Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease – When is a complaint not a complaint?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Final slide from petition presentation, asking 28 May Cabinet meeting to choose Option A.

 

On 2 September, Martin published a guest post, giving details of the formal complaint I had made to Brent’s Chief Executive over the advertising lease award. The main grounds for the complaint were that as well as being biased in favour of “Option B”, the main author of the Report and recommendation, which Council Leader Muhammed Butt had accepted (in the name of his Cabinet), had not disclosed his conflict of interests, in that he was the Head of the Council Department which benefitted financially from “Option B”.

A further guest post on 11 September set out Brent Council’s response, from the Corporate Director Finance and Resources (covering for the Chief Executive). He told me ‘that the report was drafted and agreed in accordance with the council’s standard practices,’ and expressed his confidence ‘that this procurement was open and fair and that the award of the contract will therefore stand, as formally agreed by Cabinet.’ 

“How complaints are dealt with – Stage 1” from Brent Council’s website.

 

The email did not actually address the main points I had raised, and did not even refer to my open letter of 30 August being a formal complaint, or what I should do if I was not satisfied with the Council’s response to it. I ended that article by asking (jokingly, I thought!): ‘Is Brent Council now dealing with complaints by not even treating them as complaints?’

 

As I found out that Kim Wright, Brent’s Chief Executive, was on leave until 25 September, I waited until then to write, requesting a Stage 2 final review of my complaint. I included the text of my email to her as a “for information” comment under my 11 September guest post, but this is the relevant section of it:

Extract from my email to Kim Wright of 25 September 2024.

 

Earlier in my email, I had said: ‘I realise that there will be other matters awaiting your attention on your return from leave, so do not mind waiting for up to twenty working days for your final review response.’ I was surprised when I received her response only two days later, and even more surprised by what it said:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your emails. I understand that my office and Minesh Patel, covering for me, replied to you on 9 September outlining a response.

 

Whilst I do not dispute the significance of the issue at hand, I regret to inform you that this issue does not fall within the scope of the Council's normal complaints procedure. The complaints procedure is intended to deal with cases where a member of the public has suffered personal injustice as a result of the Council's actions or inactions. This is also the criteria that the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) uses to decide whether to investigate a complaint. This is mentioned on the LGSCO’s website and in the Council’s Complaints policy.

 

The policy states under section 3.2 “Who can make a complaint? Anyone who uses and/or is individually affected by our services can make a complaint. We cannot investigate complaints where there has been no personal injustice (in other words, where the complainant has not been directly affected by the matter raised).” In this particular case you have not suffered a greater degree of personal injustice than anyone else affected by the matter raised. Your concerns were therefore not logged as a formal complaint but were addressed in the response provided to you by the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources whilst I was on a period of annual leave. I do apologise that this was not explained to you at the outset. If you disagree with the way we have addressed your concerns, you can if you wish approach the LGSCO to ask them to review our decision to not treat your concerns as a formal complaint.

 

I understand that you have submitted a number of FOI requests concerning the Bobby Moore Bridge lease, including one relating to the signing of the lease, and you will receive replies to these within the usual deadline.

 

Kind regards

Kim Wright (she/her)

 
Chief Executive, Brent Council’

 

The Policy Statement from the Brent Council Complaints Policy (August 2024).

 

That response does not fit well with Brent Council’s stated policy of welcoming complaints, aiming to resolve them quickly and using the information gained from them to improve the quality of what they do!

 

I don’t agree that I have not suffered any personal injustice, (or as the Local Government Ombudsman’s website actually describes it ‘not affected you personally or caused you an injustice), but if I try to argue with the Chief Executive on that point she will just “kick the problem down the road”. 

 

I believe that there has been an injustice in this case, not just to me personally, but to everyone who signed the petition (which was ignored and not even considered by Brent’s Cabinet) in support of “Option A”, and also to every Brent resident and visitor to Wembley Park who continues to be denied the enjoyment of the tile murals in the subway from the station to Olympic Way which celebrate Wembley’s sports and entertainment heritage.

 

If Brent won’t consider my complaint, by abusing the words of its Complaints Policy to pretend that it is not a complaint, how else can that injustice to be dealt with? That is the issue I took up in my reply to the Chief Executive on 27 September:

 

‘Dear Ms Wright,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Without prejudice to the question of whether or not I have suffered a personal injustice in this matter, please to me have your answer to the following question.

 

If this significant issue does not fall within the Council's complaints procedure, under what Brent Council process can the 114 citizens of the borough, who were signatories of the petition which I presented at the Cabinet meeting on 28 May, seek redress for the collective injustice which they suffered, as a result of the actions by Council Officers (and the Council Leader) set out in my formal complaint letter to you of 30 August 2024?

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

Please feel free to add your comments below on this particular matter, or on how Brent Council has dealt with (or not) a complaint that you have made.

 

In answer to my own question of “When is a complaint not a complaint?”, I would say “When Brent Council knows it is wrong, but is afraid to admit it, or to put it right.”

Philip Grant.

 

Wembley Park tile murals – a good news story!

 Guest blog by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

It makes a change for me to be able to share some good news with you about the heritage tile murals at the Bobby Moore Bridge and Olympic Way. But that’s what this article is about.

 

The January 2020 tile mural “reveal”, with some damage arrowed. (Photo by Francis Waddington)

 

When three tile mural scenes, which had been covered over with Quintain’s vinyl advertising sheets since the autumn of 2013, were revealed on 18 January 2020, at the launch of Brent’s year as London Borough of Culture, damage which had occurred to the tiles could be seen. It was clear that water had seeped behind the top of the tiles in Olympic Way (just outside of the subway from Wembley Park Station), and two areas of tiles on the Ice Hockey mural had fallen off and broken.

 

 

A close-up of part of the damage to the Ice Hockey mural, February 2020.

 

I spoke about this to Julian Tollast, one of the Quintain representatives (who I first met at a heritage event in 2014) at the “reveal” hosted by Brent’s Mayor and Council Leader. He said he would ensure that this damage was repaired. I asked that Quintain should at least make sure that the “fillet” along the top of the tiles was made watertight, before vinyl advertising sheets were put back over the murals five weeks later.

 

During this time, I managed to make contact with a director of the company which had designed the murals, and supplied the tiles, in 1993. They had sold the tiles side of their business in 2000, but he was able to identify the type of tiles used, and give details of the German manufacturer which made them. I passed this information on to Quintain, who were hoping that the repair work could be arranged for the autumn of 2020, when there would be a changeover of the vinyl sheets.

 

Unfortunately, when the adverts came off again, for the three week “periodic display” of these mural scenes in March 2021, the Ice Hockey mural was still damaged. In fact, the damage seemed worse.

 

The damaged Ice Hockey tile mural, mid-March 2021. (Photo by Francis Henry)

 

When this photo was shared with me, I contacted Julian at Quintain again, to find out what was happening about the repair. After checking with Quintain’s Wembley Park Operations Team, he was able to tell me that the damaged tiles had been removed, and loose tiles secured. A waterproof mortar fillet had been installed along the top of the mural scenes. Matching replacement tiles had been obtained from a UK manufacturer, and these would be put in place by a specialist contractor by the end of March.

 

I was not able to visit Olympic Way to see the work on the tiles myself, but I was told that photos would be taken before the murals were covered over with adverts again. I looked forward to receiving these, so that I could share them with you, but there was a delay before copies were supplied to me. However, the pictures were worth waiting for!

 

The repaired Ice Hockey mural, end of March 2021. (Photo courtesy of Quintain / Wembley Park Ltd)

 

 

Panoramic view of the three tile mural scenes in Olympic Way, after the repair, end of March 2021.
(Photo courtesy of Quintain / Wembley Park Ltd)

 

I would like to publicly thank Quintain’s Wembley Park team for the repairs carried out to the Ice Hockey tile mural. They clearly realise what a valuable cultural and heritage asset these beautiful murals are for Wembley Park. It’s just a pity that they won’t put them back on permanent display, so that residents and visitors can enjoy them, rather than the bland advertising sheets which cover them most of the time!

 

How the tile murals in Olympic Way usually look, March 2020.

 

Philip Grant.

Bobby Moore Wembley mural may be shown in the future 'should the Council choose to do this.'

 

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt

Brent Council Planning Department has responded to a resident’s query about the Bobby Moore Bridge murals stating that the historic murals ‘may be shown in the future should the Council choose to do this.’  The resident was unhappy with Brent Council's decision to allow most of the mural to be covered up by advertising. 

I don’t think I am going to put my money on a reappearance any time soon based on that comment!

Brent Council response:

This relates to the advertising on the side walls of the Bobby Moore Bridge underpass that covers the tile murals that are on those walls.

By way of background, the bridge itself, including the tile murals and the walls upon which the murals are located are owned by the Council.  The Bobby Moore Bridge subway was constructed between 1991 and 1993 as part of the pedestrianisation of Olympic Way by Brent Council. The tile murals were erected at the same time and depict a range of sporting and entertainment events from the history of Wembley Stadium and Wembley Arena.

The Council owns the structure and its walls, but The Council has leased the walls to Quintain for the installation of advertising.  Vinyl adverts have been displayed on these walls for several years.

Following a request to the Council from the Wembley History Society, Quintain engaged with the society to working up the proposals to uncover an element of the murals.  This resulted in the current proposals which included uncovering a portion of the mural which depicts football at the original stadium.  The chair of the society confirmed that they were in support of the proposals.

Applications were submitted by Quintain to change the advertisements and uncover this section of the mural.  Light boxes and advertisements were proposed to be affixed to the bridge in a way that would not damage the tile murals, allowing them to be uncovered in the future.  The application for advertisement consent together with an advertisement for the approval of details pursuant to a planning condition were considered by the Planning Committee on 16 July.  The merits of the proposal were set out in the reports for that committee meeting and were debated at length by Planning Committee members.  The applications were approved at that meeting.

The tiles are not to be ‘obliterated’ as suggested in the e-mail, but rather, the new advertisements are to be fixed in a way that does not damage the mural.  This was a key part of the proposals to put up the light boxes and advertising.  The Council’s heritage officer has checked the works regularly to ensure that they are being undertaken in an appropriate way.  The current proposals result in more of the tile mural being visible within the underpass and ensures that the mural is protected.  Parts of the mural will still remain under advertising, but they will be protected so that they may be shown in the future should the Council choose to do this.

Previous posts on this subject:

Tile murals –Wembley Park’s heritage in the balance

Wembley Park’s tilemurals – now you see them … soon you won’t! 

'Gateway toWembley' mural to be covered by advertising

Update on the Bobby Moore mural asfans pour into Wembley for the FA Community Shield

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

-->

Grunwick performance at CNWL April 19th - 'We are the Lions, Mr Manager'

           "Powerful story, powerfully told" 🌟🌟🌟🌟 ️️(The Observer)

There will be a performance of "We are the lions, Mr Manager", the critically acclaimed Townsend Productions play about the Grunwick strike, on Thurs 19 April at the College of North West London in Willesden.

If you want to be sure of a place please book your ticket asap as it will probably sell out

https://lineupnow.com/event/we-are-the-lions-mr-manager-4

Before the play begins there will be a guided viewing of the murals - meet at 6.30pm at Dollis Hill station (Chapter Road exit).

There are other tour dates here 

http://www.townsendproductions.org.uk

Grunwick40 unveil extraordinary murals marking the historic Grunwick strike

Two Grunwick40 murals were unveiled today. The first (above) outside Dollis Hill Station where the Grunwick factory gates were situated in Chapter Road, the second on the bridge on Dudden Hill Lane (below) where the mass picket in support of the Grunwick strikers took place.

The work of the Grunwick40 group and artist Anna Ferrie add something extraordinary to the streetscape of Willesden marking a historic struggle of women, Asians and the trade union movement.