Brent Cabinet to close Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre on July 31st, ahead of listing decision

 

Blue marker GMH site: proposed hotel and housing Yellow marker: current Leisure Centre, proposed new centre  will be further south with Adult Learning Centre behind it

 

The twin unisys buildings
 

Artists' impression of the new leisure centre 

Brent Cabinet will be asked at the next cabinet meeting to rubber stamp the closure of Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre. This comes shortly after their eviction of a nursery from the site at short notice, as they clear the site for redevelopment.

The Leisure Centre could have stayed open for longer before the builders moved in,  but officers reject that option  because it is running at a loss and the state of the building would incur maintenance expenses.

 The closure date comes a month ahead of when the decision of the Secretary of State on the community bid to give the building listed status is expected/

Officers explain:

A plaque on the current Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre marks the achievements of the late Leonard Johnson, community activist and Chair of Harlesden Peoples Community Council, in creating this space. This will be retained and included in the new facility. The council will work with the community to ensure that this history is commemorated in the new development.

Harlesden People’s Community Council have commenced a Save Bridge Park Campaign and submitted listing applications to Historic England to place Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre and Technology House on the National Heritage List for England. The developer, Stonebridge Redevelopment Estate Development (SRED has also submitted Certificate of Immunity (CoI) from listed status for the same buildings and their Unisys site.

Historic England will consider the applications and compile a report for the consideration of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. It is anticipated that a decision on the CoI and listing applications will be made in the summer 2025.

The main purpose of listing Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre and Technology House is to protect the buildings and their surroundings from changes which materially alter the buildings or their setting. Once a building is listed, listed building consent may be needed, in addition to any potential need for planning permission, for works and alterations to the buildings, and breaches of the listed building regime are subject to criminal penalties and enforcement action.

So, depending on the decisions of Historic England and the Secretary of State, it may not all be plain sailing.

Another issue is the viability of the project with General Mediterranean Holding, the international parent company, controlled by the Auchi family, expecting a return on their investment. 'Viability' raises its head, especially as the land sale to GMH is expected to  fund the new leisure centre that Brent Council will build.

The Cabinet Report notes a proposal to double the number of homes on the site from 500 to 1,000. The GMH website says it will include affordable homes but stand by for a revision of that:

 

Conditional Land Sale Agreement

In June 2017, the Cabinet approved a Conditional Land Sale Agreement (CLSA) with GMH and to complete the CLSA, the following conditions need to be achieved:

• Planning: For the developer to achieve outline Planning Consent for the Bridge Park Masterplan

• Financial Viability: For the developer to achieve a profit and for Brent to fund the capital construction of a new leisure centre from the land sale proceeds.

• Vacant Possession: For Brent to acquire the Car Breakers Yard, either via private treaty purchase or CPO proceedings. It should be noted that the Council purchased the Car Breakers Yard in February 2019 via private treaty purchase.

At the signing of the CLSA, the Council and GMH envisaged the delivery of a Bridge Park Masterplan, which comprised a new hotel, a modern leisure centre and approximately 500 new homes.

 In February 2019, and following public consultation, Cabinet approved proposals to optimise the development potential of the site by enhancing the leisure provision, incorporating additional community facilities, enterprise space and supported living accommodation.

Given that the new leisure provision is to be funded from the sale proceeds, GMH sought to optimise the quantum of housing that can be delivered on their part of the development site. The change to the CLSA would have provided “at least 500 apartments/townhouses.” Since the agreed change, the council and GMH have been working to maximise the site even further and the current proposals is to include:

·    Approximately 1,000 homes to meet the needs of Brent’s growing population

·      Modern flexible community facilities

·      A better environment and public realm

·      A new permanent home for Brent Start, the council’s adult education service

·      Enhanced leisure provision

·      A hotel with a restaurant.

An Equality Assessment demonstrates the impact of closure on current users and the local community:

Sport England’s Active Lives survey identifies a number of target groups which are underrepresented in terms of participation in sport and physical activity. The nationally identified under-represented groups are young people, women and girls, people with disabilities, over 45s and black and minority ethnic groups.

Analysis of the available data in relation to the impact on the different protected characteristic groups shows that closing the Centre may have a negative impact on Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups as a greater proportion of users are from the broad black group – Black Somali, Black Caribbean and Black African. Closing the centre may also have a negative impact on people with disabilities, as there is a targeted session for young people on a Saturday.

There may be a negative impact on the older population as they may find it more difficult to travel to alternative provision.

 Closing the centre could have a negative impact on the five faith groups who hire the Centre on a regular basis for a total of 12 hours per week. Attendance across the 5 groups varies between 217 and 339 per week.

 I estimate that if the development goes ahead, based on the timetable above the new leisure centre is unlike to open before 2028/29 at the earliest. That means unavailability for possibly 4 years or more.

Have no fear, Brent Council suggests alternatives, albeit likely to be more expensive than Bridge Park:

Whilst closure of the Centre will result in the temporary loss of this leisure service and of spaces that can be hired, alternative spaces exist nearby. These include Willesden Sports Centre, Vale Farm Sports Centre, Wembley Leisure Centre, Moberly Sports Centre, various community facilities, schools, faith facilities and private gyms. These alternative facilities are well served by public transport from the Stonebridge area.

And if you have little money:

Brent Council Public Health have a wide range of opportunities for residents to be physically active with over 70 free sessions running each week. These include Walking for Health sessions at six of our parks, instructor led sessions at 20 outdoor gyms, six weekly sessions with Sport in Mind to support mental wellbeing, Our Parks sessions in Brent parks and libraries, Steady and Stable falls prevention class for those over 50 years, Couch to 5k, parkrun, community based sessions such as Zumba and Bollywood dancing and sessions for vulnerable residents.

 The Cabinet report offers recognition of the contribution of the Black community in the new building:

The council also acknowledges that Bridge Park has played an important role in the Stonebridge community for many years. Bridge Park is an important chapter in Black British history and the community’s achievements in creating this space in the 1980’s to empower local black residents. The council recognises the importance of working with the community to ensure this history is commemorated within the new facilities. We will work closely with the Libraries, Arts and Heritage Team to explore how best to recognise the legacy and contribution that Bridge Park had in Black British History. For example, working with local groups, organisations and individuals, this might be a photo exhibition showing the development of the community centre from a bus garage through to today and a mural on the hoardings of the development site to reflect the history.

The closure will mean loss of jobs for some at least of the Bridge Park employees.

The Cabinet report notes:

There are 11 permanent employees (seven full time and four part time) and six group exercise instructors. These staff are at risk of redundancy. There will be some redundancy costs depending on the number of staff that are not redeployed. The maximum cost for redundancies will be £90k based on calculations provided by Human Resources colleagues in May 2025. There will also be Pension Strain costs of £88k for two members of staff for early release of pension.

Just a word about the companies involved. As mentioned above, General Mediterranean Holdings is an international company controlled by the Auchi family. 

Stonebridge Real Estate Development is a UK subsidiary. Mohammad Al-Miqdadi  listed on January 1st 2025 as 'a person with significant control' of SRED: These are the latest accounts  (2023) I can find:

 

Mohammed Al-Miqdadi is also a board member of the Egyptian-British Chamber of Commerce and director of Tucan Investments and Kenton Holdings Ltd.

 Brent Council provides a comparison of the offer at the current lesiure centre and the proposed new facilities:

 With new adult provision at the site, the issue of 1 Morland Gardens (Altamira) and its preservation, is an issue that has been much discussed on this blog.

The Altamira Villa, Stonebridge (Picture: Willesden Local History Society) 

Officers note:

For Morland Gardens, there was also a petition requesting that the locally listed Altamira Building should not be demolished as part of development plans for the site. 251 people had signed the petition.

 A decision on the demolition or retention of this building will be subject to a future Cabinet report after the necessary design, site investigation works and viability assessments are undertaken. 

Proposals would also be subject to a planning application which would also consider the appropriate planning and heritage considerations.

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main report Financial Status Checks (4.6) states

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

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

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

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

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

The report goes on (5.6)

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

The consultant's report has not been published.

Persuaded?