Jump to content
 

Gresley Statue Kings Cross Altercation


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

For those who feel that The Gresley Society has acted improperly in this matter, there is the option of emailing Camden Council Planning Department to complain that the Statue erected fails to comply with the relevant planning permissions etc. as shown here:

 

http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/webdrawer/webdrawer.dll/webdrawer/search/rec&sm_ncontents=2014/4569/L&template=reclistplanning&rows=1000

 

The email address is:

 

planning@camden.gov.uk

 

The Application Reference is:  2014/4569/L

 

I would suggest the email is addressed for the attention of:

 

Rachel Stopard

Director of Culture & Environment

 

- and copied to Antonia Powell

 

HTH

Brian

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the change in planning has already been approved. I read somewhere that the council had been contacted regarding the change and as it was a mi or matter, it was rubber stamped as approved. So you're quacking up a dead duck for that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I believe the change in planning has already been approved. I read somewhere that the council had been contacted regarding the change and as it was a mi or matter, it was rubber stamped as approved. So you're quacking up a dead duck for that one.

You could be correct there but the application does not show any changes since the original application was made in 2014 by Andrew Dow.

 

http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/webdrawer/webdrawer.dll/webdrawer/search/rec&sm_ncontents=2014/4569/L&template=reclistplanning&rows=1000

 

Planning is a legally binding document and you can't just change things without amending the original application. There was no second application made and no amending documents submitted, so as far as I can see the Statue that has been installed does not meet the application made. I stand to be corrected but on looking at Camden Councils planning site where amendments are made they are attached to the original application as in other authorities as all applications are open for public viewing.

 

The decision notice(s) are dated 3rd Sept 2014 and refer to drawings CAP 0133-05 for the existing station layout, and GST1 and GST 2 for details of the statue (with duck) and plaque and its position.

 

It's a very nice statue, but those who are not railway minded say "who was he?" I think Hazel's original concept was far better and should of been carried out in full.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who feel that The Gresley Society has acted improperly in this matter, there is the option of emailing Camden Council Planning Department to complain that the Statue erected fails to comply with the relevant planning permissions etc. as shown here:

 

http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/webdrawer/webdrawer.dll/webdrawer/search/rec&sm_ncontents=2014/4569/L&template=reclistplanning&rows=1000

 

The email address is:

 

planning@camden.gov.uk

 

The Application Reference is:  2014/4569/L

 

I would suggest the email is addressed for the attention of:

 

Rachel Stopard

Director of Culture & Environment

 

- and copied to Antonia Powell

 

HTH

Brian

 

 

I believe the change in planning has already been approved. I read somewhere that the council had been contacted regarding the change and as it was a mi or matter, it was rubber stamped as approved. So you're quacking up a dead duck for that one.

 

 

You could be correct there but the application does not show any changes since the original application was made in 2014 by Andrew Dow.

 

http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/webdrawer/webdrawer.dll/webdrawer/search/rec&sm_ncontents=2014/4569/L&template=reclistplanning&rows=1000

 

Planning is a legally binding document and you can't just change things without amending the original application. There was no second application made and no amending documents submitted, so as far as I can see the Statue that has been installed does not meet the application made. I stand to be corrected but on looking at Camden Councils planning site where amendments are made they are attached to the original application as in other authorities as all applications are open for public viewing.

 

The decision notice(s) are dated 3rd Sept 2014 and refer to drawings CAP 0133-05 for the existing station layout, and GST1 and GST 2 for details of the statue (with duck) and plaque and its position.

 

It's a very nice statue, but those who are not railway minded say "who was he?" I think Hazel's original concept was far better and should of been carried out in full.

 

Interestingly, the addition of the bird is actually highlighted in the responses as part of the submission:

 

"The inclusion of the mallard is inspired, for it will surely arouse the curiosity of youngsters and perhaps provoke or encourage an interest in engineers and engineering."

 

All the more reason for its re-instatement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who feel that The Gresley Society has acted improperly in this matter, there is the option of emailing Camden Council Planning Department to complain that the Statue erected fails to comply with the relevant planning permissions etc. as shown here:

 

 

 

If you want to reinforce the stereotype of railway enthusiasts as a load of childish detail obsessed sad gits with nothing better to do then go for it.

 

Camden's enforcement policy says:

 

"The main deciding factor is whether the breach would “unacceptably affect public amenity or use of land that should be protected in the public interest.” The guidance also advises that “any enforcement action should be proportionate to the breach.” For example, it would be inappropriate to take formal action against a trivial or technical breach. This duty means that we would not be acting lawfully if we enforced against every breach of planning control in the borough. There will be cases where there is a breach of planning legislation but the breach or harm is so minor that action cannot be justified."

 

https://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/environment/planning-and-built-environment/two/planning-enforcement/enforcing-planning-regulations/

 

I can't see that either side in this argument is covering themselves in glory tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

If you want to reinforce the stereotype of railway enthusiasts as a load of childish detail obsessed sad gits with nothing better to do then go for it.

 

Camden's enforcement policy says:

 

"The main deciding factor is whether the breach would “unacceptably affect public amenity or use of land that should be protected in the public interest.” The guidance also advises that “any enforcement action should be proportionate to the breach.” For example, it would be inappropriate to take formal action against a trivial or technical breach. This duty means that we would not be acting lawfully if we enforced against every breach of planning control in the borough. There will be cases where there is a breach of planning legislation but the breach or harm is so minor that action cannot be justified."

 

https://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/environment/planning-and-built-environment/two/planning-enforcement/enforcing-planning-regulations/

 

I can't see that either side in this argument is covering themselves in glory tbh.

Whatever your view on the duck this is not a typical application that goes before planning.

 

The fact that permission had to be sought from English Heritage and that listed building consent had to be sought as well, means that this application cannot be included under Minor amendments and that as the Duck was a material part of the original application and of the interpretation of the "Installation" you can't just ignore planning. My reading of the law is that a further application should of been sought before the revised statue was installed. As I said earlier it could be that this may of happened but there is no public record of such a discussion or application which must be added to the applications history.

 

As for "Detailed Obsessed Sad Gits"  Try looking at it in the way that the GST  wants to build whatever they like after they've taken your money and no one questions it. 

I bet if it was your money you'd have something to say about it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm glad the duck has gone. It was a silly, childish idea that should never have been taken seriously. In the  years to come the statue will commemorate HNG for his engineering achievements, not for the names applied to a few of his locomotives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I'm glad the duck has gone. It was a silly, childish idea that should never have been taken seriously. In the  years to come the statue will commemorate HNG for his engineering achievements, not for the names applied to a few of his locomotives.

"The inclusion of the mallard is inspired, for it will surely arouse the curiosity of youngsters and perhaps provoke or encourage an interest in engineers and engineering."

 

I would have thought the possibility of getting kids interested in the man, and into engineering was a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I'm glad the duck has gone. It was a silly, childish idea that should never have been taken seriously. In the  years to come the statue will commemorate HNG for his engineering achievements, not for the names applied to a few of his locomotives.

Apart from Mallard and Scotsman just what do you think Joe Public know of him now yet alone in years to come?  

 

The idea behind the original statue spec was to bring him to a new and wider audience, do you actually believe a big plain bronze statue of a man against a wall will do that ? I don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The inclusion of the mallard is inspired, for it will surely arouse the curiosity of youngsters and perhaps provoke or encourage an interest in engineers and engineering."

 

I would have thought the possibility of getting kids interested in the man, and into engineering was a good thing.

If that was the aim, perhaps the statute should have depicted Sir Nigel holding a model of an A4? Then there would have been less chance for confusion.

 

The duck would have been more appropriate for a statue of Sir Peter Scott!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

If that was the aim, perhaps the statute should have depicted Sir Nigel holding a model of an A4? Then there would have been less chance for confusion.

 

 

In which case the casual passer-by might well have assumed it was a statue of Frank Hornby!  (Whether he should have a statue in his own right in Liverpool is possibly a discussion for another thread!)

 

Seriously though, anyone who already knows of Sir Nigel and his achievements probably isn't who this statue should be aimed at.

 

The duck was a witty bit of lateral thinking that could have engaged people who would usually walk past a statue of yet another "dead white male", drawn them in and given them the opportunity to learn a little more about who he was and why he is celebrated.

 

TBH I think the now the ball's been fumbled there is little point discussing planning permission abuses, possible alterations, re-fitting the duck, etc etc.

 

They had the chance.  They blew it.

 

Edit:  I do still think it's a lovely statue.  But it could've been even better.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like ducks, most people like ducks as they can relate to them which is more than can be said for a statue of a long dead man, who probably 90 pc of the population haven't heard of and don't have  a clue who he is.  At least the duck would draw attention to him.

 

Brian

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

If we compare this with Euston, the statue of Matthew Flinders on the concourse does tell people who Flinders was and I suspect almost nobody ever notices it. I'll admit the only reason I pay attention to it is because I sailed on a ship named in his honour so was already familiar with his place in history. And I suspect it'll be no different for the statue of Gresley, those with an interest in the man will notice it, most will not give the statue a second thought, sadly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like ducks, most people like ducks as they can relate to them which is more than can be said for a statue of a long dead man, who probably 90 pc of the population haven't heard of and don't have  a clue who he is.  At least the duck would draw attention to him.

 

Brian

I can relate to ducks, especially with a nice plum sauce.

 

I don't think you should underestimate the public. Gresley designed the Flying Scotsman, and look at the massive fuss we saw when that re-surfaced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

chris p bacon, on 07 Apr 2016 - 09:09, said:chris p bacon, on 07 Apr 2016 - 09:09, said:chris p bacon, on 07 Apr 2016 - 09:09, said:

It's a very nice statue, but those who are not railway minded say "who was he?" I think Hazel's original concept was far better and should of been carried out in full.

I don't disagree with that.

 

 

chris p bacon said:chris p bacon said:

Try looking at it in the way that the GST wants to build whatever they like after they've taken your money and no one questions it. I bet if it was your money you'd have something to say about it!

I don't disagree with that either, I'd be livid. But this is essentially a private dispute about governance within the Gresley Society and with those financially supporting it, not a misuse of taxpayers' money, abuse of public office or similar misfeasance requiring a public outcry and huge social media campaign to draw attention to it. What has happened is that a pleasant idea to honour a very honourable man with a relatively low key and dignified monument has been hijacked and turned into a circus and public game of "Yah Boo Sucks".

 

The Gresley society has about 500 members - the "Save Gresley's Duck" Facebook page has over 2000 'likes' and the Change.org petition has nearly 3000 signatures. Maybe those 2-3000 people are all contributors and not just people who think the duck thing is funny, I don't know, but that's the reason this has become such a cause celebre - it's a comedy squabble about a duck. Maybe Ben A could confirm - if the dispute had been about whether Gresley should be holding a model of an A4 or not would the popular press have been half as interested ?      

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wheatley,

without taking up too much bandwidth, in very short order the scenario went thus

Nov 2014 statue annouced all agreed at AGM and note what the Council said about the Mallard!! a good 'selling point'

feb/mar 2015 Godfrey complains ,and he tells all the committee to vote it off otherwise the 'special relationship' will suffer..nice threat that, and what is this 'special relationship'? nobody has explained that.

Early march meeting between the statue committe Hazel and Godfrey. He rips Hazels design apart, Next Day Mallard is out

Press all over it and Save the Duck campaign started

Then the lies started from the society to justify bowing to one man

  • Called anyone in favour of the mallard 'unbalanced', 'duck fanatics', and 'zealots' and 'deranged'
  • Claimed members have been consulted about the change NOT TRUE
  • Claimed that all the 653 members and contributors to the statue appeal support the removal of the mallard NOT TRUE
  • Claimed that most if not all the new members since Feb of this year joined because of their (anti-mallard) stance NOT TRUE
  • Claimed because of the petition signed by over 2,600 people, including Sir William McAlpine, donations to the statue appeal have dried up TRUE BUT WRONG REASON, they never considered that it may have dried up because of their actions. Would you subscribe to something you didnt like?
  • Claimed the Society has never seen small children as a 'target market for our work' NOT TRUE See The MoA
  • Claimed only one contributor has requested a refund TRUE

    When i asked the chairman if they had contcted all those who had donated of the decision to remove the Mallard and offered to refund any money, he said they had. NOT TRUE i can produce two people who would confirm nothing has been received from the society

  • Claimed the membership has been fully informed of the progress via the GO....BUT VERY DEBATABLE as per the term FULLY informed  more TOLD
  • Have refused a referendum of the members as ‘it wouldn't be worth it’  TRUE ( worried that would be overruled!!!)
  • Claimed all 10 Vice presidents were against the Mallard.      NOT TRUE Sir William MacApline is in Favour and signed the petition and The Earl of Linsay is also in favour and confirmed he has never been asked his opinion. When challenged on this, the chairman replied and get this for a real lame reason

 'I had forgotten i had not asked him'  What sort of memory is that especially as that was one of the first claims they laid down

 

Not one of those statements can be substantiated

 

 

 

Totally ignored Charity commission guidleines that states

 

. 'No one should be able to direct the trustees or drive decisions through without discussion. Trustees who simply defer to the opinions and decisions of one person are not fulfilling their duties' Luckily not enforcable by law, just guidelines, which can be ignored with impunity, just to satisfy one mans demands.

 

So there you have it in a nutshell, of sorts. This is not made up. All the quotes are in letters from the Chairman to either Heritage Railway or Steam Railway and daily papers.

 

Hazel has done a superb statue,and it is being put to good use already ,by people sitting against it eating their snacks!!! Now That IS demeaning!!!

 

Did you also know that at the unveiling of the paque to Gresley on P8 at KX, Godfrey proudly said in his speech that

'he can remember going with his grandfather to feed his beloved ducks'  Note Beloved

Also the person who suggested the A4's be named after birds of swift flight was none other that Godfreys mother (  Chapter 4 Gresleys Pacifics Vol 2 O S Nock)

 

You couldn't make it up...... Hope that helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that was the aim, perhaps the statute should have depicted Sir Nigel holding a model of an A4? Then there would have been less chance for confusion.

 

The duck would have been more appropriate for a statue of Sir Peter Scott!

 

Can you imagine how that contretemps would have escalated: "That double chimney is wrong... the sideskirts were removed before that period... it didn't have a streamlined tender by then... they don't seem to have captured the shape of the nose correctly (on Mallard, not Sir Nigel...).

 

Maybe we should look on the bright side: At least with no duck, and no plaque, when Joe Public walks past, and Yoof 1 says to Yoof 2 "Who's that old geezer a statue of?" and the response comes "Dunno. Some Herbert..." they'll be 100% correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

But this is essentially a private dispute about governance within the Gresley Society and with those financially supporting it, 

I understand where you're coming from.

 

Had this of been wholly funded by the GST then it would be private but the fundraising was opened up to the general public, also because it was subject to planning law it's application made a point of it being used to educate. 

Personally I think the GST should of called a halt and rethought it if the original approved design was such a problem, but they didn't and decided to ignore their own membership. Like others in some societes the trustees forgot what they were there to do, instead of being the representatives of the membership to manage the society they became the management of the membership. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

One question comes into my head. If the plans for the statue, as originally announced, had been a duck free zone, would we be having all this fuss now?

 

All the bother about it is doing, I am sorry to say, is reinforcing the media stereotype of railway enthusiasts being a rather odd bunch of people.

 

I quite liked the idea of the duck and I think that the way the situation has been handled is dreadful but is it really worth all this proposed legal challenge type nonsense?

 

Who wins? Just the lawyers I reckon.

 

Is there anybody who can genuinely say that the only reason they contributed financially was because the statue included a bronze duck?

 

If I have any problem with the statue it is that Gresley looks decidedly fed up in the pose depicted.

 

One other thought comes to mind. I know that Gresley bred ducks as a hobby and I also know that he enjoyed shooting. Were the two linked? Did he breed ducks for hunting and shooting purposes? If so, perhaps he should have been posed with a gun and a dead duck. That would have ruffled a few feathers.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

One question comes into my head. If the plans for the statue, as originally announced, had been a duck free zone, would we be having all this fuss now?

 

All the bother about it is doing, I am sorry to say, is reinforcing the media stereotype of railway enthusiasts being a rather odd bunch of people.

 

I quite liked the idea of the duck and I think that the way the situation has been handled is dreadful but is it really worth all this proposed legal challenge type nonsense?

 

Who wins? Just the lawyers I reckon.

 

Is there anybody who can genuinely say that the only reason they contributed financially was because the statue included a bronze duck?

 

If I have any problem with the statue it is that Gresley looks decidedly fed up in the pose depicted.

 

One other thought comes to mind. I know that Gresley bred ducks as a hobby and I also know that he enjoyed shooting. Were the two linked? Did he breed ducks for hunting and shooting purposes? If so, perhaps he should have been posed with a gun and a dead duck. That would have ruffled a few feathers.... 

 I was told on Tuesday where Gresleys guns are now. Not sure if one is a duck gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...