FULL REPORT - Day 4: Judge warns Bridge Park Counsel over 'difficulties' in his case. Kathleen Fraser Jackson speaks about the black community's pride in the project

Judge Michael Green QC, at the end of today's hearing warned Mr Cottle, Counsel for Leonard Johnson and Bridge Park, that he would face difficulties in running his case after representations from Ms Holland, Brent Council's Counsel and Cottle's earlier warning that he might wish to amend the basis of the defendant's case.

The judge said there were issues over inconsistencies in the case, confusion over the various entities referred to and the establishment of a case for the defendant's interest in the land.  Cottle was facing considerable dificulties and he, as the judge, would need a lot of persuasion.

He told Cottle he needed to work out what his case is. Cottle said that there had been inconsistencies there from the beginning and the judge responded that if he thought that he should have ironed them out.

Judge Green warned Cottle that if he applied for amendments he might refuse them if he felt they were wholly misconceived.

The first witness was yet another former Brent Chief Executive. Lord Bichard went on to head the Benefits Agency, was a non-Executive Director of the National Audit Office, chaired an inquiry into the Soham murders and was most recently in the news for advocating a form of compulsory voluntary service for pensioners to reduce their 'burden on the state'.

Bichard said that the purchase of the bus depot site at Stonebridge had been an achievement and the HPCC was an important part of that achievement.  The outcome may have been different if they were not involved.  It was always clear that the community were involved in the development and management of the project and the DoE and GLC wanted to provide funding for a project on Stonebridge.

The project was for the community and not for a particular group.  He agreed that he had a good relationship with Leonard Johnson, Merle Amory and others.

Bichard said his memory was less precise because this was 38 years ago but there was a concern after the Brixton riots and many felt that Brent was vulnerable to a similar situation. There was no question that Harlesen Peoples Community Cooperative played a very positive role. He recalled his first meeting was at the bus depot with members of the community. In the Summer of 1981 there was an important meeting with Johnson and others and he returned to the council to speak about a possoble project at the garage.

At a meeting at the council on 13th October 1981 with HPCC representatives Chief Inpsecor Carey supported HPCC efforts to create a better life in Stonebridge and its campaign to purchase the garage.

There has been unanimous support at the highest level and London Transport was asked not to dispose of the depot and hold off the sale. A lead officer worked on a feasibility study involving the council and the community. Sir George Young MP visited the Hill Top Club and had a good relationship with Johnson. He was keen to see the project succeed.

Bichard said that the long-term aim was for the project to be self-financing and an aspiration some time in the future  for HPCC to acquire the freehold. It was not the main issues at the time though a commendable aspiration.


HPCC had members on the Bus Station Steering Group along with other members of the community. The council wanted community ownership of the initiative and greater community involvement in the leisure centre than was normal.

Bichard agreed that Johnson played a key role and there was high level support.  Urban Aid was paid to the council not to the project. The council was behind the project and acted as guarantor. The council was not merely a 'postman' for the project. The government would not have given money directly to a new project.

Counsel suggested that the community understood that Urban Aid was for the purchase of the depot which later they might acquire. Bichard said that Johnson in particular had a sophisticated understanding of the negotiations but couldn't say what was in his mind.

There was a late separate Industrial and Commercial Urban Aid application that Bichard said was for  of setting up an IT facility, not acquisition of the site itself, but for a two storey building for workshops.

Questioned further Bichard said that the community co-operative would have been able to apply for charitable status to achieve a reduction in rates and Counsel challenged whther the council had looked into that.

Bichard said he had no recollection of any discussion on an option to buy the freehold. He was just an officer who produced reports. It was not his role to persuade the council to do anything.  The aspiration to buy the freehold was commendable but there had been no conversations about that and it never happened because the project never became sustainable. If the project became self-financing that could be discussed but that was different from saying that there was an option to buy. He said there wasn't a shared understanding that it would be bought by the project.

Counsel quoted a GLC report that he thought suggested that they understood the purchase of the freehold was the co-operatives' long term aim. Bichard said it was not his report and he couldn't remember seeing it but there was no difference in his view. The report doesn't say the aim was shared by the council.  Counsel quoted Bichard's successor Charles Wood as saying that the council had no objection in principle to acquisition if the project was sustainable in the long term and certain conditions met. Counsel suggested that the community understood the long-term aims was to purchase.  Bichard replied that it was not raised at the time as a significant item.

Counsel asked Bichard to look at the Deeds. Bichard could not remember seeing it but agreed that the facilities outlined were what was intended when they bought the property for the community project. The money was for Brent to acquire the land so that the community could manage the  project on the site.

Counsel quoted a report from the Property Board of the GLC that interest had been expressed by other organisation to acquire the bus depot. Bichard said he was aware  but the council argued for sale to them because of the nature of the project and the sensitivity of the area.  There was some juggling between different organisations. HPCC was an important part of the community but not the only part of the community.

Bichard said the Goverment, GLC and Brussels would have expected the council to own the property. Counsel suggested that Johnson didn't know that.  Bichard said he would be surpised if Johnson was not aware that they would have reservations about putting money into an untried group.

A 1984 report by a Mr Cowley claimed the DoE had funding reservations.  HPCC compiled a report aimed at addressing Cowley's concerns and Brent Council responded to the DoE showing that they supported the project. The visit by Prince Charles to open the project was an important statement of support.

The Judge asked Lord Bichard how the project was to become self-financing. Bichard said there would be income from tenants of the building and the cafe and bar would generate income. There was a question of whether that would be sufficient to buy the site. In order to get a mortgage the bank would have to be satisfied that there was enough income to maintain payments. The council was committed to the project and would consider subsidising to some degree or other.

When the court resumed after lunch there was a discussion involving both Counsels about possible amendments changing  the grounds of the Bridge Park case over the basis of their interest in the land. Counsel for Bridge Park said he wanted to see how the case went before making a commitment. The Judge drily told Brent Council's Counsel that she now knew what the case wasn't but not what it is. They decided to carry on with the next witness.

Kathleen Fraser Jackson had been on the steering group of the project before becoming a councillor in 1988 and became a director of the Stonebridge Bus Depot Steering Group Limited.  She  was a member of most committees on the council and Chair of Youth and Community.  She was concerned about the community gaining tax payer funding and then losing it. She said the whole community was involved in the acquisition of the site and her heart was involved in the project.

Although not directly involved in the acquisition of the land everyone knew about it from the newspapers. She was inspired by the group. She responded to a remark by Brent Council's Counsel assertively saying that she understood the paper work, She'd had unduction when she joined the Board so she could contribute properly and the same with council committees.

She said it was the HPCC that acquired the property - the council came in as guarantor as HPCC had not track record.  The council had come in to give it a sense of order. She was a volunteer with the steering group at the time.  They had acquired the land and needed to get the community behind them to build the compex.

Asked about as 1982 legal document that showed ownership of the asset she said she distinctly remembered being told about how it was worded and that HPCC were worried.  She didn't know then but realised now, why they were worried.

When Counsel asked Fraser Jackson how she was involved in 1982 she replied that first she was a volunteer for HPCC in the community link department, then a Director, before being nominated by the council.  She said she had not been involved in the acquisition of the land and asked Counsel, 'Are you getting me confused with someone else?'

She said that Brent Council wanted a lease and HPCC felt that the council was going to take the asset 'away from them, short change or diddle them out of the land.'  There was always that threat they wanted to take it away and do something else with it.  It had happened at Central Middlesex Hospital when they sold the land off.

Counsel commented, 'You couldn't seriously think that HPCC after acquisition would want to sell it?' Fraser Jackson replied that they wouldn't want to as they wanted to run the project.  It would be self-sufficient and there for the future to train up young people to get proper jobs.

She continued that in her mind the land was virtually given to HPCC as it was below markert price. Civil unrest was down to the community not owning anything.  Counsel suggsted that it was bought for the community, not HPCC, not part of the community.

Fired up,  Fraser Jackson told Counsel, 'If that's your argument, that's really sad as a lot of people put  a lot into it. It's not worth looking at because you're saying we're not worth it. We read about it in news reports. What HPCC did was newsworthy - you watched the news. It was an achievement - there weren't many black people on the news at the time.'

The GLC had put money into the land for the HPCC project. The GLC funded a mini-bus on a neighbouring estate - we thought it was our own. There was always the caveat that if the organisation stopped  existing ownership would revert to the funder. Same for Bridge Park, if the project stopped existing, money would have to go back to the DoE and GLC.  There was always this matter of whether we could completely trust the council.

When the GLC gave money to HPCC it was in the news.  At the time it was a big thing for black people of my age - in the news for doing something good and constructive!

Counsel put it to Fraser Jackson that it was the project you wanted to own - not the land.  She responded with the example of the Learie Constantine Centre that was always held up as somewhere black people ran. She thought Bridge Park would be the same: sports hall (national standard), training, social centre, business centre - all the opportunities people need.  Hundreds came and volunteered.  We had to get money to build the structure, we were told it would last 120 years.

Counsel asked if Fraser Jackson had read the consultation document about the council's development proposal.  She replied that it only went to Stonebridge, if it had gone wider, she hadn't seen it. Asked what she thought it proposed she replied, 'If it's anything like Chalkhill I wouldn't think much of it. We had three community centes, now only one that we have to pay for.'

The Judge asked Fraser Jackson if she had mistrusted the council's intentions, had she raised these concerns when she became a councillor. She replied that she had done initially as she didnt know why there was mistrust. I was almost told, 'Don't worry about the wording. That's the way reports are written. I was assured that the council had the community's interests at heart.'

112 years on – the Olympic marathon race through Wembley, 1908

 A guest blog by Philip Grant on the anniversary of the Wembley Marathon

The afternoon of Friday 24 July 1908 was hot and sunny, not the best of conditions for running 26 miles from Windsor Castle to the White City. But that was what 56 athletes from 16 different nations set out to do, at 2.33pm, for the honour of being the Olympic marathon champion.

  A map of the Olympic marathon course, from "The Times", July 1908. (Source: British Newspaper Library)

More than a century later, Joe Neanor, a keen runner, came across a short piece of film from 1908, showing a scene of the Olympic marathon race actually shot on the route, and not at the finish in the stadium. Being curious, he ran the whole 1908 course (in stages) to discover where the film was taken. When he had found the spot, he put together this video, and loaded it onto the internet:

After putting his video on YouTube, Joe sent Wembley History Society a link to it – watch his short film, and you will understand why! It is certainly the oldest piece of film that I am aware of showing Wembley, and the people who lived here in Edwardian times. The scene shown is at the western end of Wembley High Road, near the top of Ealing Road.

Joe was amazed at the number of people watching as the race went by. On the day after the race, “The Times” had said:

“… over all the last part of the course, when one got on to tram-lines and between rows of houses, the spectators were packed as tightly as possible, and then only leaving a part of the road open, but enough to ensure no discomfort to the competitors.‟

One reason for the crowds was probably because tickets to watch the Games in the stadium were expensive. As the Olympic marathon race was along public roads, people could watch it for free. There was no radio or television in 1908, but plenty of coverage of the events in the newspapers, which most people could afford (the “Daily Mirror” only cost a halfpenny then!). The route of the race, and expected times that the runners would arrive, had been well publicised.

The Italian "winner" of the marathon, and crowd of spectators in Harlesden. (Brent Archives image 1034)

There is some confusion over the name of the Italian runner, seen in the video, who was ‘First in the Stadium’. I have always referred to him as Pietro Dorando, which is what the newspapers at the time called him, but the official Olympic Games records have him as Dorando Pietri. I suspect that the (all British) officials at the 1908 Games may have got his first and surnames the wrong way round!

The race at the 1908 Olympic Games was the one which really made the marathon event famous worldwide, especially because of its dramatic finish. If you don’t know the story, or want to discover more about the 1908 Olympic marathon race, details are available in the Brent Archives online local history collection (just click on the “link”).

Solidarity vigil against racist attacks on Dawn Butler - Saturday, Noon, Willesden Green Library

Day 3- Brent Council v Bridge Park

Much of today's cross-examination of witnesses from the Brent Council of the 1980s appeared inconclusive. Counsel for Bridge Park campaign seemed to shift the grounds on which they based their claim for an interest in the site, which would mean Brent Council could not dispose of it without further neogtoiation.

Initially the case appeared to be that the monies raised by the steering group and succeeding organisation meant that they had an interest as those funds contributed to the acquisition of the land at the former bus depot.  Latterly the argument seemed to be that an option to buy out Brent Council's share of the freehold gave them an interest.

At the end of today's hearing Counsel for Brent Council and the Judge sought clarity on the grounds on which the case was being argued by Bridge Park's Counsel. They will return to the issue tomorrow morning.

The parade of ex-Brent Council officers began with Meredith Thomson, Solicitor, who could not say whether Brent Council was amenable to a clause in the lease on Bridge Park giving the Steering Group/Harlesden Peoples Community Cooperative (HPCC)  an option to buy out Brent's share of the freehold of the site.  Thomson said she did not deal with HPCC, just the limited company that was wound up. The Steering Group was not the the body that would hold the asset.

Next up was George Benham, Director of Education at the time, and later CEO.  He confirmed that he had invited businesses to get involved in Bridge Park and had organised training sessions for headteachers there as well as getting involved in Itec. He recognised the strength of community involvement and said he was very much aware of the emotional attachment the community had to Bridge Park.

Charles Wood, another ex-CEO in Brent, spoke about Brent Council's concern that funds were properly accounted for. Brent Council funded Bridge Park at £350k a year, had to finance an over-draft of £130k, and rates were waived. A financial adviser was put in to assist them.  Counsel for Bridge Park said that a Deloittes report recommended changes that were not implemented by the council.  They had recommended the granting of a long lease at Bridge Park to ensure stability. Wood argued that it was the organisation that did not implement the recommendations but the council had followed the recommendation to continue to fund the project.

Counsel said that Deloittes had recommended funding beyond 1982. Wood responded that the council could not accept that as the situation had deteriorated and confidence reduced. The situation regarding the finances (as set out above) could not be allowed to continue. The organisation had not met recommendations regarding wider community involvement, better financial controls and provision of a range of services.  By that time the Deloittes recommendation was out of date.

Wood accepted that Brent Council had no objection in principle to HPCC having a long term aim of buying out the council's share of the freehold but given financial constraints of the time that was something for the future.   They never came back to it as far as Wood could recollect. Counsel put it to Wood that Leonard Johnson had refused to sign the lease because it did not contain a buy-out option. Wood said that there may have been other reasons for him not to sign.

Counsel then asked Wood about a 1992 report about the implications of discontinuation of the project and whether the council would have a £700k liability to pay funds back to the London Residuary Body (LRB) responsible for the GLC assets after abolition. Wood couldn't recall what was said at the time and what legal advice had been given but it was a fair point that the LRB would not have hesitated to get the money back.  The GLC had set out the covenant that this was council land to be managed on behalf of the community.

Wood said that the council wanted the project to be community led and community run, but not by the group currently running it. It was not ending the use of the centre.  He 'imagined' that the council stance was not breaking the covenant but continuing  the work with a different group.

Wood stated that he had worked for Brent for 9 years from 1986 and in that time no one from the group or community had raised the matter of their right to purchase the freehold.  If there had been a prior commitment it would have come back to him. He confirmed that there had been no discussion of the terms of a buy-out and an option of a buy-out only being included in the lease for a new group - 'not Mr Johnson's.' Wood said this was not what was important at the time.

The main issue was the need for the  involvement of the wider community and the group's determination to keep  control. When CEO he had seen that this was a fantastic group of young people and the council, which had reputational problems, was a great supporter of the project.  In 1982 there was a desire to support the setting up of local businesses at the centre and everyone shared the enthusiasm.  The Sports Council, London Marathon, private funding and fund-raising all contributed.

Counsel suggested that HPCC had played a 'huge role' in fundraising. Wood responded that HPCC and Brent Council had both played an important role - 'the two together.' Leonard Johnson was very charismatic. Almost as an aside, Wood stated that the organisation could over-estimate its impact and that Johnson's claim that there had been a rival offer for the bus depot of £3m was wrong -'there wasn't an offer.' Wood agreed that the project would not have happened without HPCC's actions, their credibility at the time and the support they had.

Counsel, quoting a letter sent by Head of Housing, Mr McQueen, to the Housing Action Trust (HAT) on Stonebridge, said that it conveyed a recognition that Bridge Park belonged to the community and not to Brent Council. Charles Wood responded that the council had made it clear that it was important that Bridge Park remained independent, was run by a wider group and provided services.

There was a further exchange about an internal audit report on Bridge Park. Wood said that it did what auditors do, investigate and report their findings. Counsel maintained that the findings were untested and therefore unfair.

Asked by Counsel about his not arranging a meeting with Mr Johnso when he visited Bridge Park. Wood said he had gone there with a  community worker and had been dismayed by the lack of activity there. He hadn't planned to visit Mr Johnson.

Wood reiterated that the withdrawal of the grant had been based on a failure to involve the wider community, failure to improve financial management and failure to provide the intended services.  As non-political CEO he had made the recommendation but the decision was a political one made by the council committee. Counsel suggsted that they would not have made that decision if they knew they had a potential liability to pay £700m to the GLC.

The Judge pointed out that the liability would depend on whether a project continued to be run from the premises.

There was then an exchange between the Judge and both Counsel. The Judge said that to be honest he was finding it hard to follow where the Bridge Park Counsel was going with his case.  Counsel pointed out that there was a difference between purchasing the freehold and getting the option to buy the freehold.  Counsel for Brent Council said  that public funding was at the heart of the matter and in law the defendants were not able to have an interest in the land.

That discussion will continue tomorrow before Brent Council Counsel cross-examines.

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.

Missing public documents leads to deferral of Claremont School's artificial sports pitch application

Readers will know I have quite frequently drawn attention to links to planning documents on the Brent Council website that do not work and documents that seem to disappear.

Now tonight's consideration of Claremont School's application for a floodlit articicial grass sports pitch with flood lights etc has had to be deferred due to supporting documents not being available on the public website.

The application follows the defeat of an application for a commercial installation at Kingsbury High School and is ahead of one that is due to come from Queens Park Community School.

Many school students submitted comments in favour of Claremont's application while local residents submitted objections on grounds of light and noise pollution and traffic problems.

The meeting is going ahead at 6pm with several other applications beginning  and can be viewed on-line:

HERE

Day 1: Brent Council v Bridge Park -Technical problems force early adjournment

The first full day hearing of Brent Council vs Leonard Johnson (representing Bridge Park campaigners) was beset by technical problems. There was a small attendance of barristers etc and a witness in the socially distanced  court; but many others, including the Kilburn Times and Wembley Matters, Muhammed Butt, Margaret McLellan, Carolyn Downs and other Brent officers plus Bridge Park supporters, were observing on Skype.

Unfortunately the sound was very poor, breaking up and fading in and out, and the physically present witness, Ms Henry's responses to the Bridge Park Counsel's questions could not be heard at all.

To misquote, surely justice must be heard to be done?

The day started with Brent Council's Counsel questioning the status of the Bridge Park campaigners, pointing out the various entities:  Bridge Park Community Council,  Harlesden Peoples Community Council, Stonebridge Community Trust and made the case that as an unincoporated association they had no status to make a claim on the property.

She also questioned the status of Leonard Johnson claiming that he had stated he was no longer a Trustee of the HPCC, although it was he who had launched the original campaign in 1981 and was named as defendant today.

Michael Green QC, who is hearing the case,  said that if the defendants had a potential beneficial interest in the land it would be unfortunate if it was ruled out on a technicality.

Brent Council submitted that the acquisition of the property (the former bus depot) and its funding was by them.  Other uses had been considered and council documents referred to the site as a 'property that formed a substantial asset' for them.  Counsel for Leonard Johnson pointed out that acquisition of a freehold can be subject to a pre-acquisition agreement that would name it as a community resource.

Brent Council Counsel claimed that Bridge Park was in disrepair, expensive to run and would cost £4m to maintain over the next 5 years.

Counsel for Johnson claimed that Brent Council was moving forward with its plans without taking into account its obligations to the charitable purposes for which the HPCC was set up. He said the context of the original acquisition of the land should be taken into account.  The original campaign sought to set up a community resource that would enable Stonebridge to avert the riots that had engulfed Brixton and Toxteth in 1981.  Brent Council would acquire for the Steering Group that would then be incorporated.  There was an option for them to acquire the freeehold of the site but they could not afford the £1m plus needed.  The purchase had been funded from various sources with the Council only paying half.

We could not hear the responses of a witness, Brent Council solicitor Marsha Henry, who was asked about the original purchase.  She was physically in court and inaudible, but the next witness, Thomas Bryson, Leader of Brent Council at the time, could be heard loud and clear over Skype.

He said there had been a fear of riots in Stonebridge in Spring 1981 and the council had flooded the area with community workers supported by Leonard Johnson, a local youth, and others.  The alternative would have been the riot squad moving in which was something the council did not want.

Leonard Johnson had been in the forefront of setting up the HPCC and  a community campaign to  purchase the bus depot site for a community centre.  The proposal had been supported by the local police ('not those in Whitehall') with whom the council had a good relationship.

The then London Transport Executive had given the Council a deadline for purchase, after which it would go on the open market. The help of Ken Livingston and the late Illtyd Harrington, who were then at the GLC, enabled the council to get a good price.

The Stonebridge Bus Deport Report at the time had been signed by Tom Bryson with Leonard Johnson signing the Forward.  Questioned, Bryson said it was a partnership, neither of them could have done it on their own.

He said that at the time money was tight, Brent Council was unable to fund the purchase from its own resources (they had to impose a 58% rate rise in 1982) and so he 'took my boys' to Brussels to get some funding, as well as asking the government and GLC money.

At this point a recording or telephone conversation interrupted proceedings, drowning out counsel and witness, and the hearing was adjourned until 10am tomorrow morning.

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: