The Blake mural has been painted over by the Council

[TJMP]

Statement just issued by Southwark:

Dear Ms Jowell, Ms Harman, Cllrs Thomas and Nardell,

In response to recent enquiries in respect of the above, Southwark Council wishes to issue the following statement.

The mural 'Vision of Angels' was created by artist Stan Peskett in 1993, and was commissioned as part of the Dulwich festival, and painted with the help of local adults with learning disabilities and children from 10 local primary schools.

Over recent years the mural has been subjected to tagging which caused irreparable damage and had covered much of the original artwork in the lower half of the mural. The Council was approached by individuals who were involved in the original work and it was suggested to us that blanking the lower half of the mural was better than the leaving the wall as it was. This was necessary as it was impossible to remove the tagging without affecting the paintwork underneath.

Doing this without a wider consultation with both residents and the Council's own arts team was clearly wrong and the Council apologises for this. However , the Council would like to reassure you that the affected area has been painted over as a temporary measure while we look at what can be done with the mural so the community can continue to enjoy it. If possible we will look at working with the community and Stan Peskett to restore the mural back to its former glory, with an appropriate anti-graffiti covering.

We will also be putting in place processes whereby similar vulnerable pieces of public art are properly assessed before cleaning or removal takes place.

Jon Sheaff

Parks and Open Spaces Manager

London Borough of Southwark

posted by Tessa Jowell's Office

[Michael Palaeologus]

A bit of communication from the Council beforehand would have avoided the concern and annoyance.

[SeanMacGabhann]

maybe maybe not.. I suspect that any sort of forewarning would have caused enough of a counter-movement to bring the whole action to a standstill.

I'm glad people have taken action and found out about the mural (which I really like) but it looked to me like another case of the council being damned if it does and damned if it doesn't

[Marmora Man]

The answer also smacks of a degree of creative management - ie they did it, they were detected, they want a way out that doesn't make the obvious baddies - so they apologise and claim the action as always intended to be a temporary measure. I'll lay a forged pound to the national debt there was no formal intention to do anything in the future until the matter came into the public domain.

[Siduhe]

It's great to see that the Council have committed to "look[ing] at what can be done with the mural so the community can continue to enjoy it." and that, "If possible [southwark] will look at working with the community and Stan Peskett to restore the mural back to its former glory, with an appropriate anti-graffiti covering". No promises, of course, but it's a start.

However, do I read this correctly that it was the Dulwich Society who approached the Council about the mural in the first place ("individuals who were involved in the original work") and suggested painting over half of it? If not, then who - some of the original artists, now grown up? I think it would be very strange for anyone involved in the original work to suggest painting over half of it, rather than restoring it. I guess that bit of the explanation doesn't quite ring true for me.

[PeckhamRose]

Typical backpeddling. I'm with Marmora Man. They should have consulted first but they never, ever will.

[Nero]

Hmmm. It was a temporary measure, he says. What rot. They went for the easiest option. Glad that the council knows that it has to do something good to make up the damage. Partial result, eh?

[SeanMacGabhann]

I am not saying everyone is wrong but there is an awful lot of supposition going on. If no one is even going to countenance the possibility that, GIVEN ALL OF THE INFO AND VARIABLES, they might have done an ok job here? Because if they have i can see why no one with any will would ever want to work for them

[beatnic]

TJMP Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Statement just issued by Southwark:

>

> Dear Ms Jowell, Ms Harman, Cllrs Thomas and

> Nardell,

>

> [...] it was suggested to us that blanking the lower

> half of the mural was better than the leaving the

> wall as it was. [...]

"Blanking" eh?

Brings a new meaning to drawing a blank.

Where's Blanksie when you need him?

And that colour. It's gruesome.

[Marmora Man]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am not saying everyone is wrong but there is an

> awful lot of supposition going on. If no one is

> even going to countenance the possibility that,

> GIVEN ALL OF THE INFO AND VARIABLES, they might

> have done an ok job here? Because if they have i

> can see why no one with any will would ever want

> to work for them

Sean - regrettably I've written enough weasilly worded management letters of apology (on behalf of the NHS) in my time to recognise the stylistic quirks. Hence my assumption and wager.

And to answer your second point - no I wouldn't want to work for this council, or any public sector organisation at present. The centralised control system from Whitehall, top down targets, lack of real budgetary control, lack of real democratic involvement (face it - anyone who wants to become a local councillor is probably not someone you'd want as a local councillor) and general inertia that characterises local government at present makes it, I assume, a woeful life. Tho' I'd be interested to hear if my assumptions are widely out.

Think what a genuinely powerful and competent local government was able to do in the 19th century in places like Birmingham and compare it with today's system.

Edited to create a fuller answer and allow me a little rant

[pk]

so what was the graffiti that is covered over?

could it have been left on display whilst 'the community' was 'consulted'?

and who would have been consulted and how? do they know about removing graffiti and restoring paintings?

would consulting on every such decision not mean more wasted time and money?

imo i think that it's a shame to have spoilt a mural that i know quite well as my son plays in that park regularly, but i find it hard to get upset without knowing the nature of the graffiti and what other options there were to remove it, and to be honest i've never particularly liked the mural

[Nero]

Stylistically, the reply stinks of wriggle-bottomed officialdom doing its best to gloss over a big mistake. Most people want a quick fix. Council folk are no different. How can anyone justify doing what that council department did? It's naff a l'extreme. What right-minded individual would do what's been done? None.

This is the kind of stupidity that angers me, even more so when I am paying for it.

[tiddles]

exactly = to paint it that colour? = the perfect backdrop for more graffiti? at least a splodgy green to blend with the artwork as a whole would have been a better option. I really wonder about who makes these decisions.

[Sue]

I've received a reply from Bimal which presumably has been overtaken by the council statement, but there are bits in it I find quite funny and it does shed some light on the way things get done in councils :))

Hi Sue,

Thanks for your inquiry and before I get into the details there are a couple matters I need to clear up in regards to Katherines posted message onto he East Dulwich Forum website :

1) We did have a brief chat however she had very much quoted me out of context in the sense that matters were in hand and that I was leading.

2) Ahead of any decision or forward plan an investigation must take place to establish the following

- Rightful ownership of the property : it is suggested that the wall in question is privately owned and with this being a possibility a disclaimer or authorisation must be obtained from the rightful owner of the wall, in order to consider options which I will go over following the statutory guidance I feel must be clarified

- At the same time we need to establish which business unit manager in the council authorised the graffiti cover up and created the current state of half mural half blue touch up....currently all managers I have contacted to seek their accountability in the decision have denied any responsibility for creating the current state of half mural/half graffiti cover up

- Once this is established we would be able to establish a lead officer/department and identify necessary stakeholders to support the foreward plan

- The lead and partners will need to carry out consultation with community/councillors/officers and interested parties based upon the outcome of the discussion with property owners authorisation of "what to do" about the current state of half mural half cover up

- The lead and partners will have to secure funding and then the project can be delivered with current options being :

1) Paint the entire mural again

2) Touch up only the bit that has been covered up to again have a complete mural

3) Cover up the entire wall to create uniformity in appearance with the remainder of the property

4) Alternative suggestion from local members is to utilise the space as a "graffiti wall" as this was suggested to be a better option that having a work of art disgrased by constant environmental abuse and anti-social behaviour related to "tagging"

5) Seek alternative options with stakeholders and interested community members for consideration to take back to property owners

It unfortunately, is not a simple process, and certain levels of responsibility from managers need to be established ahead of any action. I will not be leading on this as per Katherines assumption, as I will be leaving Southwark council in the next two weeks and I can almost certainly say that the aforementioned processes and legal/statutory obligations would not be fulfilled within my contracted time towards resignation from my post.

I hope this is somewhat helpful and as I learn more from the site visit that our parks department officers have promised to carry out today : to establish owners views on the plan to rectify the half state of the mural, I will keep Katherine and relative stakeholders informed as best I can.

Kind Regards,

B

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Sue

Sent: 23 September 2008 23:47

To: Kotecha, Bimal

Subject: The Blake mural

Hi Bimal

I know that Katherine has been in touch with you about the mural as a result of my original email to her, and I would be very grateful if you could let me know what is the outcome of the discussions about this.

The mural is a much-loved feature of East Dulwich - or at least it was, before half of it was painted blue

Best wishes

Sue

[Sue]

I have also been copied into this as a result of my email to the Dulwich Society:

Dear J

The mural is on the wall that faces down over the playarea in Goose Green (Adys Road end). It has been there for at least a dozen years. I am not sure who painted it but it is/was very decorative and cheerful on an otherwise blank wall. But it is not in our area. I am happy to let the local Camberwell South councillors know what happened: they may be able to have it reinstated.

M

----- Original Message -----

From: (name)

To: (list of email addresses)

Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:20 AM

Subject: Goose Green Mural

David has asked me to circulate this from Sue (surname) to you all to see if any of you know anything about it. It is not in our actual area but maybe you know something about it anyway. She originally approached Ian as chairman of the Dulwich Society.

Regards

Jean

From: Sue

Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:15:05 -0400

Subject: Blake Mural

To: [email protected]

Hi

I don't know if your society covers East Dulwich, but if it does, are you aware that somebody - presumably the council - has painted over a large part of this mural at the end of Goose Green?

I am absolutely horrified.

Sue (name and address)

[candj]

I'm attaching various emails that I have been copied on by Councillor Gordon Nardell. Sorry if they are very cumbersome and lengthy. Basically, Councillor Nardell is calling for an on-site meeting ASAP with other councillors, FoGG and other interested parties (ie, any of us) to discuss this matter and to immediately have it rectified. I am pleased that Councillor Nardell is moving swiftly on this.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Ms Jowell, Ms Harman, Cllrs Thomas and Nardell

In response to recent enquiries in respect of the above, Southwark Council wishes to issue the following statement.

The mural 'Vision of Angels' was created by artist Stan Peskett in 1993, and was commissioned as part of the Dulwich festival, and painted with the help of local adults with learning disabilities and children from 10 local primary schools.

Over recent years the mural has been subjected to tagging which caused irreparable damage and had covered much of the original artwork in the lower half of the mural. The Council was approached by individuals who were involved in the original work and it was suggested to us that blanking the lower half of the mural was better than the leaving the wall as it was. This was necessary as it was impossible to remove the tagging without affecting the paintwork underneath.

Doing this without a wider consultation with both residents and the Council's own arts team was clearly wrong and the Council apologises for this. However , the Council would like to reassure you that the affected area has been painted over as a temporary measure while we look at what can be done with the mural so the community can continue to enjoy it. If possible we will look at working with the community and Stan Peskett to restore the mural back to its former glory, with an appropriate anti-graffiti covering.

We will also be putting in place processes whereby similar vulnerable pieces of public art are properly assessed before cleaning or removal takes place.

Regards

Jon Sheaff

Parks and Open Spaces Manager

London Borough of Southwark

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear all,

Here is latest exchange with the senior officer responsible, Jon Sheaff. I will continue to press for urgent progress.

"Dear Jon,

Thank you for getting back to us on this. I am relieved that the current arrangement is "temporary". Having failed to consult before taking this temporary step, the Council absolutely must avoid making the same error when it "looks at what can be done with the mural" and decides what restoration is "possible". Residents will have strong views about "what can be done" and what is "possible" and it is critical that those are heard and heard now. So may we please now get that rolling with an urgent site meeting which those interested can attend.

Best regards

Gordon

Gordon Nardell

Labour Councillor for The Lane ward

Tel 07903 964262

Members' Room

Southwark Town Hall

Peckham Road

London SE5 8UB

[macroban]

The Council has no audit trail to identify the individual that authorised this work and subsequent contractor payment?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I am happy to hold a stake and push it up the appropriate business unit manager.

[Mark]

macroban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Council has no audit trail to identify the individual that authorised this work and subsequent contractor payment?

I'd suggest that we just get the mural fixed/restored then and then, those who want to, can go on a witch hunt to see who authorised it. Perhaps the perpetrator will redeem themselves during the restoration process by ensuring it gets done swiftly.

[SeanMacGabhann]

My earlier point is not to say how efficient councils are - I'm aware of my own experience in the area

But if I was in line to fix this problem and read some of the blatant sneering going on here I'm not sure I'd be as willing to give my all. After an initial less-than-brilliant-remedy to some tagging it seems people who have replied have been helpful and deserve a little bit more respect/encouragement. Before the replies came in I woudl wager many people thought they would have to wait a lot longer for any kind of reply.

If every email/conversation we had at work was posted for ridicule on a public forum I doubt we would be so willing to be helpful.

Give them a chance to remedy it now they have been made aware I say...

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I sent three emails to different local councillors none of which have been acknowledged. Forgive my scepticism Sean but the council's right hand doesn't seem to know what its left hand is doing. They do not inspire a lot of confidence so it's not surprising some of us descend to ridicule.

[SeanMacGabhann]

no doubt PGC no doubt. And I could recount same experiences with insurance companies, banks and what not. But my point is IN THIS case we seem to have people engaged - far better to keep that engagement working than to treat them as incompetents. If they drop the ball again then that might be different...

[candj]

In all fairness, Councillor Nardell has been really good about keeping us in the loop. I sent an email a few days ago and have since been copied on every email he has sent to various people trying to resolve this (Mark too has been CC'd on these emails). The fact that Councillor Nardell wants an on-site meeting this week with all parties concerned is a great start, IMO, to resolving this problem.

[Marmora Man]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> if I was in line to fix this problem and read some of the blatant sneering going on here I'm not sure I'd be as willing to give my all. After an initial less-than-brilliant-remedy to some tagging it seems people who have replied have been helpful and deserve a little bit more respect/encouragement.

Before the replies came in I woudl wager many people thought they would have to wait a lot longer for any kind of reply.

-------------------------------------------------------

I tend to agree that more has happened and more swiftly than the cynics would have expected - except on my reading it is the councillors that responded - and have pressed the executive to do something. Left to itself almost any bureaucracy will ignore the punters - but will pay attention to the bosses.

So my reading is:

a. EDF - 9/10 for dawing attention to the problem and hassling councillors. (loses one for Sean's point about sneers)

b. Councillors - 6/10 for responding swiftly. Loses four for not having systems to prevent or a least discuss this sort of action.

c. Executive - 2/10. Points for responding under pressure but lose 8 for making the mistake in the first place.

[SeanMacGabhann]

lol - like it MM. Over generous to the EDF overall I think but enjoyable nontheless