UPDATED WITH BRENT CEO'S RESPONSE: Bobby Moore Bridge “footballers” mural – we need this dispute resolved!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in personal capacity

 SEE UPDATE AT FOOT OF THIS ARTICLE

 

As you had not seen yet another “guest blog” by me on the “footballers” tile mural since 13 April, when I set out the reasons that Quintain does not have consent to cover it with adverts and asked “Why won’t Brent concede?”, you may have hoped that this question had been settled by now. I’d hoped that as well!

 

The “footballers” mural in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway at Wembley Park.

 

Unfortunately, Brent Council Officers don’t want to “play ball”, and get this issue properly resolved. It seems they would prefer to “kick it into the long grass”, so that Quintain and its Wembley Park subsidiary can continue to claim they are “entitled” to cover over this heritage asset and public artwork with adverts for big events at Wembley Stadium, starting with the Euros football tournament next month.

 

It should be unthinkable for this mural, showing England footballers playing at the old “twin towers” Wembley, to be hidden away behind advertising material when fans are going to the stadium to watch their team play. The adverts would also cover-up the plaque which shows they are walking through a structure dedicated ‘in honour of a football legend’. Even if you are not a football fan, I hope you would agree it would be wrong for any adverts to be placed there unlawfully, and that is what I believe would be the case.

 

The plaque in the centre of the “footballers” tile mural.

 

After I had sent the detailed reasons why Quintain did not have advertisement consent for this mural to Brent’s Legal Director and Chief Executive on 9 April, I had expected either to receive their agreement, or their counter argument. Instead, this is the full text of the email I received on 16 April from Debra Norman:

 

‘A substantial amount of council resource has been devoted to considering the concerns you have raised, including taking external legal advice.  I am afraid we are now at the stage where it’s not reasonable continue with correspondence about this matter upon which it is clear the council is not in a position to agree your view or take the action you wish.’

 

Because this matter does need to be resolved, I believe it was reasonable to continue! I wrote to Carolyn Downs, asking her to let me know the reasons why the Council did not “agree my view”, and making clear that if they had a stronger case than the one I had put forward, I would accept it. 

 

I will not accept the outcome that Council Officers want to impose without the evidence to back it up. I know, from past experience, that the Council will never share a copy of the ‘external legal advice’ they have received. But as they told me the QC’s advice ‘aligned with’ the view they’d already taken, surely they could share that view with me?

 

What I asked for was: ‘the substance of the reasoning for your view that the 2017 advertisement consent still applies to the "footballers" mural, and the documentary evidence on which that reasoning is based.’ The answer I finally received from Brent’s Chief Executive, on 19 May, was:

 

‘I have taken further legal advice on sharing our QC advice and have been advised not to so do.’

 

I don’t think it is fair or open for senior Council Officers to refuse to give their reasons for the view they have taken on this important matter, and I have said so. I will ask Martin to attach the full text of the latest email exchanges, so that anyone who wishes to can read them and make their own judgement.

 

We are now less than three weeks away from the start of the Euros football tournament, so this dispute over advertisement consent does need to be resolved without further delay. As Council Officers are reluctant to settle the issue, I have taken the initiative and suggested that Brent Councillors could help to do that.

 

I decided to ask the Lead Member for Culture and Leisure if he would be willing to organise a small panel of councillors to arbitrate and decide, on the facts and evidence, whether or not Quintain has consent to put adverts over the “footballers” tile mural. Any decision would need to be binding on both myself and the Council, so I copied my email to the Chief Executive.

 

I approached Councillor Nerva as he had expressed an interest when I suggested, in early January, that the Cabinet should consider the option of only allowing advertising on the Bobby Moore Bridge parapets, not covering the murals on the subway walls, when the advertising lease came up for renewal in August 2021. (That was before it was disclosed that a VERY dodgy deal had been made by Council Officers in 2019, to extend the lease until August 2024!)

 

At the time of writing, I have not heard back from Councillor Nerva, but I will ask Martin to attach a copy of the text of my email, so that if you are interested you can see what I have suggested. You are welcome to add a comment below, if you wish to suggest any improvements to my proposals, or to share any better ideas on how this matter can be settled, quickly and fairly, and at minimal extra cost. 

 

Hopefully, either this way or another, we should be able to resolve this dispute. If I have to admit that my view was wrong, on the basis of the facts and evidence, I can accept that. 

 

But if I did not have confidence in the case I have already put forward, openly and transparently to Council Officers and my fellow Brent residents, I would not still be fighting to keep the “footballers” tile mural on permanent public display.

 

Philip Grant.

 

UPDATE- CAROLYN DOWNS' RESPONSE

Readers of this "guest blog" may be interested to know the latest developments, from this exchange of emails which took place this afternoon (24 May):

1. Dear Mr Grant 

Cllr Nerva has asked me to respond. 

Thanks for your suggestion of a way to resolve your outstanding issue. 

I am afraid that even if a panel of Councillors agreed with you it would not change the legal right for vinyl advertisements to be attached to the tiles over the football mural. 

I have mentioned before that the contract for advertising is due to be re-tendered later this year and in the meantime, Quintain have said that they will not advertise over it. 

Yours sincerely 

Carolyn Downs
Chief Executive
Brent Council

2. Dear Ms Downs,

Thank you for your email, in response to my suggestion to Cllr. Nerva last Friday that a panel of councillors could settle our (not my) outstanding dispute over advertisement consent by arbitration.

It would probably save a more detailed reply from me if you would clarify two points from the final sentence of your email, please, as quickly as possible.

You have said that 'the contract for advertising is due to be re-tendered later this year.' It was my understanding that the November 2019 Deed of Variation extended Wembley Park Ltd's advertising lease until August 2024. Would you explain, please, what the re-tendering will involve, and when this will happen.

You say that 'Quintain have said that they will not advertise over it.' Does that mean that Quintain have given a guarantee that no vinyl advertising sheets will be placed over the "footballers" tile mural? If so, I would welcome a copy of the communication confirming that, please.

Bobby Moore Bridge “footballers” mural – Why won’t Brent concede?

In this guest post, written in a personal capacity, Philip Grant returns to the the contentious planning issues surrounding the placement of advertising over the Bobby Moore murals at the Olympic Way underpass. It may be long but makes for rewarding reading as it reveals meticulous research and the polite but unapologetic logic of Philip Grant's position.

 

On 1 March, Martin posted a “guest blog” from me which included an update on the dispute over whether Quintain has the right to cover the “footballers” mural, in the Council-owned subway near Wembley Park station, with adverts on “event days”, including the Euros football matches this summer. It included the text of a message I’d sent to Carolyn Downs, Brent’s Chief Executive, on 25 February, showing how the dispute could be resolved immediately. Six weeks later, it has still not been resolved. Why?

 

The footballers tile mural, with the lights of “light boxes” just visible at either side of it.

 

Quintain had agreed in 2019 that this mural would be put back on permanent public display, even though the other mural scenes on the walls of the subway would be covered over with “light boxes” on which advertising material could be displayed. But the secret deal by Brent Council officers, extending Quintain’s Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease until August 2024, included a clause which said that they were entitled to cover this tile mural with adverts on a number of stadium “event days”.

 

 

An officer had replied on 25 February, on Ms Downs behalf, to say she would ‘ensure you are provided with a response as soon as possible.’ When I’d heard nothing more two weeks later, I decided that a letter to our local newspaper might encourage the Council to “do the right thing”, and the “Brent & Kilburn Times” kindly published it (the headline was not mine).

 

 

The following day (Friday 12 March), the Council officer emailed to say that I would receive a response ‘early next week’. More than a week later, this is what I received:

 

 

'I apologise again for the delay.  We are in the process of obtaining external advice in respect of the issues you have raised.  We will be able to send you a substantive response once we have received that.'

 

Why were Brent Council paying an outside lawyer for more advice, when I had already given them a clear explanation of the answer to this point, with full supporting evidence, for free?

 

 

When I received the “substantive response”, as part of an email from Carolyn Downs on 30 March, the Council did at last agree that the 2019 advertising consent ‘does not extend over the Footballers’ Mural.’ Hooray! They’d finally accepted the facts I set out to them more than a year earlier.

 

 

But there was a sting in the tail. There had been an original advertisement consent application, made in 2013, but not dealt with by Brent’s Planning Department until August 2017. Ms Downs said: ‘I am therefore advised that advertisement consent 13/2987 remains in place for the display of vinyl adverts attached to the tiles surface of the Footballers’ Mural provided they are attached to the tiles.’

 

It did not take me long to dispose of that point, and I replied later the same day: ‘I have to tell you that whoever is giving you advice on this planning matter has got it wrong, again.’ I explained in detail why that was the case, and summarised the position as follows:

 

 

Application 19/1474 was made, dealt with and approved on the basis that the advertisement consent 13/2987 was replaced, as far as the Bobby Moore Bridge parapets and subway walls were concerned. The consent until 24 August 2022 under 13/2987 only applies to covering the tile murals on the flanking walls outside the subway.

 

There was ample supporting evidence for my statement, including this section from the agent’s letter of 18 April 2019, submitting the advertisement consent application (19/1474):

 

 

I thought that should be enough to settle the matter, but no. On 9 April, I received an email from Brent’s Legal Director, Debra Norman. It claimed that the consent under application 13/2987 still allowed Quintain to cover the “footballers” mural with vinyl advertising sheets:

 

 

‘Officers have considered the elevation drawings referred to in the Consent and are satisfied that they show the east and west walls of the underpass and adjoining Olympic Way which are tiled. In consequence, the Council does not agree with your contention that the consent only applies to the tile murals outside the subway.’ … and further:

 

‘… there is nothing in the later consent (19/1474) which prevents continued reliance on the Consent to the extent that the two consents are compatible.’

 

 

Well, actually, there IS something in consent 19/1474 which means that consent 13/2987 no longer applies to the “footballers” mural. I agree that both consents applied to that tile mural, but the later consent specifically replaced the original consent, for the whole of the Bobby Moore Bridge and its subway! Again, I replied on the same day to explain the correct position.

 

I will ask Martin to attach the documents showing the two exchanges of views (30 March and 9 April), so that anyone who is interested can read them, and draw their own conclusions on their respective merits.

 

 

But why are Brent Council, and its top officials, so desperate to claim that Quintain can put adverts over the “footballers” tile mural?

 

 

Are they afraid to tell Quintain the truth? Well, they shouldn’t be, because under the conditions of the advertising lease (as extended) it is Quintain’s responsibility to obtain any consents they need in order to display advertisements on the Bobby Moore Bridge, and Quintain have failed to do that for the “footballers” mural.

 

 

Are they embarrassed because Brent’s own property lawyers failed in their “due diligence” over clause 10.3 of the extended lease, which claimed to entitle Quintain to cover that tile mural with adverts on “event days”? That was an error on Brent’s part, particularly as they had allowed Quintain’s property lawyers, Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP, to draw up the “Deed of Variation”.

 

 

Is Brent’s top lawyer determined not to concede a legal argument to an ordinary member of the public? Anyone can get things wrong (I do myself, occasionally), but when you are left “clutching at straws”, perhaps it is best not to embarrass yourself further! [If it is any comfort, although I do not have any formal legal qualifications, I have the experience of a working life dealing with complex legal points, and preparing cases for tribunal and court hearings.]

 

 

Or is it that Brent does not want to give up the chance of potentially earning “a few dollars more”, from the share of profits it might receive from Quintain, if it can sell the “footballers” tile mural advertising space for big events at the stadium?

 

 

Who knows why (and I don’t suppose they will ever tell me)? I hope that Brent Council will now concede this point, agree that Quintain does not have advertisement consent for covering the “footballers” mural, and that it will not waste further time, effort and money (your and my Council Tax money!) in pursuing an argument it knows it has lost.

 

Philip Grant

 

 THE EMAILS - FIRST EXCHANGE  (Click Bottom right for full page view)

 

 

 THE EMAILS - SECOND  EXCHANGE (Click Bottom right for full page view)

 

 

 

 

 

Tile murals – Wembley Park’s heritage in the balance

Guest post by Philip Grant

If you have been following the story of the Bobby Moore Bridge planning applications LINK , you may have seen this comment which I added last week:

‘There has been an interesting, and potentially useful (to objectors), development over the advertising consent application.

I said in my blog above that the only person who had been consulted about the application was a Council Officer in the Transportation Unit. That was true at the time, but because of the nature of the objections raised, the Council’s Principal Heritage Conservation Officer has also been consulted.

His comments are not available to view on the Planning website, but I have obtained a copy of them. He has said that he is pleased that the “twin towers” mural and plaque ‘are being recognised as part of Brent's Heritage'.

He has set out several items which Quintain need to submit before their application can be properly considered, including that ‘there should be a heritage/significance statement about the tiles.’

I have come across such heritage/significance statements before, particularly over the developer’s (and Brent’s) attempts to demolish the original Victorian library building at Willesden Green in 2012, as part of the redevelopment of the former Library Centre.

I fully expect the heritage “expert”, who Quintain will hire to produce this statement for them, to play down the “significance” (or importance) of the tile murals.’

From 2013 until 2018, both Quintain and Brent Council appeared to be playing a game of “Don’t mention the Murals!”  The public call to both of them by Wembley History Society in April 2018 LINK , to put the tile murals back on permanent public display, put an end to that game. 

Now Brent’s planners have finally realised that the murals are a heritage issue, which has to be considered in making decisions on planning applications affecting them. How they will deal with that issue remains to be seen, but they are holding he future of Wembley Park’s heritage in the balance.

Quintain’s planning agent has submitted a “Statement of Significance” on the tile murals, which was published on the planning web pages for applications 19/1387 and 19/1474 on 5 June. I submitted an “Alternative Heritage / Significance Statement” on 9 June, which will probably not be published by Brent. Copies of both should be available to view below.

Although the Quintain “Statement” runs to three pages, its assessment of the “significance” of the murals is so short that I can quote it in full here:

‘Bobby Moore Bridge is neither a statutorily nor locally listed structure, nor is the tiled mural and it is not located within a Conservation Area.  The tiled mural is a bespoke piece of public art installed as part of the highway works to pedestrianise Olympic Way, to enliven what would have been blank structural wall and whilst also referencing the history of Olympic Way, Wembley Stadium and Wembley Arena.’

Such heritage statements are supposed to include photographs of the “asset” being considered, and its site context. The “Statement” by Quintain’s agent says that ‘a photographic record of the mural was undertaken on 18 March 2019’, but does not include any of those photographs. I suspect that they may be “dangling a carrot”, hoping to tempt Brent into approving their applications, but with a condition that they make the photographs publicly available.

My “Alternative Statement” includes all of the photographs I have of the murals. Even if you think it is too long to be bothered reading, please have a look at the photos and accompanying descriptions at 3.11, 3.13 and 4.4 to 4.15. These will give you an insight into the tile murals, and the Wembley Park history that they portray.

The agent’s “Statement”, of course, puts a positive “spin” on Quintain’s plans – instead of none of the tile mural scenes being visible (because they have been covered up with adverts since 2013), the current proposals will put one scene back on view! Or in their words:

‘Through this sensitive design approach, the tiled mural is not only exhibited but its role as part of the history, character and appearance of Olympic Way is recognised for future generations.’

My response to that is:

‘Viewing this as a way to mitigate the substantial harm caused by covering up the rest of this heritage asset, it is like taking away the only copy of a valuable book, and giving back just a single chapter, which only discloses a small part of Wembley Park’s rich history.’  

The people of Brent own that “book”, and I hope that Brent’s planners will ensure that it is returned to us. They have been given good reasons why they should refuse Quintain’s two Bobby Moore Bridge applications.

 

Please read the two documents below, if the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals are of interest to you. 

The documents may also be of interest if you are involved in opposing another planning matter yourself, to get an insight into the ways that developers’ agents present (or misrepresent?) the facts, and ways that this can be challenged.

Philip Grant

Click bottom right corner to enlarge

-->