In 2011 planning permission for one of the most ambitious and controversial regeneration schemes in London was granted by Lewisham Council to Renewal, an offshore-registered development company founded by a former Mayor of Lewisham.
The £1bn “New Bermondsey” scheme proposed by Renewal was to set to create 2,400 new homes and a sporting village on a 30-acre site around Millwall FC’s Stadium. Only 10 per cent of the homes proposed were designated as affordable, well below the borough’s 50 per cent target. Lewisham Council had planned to purchase the land using a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO).
The two co-founders of Renewal both have strong ties to Lewisham Council: Dave Sullivan was the Mayor of Lewisham from 1998-2002 and Mushtaq Malik was a senior officer until 1995. Although Sullivan left Renewal in 2007, Malik is still director of the company alongside his daughter Jordana Malik, who is now also a director.
Millwall and its supporters denounced the links between Renewal and Lewisham council as a conflict of interest, and strongly contested the scheme, which it said was a threat to local businesses and the club’s community and youth work. The club put forward alternative plans to the council in 2013 proposing more affordable housing and keeping the club at the heart of the development, although no formal application was made.
In a letter written to Lord Dyson in December disputing the findings of an inquiry in relation to plans to redevelop land used by Millwall, the club’s chairman John Berylson said:
“We presented our revised proposals for developing the Millwall land in August 2013 and the council resolved to sell that land to Renewal the following month. It is true that the council said that they would require further details of our development proposals, but they never gave us an opportunity to provide them.”
But it was only after the emergence of allegations that Renewal and its partners had falsely claimed to have £2m Sports England funding that Lewisham council backtracked on the plans. These false funding allegations were later dismissed by Lord Dyson in his inquiry report. While Lewisham council has since said the CPO plan has been abandoned, for many, trust has already been eroded.
This is not an isolated incident. Across the country there is a swathe of examples of former councillors and high-profile council employees involved in planning decisions who have gone on to work for developers. There are also many instances of current councillors offering consultancy services to developers or working for or sitting on the boards of developers and housing associations.
In her report on the lobbying of local government by developers, housing writer Anna Minton refers to the “well-oiled revolving door” between developers and councils.
“Developers and their lobbyists are actively targeting public officials – it’s only rational for them to do so”, Tamasin Cave, the director of Spinwatch, explains.
“In order to get influence to secure planning permission, developers and lobbyists need access to local decision makers – and the quickest way of developing that access is to buy in someone who’s already got it.
“Former and current councillors and high-profile council employees are very valuable as they have massive experience of how the system works and the right people to talk to.”
In a previous response to concerns about Renewal’s strong connections with Lewisham Council, director Malik told Property Week:
“All these rumours about me and Lewisham are absolute nonsense. People say: ‘You’re connected to them.’ But I left 22 years ago. Yes, some of those people are still there, but I went off and formed a company that provided public sector services in the private sector and we had contracts with probably 70 local authorities up and down the country, employing 5,000 people.”
However, Cave argues that former local government officials can provide access to the council for developers that is simply not available to local residents.
“Developers and lobbyists are buying advantage. They’re paying for services and opportunities that aren’t open to the community”, she says.
“The community are only able to get extra information from the council and make their voices heard through freedom of information law or the local paper—if there is one. The public consultation processes for new developments are often utterly farcical so that’s not a process that works for the community either.”
Even in the case of housing associations which are categorised as charitable organisations, Cave argues that former local government officials working for these organisations confers an unfair advantage.
“Housing associations are major commercial players” she said. “It’s often difficult to distinguish between charities and for profit organisations because there are all sorts of loopholes and grey areas.”
So what can be done to prevent current and former councillors and high-profile council employees from lending their skills and expertise to developers and giving them unfair advantage in the planning process?
Cave suggests that both the introduction of regulations to prevent the immediate movement of local government officials going on to work in the development industry would help.
“There needs to be checks on the revolving door”, she explains. “At the moment there’s no cooling off period for local government officials when they leave the council and then go on to work for developers.
“The problem is that in central government the system governing the revolving door is utterly broken and this culture has cascaded down to local government.
“So local government officials see ministers going into industries they used to regulate and assume there is no problem with using their expertise to move into a job in the development industry as there are no restrictions to stop them from doing this.
“But what is also needed is proper scrutiny. Councils need to be much more open about what they’re doing and who they’re talking to and we need a healthy local media to hold these people to account.”
Below we list some of the most striking examples of the links between local government officials and the development industry across the East London Lines boroughs—Lewisham, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, and Croydon. Click on the tab for your borough for details about the current and former councillors and high-profile council employees who have strong links with developers.
There is no suggestion that any of the local government officials mentioned in this article have acted illegally or improperly. All of the links highlighted between these individuals and the development industry are legal.
This article is part of EastLondonLines’ Home Truths series, which looks at how Londoners are losing out on affordable housing. Click here for the full series.
This article amended on 14 April 2018 to correct /clarify two points:
- Mushtaq Malik was a “senior officer” at Lewisham Council, not a “senior housing officer” as an earlier version said. Malik had no involvement with housing and planning while working for the council.
- An earlier version said: “Alternative plans were put forward, proposing more affordable housing and keeping the club at the heart of the development.” This was amended to reflect the fact that Millwall put forward the alternative plans, but no formal application was made.
The article was amended on 17 April 2018 to correct/ clarify one point:
- Renewal were alleged to have falsely claimed to have £2m Sports England funding, not £2bn as an earlier version said.
- In an earlier version there was no mention of the fact that there these false funding allegations were later dismissed by Lord Dyson in his inquiry report.