Battle of Britain London Monument important news!

In a previous life I used to negotiate these agreements.

The Section 106 Agreement requirement I understand having dealt with them in the past. Its a legal hoop that has to be gone through and is usually reasonably straightforward. The various at a whim increases in the amount of money required seems like council opportunism (Poacher turned gamekeeper here).

Did no one inquire at the start of fundraising what the likely amount would be?

Time for a trip to the Local Government Ombudsman methinks.

Just released by the Battle of Britain Historical Society

‘Funding Update – why we need more money

Having taken professional advice which was based on experience with other monuments, the Appeal Committee budgeted £40,000 for a “dowry” required by Westminster City Council to undertake to maintain in perpetuity the Monument.

Unfortunately, because the Victoria Embankment roadway in front of the Monument site has been designated a “Red Route”, responsibility for the pavements around the site is shared between Westminster City Council and Transport for London. This has complicated every stage in the process of gaining consent for the construction of the Monument and decisions which could and should have been taken in weeks or months were delayed by over a year. Transport for London seemed to lack staff with the knowledge, skills and motivation to reach reasonable decisions in reasonable time.

Although the Planning Consent from Westminster City Council had been obtained in January 2004, it was conditional on the signing of a Section 106 Agreement which included the “dowry” for Monument’s maintenance in perpetuity. Transport for London failed to draft the Section 106 Agreement, which should have been agreed and signed by all parties within the six month statutory period. It then took Transport for London a further five months (that is eleven months in all) to produce their draft for the City Council to approve. By then the “dowry” sum for maintenance of £178,000 was required, which was then raised within a week to £205,000, more than five times greater than those previously quoted for other monuments.

On top of all this, the Monument Trustees were told that the construction work could not start on site until the Section 106 Agreement was signed. Intensive negotiations between the Committee and Westminster City Council have reduced the sum substantially but within the same Section 106 Agreement there is a further demand for a bond of £235,000 (athough this sum will reduce as the work progresses).

Transport for London failed to give our Contractor the go-ahead to start on site until Friday 21 January, six months after the end of the “statutory period”. This has led to a three weeks delay in starting the works, which threatens to increase construction and contract management costs, in addition to the increased costs of the “dowry” demanded by the City Council.

It is the judgement of the Appeal Committee, based upon professional advice, that these delays arise purely from maladministration. The high cost of the “dowry” seems to be a feature of dealing with a monopoly (tax financed) supplier. However, we now face a serious overrun on costs and a very demanding construction schedule to allow unveiling to take place, as arranged, following The Battle of Britain Thanksgiving Service at Westminster Abbey on 18 September this year, and have had to resume fundraising to meet those costs.’