Mutual Aid network in Kilburn comes to the aid of a tree scheduled for removal - and saves it!

Guest post by Dan Judelson

Local councils removing trees agains the wishes of residents is a hot button issue. Sheffield has doubtlessly been the worst example of this  LINK  but here in Brent plans to remove trees saw produced a well organised and eloquent defence of mature trees and opposition to their removal in Furness Road. The result was a commitment from the council to fashion a new approach with removal being a last resort LINK .

So when notices appeared last Friday (24th) on trees at either end of Algernon Road, Kilburn, warning that one was scheduled for removal the following Monday, it became a small scale test of this new policy. The good news is that thanks to local residents quickly raising the alarm, along with fast responses from local Brent councillors and officers alike, the decision has been reversed and the tree saved. How it happened is at least as important as the fact that it did happen.

(Photo courtesy Sophie Capel)

Like many other areas, Kilburn has set up a number of mutual aid groups, at both ward and hyper local street level. While the intention was to support neighbours in need during the lockdown to counter the Covid pandemic, it has of necessity meant that people not necessarily in direct contact with one another before now have the ability to communicate quickly when issues come up.

This is exactly what happened in this case. WhatsApp messages and tweets went out on Friday evening. Emails were sent to local councillors and officers that evening and over the weekend, protesting that the tree was not "dead” as the signs claimed. One councillor, Faduma Hassan, asked for her email address to be circulated so that residents could contact her and she could show the strength of opposition to the plans and contacted the lead member for environment. Others contacted residents in nearby streets - put in touch via the street level groups - who had some experience of dealing with the council over tree preservation. 

Monday morning rolled around and when one of the residents went to talk to the contractors who had arrived, they discovered that the council had indeed changed the work order. The trees at one end were to be pruned and a stay of execution of two weeks place on the tree scheduled for removal. Further good news came the following day, with an email from the council tree officer. Gary Rimmer said they now thought that the tree could be saved and would be pollarded, not removed. He included a welcome apology for the lack of notice too.

So this was a great result, with Brent being pushed to re-examine their plans and change them, in less than 48 hours. 

It would not have happened but for the ability to circulate information so fast, without excellent and timely responses from Councillor Hassan and Gary Rimmer, taking residents concerns seriously - and perhaps being aware of the pressure from previous incidents, thank you Furness Road campaigners and Harlesden Area Action for acting so fast back in November 2019. It’s also worth noting that in that instance too, the local councillor, Jumbo Chan was quick to back residents concerns LINK .

There are two concerns remaining, however. A new housing development, at the other end of Algernon Road is nearing completion. These photos show how many trees were removed to make way for it:

 

(Photos courtesy Stuart Fry)

When the building is completed, Brent needs to be held to its commitment to replace the lost trees with ones on the same spot or, in this case, nearby. Brent needs to acknowledge that replacing a mature tree, wide canopy and all, with a young sapling, is not really replacing anything at all. See LINK . 

Brent declared, rightly, a climate emergency. We need to make sure their actions on this are as serious as their warm words. It may well be that local mutual aid groups, set up to support isolated neighbours needing shopping and having prescriptions filled have a longer term role in the maintenance of local democracy, too.

The Preston Story- Part 2

The second part of a series of four by Chris Coates 

                                                                  

We left the end of Part 1 of the Preston Story in the 18^th century, with the landscape scarcely changing over the previous 500 years. In the early 19^th century, the population grew slowly – in Preston and Uxendon together there were 64 people in 1831 and 105 in 1841. Preston was still very much a rural area, but not a contented one.

Preston and its surrounding area, 1832. (Extract from the Environs of London Map, 1832)

The agricultural depression after the Napoleonic Wars caused problems for both farmers and their labourers. Following the Enclosure Acts 1803 and 1823, the continuing fencing off of common land by large landowners caused problems for tenant farmers. An ‘Anti-Inclosure Association’ distributed manifestos throughout Harrow Parish and there was a petition to Parliament in 1802 and fence breaking incidents locally in 1810. In 1828, when there was a further outbreak of violence in the area, Harrow’s only fire engine and six crew were called into action at Uxendon as desperate workers burnt haystacks and threatened local landowners. 

Unrest continued and in 1830 local workers were active in the Swing Riots, a widespread protest across South East England, which used arson and machine breaking against the increasing use of agricultural machinery and the subsequent unemployment and lower wages. The Uxbridge yeomanry cavalry and the militia were mobilized to shield London when rioting spread to the Harrow area at the end of November 1830.

Swing rioters (in Kent), 1830. (Image from the internet)

Tenant farmers called for a reduction in rents. Lord Northwick, who held the manor of Harrow with land bordering Preston, accused local farmer Thomas Trollope, the novelist’s father, of conspiracy and had his crops seized. Anthony Trollope described Lord Northwick as 'a cormorant who was eating us up'. Northwick received a threatening ‘Swing Letter’ demanding a reduction of rent and warning that “our emisaris shall and will do their work - you have ground the labouring man too long”. The 1834 Report of the Poor Law Commissioners showed wages of agricultural labourers in Harrow district to be around 10/- per week or £26 per annum “supposing work is available all year round - which for most it is not “.

Despite poor wages, the area continued to attract migrant labour. In 1841, there were 415 migrant haymakers, mainly from Ireland, living in barns and sheds in Harrow. The 1851 census clerk for Preston and Uxendon notes these conditions for in-house migrant workers: “All persons entered as lodgers are those only who occupy generally part of a bed, at the usual charge of 1/6 per week, including washing and attendance, with a seat by the evening fire”. Some seasonal workers settled down in Preston. In 1851, the Irish family occupying Forty Farm cottage had a child born there, and there are Irish and West Country domestic servants elsewhere.

Preston House and tea rooms, 1912. (Brent Archives online image 331)

 

Early in the century, Preston House was built on Preston Hill near four cottages recorded therre in 1817. The census shows Preston House was initially a ‘country residence’ leased to various professional men, including a corn merchant, a surgeon, a cigar importer and a solicitor. Around 1880, Preston House was acquired by George Timms (d. 1899), who turned the grounds into the Preston Tea Gardens.

An advertising card for the Preston Tea Gardens, c.1910. (Brent Archives online image 6864)

The Tea Gardens flourished well into the next century and the building survived until the 1960s when it was demolished for flats. By 1864, the four cottages were replaced by a pair of Victorian villas, now 356-358 Preston Road – the oldest surviving houses in Preston. They must have had a fantastic view over the surrounding countryside, to Harrow-on-the-Hill.

356 and 358 Preston Road. (Image from Google Streetview)

Further down Preston Hill, Hillside Farm was also hosting the 'Rose & Crown' beershop in 1851, run by the farmer’s wife, Sarah Walker, and her daughter. Hillside Farmhouse was also demolished in the 1960s, but Hillside Gardens recalls its location. Lyon Farm remained in the hands of tenant farmers with its profits going to the Harrow School that John Lyon founded [see Part 1]. The Uxendon Manor Estate had sold Preston Farm to the Bocket family some time before 1799 and it was held by various people until last farmed by the Kinch Family, after whom Kinch Grove is named, in the 20^th century. By 1820, the Wealdstone Brook at the bottom of the Hill had a ford and a footbridge, making the route to Kingsbury more accessible.

Farms at Preston in the 1890s. (Extract from a large-scale Ordnance Survey map)

At Uxendon Manor, life had settled down after the tumultuous events of the 16^th and 17^th centuries, with the Page family still owning the farm until 1829 when the land passed to Henry Young (d. 1869), the junior partner of the Page's solicitor - with some suspicion that he had obtained the lands fraudulently!  The original Manor House was demolished and a new farmhouse built just a little further north [now 18-20 Uxendon Hill]. The farm drive led west to a gated entrance lodge. In the 19^th century, this was the only building on Preston Road between Preston House at the top of the hill and Wembley Farm [built around 1805] at the junction with East Lane.

Forty Farm, with the farmer showing off one of his horses, c.1910. (Brent Archives online image 1205)

In 1850, the tenant farmer John Elmore made Uxendon a venue for steeplechases and was well known for its "sensational water jump”, while Forty Farm was famous for horses. By the 1880s, Forty Farm was also known as South Forty Farm because a new farm, North Forty Farm, had been built [now Newland Court on Forty Avenue]. Part of the fields on the southern slopes of the hill behind the farm became Wembley Golf Club in the 1890s – the course stretching up over Barn Hill pond.

I wonder how many golf balls were lost in there!

The Harrow-on-the-Hill cutting, London & Birmingham Railway, 1838. (Image from the internet)

It was the arrival of the railways which started the slow change of the area from countryside to suburbia. The world’s first main line - the London to Birmingham Railway, built by Robert Stephenson and opened 1837, carved its way through Harrow Parish and soon a network of railway lines crossed the district. Horse drawn buses ferried passengers from villages like Preston to Wembley station, known from 1882 as Wembley and Sudbury. The 1881 Census shows several railway workers - railway plate layers, clerks and train drivers – living in cottages along East Lane to what is now North Wembley Station. Some settled, but others moved on as the network grew.

An 1890s map showing how railways were shaping the Preston of today. (Extract from an O.S. map, c.1895)

In 1863, the first Underground railway opened. By the 1870s, it was expanding north-west from Baker Street via Willesden Green to reach Harrow-on-the-Hill in 1880. The construction of the Metropolitan Railway effectively destroyed Forty Green, although South Forty Farm continued into the 20th century. Further changes were underway – following the 1894 Local Government Act, Preston broke its historical connection with Harrow and became part of the newly formed Wembley Urban District. No longer ‘rural’ – at least officially. 

A Metropolitan Railway steam locomotive, early 1900s. (Image from the Wembley History Society Collection)

Towards the end of the century, and especially after the development of the Wembley Park pleasure grounds in the 1890s, the Preston area began to be seen as a pleasant location for other leisure activities. Uxendon became popular with shooting enthusiasts. By 1900, the Lancaster Shooting Club was established there and the celebrated Bond Street gunsmiths Holland & Holland had a shooting ground nearby. An Uxendon Shooting School was set up behind the rebuilt farmhouse, roughly where Alverstone Road is now, and had a 120 ft high tower for hurling targets. It survived until 1932 when the Metropolitan Line extension from Wembley Park to Stanmore cut across the land and housing development started on the site.

Uxendon Shooting Club, c.1910, showing the rebuilt farmhouse. (From the collection of the late Geoffrey Hewlett)

When the Olympic Games were held in London in July 1908, the ground was sufficiently important to be used for Olympic clay pigeon shooting competition. The shooting club, which was a two-mile walk from the nearest station, joined local residents in petitioning the Metropolitan Railway Company to open Preston Road Halt on the opposite side of Preston Road to the current station in May 1908. [A proposal for a station in 1896 was rejected because there were not enough residents]. 

Clay bird shooting competition at Uxendon, 1908 Olympic Games. (From the “Daily Mirror”, 7 July 1908)

The station’s status as a halt meant it was a request stop and initially many trains failed to slow down enough to enable the driver to notice passengers waiting on the platform. Eventually, the booking office clerk was instructed to wave a red flag from the platform when passengers turned up.

Houses on Preston Road, c.1920 [note the unmade road and gas street lamp!]. (Brent Archives online image 329)

Preston Road Halt triggered the first commuter development in the district. Several large Edwardian-style houses [a few of which survive] were built along Preston Road opposite the Avenue from 1910 to 1912, and the Harrow Golf Club opened just south of the station in 1912. The photograph below shows a view across what would become the Preston Park estate. The Clubhouse was demolished during the development of Grasmere Avenue in the 1930s.

Harrow Golf Club, Preston Road, early 1920s. (Brent Archives online image 8947)

The absence of a full-time station and the purchase of unused fields for staff sports clubs by companies like Debenhams and Selfridges, kept Preston as a rural area into the early 20^th century. Preston Road was still a twisting country lane and the Wealdstone Brook could be described as ‘one of the most perfect little streams anywhere, abounding in dace and roach’. 

"Pretty Preston Road" - postcard of a rural scene from the early 1900s. (Brent Archives online image 328)

However, in 1915, an employee at the Metropolitan Railway Company coined the name “Metroland” – and things started to change – which we will look at in Part 3, next weekend.

Chris Coates.

Cautious limited re-opening of four Brent libraries. Face covering and Test & Trace details required

From Brent Council

At the beginning of July, Brent Council began a phased reopening of library, arts and heritage services to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for staff, residents and visitors returning to their local libraries.

Wembley Library and The Library at Willesden Green were the first to reopen. Ealing Road Library and Kilburn Library will reopen on Monday 3 August. The opening hours will be 10.30am - 2.30pm.
We are currently working hard to make Kingsbury Library and Harlesden Library Plus Covid-secure, and expect both to reopen during August.

Brent Council request contact details for all library visitors to support the NHS' Test and Trace' programme. Adult visitors must also wear a face covering. This is mandatory unless you are in an exempt group and you may be asked to leave if you refuse to fill to complete the Test and Trace or wear a face covering.

Customers will be able to borrow and return books and DVDs and reserve computers, however there will a limit on the number of people able to enter the libraries at any one time.

A number of services including Wi-Fi, newspapers and journals, and study facilities will not be available for now, but this will be reviewed regularly. The Willesden Gallery and Brent Museum and Archives will also remain closed for the time being.

Residents are encouraged to continue using the e-Library to access thousands of e-books, e-magazines, newspapers and other digital resources from the comfort of their own home, by visiting www.brent.gov.uk/elibrary.

Brent Museum and Archives also has exhibitions, school resources and access to the museum, archive and photography library online for everyone to enjoy.

To support library users during this time, all items currently out on loan have been automatically renewed until Tuesday 1 September and the Brent libraries phone 020 8937 3400 and email service libraries@brent.gov.uk will be available Monday to Friday from 10am-5pm if customers need any help with their account details or accessing the e-library.

Brent’s Home Library Service will be restarting, delivering books and magazines to vulnerable residents, using our strong team of local volunteers. If you are unable to leave your home and would like to know more about this service please contact the library service.

Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure, Councillor Hirani said:

The reopening of Wembley Library, The Library at Willesden Green, Ealing Road Library and Kilburn Library is a really positive step, however we still need to be cautious as COVID-19 has not gone away.

That’s why these four libraries will be open on a very limited basis at first with safety measures in place, so we can make sure we’re taking every step to protect staff and visitors.

Residents can access the e-library at the click of a button so I’d urge people to continue using this if they can. If you do choose to visit the library, please make sure you maintain social distancing at all times and follow the instructions of the library staff.

As part of the phased reopening of the libraries service, these libraries will be the first to open with plans to open the rest when it’s safe to do so.

Judgment in Brent Council v Bridge Park case not expected until September. HPCC blow when constitution not found

After hearing closing submissions from the Counsels for Brent Council and Leonard Johnson the Judge, Michael Green QC,  said he was unlikely to deliver his Judgment before September.  He said that he would decide on a legal basis if the defendants had a beneficial interest in the Bridge Park site but said that in itself that would not resolve the issues between the parties.  He said that the parties needed to talk together: 'Everyone needs to move on.'

The issue of whether HPCC had a constitution in its early days remained unresolved today when Mr Cottle admitted to the Judge that a search yesterday had failed to come up with a copy. They had found a copy of a draft working ducment for the Bus Garage Steering Group, a later organisation that included HPCC members.

The constitution was vital to establishing the status of HPCC and thus its claim for an interest in the land which is the nub of the case.

The Judge told Mr Cottle that if there was a document he needed to know. He said, 'Perhaps the other side would have wanted to ask  Mr Johnson and Mr Anderson questions about it.' The Judge said the document needed to be located and handed over to the Court. It was amazing that the council had not insisted on a constitution befor handing money over to HPCC.

The two sides in the dispute had sent the Judge  more than 100 pages of written closing submissions which enabled proceedings to take less time than expected.  It did mean for those observing the case remotely exchanges were harder to follow today with frequent references to the submissions, ancillary documents and legal precedents.

Mr Cottle asked to submit amendments to the Bridge Park case one of which related to Mr Leonard Johnson's status.  Cottle said this would be signed tomorrow and the Judge asked that it be signed and a photograph of it sent to him.

The submissions related to the issues that have already been reported on here and included the conflict between the parties on the status of HPCC and its charitable purpose and aims; whether HPCC could be said to have an interest  in the land and the status of 'an aspiration' to buy the lease; who actually owned the project, the implications of the Covenant required by the GLC and its implications for future use of the land and whether it was indented for charitable purposes,; the role of Brent Council in the early stages of the project and the implications of the different funding streams in terms of ownership and any subsequent breaches of conditions; whether there was a conditional trust at the commencement of the project and many more complex issues accompaned by references to rulings in previous cases and legislation one side or the other thought was relevant.

Brent Council was anxious to prevent any future action by the defendant in terms of a restriction on the land arising from the claim and said that their development project was 'respectful of the Bridge Park legacy.'

Stonebridge 1981: 'Don't burn it down - let's build!' The Brent Council v Leonard Johnson hearing

The young campaigners at the disused Stonebridge bus garage

Paul Anderson, who worked with Leonard Johnson from the beginning of the project in 1981, was cross-examine don his witness statement by Ms Holland, Brent Council's Counsel.

He said he had attended a youth club on Stonebridge which put on lots of activities against the background of agitation and riots elsewhere in the country.

Anderson said that HPCC did have a written constitution, he had seen it and many activities were borne out of that constitution. 'We were young 20-22, and talented and worked with the CDA (Co-operative Development Agency). We couldn't have been part of Itec if we didn’t have a constitution.'

He could not give the exact date of the constitution but said it was produced around 1981-8.

Holland asked if it could have been the Steering Group constitution he was remembering. Anderson said, no, HPCC still had their own constitution. They had a General Meeting to elect people and had to put something together to say how they would operate. The constitution developed, 'We were active in stopping people destroying our community. We did it our way. Alice Holt (CDA) would have known what HPCC stood for, we were part of the Steering Group. We had so many activities that we had to have rules and regulations - we did it our way. We knew we had to have some sort of governance to the best of our understanding. As we developed, we got all sorts of professionals coming in to help is.'

He added, 'I'm passionate about this. It's an asset and they're trying to take it away.'

The Judge asked if there was any document that covered aims and objectives, financial controls, voting etc.

Paul Anderson said they did. They had to have a quorum and voted for chair, treasurer.  The contributed what they could. HPCC was on a learning curve - he was there.

Anderson was asked if he had the constitution with him. He said he hadn't brought it. He would have to look in the attic but they'd had a constitution to this this day.  He promised to try and get it for the court.

When he appeared to go off the point Ms Holland said sharply, 'Answer my questions. This isn't a street protest.'

Anderson said, 'I am a member of Bridge Park. I believe we own Bridge Park, we put a lot into it. Bridge Park belongs to the community.' He denied that there was any monetary in the case for him personally. He said he did not see himself reaping any financial benefit from the asset as it was for the community.

He continued, 'We had a vision to become self-sufficient. That's what we told the community: "Don't burn it down - let's build!" We campaigned to get the old bus garage, ran classes. When we got it, the message went out that this belongs to the community - not just to HPCC. We made the building what it is.'

Ms Holland asked about the vision, generation of revenue and aim for self-sufficiency within 5 years. She asked if Anderson was part of a project aiming to purchase the site.

Mr Anderson said the vision was making what the community wanted happen. A place for education, performance, training -'It was ours. People were inspired and helped to build the project.'

Holland said, 'You didn’t think you were owners. You could have sold it.'

Anderson said it hadn't crossed their minds that they could sell it.

Holland challenged, 'It didn't cross your minds because you didn't own it.'

Anderson: 'Nobody thought we'd sell it. It was the community's.'

The Judge intervened asking, 'You didn’t think the property was yours?'

Mr Anderson responded that they expected at one point they would get it. 'The message was that it was ours. We own it but we weren't going to sell it.'

Holland put it to him that they knew they didn't own the land but sometime in the future it could happen.

Anderson said he accepted that.

Holland continued, 'The anticipation was for the Community Co-operative, not HPCC.' Anderson replied that HPCC represented the community. Whatever mechanism allowed that to happen.'

Challenged by Counsel that only two mentions of his name could be found in documents and that he wasn’t involved in setting up Bridge Park, Anderson said there were many facets in the project and different roles. He was involved in the Itec and put his heart and soul into it: 'To see that taken away. Turned my back and it was gone. It was awful.'

He said he was not directly involved in meeting with the council [setting up Bridge Park] but involved in working with the DTI and council for the IT project.  He was not involved in setting up the HPCC but was a living witness of the campaign and getting the community behind the project. 'It was beautiful.'

Mr Cottle asked Anderson about a document written by representatives of the HPCC in July-October 1981 entitled, 'Realities of Life in Stonebridge' and another with the same title dated December 1981. Anderson said the two were slightly different.  The Stonebridge Bus Garage Steering Group document was more about what would be put in there, the other was a contextual report.

The next witness was former Labour councillor Bertha Joseph, who switched to the Conservatives in 2007.

Ms Joseph said that at a Labour Group meeting held when Merle Amory (now Abbott) was leader in 1986/87, Amory informed those present that HPCC was planning to buy the bus garage. Joseph had joined the council in 1986.

Holland pointed out that the garage had been bought by the council 4 years before - that didn’t make sense.  Joseph said she remembered Amory saying it at the time.

Holland suggested it was the Steering Group that could buy, not HPCC. Joseph said it was the HPCC that was around at the time. She had known about their work before becoming a councillor and the awful lot of work they did for young people at Bridge Park.  She was a 24-year-old councillor and had never heard that it belonged to the council. It was a community project. When the community heard that HPCC was buying the garage they were excited. The council didn’t have a connection with young people. She saw Leonard as the leader - the President.  The police had no control. There was no riot because of the project.

She added that taking it away now would be devastating for the community.

The next witness was Richard Gutch who had worked for the council but for a few years after he left continued to offer pro bono advice to the project when they requested it., and again more recently. He had met with the new project manager at the time and as an outside helped them assess contractors,

Gutch has asked to amend his witness statement because following Carolyn Downs' cross-examination he now knew the proposed development involved more than a swimming pool. He had thought it was a private development contrary to community use.

Ms Holland asked about the transfer of land to Brent Council from London Transport: 'Are you clear that Brent accepted the land?'

Gutch agreed but said HPCC were working very well as partners and when resources allowed would be legal owners. He understood that there was an expectation that they may be able to get a lease with an option to buy but that would be dependent on the project's sustainability. Brent were the legal owners.

Mr Gutch said that Johnson recognised that initially with help from funders Johnson recognised that that the land would be in the name of Brent. Gutch's advice was that it was great to have a vision but to take one step at a time.

Holland quoted a 1982 document with a factual statement that the council was purchasing the bus garage for this project. Gutch said, 'Yes but would be run and eventually purchased by HPCC.'

Ms Holland followed up stating it was always ultimately the council's property.  Gutch agreed and said as the council was making a contribution, they set out safeguards on how a potentially risk situation went.  Safeguarding ownership rested with Brent as was true of all Urban Projects.

Turning to the issue of Mr Watkins of Watts County Holland said that the significance of his meeting with him was about ownership.  Gutch said that Watkins had a number of facilities in Watts. He told HPCC that ownership enables you to do more things. It inspired Johnson and others to that aim.

Holland questioned Gutch again about ownership and the Urban Programme funds. Summing up she said that the asset was ultimately the council’s at the end of the day. Gutch agreed. She quoted GLC conditions, 'acquired for and controlled and run by the community.' Gutch agreed.

Gutch told Mr Cottle that he stood by his statement that it was 'not for the benefit of Brent [Council] in its own right.' The point was that it was being run by HPCC as a community-controlled project which had impressed funders who would not normally be politically sympathetic.

Both Counsels are preparing written submissions today and the hearing will continue tomorrow, (Thursday)

Leonard Johnson at Bridge Park hearing: 'This was going to be a legacy for our community - for the future' Blames Council's 'skulduggery' for project's downfall

Annoyingly, and not good in terms of seeing and hearing justice being done, on-line observers could not hear the first 15 minutes of today's cross examination of Leonard Johnson, the defendant by Brent Council's Counsel.

Ms Holland QC for Brent Council suggested the fact that the council had to give the Bus Depot Steering Group a licence to enter the site showed that permission had to come from them because they had no rights to the property.

Mr Johnson replied the project could not have continued without such a licence because they were part of the tendering.

Holland returned to the now familiar refrain that HPCC was managing and running the project. There was no community ownership by HPCC or any other entity.

Johnson retorted that it was theirs because it was they who went for the depot. If they'd got professionals involved, they could have done it for themselves. 'It was our project but the council dropped on us. It was for the community.'

He said, 'The council should be the defendant, not us. The council gave us licence and lease but I don't agree they were the owner. The council was a big enough organisation to help us but we could have got developers to do it, just like the council is doing now.'

Answering a further question Johnson said, 'All along I had confidence in the council to do what we wanted. We were naive - we were youngsters.'

Turning to the lease on the depot, Holland said there was no documentation about signing the lease on condition of it including a right to buy the freehold.  Mr Johnson said he did not sign the lease because they didn't get the freehold.  His experience was that you couldn't trust the council when it came to leases.

The Judge asked if there was any correspondence regarding the lease. Johnson replied that he went to the EC (European Community) to get the full amount. He didn't want the MEP to represent HPCC.

Holland reiterated that it was Brent Council's case that there was no understanding, no representations, no agreement that there was a lease giving an option to buy.  She went on to ask Johnson what entity had interest in the property.

He replied that it was the organisation they were going to setup to take over the running of the project. not the Steering Group, that would transfer to a new organisation. This would be for the whole community - not just parts of it. It was never set up. This was council 'skulduggery'. 'They have a poisonous tongue that goes back into their belly.'

He concluded, 'We fully accepted that it would go to the community. It was our building - our project. The Black African Caribbean contribution has been not just for a few years but for hundreds of years - it was our money as well.'

Referring to Charles Wood, former Brent CEO, Mr Johnson said that he had no credibility, 'He never expected us to succeed.'

Questioned further he said that the council had helped, the leader of the council was excited about their visions. It was a partnership: 'where is that partnership now? '"This is what we are going to do to you and your community."'

Johnson said that they believed this project was going to be a legacy for 'our community - for the future.'

When Ms Holland said the assets were down to the nature of the vision - 'not because you felt you had an option for the freehold?' Johnson said he did not agree, 'All the assets, licence, leases, freehold - everything we did was about owning the project - not a nice place for the council to claim the credit for.'

Holland repeated there was no documentation regarding ownership and no record of any representations. Johnson replied, 'I have said before, it was our initiative, we were doing it for ourselves.  We were going on our own and the council got involved. They let the building deteriorate. They wanted to make us obsolete. They are stealing from us if I can it that strongly.'

Holland suggested that they were benefiting from being able to take the profit from Bridge Park. Johnson retorted that they were paying back bank loans at a high rate of interest. Loans that were unnecessary because the council could have gone out with them to get a loan.  When Holland pointed out they had income from Bridge Park before then Johnson said they had ploughed it back into the project.  'We were helping people set up businesses. The income helped us retain what we were trying to achieve.'

The Judge asked if the loan was repaid and Holland replied that the council had paid it, including interest.

Johnson said at the time of the Midland Bank loan things were haywire at the project. Money was being taken away. He said the council were the author of their own misfortune. They were looking down the road at a £50m project sold for £12m to a developer. The loan was nothing in comparison to the contract the council was now engaged in.

Ms Holland about the document written by Charles Wood that summarised the complex reasons why the project failed. Johnson said that Wood was 'being economical with the truth'. He organised the downfall of the project with the councillor on the board (mentioned yesterday).  Lettings to various groups stopped. 'When the councillor came on the board, that's when our downfall began.'

Johnson said that reports about him and the project were what orchestrated the failure. Allegations that millions had been stolen from the project. 'Mr Wood, no one from the council, refuted the allegations. It was in the Daily Mail, the local paper..'

The Judge intervened to say that Mr Cottle, the defendant's Counsel, had not wanted him to see the press cuttings as he didn’t think they were relevant. Turning to Mr Johnson he said, 'I understand you don’t accept the council's account of the end of the project. We are just going to have to disagree on that. The fact is that it did fail in the 90s.'

Ms Holland turned to the subject of charities.  She said HPCC was not a charity but had an aspiration that the future organisation would have charitable status. That is the only reference to charity in the case.

Johnson said that HPCC had charitable aims, they were doing charitable work as volunteers. They were never a private organisation working for profit.

Holland pressed, 'There was no question or discussion that the property was being held by a charitable trust at the outset.'  Johnson replied that they had been volunteers from day1, donations and all been voluntary. Holland quoted Charles Wood's evidence that he didn’t recall any discussion of charitable status or that it was held on trust.  All witnesses at the time said the same thing. HPCC was not a charity. Johnson replied that they and to be a charity to get the money - 'we were a voluntary organisation.'

Ms Holland said that the application for restriction on the sale was made in 2018 but Johnson had not done anything or layed claim regarding the property. Johnson said, 'We wasn't consulted. They just told people what they wanted to do.'

The next interchange was about Johnson's status as a trustee with the existence of a constitution for HPCC being doubted by the Brent Council Counsel and affirmed by Johnson. Holland referred to the original report that said the HPCC council was 10 people, elected by 60 young black adults, - it had no written constitution. Mr Johnson said that they were developing a constitution at the time. They wanted to be unincorporated - not part of something bigger.  Holland responded that they didn’t want to be like other organisations.

Johnson then claimed that there was a constitution and Holland asked why it hadn’t been revealed in the papers. The Judge intervened to say it might be in the second tranche and they needed to get to the bottom of the issue of whether there was a constitution.

Holland then asked for evidence that Johnson was a trustee.  Johnson said he had always been a trustee but didn't know if it had been written down. There was a document appointing him Chair of HPCC.  The Judge asked if there were minutes of HPCC meetings. Holland said there was one document that was not described as minutes but may serve as one.

Attention turned to Leonard Johnsons' Defence Statement and Holland pointed out it said, 'Mr Johnsons should not be a party in these proceedings. She said, 'Why shouldn't you?'

Johnson said, 'I’ve never seen the document. I can see my name there; I can see I signed. Maybe, there is a gentleman called Mr Mastin, the thing is...'

The Judge asked if he disagreed with the content of the document.  Johnson said that he had gone through days of reading documents. He wasn't well. Holland challenged asking, 'Are you saying you don't read them? You don't really care what they say?'

Johnson: 'I do read them and I do care.'

Holland said, ‘The document says that as HPCC is unincorporated you are not a trustee. Are you disagreeing with that statement?'

Johnson asked for time to read the document again. He thought he had read it before he came to court.  After reading he said, 'I'm trying to think why I signed this.'

Holland quoted, 'HPCC is and always was unincorporated' and 'was not a trustee.' The Judge interjected to say that it could be a legal statement.

Asked by Holland about the statement that he should not be a party to the case, Johnson said he didn't know how he had missed the 'not'. He said he had been working and had asked for more time to get witnesses and Brent Council refused.

Holland then asked him about the statement that he'd resigned from Bridge Park, saying that it must have come from him. Johnson replied, 'I don't know what I have done here.'

Johnson was then asked about the transfer of HPCC to Stonebridge Community Trust (HPPC) Limited.  The transfer had taken place before any claims to the property.  Johnson couldn't remember if the committee had put it together without any legal advice.

Referring to the dates on the document Holland said two predated 8th May 2019 when there was a claim that SCT (HPCC) had an interest.

John said that was the vehicle they were using now.  It is still one and the same organisation.  The Trust is the organisation HPCC were transferring everything to.

Re-examining Mr Cottle checked which document Johnson was refusing to sign and he said the lease document which didn’t include an option to buy. Cottle asked who Ted Watkin was. Johnson said that was an American entrepreneur from Watts County.  He told HPCC what he was doing at a meeting at Hill Top. He gave a presentation about independence and self-sufficiency in front the of the Chief Executive and councillors. They had performances and put on a show.  Johnson said, 'The idea of having assets came from us, He agreed. Richard Gotch shared a document on how we could own our own assets.' The report by Tom Bryson refers to an understanding that lease should have an option to acquire the freehold. 'The meeting with Ted Watkins allowed us to look at ownership, He made several trips to advise us.'

Cottle referred to the GLC document that spoke of a 'unique idea'. Johnson said he had met Ken Livingstone and his deputy and told them about their aims. Mike Bichard was there. They all agreed and Ken Livingstone backed the whole programme.

Cottle asked about Wimpey surfacing the Bridge Park car park and whether there had been more private funders. Johnson said there were a number but remember them off the top of his head.  They contributed to construction work.

The next section was distorted by unmuted phones and phone conversations taking place and I can’t report on it with accuracy.

Johnson said he was a trustee and chair of HPCC.  The reason he was sitting here now was because he had been called back by the community and the leader of the Conservative Party in Brent. 'They said, "They're going to sell Bridge Park," I said, "They're not!" '

The Judge asked what HPCC had been doing since the 1990s. Mr Johnson said they had run training programmes, events, work with churches, activities. A number of things had been going on.

The Judge asked if since that time he had heard about Brent’s plans. Did he have a continuing interest?

Johnson said there was a continuing interest. Funds were cut, the bar was closed, because it had become a free for all, undesirable people began to infiltrate. People who there by then couldn’t control it. That culture took over. He had thought that the council going back would flush them out but they also threw out the new group that wanted to work with them.

The Judge asked if at any time he had said to the council that they still had an interest in the property.

Johnson replied that HPCC members still used the building. They still had an office there and put on activities.

The Judge asked it if was only when council released the [redevelopment] plans that Johnson was re-energised. Johnson said it was when the council began to run it down. People were saying the council was trying to sell it. They were taking leases away from people and issuing CPOs 'I came back and said it's not fair.'

The Judge then asked Johnson what he wanted out of it. Johnson replied, 'I want a partnership. I want the council to reform the partnership.  We get the freehold and we work with developers.'

The Judge asked, 'You want to reinstate what was there in the 80s?' Johnson replied, 'I think there's a dynamic group of people who could work together with the developers.'

The Judge remarked, 'This case is going to need more work between the parties - encourage them to get together.'

Johnson told Mr Cottle, who had resumed re-examining, that they had continued to meet in the building. 'I told the council you can't stop us having a meeting there.  I made it clear it wasn't their building.'

The Judge told Mr Cottle it would be helpful if Mr Johnson could find the constitution.

There was a break at this point. I will write about the evidence of Paul Anderson, Bertha Joseph and Richard Gotch tomorrow.


There is no hearing tomorrow.  The court resumes on Thursday.