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

 Guest post by Philip Grant

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

Philip Grant.

 

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

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Best wishes

 

 

Debra Norman 

Director of Legal, HR, Audit & Investigations

 

 

WINDRUSH DAY EVENT: Double bill screening + Q&A with artists: Charlie Phillips and Carl Gabriel June 22nd 7pm

From Preston Community Library

Come and join us in celebrating the monumental contributions that the Windrush Generation has made to the cultural landscape of Britain.

We will be screening two short documentary films: Rootical, featuring the Jamaican-born restaurateur, photographer, and documenter of black London, Charlie Phillips, followed by The Mas Man with a Magical Touch, featuring the Trinidad-born photographer and wire-form sculptor, Carl Gabriel.

After spending his early childhood with his grandparents, Charlie Phillips joined his parents in London, in 1956. Working in his parents’ restaurant, Charlie began his photographic career by accident when, while still very young, he was given a Kodak Brownie by a black American serviceman. He taught himself to use it and began to photograph life in Notting Hill, making prints in the family bathroom after his parents would retire to bed.

Phillips is now best known for his photographs of Notting Hill during the period of West Indian migration to London, but his subjects also include film stars and student protests.

Coming to London in 1964, Carl worked as a specialist sheet metal worker and was trained in photography and moved into a career in this profession. He was also a pan player for the Ebony Steel Band and has since become a Carnival Artist, specialising in wire-form sculptures that have been presented at large scale festivals globally. His work has also extended to sculptures that have been exhibited at Durham Cathedral and the British Library.

Many of Preston Community Library's members will already be familiar with Carl Gabriel's work through his generous loan to us of two vibrant sculptures in our sunken garden, as well as his specially commissioned sculpture Inspiration for Brent Borough of Cultures 2020.

This event is brought to you by PCL in collaboration with Black History Studies, and will be hosted by Charmaine Simpson, chairing a Q&A with these two iconic artists.

Venue: Your own home via a Zoom Link, which will be emailed to you on receipt of your FREE TICKET reservation.

Both artists are multi-disciplined in their approach to their practice and the conversation promises to range far and wide.

Unique coalition of 11 residents' groups call on Brent Scrutiny Committee to investigate Brent Council's policy on asphalting of pavements

 

Today BRAAP - Brent Residents Against Asphalt Pavements - have released their scoping paper  LINK reporting the shortcomings of Brent Council’s 2016 Policy to replace the paving slabs on the borough’s pavements with asphalt (tarmac).  BRAAP has sent the paper to Cllr Roxanne Mashari, Chair of Brent Scrutiny Committee for Resources and the Public Realm, asking them to carry out an investigation of the processes that lead to the policy along, with its implementation and to recommend an approach which takes account of residents’ input LINK.

 

BRAAP is a new, unique and unprecedented alliance of residents’ associations and street groups from across Brent who have got together to campaign to reverse the Council’s policy of asphalting at all costs.

 

 

MAIN POINTS

•  Brent’s 2016 Policy was introduced using hard to understand and unconvincing financial arguments.

•  A lack of transparency on the long-term running costs of asphalt vs re-laying paving slabs.

•  Over 95% of petitioned residents objected to the asphalting of pavements and the resulting reduction of the quality of the urban environment.

•  A lack of meaningful consultation with residents and residents’ associations, either on the general policy or individual schemes.

•  Hurriedly arranged ‘special’ meetings with worried residents, Councillors, Officers and the Leader, where Brent claim surprise at the level of opposition, but repeat the same arguments and asphalt anyway.

•  No clear tally showing how many slabs are re-usable.  Residents estimate up to 80% could be re-laid.

•  Shockingly, when the slabs are removed they are not re-used, but pulverized according to contractors.

•  A lack of transparency about the environmental impact assessment around air quality when using diesel trucks to transport 1000s of tons of slabs to be pulverised, and more trucks to bring asphalt into the borough.

•  Roads that were asphalted in 2016, eg Chandos Road, have already degraded whereas paving done at the time looks as good as new.

•  The policy goes against the direction we should be travelling in this time of climate emergency.  

* By default it is obvious that simple levelling of the slabs by workmen with hand tools will have a marginal carbon footprint compared with the use of new asphalt with its high embodied carbon and diesel intensive processes for lorries and plant.

 

Robin Sharp, Joint Convenor of BRAAP, said:

 

This is a unique coming together of 11 residents’ groups and associations in Brent objecting to replacing long-lasting paving slabs with cheap impermeable tarmac, which heaves and cracks,  grows moss and looks awful when repaired, radiates heat into the urban environment and is opposed by over 95% of residents.  The council should be working with residents’ and council tax payers’ interests in mind.  They say the policy is cost-driven, but they should be planning for the long term, with sustainability at the fore.  This policy is not fit for purpose.

BRAAP provided the following background information to Wembley Matters:

 
Black radiates more heat than lighter colours.  Urban heating is a global problem and wherever there are heat reduction programmes, the first thing they do is get out the reflective white paint: the New York City Cool Roofs Programme “cooled and coated” 2,077,537 square feet of rooftop.  In Greek villages they paint the houses white.  It’s for a reason. 

 

Brent has not disclosed an Environmental Impact Assessment to say how many diesel miles will be used disposing of re-usable paving slabs and importing asphalt into the borough.  This doesn’t sit well with their Climate Strategy for carbon neutrality. 

 

Water run-off increases flood risk to our drains and is why the Council has strict planning regulations for residents putting in front drives or hard standings - they have to install 50% soft landscaping as well as a soak away to stop water running into the highway, but the Council is getting away with laying mile upon mile of impermeable asphalt.  It is universally known that paving slabs allow water penetration through the gaps when they are laid on a sand substrate.   We have asked Brent for the Environmental Impact Assessment relating to Sustainable Drainage Systems where impermeable surfaces are concerned.

 

BRAAP Member groups:

 

Aylestone Park Residents’ and Tenants’ Association

Barn Hill Residents’ Association

Brondesbury Road Group

Chandos Road Group

Clifford Gardens Group

Kensal Rise Residents’ Association

Kensal Triangle Residents’ Association

Kilburn Village Residents’ Association

Mapesbury Pavements Action Group

Queens Park Area Residents’ Association

Willesden Green Residents’ Association

 

Fryent Way – from A to Bee

 Guest Post by Philip Grant

Fryent Way is part of the busy A4140 main road, between Kingsbury Circle and the Salmon Street roundabout. But it has also become a route of a different kind.

 

When first conceived in the 1920s, it was known as Kingsbury Urban District Council’s Town Planning Road No.17. It was constructed in 1934/35, to open up farm land that All Souls College, Oxford, planned to sell for housing development. You can read more about this in Part 4 of The Fryent Country Park Story.

 

When, several years ago, Brent Council announced that they would stop cutting the grass in parts of our local parks, to create “wild flower meadows”, I admit that I was sceptical. It sounded like putting a positive “spin” on a decision to cut spending on the upkeep of our public open spaces!

 

 

But walking home from an appointment at my GP surgery on Thursday, I could see and enjoy the results. The grass verges alongside Fryent Way are now a bee and butterfly corridor, that encourages the wonderfully diverse wildlife from Fryent Country Park to travel into the heart of Kingsbury. 

 

Philip Grant.

St Raphael's Community raises doubts over Brent Council's demolition and rebuild plans

 St Raphs campaigners have raised doubts about whether Brent Council will be able to go ahead with the option to demolish and rebuild the estate following a GLA announcement.

The Newsletter is reproduced below. Click bottom right square to enlarge.

Secretary of State refers Wembley Park Station car park tower block development to Planning Inspectorate

The Communities Secretary, Robert Jenrick MP, has called-in the controversial Wembley Park station car park development which means he will make the decision on whether it goes ahead rather than Brent Council whose Planning Committee approved the development.

The application will be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at a public inquiry, with recommendations then going to the Minister to decide the outcome.

In a letter to Bob Blackman MP, the Planning Inspectorate said:

The Inspector instructed by the Secretary of State is T Gilbert-Wooldridge MRTPI IHBC and the inquiry will open at 10.00am on 28 September 2021. We have currently scheduled 6 sitting days (provisionally 28 Sept – 1 Oct and 4-5 October).

The Planning Casework Unit cannot forward any correspondence that was submitted to them before this case was called in. Therefore, if there are any matters which you wish to put before the Inspector, you can write to me at this address or email (leanne.palmer@planninginspectorate.gov.uk) quoting reference APP/T5150/ V/21/3275339.

You can also use the Internet to submit documents, to see information and to check the progress of cases through GOV.UK. The address of the search page is https:// acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/

Please submit any representations by 8 July.

The date by when the application will be decided will be published at the time the report is submitted to the Secretary of State.

At the Planning Committee only Cllr Michael Maurice voted against the application and Cllr Kansagra, leader of the Conservative Group said that the Council had been bribed by the developer with flats. (FULL REPORT)

Philip Grant, a regular contributor to this blog, presented a forensic analysis to the Committe based on the Council's own existing Tall Buildings policy which limited developments on the site to 10 storeys. It breached policy that had been made as a result of public consultation.  He concluded:

Committee members, please don’t allow yourselves to be fooled into accepting an application which doesn’t comply with the policies adopted by Brent Council, after consultation with its residents.

This application is a flagrant breach of those policies, and you can, and should, refuse it on those grounds. 

Philip's presentation followed a Guest Post he had written for Wembley Matters the day before the Planning Committee setting out his case in detail.  LINK

Regardless of party politics the Inquiry represents a second chance to stop over-development of the site as well as possibly putting a stop to officer's increasing propensity to make excuses for developers' failure to adhere to the Council's own planning policies and guidelines.

Philip Grant adds this comment:

AMENITY SPACE -

Although my main objection to this planning application was over its breach of Brent's tall buildings policies, there were a number of other failures to comply with planning policies.

When I had a look at the webpage for this application (20/0967) today, I found that although Planning Committee approved it last November, Brent has not yet issued a consent letter, so the application is still "undecided" (although with no mention that the Planning Inspectorate is now involved).

The other interesting thing I noticed was that an extra document had appeared in February 2021, described as a "Post Committee Delegated Report". It's main subject was 'Amenity Space Provision'.

It appears that Brent's Amenity Space policy DMP19 had been the subject of a Judicial Review, and this had found that Brent's planning officers had not been interpreting their own policy correctly! 'The JR judgement has clarified that all 3bed or larger units should be assessed against the 50sqm 
standard.' 

When planning officers had assessed the amenity space required for the 451 homes in the five tower blocks proposed at the Brook Avenue site, they had used 20 square metres as the standard requirement for the larger flats.

This meant that the cumulative private amenity space shortfall for the development was actually 7,498.9sqm, rather than the 6,178.9sqm reported to the Planning Committee meeting. 

[To give an idea of what these figures mean, the standard professional football pitch has an area of 7,140 square metres - so the residents together would be "robbed" of more than a football pitch in size of private amenity space, if the proposals are approved.]

Did the new information make any difference? This is what the planning officers' delegated report concluded:

'it is considered that the scheme would still be acceptable in planning terms, notwithstanding the shortfall against Policy DMP19 as the external amenity space provision remains to be of sufficient size and type to satisfy the proposed residents’ needs. The amount and type of external amenity space proposed was clearly expressed to members, and it is considered that members would not have come to a different view on the proposal had the greater shortfall been reported.'  

 

 

Update from WE OWN IT on fight against Centene's takeover of GP surgeries

 

Last week you took action to pressure North West London local health authorities to kick Centene, the profit-greedy US multinational, out of our GPs.  There's no two ways about it, the decision NW London local health leaders ended up making was a mixed bag. They decided to renew Centene’s contract - BUT with a BIG catch. Instead of renewing it for 5 years, as originally suggested by local health officers, they decided to renew it for JUST 2 years.  And they are placing Centene under much stricter patient feedback conditions. So if after the two years patients say that Centene has done a bad job, local leaders will have no excuse to keep them on. This result represents slow but good progress in the fight against private corporations in our GP practices. And this outcome was down to the incredible work you did writing to local health leaders, joining protests, taking action on social media, etc. It is not exactly the win you were going for. But we could never have got this if you had not taken action. You wanted Centene kicked out completely and things are now headed in that direction.  It is time to double down and push harder since it's clear that the pressure you’re applying is being felt. Just to recap some of the amazing work you've been part of, which made this result possible: Thousands of people across the country took action or joined protests on the 22nd of April in our “Get Centene Out” day of action. 24,896 emails were sent to local health leaders to show them the depth of public opposition to Centene. Over 700 people from across the country sent short personal messages to health leaders in North West London in less than 24hrs.  55,721 people have signed the online petition against Centene and many more have signed physical petitions at protests. Almost 200 London councillors from all main parties (including a few Conservatives) have signed our local leaders open letter against Centene. 15,540 people emailed and asked their MP to oppose Centene. 76 MPs from right across the country and from all parties except the Conservatives have now supported the motion in parliament. We are helping Labour’s frontbench primary care team brief MPs about the dangers of companies like Centene running our GP practices.   These and many more actions have forced health authorities to look more critically at Centene. But you need to keep going.   You are already forcing them to take your voice into account in their decisions. This is not the time to let them off the hook. We are planning actions to be announced soon. Local health leaders in areas with Centene GPs need to continue to feel the pressure.  In the meantime, please sign the petition and share it if you have already signed. Thank you so much for the great work that you have done and are still doing. The progress we’ve made would not be possible without you. Cat, Pascale, alice, Chris, Zana and Johnbosco - the We Own it team