Anyone else following what is going on with LB Lewisham using its compulsory purchase powers to get development going on land belonging to Millwall Football Club?
LEWISHAM COUNCIL CABINET TO VOTE AGAIN ON MILLWALL CPO AFTER WATCHDOG VOTE
The Mayor and cabinet support one developer, but are opposed by the club, local MPs and their own scrutiny committee. I don’t have any feel for what is going on, but it seem a bit odd.
More in the Guardian
Millwall score an early goal as they seek the ultimate home win
This has big coverage in The Guardian currently. Strong hints of conflicts of interest, looks potentially like a major scandal.
It reeks.
The Compulsory Purchase Order meeting appears to have been postponed
Reported in The Guardian
Here is a snippet
“As it stands Lewisham’s plans to seize land around The Den would leave the club’s community trust homeless and imperilled, with the land due to be sold to opaque offshore-owned developers Renewal, a company founded by the last Labour mayor of Lewisham, Dave Sullivan.”
Could this thread be moved out of Politicos, as it is a major story for the Borough?
0 voters
This was announced before Christmas, it really really stinks.
Moved to the main forum. We can move this back to Politicos if it goes pear.
I am glad this has been moved out of politicos. I read about this yesterday and think it’s shocking. I’m no Millwall fan but this seems underhand!
I’m not a Millwall fan either, although I do have the tee shirt 
(Just because I can see it getting abused, I’m not uploading the photo …)
Petition signed!
Signed the petition!
As others have mentioned previously, it seems like a bit of fowl play to me too!
Fair to say there are some conflicts of interest and well, without wishing to get the forum in trouble, you can read and make your minds up (I’m no Millwall fan either but…)
Snippets from the above linked Guardian Article:
> Renewal’s chief executive is a former Lewisham officer and colleague of the current Lewisham chief executive, Barry Quirk, an unelected official best known locally for being paid more pro rata than the prime minister for working a three day week.
> In another bizarre twist Renewal was also set up and originality part-owned by the previous Labour mayor of Lewisham, Dave Sullivan
> the mayor, Sir Steve Bullock, having stepped back due the fact he is, astonishingly, director of a Renewal-associated company
Hmmmmm
Tim Farron, national Lib Dem leader is getting involved
"Football clubs are a crucial part of British society, says Tim Farron"
Signed - and I’m a Palace fan!!!
Very fishy business this 
Sadiq has just lent his support to Millwall:
Lewisham just cancelled tonight’s meeting according to The News Shopper.
Very interesting!
South London Press gave this story the front page this week.
I am puzzled as to why the Council doesn’t explain its plan: why hasn’t the Mayor or the Chief Exec agreed to a full interview in the South London Press? Or why not outline the development in ‘Lewisham Life’ (the Council’s magazine that is put through letterboxes in the borough)? The Council’s website has nothing about this major development proposal. Why not? It may be a great plan, so why not explain it? Otherwise it looks like there’s something to hide.
There are hundreds of pages on the development written to aid CPO decision. Surely Council should not use Lewisham life to give free advertising to a essentially private developer.
I will admit that it is hard to search for data on specifics and sheer volume of information makes it difficult to digest the substance. I also believe that the decision makers will do their upmost to review all the information available and make the best decision in the interest of whole Lewisham community. The decision has been postponed couple of times because new information keeps coming to light and it is only fair to make an informed decision.
This decision will be made by the Cabinet (not Mayor or the full Council). So below is just a flavour of the benefits
“The New Bermondsey regeneration has the potential to deliver huge benefits for Lewisham and wider region which is why this CPO has been proposed,” a council spokesman said.
“The scheme would deliver 2,400 desperately needed new homes, a new overground station, new sports facilities and up to 1,500 new permanent jobs.
“An enhanced Millwall stadium, the Den, is at the centre of this regeneration.
“The area around the stadium is currently a run-down, under-used light industrial 30-acre site that needs to work much better for the borough.
“Renewal has assembled most of the land needed for the project.
“The prospective CPO will enable the acquisition of the remaining interests required so this important scheme can be delivered.
“Lewisham Council is very supportive of Millwall Football Club and has consistently said that its ability to operate the stadium must and will be protected.
“The planning permission and related planning agreements provide benefits for the club valued at around £7million, including recladding of the stadium.
“They also protect the club’s ability to expand the stadium should Millwall FC get into the Premier League.
Mark Taylor, director at Renewal said: “Millwall Football Club is a vital part of the culture and community of north Lewisham, and as such, Renewal’s vision from the outset was to incorporate a successful, self-sustaining football club at the heart of the proposed development.
“The club itself has stated that it’s a big fan of the plans for the regeneration of the Surrey Canal Triangle.
“Through the section 106 agreement, we are committed to providing circa £7million worth of direct benefits to Millwall Football Club, creating a much improved and enjoyable experience for fans.
“These benefits to Millwall Football Club and Millwall Community Trust include:
Enhanced setting for the stadium with improved facilities for spectators, including a new Overground station, improved access to South Bermondsey and two new bus routes.
The ability to extend capacity from 20,146 to 26,500 if required.
Recladding of the Millwall FC Stadium.
Provision of underground car parking spaces to be used by MFC on event and non-event days.
Relocation of the Millwall FC memorial garden.
New ground keepers store.
Re-provision of coach parking spaces to be used by MFC on event days.
Parking for outside broadcast vehicles.
Relocation of the Millwall Community Trust to a state of the art replacement facility
“We are fully committed to bringing positive change to the area and look forward to continuing to work with the council, land owners and Millwall Football Club to ensure that New Bermondsey, one of the largest regeneration schemes in London, can become a reality for Lewisham.”
More links
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/inmyarea/regeneration/deptford/north-deptford/Pages/Surrey-Canal.aspx
http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=139&MId=4492
Do I need to find more links?
Just a thought, if Lewisham made it easier to find the links in the first place you, as a councillor, wouldn’t have to point them out. Just saying.
However, thank you for taking the time to update us Maja. Appreciated.
Recladding the stadium 
If Millwall lose their current academy status due to the development ( as they seem to think is likely) I’m sure they’ll love he new look cladding when they are forced out of Lewisham.
So potentially very suspect goings on with Lewisham on this.
I think Lewisham Life would be the ideal vehicle for the Council to explain its thinking about the development, why it is regarded as beneficial, and why this scheme in particular has been selected.
I hope you are right, but it seems problematic that the citizens of Lewisham are being asked to believe in their leaders’ best intentions rather than having the plans discussed and consulted on as widely as possible in the borough. Sometimes with the best intentions, there is disagreement abut what constitutes the best plan. It raises suspicions when - as reported in the media - elected representatives and officials have financial interests in the outcome.
This also I find troubling. Why is the full Council not voting on this?
If the council are interested in CPOs could we get them to buy the skip yard in the centre of Forest Hill?
You’ll find that justification in the planning approval notice: Link
The planning application had a consultation period during which comments from interested parties could be submitted. The same applies to the Lewisham Core Strategy which would have also gone through a period of consultation. The Core Strategy document identifies the site as one of five strategic development sites within the borough.
It’s also important to note (for the purposes of a balanced view) that the relationship between the Council and the Club with regards to development of the site has been fraught. The club has different aspirations for the site but they have never bought forward a planning application. Obviously there appears to be some issues hence the delay in the CPO decision but Millwall’s announcement that they ‘may’ consider leaving Lewisham if the CPO were to go ahead does appear to be very shrewd and has obviously generated a swell of support locally!
It will be interesting to see what happens in Feb!
Can you please say who from current officers or elected members will financially benefit from the outcome and what is the proof behind such a statement? I am interested as that is completely unacceptable.
I don’t understand why Milwall FC is making such a statement. Millwall Community Trust will be offered state of art new facilities. I assume that is how their Academy is run, but I will stand corrected.
Thanks Maja for your posts.
It really shouldn’t be down to you to make us public aware of this, but I really appreciate it.
Can I ask why "Mayor & cabinet " are not responding to this, and just “Cabinet”?
This makes me feel very uneasy as it’s very important.
Why won’t the Mayor (Steve Bullock) give his opinion on this?
Seconded. @MajaHilton’s input is much appreciated on this forum - we are lucky to have councillors joining us here in addition to the surgeries and standard obligations of their role.
Hi @Pauline
I can’t speak for the Mayor, as I am not his spokesperson.
I can only imagine that there are rules governing decision makers prior to making such a decision. Naimly they are supposed to come to the meeting with an open mind. I was certainly told this when I am part of planning committee which decides on planning applications. Speaking in public prior to decision being taken could be used to exclude them from being part of the decision.
Therefore their silence at this stage is nothing unusual.
If anyone thinks that an important bit of information is not in the papers already, they should write to the cabinet. It was these kind of facts that have meant that decision has been postponed so far. Some may call this slow bureaucracy others see it as fair decision making.
@pauline in answer to your question:
I think that explains why the cabinet need to be involved in the decison making process, rather than the mayor alone.
The company in question is very probably Surrey Canal Sports Foundation
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07523847/officers
Which includes some pretty well known names from the world of sport and beyond. It also includes past directors of various Renewal companies. This could easily be seen as a conflict of interest had the mayor been soley responsible for decision making.
Thanks Michael, that makes complete sense to me!
What I have to say now (and no disrespect to @MajaHilton, who I think has been more than fair with her posts & I really appreciate them & respect her as a person & Councillor) is I still find this whole business very underhand & fishy but absolutely nothing to do with her at all.
Hi @anon5422159
Posting here is a bit like being in community. The Council is a huge organisation which does so much more than clean the roads and collect the rubbish bins. As a public body it has its rules about how things have to be done to meet test of transparency and accountability. To someone working in a private sector (majority of us) some of the things look alien until you realise that transparency and accountability are huge tests to meet in complex organisation. So I do see it fit to try and explain if I can.
What I would also like to point out is that even though other councillors don’t post here it doesn’t mean they don’t follow what is happening. All local councillors have links to the community and help loads of residents in many ways. It is just incredible how people from different backgrounds do become councillors. (Currently we have range from a solicitor to an opera singer and amateur magician, former rough sleeper to a lord, unemployed to retired, there is also fair BAME and LGBT representation, single, married and divorced)
We also have councillors who don’t really do computers but that is not stopping them to reach out in the community and be great representatives.
The more I hear about this the more underhand it seems!
Opening a can of worms springs to mind, let’s see where it ends!
Some of the holding companies make it difficult to understand the ownerships involved, fortunately Mushtaq Malik, CEO of Renewal wrote a Private and Confidential email to the CEO of Lewisham Council. Despite being marked Private and Confidential (and not for circulation) it was included in minutes of a council meeting and, although no longer available on the web is in Google cache. I should add that I find nothing unreasonable about any of this information, but I’ve been trying to work it out for a few weeks and this gives all the answers.
Ownership
The ultimate owners of Renewal are:
(1) Independent Advisors Incorporated, which is ultimately owned and controlled by a family trust established by my parents (during my late teens) solely for the benefit of myself and my dependents.
(2) Incorporated Holdings Limited, which is ultimately owned and controlled by a charitable trust, for which the principal beneficiary is the Jack Petchey Foundation, a UK registered charity. Please see attached letter from IHL confirming their ownership.
Millwall Community Trust
The intention and principle behind the relocation package offered to MCT is that it will be no worse off financially as part of its move from the Lions Centre to Energize.
Renewal has also confirmed to MCT that they will not be liable to repay any historic grant funding paid to it in respect of their current facilities at the Lions Centre.
It is also worth noting that there will be no obligation upon MCT to vacate from the Lions Centre unless and until the new facilities at Energize are completed. Finally, Renewal will have no involvement in the ownership or running of Energize. The Surrey Canal Sports Foundation (an independently constituted charity) will be responsible for owning, running and operating Energize, and they will be the party with whom MCT will have an ongoing relationship.
Relationship with the Council
I can categorically confirm that no officers nor members of the Council (whether current or former) are involved with Renewal or either of its shareholders – whether as participants, owners, investors, beneficiaries or similar – with the exception of myself.
Between July 2002 and August 2007, Dave Sullivan was a director and minor shareholder in Renewal companies primarily engaged in projects other than Surrey Canal Road / New Bermondsey.
He had a minor involvement in early site acquisitions at Surrey Canal Road, between November 2004 and August 2007. He sold all his shareholdings in all Renewal companies to Independent Advisors Incorporated between August 2005 and June 2006, and he formally resigned as a director from all Renewal companies in August 2007. Since then Dave has had no involvement with Renewal or its shareholders.
During Dave’s time at Renewal, he did not attend any meetings in respect of the scheme with Council officials or the GLA. It is also of note that the planning pre application discussions for Surrey Canal Triangle with the Council commenced in earnest in November 2007 after Dave Sullivan had left and ceased to have any involvement. For completeness, I confirm that Dave Sullivan does not, and has not had any involvement of any nature (whether as director, shareholder or otherwise) in Independent Advisors Incorporated or Incorporated Holdings Limited.
Sir Steve Bullock is a Director and Trustee of the Surrey Canal Sports Foundation Ltd (co. no. 07523847; charity no. 1141811). He was appointed as a director on 3 December 2012. The Surrey Canal Sports Foundation is a wholly independent registered charity established to deliver, and thereafter run and manage Energize.
This is saying that Renewal as a company will have no part of running Energize which may be true, but neglects to point out that one of the directors of the Surrey Canal Sports Trust is Jordana Malik, a director of Renewal. So there are strong ties there.
Has everyone read the transpontine blog entry on this issue?
It’s an interesting view which doesn’t necessarily contradict what’s been reported elsewhere, but puts a different perspective on it. While the relationships between the council and Renewal appear to be worth a second look, Millwall’s owners also appear to be keen to buy and develop the land around the stadium which is currently leased.
Worth reading.
This just in from the Guardian
Can’t find the link but the council will not be issuing a CPO at all now. Fantastic news.
Although I’m not sure about the quote at the end which states Millwall have been excluded from the development process until now…
I’m not sure the CPO has been abandoned but Barry Quirk (Chief Executive of Lewisham Council) has issued a statement:
No, I was wrong, it has been abandoned:
The Council is not now proceeding with any Compulsory Purchase Order on New Bermondsey. Any decision that the Council may take in the future will be a wholly new decision.
Great news
fDon’t know if my post was posted earlier! any news in the meeting last night with Lewisham Council, have a very concerned husband! thanks
The council provided a helpful FAQ
And also said this:
So it’s crystal clear that this attempt at a CPO has been abandoned. But ambiguous as to whether they might try again…
I wonder what the costs were for this in the end?
Thanks for that Chris!
So… Lewisham Councillor Paul Maslin (New Cross) has been complaining to The Guardian at how they reported the CPO.
And Paul just got a response back from the journalist who headed the investigation:
Priceless.
You are kidding me 
This just keeps getting murkier:
How anyone can say councillors were voting in the interests of Lewisham is beyond. Dodgy to the core this mess.
Just gets murkier. An intriguing connection here also to Peter John, leader of Southwark Council, who has also resigned from Surrey Canal Sports Foundation along with the Lewisham Mayor. Peter John has had a driving hand in the development of the Camberwell Cemeteries, pushed through against huge local opposition:
http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/wtf-no-feasibility-study/4592331590
The latest development was rubber stamped because the Funeral Directors thought it a good idea.
Blimey - good spot, Brett.
I found it astonishing that they could get away with spending our money on a public consultation, only to completely disregard its outcome (which was a very unanimous outcome).
Indeed. It strikes me that the connection between these issues is local councils marking their own homework. I think both should be decided at City Hall level but sadly that does not seem to be an option. In a way, it isn’t an issue of there being actual corrupt practice, but the appearance that there could be.
Just think how many 20mph signs Lewisham Council could have bought with £500,000 of our earnings…
That wouldn’t be sarcastic point scoring now would it Chris? 
Sorry. Off topic. I’ve metaphorically slapped my wrists.
Oh come on guys.
He started it dad!
I am going to send you both to your rooms without your tea!
Now now Jason…
Stop stalking me you Brexit supporting gun wielding mysoginist neocon b*stard from gasp Essex.
(Its okay. We’re mates).
I don’t really understand why the Mayor and Chief Exec haven’t resigned. Lack of political opposition in the Borough?
Steve Bullock sent us all a letter with our Council Tax Bills this week. Why has he not explained what has happened with this development - the waste of time and money and why he is not resigning?
(happy for this to be cross-posted in the Council Tax thread)
Plenty within the party itself I would’ve thought
Should be interesting.
Interesting statement from Millwall FC
Curiouser and curiouser.
Very interesting …!
Regarding the last sentence - this is certainly a matter of public interest.
Would love to know how much they paid for it. Lewisham seem a bit short on cash for local spending recently. Maybe Maja could offer up an insite?
Meanwhile
The report is out and everything is fine
Surprise!
Two page article in the south London press…Lewisham council have been exonerated, but it looks like ‘renewal’ are going to try & bid again to build on the surrounding area, so the fight begins again 
More coverage here
There can be competition wars, the latter are no problem, it is natural, it is the reality and understandable. But when the local government pushes the project that involves offshore companies, this is a VERY big problem, you dont need to be very clever to understand the game. Offshore companies are used to laundry money across the globe, dealing with them leaves no chances to trace where the money is going, how they spent and who is the receiptient. Lewisham Council wanted to spend 2 billion pounds for the project to be carried out by an offshore company?! Bloody hell!! They obviousely have no shame! Those people who raised concerns have just saved/protected 2 billion pounds.
I really hope that the next mayor in Lewisham will be from the concervatives. Lewisham needs drastic changes and the Labour is not going to produce them.
criticise their decisions or activities by all means but I do not think it ok to simply abuse our elected representatives. I don’t particularly like what has happened here but there are no prosecutions planned, the Charity Commission has looked at it, and a senior judge with a very good reputation has also pronounced on the Council activities. Like it or not, nothing illegal has been uncovered here?
It is a free country and everyone is free to have their own opinion, we also have freedom of speach, havn’t we? You can have you own opinion, i can have mine, no one can dictate how should i think or say. And what I say is based on the info that I read. The infi fact is that lewisham council was prepared to engage in dealing with an offshore company. The info fact is offshore companies are widely used for money laundries. It may be ok with the law but it is not ok as any government has to work in ways that prevent any criminal activity and loss of funds. The government has duty to protect and be moneywise and money efficient because it is public money. And the have to be scrutinised the most.
Now, I give you some insight how the laundry scheme work in general: (how i know it? I watch russian news, the amount of government people caught in those schemes and put behind bars hitting records high, all cases are public and well published). In general, a government body chooses to make a contract with a company to provide some service or work. Government agrees to pay x amount of money to the company. The actual cost of works, lets say, 40% cheaper in reality. The company, because it is official, produces receipts, invoices for the works it does. The government body uses those company invoices to proof and justify its spendings. Now, through back stage connections, high people from the government body and this company agree that the invoiced work will not show the actual costs, it will show agreed costs and all invoices will be written for the agreed costs. A company can write anything it wants in those invoices. They can write any amount of money. Government pays those invoices and funds are transfered to the contractor. When works are finished and all monies are paid, the workers are paid actual costs and anything above is nicely shared between the contractor and a government person or persons and goes in their pockets . The trick with offshore companies is they can be opened and closed within one day, they are out of country’s legislation reach and in case of investigations it is impossible to establish the chain of works and invoicing. On the face, everything is legitimate, but another side is very dark and murky.
I am very sorry you are upset. And I am very grateful that public raised concerns and started investigations. People should know the truth.
And you you know what else? I want the government to support british business and british workers in any way or form. We are Brexiting and this is the time when the government has to invest money inside the country. Yes, it will be a bit dear, but i dont mind because at the end, the british workers will earn money, the british workers will spend them inside the country and the british business will prifit and reinvest again inside the country. The time is up for unthoughtful investments, not building the ground now may result in a disaster for the country in the future after Brexit.
I understand why emotions are running high here, and can sympathise with both sides. However we’re drifting off topic, and into @general_politics territory here. #local-politics is not the right place to discuss Brexit.
Please can we stick to the topic in hand and avoid criminal accusations that are, so far, unsubstantiated.
The next proposed Labour Mayor is against the proposals allegedly but we could get a Tory or Liberal Mayor etc who is!
I am not upset, thank you. Yes we have freedom of speech but to me that does not mean it is ok to make all kinds of unchallenged personal and corporate allegations when there has clearly been a great deal of investigation but no evidence of wrongdoing.
Maybe the New Bermondsey development would not be that unusual in using companies or money based offshore. many public contracts for building schools, hospitals, care homes and other public facilities awarded to contractors under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) have been relocated to tax havens. This means that contractors can avoid UK taxes on profits funded by taxpayers. So far it seems UK governments have shown little interest in changing regulations around this.
However I do hope that whatever comes next for this Millwall site they make a better job of transparency, planning and consultation.
Painfully reminds me the soviet regime 
i was born in. Was not allowed to talk bad about leaders, local or central, party members.
))))) I wonder WHY?
I hope Tory will win. Definitely wont be voting for Labour, not after what i read.
never thought of myself as a Stalinist before but enjoying the idea.
The Millwall planning fiasco might look very different if government had a firm grip on the offshore funding\public contract issue as you suggest. But here’s a surprise. guess who is planning to make these changes!
"Labour has pledged to stop this.
How can it do that? It can ask companies to repatriate PFI projects, unless they were specifically negotiated with an offshore entity, so that tax is paid in the UK on all profits and dividends. Labour can introduce legislation and force companies to bring contracts home. It can make it unlawful to shift financial aspects of future PFI projects to offshore havens without express Treasury approval.
In case any companies still want to indulge in creative games, the Labour manifesto has other pledges. These include no public contracts for tax avoiders and requiring large companies to publish their tax returns so that we can all see how they shift profits and avoid taxes. Such policies can check organised tax avoidance and release millions for public services."
The “regime” just sent me a warning for bad behavior, therefore sorry but getting out of this thread.
The “regime” would like to politely ask members to stick to local politics in the #local-politics category.
Party political broadcasts in @general_politics please.
In last but one paragraph of Lord Dyson report, he mentions Cllr Smith and the same journalist of the above article as well.
‘422. Before concluding this report, I need to say a little more about MFC. Like almost everybody else, MFC supports the idea of redeveloping the Site. This also is the position of the Association of Millwall Supporters, whose submission to the Inquiry expressed full support for the regeneration of the area and stated that it “would back with all its enthusiasm a scheme designed to benefit all in the area”. As I have already stated, the Site is crying out for redevelopment. It is entirely understandable that MFC would prefer to be able to develop the Millwall Land itself. But it has not persuaded the Council that this is a practicable proposition. Some have said that the Renewal scheme would threaten the very existence of the Club at the Den. A flavour of their remarks is captured in Mr Ronay’s article of 27 January 2017 entitled “How the battle to save Millwall’s stadium was won” and his statement that “Millwall are staying in South London”: see paragraph 262 above. But it has always been the clearly stated intention of the Council that MFC should stay at the Den and that measures should be introduced to ensure that it remained at the heart of any proposed development of the Site and that the interests of both MFC and MCS should be fully protected. I refer, for example, to the statement to that effect by Councillor Smith at the M&C meeting of 15 December 2015; the concern expressed by the Council when, very late in the day, MFC raised the issue of the possible loss of its English Football League Category 2 status if there were a move to Energize (see paragraphs 239 to 241 above); Councillor Smith’s statement to Mr Kavanagh on 19 January 2017 that the Cabinet were unanimous that, in any development, MFC’s future must be secure and MCT must be able to continue its fantastic work in the local area (see paragraph 247 above); and what Sir Steve Bullock said in his statement of 25 January 2017 (see paragraph 260 above). It is unfortunate that this clear publicly stated position of the Council seems to have been ignored in some quarters. I hope that this will not recur during any future discussions. What is now required is a period of calm reflection as was urged by the Council in its statement of 25 January 2017 (paragraph 259 above.)’
I would really recommend reading the full report.
Can a section of the report really address the revelations of a new email leak? The report pre-dates the revelation…
The Mayor has pulled £20m in funding
Millwall Football Club is close to reaching an agreement with its local authority, Lewisham, that would see the club stay in its south London home. The club is now working on its own plans to transform the stadium and the land around it
My OH & son will be so pleased & equally relieved, phew! 