Last night Thames Water came to speak to the Governors of Riverside Primary School about the likely impact of the Thames Tunnel super sewer. I am the Chair of Governors at Riverside School, which has been rated the 10th best primary school in the country by the Sunday Times.
Thames Water have purchased Chambers Wharf immediately adjacent to the school for £76.6 million and it is now their preferred site for major tunnelling works during the course of the construction of the Thames Tunnel. One tunnel will bore from the site whilst two other tunnels will arrive at the site. In short this means that an area of our borough's riverside will resemble a major industrial site for 7 years, with 24 hour tunnelling works going on for at least 3 years. 90 lorries a day are expected to rumble past the school, with thousands of millions of tons of excavated material will be transported away from the site. As the Headteachers of the school have commented, there will be generations of children attending the school who will never know a primary education without the sound of major industrial works and heavy industrial traffic just feet away from their classroom.
The proposals from Thames Water are unacceptable. The site will be a blight on our borough and will jeopardise the success of Riverside and other local schools. I simply do not know how residents who live adjacent to the site, and who bought their homes believing that Chambers Wharf would be developed as housing, will cope with the massive disruption.
There are alternative solutions available. The Channel Tunnel was constructed without "stopping-off" points being constructed along the way. Hybrid boring machines exist which could do the job. Thames Water admit this, although a hybrid machine is not their preferred approach. They would prefer to blight an area, schools and residents who live next to Chambers Wharf.
There is still time to object to these proposals - please do so at www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Charter School Admissions
Congratulations to local parents and campaigners for their victory in ensuring that the Charter School has to take account of safe walking routes to school in determining how close children live to the School for admissions purposes. For years the Charter have argued that Greendale is not a proper walking route to the school, which has meant that the calculated distance for children living on Champion Hill and East Dulwich Estates has been much further than the most direct route. As a result lots of children from those two parts of South Camberwell have missed out on places at the school.
The Charter School is a Southwark success story. From being an unpopular and failing school it is now regarded as one of the best state schools in our borough. So it is important that those children who actually live closest to the school should be able to benefit from and share in that success by attending Charter for their secondary education.
This is good news for South Camberwell and I have no doubt will be good news for the Charter School.
UPDATE - the route which Charter was failing to take account of was the road between Wanley Rd and Dylways. If Charter School had adopted a straight line approach to admissions - which is the method used in all local authority schools - this issue would never have arisen.
The Charter School is a Southwark success story. From being an unpopular and failing school it is now regarded as one of the best state schools in our borough. So it is important that those children who actually live closest to the school should be able to benefit from and share in that success by attending Charter for their secondary education.
This is good news for South Camberwell and I have no doubt will be good news for the Charter School.
UPDATE - the route which Charter was failing to take account of was the road between Wanley Rd and Dylways. If Charter School had adopted a straight line approach to admissions - which is the method used in all local authority schools - this issue would never have arisen.
Cycling in Southwark
Over 2 months since I blogged, but a good time to talk about cycling in Southwark after the debate which we held at Council Assembly last week on the environment and transport.
Curiously the Labour Administration was accused of being anti-cyclist during the course of the debate by our Lib Dem opponents - which on the basis of the facts is simply not an accurate description. Firstly, our current target of increasing cycling from 3% of journeys to 4% across the borough is merely a continuation of the previous Administration's target. So if it wasn't good enough for the Lib Dems why didn't they do something about it during the 8 years they were in power? To my mind it is not a particularly ambitious target and I would like to see us revisit it very soon.
But I recognise that if we are going to persuade people to cycle and really increase the number of journeys made by bike, we need to make the routes for cyclists around the borough as safe as possible. That is why we met with Southwark Cyclists last week to discuss their plans for linking up parts of the borough with safe cycling routes, and why I will be meeting up with other cycling representatives in the near future to discuss their constructive proposals.
As a borough there is some good work which we are doing for cycling. As an Administration we have spent or allocated £2.677 million on cycling in the last 20 months and plan to spend nearly another £4 million on cycling infrastructure. One third of the money allocated from TfL to us gets spent on cycling and we have recently completed 100 metres more of safe cycle route on Southwark Park Road. We have installed 174 cycle lockers on housing estates and created over 1500 new spaces for on street cycle parking. A good start - but I recognise there is a lot more to do.
Cycling is a healthy and should be a safe form of transport around our capital city. My ambition is to see Southwark lead the way in delivering safe cycle routes and I look forward to working with cyclists to deliver on that ambition.
Curiously the Labour Administration was accused of being anti-cyclist during the course of the debate by our Lib Dem opponents - which on the basis of the facts is simply not an accurate description. Firstly, our current target of increasing cycling from 3% of journeys to 4% across the borough is merely a continuation of the previous Administration's target. So if it wasn't good enough for the Lib Dems why didn't they do something about it during the 8 years they were in power? To my mind it is not a particularly ambitious target and I would like to see us revisit it very soon.
But I recognise that if we are going to persuade people to cycle and really increase the number of journeys made by bike, we need to make the routes for cyclists around the borough as safe as possible. That is why we met with Southwark Cyclists last week to discuss their plans for linking up parts of the borough with safe cycling routes, and why I will be meeting up with other cycling representatives in the near future to discuss their constructive proposals.
As a borough there is some good work which we are doing for cycling. As an Administration we have spent or allocated £2.677 million on cycling in the last 20 months and plan to spend nearly another £4 million on cycling infrastructure. One third of the money allocated from TfL to us gets spent on cycling and we have recently completed 100 metres more of safe cycle route on Southwark Park Road. We have installed 174 cycle lockers on housing estates and created over 1500 new spaces for on street cycle parking. A good start - but I recognise there is a lot more to do.
Cycling is a healthy and should be a safe form of transport around our capital city. My ambition is to see Southwark lead the way in delivering safe cycle routes and I look forward to working with cyclists to deliver on that ambition.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Southwark's Housing Commission
Over the next 5 years Southwark will be investing £326 million in making every council home 'Warm, Dry and Safe' in line with the commitment which we made to the electorate in 2010. This equates to nearly £1100 for every resident of the borough - and includes the use of over £100 million generated from asset sales outside the council's current housing estate. We are able to do this as a local authority as we are a significant land holder in the borough. However, there will come a point where we do not have other land assets to sell in order to fund our housing improvements and in any event, we have to ask whether it is right for us to invest so much money in our housing stock which could also be spent on improving our libraries, leisure centres, roads, pavements and other general assets used by all residents of the borough.
At the same time as we face this financial challenge we also face an unprecedented demand for our council housing in Southwark, with nearly 20,000 people on our housing waiting lists. There is undoubtedly a demand for high quality affordable rented housing in Southwark - indeed right across London; the sort of housing which councils are supposed to provide.
To consider these two challenges we have decided to appoint a Housing Commission to report within a year on how we might best manage Southwark's housing stock over the next 25 - 30 years. The Commission will be wholly independent of the Council, run by The Smith Institute and be chaired by the leading housing barrister Jan Luba QC. Jan Luba has an impressive record and has previously successfully represented tenants in claims against the council.
It is important that the Commission should be independent from the Council. Firstly, it will give the Commission a credibility which it would simply not have if it was made up of local councillors who may be regarded as having an agenda or pre-determined outcome. Secondly, I believe that it gives the Commission the ability to really consider all of the options which might be available for financing our existing stock and meeting future demand. The Commission will receive evidence from anyone who has an interest in the future of Southwark's housing - no one will be prevented from making submissions to the Commission and actually people will be encouraged to do so. Once the Commission has reported there will no doubt be much debate and consideration of its recommendations.
I start from the position that I want Southwark to retain its housing stock, but it would be irresponsible of us not to look at the big long term questions - too many administrations in Southwark have done that in the past.
It's disappointing that the Commission has already been dismissed as a "pointless" waste of money by Southwark's Lib Dems. I think it and the issues it will consider are too important to be dismissed without any real thought on the part of all politicians in the borough.
The photo shows Jan Luba QC with myself, Cllr Ian Wingfield and Cllr Fiona Colley
Thursday, November 17, 2011
CPZ Consultation
The Council has been undertaking a consultation into whether residents want a Controlled Parking Zone ('CPZ') in a number of roads in South Camberwell including St Francis Road and East Dulwich Road. Residents in Oglander Road were not consulted, although a couple of roads nearby were included within the consultation.
The consultation has caused a lot of concern, not least from some of the residents of Oglander Road who fear the potential 'knock-on' effects of the CPZ if it is introduced in neighbouring roads. And it is fair to say that the consultation has generated quite a lot of misinformation.
Firstly, it is important to recognise that a consultation for a CPZ will not happen unless residents have made requests to the Council over a fairly lengthy period of time. There will be no consultation if residents have not asked for a CPZ in the area.
Secondly, when deciding where the consultation will take place officers use their professional judgement to determine its scope and area. This is something of an art, although supported by years of experience and specialist knowledge.
Thirdly, a CPZ will not be introduced unless the majority of residents in a road vote in favour of its' introduction. A CPZ will not be introduced or imposed by the Council against the will of residents.
Fourthly, CPZ's are not money-making ventures for the Council. They are not a back-door form of taxation, but are a self-funding scheme designed to provide residents with parking near their own homes.
The consultation has now ended, and I will keep you posted on the outcome. However, residents need have no fear that a CPZ will be introduced in their area without them having been informed or consulted.
The consultation has caused a lot of concern, not least from some of the residents of Oglander Road who fear the potential 'knock-on' effects of the CPZ if it is introduced in neighbouring roads. And it is fair to say that the consultation has generated quite a lot of misinformation.
Firstly, it is important to recognise that a consultation for a CPZ will not happen unless residents have made requests to the Council over a fairly lengthy period of time. There will be no consultation if residents have not asked for a CPZ in the area.
Secondly, when deciding where the consultation will take place officers use their professional judgement to determine its scope and area. This is something of an art, although supported by years of experience and specialist knowledge.
Thirdly, a CPZ will not be introduced unless the majority of residents in a road vote in favour of its' introduction. A CPZ will not be introduced or imposed by the Council against the will of residents.
Fourthly, CPZ's are not money-making ventures for the Council. They are not a back-door form of taxation, but are a self-funding scheme designed to provide residents with parking near their own homes.
The consultation has now ended, and I will keep you posted on the outcome. However, residents need have no fear that a CPZ will be introduced in their area without them having been informed or consulted.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Today's Unemployment Figures
With unemployment hitting 2.62 million today, and over a million young people out of work it really does look like the Coalition Government's much-vaunted 'Plan A' is not working. There is a terrifying risk that we will have another 'Thatcher Generation' of young people coming into the employment market without any real hope of work and condemned to lengthy periods without a job. It is no coincidence that the last two quarters of the Labour Government saw the economy growing - it was deliberate policies of continued investment in public services and initiatives like the Future Jobs Fund and Working Neighbourhood Fund which were making a real difference to the real economy. You have to wonder why the present government has abandoned policies which were working in favour of a policy approach which failed in the 1930's and the 1980's and which will undoubtedly fail again.
Equally staggering is the failure of local Liberal Democrats in Southwark to even raise a murmur about the damage THEIR government is doing. On the 1st of November ten senior Lib Dems, including former Southwark Councillor Ruth Bright, wrote to the Guardian pointing out the fact that their party had actively campaigned during the 2010 election campaign against the economic policies the Government is now pursuing. They said in their letter:
"...out of responsibility to the country, Liberal Democrats must now tell the Conservatives that they will no longer support policies which are not working. That is necessary even if one is only concerned about deficit reduction. As the Compass Plan B states, it already "looks as if the government will miss the defecit reduction target and, as the economy slows, the deficit could increase."
Today's unemployment figures and the concern expressed by Mervyn King must only add to the weight of the letter's argument.
Not unreasonably (I thought) I wrote to the Leader of the Lib Dem Group in Southwark asking her if she agreed with the contents of her colleagues' letter, and if not, why not.
Today I got a reply, of sorts. Cllr Al-Samerai queries how I have got time to write letters to her and goes on to tell me that she is asking for the letter to be investigated by the Borough Solicitor as it may represent a waste of council resources. The irony of wasting council resources on a potentially costly investigation by a senior officer of the Council into the production of a letter is clearly lost on Cllr Al-Sameria. But that aside, she has not provided an answer to my query.
Doesn't it just reinforce the points I made in my previous blog entry - the Lib Dems in Southwark have absolutely no answers to the big issues facing this borough. They are pathetically obsessed by opposition for the sake of opposition. At a time when we have over 25% of our 16 - 24 year olds in the borough out of work, and that figure rising every month, the fact that they will not criticise Tory policies represents abject failure, not opposition.
Thankfully the people of Southwark have a Labour Council on their side, fighting to build our local economy in the face of the downturn, with politicians who do have answers to the big questions and who are also able to hold their political opponents to account.
Equally staggering is the failure of local Liberal Democrats in Southwark to even raise a murmur about the damage THEIR government is doing. On the 1st of November ten senior Lib Dems, including former Southwark Councillor Ruth Bright, wrote to the Guardian pointing out the fact that their party had actively campaigned during the 2010 election campaign against the economic policies the Government is now pursuing. They said in their letter:
"...out of responsibility to the country, Liberal Democrats must now tell the Conservatives that they will no longer support policies which are not working. That is necessary even if one is only concerned about deficit reduction. As the Compass Plan B states, it already "looks as if the government will miss the defecit reduction target and, as the economy slows, the deficit could increase."
Today's unemployment figures and the concern expressed by Mervyn King must only add to the weight of the letter's argument.
Not unreasonably (I thought) I wrote to the Leader of the Lib Dem Group in Southwark asking her if she agreed with the contents of her colleagues' letter, and if not, why not.
Today I got a reply, of sorts. Cllr Al-Samerai queries how I have got time to write letters to her and goes on to tell me that she is asking for the letter to be investigated by the Borough Solicitor as it may represent a waste of council resources. The irony of wasting council resources on a potentially costly investigation by a senior officer of the Council into the production of a letter is clearly lost on Cllr Al-Sameria. But that aside, she has not provided an answer to my query.
Doesn't it just reinforce the points I made in my previous blog entry - the Lib Dems in Southwark have absolutely no answers to the big issues facing this borough. They are pathetically obsessed by opposition for the sake of opposition. At a time when we have over 25% of our 16 - 24 year olds in the borough out of work, and that figure rising every month, the fact that they will not criticise Tory policies represents abject failure, not opposition.
Thankfully the people of Southwark have a Labour Council on their side, fighting to build our local economy in the face of the downturn, with politicians who do have answers to the big questions and who are also able to hold their political opponents to account.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Council Assembly on the Disturbances
I have been reflecting on Wednesday's Council Assembly, which provided the first opportunity for all councillors to come together to discuss the cause, effect and possible solutions to the disturbances which took place across the borough on August 8th. In my speech I concentrated on the fact that the response of residents to the disturbances was what truly demonstrated the spirit of Southwark, rather than the disturbances themselves, although with youth unemployment running at over 25% there are some serious issues which need to be addressed. There were many thoughtful contributions from Labour members, who reflected on their own experiences on August 8th; the brave work of the Police, and the Council's response to what had occurred.
However, I believe that it was striking that the Lib Dem Group Leader used her three minutes of speaking time to rail against the injustice of the way in which the debate had been organised, and how Southwark Labour had prevented her from speaking! It demonstrated a lack of any vision or any possible solutions.
But it occurred to me that Lib Dems in Southwark lack a vision or strategy on all of the big issues.
They oppose our Housing Investment Programme and offer up a continuation of their works whilst in office as an alternative. But that was a programme without a timetable and without a budget - in fact it had a £400 million hole - and which would have meant more council homes in or borough would be non-decent than decent in 5 years time.
They criticise our approach to regeneration, but offer up nothing as an alternative other than passing more responsibility to the community for decision-making. But that is not a vision or a strategy; it is a cop out, and represents a return to the dither and delay which paralysed the council from 2002 - 2010.
They advocate the strengthening of Community Councils; but don't spell out what they want them to do with increased powers - other than to remove power from the Administration which does have a vision and a strategy to take Southwark forward.
They oppose Free Healthy School Meals as a policy and response to the fact that Southwark has the worst childhood obesity rates, and offer up the Community Games as the response to this vital health issue. But the Community Games ran throughout their period of office, and childhood obesity got worse, not better.
They shamelessly support everything that the Coalition Government has done from the tripling of tuition fees to the abolition of EMA to the ransacking of the NHS to the destruction of the benefits system and the massive reductions in housing benefit. The local Lib Dem MP even blamed the Council for Michael Gove's imposition of two free schools on Southwark.
Southwark Lib Dems represent the politics of opposition for the sake of opposition. They offer no genuine alternative strategies or vision. It is a bankrupt approach to the problems of our borough.
Why am I saying this at this time? Because Southwark is facing some of the biggest economic and social problems that it ever has. These serious and difficult times require serious and difficult choices to be made and serious politicians to take them. The politics of the playground; of pretending there is some easy answer; of deliberate distortion - offer no solutions.
However, I believe that it was striking that the Lib Dem Group Leader used her three minutes of speaking time to rail against the injustice of the way in which the debate had been organised, and how Southwark Labour had prevented her from speaking! It demonstrated a lack of any vision or any possible solutions.
But it occurred to me that Lib Dems in Southwark lack a vision or strategy on all of the big issues.
They oppose our Housing Investment Programme and offer up a continuation of their works whilst in office as an alternative. But that was a programme without a timetable and without a budget - in fact it had a £400 million hole - and which would have meant more council homes in or borough would be non-decent than decent in 5 years time.
They criticise our approach to regeneration, but offer up nothing as an alternative other than passing more responsibility to the community for decision-making. But that is not a vision or a strategy; it is a cop out, and represents a return to the dither and delay which paralysed the council from 2002 - 2010.
They advocate the strengthening of Community Councils; but don't spell out what they want them to do with increased powers - other than to remove power from the Administration which does have a vision and a strategy to take Southwark forward.
They oppose Free Healthy School Meals as a policy and response to the fact that Southwark has the worst childhood obesity rates, and offer up the Community Games as the response to this vital health issue. But the Community Games ran throughout their period of office, and childhood obesity got worse, not better.
They shamelessly support everything that the Coalition Government has done from the tripling of tuition fees to the abolition of EMA to the ransacking of the NHS to the destruction of the benefits system and the massive reductions in housing benefit. The local Lib Dem MP even blamed the Council for Michael Gove's imposition of two free schools on Southwark.
Southwark Lib Dems represent the politics of opposition for the sake of opposition. They offer no genuine alternative strategies or vision. It is a bankrupt approach to the problems of our borough.
Why am I saying this at this time? Because Southwark is facing some of the biggest economic and social problems that it ever has. These serious and difficult times require serious and difficult choices to be made and serious politicians to take them. The politics of the playground; of pretending there is some easy answer; of deliberate distortion - offer no solutions.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Guy Fawkes Night
Firstly, let's be absolutely clear - Southwark Council never 'banned' Guy Fawkes night or Fireworks Night because of political correctness. In an attempt to replace the many events and festivals which the Council supports each year, but which we have had to significantly cut back this year because of the Government's cuts of £34 million to our budget (with another £50 million more cuts to come) our events team had tried to create something which was more than 'Guy Fawkes' night, and brought some fresh thinking and ideas to an event to be staged in the south of the borough in Dulwich Park.
The name chosen for the event 'The Colour Thief' was a mistake, but I believe that the idea for the event was a good one.
However, Dulwich Lib Dem councillors - in particular James Barber and Robin Crookshank Hilton, thought that the name of the event could be exploited for some political gain and ran off to the newspapers with their story. The ensuing coverage made the event impossible to stage. So Cllrs Barber and Crookshank Hilton have ensured that Dulwich Park does not get an event this Autumn. This must have been their intention - so to that extent they have had a great political success.
Instead, the Council will stage a fireworks display in Southwark Park, and I am sure that it will be a great success. I hope that residents or children disappointed by the decision to cancel the Dulwich Park event will be able to participate in the event in Southwark Park - there is no reason why they should miss out.
The Council will consult residents in the south of the borough on an event to be held there next year. I hope that a little more maturity can be brought to the discussion of what that event should be than has been evident in the past few weeks from Dulwich Lib Dem councillors.
The name chosen for the event 'The Colour Thief' was a mistake, but I believe that the idea for the event was a good one.
However, Dulwich Lib Dem councillors - in particular James Barber and Robin Crookshank Hilton, thought that the name of the event could be exploited for some political gain and ran off to the newspapers with their story. The ensuing coverage made the event impossible to stage. So Cllrs Barber and Crookshank Hilton have ensured that Dulwich Park does not get an event this Autumn. This must have been their intention - so to that extent they have had a great political success.
Instead, the Council will stage a fireworks display in Southwark Park, and I am sure that it will be a great success. I hope that residents or children disappointed by the decision to cancel the Dulwich Park event will be able to participate in the event in Southwark Park - there is no reason why they should miss out.
The Council will consult residents in the south of the borough on an event to be held there next year. I hope that a little more maturity can be brought to the discussion of what that event should be than has been evident in the past few weeks from Dulwich Lib Dem councillors.
Free Healthy School Meals
It was great that Harriet Harman mentioned our Southwark Labour policy to provide Free Healthy School Meals to all of the primary school children in the borough during her Labour Conference speech today.
At a time when young people are really being hit hard by this Coalition Government I am incredibly proud of the work we are doing and the choices which we have made in Southwark - not only Free Healthy School Meals, but also our Youth Fund, helping 16-18 year olds through their further education by topping-up the Government's EMA replacement; giving scholarships to some of our poorest but most able students in order to pay their tuition fees through University, and giving valuable work experience and internships to another 2000 pupils.
We cannot solve all of the problems we face in Southwark, but we can try and demonstrate that we have real faith in Southwark's young people and that we want to help them achieve their ambitions. By the policies we are pursuing and the action we are taking Southwark's students must know that in an era when the Government appears to have given up on them, Southwark's Labour Council never will.
At a time when young people are really being hit hard by this Coalition Government I am incredibly proud of the work we are doing and the choices which we have made in Southwark - not only Free Healthy School Meals, but also our Youth Fund, helping 16-18 year olds through their further education by topping-up the Government's EMA replacement; giving scholarships to some of our poorest but most able students in order to pay their tuition fees through University, and giving valuable work experience and internships to another 2000 pupils.
We cannot solve all of the problems we face in Southwark, but we can try and demonstrate that we have real faith in Southwark's young people and that we want to help them achieve their ambitions. By the policies we are pursuing and the action we are taking Southwark's students must know that in an era when the Government appears to have given up on them, Southwark's Labour Council never will.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Southwark Borough Conference 2011
Southwark Labour's 5th Annual Borough Conference took place last Saturday - with guest speakers Harriet Harman, Ken Livingstone and Val Shawcross, and a number of 'Break Out' sessions looking at particular policy areas. The sessions on Young People, Crime, the 'Big Society' to the 'Good Society' and Libraries were all well attended and generated loads of great ideas which we will be trying to include in our policy development over the coming months.
I think that our Borough Conference remains fairly unique within the Labour Party - an opportunity for all members in the borough to come together to discuss issues of concern and develop policy for the future.
Many issues were raised from the floor, including that of evicting those convicted of involvement in the recent disturbances from council housing. But I think we were able to explain our approach and put it in the context of all of the other work which we are doing following those disturbances- including our innovative Youth Fund and Community Conversations - which put any worried minds at rest. There has been a lot of heat and not much light generated over the issue of post-disturbance evictions. Our fundamental approach in Southwark is that anyone convicted of involvement in the riots will have a face to face interview; their individual circumstances will be considered and all options for dealing with their case considered, including the possibility of bringing possession proceedings. However, the other options available include no further action; demoted tenancies; acceptable behaviour contracts and anti-social behaviour orders.
But a good day on Saturday looking ahead to the Mayoral and GLA elections, with real enthusiasm from our membership for what Southwark Labour is doing in power.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Disturbances in Southwark
Monday night's disturbances and criminal behaviour in Southwark was truly unacceptable and sickening. There was no justification for what we saw, and indeed none of those involved in the rioting and looting appeared to putting forward any political justification for what they were doing. It was base criminality.
Over the past two days I have been speaking to residents and businesses who have been affected by the events of Monday night. Some of the most disturbing stories came from shop owners and managers on the Walworth Road. I was told about the mother who was sending her child through the broken small window of one shop to loot items from inside. Another told me how they found it galling that people were coming in to commiserate with the shop after Monday's looting having recognised that same person from CCTV images as having been one of the looters.
People who have been involved in the looting will be brought to justice where there is evidence against them. My colleague, Cllr Ian Wingfield has already announced that the Council will use all of the powers we have to evict those who are convicted of being involved in Monday's looting from any council house where they have a tenancy. This is what the vast majority of our community would wish and expect.
It is clear that there is something very wrong in our society where given the opportunity people fall into this level of criminality and lawlessness. In Southwark one of our key messages as an administration has been that we truly value our young people and want them to fulfil their potential and aspirations. But it seems that this message is not getting through to some - or if it is getting through is having no impact.
There are lots of reasons for what happened on Monday night in Southwark. It would be foolish of me to pretend that I have all of the answers at this point. But it is clear that those answers lie in our homes, our schools and our communities - and that those answers are not easy. It is certainly about restoring respect and clear boundaries.
In the coming weeks and months our community in Southwark needs to have a proper conversation- exploring what we can all do to fix some of the problems; to identify those boundaries, and to agree our collective code of behaviour - our expectations of each other in order to ensure that we have a society in which we can all properly co-exist in the future.
In the short-term we need to make sure that law and order continues to be maintained on our streets - and that we never get to a point where the police are again helpless bystanders to mass criminal conduct. And we need to ensure that the businesses who have been hurt and affected by Monday night and the loss of trade since are properly helped and compensated.
Some big tasks ahead, but I am confident that the people of Southwark are equal to the task.
Over the past two days I have been speaking to residents and businesses who have been affected by the events of Monday night. Some of the most disturbing stories came from shop owners and managers on the Walworth Road. I was told about the mother who was sending her child through the broken small window of one shop to loot items from inside. Another told me how they found it galling that people were coming in to commiserate with the shop after Monday's looting having recognised that same person from CCTV images as having been one of the looters.
People who have been involved in the looting will be brought to justice where there is evidence against them. My colleague, Cllr Ian Wingfield has already announced that the Council will use all of the powers we have to evict those who are convicted of being involved in Monday's looting from any council house where they have a tenancy. This is what the vast majority of our community would wish and expect.
It is clear that there is something very wrong in our society where given the opportunity people fall into this level of criminality and lawlessness. In Southwark one of our key messages as an administration has been that we truly value our young people and want them to fulfil their potential and aspirations. But it seems that this message is not getting through to some - or if it is getting through is having no impact.
There are lots of reasons for what happened on Monday night in Southwark. It would be foolish of me to pretend that I have all of the answers at this point. But it is clear that those answers lie in our homes, our schools and our communities - and that those answers are not easy. It is certainly about restoring respect and clear boundaries.
In the coming weeks and months our community in Southwark needs to have a proper conversation- exploring what we can all do to fix some of the problems; to identify those boundaries, and to agree our collective code of behaviour - our expectations of each other in order to ensure that we have a society in which we can all properly co-exist in the future.
In the short-term we need to make sure that law and order continues to be maintained on our streets - and that we never get to a point where the police are again helpless bystanders to mass criminal conduct. And we need to ensure that the businesses who have been hurt and affected by Monday night and the loss of trade since are properly helped and compensated.
Some big tasks ahead, but I am confident that the people of Southwark are equal to the task.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
South Camberwell News
It's been ages since I posted so I thought I should bring South Camberwell residents up-to-date on two issues.
Firstly, the much unloved "Oriwu Spot" - a pub in Wanley Road on the Cleve Hall Estate, has been sold by the brewery which owned it and has now closed. The Oriwu Spot has long been a source of complaint from local residents about noise and anti-social behaviour, so there are unlikely to be many people who mourn its' passing. Veronica and I met with the new owners on Monday to discuss their plans for the site. Given the history and problems of the building as licensed premises they indicated that they are unlikely to re-open it as a pub. They are likely to draw up plans to redevelop the site as housing with a commitment to some local benefits for the community - through Section 106 contributions. They have committed to working with the community to develop an acceptable scheme. So, I think this is definitely good news for South Camberwell and the residents of the Cleve Hall Estate.
Secondly, after more than 4 years we are still waiting for a proper application to be submitted in respect of the redevelopment of Greendale playing fields. Greendale remains on a lease to Dulwich Hamlet Football Club until 2015 and there has been a lot of discussion about how it might be brought back into use as sports facilities and as a community asset. However, despite meetings, consultations and discussions no planning application has yet been submitted. I am now firmly of the view that DHFC should simply hand the lease back to Southwark Council so that we can develop our own plans for the site. It is amazing that we have such a wonderful green space in our area which simply cannot be used as much as it should be through lack of maintenance and care. Let me know if you agree that Greendale should be given back to the people of Southwark.
Firstly, the much unloved "Oriwu Spot" - a pub in Wanley Road on the Cleve Hall Estate, has been sold by the brewery which owned it and has now closed. The Oriwu Spot has long been a source of complaint from local residents about noise and anti-social behaviour, so there are unlikely to be many people who mourn its' passing. Veronica and I met with the new owners on Monday to discuss their plans for the site. Given the history and problems of the building as licensed premises they indicated that they are unlikely to re-open it as a pub. They are likely to draw up plans to redevelop the site as housing with a commitment to some local benefits for the community - through Section 106 contributions. They have committed to working with the community to develop an acceptable scheme. So, I think this is definitely good news for South Camberwell and the residents of the Cleve Hall Estate.
Secondly, after more than 4 years we are still waiting for a proper application to be submitted in respect of the redevelopment of Greendale playing fields. Greendale remains on a lease to Dulwich Hamlet Football Club until 2015 and there has been a lot of discussion about how it might be brought back into use as sports facilities and as a community asset. However, despite meetings, consultations and discussions no planning application has yet been submitted. I am now firmly of the view that DHFC should simply hand the lease back to Southwark Council so that we can develop our own plans for the site. It is amazing that we have such a wonderful green space in our area which simply cannot be used as much as it should be through lack of maintenance and care. Let me know if you agree that Greendale should be given back to the people of Southwark.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Kings Stairs Gardens and the Thames Tunnel
Last night I attended another meeting of the Save Kings Stairs Garden Campaign. It remains a vigorous campaign, and no wonder when you hear that Thames Water have lodged a formal objection to the Council's proposal to give KSG SINC ('Site of Important Nature Conservancy') status! Why would Thames Water take such a step when it has no real impact on their plans for the Thames Tunnel super sewer? The community is rightly angry about Thames Water's approach.
I was able to tell the meeting that I was going to support a proposal by the Leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council to establish a Commission to look at the fundamental concept of the tunnel and whether there are other more acceptable alternatives to the scheme which is currently being proposed.
Thames Water have recently acquired Chambers Wharf, just a few hundred yards from KSG, but this site also presents problems and the potential for great inconvenience to the residents and schools which surround it during the 7 years of constant drilling and associated works.
This is the text of my letter to Stephen Greenhalgh in Hammersmith & Fulham:
"Thank you for your email and enclosed letter received yesterday (21st June 2011).
Southwark has been extremely concerned by the approach adopted by Thames Water with regard to the Thames Tunnel and how it may affect us.
Two sites in Southwark have been identified by Thames Water for possible main shafts. One is a park, Kings Stairs Gardens, which is a valued riverside green space, whilst the other is a brownfield site on the river at Chambers Wharf surrounded by housing and three schools. Neither is suitable for 7 years of constant drilling and associated works and the Council supports the community campaigns opposing the use of these sites.
Southwark is absolutely committed to the aim of cleaning the Thames and preventing sewage leaks. However, we also do believe that it is time to ask the fundamental questions of whether this scheme, at this cost and at this time is necessary, value for money, and will achieve its' stated objectives.
7 years of misery for those who use Kings Stairs Gardens or who live adjacent to Chambers Wharf is not a prospect which we are prepared to contemplate without a thorough independent investigation and challenge of the scheme as currently presented.
In the circumstances Southwark will be pleased to support your proposed Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Selborne.
I look forward to the work of the Commission being taken forward and it proposing a scheme which will make the Thames cleaner and safer, but which minimises the disruption and cost to our communities"
I was able to tell the meeting that I was going to support a proposal by the Leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council to establish a Commission to look at the fundamental concept of the tunnel and whether there are other more acceptable alternatives to the scheme which is currently being proposed.
Thames Water have recently acquired Chambers Wharf, just a few hundred yards from KSG, but this site also presents problems and the potential for great inconvenience to the residents and schools which surround it during the 7 years of constant drilling and associated works.
This is the text of my letter to Stephen Greenhalgh in Hammersmith & Fulham:
"Thank you for your email and enclosed letter received yesterday (21st June 2011).
Southwark has been extremely concerned by the approach adopted by Thames Water with regard to the Thames Tunnel and how it may affect us.
Two sites in Southwark have been identified by Thames Water for possible main shafts. One is a park, Kings Stairs Gardens, which is a valued riverside green space, whilst the other is a brownfield site on the river at Chambers Wharf surrounded by housing and three schools. Neither is suitable for 7 years of constant drilling and associated works and the Council supports the community campaigns opposing the use of these sites.
Southwark is absolutely committed to the aim of cleaning the Thames and preventing sewage leaks. However, we also do believe that it is time to ask the fundamental questions of whether this scheme, at this cost and at this time is necessary, value for money, and will achieve its' stated objectives.
7 years of misery for those who use Kings Stairs Gardens or who live adjacent to Chambers Wharf is not a prospect which we are prepared to contemplate without a thorough independent investigation and challenge of the scheme as currently presented.
In the circumstances Southwark will be pleased to support your proposed Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Selborne.
I look forward to the work of the Commission being taken forward and it proposing a scheme which will make the Thames cleaner and safer, but which minimises the disruption and cost to our communities"
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Potters Field Park Trust
About 5 years ago Council Assembly voted to transfer Potters Field Park to a Trust which would manage the park for 30 years. I was fundamentally unhappy about the proposal - Potters Field is a valued local green space next to Tower Bridge and is one of the jewels in the Council's crown of land ownership. It had also been hard fought for by people such as Lil Patrick who insisted that the LDDC give some green space to local residents in the 1980's.
I still remain unhappy about the Trust. When it was established we were promised that there would be "no more David Blaines" - a reference to the 40 days and 40 nights which David Blaine spent in a glass box suspended over the park and apparently an event which was not suitable for this "local" park. However, since the Trust has been in charge there has been a surge in its' commercial use - barely a week or a day seems to go past without some launch or event taking place in the Park. So much for protecting this green space for local residents!
But I am also unhappy that, save in a couple of cases, the Trustees, how they are appointed and to whom they are accountable remains fairly unclear. The Council appoints an officer and a councillor onto the Trust. At least they have democratic accountability to the people of Southwark. But others have a far less clear line or audit trail of appointment and accountability.
Why is this important? Well in a time of 'Big Society' and legislation apparently empowering communities to take ownership of public assets it is important to recognise that if assets are handed over "to the community" what provisions are there that that community group will be open in its dealings and accountable to the community it claims to represent? We should be very reluctant to give up the democratic accountability and legitimacy that a Council provides in respect of the ownership and management of any public asset in favour of its control by the unelected and the self-appointed.
I still remain unhappy about the Trust. When it was established we were promised that there would be "no more David Blaines" - a reference to the 40 days and 40 nights which David Blaine spent in a glass box suspended over the park and apparently an event which was not suitable for this "local" park. However, since the Trust has been in charge there has been a surge in its' commercial use - barely a week or a day seems to go past without some launch or event taking place in the Park. So much for protecting this green space for local residents!
But I am also unhappy that, save in a couple of cases, the Trustees, how they are appointed and to whom they are accountable remains fairly unclear. The Council appoints an officer and a councillor onto the Trust. At least they have democratic accountability to the people of Southwark. But others have a far less clear line or audit trail of appointment and accountability.
Why is this important? Well in a time of 'Big Society' and legislation apparently empowering communities to take ownership of public assets it is important to recognise that if assets are handed over "to the community" what provisions are there that that community group will be open in its dealings and accountable to the community it claims to represent? We should be very reluctant to give up the democratic accountability and legitimacy that a Council provides in respect of the ownership and management of any public asset in favour of its control by the unelected and the self-appointed.
Mobile Surgery - Bellenden & Oglander
Veronica and I undertook our latest mobile surgery at the weekend -around Marsden, Muschamp, Oglander and Bellenden Roads. It was great to catch up with so many residents and discuss the issues that concerned them. From bulge classes at local primary schools to overgrown hedges, and from anti-social neighbours to problems with damp, residents were keen to share their problems and seek our help.
Our mobile surgeries are a great way of keeping in touch with the issues which people have, but which they might not bother to raise with us if we only had fixed surgeries. One of the really good bits of news was the way in which people have welcomed the introduction of the food waste recycling pilot, and the fortnightly residual waste collection. All but one of the residents I spoke to were fully supportive of the scheme and the changes to waste collection - and were even happier after I told them that we had seen an over 20% increase in the recycling rate in the pilot area - up to 53% from about 31%.
Thanks to everyone who took the time to talk to Veronica and me. I will be following up individual bits of casework over the next couple of days.
Our mobile surgeries are a great way of keeping in touch with the issues which people have, but which they might not bother to raise with us if we only had fixed surgeries. One of the really good bits of news was the way in which people have welcomed the introduction of the food waste recycling pilot, and the fortnightly residual waste collection. All but one of the residents I spoke to were fully supportive of the scheme and the changes to waste collection - and were even happier after I told them that we had seen an over 20% increase in the recycling rate in the pilot area - up to 53% from about 31%.
Thanks to everyone who took the time to talk to Veronica and me. I will be following up individual bits of casework over the next couple of days.
Monday, June 13, 2011
The Pumphouse Museum
I am sorry that the Pumphouse Educational Trust have decided to close down. They have been working in Rotherhithe since 1989 and I know that their work has been valued by local schools and residents.
I am afraid that they are one of the victims of the Government's spending cuts. As I have said previously, you cannot take £34 million out of our budget this year and honestly believe that it will have no impact on the services we provide and the organisations which we support - especially with another £50 million of cuts to come over the next two years.
So for anyone who is angry at Southwark Council for the cuts to the Pumphouse's funding my advice is that they should really direct their ire towards central government.
For organisations like the Pumphouse we have tried to ease the cuts by encouraging applications to our Voluntary Sector Transition Fund, and also tried to encourage access to other sources of funding. Schools budgets have significantly increased this year - so it may have been that some solution would have been possible in collaboration with the museum's principal users.
Of course it is always open to organisations such as the Pumphouse not to try and battle on, so I respect the decision they have taken.
We are not alone in facing difficult choices about what museums and organisations we support. This extract from the BBC news website yesterday, which includes references to the Pumphouse, includes a quote from Mark Taylor, Director of the Museums Association:
"Mr Taylor said councils are facing painful choices, and it could be better to close some museums in order to preserve the best.
"I personally would prefer to see a slightly smaller number of museums kept open and active, rather than all the museums kind of set in aspic, with no budget at all to do anything.""
The full article is here
I am afraid that they are one of the victims of the Government's spending cuts. As I have said previously, you cannot take £34 million out of our budget this year and honestly believe that it will have no impact on the services we provide and the organisations which we support - especially with another £50 million of cuts to come over the next two years.
So for anyone who is angry at Southwark Council for the cuts to the Pumphouse's funding my advice is that they should really direct their ire towards central government.
For organisations like the Pumphouse we have tried to ease the cuts by encouraging applications to our Voluntary Sector Transition Fund, and also tried to encourage access to other sources of funding. Schools budgets have significantly increased this year - so it may have been that some solution would have been possible in collaboration with the museum's principal users.
Of course it is always open to organisations such as the Pumphouse not to try and battle on, so I respect the decision they have taken.
We are not alone in facing difficult choices about what museums and organisations we support. This extract from the BBC news website yesterday, which includes references to the Pumphouse, includes a quote from Mark Taylor, Director of the Museums Association:
"Mr Taylor said councils are facing painful choices, and it could be better to close some museums in order to preserve the best.
"I personally would prefer to see a slightly smaller number of museums kept open and active, rather than all the museums kind of set in aspic, with no budget at all to do anything.""
The full article is here
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Badminton House - A Tough Decision
Last week the Southwark Cabinet took the tough decision of placing Badminton House on the market for sale. Badminton House is a block of 11 flats and sits at the bottom of the East Dulwich Estate on Dog Kennel Hill, opposite East Dulwich Station. Any decision to actually sell the block will have to come back to Cabinet in due course.
Why were we faced with this decision? The answer is simple. Under the last administration the management of the contract for the regeneration of the estate was allowed to run out of control, so that a scheme which should have cost £25 million now will cost over £30 million. And that additional £5 million does not exist in any other budget to make up the shortfall.
It has always been a key element of the regeneration of the East Dulwich Estate that capital receipts would be generated from land and void sales on the estate itself. Some flats have already been sold on the open market. So in order to meet the £5 million funding gap we had to look at ways which will have a minimum impact on the Estate and the overall regeneration scheme. We could choose to save £1.5 million by not proceeding with environmental works on the Estate, but I have long believed that those works will be a key element of the regeneration - giving the Estate a truly 'as new' feel. We could increase the sale of individual voids across the estate - but this has its own difficulties.
Add into the equation the fact that Badminton House was not within the Durkan regeneration works programme for the estate and never has been, for reason which lie in the decision-making of the previous administration in Southwark - and that to undertake the regeneration of Badminton House would add another £1 million to the £5 million shortfall, and the problem becomes even more acute.
I do not want to have to sell council housing in Southwark and lose homes from our stock. But in this instance we are faced with a problem which we cannot ignore. Homes in Bermondsey and Peckham have already been lost in order to fund the regeneration of the East Dulwich Estate. It would be unfair to go back to those areas and demand more homes or land in order to fund the works. By the sale of Badminton House we can fill a significant part of the funding gap in the project, without fundamentally changing the nature of the Estate.
But this decision and the debate which has ensued just underlines the challenge which we face in Southwark. With 54,000 properties the Council has to be assured that we can maintain those properties in a proper state going forward. We have to know that our housing stock is capable of being self-financing, because without that assurance the problems of funding major works which we have experienced on East Dulwich Estate will arise on estates right across our borough.
We have developed a 5 year housing investment programme which does not mean the loss of any significant number of homes from our stock; we must now put together a business plan which looks to the ensuing 25 - 30 years.
Why were we faced with this decision? The answer is simple. Under the last administration the management of the contract for the regeneration of the estate was allowed to run out of control, so that a scheme which should have cost £25 million now will cost over £30 million. And that additional £5 million does not exist in any other budget to make up the shortfall.
It has always been a key element of the regeneration of the East Dulwich Estate that capital receipts would be generated from land and void sales on the estate itself. Some flats have already been sold on the open market. So in order to meet the £5 million funding gap we had to look at ways which will have a minimum impact on the Estate and the overall regeneration scheme. We could choose to save £1.5 million by not proceeding with environmental works on the Estate, but I have long believed that those works will be a key element of the regeneration - giving the Estate a truly 'as new' feel. We could increase the sale of individual voids across the estate - but this has its own difficulties.
Add into the equation the fact that Badminton House was not within the Durkan regeneration works programme for the estate and never has been, for reason which lie in the decision-making of the previous administration in Southwark - and that to undertake the regeneration of Badminton House would add another £1 million to the £5 million shortfall, and the problem becomes even more acute.
I do not want to have to sell council housing in Southwark and lose homes from our stock. But in this instance we are faced with a problem which we cannot ignore. Homes in Bermondsey and Peckham have already been lost in order to fund the regeneration of the East Dulwich Estate. It would be unfair to go back to those areas and demand more homes or land in order to fund the works. By the sale of Badminton House we can fill a significant part of the funding gap in the project, without fundamentally changing the nature of the Estate.
But this decision and the debate which has ensued just underlines the challenge which we face in Southwark. With 54,000 properties the Council has to be assured that we can maintain those properties in a proper state going forward. We have to know that our housing stock is capable of being self-financing, because without that assurance the problems of funding major works which we have experienced on East Dulwich Estate will arise on estates right across our borough.
We have developed a 5 year housing investment programme which does not mean the loss of any significant number of homes from our stock; we must now put together a business plan which looks to the ensuing 25 - 30 years.
Friday, June 03, 2011
Elephant & Castle Regeneration - Lib Dems latest Call-In
On Wednesday evening Southwark's Overview & Scrutiny Committee considered the Lib Dem's latest call-in of our agreement to enter into discussions with St Modwen, the owners of the Elephant & Castle Shopping Centre and Lend Lease, our redevelopment partners, for the regeneration of the shopping centre.
I have previously posted on this topic, and explained why this agreement was sensible. Firstly, it is better to work in co-operation with our partners than against them; secondly, the discussions may lead to an early redevelopment of the shopping centre; and thirdly, it is in everyone's interests that the shopping centre is redeveloped sooner rather than later.
I had thought that all three of these objectives would be welcomed by everyone. But it seems I was wrong. At Wednesday's meeting Southwark's Lib Dems moved that there should be no agreement for us to even discuss regeneration of the shopping centre with St Modwen and Lend Lease without there being an absolute commitment to demolish the shopping centre before any redevelopment work.
Let's just think about the logic of this position, and what it leads to.
St Modwen will not give an undertaking to demolish the shopping centre. Firstly, the shopping centre as it exists earns them money. They could simply choose to leave it as it is for the time being. Secondly, they believe that their proposals to strip the current centre back to it's concrete core and redevelop will lead to a new shopping centre - and having looked at some of the images they have produced that is hard to argue with. And thirdly, the works which they propose and which are being discussed with ourselves, Lend Lease and the community have the very real potential to meet our key objectives for the Elephant & Castle.
So if we adopted the Lib Dems approach it would not be delivered by St Modwen.
So who would deliver it?
Well the Regeneration Agreement provides that the Council will cooperate with Lend Lease in respect of a compulsory purchase of the shopping centre, but only at a time when Lend Lease ask for the CPO and only after they have exhausted attempts to redevelop with St Modwen. And when would this be likely to happen? The reality is that this would only arise at the end of the regeneration agreement period - 15 years from now. And even then there is no guarantee that Lend Lease would want to demolish the shopping centre if the economic climate for retail was not buoyant.
So the Lib Dems position is that it is wrong to even discuss redevelopment of the shopping centre with St Modwen and Lend Lease, and that we should hold out for a demolition which may not even be delivered in 15 years time, rather than try to bring about a major redevelopment of the shopping centre now.
Isn't the Lib Dems case really this - we don't want a redeveloped shopping centre and we don't want it now!
I am afraid that I cannot understand this position. It lacks ambition; it lacks vision; it opposes progress. But there again isn't that exactly what the Lib Dems did for the 8 years that they were in charge of the Elephant & Castle regeneration?
In 2014 I want to see real progress on the shopping centre; new homes on the Heygate; the development of the Oakmayne/Delancy site; and a new leisure centre for the Elephant & Castle. With the decisions which we have taken so far since last May we are well on the way to seeing these ambitions achieved.
Those who oppose the decision we took to work with St Modwen and Lend Lease on the regeneration of the shopping centre are opposed to the progress of the regeneration.
The Lib Dems have called-in and opposed every significant decision which we have taken on the Elephant & Castle since last May. Isn't it time for them to come clean and state clearly that they oppose the regeneration of this vital part of our borough? And if they don't oppose the regeneration can they please explain how their arguments and objections are consistent with progress being made.
I have previously posted on this topic, and explained why this agreement was sensible. Firstly, it is better to work in co-operation with our partners than against them; secondly, the discussions may lead to an early redevelopment of the shopping centre; and thirdly, it is in everyone's interests that the shopping centre is redeveloped sooner rather than later.
I had thought that all three of these objectives would be welcomed by everyone. But it seems I was wrong. At Wednesday's meeting Southwark's Lib Dems moved that there should be no agreement for us to even discuss regeneration of the shopping centre with St Modwen and Lend Lease without there being an absolute commitment to demolish the shopping centre before any redevelopment work.
Let's just think about the logic of this position, and what it leads to.
St Modwen will not give an undertaking to demolish the shopping centre. Firstly, the shopping centre as it exists earns them money. They could simply choose to leave it as it is for the time being. Secondly, they believe that their proposals to strip the current centre back to it's concrete core and redevelop will lead to a new shopping centre - and having looked at some of the images they have produced that is hard to argue with. And thirdly, the works which they propose and which are being discussed with ourselves, Lend Lease and the community have the very real potential to meet our key objectives for the Elephant & Castle.
So if we adopted the Lib Dems approach it would not be delivered by St Modwen.
So who would deliver it?
Well the Regeneration Agreement provides that the Council will cooperate with Lend Lease in respect of a compulsory purchase of the shopping centre, but only at a time when Lend Lease ask for the CPO and only after they have exhausted attempts to redevelop with St Modwen. And when would this be likely to happen? The reality is that this would only arise at the end of the regeneration agreement period - 15 years from now. And even then there is no guarantee that Lend Lease would want to demolish the shopping centre if the economic climate for retail was not buoyant.
So the Lib Dems position is that it is wrong to even discuss redevelopment of the shopping centre with St Modwen and Lend Lease, and that we should hold out for a demolition which may not even be delivered in 15 years time, rather than try to bring about a major redevelopment of the shopping centre now.
Isn't the Lib Dems case really this - we don't want a redeveloped shopping centre and we don't want it now!
I am afraid that I cannot understand this position. It lacks ambition; it lacks vision; it opposes progress. But there again isn't that exactly what the Lib Dems did for the 8 years that they were in charge of the Elephant & Castle regeneration?
In 2014 I want to see real progress on the shopping centre; new homes on the Heygate; the development of the Oakmayne/Delancy site; and a new leisure centre for the Elephant & Castle. With the decisions which we have taken so far since last May we are well on the way to seeing these ambitions achieved.
Those who oppose the decision we took to work with St Modwen and Lend Lease on the regeneration of the shopping centre are opposed to the progress of the regeneration.
The Lib Dems have called-in and opposed every significant decision which we have taken on the Elephant & Castle since last May. Isn't it time for them to come clean and state clearly that they oppose the regeneration of this vital part of our borough? And if they don't oppose the regeneration can they please explain how their arguments and objections are consistent with progress being made.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Southwark Cathedral Funeral of Mayor Tayo Situ
Yesterday 1200 people packed Southwark Cathedral for the funeral of our Mayor, Cllr Tayo Situ, who died two weeks ago. It was an inspirational service which celebrated Tayo's life. I was honoured to play a part, paying tribute to Tayo and carrying the Mayoral Chain behind his coffin.
This is the tribute I gave:
"It is a great privilege to have been asked by his family to pay tribute today to the life of my friend, the Mayor of Southwark, Cllr Tayo Situ.
Tayo has been taken from us far too early, but at a time when as our serving Mayor, he was able to show to so many more people in our borough, across the rest of London and indeed the World all of those qualities for which we knew him and for which he had earned our respect – warmth, humour, integrity, friendliness and devotion to those causes and things which he cared about so deeply – his family, his church, his community and his borough of Southwark.
I first met Tayo in 2002 – we were both elected to the Council in the local elections that year. Tayo had been active in the community of Peckham for a long time before then – in particular he had helped to lead his community’s response to the tragic death of Damilola Taylor in 2000.
As a councillor and Labour Group member it was always clear that his was a voice in Group meetings of quiet authority and I shall miss his thoughtful contributions to discussions and debates.
Tayo was always busy – he would inevitably be en route from one meeting to another – not only fulfilling his role of community champion for Southwark, but also as a leading figure within the Nigerian community in London.
In opposition Tayo played a leading role in Southwark’s Labour Group. For six years he was our lead spokesperson on Equalities issues. It was a role which he fulfilled perfectly, dealing with some issues which were very difficult for us as a borough in an utterly straightforward way. He was not an advocate for special treatment or excuses or privileges for any section of our community, but merely agued that where there was an injustice we should do all that we could to put that right.
In the 2006 local elections Tayo deployed “Team Situ”– with Michael and Johnson following in their father’s footsteps on the campaign trail. He had trained them well! I know he was so proud of Michael being elected last May as a councillor in Livesey ward – in fact he was so proud of all of his children Elizabeth, Michael, Johnson, Victoria, Victor and his devoted and beloved wife, Abike -
You have good reason to be proud of him too.
After our victory in the local elections last year Tayo and I sat down to discuss what role he could play in our first year as an administration. I suggested that he should be Mayor – he was such a great role model for our community. He was attracted to the idea, but wasn’t sure he wanted to do it this year. I persisted, he thought about it some more, and decided that as I had asked he would be honoured. I am so pleased that I persisted and that he agreed to be our Mayor.
During his mayoralty Tayo was determined that we should celebrate Southwark and in particular the achievements and successes of the vast majority of young people in our borough, who work hard to achieve their potential, who stay out of trouble and contribute in so many different ways to making our borough a better place to live.
Whenever and wherever I saw Tayo his face would light up and he would give the warmest of greetings – more often that not he would say ‘Ahhh My Leader’ – which I was able to pre-empt over the past year giving a little bow and an even warmer welcome to ‘Mr Mayor’.
The only time when that smile was absent was in December last year when he called me into the Mayor’s parlour to tell me that he would have to go into hospital as his specialist had found something which required investigation. There was no doubt that he feared what might be the consequence of that investigation. And I recall the dreadful night not so many weeks ago when he telephoned me to tell me that the Doctors had just given him a poor prognosis.
But throughout this period I know that he found strength from his faith, his family and his many friends. People from all walks of life were drawn to Tayo, whatever the circumstances they met him in. I think it must have been that innate sense that here was a good man. I recall the wooden cross lying on his hospital pillow which he said had been given to him by one of the nurses treating him.
Tayo was a man who had made some huge choices in his life. He had chosen his Christian faith. He had chosen to come to the United Kingdom to study, live and raise his family. He had chosen to become involved in public life and stand up for his community. But it was we as his colleagues on the Council he who had chosen him to be our Mayor over the past twelve months – without doubt it was the right choice for us to have made.
He was the best of Southwark. As a friend I will miss him, as a borough Southwark will miss him, and we are all much poorer for the passing of our “friendly Mayor”."
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Elephant & Castle Shopping Centre
On Tuesday at our Southwark Cabinet meeting we took the decision to enter into an agreement with St Modwen, the owners of the Elephant & Castle Shopping Centre, and Lend Lease, our partners in the Elephant & Castle redevelopment, with regard to the rebuilding of the shopping centre.
Under the Regeneration Agreement, which we signed last year with Lend Lease, provision was made for us to compulsorily purchase the shopping centre on behalf of Lend Lease if no agreement could be reached on the future of the centre with St Modwen. No specific time was provided for within the agreement and it was anticipated that given the current uncertainty in the retail market that the shopping centre regeneration was likely to be at the end of the 15 year programme.
Happily our prospective agreement with St Modwen and Lend Lease brings that regeneration forward, but it is the result of some very tough negotiations by all parties.
The original vision for the Elephant & Castle regeneration envisaged the demolition and rebuilding of the shopping centre - increasing the permeability of the whole area and punching through the railway arches to open up the new housing on the Heygate site to the shopping centre and the transport links there. Over the past twelve months both Lend Lease and St Modwen have explored options which do not involve wholesale demolition, but rather envisage stripping the centre back to its' core and building and extending around that core. At the same time access into and through the centre would be improved in all directions, and the links through the railway arches provided.
It took me a lot of persuading that anything other than demolition was the way forward, but having seen some of the thinking and plans put forward I can see that it is possible to create a new shopping centre for the Elephant & Castle and achieve the objective of making it a new and open gateway to the housing on the Heygate.
There is a lot more work to do on these plans, and the local community will be able to start their conversation with St Modwen and Lend Lease at the Forum which is due to be held on the 26th of May. But the momentum behind this project from the political leadership of this council is unstoppable -and we are determined to deliver on our commitment of regenerating the Elephant and Castle for the benefit of the local community, Southwark and London.
Under the Regeneration Agreement, which we signed last year with Lend Lease, provision was made for us to compulsorily purchase the shopping centre on behalf of Lend Lease if no agreement could be reached on the future of the centre with St Modwen. No specific time was provided for within the agreement and it was anticipated that given the current uncertainty in the retail market that the shopping centre regeneration was likely to be at the end of the 15 year programme.
Happily our prospective agreement with St Modwen and Lend Lease brings that regeneration forward, but it is the result of some very tough negotiations by all parties.
The original vision for the Elephant & Castle regeneration envisaged the demolition and rebuilding of the shopping centre - increasing the permeability of the whole area and punching through the railway arches to open up the new housing on the Heygate site to the shopping centre and the transport links there. Over the past twelve months both Lend Lease and St Modwen have explored options which do not involve wholesale demolition, but rather envisage stripping the centre back to its' core and building and extending around that core. At the same time access into and through the centre would be improved in all directions, and the links through the railway arches provided.
It took me a lot of persuading that anything other than demolition was the way forward, but having seen some of the thinking and plans put forward I can see that it is possible to create a new shopping centre for the Elephant & Castle and achieve the objective of making it a new and open gateway to the housing on the Heygate.
There is a lot more work to do on these plans, and the local community will be able to start their conversation with St Modwen and Lend Lease at the Forum which is due to be held on the 26th of May. But the momentum behind this project from the political leadership of this council is unstoppable -and we are determined to deliver on our commitment of regenerating the Elephant and Castle for the benefit of the local community, Southwark and London.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
