I have been contacted by Barney Ronay, a journalist at the Guardian and asked for my responses to these questions which relate to the stories he has been running about the New Bermondsey development project and Council's decision, subsequently not proceeded with, to grant a CPO on land owned by the Council but leased to Millwall football club. I believe that he is running a story on all the candidates who have been shortlisted for selection as the Labour candidate in next year's Mayoral Election in Lewisham. I am posting my answers on full here as it would be unreasonable to expect the Guardian to do so in the article they publish next week.
1. It emerged after a meeting earlier this year that you had described your fellow cabinet colleagues and the Mayor as "dead men walking". A source present at that meeting has since confirmed that this was indeed the case. Do you have any comment on this?
Following the decision by the Mayor & Cabinet not to proceed with the Millwall CPO, I was contacted by Steve Kavanagh, the club's CEO and invited to a meeting at the ground. The meeting was a genuine attempt by Steve to open a dialogue with the Council and rebuild a good relationship. He said that the meeting would include the two of us plus Steve Bradshaw, the CEO of the Millwall Community Scheme. No one else was in attendance. The three of us met for over two hours. My understanding was that it was a confidential meeting. I came away believing it had been productive. Steve Kavanagh and I exchanged a few cordial emails afterwards in what I saw as a useful exercise in building trust and 'keeping the conversation going'. So I was disappointed when a phrase I had used at the meeting appeared in a tweet by a supporters group. I say disappointing as I believe that this action put an end to the prospect of any further meetings between the Council and the club taking place. It appears that someone who was present at this private meeting is now briefing the press about it. I don't want to disclose more of what was said at a private meeting beyond what has found its way into the public domain. What I can say is that I used the phrase 'dead men walking' to help me to explain to the Steves where the Council was in the political cycle. The Mayor had announced his decision not to seek re-election in 2018. My view was that most if not all of his nine person Cabinet would not be Cabinet Members in the 2018/22 administration. I used the phrase to emphasis that very considerable change would take place to the composition of the Council's political executive after the 2018 elections. I didn't use it to convey the view that I thought anyone would be resigning or forced to stand down prior to that.
1. It emerged after a meeting earlier this year that you had described your fellow cabinet colleagues and the Mayor as "dead men walking". A source present at that meeting has since confirmed that this was indeed the case. Do you have any comment on this?
Following the decision by the Mayor & Cabinet not to proceed with the Millwall CPO, I was contacted by Steve Kavanagh, the club's CEO and invited to a meeting at the ground. The meeting was a genuine attempt by Steve to open a dialogue with the Council and rebuild a good relationship. He said that the meeting would include the two of us plus Steve Bradshaw, the CEO of the Millwall Community Scheme. No one else was in attendance. The three of us met for over two hours. My understanding was that it was a confidential meeting. I came away believing it had been productive. Steve Kavanagh and I exchanged a few cordial emails afterwards in what I saw as a useful exercise in building trust and 'keeping the conversation going'. So I was disappointed when a phrase I had used at the meeting appeared in a tweet by a supporters group. I say disappointing as I believe that this action put an end to the prospect of any further meetings between the Council and the club taking place. It appears that someone who was present at this private meeting is now briefing the press about it. I don't want to disclose more of what was said at a private meeting beyond what has found its way into the public domain. What I can say is that I used the phrase 'dead men walking' to help me to explain to the Steves where the Council was in the political cycle. The Mayor had announced his decision not to seek re-election in 2018. My view was that most if not all of his nine person Cabinet would not be Cabinet Members in the 2018/22 administration. I used the phrase to emphasis that very considerable change would take place to the composition of the Council's political executive after the 2018 elections. I didn't use it to convey the view that I thought anyone would be resigning or forced to stand down prior to that.
2. Have you met the former mayor Dave Sullivan in the last year? Is Sullivan a personal friend?
I have written about this in a previous post to this blog. You can read it here. To the best of my memory I haven't met Dave Sullivan for at least a year. The last time was at a mutual friend's birthday party when neither of us knew that the other was invited. I have spoken to him about 3 or 4 times on the telephone in the last year. He is a friend of mine as indeed are many former Lewisham Councillors and Officers. I am answering this question as I hope to show that I have nothing to hide. But I have to confess that I find the obsession of some people with a person who left the Council fifteen years ago and Renewal almost ten years ago, rather surprising.
3. It has been reported that you have been informally describing yourself in public as "the Renewal candidate" for Mayor. Do you have any comment on this?
I haven't said that I'm 'the Renewal candidate' for Mayor. I know that journalists will not reveal their sources, but I strongly suspect that this allegation has come from someone who is not in full support of my candidacy in an attempt to undermine it. However, it is fair to say that one of my motivations for running was to give Labour Party members the opportunity to vote for a candidate who had supported the CPO, as all the other councillors who were being spoken of as potential candidates had made statements that they were against it, even those who had voted to grant Renewal planning permission on the whole scheme, including the land leased to Millwall and the decision to agree the CPO.
4. Do you rule out a future CPO of land at New Bermondsey as part of the regeneration scheme there, as other candidates have?
Council's policy is to agree a CPO on the land owned by the Council and leased to Millwall Football Club. The decision not to proceed with the CPO that was agreed by Mayor & Cabinet doesn't change that. This is the legal position as I understand it. The Council's policy to seek to deliver a comprehensive regeneration scheme effectively in partnership with Renewal, involving the use of a CPO if certain conditions are met, has been in development for ten years at least. This position has been arrived at through a series of decisions which have gone through the Council's democratic processes. They have been taken in an open and transparent way, mostly in public, often involving statutory consultation and subject to the Council's Overview & Scrutiny procedures. Renewal has invested considerable sums on the understanding that the Council will essentially keep its promises and deliver its policy. If the Council decides to change its policy it can do so, but this will involve something akin to the termination of a contract with Renewal. It would be normal practice in these circumstances for the party that has suffered a loss from a unilateral termination of an agreement to seek compensation either via mutual consent or failing that, by legal action. I think the questions for the other candidates are, have you asked what the costs of changing the Council's policy on the New Bermondsey development are likely to be?, and how do you plan to fund them on top of the £52m worth of savings that the Council will have to make over the next four years?
5. You have energetically championed the Renewal scheme at New Bermondsey despite resistance from the public and fellow councillors. Do you still feel this is a good scheme and would you like it to proceed?
I supported the scheme because I was persuaded by the evidence presented that it was in the public interest. To recap, the scheme will deliver around 2400 new homes, a new sports village, a new station and bus routes and substantial improvements to the public realm. All the facilities that the Club currently enjoy on the land that is covered by the CPO, will be reprovided in the new scheme. This includes the car park and the community scheme plus the memorial garden. The developer has agreed to pay for improvements to the stadium. There is also scope within the scheme to expand the stadium in the future. I believe that the public interest case for the New Bermondsey scheme, that is, the case that it will deliver huge benefits to many, many people in and around the area, is compelling. The questions for the other candidates is, if you want a different scheme to this one, how will it be better?, who will build it?, why would they be willing to build it?, and what would be the delay in getting it built over the current, consented scheme?
No comments:
Post a Comment