I have been a Councillor representing New Cross and Deptford for nineteen years. Rather than support the New Bermondsey, formerly the Surrey Canal Triangle, Scheme for selfish reasons, I was motivated by my duty to promote the public interest. I believe that the public interest case was always clearly demonstrated in the reports that were written by Council Officers that recommended approval of planning consents and to proceed with a CPO, subject to conditions. My own judgement of the evidence they presented supported their conclusions.
I had assumed that Millwall Football Club were supportive of Renewal's plans. I believed this because it seemed to me that the completion of the development was in their interests, providing as it did better transport links to the stadium and more sporting facilities so as to make the location more of a desirable destination for people. I also thought that the 2,400 new homes would provide the opportunity for the club to develop a much larger local fan base, something that I thought it was clearly in need of, as most of its supporters live outside Lewisham.
A number of things persuaded me that the club and its owners supported the development. Firstly, the fact that the Council’s aspiration for a large regeneration scheme on the site occupied by Millwall and some of the surrounding area, was part of its Core Strategy. This is a document that was subject to statutory public consultation and all the Council’s democratic processes of Overview & Scrutiny. I therefore assumed that the club would have had ample opportunity to have input into it. I wasn’t aware that the Club had expressed any opposition to the Council’s Core Strategy.
Secondly, I was a member of the Council’s Strategic Planning Committee that approved Renewal’s planning applications regarding the Surrey Canal Triangle in February 2011 and October 2011. I do not remember anyone from Millwall being in attendance. I do not recall them making any objection either in person or in writing.
Thirdly, I attended the Mayor & Cabinet meeting on 7th March 2012 where the decision in principle was taken to agree to proceed to a CPO on the land leased by Millwall from the Council, subject to conditions. I recall that the then Chief Executive of the Club, Mr Andy Amber, was in attendance and addressed the committee. I don’t recall that he spoke in opposition to the proposal.
Lastly, on the 30th March 2012, the Club’s owners and the Club signed up to the Section 106 Agreement which set out the mitigation that Renewal would offer the club in exchange for the club surrendering the land they leased from the Council. I presumed that this meant that the Club and its owners were content for the scheme to proceed.
As has been widely reported, the proposed New Bermondsey development is now the subject of an inquiry led by former Master of the Rolls and Supreme Court judge, Lord Dyson. I can not predict what the outcome of this inquiry will be. Even if it were to completely exonerate the Council, the Mayor, the Cabinet, all Council Officers and Renewal, I fear that it may not be possible for the Council to implement its policy and agree the CPO, thereby facilitating the New Bermondsey development. The politics may be far too toxic and the imagined consequences for any individual politician far too disadvantageous. If this proves to be the case then Renewal’s reaction could be to act robustly to safeguard their interest and recover the investment that they have made on the presumption that they had our support. This would have injurious consequences for the Council. It seems to me that none of this would be in the public interest.
I have found the whole decision-making process relating to the CPO deeply frustrating. On numerous occasions, the Cabinet has been stood up to make a decision, only for the lawyers to stand us down again. This has been because of last minute objections or submission of other matters such as the supposed impact on the Club’s FA Academy status which could have been raised months if not years earlier. Delays have also been due to ‘call-ins’ by the Council’s Business Panel on grounds which seemed to me at the time to be thin. This marched right up to the top of the hill’ only to be ‘marched back down again’, has been bad enough. But the fact that it is played out in public gives the impression that the Council is ineffective.
However, what has been most damaging in my view, is the fact that the Council, the Mayor and the Cabinet have been prevented from explaining their position, advocating for the scheme and defending their own policy, by legal advice that seeks to protect the Council from an accusation of predetermination. A person is not a decision maker if he is prevented from taking a decision. A politician who is prevented from advocating policy is no longer a politician. This situation can be endured and tolerated for a short period. But when it is permitted to persist in the case of one particular issue for years, then the credibility of the Council is undermined.
My experience of trying to determine the Millwall CPO has made me question whether it is possible, given the legal constraints, for the Council, indeed any Council, to make a decision in the public interest concerning a very large regeneration scheme, which is being opposed by a powerful third party, where that party is capable of mobilising a mass grass roots campaign and where that campaign is supported by the media. Perhaps city and national governments have the means and resilience to cope with these pressures. I fear that local Councils that are made up of members who are elected with majorities of a few thousand at most and often much less, do not.
No comments:
Post a Comment