From:

Subject:
Date:
To:
Cc:

Russell Gray <Russell@bvag.net>

STP(D)
11 December 2014 18:52:14 GMT
Mark Williams <Mark.Williams@southwark.gov.uk>, Peter John <Peter.John@SOUTHWARK.GOV.UK>
Simon Bevan <Simon.Bevan@SOUTHWARK.GOV.UK>, "damian.obrien68@gmail.com O'Brien"
<damian.obrien68@gmail.com>, Amy Carruthers <ameliebc@yahoo.com>, Admin BVAG <admin@bvag.net>, Ravi
Bhaskaran <ravibhaskaran.archi@googlemail.com>

Mr Williams
Again you have not responded to the email below.
As you are fully aware, we have long contended that the Council is dragging its heels and creating obstacles in response to our
application for recognition as a neighbourhood forum ('NF'). We have similarly long contended that the reasons are obvious:
You do not want local people having an influence over planning decisions, particularly in the area around St Thomas St that the
Council has identified as a cash cow to be milked at the expense of the character and identity of the neighbourhood, contrary to
local feelings. Your aspirations for profitable but anti-social developments stand to be impeded by a community plan and you
are therefore pushing to the legal limits (and beyond) your powers to thwart our application.
You have chosen to dictate a neighbourhood area ('NA'). As you know, we do not accept that you are legally entitled to
designate an area for which there is no application. However, to strip you of any excuse for further delay our meeting of 12
November agreed that we will amend our application to accept your designated area. You received notice to that effect on 28
november.
In your officer's report, dated 20 August this year, that purported to justify your decision to designate the NA, and that you
signed on 28 August, you acknowledged that the BVAG/STP group met the criteria for recognition as a NF.
In the circumstances there can be no justification for your failure to respond to my email below by giving an early target decision
date.
The STP(D) group will be holding a further meeting from 17.30 to 18.30 on Wednesday of next week (17 December),
immediately prior to the BVAG Christmas party, for an update on the progress made by the Council in determining our
application. As you have declined all invitations to attend or host a meeting yourself to explain your reasons for the continuing
delay your attendance is requested. As a minimum you should send a representative who is in a position to answer for you.
The meeting will be held in Globe House, at the corner of Bermondsey St and Crucifix Lane
Our followers will be wanting to ask you (or your delegate) the questions that you seem unwilling or unable to address. Among
others:
(a) As you appear to deny that the founders of the group, the community at large, or the former BNF's own 'steering group'
are at liberty to wind it up, who do you say is so entitled?
(b) What steps have you taken to determine whether BNF was ever either a representative or properly constituted body,
capable of being recognised as a NF?
(c) What steps have you taken to verify that John Corey, who you appear to regard as a one-man NF, represents anybody
whatsoever?
(d) Has John Corey made an application to become the NF for your officially designated area? If so, what steps have you
taken to verify whether he has done so pursuant to a constitutional mandate from an
eligible group? If not, on what
basis do you maintain there is any obstacle to the immediate approval of our application?
Pleaser confirm by return whether you will be attending or sending a representative.
Regards
Russell Gray

On 4 Dec 2014, at 14:49, Russell Gray wrote:

Mr Williams
At the joint meeting on 12 November BNF was would up by the very people who established it. Please tell us what causes you

to think that exclusive control has shifted to John Corey. If you are in no position to do so please confirm that our new
application will be processed within the prescribed time, giving a target decision date.
Regards
Russell Gray
On 4 Dec 2014, at 14:12, Williams, Mark wrote:

DearMrGray,

Thankyouforyouremail.Iacknowledgeyourrequesttoberecognisedastheneighbourhoodforumforthe
neighbourhoodareathathasbeendesignated.

FollowingthemeetingoftheOverviewandScrutinyCommitteeIagreedtoholdameetingwiththedifferent
groupstodiscusswhetheragreementcouldbereachedonaneighbourhoodforumforthearea.Asyou
know,thismeetinghasnotyetbeenarranged.

InoteyourclaimthattheBermondseyNeighbourhoodForummetatyourpremiseson12Novemberand
agreedtodisband.However,IshouldadviseyouthatIreceivedconfirmationfromJohnCoreyinadvanceof
thatmeetingthatthemeetingtakingplaceon12NovemberwasnotameetingoftheBermondsey
NeighbourhoodForum.IhavenotreceivedconfirmationfromtheBermondseyNeighbourhoodForumthat
theyhavedisbandedandwishtowithdrawtheirapplicationtoberecognisedasaneighbourhoodforum.I
would,therefore,liketocontinuewithmyintentionasagreedatthescrutinymeetingtoarrangeajoint
meetingwithyourgroupandtheBermondseyNeighbourhoodForumtoagreeawayforward.

IhopethatsuchameetingcanbearrangedinJanuary.Dependingontheoutcomeofthismeetingand
whetherfurtherpublicconsultationisnecessary,Ishouldthenbeinapositiontomakeadecisiononthe
designationofaneighbourhoodforum.

Yours,

Mark

CouncillorMarkWilliams
LabourMemberforBrunswickParkWard
CabinetMemberforRegeneration,Planning&Transport
LondonBoroughofSouthwark
160TooleyStreet
London,SE12TZ
02075257730/07985629095/@markwilliams84

From: Russell Gray [mailto:russell@bvag.net]

Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 12:34 PM
To: Williams, Mark
Cc: Bevan, Simon; John, Peter; damian.obrien68@gmail.com; Amy Carruthers; admin; Ravi Bhaskaran
Subject: Fwd: STP

Mr Williams
You have not responded to the email below. Our 12 November meeting did consider the possibility
that the Council would now revert to what we refer to as your plan A, which was simple delay in

responding to us and processing our application for recognition as a NF. The meeting's unanimous
decision in that event was to re-apply in exactly the same terms as for the original St Thomas St Plan
but accepting the NA designated by the Council. This is without prejudice to our contention that you
had no power to designate such an area and that the community will be at liberty to amend it if such a
decision is subsequently made by the Group.
Please therefore take this email as a formal application for recognition of our group as the NF for the
NA you designated. You will of course have all the original application material and it now simply
needs to be taken as an application for the much larger area selected by you. The only change is that
The St Thomas St Plan, 'STP' will be known under the working title of The St Thomas St Plan
(Displaced) 'STP(D)' until the Group reconvenes to agree a new name.
Please confirm by return your target date for processing this application.
Regards
Russell Gray

From: Russell Gray <russell@lordshiva.net>

Date: 13 November 2014 14:32:33 GMT
To: Mark Williams <mark.williams@southwark.gov.uk>
Cc: peter.john@southwark.gov.uk, Simon Bevan <Simon.Bevan@southwark.gov.uk>, Damian
O'Brien <damian.obrien68@gmail.com>, Amy Carruthers <ameliebc@yahoo.com>, Admin
BVAG <admin@bvag.net>, Ravi Bhaskaran <ravibhaskaran.archi@googlemail.com>, John
Corey <john.corey@chelseaprivateequity.com>
Subject: STP

Mr Williams
It is unfortunate that you did not attend yesterday's joint BVAG/BNF and open
community meeting. You had been given some weeks notice, you gave no
specific explanation of why you did not attend and you did not even send a
representative. As you have been told before, we do not think it is open to the
Council to take a totalitarian approach to neighbourhood planning on one level
and then completely absent yourself when the community assembles to
respond to your diktats.
The meeting was well attended by the community at large, by a high
proportion of those who met originally to create BNF some years ago and the
only known remaining active members of the BNF committee. John Corey,
the self appointed chairman, made his excuses at the last minute and did not
turn up. Also present was Grange ward councillor, Damian O'Brien who, for
independence, was jointly nominated by BNF and BVAG to chair the meeting
but in the circumstances of such unanimity was not required to do so.
As it turned out, the Meeting and BNF itself (so far as it exists) resolved that
BNF should be formally wound up. Of course, we have maintained for years
now that BNF was just a straw man serving as a convenient decoy for a
Council policy of obstructing a genuine community group with policies at
odds with its own. I do not think it is now open to you either legally or

politically to continue that ruse.

Please take legal advice on the status of your decision to designate a NA for
which there is no applicant. You should refer your lawyers in particular to the
requirement upon a local authority to designate 'some or all' (but not more) of
a NA for which a there is an application from a qualifying group. Hence you
had to rely on the BNF application to bring your decision into conformity with
the Act. BNF was not, as you know, a fit body to be recognised as a NF when
you made the decision - which is why you had to stop short of approving it.
Now it does not exist at all I think you must concede that your feigned
recognition of BNF is a charade too far, even for this Council.
Other decisions made by the meeting will be communicated to you when
minutes have been transcribed and when you have responded to the request
above to stand by or abandon your attempt to impose a NA on a community
that considers itself lawfully entitled to select its own.
Regards
Russell Gray

The email you received and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be covered by legal and/or professional
privilege and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this
in error please notify us immediately. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or the person responsible for delivering
it to them you may not copy it, forward it or otherwise use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. To
do so may be unlawful. Where opinions are expressed in the email they are not necessarily those of Southwark Council and
Southwark Council is not responsible for any changes made to the message after it has been sent.