympathetically restored heritage building. That modern college facility does not have to be on the Morland Gardens site. £15m of CIL money was been set aside for it in 2020, with a further unspecified amount agreed at last month’s Cabinet meeting. 

 

By working with the developer, using Section 106 if necessary, that new college could be provided as part of the Unisys House redevelopment, still in Stonebridge and alongside the new Bridge Park community facilities. That would leave the question of what to do with Brent Start until the new college was available.

 

The college is currently in a temporary home in the Stonebridge Primary School annexe. It could stay there, but the better solution would be to move it back to the existing facilities at 1 Morland Gardens. Once the new college was ready, the Morland Gardens site could be developed for housing and/or community facilities, retaining the beautiful heritage building as part of the scheme (details of which could be worked out and agreed ahead of the college’s permanent move).

 

Moving Brent Start out of the Stonebridge Primary School annexe would allow the much-delayed Twybridge Way housing scheme to go ahead. That project, which is being blocked by the Council’s mistakes over Morland Gardens, will provide 14 family-sized houses, 13 smaller flats for rent and 40 new supported 1-bedroom homes for independent living. Sensible allocation of those “NAIL” homes could allow forty existing family-sized homes in the Stonebridge area to become available for families on Brent’s waiting list.

 

Brent’s current plans for 1 Morland Gardens have been ill-conceived since the time of poor advice from Council Officers in late 2018 / early 2019. Rather than trying to press on with a project which is badly flawed, please take this opportunity to make a sensible choice, and accept the alternative solution I have put forward. 

 

Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant

Chalkhill, Church End & Stonebridge summer events for young people

 Events on Chalkhill, Church End and Stonebridge estates over the Summer. Some have already started:

Get involved in our summer events at Chalkhill, Church End and Stonebridge Estates!

Places for in-person activities are available on a first come first serve basis. Please take the message received at the end of completing this form as a confirmation of your place in the selected activities.

If you have any questions about these activities, please get in touch with Jada Eduvie, at jada.eduvie@youngbrentfoundation.org.uk

Click here to register!

 

Call-in hearing over Morland Gardens development takes place on Thursday June 9th at 6.30pm

 The first meeting of the new administration's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee takes place on Thursday June 9th, chaired bt Cllr Rita Conneely. 

The call-in by Opposition councillors will consider the decision of the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment on the  award of the Design and Build Contract for the Morland Gardens (Altamira) development in Stonebridge.

Full details of the basis of the call-in have been published HERE

The Officer's report LINK gives three possible outcomes of the Committee's deliberations:

Recommendation

2.1 That the Committee considers the call-in and agrees to one of the following outcomes:

2.1.1 The Committee does not wish to refer the matter back to the decision maker or to Council, at which point the decision is deemed to be confirmed and takes effect immediately following the meeting; or

2.1.2 The Committee decides to ask the Strategic Director – Regeneration & Environment to reconsider the decision, in light of any observations of the Committee; or

2.1.3 Having had regard to the advice of the Director of Legal and HR Services or Director of Finance, the Committee considers the decision is contrary to the Council’s Budget or Policy Framework, at which point it refers the matter to the next practicable meeting of the Council, subject to the provisions of Standing Orders.

  The meeting can be watched live HERE

How Stonebridge ward nearly got a non-Labour councillor!

 

Cllr Ezeajughi in his Mayoral robes

 

It was announced on March 21st that the Governor of Anambra State, Nigeria, Prof. Chukwuma Soludo. had appointed Stonebridge councillor and former Brent Mayor  Ernest Ezeajughi, as the Chief of Staff of his administration and that Ernest would be relocating to Nigeria. LINK

 

The news took Brent Labour by surprise, only hearing about it from a magazine article, and they spent some time trying to contact him.  With the April 5th deadline looming for signed nomination papers to be submitted to the Civic Centre, there was a flurry of activity on March 31st, three working days before the deadline, and Labour's London Region got involved. They arranged to re-interview him for the nomination that evening.

He was late for the re-interview and it took place without him.  The panel decided that following his appointment he would not be able to carry out his role as councillor if re-elected and that it was against the rules not to live in the borough he serves.

Additionally Labour was worried that when it was revealed that he was not living in the borough an embarassing by-election would result - not for the first time.

 

Fearing that they would not be able to field an alternative candidate, thus conceding the seat to another party, a new panel was hastily convened on April 1st and the current Brondesbury Park councillor,  Tony Ethapemi was selected and duly signed the nomination papers.

As a former local party agent I have to sympathise with the plight the agent and colleagues found themselves in. I hope their blood pressure is back to normal!

 

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

Brent Council v Bridge Park Judgment published

 

1 Morland Gardens – update on the Brent v. Heritage planning battle - Next round at Planning Committee on August 12th

Guest blog by Philip Grant, in a personal capacity.

If you have read my guest blogs on Brent Council’s planning application 20/0345, you may have missed two recent comments. I will set these out below, for ease of reference, as well as drawing attention to some interesting flaws in the “public benefits” of the proposals (supposed to justify demolition), that have emerged from recent “consultee comments” I have now seen.

1.The Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, with 2 Morland Gardens beyond, from the top of Hillside.

I have added this comment to my How significant is significance? blog of 25 June:

FOR INFORMATION:

I have now received a copy of the consultee comments by Brent's Principal Heritage Officer, on the Heritage Impact Assessment and other evidence submitted since his original comments in April 2020.

I can imagine that he was under pressure from those at the Council promoting this application to confirm the HIA assessment that 1 Morland Gardens is a heritage asset of "low significance".

 

He has resisted reducing the building's score from 8 out of 12 (although from his reference's to the architect, H.E. Kendall Jnr., I suspect he would have liked to increase the architecture score to 3 out of 3, but has also resisted doing that). Despite keeping the same score, he has changed his original significance description from "high" to "medium".

Here are the Principal Heritage Officer's comments of 29 July 2020 on significance:

'1 Morland Gardens is a Locally Listed Building [a non-designated heritage asset] but not in a conservation area nor a statutory listed building. The local list description confirms and sets out its significance. It has a significance score of 8 out of 12. This actually places the building at ‘medium’ significance rather than of high significance as I stated in my initial advice.

National Planning Guidance, Historic environment, paragraph 8 states that an ‘Analysis of relevant information can generate a clear understanding of the affected asset, the heritage interests represented in it, and their relative importance.’ I have therefore considered the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) report by Lichfields submitted by the applicants and comments made by other consultees such as the Victorian Society and those with a special interest. I have thus taken into account the available evidence and necessary expertise [National Planning Policy Framework para.190].

The HIA asserts that ‘according to Brent’s local listing criteria the following score is more appropriate to the building: 6/12, due to the authenticity of the building being affected by its 20th century alteration and extension and the lack of its surviving historic context.’ It has been given ‘low significance’. I have looked closely at the reasoning and I do not share the view on the determination that was made.

I am persuaded by Anthony Geraghty MA PhD, Professor of the History of Architecture at the University of York. He rates Henry Edward Kendall Jr. as ‘an architect of considerable importance whose nineteenth century villa characterises work by an architect of genuine and lasting significance.’ This is supported by the Victorian Society who make the point that the Stonebridge Park Estate was a development by a Victorian ‘architect of note’ and a ‘good
surviving example of a key aspect of Kendall's small, domestic works’. 

It is clear to me that 1 Morland Gardens should be considered a local heritage asset of special interest. There are only 2 of this belvedere towered design left in Brent. There are many examples of Italianate origin seen in the Borough (throughout the South Kilburn Conservation Area, for example) but these are by speculative builders and not by a significant architect like Kendall.

With this in mind, I am firmly of the view that the building is of ‘medium’ significance with a score of 8 out of 12 as none of the evidence provided introduces anything much new.'

2.Elevation drawing from the plans submitted in February 2020.

I added this comment to my Why Brent should withdraw its application to demolish 1 Morland Gardens blog of 20 July:

FOR INFORMATION:

This morning I received (from "The Office of the Leader") a letter from Amar Dave (Strategic Director, Regeneration and Environment), in reply to my open email of 19 July, on behalf of Brent Council as applicant in this case (20/0345). He replied to all the points I had raised, and I will summarise his long letter below.

He said that the architectural and historic significance of the Victorian villa had been understood at an early stage of the planning process, saying: 'The assessment was reviewed by planners following submission and we were informed that it was a very thorough assessment of the condition of the historic building.' - My response to this would be that if their assessment had demonstrated a proper understanding of the building's significance, they would not have been asked to provide one, several months after their original application was submitted!

He did not agree my assertion that 65 homes, a new education centre and affordable workspace was an overdevelopment of this small site, saying: 'Further, the results of our option appraisal and public consultation within the locality showed significant need for these facilities in Stonebridge.'

In response to my assertion that the "low significance" assessment was false, he said: 'This report provided an independent assessment of the significance of the locally listed building.' He also said: 'The validity of the HIA has been confirmed by the Planning Officers.' - My response would be that, despite what the Planning officers might have said, the Council's Principal Heritage Officer has rejected the HIA's claim that the significance score should be reduced from 8 out of 12 to only 6 out of 12.

In response to my question of whether the Officers and councillors proposing this scheme 'really intend to use the HIA, seeking to deceive Brent’s planning committee into approving a planning application which they should really reject?’ Mr Dave has said: 'The HIA is part of the suite of planning documents to be assessed by officers, and considered by the Planning Committee. This will include in the report the assessment of the Council’s own Principal Heritage Officer. The Committee will be able to come to their own judgement on the significance of the building, and will balance this against all other aspects of the scheme.'

He has also said: 'We do not accept your assertion that a decision as either landowner, or as a planning authority, to agree this scheme would put "every other heritage asset in Brent at risk of demolition".'

The Council does not intend to withdraw its planning application.

3.Revised ground floor plan for 1 Morland Gardens, submitted June 2020.

I wrote in my Brent Relents! blog recently that the Council had agreed to change its practice of not making “consultee comments” on planning applications publicly available on its website. Those comments can be really valuable in identifying weaknesses in applications that affect you, and it’s not only the Heritage Officer’s comments that are of interest on this application.

Transport and access: The original plans included a loading bay, for deliveries and refuse collection, as a lay-by on Hillside, but both TfL and the Council’s Transportation Unit said this was unacceptable, because of the danger it would cause to pedestrians. The loading bay has now been moved to the end of Morland Gardens (a cul-de-sac), taking a bite out of the “Arrival Garden” at the entrance to the new adult education college. More of that garden’s paved area has been lost because the GLA objected to the lack of visitor cycle parking.

The loading bay will be the only place where deliveries can be made to the entire proposed development, and is reached along a minor side road with parking spaces on both sides. The latest comments from the Transportation Unit still have concerns about access and servicing of the building. ‘This servicing area will be convenient for the relocated refuse store and the college, but less so for the lower ground floor workspace’. The answer suggested is that: ‘… to ensure the loading area does not become congested, a Delivery and Servicing Management Plan is sought as a condition of any approval.’

That suggested plan (‘to be approved before the building is occupied’) just covers the college and the affordable workspace on the lower floors. What about deliveries to the 65 homes on the upper floors? Given experience during the Covid-19 lockdown, and the growing switch to online shopping, the people living in those homes are likely to need many deliveries as well. It is 50 metres from the loading bay to the entrance door for the tall block of flats, and over 100 metres to the entrance of the homes further down Hillside. Each trip by a delivery driver will take a long time, so where will the other delivery vans or lorries park while waiting for their turn? And can you imagine the nightmare when 65 families are moving into their new homes?

One of the factors causing more deliveries will be that the new homes will be “car free” – no parking spaces (except for disabled) and no permits allowed for street parking. In reality, many residents will have cars (the planning estimate is around 58, based on data for the number and mix of units). What is the answer to this problem? A familiar one to those who have seen previous planning cases – a Section 106 agreement for ‘a financial contribution of £32,500 towards the introduction of a year-round Controlled Parking Zone in the vicinity of the site’!

4.A view of the site - taken from a Google maps 3D satellite image.

Environmental: If you compare the “Google” view with the new ground floor plan above, you will see that the proposed new building comes much closer to Brentfield Road and Hillside than the existing building. The 1994 Harlesden City Challenge garden (which Brent’s application describes as neglected – well, whose fault is that!), and the wide pavement area behind it will be built over, with a much smaller “Arrival Garden” in front of the college entrance instead. In spite of this, the Council’s proposals are claimed to provide ‘improved public realm’.

The latest Stage 1 comments from the GLA point out that the new plans only deliver an “Urban Greening Factor” of 0.2, which falls well short of the target of 0.4, saying: ‘The applicant should therefore seek to improve the quantity and quality of urban greening across the site.’ They also point to the continuing lack of an ecological statement, outlining the impact of the development on different species, and measures to provide a biodiversity gain, in line with London and National planning policies.

Air quality also has a “red flag” against it in the GLA’s comments. 1 Morland Gardens is in an Air Quality Management Area, next to one of the poorest air quality sites in Brent, at the junction of Hillside and Brentfield Road. The ’baseline local air quality’ is poor. The development needs to deliver an Air Quality Neutral assessment for both building and transport emissions, and the GLA are not satisfied that it does. It is already clear from the application’s own assessment that the Nitrogen Dioxide levels would be too high to allow windows to be opened on the ground floor (college) and the next two floors (of homes) above!

Although the plans will provide a one metre wider pavement along Hillside, instead of a low wall then open space, the pavement will be flanked by the building itself (see elevation drawing above). Fumes from the passing traffic will be trapped, and instead of the curving wall and wide pavement turning into Morland Gardens, pedestrians (including students arriving on the No. 18 bus to the Hillside Hub stop) will need to walk up to within 5 metres of the busy junction.

Water: Thames Water have pointed out that the revised plans submitted do nothing to answer objections to the proposals which they made in March. ‘Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing SURFACE WATER infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this development proposal.’ In other words, the increased rainwater run-off would be too much for the local drains, and if no action is taken to address this, a heavy storm (more likely with Climate Change) could cause water to flood down Hillside! They want a condition added that no properties should be occupied until ‘all surface water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been completed.’ The developer (the Council) would have to pay for those upgrades.

The second objection from March that had still not been dealt with by 6 July was: ‘The proposed development is located within 5m of a strategic water main. Thames Water do NOT permit the building over or construction within 5m, of strategic water mains.’ By taking so much of the site (and adjoining public realm) for the new building, the Council have caused this problem. If they don’t make its “footprint” smaller, the main drinking water supply pipe for this area will have to be moved further out under the highway, at the Council’s expense, before any construction on the site can begin. Imagine the traffic chaos on Hillside / Brentfield Road that will cause!

Despite these weaknesses, and more, in the Council’s plans for 1 Morland Gardens, you can be sure that Planning Officers will recommend it for approval, probably at the “virtual” Planning Committee meeting on 12 August. Willesden Local History Society hope to participate, with my support, to oppose the application.


Philip Grant 

Editor's Note:  

The Planning Committee on August 12th starts at 6pm (following a pre-meeting at 5pm) and after the preliminaries of declarations of interest and approaches, 1 Morland  Gardens is the first item.  The proceedings can be viewed live via a link to the Webcast on the Agenda here: http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=115&MId=6107

'Former Victorian building at Craven Park - see Binali's comment below.'

 

 

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.