Princes and Oval Ward hustings - what the candidates think

One of the difficulties with the Princes and Oval Ward hustings was that whilst plenty of candidates were present, only one representative from each party was able to speak.  The speakers tended to be the best that each party had to offer, and so delivered a more impressive (but less amusing) debate than at the Vauxhall constituency hustings.  There was no English Democrat present (disappointing, as they can offer some quite unique perspectives), so representation was from the usual selection of red, yellow, green and blue politicians.  Princes Ward was over-represented with Mark Harrison (Labour), Joseph Healy (Green) and Michael Poole-Wilson (Conservative) all speaking, which meant that the only Oval ward candidate at the front was the long-standing and somewhat rambly Andrew Sawdon.  In fact, I began to suspect that it would be fantastic were a multi-coloured selection elected to represent both wards, since I felt that each of the candidates' offerings contained some merit worthy proposals.  Healy deserves a special mention for appearing at Vauxhall hustings and Princes hustings, and being equally clued up for both.  Thanks should go to KOV for organising the hustings and to Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre for the venue.

The evening began with introductions and quick requests to all candidates to reveal which cabinet position they most coveted within Lambeth Council, were they to be given the option to take one up.

Dr Healy (Green) kicked off the proceedings and highlighted three issues that the Greens consider important for Lambeth.  The first was "twenty is plenty", a proposed national scheme whereby all of the roads controlled by the Council in an area would have a 20mph speed limit.  The second policy was the suggestion of a London Living Wage for all Council employees.  Lastly, Healy considered that the ALMO (Arms Length Management Organisation) had been an utter disaster, and proposed that council housing in the borough be returned to democratic control.  Due to his work with a disability organisation, he would like the Cabinet post of Health and Social Care.

Next up was Michael Poole-Wilson, whom I find considerably more impressive than Glyn Chambers (perhaps that is not saying much!).  The first priority for the Conservatives was Housing.  Poole-Wilson bounced off Healy's point that the ALMO had failed.  He added that social housing in the borough had been a failure as a result of rents and services charges having risen disproportionately compared with services offered, and also noted the scandal of empty properties in Lambeth.  The second Conservative priority was school places, which are considered not plentiful enough.  The last Conservative priority is to combat waste, not just resolving empty housing issues, but looking into 6 figure council officer salaries and non-performance related bonuses.  Finally, the Conservative candidate finished his opening gambit with the contentiousness issue of Lambeth Living, which the Conservatives would like to see abolished.  Poole-Wilson would take the Lambeth Council Cabinet position for Housing.

Lib Dem Cllr Sawdon noted that Lib Dems "take up local issues, working on behalf of local constituents on very localised problems".  I was wondering whether he was taking his cue from the League of Gentlemen, "this is a local shop for local people", but I'm afraid not!  Policy-wise, Sawdon mentioned housing and the total disaster of the re-structuring which resulted in the ALMO, which he maintained the Lib-Dems have always opposed.  Sawdon admitted that the Lib Dems were prepared to get rid of the ALMO, but that it is "hard to squeeze toothpaste back into a tube".  The Lib Dems are also determined to end the "scandal of empty properties".  Secondly, Sawdon mentioned the planning issues re. the huge Nine Elms development area and the question of how the mechanism for providing transport, social infrastucture and school places would be implemented.  Sawdon would take the Cabinet position for Transport.

Last up was Mark Harrison (Labour), the current (and most recently elected) Councillor in Princes Ward. Mark began by noting that "housing isn't where we want it to be at the moment", but housing aside, argued that Labour was standing on a strong record.  That record included freezing council tax, cutting £30m of waste and re-stabilising council finances.  Harrison noted that youth and road/pavement spending had been doubled, the safer neighbourhood teams had been boosted with PCSOs funded by the council, and failing services such as housing benefits and planning have been transformed.  The Council have opened 3 new schools so that the shortage of secondary school places was ended (although he admitted that there's now a primary school issue). The GCSE results in Lambeth are up, and better than the national average. Somewhat controversially, he noted that the Council had prevented the sell off of the former Lilian Baylis, and allowed SAZ to use the site (more on that below!)... In terms of Labour's priorities, they plan to keep council tax low, fund a police "hit squad" to tackle anti-social behaviour, invest in roads/pavements, cut carbon emissions by 20% and upgrade ten thousand homes which should hopefully lead to the ALMO's improvement to unlock central government funding. He'd take a cabinet position in Housing.

There then followed a series of questions, or general rambles which sometimes emerged into questions, and sometimes just turned into general moans.  Such is the nature of local democracy.

Qn: "How do you plan to change the relationship between the Councillors who are the policy makers, and the officers who don't carry out what they're supposed to have done?"

Healy (Green) noted that his colleagues who attend council meetings had seen the undisguised contempt that the council officers had for councillors and he would want to address this.  He borrowed one of Kate Hoey's points and argued that the top grade Council Officers are paid disproportionately high salaries, and felt that pay should be performance related.  He was concerned that council officers are able to insulate themselves from the complaint process.

Poole-Wilson (Cons) agreed on the problem, which he argued lay partly with pay disparity.  He'd focus on attaining buy-in from residents about whether they wanted an ALMO through a ballot.  He also suggested that pressure could be put on officers by publicising individual examples of malpractice, such as the neglect of removal of asbestos.

Sawdon (Lib Dem) also thought that very well paid top level people was a problem with the creation of the ALMOs, and that front line housing staff suffered demoralisation as a result of the reorganisation.  He noted that front line staff need to be remotivated, and tenants and leaseholders on estates need to be re-engaged. The Lib Dems want to restructure the ALMO on a more local basis and to reduce management costs.

Harrison (Lab) considered it a good question, that if councillors knew the answer to, would transform the Council overnight. He also admitted that officers aren't always as responsive to councillors or residents as the Council would want them to be. Harrison thinks the way to change that is through persistence and courtesy (I'm not convinced that that will work as effectively as targeted redundancy!). Harrison agreed with Healy re. performance related pay, but said that union opposition would need to be overcome, and there'd be a risk of demoralising the officers by changing the workforce structure. He said that Labour had set up a commission which has reviewed how staff could be encouraged to positively improve performance and services, rather than being told what to do.

At that point, the chair digressed somewhat and gave all of the candidates a lecture about the officers being unresponsive to councillors and the public. This caused Healy to point out that Southwark were using Lambeth's ALMO as an example to deter Southwark voters from voting Labour. Harrison pointed out that there was a £750m housing black hole in Southwark, before being told firmly by the chair that she wasn't interested in Southwark!  Poole-Wilson then interjected by commenting that he would extend Labour's ward purses to estates and also put empty council properties back into use. He suggested that companies could renovate empty properties, and then share the rent earned between the improvement companies and the Council. (One fears that the Council would become heavily reliant on such companies, and it would de facto privatise the public housing sector, but it was one of the few innovative proposals put forward at the hustings.)

Qn: "We've had two KOV meetings on the Nine Elms Opportunity Area. This matter incorporates transport issues, and we wonder whether pressure would be put on local parking or cause Section 106 money to be diverted to transport instead of local areas? Could we have opinions on that?" 

Healy (Green) raised the issue of the American Embassy and potential security issues. Healy is suspicious that the only reason the Northern Line is being extended to Battersea is to enable US diplomats to travel to work more easily! Cllr Thackeray (Green) introduced a motion in the Loughborough Junction area to encourage Section 106 money to be spent as local residents desired, and the Greens would look to extend that policy.  (I felt that this didn't really do justice to the questions about the extent of the Nine Elms plans and local objections to tall buildings.)

Harrison (Lab) thought that "part of the problem with planning is that it's split between the Mayor and Lambeth."  He seemed to suggest that tall buildings were not the Council's fault because it was Mayor's decision to put tall buildings at Vauxhall, and "there's not a great deal that Lambeth Council can do about that". He was heartened to see local organisations involved with the planning process and wanted to ensure the planning department's full engagement with such groups.

This caused Cllr Sawdon to leap into action. "It's not wholly true that the Mayor decides everything", he announced with previously unknown vigour.  "The principle of planning is supposed to be that the Mayor decides the broader strategic issues, and the Borough decides the more detailed local aspects and the individual planning applications."  Straight from the horse's mouth.  So, what has gone wrong, I wondered?  Why are we faced with this influx of tall buildings?

Sawdon continued..."If you take the Vauxhall area, the London Plan had a broad brush approach from London planners as it had been developed under Ken Livingstone, for clusters of high buildings at Vauxhall. It was then legally speaking for the Borough to develop the Supplementary Planning Document to turn that into detail.  What happened was inherently political. The Supplementary Document was put on hold whilst the Council waited for the Mayor's view, which has resulted in the existing applications coming forward rapidly without a framework in place."

I felt that this was an incredibly strong answer (although I've cut out rather a lot of waffle).  Planners, please take note.  Sawdon also added that he felt that there's nobody within the Planning Department who is employed to engage with people in the development of a vision for their area, and he placed the blame firmly at the feet of the politicians.  (I'm rather presuming that he must be referring to the Labour politicians, since he is also a politician, but it wasn't clear...)

Poole-Wilson (Cons) wanted to tap into the expertise of local organisations (which is either a very wise answer, or veering towards the John Lewis model).  As a Tory boy, he quickly jumped to the rescue of Bo Jo by placing the last tall building decision firmly into the lap of  John Prescott!

Qn: "There will be a large residential increase in the area when expenditure on public projects will be limited, and investment in the Northern Line, will take years. There's a question of air pollution... What will you do to make walking and cycling not something hazardous, but something that is a non-polluting pleasure?"

Harrison (Lab) felt that Lambeth were going in the right direction. (What a relief!  It would be a nuisance for the local Council to have another Hoey-like thorn in the flesh that disagreed with them).  Harrison wants to remove the Vauxhall Cross gyratory and re-design to improve for pedestrians and cyclists. (Can anybody remember whose idea it was to install the gyratory in the first place?)  He supports a 20mph speed limit in residential streets.  Harrison (unsurprisingly) does not support Boris Johnson's attempts to cut down the time that pedestrians are given to cross the roads, just in order to keep vehicular traffic flowing.

Poole-Wilson (Cons) felt that bike hire schemes will help people who live in flats where bikes can't be kept. (I'm not convinced that these bike hire schemes will be affordable for all, but he didn't touch on that).  He felt that the Cycle Superhighway isn't perfect due to cars driving in them, but that they are a step in the right direction.  Sawdon (Lib dem) noted two recent deaths in Oval Ward and considered highway and junction design to be important. He added that a 20mph limit would make a great deal of difference, but there are issues in getting the Mayor and TFL to conceive that it's not just a matter of side streets, but the main routes.  (Lots more waffle, but rather short on substance.)

Healy (Green) mentioned that the EU is about to fine London's government because of appalling levels of air pollution and people dying from respiratory illnesses as a result.  He thought that single-use streets (an idea from Kensington and Chelsea) might be interesting, but was concerned that disabled and blind people be consulted about the effects of such ideas.  He commended looking into "new ideas" around "highway design", but wasn't any more specific.

Qn: "I am concerned about expense. There are two key things.  If you reduce the speed limit in an area, it's not expensive to put up signs.  There needs to be some attention to enforcement re. behaviour of cyclists and drivers so that everybody is given space. Would you commit to cycling to Council meetings at the town hall?

Poole-Wilson (Cons) committed to cycling twice to the Town Hall.   (I think he might have been deliberately ambiguous about whether he'd committed twice, or whether he intended only to cycle twice!!!)  He was enthusiastic about car parks housing vehicles for car share schemes.

Qn: "Labour have introduced the idea of co-operative government, and the Lib Dems have mentioned it in their manifesto. What would that look like more concretely?   It can be difficult to get people together to agree, and we're hoping that that's why we're electing councillors. Can we hear further from Labour about the Lilian Baylis hub, and from the Lib Dems?"

Harrison (Lab) was no more forthcoming in his response than Steve Reed has been. He uttered generalities about needing to be flexible and the dangers of imposing one size fits all model on groups. Labour are apparently "keeping an open mind about how we would introduce this over the next 4 years". Harrison promised a commission to see how the principles would be put in action.  He noted that the SAZ lease is temporary whilst a community group is established to run that site and asked anybody with problems accessing the site to contact their councillors.

Sawdon (Lib Dem) was more excited about the use of the co-operative model for sports areas on the basis that "there are a lot of people committed to sport."  He noted that the Borough's centre(?) is run by a company in Greenwich which is not responsive.  But instead of elaborating further on the co-operative model, he tried to get into a fight about Labour selling off the former Lilian Baylis to the All Nations church.  Fortunately, somebody interjected that both the Lib Dems and Labour have tried to sell off the site, and that whole row was stopped in its tracks!

Another person asked about whether, if local government made cuts, anything could be done to lead to greater efficiency? The chair, unfortunately, over-rode with an unrelated question about what proposals would be in place to strengthen the viability of local businesses.

Healy (Green) was not to be deterred, and returned to the John Lewis model of council, which he noted that Cllr Reed has presented as a new model plan in very simple terms.  He was concerned that enacting a John Lewis model across a huge council is very dangerous. He wanted to know why, with the possibility of 30% cuts, the electorate haven't had flesh on the bones?  He stated, "We've heard new model ideas before, and they sound impressive and glossy, but what is behind it?"  Poole-Wilson (Cons) jumped excitedly on to the bandwagon, "there has not been flesh on the bone re. the John Lewis council and people in the area don't know what Labour mean by it."  But he went on to differentiate himself from the Green Party, by saying that he's more willing to give it a chance, whatever is meant by it. (That felt a bit like having your cake, and eating it too!)  Poole-Wilson then approved the idea of a third-party run school, funded by the state in the Beaufoy.  (It's sometimes difficult to separate the Tories from the Labour lot in Lambeth).

Sawdon then wanted to talk about supporting business (probably because the Lib Dems don't really know what they mean by a co-operative council either.  He thinks that over the last 4 years, there has been focus on grandiose projects and wants to return to a more localised town centre approach when supporting businesses.  But Harrison (Lab) though that Labour's business-loving record had been superb, since Labour had invented a Cabinet member for Business and Enterprise, formed a help desk for businesses navigating the council, created business awards and focused on worklessness.  He noted that the Streatham hub deal had been signed and considered it well worth the years of negotiation (this was a riposte to Sawdon's criticism of the grandiose projects).  In any case, Streatham's hub does not really address the lack of leisure centres around SE11, but perhaps Harrison should be awarded merit points for reading out very long lists of Labour's achievements.

Qn: "In 4 years time, looking back, what would each candidate most want to have achieved?"

Poole-Wilson: Better housing, speedier repairs, charges and rents that match with the service provided.  (Good answer, delivered instantly.)

Harrison: Windows replaced in Vauxhall Five Estate, a community set up on former LB site, a school on the Beaufoy site and housing service transformed.  (Another good answer, and some of it is on the way to being achievable).

Sawdon: Cure the backlog of housing repairs, see the end of the holes in the road and the removal of local puddles. (I really thought that this was weak.  The "removal of local puddles" really was the phrase used, and I thought the Lib Dems might aim for something a little grander!)

Healy: All housing properly insulated, starting with pensioners, and a statue of Charlie Chaplin erected in Vauxhall Gardens. (Again, a weak closing answer, considering that some of his criticisms are very good.  Can you really compare being proud of potential transformation of the housing service with a Charlie Chaplin statue?).

Qn: How can a greater number of local residents contribute their views to funding priorities in their neighbourhoods under the Sustainable Communities Act? [This one was from the chair]

Poole-Wilson (Cons) wanted to focus on getting Councillor's voices heard above officers.  Harrison (Lab) was rather flummoxed by the thing, and jokingly suggested that it changes its name so that people had some idea of what it was.  Sawdon (Lib Dem) denied that a "Sustainable Communities Act" was needed, and argued that "a local council with the will to devolve budgets to local areas, which will enable residents to be in charge and decide what projects they want to see implemented" would be sufficient.

And finally, the question that is on the hearts and minds of every voter in Lambeth....

Qn: "If Lambeth Living is replaced, where would statutory notices be published? Would it be put in the South London Press?"

Poole-Wilson (Cons) appeared to retract his earlier statement about abolishing Lambeth Living and felt instead that it could be replaced with a shorter newsletter, which did not include propaganda from Steve Reed.  Sawdon (Lib Dem) wholeheartedly agreed. He felt that newspaper ownership could be debated, but then came out with the most bizarre statement of the evening... "it would be a shame if all local newspapers were forced out of business by the withdrawal of local authority advertising, when they're often the only local independent voice"  Gah!  As though local newspapers would be forced out of business solely on the withdrawal of statutory advertising.  That seemed patently ludicrous.  Harrison came to the rescue.  "The statutory notices need to be put somewhere", he retorted. "The local press has a tiny circulation in Lambeth, and Lambeth Life goes to every home and ensures everywhere gets to see the notices.", he added.

Of course, that was like a red rag to a bull.  Various people immediately announced that they didn't receive Lambeth Life!! Another audience member suggested (in a bizarre hybrid of the Communities Act thing and the John Lewis model) that "local residents take control of the budget and Lambeth Life and put in it what they want!"  "Hear, hear" I nearly declared!  (After all, I can think of somebody who would make a great editor.)

But Healy jumped in with the last word by noting that lots of people don't receive the paper, at the same time as defending the need for a Council paper, and noting "there's a strange relationship in Lambeth between the South London Press and the ruling administration, as there have been recent tussles and police action."  Instead, Healy wants an independent council magazine.

The hustings enabled all participants to engage with audience members before the debate so there was lots of wandering around.  I was deeply unimpressed when I over-heard Sandra Lawdon (Lib Dem, Princes) admitting that she was not currently aware of specific issues affecting the ward, and would need to read-up on them were she elected.  I'm not sure whether that's quite the point, when trying to persuade local people to vote for you.  Other than Sawdon, the other two Oval Lib Dem candidates were not present and I didn't see any of the other Lib Dem Princes Ward hopefuls.  I was also rather unimpressed to hear that Marcus Letts, one of the Green candidates was down in Brighton, rather than appearing at his local ward hustings (what is it with these guys and Brighton?) and except for the ever-present Healy, none of the other Green candidates appeared.  I didn't notice Labour's Cllr Morgan or Cllr Campbell at the hustings (did anybody else?), although Jack and Jane (the Oval Labour folk) were present.  There was a good Conservative turn out, but I didn't manage to speak to any of them...

(Apologies for the delay and length in this report, but I hope its publication today might help anybody still wavering on which party to vote for.)

Former Lilian Baylis costing tax payer £380,000 per year. Election Looming. Answers please.

So, I may not be the South London press and I might not get paid, and I haven't been to Journalist School (see Jason Cobb's recent comment battle on the SLP), but this blog has a fair old readership now, so I think it's fair to point out, once again, that the former Lilian Baylis site is costing Lambeth taxpayers £380,000 per year to maintain, there's been no progress in terms of developing it or selling it to a community organisation or private buyer, and there's an election coming up.

Back on October 22nd 2009, I sent a query about the former Lilian Baylis site to Steve Reed, asking, "Has the council issued statement on status of former Lilian Baylis bid by ANC? Rumour says the bid is off, but pls confirm."  I received a Direct Message from Steve Reed, advising that the council were, "Still negotiating a consortium to run the old school site, details public soon, intending it shd represent the whole community not just part".

Fair enough.  I can wait, I thought.  After all, the thing only kicked off in 2005, so we wouldn't want to rush matters.  (For a comprehensive post, and history, see my catchup on the definitive history of the former Lilian Baylis.)

Eventually, on the 14th December 2009, Lambeth council issued a decision to decommission the project from having as its focus the All Nations Church (ANC).  Reasons as to why they did this vary slightly, depending on whom you ask.  There was some local opposition to the ANC (a faith group) having the "lead partner" stake in buying a Council building that is currently essentially a community resource.  However, there are also rumours that the ANC were, by last year, only able to buy the building for a considerably smaller amount than they had originally offered (bear in mind that the Council would have given them a favourable rate, compared to the land's market value).  The Council state in a report dated 14th December, (this one is quite an interesting document which I'll dissect below), "Ultimately, the terms of the offers by ANC presented an unacceptable risk of challenge to the council and other elements of the proposed leasehold terms were also unacceptable in principle." and also, "The offer proposed by ANC entailed a substantial discount below market value, which the council could not justify through demonstartion of public benefit."

Remember back in February 2009 (see old council .pdf here) that the "hub" group were to comprise the ANC, the Sport's Action Zone (SAZ) and Ethelred Nursery.  It appears now that the ANC have been "dropped" from official plans (although, apparently, "The decision not to progress negotiations with ANC does not prejudice or preclude ANC’s involvement in alternative delivery arrangements.").  However, the new December 14th plan is to try and move forward with both Sports Action Zone (Kate Hoey is the patron of this organisation) and the Ethelred Nursery.  It is highly unlikely that either of these organisations have any money (SAZ isn't even a legal entity), so...

What might Lambeth Council do?

Let's see what facts are laid out in the December 14th plan:

1. "Pursuit of a maximised social and community outcomes approach is likely to be an overall capital cost to the council council, i.e., the cost of development would be greater than any capital receipt."

Translation: It costs money to pay for community facilities, when we wouldn't make money from those facilities.  And in any case, we're not terribly interested in providing Leisure facilities.  See Jason Cobb's post on the privatisation of Lambeth leisure facilities.

2. "The overall capital gain to the council would be maximised if the site were disposed on the open market."

Translation: Actually, we'd make more money (and we don't have much of this right now), if we were to sell the development.

[I can see that this one is going to be a bit troublesome, come the election, since the Lib Dems wanted to sell the building off, before they changed their minds, a few years ago...  So, you can see the accusations flying, Labour: "you wanted to sell", Lib Dem: "you said you'd develop, Lab: "you changed your mind", Lib Dem: "we didn't exactly... but in any case, you want to sell now", blah, blah, blah, let's pre-empt that boring old battle...]

3. "Potentially, the overall capital gain might be greater if other sites in the area were included in the redevelopment process allowing for the reconfiguration and consolidation of community outcomes on particular sites and realisation of the full development value of other sites."

Translation: We could make even more money, if we were to sell off some other bits of land. (This might allude to the Beaufoy, Lollard St playground and Kerrin point (or all of them). Would be useful to know the proposals because it's a far reaching statement.

4. "Note that the listed building status conferred on the site restricts the scope for development and agree for officers to investigate how this might be addressed in order to enable suitable development options." and "The listing of buildings of this period is not without controversy and presents a number of problems and constraints in this instance."

Translation: Let's try to get the building delisted, because then we can sell it off for more money, and don't have to worry about English Heritage. Interestingly, even the car park is listed (a result of some kind of ancient Council vendetta). We need to get all of this stuff delisted ASAP, so that we can get this building off our hands.

5. "To date the council have resisted pursuing the possible delisting of the site on the basis that there is little prospect of the Secretary of State agreeing. The council failed to stop the listing originally and no new evidence has been forthcoming to challenge the English Heritage assessment of the building’s special interest."

Translation: We're a bit doomed, really! 

6. "Increasing this estimate by construction inflation and factoring in the likely further deterioration in the condition of the property, a capital investment of as much as £10m may be required to bring the buildings back into an acceptable condition."

Translation: We're even more doomed. These buildings cost a fortune to repair, we have no money, and nobody will pay enough for them, considering that they're listed, and we can't figure out how to delist them, and the Secretary of State will never do it.  Wah!

7. "The site and buildings are insured as part of the council’s building insurance contract which includes a regular programme of health and safety inspection. It is possible that future inspections will identify works which would need to completed in order to ensure continuity of use and as a consequence may affect the Council’s ability to maintain the continued insurance of the property."

Translation: If the building fails a health and safety inspection, we don't have enough money to fix it, and nobody will be able to use it at all. We need to sell it off really really quickly.

8. "Since 2005 SAZ have been successful in attracting considerable external investment (Nike, Barclays Spaces for Sports, Football Foundation) and voluntary investment which has helped to transform the complex into a successful community facility. SAZ is negotiating currently to bring in up to £4m of capital funding for a community basketball initiative, with an ambition to provide a basketball facility and venue of international standard."

Translation: Even though the building might fail a health and safety inspection, we really like this SAZ organisation, and they're good for the area. Also, they're backed by Kate Hoey, so it would be politically embarrassing to try and dispose of them.

9. "Over the past month more detailed work has taken place across Council departments to specify the outcomes sought from the site, in particular with Cultural Services with view to a significant sports/leisure focus of activity on the site and with CYPS around education, young persons and play facilities, including provision for a new ENCC."

Translation: We installed a 12 metre (yes, that is right) swimming pool. What else do you want?

---

To be fair, at the 14th December meeting, Cllr Ashley Lumsden (Opposition leader), ask whether the Council outcomes stated in the December 14th 2009 report were the same ones as desired by the residents. Well, you may indeed ask! I certainly would.

Make of that what you will, but I doubt any movement (in terms of either sale or significant development) will be made in, ooh, let's say, the next 12 months (even with a change in administration). I'll write another post next year, around February 2011, keeping you up to date.

The question is, Cllr Reed, who is the consortium you said would be running the old school site?  The clock is ticking, and the election looms....

[Believe it or not, I had not read Peter Walker's Guardian article here, in which he seems utterly unaware that the current administration has suggested selling the site (and possibly other sites) to maximise capital, but it's a prime example of why hyperlocal bloggers do possess a much broader picture than some of the national press.]

Guest post: attendee at John Bull Centre Hustings

For the first time, I have agreed to publish a guest post at the Lurking about SE11 blog.

Obviously, I have to publish a disclaimer, since the views presented are not my own, although I have received verification that the guest poster was present at the hustings and is not one of the candidates standing for election.

If any other participants were present at the John Bull Community Centre hustings, and wish to make a counter guest post, I will publish it (so long as it's not defamatory).

------

Dear SE11'ers

I was at the LGBGT candidate hustings last night and was utterly shocked at the response the Labour candidate gave in response to the question "would he support the use of the old Lilian Baylis site by the the All Nations Church given their teachings on homosexuality as a sin?" In a long winded response, he said that he did support them having the use of the site.

I find it incredible that an openly gay, prospective local goverment Councillor in one of the districts in the UK with a high concentration of LGBGT residents, is in support of such and organisation and has been actively helping them to secure their place on the site.

I hope that the LGBGT community will come out in force and let their elected representatives know that these organsiations have no place in multi-cultural Lambeth and should not be given the use or option of purchasing public spaces for propogating messages of intolerance of any sector of the community, let alone such a huge proportion of the Vauxhall residents.

Your truly
Concerned SE11

Former Lilian Baylis site and difficult hustings questions

I promised yesterday that I'd post about the former Lilian Baylis site and political parties. The history of the topic is now tedious and long. The reason it's so important in the local election is that there is both considerable support in favour, and considerable consternation against the All Nations Church (ANC) bid to own the former Lilian Baylis site. Nobody is talking much about that because nobody knows exactly how many ANC constituents there are in Princes ward (to gain votes from if one supports the proposals), or exactly how many LGBT votes one would lose in Prices ward by supporting the ANC ownership possibility. So it's a bit of a problem for the local candidates.

There are a number of questions that I suggest the public ask at potential hustings:
1. Do you support the bid of the ANC to own and act as lead partner at the former Lilian Baylis site?

This is the key question. Labour (so far) appear to be supporting this end, and are thus likely to garner the support of the ANC when it comes to winning votes, but are they doing so by sacrificing the LGBT populace opinion? On the other hand, would the Lib Dems, Conservative or Green party really be able to do any better?

2. How would you respond to the fears of the local LGBT community who are concerned about a public asset landing in the hands of an organisation that (whilst currently respectful towards them) might struggle to hold that homosexuality is a sin, at the same time as welcoming LGBT meetings at a public space?

3. Do you consider it better for the site to be held in trust with a local organisation or for it to be owned by a group, such as the ANC, outright?

4. What form of oversight would you like to see put in place to ensure that a former council building remained in inclusive community use?


5. At a time when council house rents are rising (and housing is scarce), is it possible for the site to be partially sold off for public use, at the same time as redeveloped for ANC, Ethelred and SAZ use?

See below for a very potted history. I'm just quoting some of the main bits that I've found, but I'll elaborate if any commentator says I've forgotten anything major.

1. In January 2005, the Lilian Baylis School moved to a new building.

2. The Lambeth Council Unitary Development Plan (proposed by the Lib Dem council in 2005, but published by Labour unchanged in 2007) says of the former LB site: "(b) Appropriate proposals for the Grade II listed Lilian Baylis school and its grounds would be supported... to enable redevelopment of the site for a mix of uses, including a mixed tenure housing scheme, community and leisure uses."

Labour welcomed the idea, in 2007 (proposed by the Lib Dems), that the site might be used for (amongst other things), housing. There were some older proposals for the site under the Lib Dems (which did support demolition of it), but these were not approved by the Lib Dem Council of the time and the above Lib Dem proposal went through unchanged by Labour.

3. Lambeth Council community consultation published by external agency in February 2006. Unfortunately, response rate was only about 17% and local people wanted the site to be used for leisure, housing (public, not private) and community purposes.

4. On 16th March 2006, the RCDT reported breakthroughs made at the Area Committee meeting by the then local Lib Dems who argued in favour of:
"a. Keeping part of the Lilian Baylis site for community and sports facilities for local people
b. Keeping a gymnasium if possible- and all potential purchasers to consider keeping the gym
c. Money from the sale of the site to go to new recreation centre and swimming pool in North Lambeth
d. Further consultation with local people about what’s on offer and what’s best for the community
e. A local project board, including residents and local groups, to oversee community provision on the site"

5. The "breakthrough" terminology used by the RCDT was disputed by Labour's Sam Townend (the naughty one) , who argued that an Area Committee can't make decisions, that the statements were ambiguous, that there was no "breakthrough" and the RCDT was being party political. The RCDT then requested a statement from Sam about the Labour position (this is made in March 2006, and involves two councillors still in position in 2009):

"‘We are committed to retaining and enhancing the current community, leisure and sporting uses of the site and adding to it educational and other social uses of the site by and for local people. Importantly the retention for the use by the community of the three gyms and sports hall. We want to see an expansion of the uses of the site by local people including potentially by Ethelred nursery..., use of the education facilities...... and the Sports Action Zone, and the large number of other local community organisations... We won’t allow the loss of the open playing spaces if at all possible. This does not mean that the site necessarily has to remain or entirely remain in the ownership of the Council. My preference would be for ownership to be transferred to a Community Trust, run and managed by local people. This obviously depends on if there is sufficient interest and commitment from people to carry out this work.... We would also like to see Ethelred TMO residents play a role in such a Trust as the site is in the middle of their estate."

6. Elections were held in May 2006. All three Lib Dem councillors were voted out. 3 new Labour councillors were voted in. Until May 2006, Lambeth Council (Lib Dems / Conservatives) apparently wanted to sell off the former Lilian Baylis School site on Lollard St. However, it does appear (above) that despite wanting to sell it off, they also wanted to retain it for use by local people.

7. On 17th March 2008, the Lambeth Council (Labour) agreed: "that All Nations Centre be placed ‘at the centre of any development at Old Lilian Baylis as a lead partner with security of tenure on an appropriate part of the site consistent with their needs.’" Quite an important statement, but nothing is said about ownership.

8. The Council (Labour) declared in January 2009 that it has chosen 3 "partners". These are: All Nations Church, Ethelred Nursery and Sports Action Zone (SAZ). It's leaflet is sketchy. It does not mention any issues related to ownership, governance or oversight. It does not mention relations with local community organisations. It has lost sight of many of the original organisations that might once have been involved. Are the Ethelred TMO still involved?

I made a mistake here in thinking that Mark Harrison (Labour) was attempting to save the site from the Council's plan in January 2009 and do something new (that was my error), but he has asserted here that he is campaigning in support of ongoing Labour council plans, and is concerned that, "The Lib Dems have recently been heard to be talking about selling off the site and abandoning the negotiations to set up a community trust to buy the site.". I've asked for clarification on that point, and I doubt we'll know any more until the Lib Dems answer their questions.

It's all rather unfair on Mark because he's the only one publically proposing any substantive policy so it looks as though I'm picking on him, which I don't intend to do.

Phewww.... sheer exhaustion has set in... Quite frankly, I'm surprised that four years have passed (part Lib Dem control, part Labour control), and that nothing appears to have happened. The current Council has proceeded with their campaign despite only a 16% community response to their consultation.

Have any readers got far enough to make any comments?