Day 2 - Brent Council v Bridge Park

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Brent should withdraw its application to demolish 1 Morland Gardens

Following on from his recent guest blog, “How Significant is Significance”, Philip Grant has sent the following “Open Email”:-

To: Carolyn Downs, Chief Executive, and
      Cllr. Muhammed Butt, Council Leader,
      London Borough of Brent.

                                                                                                                                19 July 2020

This is an open email

Dear Ms Downs and Councillor Butt,

Brent Council planning application 20/0345 – 1 Morland Gardens, Stonebridge, NW10

You may have noticed a letter I wrote, which was published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times” on Thursday 16 July.

The letter’s heading in the newspaper was ‘Altamira’ (the original name of the locally listed Victorian villa which the Council seeks to demolish), but my suggested heading was ‘Let's be honest about 1 Morland Gardens’. That is what I intend to be here.

A version of the published letter has appeared on the “Kilburn Times” website today, but this omits the final paragraph as it appeared in print (full text below, for ease of reference). That paragraph said:

‘there is still time for Brent Council to withdraw this application, and consult on redevelopment which would see the Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens retained, and converted to provide affordable homes for Brent residents who need them.’

I am writing to recommend to you both, as the Council’s top officer and leading elected representative, that Brent Council does withdraw application 20/0345, as the only reasonable action in the circumstances of this matter.

I realise that investment of up to £43million for the proposed scheme at 1 Morland Gardens was approved by Cabinet in January this year, subject to planning approval. That planning approval is the key issue here.

Although those behind this scheme commissioned a “Historic Building Assessment” of the locally listed Victorian villa in April 2019, that document only recorded the history of the building and its current state. It did not ‘demonstrate a clear understanding of the archaeological, architectural or historic significance’ of 1 Morland Gardens, which is what is required before a planning application affecting a heritage asset is put forward.

As I said in my published letter: ‘if the Council had properly considered the heritage importance of this building in the first place, they would never have suggested demolishing it.’ In trying to remedy the situation, after this had been pointed out by the planning Case Officer in April, a consultant firm was appointed to prepare a ”Heritage Impact Assessment” (HIA) on behalf of the Council (as applicant), which was submitted last month.

I have publicly referred to that report’s conclusion as a ‘false “low significance” assessment’. I know that is a serious charge to make, but I believe it is fully supported by the detailed objection comments I submitted on 5 July (a copy is attached, for information). In reality, the building has "high significance", which means that Brent's planning policies require the building to be retained as part of any sympathetic redevelopment of this site.

My letter refers to the senior officers and councillors proposing the 1 Morland Gardens scheme, and asks: ‘Do they really intend to use the HIA, seeking to deceive Brent’s planning committee into approving a planning application which they should really reject?’ I put the same question to you, and look forward to receiving your answer in the near future.

There is a precedent for Brent Council withdrawing a planning application which proposed the demolition of an important locally listed building. This happened in 2012, just before the application (made in the name of its development partner) seeking to demolish the remaining Victorian section of Willesden Green Library was due to go to Planning Committee. The reason given was ‘to allow for further consultation’.

The fact that demolishing that locally listed Victorian building would have been a mistake (as well as being against Brent’s planning policies) is clearly acknowledged on the front cover of Brent’s May 2019 Historic Environment Place-Making Strategy (part of the draft Local Plan). The caption under the photograph of the 2015 building proudly states that it ‘returns to use the locally listed Victorian Library blending perfectly the old and the new.’ That is what a future scheme for 1 Morland Gardens, should also do, not knock it down!

If you have any doubts that withdrawing the Council’s planning application is the right thing to do, let me draw your attention to a key paragraph (4.1) of the May 2019 Strategy document:

‘The value of Brent’s heritage should not be underestimated and is a key message of the Historic Environment Place-making Strategy.  Once a heritage asset is demolished it cannot be replaced.  Its historic value is lost forever to the community and future generations and it cannot be used for regeneration and place-making purposes.  The effective preservation of historic buildings, places and landscapes and their stewardship is therefore fundamental to the Council’s role.’

If Brent Council goes ahead with application 20/0345, and somehow manages to get it approved, it will not only cause the loss of this important locally listed heritage asset. It would seriously damage Brent Council’s reputation, and would set a precedent that would put every other heritage asset in Brent at risk of demolition. I hope that you will not allow that to happen.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.

Text of my letter, as published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times” on 16 July 2020:

‘Altamira

On Brent’s planning application to demolish the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens in Stonebridge, and replace it with a new college and homes - if the council had properly considered the heritage importance of this building in the first place, they would never have suggested demolishing it.

The application could not proceed in April because it had not shown a clear understanding of this heritage asset’s significance (its value), or shown why the benefits of the proposal outweighed the harm to that heritage importance. That is why a heritage impact assessment (HIA) was submitted last month, and there is further consultation.

The HIA was prepared by a reputable firm of planning consultants, but it was a desk-based assessment. Some of the information they based their findings on has been shown to be incorrect.

They also used the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges as the main criteria for assessing the building’s significance, rather than the system adopted by Brent for evaluating its locally listed heritage assets. On that basis, the HIA concluded that the Victorian villa was of “low significance”.

This just happens to be the only opinion which would justify the demolition under Brent’s planning policies for heritage assets.

Brent’s own principal heritage officer has said that 1 Morland Gardens “should be considered an important local heritage asset of high significance”. This is based on Brent’s scoring system, and is backed up by evidence submitted by The Victorian Society, a professor of architectural history and a long-serving expert at Brent Museum & Archives, as well as a number of other local historians and many local residents. 368 residents have signed a petition against the demolition.

The senior officers and councillors proposing this scheme are meant to serve the people of Brent with honesty and integrity. The false “low significance” assessment has been made on their behalf. Do they really intend to use the HIA, seeking to deceive Brent’s planning committee into approving a planning application which they should really reject?

Comments close today (July 16) on application 20/0345, but there is still time for Brent Council to withdraw this application, and consult on redevelopment which would see the Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens retained, and converted to provide affordable homes for Brent residents who need them.’

Philip Grant's original objection comment on the application:

Bridge Park Campaign - Brent Council Mediation Fails. Hearing starts on Monday,

A thousand people attended a public meeting on the issue early in the campaign

Bridge Park campaigners and Brent Council go to Court on Monday in the latest round of the Harlesden and Stonebridge community's  efforts to win the argument that they own the land and buildings which Brent Council is seeking to redevelop in a multi-millon pound deal with  overseas developers, 

The hearing has added significance with the prominence of the Black Lives Matter movement and Brent Council's expressed desire to address the needs of the Black Community.

Bridge Park serves an area where there is a large African and Caribbean community. The area has already lost the Stonebridge Adventure Playground to developers.

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt is speaking tonight at a meeting entitled 'Black Lives, Whute Privilege: a Community Discussion'. (See article below) 

Bridge Park Campaign told Wembley Matters:

Mediation talks with Brent Council took place today yesterday as previously stated our position remains that Brent Council are only custodian charity trustees and the African & Carribean Community own the Land and Buildings and we do not wish this Sale to proceed. Mediation with Brent ended without productive conclusion. We will now go forward to full Trial.

The Trial will be read on 20th and take place on Tuesday 21st July 2020 10.30am (Judge Michael Green).

Brent Council are the Claimants and we are defendants. The Attorney General is  also a defendant in this case.

The case and complexity has been significantly expanded, now to a estimated case duration of 9-10 days previously 3-4 days.

Report on Monday's Council Meeting:

 'The ten point Brent Black Community Action Plan, which includes tackling health inequalities, developing community spaces that will be run and managed by community members and an internal review of processes in the council, was unanimously agreed at a full council meeting on July 13.'
'Cllr Abdirazak Abdi addressed Cllr Butt and chief executive Carolyn Downs directly saying: “I hope in the spirit of this report and what has been said today, that you take this forward and into the negotiations with the Bridge Park Community Centre.. [due to begin in court on July 20}.. so that the legal battle, the ownership of Bridge Park, doesn’t go to the court.” '

 

Brent People's Revolt on three fronts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brent Council v Bridge Park judgment expected on Thursday

The judgement in the case that has galvanised the Stonebridge and Harlesden communties  in the defence of Bridge Park Complex will be announced at the Royal Courts of Justice on Thursday.

The 'Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Brent versus Leonard Johnson (Trustee of Harlesden People's Council) and the Stonebridge Community Trust' is timetabled for 11am on Thursday 21st March and will be held in Court Room 15, 7 Rolls Building, Royal Courts of Justice, Fetter Lane, EC4A 1NL before Deputy Master Rhys.

It is expected to last 2 hours.

Drop in on St Raphael's redevelopment proposal this Saturday - Public Meeting February 27th

Brent Housing are to hold two more meetings with residents of St Raphael's Estate. One of the recent meetings was overflowing.  A drop in is being held in a marquee in a car park on the estate on Saturday  rather than in the Children's Centre of the nearby school. Let's hope the gales do not sweep it away. An additional public meeting will be held at the Civic Centre on February 27th.

We want to listen to residents’ ideas, encourage you to get involved and address any concerns. We have arranged four informal drop-in sessions on the estate. The drop-in sessions will be a chance for you to have one-to-one or small group discussions with senior council officers and councillors.

The drop-ins will take place on the following dates:

• Saturday 9 February from 12pm–2pm: Open car park space (Marquee) next to the Living Room, 65-80 Besant Way, NW10 0TY

Public Meeting

We would also like to continue to encourage public debate and have arranged another public meeting:

Wednesday 27 February from 6.30pm-8pm: Conference Hall (3rd Floor) Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ

Stonebridge councillors have  put out a video on Twitter assuring residents that they are interested in hearing their views. See the Twitter post with video here LINK

tps://twitter.com/Brent_Housing/status/1093536872561868806

Bridge Park community comes out fighting for its rights, Council's new plan offers less than Bridge Park currently offers

“Brent, don’t take our gold and only give us sand. 


You state you offer our Community a friendly hand...

then don’t sell our Land”

The meeting where the BPCC campaign was launched

Statement from Bridge Park Community Council February 4th 2019 about Brent Council's sale of the land at the Bridge Park Leisure Complex

The Restriction

We successfully lodged an RX1 application in September 2017 with the Land Registry, as a declaration of interest in the land on the South West Side of Brentfield Road, Stonebridge, Willesden (“Bridge Park”) Title No: NGL426015.

Brent insisted that unless we withdrew the application, they would escalate matters to the courts. They have continued to reject all our offers of cost-effective resolution, which included negotiation, ADR and HMLR Tribunal.

The Covenant

Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre (BPCLC) is a former 3.5 acres bus depot that was converted into a Leisure Centre in the 1980s using GLA funding. It has been managed by the Council for at least the last 12 years and offers 37 business units, multi-faith centre, nursery, dryside multi court sports hall, 2x Gyms, professional music studio, bar with restaurants, function hall, conferencing and meeting rooms. The Bridge Park site had a protective covenant on it, to keep it in the hands of the community. Brent Council worked with the LB Bromley (as successor body to the GLC) to have this removed.

Proposed Redevelopment of Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre

See the Brent Council Report from the Strategic Director, Regeneration and Growth and the Strategic Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods 17^th February 2014

Planning

Brent Council have hidden the exchanges and correspondence with GMH and Brent Council’s Planning department – Bridge Park is community used, owned and of huge community interest. Brent council’s dealings should be made public and particularly all related planning and pre-planning exchanges. Bridge Park currently has more facilities than that offered by Brent in their latest revised plan announced 1^st February 2019.

Conditional Sale Agreement (CLSA)

We now have possession of the CLSA ‘sale’ document. Brent are supposed to be Publicly accountable – yet, Brent Council are not operating open-handedly. All key information as to the Land sale has been removed and some 95% of pertinent details have been redacted.

The Community have said overwhelmingly that:

•       they do not wish for Bridge Park land to be sold to private developers 


•       they support BPCCs community vision 


•       Brent should observe the protective covenant schedule titled The Community 
Project that was entered onto the original HM Land Registry Title NLG426015 of 1982. 
Brent refers to consultations held in October/November 2017 in Harlesden and Stonebridge. Both meetings were attended by BPCC members, the public and the press was present. The meetings did not cover public consultation on the areas that Brent now states as the reasons for recent changes in their latest plan. The above meetings were in fact Brent Council officers, the Leaders and senior executives, in apparent partnership with the developers GMH, both presenting the Vision for the future use of the land. One contentious area was that 5% affordable housing would be made available to the community 30 of 600 homes. The consultation session and documents presented simply provided the community with options on how they wanted the gym surfaces and facilities arranged, similarly same with the planned swimming pool. The exercise was explained by Brent’s architect with the aid of drawings laying out their proposed redevelopment of the site. 
The community overwhelmingly disengaged with the consultation exercise and demanded that Brent Council not sell Bridge Park. 


The community’s restriction on the land sale places Brent Council under extreme pressure to complete the deal with GMH within deadline. We feel Brent Council have adopted a number of tactics to try to get past the court process and speed up the usual court timetable. The latest of which was an unexpected revised acceptance of our longstanding offer of mediation, in that Brent agreed to look at mediation within the month of February but on the terms that they would alongside, and at the same time apply for Summary/ Strike Out hearing of our restriction. This is set for 11am 27^th February 2019, at the Rolls Building, High Court EC4. The Strike Out is a technicality to get the case thrown out before it can be heard at a full trial, thereby rendering any mediation before 27^th February 2019, non- binding and ineffective. We see this as Brent’s attempt to get around our accusation that they have not made real or reasonable efforts to seek settlement ADR with us. 

The Conditional Land Sale Agreement (CLSA) puts Brent Council in some difficulty with settlement talks, as they will likely face huge issues if they do not go through with this commercial deal.

In summary, Brent knew prior to the sale that the community objected to it. We were not happy with the level and lack of consultation also there was no real community involvement in the process. Brent pushed through with the sale of the land and have now realised that the community effort to block any sale and our wish to be fully involved with the process is to be taken seriously.

Their recent plans do not address the fact that:

•       The community does not want Brent to Sell the land. 


•       Brent should halt the sale and now fully involve the community on the use of the 
land. 


Brent’s latest plan to sell would leave the community with significantly less facilities 
than that which Bridge Park currently offers.


-->

 

 

-->

Brent Council launch PR bid to win back angry Stonebridge residents over Bridge Park proposals as campaign prepares for the High Court

A press release on the Brent Council website today, entitled 'Building Bridges in Stonebridge', sets out revised proposals for the site but appears unlikely to satisfy those residents who accuse the Council of stealing  a Centre that was started by the community and owned by them. The artist's impression of the proposed building seems to rub that in with the Brent Council logo clearly visible on the facade.

Meanwhile the campaign will be going to the High Court in the Strand on Wednesday February 27th (10.30am) to challenge Brent Council's sell-off of the Bridge Park Complex: LINK

Neither the press release nor the report for the February 11th Cabinet mention the disputed ownership or the recent Raheem Styerling intervention.

 THE PRESS RELEASE (Unedited)

Bridge Park residents could see a new community hub on their doorstep if the revised proposals for the site are approved by Brent Council this month.

An enhanced proposal to replace the old leisure centre with a new community hub - including new leisure facilities, business space, a large community hall, accommodation for Brent's older residents and much more for the community - will be put to the council's cabinet on 11February.

The improved plans, which take on board feedback from a wide ranging consultation with residents in 2017, now seek to deliver a better environment, with modern flexible community facilities, affordable work spaces, jobs and much better leisure facilities

Subject to getting the necessary planning and legal approvals, the New Bridge Park Centre will contain:

• More than double the originally allocated community space - which will include meeting rooms and flexibility for other functions
  
• A modern enterprise space to support local businesses and jobs
• Up to 104 new homes to help vulnerable residents live independently
• A swimming pool - now with 6 lanes
• Additional space for a 'clip and climb' climbing wall
• A bigger car park - now with 72 spaces
• A larger gym with at least 80 stations and the ability to divide the space to create a separate gym to meet local needs
• 4 court sports hall
• Toning suite
• Consultation rooms
• Children's soft play area & party room
• Sauna and steam rooms
• Studios
• Changing facilities
• Café

Cllr Krupesh Hirani, Cabinet Member for Public Health, Culture & Leisure, said: "We know that Bridge Park is much loved and we now need to build bridges and work together to create something new and really special which caters for the needs of all of the residents in the Bridge Park and the wider Stonebridge area.

We've taken into account residents' feedback and the council is now proposing to deliver much more than a replacement leisure centre. We want to deliver a modern community hub that offers much more than was originally asked for. These revised plans include double the amount of community space, more affordable work spaces and much better leisure facilities.

It is only by working together that we will be able to create this community hub and provide much more for residents.

If approved, the council is keen to get residents involved in the detailed planning stage to finalise the specification for the community spaces. To view draft concepts and for more information visit www.brent.gov.uk/bridgepark

The report proposes an independent advisory group but significantly does not state how its chair would be chosen. Will the local community have a say on the appointment?

In order to fully involve the community to work alongside the Council’s Bridge Park development project team on the design, development, future operation and management of the new leisure centre and enterprise space, it is proposed to form an advisory group whose membership would be drawn from Brent residents. 
The purpose of the group is:

To bring an independent, community-focused perspective to discussions and decisions about the future specification and use of the new leisure centre and enterprise space. 


To engage with current and future users of the site and be an advocate and conduit for key messages about the progress of the development. 
The group will be chaired by an independent person drawn from the local community who is knowledgeable, credible and capable of bringing together a focused group of 6-8 individuals to undertake the role of an advisory group. 


 The full report is below. Click bottom right for a full-screen version:

'Brent is stealing our Bridge Park legacy...it is part of our Black Heritage'

A legal battle is on between Brent Council and the Afro-Caribbean community of Stonebridge, Harlesden and Monks Park over the future of Bridge Park.  The centre is part of a Council redevelopment project that includes the long-empty Unisys building.  It is much more than a legal battle - it is a battle for the beating heart of the local community.

Wembley Matters has covered the dodgy nature of some of Brent Council's partners in their development scheme and this was reinforced by trenchant criticism of the Council by the late Dan Filson. LINK  LINK

Young visionaries in what was then a bus depot

Bridge Park was set up by young black people in the 80s at a time of the uprisings. It is part of black heritage in the borough that came from the grassroots, just as the Stonebridge Adventure Playground, closed by the council, also had its roots in the community and amongst the young.

A community group, Bridge Park Community Council, set up to save the centre from the council plans have put forward their own alternative which is rooted in the community and continues the original ethos of Bridge Park when the Harlesden People's Community Council organised to purchase the old bus depot:

BPCC successfully appealed to the Land Registry over the sale of the land and it was blocked  but now the council is fighting back through legal action.

A fundraising campaign is now underway to take the council on: LINK
and there is a petition of to stop the sale and return control and development of the Bridge Park site to the community HERE


BPCC's short-term plan is:

(a) To show the “London Borough of Brent” that we have an interest in the land, and to therefore suspend the sale of the Land and property referred to as “Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre”.
(b) To secure the Community interest in the Land and property by means of legal, public and political action.
(c) To develop a self-sustaining Centre of Excellence providing educational, Technology, social, well-being and commercial facilities.
(d) To encourage Brent Council and all parties to engage with BPCC in peaceful timely negotiation (ADR), Mediation or Arbitration as opposed to costly litigation with a view of coming to an agreement in relation to the Community’s control and interest in the said Land and Property.

  EMPOWERING OUR COMMUNITY

                   WE NEED YOU...!!!!


THANK YOU FOR CONTINUED SUPPORT TO SAVE BRIDGE PARK LAND & COMPLEX

*FIRSTLY - BRIDGE PARK IS NOT SOLD.

Bridge Park Community Council as successor to HPCC established Bridge Park Complex Steering Group, to protect the interest, control and development of the Bridge Park Land and Properties for the community. 

In the 1980s, HPCC, founded by a group of young 16-20 year olds, who followed their vision and desire to serve the community, and to ensure that the young men and women growing up in Stonebridge, N.W London had facilities and opportunities to empower them to succeed.  They bought the land supported by sourced grant funding of £1.8m. 

They raised a further £3m+ along backing to design and build the current Bridge Park Complex seen today. The original vision was for the creation of educational, commercial business units, sports and multi-purpose facilities.  The land is estimated to be worth over £50 million on the open market.

In order for HPCC to obtain the funds, Brent Council acted as custodians ONLY: with no right to sell, transfer or dispose of the land, acquired by the community for the community. The Bridge Park site had a protective covenant on the land.  Brent Council officers removed the covenant prior to February 2014.  The community were not informed. [Wembley Matters here is the LINK to the report to the Brent Executive in June 2013 which states: The Bridge Park site had a covenant on it that sports and community uses should be protected and around half of any value of any development would have to paid to the LB Bromley (as successor body to the GLC). However officers have successfully re moved this covenant.]

-->

Experienced Lawyers, (DWFM Beckman, London) have been engaged, and advice has been taken from a Senior Counsel, specialising in this area of Law and Chancery.

*Brent Council entered into the Conditional Land Sale Agreement with General Mediterranean Holding (GMH) as guarantor, for the sale of the Bridge Park Complex in June 2017.  A strict condition of the sale is that the land must be free of all interests. Brent Council plan to allow development worth over £800 million on the land, but aim to sell off the Land and 42x Business Units, 2x restaurants, Bar, 2x Gyms, full size In-door Basketball and Badmintons Courts, plus Multi-faith centre and Nursery buildings all this for less than £13 million Brent  will not fully disclose the lower price. THIS DID NOT GO TO TENDER !!!

HPCC in association with successor's BPCC Steering Group and S.C. Trust (HPCC) Ltd the land.

An application to the Land Registry to restrict Brent Council, to stop the Sale of Bridge Park was made in August 2017, through our lawyers.

Brent Council have been given an extension of 30 days to file their documents to challenge this restriction.

***** WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT *****

Our community needs a lot more than a Gym & Swimming Pool.

We will build an iconic Centre of Excellence  for The Community by The Community. Addressing our Educational, Social and Commercial needs. And most of all it will be self funded and sustained.

A land mark building upon which we can take pride in.

Come and get involved - Sign the petition against Brent Council's plans

WE NEED  our community building to be kept in the hands of the COMMUNITY in PERPETUITY!!

Help us to raise the much needed funds for the legal challenge to halt the sale of Bridge Park.

WE NEED TO FIRST RAISE THE INITIAL £10,000 OF THE £25,000 FOR OUR LEGAL DEPOSIT, TO FIGHT OUR CASE IN THE HIGH COURT, LONDON.

Email:    info@bridgeparkcomplex.com
Details of BPCC's vision can be seen on their website HERE  

The officers' report to the Brent Executive in June 2013 stated:

Our officers have carried out a new Equality Analysis. There are a number of important conclusions. The first is that Bridge Park has been important in serving an important part of Brent’s Afro-Caribbean community. Removing the sports centre would strongly negatively impact on this group. The area has one of the strongest increase in under 5’s in the whole of Brent. Over 88,000 of the 447,000 people within a three mile catchment of the centre are under 16 years of age (20% compared with a borough average of 16%). The starter business units that would not be replaced do have a high proportion of people from Afro-caribbean background.