Why Brent should withdraw its application to demolish 1 Morland Gardens

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:

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

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

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

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 19^th century. In this final part we move to the 20^th century, 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 of Shopping in Mysore by Edward      Ardizzone. (Images from the internet - © the Towner 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.

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

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?