Olympic Way tile murals will soon be on permanent public display!

 Guest post by Philip Grant. (Congratulations to Philip on this achievement as a result of his amazing persistence)

When I wrote last weekend about the heritage tile murals at Olympic Way being on display from 1^st to 21^st March, I mentioned that I was still waiting to receive a reply from Quintain to the New Year’s Day message I’d sent to their Chief Executive Officer.

 

Olympic Way murals on display in February 2020. (Photo by Mark Price, Brent Council)

 

I’m pleased to say that I have now received a letter from James Saunders at Quintain, and this is the good news:

 

‘Thank you for your letter dated 1^st January 2022. We have given your request careful consideration.

 

We share your commitment to celebrating the heritage of the murals and can confirm that when the current advertisement consent for the Spiritflex Vinyl coverings to the abutment walls outside of Bobby Moore Bridge to the South East (SE) and South West (SW) expires on 25^th August 2022 we will not seek to renew that consent.’

 

This means that these mural scenes, on the walls outside of the Bobby Moore Bridge subway at Wembley Park WILL be back on permanent public display by the end of August this year, after being covered with Quintain’s advertising, apart from short “reveals” since the autumn of 2013. 

 

Tile mural scenes on the east wall of the subway. (Composite by Amanda Rose, courtesy of Quintain)

 

I believe that this is an important step towards getting ALL of the murals, celebrating Wembley’s sports and entertainment history, back on permanent public display. But the battle for the murals on the walls of the subway itself (other than the “footballers” mural, which was put on display again in 2019, as a result of efforts by Wembley History Society) will be for another year.

 

The current “reveal” includes the remnant of the original Pop Music / “Live Aid” mural scene, on the west wall of Olympic Way, seen here in an old photograph:

 

The tile mural celebrating “Live Aid” as it originally looked.

 

Around 2006, TfL constructed a stairway down from the bus stop on the bridge to Olympic Way. In the process they removed much of this mural scene, apart from the drummer, and did a “patch up” with a different type of ceramic tile:

 

The “patched up” mural scene in 2012. (Google Street View image, courtesy of Quintain)

 

In his letter to me of 2 March, James Saunders wrote:

 

‘The newer (square format) tiling to the SW abutment staircase that was installed by TFL in 2006 was removed in c.2016 as the tiles were falling off the rendered wall. We would like to engage with you and the Wembley History Society to find the best solution for that area of the walls. The staircase would prevent a full recreation of the original section of the mural showing Mark Knopfler, Tina Turner and Freddy Mercury, but we are keen to reflect aspects of the original design, where possible.’

 

I’m sure that there are plenty of local people with more artistic and design skill than me! Before I take up Quintain’s offer to engage with them over possible design ideas, I would like to throw the discussion open to YOU. 

 

You can see the awkward, tapering shape of the area available for a restored (or new?) mural scene commemorating “Live Aid” at Wembley. Its scale at the subway end would have to fit in with that of the murals in the subway, which immediately adjoin it. Would it be best to retain the drummer section as it is, and design out from that? Or would it be better to replace, the drummer section, in order to give a larger “canvas” for a mural design? 

 

Close up view of part of a mural scene, showing how the tile designs are made.

 

It should be remembered that the mural scenes are made up of different coloured ceramic tiles which are oblong in shape, fixed vertically. The close-up example above (showing the way tiles were used to portray Michael Jackson’s dancing feet, in a mural scene currently hidden behind light boxes in the subway) gives an idea of how the mural designs are made.

 

This is the sorry state of the remains of the “Live Aid” mural scene now:

 

The mural scene, as “revealed” on a wet day in March 2022. (Courtesy of Quintain)

 

Can you help to design a much better tribute to “Live Aid”, please, which will grace the walls of Olympic Way as part of the murals celebrating Wembley’s sports and entertainment heritage for decades to come? If so, please suggest your ideas as a comment below, or send them (with a possible design, if you have one) to Martin. Thank you.

Philip Grant.

 

 

NEW YEAR’S DAY APPEAL TO QUINTAIN: Olympic Way tile murals – let’s get them back on permanent display!

 New Year Guest Post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

2022 is the year which provides an excellent opportunity to get more of the Bobby Moore Bridge tile mural scenes back on permanent public display. I’ve launched my campaign to get the murals on the walls of Olympic Way, just outside the subway from Wembley Park Station, returned to public view. On 1 January I sent an open letter to Quintain’s Chief Executive Officer, which I’ve set out in full at the end of this article.

 

The east wall mural scenes in Olympic Way, on display in February 2020.
(Photo by Mark Price, Brent Council)

 

Full details of the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals can be found in an illustrated article I wrote for Brent Archives. The murals were covered over with vinyl advertising sheets in the autumn of 2013, under a deal between Brent Council officers and Quintain. Wembley History Society campaigned in 2018 to have all of the murals put back on permanent public display. Quintain’s response in 2019 was to do this for just the central mural scene on the east wall of the subway, showing England footballers at the old “twin towers” stadium.

 

I had hoped I could persuade Brent’s Cabinet not to allow the murals in the subway to remain covered over, when Quintain’s Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease came up for renewal in August 2021. However, in January last year I discovered that the lease had secretly been extended to August 2024 by Council officers, under a very dodgy deal in 2019.

 

Quintain contractors fixing advertising screens over some of the subway murals in July 2019.

 

Unfortunately, that lease extension means that it won’t be possible for the rest of the mural scenes, on both sides of the subway, to be seen again in time for the centenary of Wembley Stadium’s opening (for the F.A. Cup final in 1923). The only “good thing” in the extended lease was that Quintain agreed to allow Brent to request that the Olympic Way murals be put on display for up to 21 days a year. In fact, they were put on display for a full five weeks (wow!) at the start of Brent’s year as London Borough of Culture 2020.

 

Now, I’m asking Quintain to “do the right thing”, and not to apply to extend their advertisement consent for the Olympic Way tile murals. I hope that they will respond positively, but if they don’t, I will be just one of many local people who fight their application all the way. I am confident that, if it comes to that, our objections should succeed in stopping the renewal of a consent which Brent’s planners should never have given in the first place.

 

This is my open letter:

 

To: James Saunders                                                          From: Philip Grant
       Chief Executive Officer                                                              
       Quintain Limited                                                         (address  removed)
       180 Great Portland Street
        London, W1W 5QZ                                                          

This is an open letter

                                                                                                                1 January 2022

Dear Mr Saunders,

 

Heritage tile murals at Olympic Way, Wembley Park.

Happy New Year! Quintain and its Wembley Park subsidiary have an important decision to make in 2022, and I am writing, as a member of Wembley History Society, to encourage you and your colleagues to make the right one.

 

The heritage tile murals at Olympic Way, celebrating sports and entertainment events at Wembley Stadium and Arena, have been covered over with Quintain’s vinyl advertising sheets for most of the time since the autumn of 2013. 

 

In September 2013, Quintain applied for advertisement consent for a period of five years. Brent’s Planning department did not deal with that application until August 2017, and gave consent for five years from then. Although there was a later advertisement consent in 2019 for the Bobby Moore Bridge subway and parapets, the consent for the tiled walls in Olympic Way expires on 25 August 2022. I hope you will decide not to apply to renew that consent.

 

When Quintain first entered into a deal with Brent Council officers in 2013, over advertising at the Bobby Moore Bridge and on the walls of Olympic Way to the south of the subway from Wembley Park Station, the London Designer Outlet was just about to open. I can understand why your company then wished to use this “gateway” to its new Wembley Park developments to promote the LDO, and later its Tipi rental flats, Alto apartments and Boxpark joint venture. 

 

However, the LDO and Quintain’s other Wembley Park developments are now well established and widely known. There is no need for your company to put large advertisements on the walls of Olympic Way to publicise them, especially as you now have larger LED advertising screens on the parapets of Bobby Moore Bridge, and large banner advertising on the new lamp posts along Olympic Way.

 

That alone would be a good reason not to apply for consent to continue displaying advertisements over the tile murals in Olympic Way. But an even stronger reason is that these murals are part of a public artwork, designed to celebrate an important part of Wembley Park’s history, something which adds to the area’s “sense of place” for residents and visitors.

 

Quintain and Brent Council may not have realised the cultural and heritage importance of these tile mural scenes in 2013, but that is not the case now. I was one of the Wembley History Society representatives invited to the Mayor of Brent’s “reveal” of the Olympic Way tile murals, at the start of Brent’s year as London Borough of Culture in January 2020. Brent’s publicity for that event said of ‘the heritage tiles at Wembley Park’s Bobby Moore Bridge’:

 

‘The tiles, which show scenes from famous sports and entertainment events at Wembley Stadium and the SSE Arena, Wembley, are part of Brent’s rich heritage and date back to September 1993 when they were originally dedicated to the legendary footballer.’

 

 

Julian Tollast, speaking on behalf of Quintain at the “reveal” event (above), said:

 

‘The iconic cultural and sporting events at Wembley are celebrated in these heritage tiles behind us, and we are really proud to work with Brent and with Wembley History Society to make the reveal on a periodic basis of these murals possible.'  

 

Quintain / Wembley Park’s respect for the heritage value of these tile murals was also shown, in the welcome repair of damage caused by water ingress behind the tiles, in March 2021. 

 

I hope you will agree that the time has come for these heritage assets to be put back on public display, not just ‘on a periodic basis’, but permanently. Advertisement consent to cover the American Football, Rugby League and Ice Hockey mural scenes on the east wall, and the drummer image remnant of the Stadium Concerts scene on the west side of Olympic Way, expires in August 2022. However, if the advertising could be removed before then, in time for the Women’s Euros football final on 31 July, or the summer music concerts (such as those by Ed Sheeran in late June), so much the better. That would allow tens of thousands more visitors to Wembley Park to enjoy them.

 

I look forward to hearing from you that Quintain / Wembley Park will not be seeking to extend its advertising consent for the tiled mural walls on Olympic Way. 

 

Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

EXCLUSIVE: Wembley's famous football mural will remain on public view until at least August 2024 after Philip Grant's tenacious campaign wins public support

 

The mural beneath Bobby Moore Bridge, Olympic Way, Wembley Park

 

It  turned out that  Debra Norman's letter to Philip Grant LINK  cutting off any further correspondence about the campaign to keep the football mural on permanent public view  was not quite the last word. Following Philip's persistent correspondence and forensic analysis of Brent Council planning documentation. along with emails of support from residents, Brent Council Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, has written to Philip. 

Although the email still claims to uphold the Council's view over advertisement consent, Ms Downs has now asked for, and received, Quintain's promise that they will not cover the "footballers" mural with adverts for the rest of their lease (up to August 2024).

Dear Mr Grant,

I have spoken to both the Leader of the Council and Councillor Nerva before responding to you, as you requested.

The Council has taken your representations on this matter very seriously. It is not just Brent’s lawyers but also external legal advice which aligns with that of the council regarding Quintain’s right to advertise over the football mural.

Because the Council values the mural very much and because we have requested of Quintain that it remain on view, and because they too value it, it has now been on display for a considerable period of time and has not been covered by advertising. Furthermore Quintain have confirmed to me in writing that they do not intend covering the mural for the remaining period of the lease. 

I concur with Ms Norman that we have spent enough time corresponding with you on this matter particularly given that the mural will remain on view and that is what you have sought to achieve.

Yours sincerely,

Carolyn Downs

Chief Executive

Congratulations Philip!

 

Bobby Moore Bridge “footballers” mural – Brent Council’s “final word”?

 Guest post by Philip Grant

Following my “open email” of 26 May, Carolyn Downs appears to have accepted that it would be unreasonable for the Council not to answer the strong case that I put forward, showing that there is no advertisement consent to cover the “footballers” mural in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway with adverts. 

 

 

Last Thursday evening, I received an email for the Council’s Legal Director, saying that ‘the Chief Executive has asked me to write to you this final time.’ I will set out the full text of that email below, so that anyone can read how some Senior Council Officers feel they can treat Brent’s citizens. Although Ms Norman considers the correspondence on this matter is over, there are some important things I wish to say in response to her, and I will say them here.

 

You might think that, because ‘a substantial amount of council resource has been devoted to considering the concerns’ I raised, I have been wasting the Council’s time. 

 

I have submitted Freedom of Information Act requests, to establish the facts behind transactions that Council Officers have failed to conduct openly and transparently.

 

I did make ‘a whistleblowing complaint’ when those FoI’s uncovered potentially fraudulent arrangements, which may have given a false impression that a “deal” done by Council Officers was “best value”. You’d have thought Brent’s Director of Audit & Investigations would be grateful for my bringing this to the Council’s attention!

 

I have written a number of letters to Senior Council Officers about this matter, but if those letters had been dealt with properly, from the start, the difficulty I drew attention to could have been sorted out much earlier. Unfortunately, it is a dispute which has still not been resolved.

 

Last month I suggested what I believe was a sensible way to resolve it, quickly and efficiently, through a small arbitration panel of our elected councillors. Ms Norman dismissively refers to this as ‘some sort of agreement between yourself and the council’. The reason she gives for that opinion is that ‘such an agreement would not include the holder of the legal rights’, but those “legal rights” only exist if the Council has given them and they are still valid. 

 

It’s a simple point, and I think that councillors are capable of considering it fairly, and deciding it on the basis of the facts and evidence. But if Brent wants to invite Quintain to have their say to an arbitration panel, I would have no objection, as long as they, like the Council and myself, agree to accept the panel’s decision.

 

If the dispute is resolved that way, we would not need ‘repeated correspondence.’ I’m ready to “put my cards on the table”, and will ask Martin to attach my ‘up to 1,000 words’ submission to the panel setting out why there is no advertisement consent for the footballers mural.

 

The Council’s Legal Director would prefer me either to “go away”, or ‘to consider what legal steps may be available to you.’ She would be prepared to spend £000’s on legal fees of our Council Tax money (some of which might be recoverable from me if the Council managed to “win” the case on some legal technicality), rather than have our dispute settled quickly and effectively by arbitration. 

 

There is no need to go to Court over this, but I think that is Ms Norman’s last line of defence for what can now be exposed, through the details set out in her email, as a very weak case in claiming that there is advertisement consent. The Council’s case is so weak, and based on a superficial reading of only some of the relevant documents, that Brent’s Legal Director should be ashamed to put her name to it!

 

I have accepted from the start that the consent given in August 2017 (13/2987) did allow the subway walls, including the footballers mural, to be covered with vinyl advertising sheets. Ms Norman claims that this consent remains in place for the “footballers” mural, but that is where her case goes wrong. You could only take that view if you ignore most of the evidence!

 

Council lawyers seem to fixated on the 2019 consent being for ‘the use of light boxes … for advertising purposes.’ They’ve assumed this must mean that application 19/1474 does not apply to the footballers mural, but all of the supporting documents and drawings for that application show that it does, and that this tile mural scene will be uncovered as part of it.

 

The email says that I rely on ‘on references to 19/1474 being a “replacement scheme”.’ Yes, and for very good reasons! The letter submitting the application says it ‘will replace the existing system of wall coverings (approved under ref. 13/2987).’ This is also supported by the Officer Report to the Planning Committee meeting in July 2019 which approved it, that says: ‘The current application seeks consent for a replacement scheme.’

 

You will note that I have used a primary evidence source here, backed up by secondary evidence from a report on what the application documents show. The Legal Director’s argument falls apart when she bases it just on that same secondary source (and ignores all of the original application documents as well).

 

“The advertisements already consented can be displayed irrespective of the outcome of this application” is a quotation from a summary at the start of the Officer Report. If whichever Legal Officer researched this had read the body of the report, or taken the trouble to consider the application documents, they would have realised that this statement actually means the opposite of what Brent now claims!

 

In para.15 of the detailed part of the Officer Report it says: 

 

‘Advertisement [consent] has also been previously granted for vinyl adverts over the tiles (also in a way that does not damage them), and should advertisement consent not be granted for the light boxes, the vinyl advertisements also could still be installed revealing less of the tiles than what would be visible under this proposal.’

 

In other words, the consent under 13/2987 would only continue to apply to the walls of the Bobby Moore Bridge subway if application 19/1474 was not approved. 

 

It was approved, and replaced the 2017 consent, both for the new light boxes, and for the footballers mural. The advertisement consent documents show that, including the “Statement of Significance” (see quotes from this in my document below) submitted because the murals were identified as a heritage asset. Additional confirmation is given in para. 11 of the Officer Report:

 

‘The Council’s Principal Heritage Officer notes that, given that the tiles are not a designated heritage asset, the proposals are a reasonable compromise. Officers therefore consider it appropriate that the plaque would be visible and the Twin Towers would be permanently exposed in recognition that they are part of Brent’s Heritage.’

 

The plaque in the footballers mural, below one of the Stadium towers.

 

It was a key part of Quintain’s application that they recognised there was a heritage issue over the tile murals in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway. While applying for consent to advertise on the light boxes, they committed to put the footballers mural back on permanent public display. That was an integral part of the consent given under 19/1474, with a majority of Planning Committee members approving it because it was seen as ‘a reasonable compromise.’

For some reason (potential profits?) it appears that Wembley Park’s commercial team, and a few Council Officers, are seeking to claim an advertisement consent for the footballers mural which does not exist.

I will send a copy of this “guest blog” to Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs. I will ask her to decide, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, whether Brent should continue to hold to its false view over advertisement consent (and the disrepute this would bring, if the footballers mural is unlawfully covered with adverts when football fans come to Wembley for the Euros), or accept what the evidence clearly shows, that there is no such consent.

Philip Grant.

 

This is the full text of the email I received on 3 June:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

 

The Chief Executive has asked me to write to you one final time to answer your most recent emails to her and to reiterate the grounds upon which the council considers that Quintain has advertising consent to place vinyl advertisements on the tiles of the footballers mural. 

 

 

The council’s position, and the reasons for that position are as follows, and have already been given. 

 

 

Consent to the placing of vinyl advertisements on the tiles of the footballers mural is given by advertisement consent 13/2987 [25 August 2017]:

 

 

‘Advertisement consent for eight “gateway advertisements”  comprising… .. 4 no. vinyl advertisements attached to the east and west tiled walls of the underpass and adjoining Olympic Way’

 

 

This consent in respect of vinyl advertisements remains in place notwithstanding the subsequent advertisement consent 19/1474 [22 August 2019] which relates to the use of light boxes for advertising purposes and does not permit the light boxes to extend over the footballers mural.

 

 

19/1474 does not expressly restrict reliance on 13/2987. 

 

 

I understand it to be your view that despite the lack of an express restriction, 13/2987 can no longer be relied upon in respect of the Bobby Moore Bridge and its underpass because 19/1474 gives consent covering the same area, except of course that it does not extend to the footballers mural.

 

 

You rely on references to 19/1474 being a “replacement scheme”.  As stated in my email to you of 9 April, although the applicant for consent 19/1474 stated the consent was sought as a replacement scheme to 13/2987, there is nothing in the 19/1474 consent itself which prevents reliance on 13/2987, to the extent that the two consents are compatible. Display of vinyl advertisements on the footballers mural pursuant to 13/2987 would not impede reliance on 19/1474 to use light boxes for the display of advertisements on the area permitted by that consent, which does not include the footballers mural.

 

 

I also note that the officers report considered by the Planning Committee on 16 July 2019 expressly states that “The advertisements already consented can be displayed irrespective of the outcome of this application.”

 

 

I think the council’s position and the reasons for it have been made very clear.

 

 

As the Chief Executive has pointed out, Quintain has indicated that it does not in fact intend to place vinyl advertisements over the footballers mural in reliance on the 13/2987 consent.  With reference to your email of 24 May 2021, this is an informal indication from Quintain and not a binding commitment, although the Chief Executive hoped it would provide you with some re-assurance.

 

 

Consent 13/2987 will expire on 22 August 2022, so next year.  As you have pointed out, the reference to re-tendering at the end of this year in the Chief Executive’s email of 24 May 2021 was an error, perhaps connected to the consent expiring next year.  She has asked me to apologise for the confusion.

 

 

Your most recent email of 26 May 2021 repeats your assertion that the legal position could be resolved by some sort of agreement between yourself and the council.  This suggestion ignores the fact that such an agreement would not include the holder of the legal rights in relation to the advertising consents and so could be of no effect.

 

 

As indicated at the start of this letter, the Chief Executive has asked me to write to you this final time.  In addition to the correspondence with myself and the Chief Executive you have submitted FOIs requests and a whistleblowing complaint.  These have been, or are being, responded to. As set out in my email of 16 April 2021, a substantial amount of council resource has been devoted to considering the concerns you have raised and the council is not able to agree with your view or to take the steps you wish.

 

 

If you consider that there is something legally wrong in how the council has proceeded, I would urge you to consider what legal steps may be available to you.  It is clear that the disagreement between yourself and the council as to the legal position is not going to be resolved through repeated correspondence and it is not appropriate that any more council resource be devoted to such correspondence.

 

 

Best wishes

 

 

Debra Norman 

Director of Legal, HR, Audit & Investigations