The Observer has placed the “Bankers to party on Trinity Square Gardens” that I broke here on Thursday on its front page today and the article’s author, Nick Cohen, has also devoted his column to the issue.
I’ve also done a piece on page 12 of today’s Sunday Express and there was some discussion about splashing on it. It’s one of those stories that beggars belief.
Richard Beggs, the managing director of caterers Moving Venue, which has lodged the licensing application with Tower Hamlets council, called me on Friday to try and justify the project. He said the war memorials “were extremely dear to our hearts”, that he would provide security, and that they are walled off and in a separate area with their own entrance, the last bit of which is essentially hogwash.
Mr Beggs also revealed they had been in discussions with officers at Tower Hamlets council for six months and they had been extremely supportive of the idea.
He said the council would be receiving an undisclosed but sizeable income stream from renting out the space, which he said would be useful for Britain’s poorest borough (well, gee, thanks!). And he fervently hopes Mayor Lutfur Rahman will be attending a lunch with him to celebrate the swish new marquee.
When the proposal to close Bancroft History Library and Archives was aired in 2008, it was clear that many people in the Town Hall were neither aware of the incredibly rich history of Tower Hamlets nor, frankly, cared.
We won that battle but the history lesson doesn’t seem to have sunk in. Earlier this year, when residents and some councillors, including Labour leader Josh Peck and the Tories’ Peter Golds, complained about the number of events being staged in Victoria Park, Lutfur acolyte Rania Khan – the council’s culture spokeswoman! – brushed them off as the moaning white middle-classes.
She effectively said that money was more important that tranquil green space and heritage: that the various music festivals, which helped ruined the park again this summer, generated wads of cash for the council.
Well, as Mike Brooke from the East London Advertiser reported last month, the nine events staged there this summer netted just £250,000 in income. Half of that amount has effectively gone on refurbishing Lutfur’s office and his new Mercedes Lutfurmobile.
I’ve no idea what the council is hoping to grab from Moving Venue but whatever it is it’s irrelevant. As Nick Cohen says in his column, there are some things that can’t be monetised.
I’ve neither any idea what Lutfur thinks about Trinity Square Gardens but his past record suggests not much: he failed to turn up at last year’s Remembrance Sunday service there without telling anyone why at the time.
However, he now has a chance to redeem himself by telling Moving Venue that their idea is rum, to say the least, and that they should withdraw their application.
Anything else would be like dancing on the graves of the Commonwealth war dead, including those of the many Bengalis who died serving the merchant fleet.
Here’s what Rear Admiral Sir Jeremy de Halpert, Deputy Master of Trinity House, the maritime charity whose HQ overlooks the gardens, told me for the Sunday Express
“You can’t plant an all-day bar, dining room and disco on top of the war memorial and expect the due reverence to be untainted. Can you imagine 350 people spilling out of there?
“This memorial is the centrepiece of the garden, which provides that cloak of respect and deference to those who died. People go into that park because it is tranquil. The whole ambience and reverence will be ruined.”
And this is what Captain Malcolm Mathison, vice-chairman of the Merchant Navy Association, said
“You would not put something like this in a cemetery, so why this? Our guys were lost at sea, their relatives don’t have graves to go to. This idea disrespects the men and women of the Merchant Navy and the fishing fleets. They gave their lives for our country.”
Wise words.
Peter Golds has issued this statement today:
The proposal to hold parties in Trinity Gardens is an affront to the thousands of merchant seamen who lost their lives in times of conflict. It was possible to join the merchant Navy aged 14 and the magnificent memorial commemorates, amongst many others, these youngsters who gave their lives.
A party in a Marquee will involve drink and noise. A prime reason for rejecting a licensing application is disorder, and the potential for disorder around the Memorial is extremely high.
The proposed date for starting these events is November 22. On November 13th Trinity Gardens will be the setting for the Borough’s main Remembrance Ceremonies. How appalling that wreathes will be removed to be replaced by canapés, champagne and fairy lights.
The current Tower Hamlets administration has form on this matter. Last year, despite a seat being reserved for him, Lutfur Rahman declined to attend the Remembrance Ceremony. His administration blocked off large parts of Victoria Park for money making events in the summer and his officers are supporting a new Hotel on Trinity Gardens – despite there being no facilities for deliveries.
Something needs to be done and Lutfur Rahman needs to understand that One Tower Hamlets means actions and not press releases.
I can see this issue building a serious head of steam.
(PHOTO: Courtesy of Roll of Honour)
Trial by Jeory 
Although the idea of holding parties for anyone in such a venue is deeply unpleasant I’m afraid that for me the added nasty taste is that it will effectively be the richest corporates and their incredibly well-paid staff who will be enjoying the facilities.
So I look forward to the photographs appearing in the press of the rich dancing on the graves of those who died to give them the freedom to make their £billions and who died to get the food and supplies into this country to enable their forefathers to live and produce future generations (including this one).
The companies which book such facilities should be named and shamed publicly.
And once again they think it can all be made okay by putting a bung of money (in the form of the licensing fee) to borough residents who should just be pitifully grateful for any money they can get and therefore shut up about morals and ethics.
It makes me sick.
Well said.
It’s an interesting issue. What is the reverence we should accord a war memorial? Did they die in order that we should live like hermits? Or did they give their lives for our freedom? Taking into account they’re sailors, not known for their monk-like ways, I don’t think they’d be offended.
Also, when you take into account that there is a war memorial in almost every village and every square in this country, there would be precious few places we could put up a marque without the allegation of dancing on the dead.
By the way it’s not a cemetery. Captain Malcolm Mathison should oppose cruise liners. They’re sailing on the dead.
If the Merchant Navy Association and Trinity House and the Honourbale Company of Merchant Mariners and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission are all opposed to it, then maybe that’s a clue as to seafarers’ feelings. Your last point is strangely crass.
Of course, rather than saluting the Cenotaph war memorial as he drove past on the way to his wedding, Prince William should instead have got a licence from Westminster Council for a grand marquee to be erected around it for his wedding breakfast. It would have been sooo convenient for the Abbey!
And all those soldiers, sailors and airmen died so that he could do just that. After all they probably had quite a few good nights in the mess so they wouldn’t mind a big old knees-up. The Cenotaph would provide such a dramatic backdrop to any party.
The usual words at Remembrance services are ‘Lest we forget’. Well the point of war memorials generally (and Trinity Gardens especially, since it holds national significance) is to remember the sacrifice made by others. (The gardens also provide what Tower Hamlets acknowledge in their management plan, is a much needed area of tranquility for the City.)
Quite how you’re supposed to remember the sacrifice of others in party gear after several bottles of champagne, wine or beer in the presence of (hopefully) convivial company escapes me.
PS Cruise liners are not sailing on the dead. However there are strict laws about tampering with or attempting to raise shipwrecks as they are treated as the last resting place of those who drowned.
Oh and for the record I’m not being holier-than-thou with my remarks above about remembrance. I enjoy a good Xmas (or any other) party as much as anyone which is precisely why I can’t see a lot of remembrance going on at these events.
With any luck somebody else in the council will raise a valid objection as ‘a responsible authority (i.e. Police, Environmental Protection etc)’ under the Licensing Act.
A quick Google Search on Trinity Square Gardens throws up the Council’s Management Plan for the gardens to 2018 (it’s a PDF doc so I can’t do a link) and granting events licences would seem to go in the face of the principles of tranquility, sustainability and greenness that are in the management plan.
Sadly the management plan points out that there are hardly any residents in the vicinity of the gardens so it is highly unlikely to receive any objections that would be valid under the Licensing Act.
So are you opposed to a marquee going up on every village green in England, because I can guarantee you that there’s a war memorial on each every one.
If an events organiser applied for a licence for the village green and war memorial (on public land) to be covered with a marquis for licensed events for evening private functions for a month – yes I would oppose it.
There’s a difference between a one-off church fete type daytime event, open to the public, intended for public benefit and with very limited alcohol consumption and this proposal.
Come to that, even if somebody applied for a marquis over the village green and war memorial for a private daytime wedding reception I’d still probably object.
Am not sure what point you’re trying to make: we’re talking about a national war memorial; we’re talking about all the groups who cherish those memorials and indeed who are their custodians, being opposed to this idea.
Isn’t that enough? Where’s the respect?
“I look forward to the photographs appearing in the press of the rich dancing on the graves of those who died”
And this is not crass. This is well said?!!!
Whomever the Tower Hamlets’ council officers are that Richard Beggs of Moving Venue has been speaking to for the last six months, they are responsible; they have gone so far as to give tacit permission to Mr Beggs, hence “Moving Venue in partnership with Awesome Events” have a website for their venue – it’s called The View, Tower Hill (no mention of war memorials):
http://www.theviewtowerhill.com/#/welcome-to-the-view-tower-hill/
And Square Meal are flogging it already:
http://www.squaremeal.co.uk/venues/london/view/29948/Christmas_at_the_View_Tower_Hill
It seems as though our council officers have already done the deal. How else can Moving Venue be flogging this venue when they haven’t got it through Committee?
Ted, we have apparently missed the consultation, so please could you put a link on here to the application and to the details and date of the Licensing Committee? We should be able to object to this regardless of where we live in the borough. We can also email objections to the councillors on that Licensing Committee, right up until the day of the Committee. And those that object should attend in the Public Gallery on the night of the Committee.
This must be stopped. It’s grotesque, inappropriate and just plain wrong. What public open space or public asset in TH is not being circled by the vultures of the CLC Directorate? Perhaps a corporate piss-up in front of the war memorial in Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park is next?
(What also turns up in searching this, is an organisation already pushing Trinity House as a venue. It’s called ‘London Eastside’:
http://www.londoneastside.co.uk/venues/
It seems to be funded by the council. Whitechapel Library, er, sorry – Gallery is also on their books along with Rich Mix and the Troxy. They also seem to have another ‘The View’ on Payne Road on Bow.)
Councillor Ahmed Omer’s father was in the Merchant Navy. Perhaps Councillor Omer would want to oppose this?
That would hilarious. A whole bunch of anonymous people turning up at the town hall to object. Would you wear paper bags over your heads?
Yes, Mr Beggs did tell me about View Tower Hill. I have a brochure for it. He also said that he thought he had the agreement of Trinity House for it and that its commercial manager, Edgar King, was on board.
Sir Jeremy, the Deputy Master of Trinity House, told me that he had overruled Mr King. Moving Venue has also produced a brochure with Trinity House’s logo all over for this venue, which they also want to use during the Olympics: it was going to be a massive money-spinner.
I can’t find any link for any consultation; I suspect the notice was buried in the back of an issue of East End Life, which shows you how useful those notices are. I have no idea why they’re not online and more easily searchable.
However, unless I’ve got this wrong, the licence application is just the final process. If officers have taken the decision under delegated powers to allow the marquee, then surely it is in the power of the executive mayor to overturn it.
Do you think he should?
And of course, the director of the Communities, Localities and Culture is Stephen Halsey, the man who handed back the Mela to Shiraj Haque. I’ve submitted an FoI request asking for his hospitality details. I suggest that councillors interested in this issue submit their own urgent Members’ Enquiries.
Sorry Ted but do you know if the application is going before the Licensing Committee or not? Or do you now believe it has been decided under Delegated Powers?
Could you please give us the name of the Licensing Officer who responded to Jim Fitzpatrick? That officer must know what is going on. They should explain.
Perhaps you are right and if it has been decided under Delegated Powers, then the executive mayor may be able to overturn it. I hope so. Planning and licensing decisions are quasi-legal processes though and the mayor normally can’t intercede? The mayor however must receive our objections (or just ‘complaints’ now as it seems the application will not be going before the Licensing Committee Members?) Also the Corporation of London should receive objections as they are also responsible for the Gardens.
On Trinity House itself, I’m still confused – is the House a venue already and being sold as such by the council organisation: ‘London Eastside’?
Are you saying Ted that Sir Jeremy overruled the House being used as a venue or the Gardens?
Oh, and when Tower Hamlets’ council officers decided that Mr Beggs could pitch his tent on Trinity Gardens, besides ignoring the sanctity of the Memorials, did they think about the 800 plus Red Ensign flags planted in remembrance in the lawns there? How will they be incorporated into the festive decor of the marquee? Or will they just be crushed underfoot?
http://www.sailors-society.org/NewsAndEvents/Pages/SeaOfRemeb.aspx
Ted – perhaps you could start a petition? It may be the only way to express our objections if the application has already been decided by Council officers. Meanwhile, please supply us with the name of the officer who wrote to Jim Fitzpatrick, if you have it.
There are separate but entirely linked issues here: Moving Venue has been in discussion with Tower Hamlets Council over “renting” the space in the gardens for a marquee. It seems that that has been agreed by the council. The next step is for MV to submit an alcohol and entertainment licence so that parties can actually take place in that marquee.
That licence was lodged last month, as I understand with deadline for objections Oct 12. It is entirely possible that the council’s licensing sub-committee could refuse the application. That would leave MV with permission for a marquee but no one to party with, rendering it useless. The licensing officer is Mohsin Ali but he can only act within the terms of the Act.
My point is that if the council has agreed to rent out the garden space (probably subject to a successful licence application), then the council, ie the Mayor, can overturn that decision.
It’s for others to start petitions – but quite frankly if all these organisations have objected, that should be enough in my view.
Re Trinity House: it is based in the former Port of London Authority building which overlooks the gardens. They have their own functions inside that building. They do not own the gardens, the council does. It’s quite possible that London Eastside promotes the House building itself as a venue, yes. What we are talking about is the Gardens, which Moving Venue has already branded View Tower Hill.
More smell of corruption and underhand processes.
Okay Ted, I see the two separate but linked issues. Do you know who and how the permission for the marquee was granted? Via LBTH Planning or via LBTH Parks? Obviously Stephen Halsey and the CLC Directorate are involved somewhere as it was their “Commercial Activities in Parks” Report that went to Cabinet in March:
Click to access $$ADocPackPublic.pdf
Although I cannot find “Appendix 1 [that] sets out parks which offer greatest opportunity to generate income, although all opportunities are considered and all parks will be promoted”, Trinity Gardens must have been up for grabs then as Ms Bonfield (Interim Service Head, CLC) explains:
“Corporate/private events..provide opportunities for income generation and in 2011 c.£20,000 income is anticipated.”
Thank you Ted for the name of the Licensing Officer who will be preparing a report for the Sub-Licensing Committee? We still should send as many objections as possible to Mr Ali before October 12th and also to the Members of the Committee. Is there a confirmed date for this?
PS. To “The Late Lord”, who used to call himself “Late Lord Trinity” strangely enough: no we won’t be wearing paper bags over our heads to sit in the public gallery the night of the Committee. Perhaps you should be wearing one as you seem to have a hidden agenda, why else drop “Trinity” from your name?
Yes, I’m sure that report is very much linked to the Trinity Square issue. Funnily enough, Mr Beggs of Moving Venue, told me negotiations with the council started in March…
March. Hmm, no co-incidence then.
A spokeswoman for TH Council is now justifying the decision by officers to hire out Trinity Gardens for this venue for Christmas parties. She says the application was for “a high quality temporary marquee for a limited period of time [and] was considered very carefully by the council before it decided to move forward with the arrangement.”
Shouldn’t it have been considered by anyone else in Tower Hamlets? What about “..councillors, residents, the police”? The Council’s ‘PARKS HIRE APPLICATION 2011’ form states:
Oh, sorry it says “MAY go under a comprehensive consultation process”. No, as you found out Ted, the officers used their Delegated Powers to permit this private party marquee to sit on a memorial garden.
The spokeswoman also says: “There would be “no access” from the marquee into the Memorial which would remain open to the public.
A commenter on the story in the ES today however says:
“Tower Hamlets pretend to own Trinity Square Gardens, but have no title to the land. It simply is not theirs to rent out. The claim, by LBTH, that there will be no access from the marquee to the memorial is untrue. Plans submitted with the licensing application show that the guest entrance to the marquee is actually through the Mercantile Memorial, which consists of a paved surround as well as the pavillion.”
Would like to see the plans submitted with the licensing application – so far Trinity Gardens is not even on the Agenda for the upcoming Licensing Sub Committee, the last this month.
The commenter also provides a possible reason the planning decision was made in-house by officers:
“Trinity Square is a ‘protected square’ listed in the London Squares Preservation Act 1931 (21 & 22 Geo. 5 cap.xciii) which makes it illegal to use other ” otherwise than for one or more of the following purposes (that is to say) the purpose of an ornamental garden pleasure ground or ground for play rest or recreation (in this Act referred to as “authorised purposes”) and no building or other structure or erection shall be erected or placed on or over any protected square except such as may be necessary or convenient for or in connection with the use and maintenance of such square for one or more of the authorised purposes.” (s.3(1).) S3.(11) places Tower Hamlets under a duty to enforce the Act. Under the ancient common law offence of Public Nuisance failure to perform that duty to enforce the Act could see Tower Hamlets facing an unlimited fine.”
So Tower Hamlets has no clear title on what was originally Crown Land, and Trinity Gardens is also a protected square. And a memorial garden. How could these officers, public servants, paid out of our pockets, spend six long, expensive months being “extremely supportive” of this party marquee proposal and then permit it with all these negatives?
Ted, do you know which (planning?) officers (ab)used their Delegated Powers to allow this “high quality marquee” to be set up on a memorial garden?
This is the Commonwealth War Graves Commission – Tower Hill Memorial Website – Information Sheet
An individual has also developed a a comprehensive and very interesting explanation of the development of this historically very significant site at Tower Hill
Maybe politicians and officers could try and understand what they are dealing with before they commit any more monumental cock-ups? History is important!