Huge congratulations to Anood on winnning the riverside by-election up in the Bermondsey ward of Riverside. She didn’t just win either but achieved a swing towards the Liberal Democrats. Usually, you’d expect a swing away from the party defending the seat as the opposition exploit a chance to campaign they might not normally have.
Right from the start of the campaign, Labour were bullish about the election and the Labour leader said the election would be fought on the council’s regeneration policies. Bermondsey Spa is a key regeneration programme in the ward where hundreds of new affordable homes are being built – a key part of Anood’s appeal to the electorate. Many new homes have been completed but there is still much work on going which brings disruption to everyday life. To receive this endorsement during the process of change is a real boost.
The other area of policy disagreement was on the issue of how we spend planning gain – or section 106 – money. This is money given to the council by developers to lessen the impact of new developments and to ensure that in areas of growth we can provide the facilities that make for a sustainable community – like youth centres, or health facilities for example.
The Labour leader has argued that this money should be directed to areas that do not have such large developments.
We argue that it is absolutely right that this money should be focused on small local projects providing the infrastructure required to support our growing communities and relieving pressure where that pressure exists – be it in Bermondsey, Walworth or Camberwell. To suggest that money given in respect of a development in one area should be spent instead on unrelated projects somewhere else would be both unfair and illegal.
So the Labour leader has been caught out. He invented an illegal policy of ‘redistributing’ money gained through section 106 from big development to fund his pet projects in his own patch in Camberwell. Back then, he was desperately trying to shore up support in his own backyard. The Riverside by-election result shows that Labour’s idea of transferring this money out of the areas affected by development was deeply unpopular.
I am pleased that they were not able to get away with saying contradictory things to different people in different parts of the borough.
Andy Mayer said
It should also be noted how spectacularly ungracious Labour have been in defeat. No note of congratulation to the winning candidate, simply sulky personal smears from J. Friary’s blog and a weird cult-like poem of misery from the losing candidate. Their leader remains silent.
Peter John said
This is spectacularly misleading and wrong Richard! Let me explain my thinking as it may lead you to a more reasoned view in the future.
Questions submitted by Labour at the start of this year revealed that there was a pot of unspent Section 106 money in the north of the borough which amounted to approximately £15 million. Some of this money has been sitting unspent for a number of years. I know from my own experience that the Council sometimes struggles to find projects which require funding in areas where there has been a lot of regeneration over a short period of time.
At the same time we were trying to plug the funding gap which exists for some capital projects in other parts of the borough, most notably the Camberwell Leisure Centre, which needed approximately £5 million. As a councillor in East Dulwich you will know of the difficulties in finding sufficient capital for our leisure centres, although the Dulwich Baths were given full funding.
Given this position I raised the possibility that we could use unspent capital from the north on projects such as Camberwell Leisure Centre. I did not suggest that money should be stolen and clearly have sympathy for those who have experienced major redevelopments going on around them! I thought there may even be some possibility that the money could effectively be “lent”, although this would be subject to further and better officer advice. We know that Section 106 money can be redistributed – only last week the Planning Committee reallocated £1.5 million within the Borough and Bankside area away from projects originally ear-marked. My proposal was merely that we try and look at the issue of unspent capital in a more creative way. If you are unable or unwilling to consider this issue so be it, but I do think it requires at least a sensible response!
So some of the silly accusations which you have thrown about in this blog entry are just that – silly and not very constructive. They add nothing to political thought or debate. I am not in the business of pitting one area of the borough against another – I’ll leave that to you and your colleagues in your leaflets.
As for Andy Mayer’s comment above – I congratulated Anood on the night of her victory and wish her well.
Richard Thomas said
Peter, I don’t think I have mislead anyone about what you have said. The interview you gave was very clear. Your comments above seem to confirm your view.
There has been an issue in spending ‘historic’ 106 money – and as you have pointed out this is an issue we are getting to grips with. But the point remains that you called for redistributing section 106 money from one area to another. The Liberal Democrats said that was the wrong approach because the money is needed where the pressure of development is created. It sis critical to ensuring new developments are sustainable. That is a legitimate policy difference that we have highlighted.
But just to make sure I am not wrongly interpreting what you said in the interview. I’ll quote it directly:
“Either we get more ‘cleaner, greener, safer’ money to areas of the borough we’re not getting the huge developments or we should make sure the section 106 money in the big pot is divided up in a way that would be fair to Camberwell.”
Councillor Peter John, quoted in Southwark News 19th April 2007
“The need in some parts of the Borough is greater than others.”
Cllr Peter John, quoted in Southwark News 19th April 2007
Labour councillor John Friary followed this up with an entry on his blog and letter to Southwark News saying:
“The Labour Group proposal [is] to use section 106 money raised through development in the North of the borough to be used for regeneration projects across the whole of the Borough.”
Letter to the Editor, Southwark News 17th May 2007
An independent report on the issue is available at http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2690
The record speaks for itself.