Quantcast
Channel: WEMBLEY MATTERS
Viewing all 7141 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

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

July 16, 2020, 8:25 am
$
0
0

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

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

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

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

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

The Trial will be read on 20th and take place on Tuesday 21st July 2020 10.30am (Judge Michael Green).
Brent Council are the Claimants and we are defendants. The Attorney General is  also a defendant in this case.
The case and complexity has been significantly expanded, now to a estimated case duration of 9-10 days previously 3-4 days.
Report on Monday's Council Meeting:
 'The ten point Brent Black Community Action Plan, which includes tackling health inequalities, developing community spaces that will be run and managed by community members and an internal review of processes in the council, was unanimously agreed at a full council meeting on July 13.'
'Cllr Abdirazak Abdi addressed Cllr Butt and chief executive Carolyn Downs directly saying: “I hope in the spirit of this report and what has been said today, that you take this forward and into the negotiations with the Bridge Park Community Centre.. [due to begin in court on July 20}.. so that the legal battle, the ownership of Bridge Park, doesn’t go to the court.” '
 

↧
Search

Green Assembly Member wins TfL over to Green Energy

July 17, 2020, 2:46 am
$
0
0
London’s biggest energy consumer would be running on renewables within the next decade as today, after pressure from Caroline Russell AM, TfL announced they’re looking for greener energy.

Almost exactly a year ago Caroline took the Mayor to task when she uncovered that only 0.01 per cent of TfL’s energy came from renewable sources, despite a target for rail services under the Mayor’s control to be zero carbon by 2030.
At the time the Mayor admitted more needed to be done saying, "You [Caroline Russell] are right, we can do much better."
Today, Caroline Russell says:
This is major news and I’m so pleased that the Mayor and TfL are seriously upping their game and addressing the climate emergency. 
I called the Mayor ‘irresponsible’ over his lack of concrete plans to get to zero carbon by 2030 after he joined me, and the Assembly, in declaring a climate emergency in December 2018. But this is a big step in the right direction.
Although the initial plan is for up to 10 per cent of TfL’s energy to come from renewable sources, that’s still much better than what I found last year. Making London’s hungriest energy consumer green is a great start. 
Now let’s get the London Fire Brigade and Metropolitan Police Service to switch to a 100 per cent green energy supply!

↧
↧

There's more to Quintain's Wembley Stadium steps than meets the eye

July 17, 2020, 1:55 pm
$
0
0

There is rather more to the triumphant tweet by Quintain that yesterday announced the start on work to replace the Wembley Stadium pedway with steps.  Before Quintain was taken over by the American Lone Star company in 2015 LINK , the replacement of the pedway project was announced in 2007 as (para 3) 'One of the largest pieces of privately funded public spaces in the UK.'

By the time it got down to Planning Permission, Brent Council had agreed to use Community Infrastructure Levy money, paid by developers for infrastructure improvements, towards the costs of the new steps and other Olympic Way improvements.

 Iconic?

Brent Planning Officers waxed lyrical on the benefits:
To assist in achieving the vision for Wembley, a significant element in terms of place making is the provision of new and substantial steps to the stadium to replace the pedestrian way (‘pedway’) and works to the public realm between Wembley Park underground station and the National Stadium Wembley: Olympic Way. This will enhance the area, both from an aesthetic and functional requirement.

Olympic Way as a piece of public realm is showing its age. It does not present the type of quality considered consistent with the environment necessary for a world renowned iconic venue and the wider Wembley Park development. In the context of other pressing infrastructure needs and other Council revenue spending requirements, a response might be that a significant Council funding contribution 
towards these changes should be a low priority. Nevertheless, this would be a simplistic and does not take account of all factors, including limitations associated with funding streams generated from development.

CIL funding attained by the Council is specifically related to infrastructure and is not available to support Council general revenue spending. In addition this proposed change in public realm should be seen as part of a wider picture about what will be achieved in Wembley which will have far reaching positive impacts for Brent and its prospects.
As we argued at the time there are many improvements that need to be made to Brent's infrastructure that would benefit local people more. The aesthetic argument is weak and the functional one unpersuasive - are the steps really more functional (and safer) than the pedway?

But there was something else, Brent Council did a deal with Quintain as part of the scheme, whereby Quintain agreed NOT to build on the land next to Wembley Library/Civic Centre:

Cabinet were asked to:
Confirm or otherwise the contribution of up to £12.1 million +VAT towards Zone 
C improvements, such contribution being contingent on Quintain: 



a.     Not pursuing development of site NW04 (see plan above) adjacent to the Civic Centre to the extent currently permitted in the parameters plans associated with outline planning permission 10/3032 


b.     Working with the Council to deliver a development that better complements the role and setting of the Civic Centre, in particular creating a significant new square outside the Civic Centre Library 


c.      Agreeing a business plan and agreement, between Quintain and the council, for the future sharing and reinvestment of the net income generated through assets on Olympic Way in Zones A, B and C. 


d.     Securing up to one third funding contribution from Wembley Stadium owners. 

So Quintain got the money partly because Brent Council did not want its building hemmed in by high rise flats.  Many councillors and staff were peeved about the high rise flats between them and the stadium., spoiling the view. 

The other part of the deal was that Brent would share in the income generated by shops, bars etc that would be built in the undercroft of the steps. Somehow or other it was thought that the steps themselves would make the estate more attractive to visitors and provide an economic bonus.



The plans hit a problem when it was announced that the owners of the Stadium were putting it on the market and it was not clear if the new owners would cough up their shares of the funds LINK  . Things were further complicated when Quintain attempted to sell off its estate LINK.

The steps were not ready as promised for Euro 2020 and did not get started but Quintain's press release promises that the steps will be ready in time for the deferred matches:
Quintain, the developer behind Wembley Park, has today started the final upgrade works to Olympic Way with the project to replace the pedestrian walkway (known as the ‘pedway’) with an iconic new entrance to the National Stadium. The centrepiece of these works is the Olympic Steps, which form the final stage of a wider package of upgrades to the length of Olympic Way. The steps will be operational in time for the Carabao Cup Final in 2021 and the UEFA Euro 2020 tournament, which will be held in June and July 2021 and hosted at Wembley Stadium.
Such speed, in the face of possible future Covid19 second and even third wave, seems optimistic, particularly when you factor in the previously published schedule of works:

The delivery of the project can be split into three main construction phases:

•       Phase 1 – Site Preparation and Substructure Works; 


•       Phase 2 – Pedway Demolition and Construction of Steps; 


•       Phase 3 – Landscaping and Fit Out. 


.        6.62  Phase 1 - The initial work activity will focus on clearing the site below and around the Pedway of those utilities and other items that will obstruct the Pedway demolition and subsequent staircase construction. As areas become clear, works to the foundations and substructure of the steps will commence.

•       6.63  The foundations to the steps will be constructed in and around the existing Pedway structure in advance of its demolition. Therefore, there will be a need to utilise small/specialist plant, such as restricted access piling rigs that will be able to access the low headroom areas beneath the existing Pedway to construct the piles. 


•       6.64  Phase 2 - This phase will commence within an agreed window of time to minimise the impact to WNSL. The first stage of demolition will focus on removing the Pedway structure from the area of the new staircase construction. Once this is removed, the demolition will focus on removing the remainder of the Pedway (as it runs across Engineers Way towards Olympic Way and Wembley Park station north of the Stadium). A road closure of Engineers Way will be required whilst the Pedway is removed across the carriageway area (details as to the number and timeframes required for the road closures are not yet available but will be agreed, at the proper time, with the Council). 


•       6.65  The construction of the staircase is anticipated to be a combination of pre-cast and cast in- situ concrete. It is anticipated that the bridge podium section that will connect to the Stadium will be cast in-situ and the staircase will be formed from precast structural elements. The staircase is of a modular construction and will follow a step by step process that will be prescribed by the designer and supplier. Throughout this phase of heavy lifting it may be necessary to have lane closure on Engineers Way to facilitate easy delivery and unloading of the precast elements. Pedestrian management will be a key feature of this phase to maintain safety exclusion zones around the works. 


•       6.66  Phase 3 - The fit out of the staircase undercroft will commence as soon as all overhead working is complete and it is safe to do so. The final landscaping will be constructed during the WNSL events season. Ahead of this phase there will be agreed processes and access routes to limit the level of non-working and disrupted time (as has been managed through the delivery of the Olympic Way Zone A works). 


•       6.67  The construction of the landscaping and public realm works will be undertaken in two sections that will run concurrently: Olympic Way (from the boundary of the Zone A works) to Engineers Way and the Olympic Steps area comprising land south of Engineers Way to the Stadium. 


Back in 2018 Wembley Matters considered how much disruption would be caused by the works LINK

There is more to the Olympic Way improvements that just the steps, although Brent's Infrastructure Delivery Plan for 2020-2014 only refers to the step,s a total of £40m is to to be spent  with a funding gap of £17m ,





There is of course another major project that has been delayed and for which no start or completion date has been confirmed.  That is the reconnection of North End Road to Bridge Road. The plan was regarded as  important to allow buses to avoid the stadium on event days and to make up for the loss of the road that currently runs beneath the pedway. Earlier plans appeared to envisage the removal of the ramp down to Olympic Way from Bridge Road but this illustration appears retains them. The Michaela School would now be on a through road rather than the present pedestrianised section. New high rise buildings are planned for the site presently occupied by the College of North West London and the Wembley Retail Park and temporary theatre on the former TV studio site.


The North End Road connection
 It is not clear from the documentation whether the £40m includes these plans. I wrote on July 1st 2019:
The works to reconnect North End Road, Wembley with Bridge Road (presently connected by steps and a ramp) were due to start today but Brent Council informs Wembley Matters that they have been postponed but are still due to be finished for January 2020.

In May Brent Council announced on its 'Current Wembley Regeneration Projects' page LINK:
The council will soon start work on connecting North End Road to Bridge Road. This will benefit existing residents by providing an alternative route across Wembley Park to access the North Circular Road, improving the traffic flow in the area. This route will not be affected by event day closures, enabling an available vehicular route at all times - particularly useful for residents of North End Road, who are impacted by the road closures on event days, and bus users.

The contractor delivering the works

VolkerLaser is undertaking the works at North End Road on behalf of Brent Council.

A VolkerLaser team will be on site from June 2019 to start the works, and the project is expected to be completed by early 2020. During this time, the team will endeavour to undertake the works with as minimal disruption to local residents and businesses as possible.

VolkerLaser is part of VolkerWessels UK and are one of the UK’s leading multi-functional contractors. They have a proven track record of success within the highway sector, completing some award-winning civil engineering projects across the last 25 years.

The original timetable published on  24.6.19 in the Brent Council 'Works Bulletin' listed works on Bridge Road for reconnection starting on May 20th 2019 and finishing on June 30th 2019, lasting 42 days. Associated works for reconnection at North End Road, including the road closure, were to last for 222 days from May 13th 2019 to 20th December 2019.  Clearly Brent Public Realm Scrutiny Committee will want some explanation for the delay and completion for January 2020 looks a real challenge.
There was some fumbling around on the site  but certainly nothing substantial and no completion in January 2020.

I wonder if the Public Realm Scrutiny Commitee could investigate?



↧

Uncovering the history of Church End and Chapel End, Willesden – Part 3

July 18, 2020, 2:39 am
$
0
0

The final part of this local history series by Margaret Pratt. (Thank you very much for this series Margaret which has aroused a lot of interest.  I hope to publish more about the history of our various Brent communities)
Last week, in Part 2, we looked at local landmark buildings, many from the 19th century. In this final part we move to the 20thcentury, especially the industrial development of the area.
Before the First World War, Church End and Chapel End had many small workshops and businesses which depended on the reliance on horse power, in agriculture, and in everyday life in the village. Stablemen, grooms, blacksmiths and farriers, suppliers of horse-drawn vehicles, saddles and tack were all living and working in the area. Gradually the horse was overtaken by the motor vehicle, and businesses had to adapt. 

Many coachbuilders and blacksmiths reinvented themselves and opened garages and motor engineering works, using the skills they had already learned. Other small-scale industries included stonemasons, sawmills, cycle makers, shoemakers, and printers, who were established in the area from the 1880s onwards.


1. 20th century industrial developments, added to a sketch map of the district based on the 1895 O.S. map.
Church End had large areas of land which had not been sold for housebuilding, unlike Willesden Green (where terraces of small houses filled most of the farmland). These local fields were opened up by companies such as British Thomson-Houston, the electrical engineering firm. In 1913 BTH built its workshops on the cricket field, north of St. Mary’s vicarage, starting the area’s industrialisation. This continued after the war, when jobs for the returning soldiers were in short supply, and large-scale industries began to fill the gaps.

British Thomson-Houston was a subsidiary of the American General Electric Company. They had opened a factory in Rugby in 1899, making electric lamps, turbines and electrical systems. Their Willesden plant specialised in switch-gear equipment, (a collection of circuit breakers, fuses and switches, needed to control electrical systems). By 1919 it employed 462 people.


2. Aerial view of the British Thomson-Houston factory in Neasden Lane, 1953. (Brent Archives image 2409)

Before and during the Second World War, the factory diversified, producing lighting, radio and signalling equipment for the Royal Navy, and helping the RAF’s success in the Battle of Britain with their magnetos, compressors and starting switches. In 1949, around 2,000 people were working at its Church End factory.



3. Two scenes from the Dallmeyer optical works, c.1910. (Brent Archives online images 2711 and 2718)
J.H. Dallmeyer, makers of optical instruments and precision lenses, was founded by a German immigrant in 1860. The company first came to Denzil Road, Church End, from Central London in 1907, moving to Willesden High Road in 1920, and building extensions to their works in 1945 and 1952. By 1979 the business employed around 90 people, manufacturing high-precision optical products, hopefully in more comfortable conditions than in the early years! It was taken over by a larger company in the 1980s, but Dallmeyer lenses are still highly collectable.


4. A Dallmeyer advertisement for one of their photographic lenses, 1914. (Image from the internet)

Next to Dallmeyers was Chromoworks, high class printers and lithographers. The lithographers had an unusual assignment after World War Two. The Directors of Lyons Tea Shops wanted to spruce up their premises, but decorating materials were in short supply. They commissioned famous artists to produce paintings of post-war Britain, to be made into poster-sized prints, at Chromoworks. 

The prints were large enough to cover as much of the shabby decor as possible. Three series of prints were produced, from work by Lowry, John Piper, Edward Bawden, John Nash, and many others, 40 artists in all. The scheme was a great success, and the prints appeared in Lyons tea shops all over Britain. They were also on sale to the public, and provided Chromoworks with plenty of work from 1946 to 1955. The prints are still collectors’ items, and have been shown in art exhibitions. 


       5. A Lyons Tea Shop with prints on its walls, and a lithograph ofShopping in Mysore by Edward      Ardizzone.(Images from the internet - © theTowner Collection)

The land occupied by Church End Paddocks was purchased by Messrs Park and Ward, in 1919, for their Park Ward coachbuilding business. Despite Henry Ford’s assembly line method for making motor cars in America, many British cars, especially for wealthy drivers, were still built to individual designs on a manufacturer’s chassis. Below are before and after views, showing a drophead coupé sports car built on an MG chassis at the Park Ward works in 1936.  In 1939, the business was sold to Rolls Royce, who had been a major customer. It traded as their Mulliner Park Ward Division, an important employer in Willesden until the 1980s. 

 6. Before and after photographs, showing the coachbuilding skills of Park Ward, 1936. (Images from internet)

On the Cobbold Estate with Rolls Royce were several other manufacturing concerns. The Adelphi Works, of Heaton Tabb & Co, were famous for luxury decorating and furnishing, used in passenger liners, hotels and restaurants. Nearby were the Trojan Works, and the North London Engineering Company, producing bus and heavy goods vehicle bodies.


7. A Heaton Tabb advertisement from 1936, listing Willesden as one of their workshops. (From the internet)

With the need for local skilled workers, Willesden Technical College opened in 1934 at Denzil Road, off Dudden Hill Lane. The College provided courses formerly taught at the Polytechnic in Kilburn, and also included courses in art and building. In 1964, the College took over the buildings of Dudden Hill Lane school, on the corner of Cooper Road, one of Willesden's wonderful three-decker Board Schools, built in the early 20th century.


The sites became part of the College of North West London in 1991. The new Telford building, in Denzil Road, opened in 2009. The Edison building in Dudden Hill Lane was demolished in 2015, now replaced by state-of-the-art facilities for technology education, from access courses, BTECH and GCSE, to foundation degrees and other Higher Education qualifications. Around 8000 students presently attend courses there.


8. An aerial view of Willesden Technical College, Denzil Road, 1930s. (From “The Willesden Survey – 1949”)
Cliff Wadsworth, a Willesden local history expert, attended 'The Tech' between 1951 and 1954. He remembers that his walk to Denzil Road in the morning was accompanied by the sound of a blacksmith’s hammer, clanging away in the smithy on Dudden Hill. How times have changed!


Church End was one of four Willesden districts where heavy industry was prevalent. The others were Park Royal, Cricklewood and Kilburn. By 1936, Church End was almost wholly industrial. In 1937, Willesden as a whole was described as “the largest manufacturing borough in Britain.” 14% of Willesden’s population were employed at Church End and Chapel End by 1939.


9. Map showing where in Willesden people were willing to move from to a New Town. (Willesden Survey 1949)

After the war, the Greater London Plan of 1950 recognised the over-industrialisation and poor housing conditions of areas such as Church End and Chapel End. It proposed moving some firms and their employees to a New Town, being developed at Hemel Hempstead. The Willesden Survey of 1949 had found that 49% of Willesden’s entire population would be willing to move immediately (36% out of London), if housing and employment were available. They would expect wages of at least £5 per week, wanted a 3-bedroom house (preferably detached) and expected to pay rent of between £1 and 24 shillings a week for this.


     10. Two ladies (from Willesden?) chatting in Hemel Hempstead New Town, 1954. (From the internet)

Many skilled people, particularly younger workers and their families, were persuaded to move. In all, twenty-six firms, employing 5,000 workers, moved out of Willesden, including to other New Towns, such as Harlow, Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City. The vacated factory sites and workshops were given over to warehouses, retail outlets, trading area, builders merchants, and other non-manufacturing concerns. 

British Thomson-Houston remained in Willesden into the 1960s, with its name changed to GEC.AEI, but was suffering from falling sales. Hansard records a speech in Parliament on 28 February 1969, by Laurie Pavitt, the MP for Willesden West:

‘I raise this matter affecting 1,100 families in my constituency, namely the proposed closure of GEC.AEI switchgear factory, Neasden Lane, Willesden. What can be done to keep it going? I am aware that the industry is facing a falling market, yet the Willesden factory managed to increase its share from 10% to15%, in 1968. There should be recognition for their efforts. The problem is that there have been 5,187 redundancies and 37 factories in Willesden completely closed down. Many valuable teams of skilled workers will be dispersed and uprooted. This is a fine factory. It is a gem of a factory. It is an asset for the nation ....’

Sadly, even Mr. Pavitt's eloquence could not prevent the factory’s closure in the early 1970s.


By the 1950s, the streets on the west side of Church Road, between Craven Park and Neasden Lane, were deemed fit for redevelopment. The Council purchased properties from 1963, and work began in the 1970s. Large houses at the Craven Park end were swept away first, and Church Road was widened into a dual carriageway, and carried straight on to a roundabout at the Neasden Lane junction, near St Mary's Church. The north end of Church Road remained, curving right towards the White Hart Public House.


11. “Resiform" flats on the 1970s Church End Estate. (From Flickr, on the internet)

 
The Church End Estate was completed by 1980, as far as Talbot Road, although the flats built using the “Resiform” system (with fibreglass exterior panels) have since had to be demolished. A second wave of improvements were made in the 1990s. The estate has a mix of low-rise flats and family houses with gardens, some are privately owned, some social housing. There is a large Community Centre, sheltered accommodation for the elderly, children's playgrounds, and the modern St Mary’s Primary School in Garnet Road. Unfortunately, there is no shopping centre, so residents have to cross to the east side of Church Road, where parades of small shops have survived since the late 19th century. 



12. Two views of the Church End Estate, including the Unity Centre, July 2020. (Photos by Margaret Pratt)

The story continues. As the population grows, and new building continues, it is easy to forget what has gone before, to lose track of our history, and how the places we know became what they are today. I hope you’ve enjoyed uncovering the history of Church End and Chapel End.


Margaret Pratt,
Willesden Local History Society.


↧

Video: Black Lives/White Privilege - a community discussion in Brent

July 18, 2020, 11:11 am
$
0
0




Marcia Rigg - campaigner, Dr Deryck Murray - Uni of West Indies, Prof Gary Younge - author, Antonia Charles - lawyer; Muhammed Butt - Leader of Brent Council

On 25 May 2020, in Minneapolis, USA, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, was killed by a policeman suffocating him in plain sight. His death has led to worldwide demonstrations. But none of the great, painful and burning issues raised by Mr Floyd’s death are new.

 The statistics show that the black community in the UK faces similar prejudice, violence and barriers to natural justice. Any discussion of the problems of the black community must also address the issue of white privilege. Slavery and the empire all impact on attitudes, both black and white, in 2020. They are not a question of black history, but of the national story. 
This was a wide-ranging discussion about the history, the present and the future for the black community in the UK and how we all can unite in solidarity to bring about overdue radical social change. Discussion chaired by Tom London

Better Kensal and Kilburn 2020
↧
↧

Why Brent should withdraw its application to demolish 1 Morland Gardens

July 20, 2020, 7:27 am
$
0
0

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:

↧

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

July 21, 2020, 10:04 am
$
0
0
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.



↧

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

July 22, 2020, 9:28 am
$
0
0



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


↧
Search

Day 2 - Brent Council v Bridge Park

July 22, 2020, 10:59 am
$
0
0
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.'

MORE LATER








↧
↧

Day 3- Brent Council v Bridge Park

July 23, 2020, 11:23 am
$
0
0
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.







↧

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

July 24, 2020, 5:17 am
↧

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

July 24, 2020, 5:30 am
$
0
0

 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”).
↧

Day 4: Judge warns Bridge Park Counsel over 'difficulties' in his case

July 24, 2020, 7:52 am
$
0
0
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 he thought then 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.

Further detail later
↧
↧

The Preston Story - Part 1

July 25, 2020, 1:55 am
$
0
0

The first part of a new local history series, by Chris Coates of Preston Community Library.      

Preston is often seen as one of the quieter parts of Wembley – just a 20thcentury development of suburban housing. This series of articles will look at some of the people, events and social changes that shaped its long history, and produced a 21st century Preston with as diverse a community as any other area of Brent.


1. Preston Road and its station, part of the 20th century suburb. (Photo by Derrick J. Knight, from an internet blog)
Preston Ward’s political boundaries are a triangle formed by the apex of the Metropolitan and Bakerloo Underground lines, with Wembley Park Drive as the southern border. But Preston as a community stretches north to meet Kingsbury and Kenton and this reflects its origins as a rural area in the parish of Harrow, centred on the cluster of farms and buildings at the junction of what are now Preston Hill, Preston Road and Woodcock Hill, west of the Lidding or Wealdstone Brook. This first article looks at the early period up to 1800.


2.  John Rocque's 1744 map of London and its Environs includes Preston, and the road to it, on its northern edge!

The first definite record of Preston is in 1220, the name coming from the Old English preast and tun, meaning the farm belonging to the priest.  Preston was a township in 1231 but by the mid-15thcentury had only 2 farms, and a few cottages. It was linked to an even smaller settlement, Uxendon, on the east bank of the Wealdstone Brook, which was first recorded in 1257 as Woxindon, probably meaning "Wixan's Hill". The Wixan were a 7thcentury Saxon tribe from Lincolnshire, who came to settle in what became Middlesex.

Uxendon manor house was located near what is now the junction of Uxendon Hill and Wykeham Hill. During the 14-15th centuries, the estate was extended to include Preston Farm [also known as Preston Dicket] on the west bank of Wealdstone Brook and another settlement called Pargraves at what is now the junction of Elmstead Ave with Forty Lane – then called Flax Lane. 

Most local landowners accumulated property through inheritance and family connections, but Harrow from early times had also attracted London merchants and courtiers. In 1376, the Uxendon manor passed to Sir Nicholas Brembre, a powerful City of London and national figure, who owned considerable estates elsewhere. He was twice Lord Mayor of London, a customs officer for the Port of London under Geoffrey Chaucer, and a strong supporter of Richard II, knighted for accompanying him to face the rebels at Smithfield during the Peasants Revolt in 1381.



3. King Richard II speaking with the peasants at Smithfield in 1381. (Image from the internet – thanks, BBC Bitesize!)

Nicholas Brembre was Richard’s chief ally in London, but his ties to the ill-fated King ultimately resulted in his downfall. Accused by Richard’s opponents of corruption, tyranny and finally treason, he was executed in 1388 (either by hanging or beheading, it depends on which account you read!). Brembre’s confiscated properties in Uxendon and elsewhere were given to his brother-in-law, Thomas Goodlake, whence they passed by marriage in 1516 to the Bellamy family.


The Bellamy family had remained staunchly Roman Catholic after the Reformation and sheltered Catholic priests on the run. The manor house held a secret chamber under the stairs with an underground escape route to a barn nearby. A priest who died at Uxendon was buried under a pseudonym at Harrow Church. Anthony Babington, identified by security services as a principal conspirator in a plot to assassinate Elizabeth I, was arrested there in 1586 and the Bellamy family were arrested for treason. Catherine Bellamy, the mistress of Uxendon, and two of her sons died in the Tower, and a third son was executed.

A fourth son, Richard, moved to Uxendon to take over the estate, but the family continued to be investigated and in 1592, while imprisoned, his daughter betrayed the presence of a Jesuit priest, Robert Southwell, in the manor. He was arrested and executed.

4. Robert Southwell, Jesuit priest and poet. (Image from the internet)

The family continued to be prosecuted and imprisoned over the next 10 years until Richard Bellamy relented and conformed. The estate, now over-mortgaged to pay recurrent fines, was sold to another local family with Catholic sympathies, the Pages, who had become leading landowners in the Wembley area. Two priests from the wider Page family in Middlesex were also executed.  When a special tax was raised in 1642 to ‘meet the distress of the Army and people in the Northern parts’, Catholics and aliens were required to pay double – but none were found in Harrow. 

From the late 14th century, the northern farm on Preston Hill [then known as Clay Lane] belonged to the Lyon family and one of the most notable residents from the early period was John Lyon,1514-1592, the founder of Harrow School. He was a man of considerable wealth, owning land in Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Marylebone and Essex. He was active in local affairs and had good political connections – despite managing to stay on good terms with his troubled neighbours, the Bellamys.


5. Rev. Elsley (a local historian whose research aided our knowledge of John Lyon) at Lyon Farm house in 1936.
(From the Wembley History Society Collection - Brent Archives online image 8972)

John Lyon was also a philanthropist and was already paying for the education of 30 poor local boys when in 1572, possibly through his friendship with Elizabeth I’s Attorney-General, he obtained a Royal Charter for the foundation of a free grammar school. He wrote precise detailed instructions about how the School should be administered, even down to what games the boys could play! – and no girls were to be admitted.

Lyon ruled that the poorest applicants should be preferred for entry to the school – but as parents had to provide books, writing materials and candles, as well as ensuring children were well-dressed – most of the rural poor of Wembley and Harrow must have been ruled out! However, the schoolmaster could accept enough fee-paying boys from outside the area to provide his own wages. In time, those students became the majority, changing the nature of the School and thwarting Lyon’s original intentions 

6. A memorial to John Lyon, and a brass commemorating John and Joan Lyon, in St Mary’s Church, Harrow.
(Both images from the internet)

Lyon left his house and lands as an endowment for the foundation and upkeep of the School, plus scholarships for 4 boys to go on to university - though the provisions of the will did not become operative until after death of his wife Joan in 1608. Work on the original School house [which can still be seen on Harrow on the Hill] started then and was completed 1615. Lyon left other charitable bequests for the local poor and for the upkeep of local roads, notably the Harrow and Edgware Roads, and for roads from Preston, to the Harrow Road at Wembley and through Kingsbury to the Edgware Road. The John Lyon’s Charity still makes grants to benefit young people in NW London, but the separate Roads Trust ended in 1991.

After Lyon’s death, the School rented his farmhouse - described in 1547 as a beautiful building - to a succession of farmers [including the Bellamy and Page families], but by the early 18th century the farmhouse and lands were said to be in poor condition and the farmhouse was rebuilt in red brick. In the mid-19th century, it was occupied by the wonderfully named Thomas Sneezum.  The mid-20thcentury saw the farmhouse gifted by the Perrin farming family to Wembley Borough Council, who demolished it in 1960 and John Perrin Place– a council housing estate – was built on the site.

7. A view of John Perrin Place, c.1966. (Brent Archives online image 10283)

John Lyon’s support in maintaining key routes for the transport of people and goods was crucial at this time when the hamlets in Preston were linked together by rough tracks, whose upkeep was always a bone of contention. Local roads were also constantly shifting course. The enclosure of common land, usually to change its use from arable to meadow for livestock, resulted in many changes - as when Richard Page obstructed the old road and altered the route of Clay Lane (now Preston Hill) through Preston East Field - clearly seen in this map.

8. Preston as it appears on a map from 1819. (Based on the Greenwood map)

During the Civil War, Middlesex generally supported the Parliament and Sir Gilbert Gerard of Harrow on the Hill raised a regiment. However, a Richard Page of Uxendon fought in the Royalist Army at the battle of Newbury 1644, was knighted and then followed the King to Oxford. On 27 April 1646, Charles fled Oxford in disguise and a plaque in Harrow commemorates where he stopped to water his horses – although this seems an unlikely route! 

9. The plaque at the site of King Charles's Well, Grove Hill, Harrow-on-the-Hill. (Image from the internet)

After Charles’s execution, Richard fled to the Court of the future Charles II in The Hague. In the 1660 general election, John Page of Uxendon stood against Gerard who was now campaigning for the return of the monarchy. Following the Restoration, later that year, Uxendon Manor remained in the Page family until 1829.In 1661, Parliament introduced a new tax, assessing wealth by the number of fireplaces in a person’s home. Kenton, Preston and Uxendon were assessed together with only 22 homes liable for Hearth Tax – of these, Mr Page had the largest number – 10 hearths.

Preston grew slowly, in the mid-17th century, there were 5 buildings, including a new farmhouse, Hillside Farm. 100 years later, there were 9 buildings, including Preston’s first pub! - the Horseshoe Inn, licensed from 1751. Around the same time, a second Uxendon manor farm was built and Forty Farm was expanded at Forty Green. However, the coming of the railways in the 19thcentury would change everything – and we will look at that next week.

Please feel free to add your memories, questions or comments in the box below.

Chris Coates.
↧

Greens Support Dawn Butler Solidarity Demonstration

July 25, 2020, 3:13 pm
$
0
0



Brent Trades Council, Brent Central Labour Party and Stand Up To Racism organised  a demonstration in solidarity with Dawn Butler MP (Brent Central)  after she and her staff received racist threats and windows were broken in her Walm Lane office  contributing to her decision to close it down.  She has also been attacked relentlessly on social media.


Brent Green Party, Green Party Trade Union Group and Green Left supported the demonstration and I spoke on their behalf about the importance of challenging racism and sexism and the need for democratically elected representatives to work unhindered for their constituents. It is about democracy.

I went on to warn about the need for opposition to fascism as well as racism in a new era of 'strong men' in Europe, South America  and the USA as we face possibly the worst ever econonic recession.

We have our political differences with Dawn but it is essential that  unite across parties to challenge these threats,




↧
Search

Bridge Park Hearing Resumes Today

July 27, 2020, 2:05 am
$
0
0
The hearing of the Brent Council v Leonard Johnson  Bridge Park case resumes at 10.30am this morning. The case is timetabled to last until Friday and will begin with witnesses for the defendants.

In the background there will also be the possible request by the defendant's QC, Mr Cottle, to amend the basis of the case and the judge's and Brent Council's QC's reaction to that request, as well as the need to clear up confusion over the various entities referred to in the case.

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

It is not yet clear, to me at any rate, why there may have been a change in the defendant's instructions to their solicitor.
↧

Make sure you have a say on OPDC plans for canalside Harlesden

July 27, 2020, 8:50 am
$
0
0



Press Release from West London Business 

The Old Oak and Park Royal DevelopmentCorporation (OPDC), working in partnership with the London Borough of Brent and the Canal & River Trust, is planning exciting improvements to the Grand Union Canal between Acton Lane and Steele Road. 


The plans are being created in close collaboration with local residents and will include outdoor ‘pop-up’ recreational, work and leisure facilities, as well as new public space to bring life to the canal and support for a wide range of business and community activities. 
Ideas for future use include a workshop for boaters, a canoe club base, a community hub and outdoor café or market space.

OPDC has appointed specialist community and commercial space operator, 3Space, architects, We Made That, to work with local people to scope and design the project. 
The project is part of a £1.2m community investment, funded by the Mayor’s Good Growth Fund to bring forward a range of improvements to public spaces on the canal. 

OPDC’s Chief Executive, David Lunts said:
 “Covid-19 has shown us that public outdoor space in London is more precious than ever and our plans will enable people from Harlesden and beyond to enjoy the benefits of the canal. This project will provide a greener, safer community space for residents and visitors, and also support local businesses” 

“The idea for regenerating Harlesden Canalside came from the local community and we are now reaching out to local groups, residents, businesses and boaters to decide exactly how this space should take shape.”

Cllr Shama Tatler, Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning said:
 “This is an area of Brent which is not only rich in history but also one brimming with potential for the future, so these plans are exciting and something really positive to look forward to. They could help to breathe new life into the area, create new space for community activities, new business opportunities and create local jobs.

“As with all regeneration in Brent, we’re committed that it only happens with the input of local people and we look forward to hearing the views of local residents, businesses and community groups as these plans are taken forward.”
Canal & River Trust’s Director, London & South East, Ros Daniels, said:
“As people are looking more and more to green space to support their wellbeing, the value of London’s canals as places to relax and enjoy, and also as vibrant destinations, is to be celebrated. We know that people who spend time by the canal are healthier and happier and we are excited to see how this canal-side space will develop and come to life through the ideas of people who visit, live or work in Harlesden and Park Royal.”

Due to Covid-19, OPDC has paused face-to-face engagement events and will be consulting on this project remotely until it’s safe to do otherwise. More information about our remote engagement will be available soon and representatives from 3Space will be reaching out to community groups in due course to begin consultation. In the meantime, if you are a resident or represent a local business or community organisation and would like to be involved , please contact OPDC by emailing info@opdc.london.gov.uk.

↧
↧

Leonard Johnson's marathon appearance at Bridge Park hearing and more to come tomorrow

July 27, 2020, 1:51 pm
$
0
0
The day started with a brief conversation about  Counsel and some court room staff appeared now wearing facebooks.  Apparently guidance was issued last on Friday.  The Judge decided he was sufficiently social distanced not to have to wear one!  The combination of an echo on the sound and the masks made it very hard to hear properly but that was eventually remedied.

Mr Cottle for the defendants said that he was 'parking' the possible amendment to change the pleading.  The change appears to be switching from a claim that HPCC and successor organisations owned the property, to one that they were granted a lease that stipulated an option to eventually buy the freehold, with the expectation that they would do so. The legal point being argued  is whether that is sufficient for them to be deemed to have an interest in the land.

After Mr Cottle detailed issues around the plea the Judge said, 'We now know what the point is, whether it's a good one or not...'

The first and only witness today was Leonard Johnson recognised as the young man in 1981 who spearheaded the campaign for the Harlesden/Stonebridge community to have a physical base of its own at the Stonebridge Bus Depot site from which  they would run a community organisation providing a range of activities for the black community of the area.  His close cross-examination, with three breaks, lasted all day and will resume tomorrow.

Ms Holland, Counsel for Brent went straight into the issue of ownership of the site producing a 1985 document  about the Steering Group, which Johnson has signed, that she claimed showed the council owned all the site.  She said that if HPCC had an interest in the property it would have stated so in the document.

Mr Johnson said that this was the only way, the council had told them (in 1982) that HPCC couldn't sign because they were not incorporated. Holland said the council had by then owned it for 3 years. By signing it Johnson had acknowledged that the council had ownership.

Johnson said that perhaps they had been naive at the time. 'If we knew we would have no rights we wouldn't have signed.  The council was a legal entitiy and we were not.  The council had come on board saying, we wil work with you and get the garage.'

Ms Holland asked if Johnson had been a director of the Steering Group all the way through. He responded that he had resigned in 1991 and 1992 and for the last time in 1994.  He had done this at a public meeting of about 400 people when he felt his character was being assassinated. The Kilburn Times has asked, 'Was he pushed or did he jump?'  He had resigned for the good of the community so the project could continue.

Mr Johnson said that a councillor has been elected to the Steering Group board and was one of those who attacked him, 'He was a racist and slandered me.'  After that he had not been involved with the steering group but the HPCC still had a majority on the board. He was involved in other HPCC projects in the community.

There was then a discussion about whether the board had professional legal advice and whether the adviser was experienced in property law.  Johnson said, 'Brent had top lawyers, we couldn't afford that.'

HPCC  had legal advice over management  training, business units and contracts.

Ms Holland then put it to Johnson that if HPCC had a legal interest in the property the adviser would have raised it. He replied that it wa raised many times. 'The lease and the freehold had been spoken about and we wrote into the lease that we had an option to purchase - first priority as we had got the majority of the funds.'  Holland said if there was some entitlement to the building, the legal adviser would have raised it and it would be documented.

Mr Johnson claimed it was documented. The old campaign had been about getting the building. 'I was happy getting the money for the building, the staff and getting it up and running.  Brent had to take control as we were unincorporated but we always believed we owned the building.'

Ms Holland said 'You have changed your case very recently and very substantially, It is an extensive change in the last few days.  The claim throughout was that you [HPCC?] were the sole beneficiary but you now claim that HPCC would have the lease and one day have an option to buy the freehold.'


Mr Johnson said, 'All I am saying is that the council were going to get the project for us and after a while they wanted their money back. Bridge Park is unique - it is not just a leisure centre.'

Holland then referred to Mr Johnson's Witness Statement  which she said made no reference to an option to buy. It argued that the defendants owned the entire beneficial interest in the property. 'You made a statement that what you said was true. The claim was that you were the owner of the freehold. You never claimed in the statement that you had an option to buy the freehold. This was nine months after you claimed to register the restriction. Did you care if it was true?'

Johnson: 'It's true.'

Ms Holland referred to a 1988 Brent Council Policy and Resources report that stated the project had dropped the request to purchase the freehold 'for the time being.'  Johnson said he didn't remember it.

Holland said there had been no reference to any request on option to buy until 1986 and then dropped in 1988. It was then not raised again until June 2020. She told Johnson that the reference in his evidence was not until June 2020.  It had never been raised until then and so the claim had no credibility.

Mr Johnson said 'for the time being' may have been due to legal work that needed to be done of Brent Council finances,

Challenged that if there had been an option it would have been raised frequently. Johnson said it had been raised frequently.  'We went along with it because at the time the council was working with us. All along we felt we owned the property.  I know in my heart we weren't working for the council - we were working for the community.'

Ms Holland returned to the issue that June 2020 was the first time the claim had been made.  Johnson said, '2020 was when we had to build our case.' Holland pressed the point that he hadn't  been involved in Bridge Park since 1992 - the council had started consultation about it in 2013.  'You had never put in a claim  in all those years.'

Johnson answered tht he had only been engaged with the HPCC. He was called back when the council wanted to sell the land. 'The leader of the Conservative Party said, "You need to get back"'
There had been a meeting about the future of Bridge Park called by Cllr Butt (Leader of Brent Council,  attended by Dawn Butler MP (Brent Central), and he had refused what they offered.

There was further discussion about Johnson's involvement later when and Johnson said he was unwell and in hospital so he couldn't ger involved, the extent of his knowledge was via one or two individuals. He was called back when Bridge Park was threated.

Holland challenged that he was underplaying his involvement and had more knowledge that he was saying. Johnson denied that this was the case.

Speaking about the intial campaign Leonard Johnson said, 'We saw ourselves as the oweners.  As young boys we had to have ownership but it was in trust until we got older and more mature.  Brent were taking care of our part in the project and waiting for us to mature.  We employed professional staff but everyone trained up an apprentice to take over.'

Ms Holland said that all documentation since the time of acquisition indicated that all parties were proceeding on the understanding that the council acquired the property.  Johnson replied, 'We were unincorporated, people off the street, we couldn't buy it. The council had to do it for us. It was only after we stopped the riots that the council said, "How can we support you?" and we said they could help us get the bus garage.'

When Holland said that ownership was always going to be with the council, Johnson replied that if that had been the case 'we would have had nothing to do with it.'

Referring to the document about the project which had a preface signed by Johnson, Holland said it stated that Brent Council would buy the property and HPCC would manage it: management is different from ownership.  Mr Johnson said in the long-term the project would be self-financing and they were committed to buying the freehold. In the short-term it need an injection of hard cash. 'We were always commited to enggaing with the council. They were our main partners.'

Holland reiterated, 'It is clear ownership and acquisition was with the council and the project was managed by HPCC.'

Johnson  said he totally disagreed. Responding to the Judge he said the document had been drafted by Brent Council. Holland pointed out the document made it clear  it had been drafted with the assistance of the HPCC. There had been a distinction from the start between ownership and management. In the short-term with HPCC and then with the community co-operative.

Johnson retorted, 'No way we were prepared to just manage for Brent Council, 'manage' doesn't mean we didn't see ourselves as owning it.

In a long section dealing with the sale by LT of the bus garage and whether it had been at a discounted rate, Johnson said, 'The council couldn't have bought it for themselves. The council had no use for it. We had the vision.'  Holland quoted evidence that there had been 16 other conditional offers for the bus garage - it hadn't been taken off the market as Johnson claimed.

At this point Johnson made a mention of the Covenant on the sale which protected BPCC's interests in the community development and was inserted at the instigation of the GLC. (1)

There had been problem regarding planning permisison for other applications but LT constitutionally had to realise the market value and that, according to Holland, was what happened.

After the lunch break Ms Holland asked Mr Johnson complex questions about the latest judgment in the case, repossession and circumstances around the lease, leading him to exclaim, 'To be honest I haven't a clue what you're talking about!'

Johnson said they were all volunteers, working for the community 'out of the heart, not for income: that's our culture.'  Going back to 1981 he said the vision was self-sufficiency, 'developing our own economy, our own sustainability. We made clear we wanted nothing to do with the council but the council came to us, they literally had to beg us. How did you stop the riots?  They were mesmerised. We didn't want the council to control us. We wanted them to recognise that we had talent.  They got involved with us - not us with them. We were going for bus garage purchase before they even knew. we were going for it. We wrote up plans via community involvement we met with Harlesden Forum, Stonebridge Forum, Chalkhill.  I said [to the council], ' Let's try and do something with us. Be fair to us. Not bully us. The council has no claim whatsoever in terms of Bridge Park.'

Challenged that it had been Brent Council land from the start Mr Johnson said. 'No. The Urban Programme, GLC, only came on board because of HPCC.  Brent knew it was the only way to get the money.' He said he had got people on board, talked to Chair of Wimpey and got the car park surfaced free: 'Wasn't that money?'

The  Judge suggsted a 10 minute break. Johnson apologised for his passion.

On resumption Ms Holland said that there was absolutely no refernce in any of the documents to the council gifting the land to the HPCC.   In response Mr Johnson claimed that the document said they could eventually purchase the freehold. 'I don't believe at any time Brent owned the land. They bought it, yes, if you are saying that because their names are on it.'

He cited Lord Young's support for the project and HPCC's invitation to Prince Charles to open the building and his putting him on th Prince's Trust.

Holland put it to Johnson that he had said the only reason HPCC was not on the documentation was because they were unincorporated but all documents showed it was Brent property and it was they who received the  grant funding. Johnson responded that if it hadn't been for the HPCC Brent wouldn't have got the funding.  'It is absolutely clear in all the documents. We are named in the acquisition of the bus garage. Named on all the documents.  We made a presentation to the council: "You are the problem. Let us have have an economical foundation for our community. Others have something. We are at the bottom of the pit."  They unanimously agreed. We wanted an asset, a stake, to run businesses.'

The Judge asked, 'Isn't running a business an asset?'

Leonard Johnson replied, 'We were the only ones who didn't have an asset. We told people we are the owners.'

Ms Holland said that if the intention was for HPCC to be the owners they would be named in the documents.  Johnson replied that this was because Brent council was 'indulging in skulduggery and put a racist on the board.'  In answer to a further question he  said that the council knew what they were up to: 'get HPCC to get the asset. Then when they've got it, get rid of it for themselves.'

Holland pointed out that it was for the community, not for HPCC,

Mr Johnson replied that HPCC represented the community. They were the only organisation that linked with everyone. The only organisation that could get 1,000 people into Brent Town Hall to hear his report.

Holland pursued the point saying, 'You were a significant person - you were not the community.  The council does have a role in community - you do not.'

Johnson said that the recent meeting about Bridge Park achieved 1,200 people at three week's notice.

The next exchange covered previous ground over sources of funding and whether it went to the council or HPCC. Holland suggested that HPCC was only named on the Urban Aid documentation because the council had to refer to social needs to get the grant. Mr Johnson said,' I want to work with the council but I don't need them to take our assets away.  Brent locked themselves into a corner with GMH. Why didn't they come to use for help?  We want to work with them.'

Ms Holland suggested that community entity some time acquring the property was just a hope.

Johnson, 'No, it was a belief. We thought the council would make sure we got it.'

Holland, 'An aspiration, not an entitlement.'

Johnson, 'Our community don't see that - the opposite.'

Holland then quoted Leonard Johnson's Witness Statement in which he used 'aspiration' to hold the property. This had also been the word used by council witnesses.

Johnson responded that the CEO at the time had said there was no objection in principle to them acquiring the freehold. They couldn't at the time until the whole organisation had been trained up to be professional.   He said they wanted to be in a position to pay the council back.

Johnson said that they had an accountant for the details of the grants, 'I opened the door to the funders.'

Holland pointed out that there had been no promise or assurances over HPCC acquisition. Just because it was mentioned  it didn't mean they would definitely get the freehold.

Johnson said that there had been assurances at a council meeting. The witnesses were being economical with the truth.  These people were there.  We looked at ourselves in terms of Watt County, we had a man come over from there. If they were telling the truth, they would say they agreed that HPCC would get the freehold.'

Ms Holland argued that if HPCC had an interest in the property they would not have needed a license to occupy. Johnson resplied that this was just a management procedure to make sure they were covered by insurance.

He added, 'The community are saying the council sold Bridge Park to an off-shore company and they are absolutely livid about it.'

(1) Brent Council applied to the GLC successor body, Bromley Council, for removal of the Covenant and this was granted.

↧

Brent relents! – Planning consultee comments to be published in future

July 28, 2020, 10:04 am
$
0
0
Guest blog by Philip Grant.  He deserves congratulations for winning a victory for openness and transparency.


This subject may appear to be of limited interest, but if you are ever affected by a planning application, or if you ever have to deal with Brent Council over any issue where you feel they are not acting reasonably, I would invite you to read on.

Just before the first “virtual” Planning Committee meeting on 6 May, Sudbury Town Residents Association sought to have the station car park application adjourned from the agenda, on grounds including that Statutory Consultee comments were not available to view on Brent’s website. STRA’s request was ignored, although Planning Officers persuaded the committee to adjourn it, after they had voted to reject the Officers’ recommendation.

Consultee comments on planning applications can be useful to help both potential objectors and applicants understand the points at issue on the proposals, particularly on a large application. There might be over 100 documents to look at, a daunting prospect for any resident who finds out about an application that might affect where they live. Why shouldn’t they be able to see what TfL, Thames Water or any of the Council Officers dealing with matters such as air quality, transport or noise think about the merits or defects of the proposed development?

I had raised a similar point on the 1 Morland Gardens application. The first comment I submitted, on 1 March, said: ‘Under the "tab" View Consultees Comments, there are notes of many people who have been invited to comment, but none of their comments are actually available to view. All comments made by any of these consultees should be included here, just as comments for or against the application by members of the public are shown, in the interests of openness and transparency.’


This is what you get if you want to "View Consultees Comments" for application 20/0345!
 
When there were still no consultee comments shown for application 20/0345 later in the month, I raised the point again in an email with Regeneration Admin. Services, who look after the planning website. The initial reply I received was: ‘we do not publish [these] comments on our public access system, unless specifically requested to do so, as some commentators complain when we publish their comments.’

I questioned this response, as comments from members of the public are all published (without their name, but with their address shown). My reasoning was: ‘When those comments are made by Brent Council officers, about planning applications which themselves are open for public consultation, it surely goes against the Council's own policies on openness and transparency not to make their comments publicly available?’ I asked for the matter to be passed up to the unit’s manager for a reply, and was told that it had been, but no reply came.

As heritage would be a key issue in the 1 Morland Gardens case (with the Council seeking to demolish this locally listed Victorian villa in Stonebridge), I did manage to obtain a copy of the consultee comments from Brent’s Principle Heritage Conservation Officer in April (under FoI!). Martin also obtained a copy, and published his comments as a blog. Among other things, they said that the building ‘should be considered an important local heritage asset of high significance’, and that ‘additional information needs to be obtained before a proper assessment of the proposals can be determined.’

1 Morland Gardens (with No.2 beyond) - 'an important local heritage asset'.


When those consultee comments, or any others, had not been put on Brent planning’s website in May, I took up the matter again with the Case Officer. He said: ‘we only publish comments made online on our website, but of course will consider all comments received – both from internal and external consultees - when evaluating a scheme.’ I responded that: ‘In the interests of openness and transparency, all consultee comments, whether from the public, council officers or other consultees should be publicly available on the website, as all are relevant to anyone considering the application(s).’ I asked for this to be referred to a higher level.

Experience has taught me that you can’t rely on the summaries of consultee comments that Brent’s planners include in their Officer Reports to Planning Committee. I was an objector in another heritage planning case a year ago (the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals). A key consultee comment was summarised in a single sentence: 'The Council’s Principal Heritage Officer notes that, given that the tiles are not a designated heritage asset, the proposals are a reasonable compromise.' 

I had obtained a copy of the comments (again, under FoI!) and the Report failed to mention the Heritage Officer’s comment that: ‘These colourful tiled murals … have artistic, historic and cultural merit.’ That would have helped the objectors’ case, but also would have undermined the planning officer’s recommendation to approve the application!

 'These colourful tiled murals have artistic, historic and cultural merit.'(Photo courtesy of Quintain)

The Case Officer did refer my detailed explanation, of why all consultee comments on planning applications should be made publicly available, to Brent’s Development Management Manager (“DMM”). When chasing up for a reply, in mid-May, I mentioned that STRA had also raised the absence of consultee comments with the Council (they never received a reply). 

The DMM’s response was: ‘We are not legally required to publish comments on our web site, but we do publish comments that are made using our online portal as these are automatically redacted. We don’t publish other comments due to the time taken to redact the comments (and associated cost).’ He did say, however, that redacted copies of consultee comments would be made available, on request to the Case Officer.

I made clear in my reply that this was now a complaint, as the Council should be making consultee comments publicly available, because of clear statements in Brent’s Constitution about openness and transparency, as part of supporting the active involvement of citizens in the decision-making process. The way to solve my complaint was simple – consultees should be asked to submit their comments using the online planning portal, just as ordinary members of the public have to do, and their names would be automatically redacted!

My helpful suggestion met with a short (and rather sharp) response from the DMM in June:
‘I note that you believe that our current processes are not in line with statutory and constitutional obligations.  I don’t share your view.  Our practices are in line with relevant obligations.’ He did, however, say: ‘we will evaluate your suggestions.’

I felt this attempted “brush off” was unacceptable, so referred the matter to Brent’s Chief Executive as a Stage 2 complaint, saying: ‘Unless Brent Council can show, clearly, why it has no obligation to make consultee comments on planning applications publicly available, just as it makes other comments on those applications publicly available, it should acknowledge that its current practice is not acceptable, and change that practice forthwith.’

The initial acknowledgement was not encouraging, as I was told that the Head of Planning would be dealing with my “Stage 1” complaint. My response, to the Chief Executive, was polite but firm: ‘[The Head of Planning] may well need to ensure that the Planning Service's practice over "consultee comments" is changed, as a result of my Stage 2 complaint, but I look forward to hearing that the complaint itself will be properly dealt with by an independent officer, as set out in the Council's complaints procedure.’

On 27 July, nearly five months after first raising the matter of consultee comments with Brent’s planners, I finally received a satisfactory answer, by way of a letter drafted by a senior Complaints Investigator and signed by Carolyn Downs, Brent’s Chief Executive (see copy below). While it does not admit that the existing practice of not publishing consultee comments goes against the promises in Brent’s Constitution (‘The legal advice was that the constitution does not specifically require internal consultee comments to be published as a matter of course.’), that practice will now be changed.

The letter says: ‘Your complaint has however helpfully contributed to a discussion which had already commenced within the Planning Service about whether statutory and internal consultee comments should be published on the planning application database, regardless of the absence of a legal or constitutional requirement to do so. The Planning Service has now reached the conclusion that it would be beneficial to publish statutory and internal consultee comments in future.’ Whether or not ‘the discussion within the Planning Service’ only commenced when faced with my Stage 2 complaint is just speculation. The result is that ‘the new approach’ to consultee comments should be fully implemented within the next 3 months.


More "View Consultees Comments" entries from the 20/0345 application details on the Planning website.


That won’t help for the application I raised the matter over, which will probably go to Planning Committee in two weeks time. I am still waiting for some further consultee comments I requested on this, especially those of the Principal Heritage Officer in response to the June 2020 Heritage Impact Assessment, and my own objection comments on that.

I hope that others will take heart that, through polite but persistent pressure, it is sometimes possible to make Brent Council take action over a reasonable request – but they make you work hard for it! I also hope that more people will be encouraged to respond to planning applications that may affect their lives, make use of the extra information that will become available through consultee comments, and put in their own comments (either objecting or in support) where they have a view which they feel strongly about.

Philip Grant.


↧

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

July 28, 2020, 2:12 pm
$
0
0
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.




↧
Viewing all 7141 articles
Browse latest View live
Search