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.

Waste, Pavements, Crime, Clean Air, Parks, Trees, Litter, Parking etc - have your say on future of Brent's vital services

 

Brent Council are consulting on the delivery of essential basic services from April 2023. As these affect us every day (you should see my email in-box!) it is worth making an effort to respond:

In May 2019, the council set up a programme called ‘Redefining Local Services’ to explore how some of the most important local services could be delivered from 1 April 2023. This is when existing contracts for many of these services are due to end. 

 

We’re talking about the delivery of services that have an impact on:

 

• How your recycling and waste is collected and processed
• How our roads and pavements are maintained
• How we work to prevent anti-social behaviour and crime
• How we improve local air quality and tackle the climate emergency
• How businesses like pubs and casinos are licensed
• How Brent’s parks and trees are maintained
• How we keep our streets free of litter and illegal rubbish dumps
• How illegal parking is enforced
  

 

A decision must now be made on how services that are currently being delivered by contractors will be delivered in the future, once those contracts end. For example, the council could continue to pay outside organisations to provide these services (outsourcing), or it could deliver some of them itself (insourcing), or the council could do a combination of both these things.

 

The documents we are consulting on summarise the research that has been done to date and outline the pros and cons of a number of different delivery model options for these services. 

 

Ultimately, our ambition is to design a model which delivers the services residents, businesses and visitors need. This means a cleaner, greener environment and more jobs for local people, as well as opportunities for local businesses. We also want to build in greater flexibility, control and innovation.  

 

Whichever option is chosen, the council must make sure that the way services are delivered is affordable and secures best value. 

 

We are now asking for your views on the future delivery of these local services. 

 

Why we are consulting

 

We are consulting with you to help us make informed decisions about the future delivery of these important services. We want to know what your priorities are when thinking about service delivery and how you feel we should choose between the different delivery model options. 

 

We also want to know which delivery models you prefer, your reasons for choosing them and whether you agree with the two competing options we are currently favouring. 

 

Who are we consulting with?

Under Section 3 of the Local Government Association 1999 (LGA 1999), the council has a duty to consult with representatives of the following groups of people:

• Local taxpayers (i.e. Brent residents)
• Local ratepayers (i.e. local businesses, including SMEs)
• Service users (i.e. people who use Brent services)
• People with an interest in the borough (this could include organisations who have contracts with the council)
• Local voluntary groups
  

 

When is the consultation and how can I respond?

The consultation will run from Tuesday 18 May 2021 until Monday 21 June 2021.

 

We ask that you please complete the online survey by Monday 21 June.

 

We also want to talk to a handful of people from across the borough in a bit more detail about these issues – if you’d like to get involved in one of those conversations do please let us know by registering. As a thank you for your time, we’re offering a £20 LDO (London Designer Outlet) voucher to all who attend.

 

Please note that individual replies on the consultation will not be provided. However, we will post a summary of all views received on the portal after the consultation has closed.

How will we use your data?

A report summarising all views received will be produced after the consultation period for consideration at a future meeting of Cabinet. This report will help inform Cabinet’s final decision on the delivery model for these services.

All feedback received through the consultation will be anonymised, and any identifiable information removed before the summary report is produced.

 

As part of the online survey, we also need you to confirm that you fall within one of the groups of people that we are consulting with. 

 

We will not use the information you provide for any other purpose other than that stated above, nor will we share it with other council departments / external bodies.

We will always process your information in accordance with the law. For more information on how we process, use and store your information, please refer to the Council’s Privacy Policy.

 

Further Information

 

If you have any queries on the consultation process, please email them directly to redefininglocalservices@brent.gov.uk 

For more detail on the services in scope and the delivery models being considered, please refer to the documents provided alongside the survey.

 

COMPLETE THE SURVEY VIA THIS LINK

Brent Borough briefing with AT Medics - 2.30pm this afternoon

 This will be of interest to anyone concerned about takeovers of GP surgeries

 

FROM  NORTH WEST LONDON COLLABORATION OF CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUPS

Brent Borough briefing with AT Medics

 

A briefing has been arranged with AT Medics so that Brent patients can hear about their future plans for practices in the borough and answer any questions that they have.

 

The briefing will take place on Friday 21 May, 2021, 2:30pm – 3:30pm via MS Teams:

·         Welcome and introduction by M C Patel

·         Introduction and context by Julie Sands

·         Presentation by AT Medics

·         Questions and Answers

 

 

CLICK HERE TO JOIN THE MEETING

Please donate to help stop the takeover of GP surgeries by US giant Centene

Rcent Brent demonstration against takeovers

The take over of GP's surgeries by US company Centene, including three in Brent, has been covered on Wembley Matters.  LINK Now a legal challenge has been launched and I hope readers will contribute.

DONATE HERE

The Appeal

Help us to stop the takeover of GP Surgeries by the giant American corporation Centene!

Centene (through its UK company Operose Health Ltd) has taken over dozens of GP surgeries in London including eight contracts in Camden, Islington and Haringey. Hundreds of patients, councillors and members of the public have written letters, protested outside surgeries and have made their feelings clear. We do not want our GP practices taken over by large profit-seeking American corporations.

 

The decision to allow the takeover of the GP surgeries with over 375,000 NHS patients on their lists, was taken by the Clinical Commissioning Groups who are responsible for commissioning General Practice services for patients.  

 

Following public outcry, a patient at one of the affected practices has decided to challenge the decision of her local CCG (North Central London) in court. Ms Anjna Khurana is a local councillor, representing Tollington Ward, and is a patient at Hanley Primary Care Centre in Islington.

Anjna said:

“I am so afraid that our NHS is being dismantled bit by bit, with the private sector playing a bigger and bigger part.  The NHS belongs to all of us and it is wrong that it should be run to achieve private profit rather than for the good of everyone. I also worry that my personal NHS medical data will be used by Operose for purposes that I have not been informed about or agreed to.

I need to trust my doctor, and how can I do that if they work for a company like Centene? A company that has a record of fraud in the US.  I am taking this court action not only for me but for all of us, because we all feel the same about the NHS.  Please help me to make this happen.”

Anjna is right to be worried. It's clear that the Centene/Operose Health business model is built around profits not patient care. 

This statement, from public accounts of the UK parent company behind Operose Healthcare, makes it very clear :

"Position at 31 December 2019 and future developments ... Rationalisation of our business activities… Has continued into 2020, as the business seeks to divest of activities that have not met profitability targets. As a result, on 31 March 2019, Operose Health Limited exited the Surrey Borders Partnership NHS Trust CAMHS contract, and on 1 July 2019, Operose Health (Group) UK Limited divested its complex care division, including the contracts and related assets." 

From this statement it's also clear this is not just about London GP Surgeries. Operose Health Ltd have already taken over twenty other GP surgeries across England. The corporate takeover of NHS services can happen anywhere in the country. 

This case affects all of us.   

HOW YOU CAN HELP

Please help to raise £25,000 - £30,000 so that Anjna can bring the case to the Court. This target is on the assumption that the judge will award 'capped costs' because this is a case of vital public interest.

£25K is to cover the 'capped costs'. When the lawyers ask the Judge for permission to bring the Judicial Review, they will ask for this limit to the amount Anjna would have to pay to NCL CCG’s lawyers, if she were to lose the Judicial Review.  

This is the only way Anjna can afford to bring the case to court.

The additional £5K is towards the costs of court fees, solicitors and barristers who are working hard already in presenting Anjna’s case for consideration.

We're sure you can see the public interest in this Judicial Review. Your support will be invaluable. Please contribute whatever you can and share this page now!

NOTE: Should it transpire that a judge says there are no grounds to proceed to Judicial Review, in accordance with CrowdJustice's Terms and Conditions, we will donate any unused funds to another similar legal challenge, via Crowd Justice or the Access to Justice Foundation.

THE DECISION SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE

The hope is that the courts will judge that North Central London Clinical Commissioning Group acted unlawfully in making their decision and that the decision will be quashed. Certainly the process was carried out with little regard for public consultation and certainly no involvement of registered patients.

London GP,  Louise Irvine, of Keep Our NHS Public (KONP) said: "The NHS  Constitution demands transparency and people rightly expect transparency and accountability in NHS decision-making especially about such important matters as who runs our GP practices, and their suitability to be trusted with our health care and our personal health data."

Like Anjna, the public would hope and expect proper patient and public engagement about what kind of people or organisations should get the contracts to run our GP surgeries in the future. The public don't want to see good NHS GP surgeries taken over by companies who do not share a belief in the ethics of comprehensive healthcare for everyone regardless of wealth or status.

Cat Hobbs, CEO of We Own It agrees: "Our NHS belongs in public hands, working for patients not profit. People don't want health insurance giants like Centene taking over GP surgeries. We fully support Anjna and her incredibly important fight for our NHS."

This legal challenge is an important step in stopping more corporate takeovers of the NHS. It also demands transparency and accountability from Clinical Commissioners in the future.

Steven Carne of 999 Call for the NHS said:  “What is most worrying is that the failure of the various CCGs to carry out proper scrutiny means they've allowed a multi-million dollar American corporation to hold a major position within the NHS infrastructure. And the people who will suffer are the patients who, of course, were told nothing."  

THE PROCESS AHEAD

We are working with solicitors Leigh Day and barristers Adam Straw QC from Doughty St Chambers and Leon Glenister from Landmark Chambers.

Anjna's claim has to be submitted to the High Court and a judge will decide whether the case can continue to a full Judicial Review. We are asking for capped costs because this is the only way Anjna can bring this case. A case that is of huge public interest. 

If the Courts grant approval and agree capped costs, we will then proceed to a full Judicial Review hearing.

Brent’s Historic Green Spaces – do you live near one? Make sure it is protected

 Guest post by Philip Grant

In a comment on Martin’s first blog about the planning application to build a block of flats in Barham Park, I said that I had set out the case for the park to be treated as a “heritage asset” in its own right as part of my objections. 

 

 

The site of the Victorian mansion in Barham Park, September 2015.

 

I sent a copy of my case for this to Brent Council’s Heritage Conservation Officer, and his reply was that it already had that status. He said:

 

“I can confirm that Barham Park would be treated as locally designated asset as it is contained on the London Gardens Trust Inventory.  See 10.3 of Brent’s Historic Environment Place-making Strategy.  It states ‘The London Parks & Gardens Trust has identified 38 sites within Brent which have been included on its Inventory of Historic Green Spaces. These sites are treated as Locally listed within the Borough and are identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions.’”

 

The fact that thirty-eight “Historic Green Spaces” in the borough are meant to have the same level of protection as locally listed buildings for planning purposes came as news to me, so I thought that it was something that was worth sharing with you. It is not something that I’m aware of the Council, or its planners, having drawn to public attention. 

 

As “non-designated heritage assets”, any planning application that affects one of these green spaces, or its setting, should include a Heritage Statement, which describes the heritage asset and its level of “significance”, sets out the degree of harm to that significance which the proposals in the application would cause, and anything that the proposals will do to mitigate that harm. 

 

This is certainly something that anyone looking at plans for a development near one of these green spaces in their area should bear in mind, and make sure that it is referred to in any objections they may make. If a heritage statement is not included as part of the application, or is inadequate, this can be drawn to the Case Officer’s attention as grounds for, at least, requiring further information on this heritage aspect of the plans.

 

Here is the list of the thirty-eight Historic Green Spaces, from Brent’s Historic Environment Place-Making Strategy, which is one of the documents (adopted by Brent Council in 2019) which form part of the borough’s “emerging Local Plan”:-

 

Remember, these green spaces are all Heritage Assets, which Brent’s own policies say are a valuable part of our historic environment, and deserve protection!

 

Sadly, as we know from the experience of Brent’s own planning application to demolish Altamira, the locally listed Victorian villa in Stonebridge, the Council and its planners do not always abide by their own adopted policies! But that should not stop us from flagging up those policies, and the level of protection which they are meant to provide, whenever they are relevant to a planning proposal which would have a detrimental effect on one of our Historic Green Spaces.

 

Philip Grant.

Show you are tackling climate change if you want a Brent Council contract

 Brent Council Press Release

Businesses will need to show how they are tackling climate change and working towards zero carbon emissions by 2030 when bidding for Brent Council contracts under new procurement rules introduced this week.

 

The council’s new Procurement Sustainability Policy aims to utilise Brent’s huge purchasing power by requiring potential new suppliers to demonstrate how they tackle the climate crisis by reducing carbon emissions and waste; minimising the use of resources; promoting the circular economy; improving air quality; and enhancing green spaces and biodiversity.

 

All applicable tenders will now include a sustainability assessment to identify how they will reduce Brent’s environmental impact and support sustainability commitments, which will form part of legally binding contracts awarded to successful bidders.

 

Councillor Krupa Sheth, Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for Environment, said: 

 

The council spends around £400 million every year on goods and services, so we have a great opportunity to use this spending power to make Brent greener and get closer to zero carbon emissions.

 

This is about us putting our money where our mouth is. Improving environmental sustainability through the suppliers we work with is essential if we are going reach the ambitious targets we have set ourselves. By working together, we can all make a difference, and create a greener borough for everyone.

 

The Procurement Sustainability Policy links into the council’s Procurement Strategy 2020-2023 priorities to achieve economic, social and environmental benefits for Brent.

 

•             Procurement Sustainability Policy

•             Procurement Strategy 2020-2023

Barham Park developer will make new proposal to replace two existing houses with new houses

George Irvin, the developer who had proposed a block of flats to replace the two modest house n Barham Park has confimed via Facebook that he has withdrawn the current application and will prepare a new one that will be for two new houses on the site.

He posted an email he had sent to Brent Council Planning Department on Paul Lorber's Facebook page today. I was hesitant in accepting that it was genuine because of the many typos but Brent Council has confirmed the withdrawal.

Ref: 21/1106 - 776 + 778 Harrow Road

 

Further to your email and our discussions yesterday on 18 May 2021, I confirm that we will now withdrawal the above mentioned application today.

 

In order to overcome the concerns you have highlighted, a new application will be prepared for two new houses to replace the existing two houses on site.

 

The main reason for this is keep all the people in Brent we work with, The Local Community, Brent Counsellor, Sunbury Town Residence Association and the Barham Park Trusts happy, as all the feedback with have been receiving is they would prefer us to replace the two existing houses with two new better ones.

 

Regards George

 

George Irvin FInstD

Zenastar Properties Ltd