Greenwich Council has denied giving Labour candidates confidential information after details of what appeared to be plans to ease traffic congestion in Charlton featured in a campaign leaflet.
Another candidate has also claimed that the Army is close to a deal to take over the Olympic legacy equestrian centre at Shooters Hill, which the council had planned to sell despite protests.
Meanwhile, Labour hopefuls have also been using a council-owned community centre for “candidate surgeries” – even though neither of them are councillors.
The Greenwich Green Party said it has complained to the council’s elections chief, who can refer cases to the police, while the council has said that no candidates are getting special treatment. The Conservatives said the allegations needed to be reviewed after the election.
Both Labour and the town hall have separately insisted that no rules are being breached.
The poll, on May 7, is set to be the toughest for nearly 60 years for Greenwich Labour, which has run the council since 1971.
Greenwich LTN mitigation plans ‘revealed’
A leaflet promoting Labour’s candidates in Charlton Hornfair ward, Bren Albiston and Ambreen Hisbani, discussed problems caused by the low-traffic neighbourhood in Greenwich and Blackheath, which has led to an increase in rat-running traffic through local side streets, angering many residents.
The two hopefuls are hoping to beat incumbent councillor Lakshan Saldin, who was elected for Labour but joined the Greens in January, and his party colleague Jessica Holland, who is standing for the first time. Hisbani was formerly a councillor between 2014 and 2018.
The leaflet said the Labour duo had “developed a clear plan to mitigate the impact of the scheme in Charlton” that was “concerned only with delivering results for you, not with party politics”.
It then named the locations and interventions where the council was considering changes: a bus gate on Eastcombe Avenue and Victoria Way; pedestrian crossings on Victoria Way; and turning restrictions on “key routes such as Victoria Way and Marlborough Avenue”, getting wrong the name of Marlborough Lane, a key road in the ward.
The candidates referred to the proposals as “our plan”.
While the council has publicly said it plans to bring in “targeted mitigation” to ease the problems in Charlton, it is the first time that locations have been mentioned publicly, while a bus gate has not been mentioned before.
The measures also affect other wards, which are not getting the same leaflets, including Charlton Village. The pedestrian crossing on Victoria Way is believed to refer to a location in Greenwich Peninsula ward, where a resident presented a petition to the council last year.
Lakshan Saldin, the Green councillor for the ward who is standing for re-election, said in response to a question about parking policy: “Given the privileged access that our Labour candidates seem to have to council internal information… there’s stuff in their letter that I don’t know.”
Hisbani said: “He’s a sitting councillor, and I think he has similar access to the leader of the council, to the cabinet, to the officers of the council.”
Albiston told The Greenwich Wire after the hustings that candidates were given information about council policies by Labour’s borough organiser, Siddo Dwyer, and council leader Anthony Okereke.
A Greenwich Labour spokesperson insisted no rules were being broken and insisted the material raised in the letter were “drawn directly from material already in the public domain, alongside issues raised by Charlton Hornfair residents through doorstep conversations”.
“Candidates have not been given any privileged or confidential information,” he said. “The letter reflects matters already in the public domain, alongside issues raised by residents. It also sets out the kinds of measures candidates would seek to progress if elected, subject to consultation and engagement.
“All councillors, including opposition members, were notified of the [LTN] decisions in advance of publication and were offered the opportunity for a briefing or discussion with the cabinet member. Labour councillors took up that offer. No such requests were made by opposition councillors.”
Council ‘close to’ Army equestrian centre deal
Another candidate, Timothy Folaranmi, told a hustings meeting at Shrewsbury House, Shooters Hill last Saturday that the council was “in final negotiations” to let the army move into the Greenwich Equestrian Centre, which the council has planned to sell.
The centre was opened by Princess Anne in 2013, after Greenwich Park hosted horse-riding events in the Olympics and Paralympics, but closed after just 11 years.
The row over the sale led to Ivis Williams, a Labour councillor, resigning after she was put under investigation for publicly supporting community concerns rather than party policy.
“I think we can hopefully, fingers crossed, say that the equestrian centre is safe from that perspective,” Folaranmi said.
But while the council has said talks with the army were ongoing, their progress was not known to attendees at the hustings. Tao Baker, who has led a campaign for a community buy-out of the centre, was also unaware, despite having raised the issue at a council meeting last month.
“It’s completely new to me – I’ve not heard anything,” she told The Greenwich Wire. Baker has previously accused the council of breaking a pledge to discuss a possible community sale.
Labour responded: “The candidate was reflecting the council’s stated position as set out at full council. As made clear, positive discussions with the Ministry of Defence are ongoing, and the details of those negotiations remain commercially sensitive.”
‘Candidate surgeries’ in community centre
At the same hustings, Folaranmi’s fellow candidate, Kim Sullivan, made several references to a “candidate surgery” each week at the Barnfield Hub, a community centre on the Barnfield Estate in Plumstead – an area seen as key to winning the Shooters Hill ward.
Sitting councillors are supposed to hold surgeries where constituents can come to them with issues they can take away as casework. Shooters Hill ward already has two councillors – Tamasin Rhymes for the Greens, who is seeking re-election; and Raja Zeeshan for Labour, who has jumped ship to Woolwich Dockyard ward for this election.
One figure in Greenwich Labour, who has been critical of the direction of the party, criticised the tactic. “It’s not their job to get casework for the sitting councillor,” they said. “Calling it a ‘candidate surgery’ is just misleading voters. And why is it in a council-owned community centre?”
But a party spokesperson said: “Candidates have been attending existing community coffee mornings at the invitation of the organisers. These are not council-run ‘candidate surgeries’.”
The council has said the centre is leased by a community group on a commercial basis.
‘Unacceptable abuse of power’
Opposition councillors have long accused the council and Labour of being too close to each other. Three years ago Greenwich Labour was told to stop offering tea with the mayor as a prize in its fundraising by the council’s anti-fraud office.
In February, only Labour councillors were given advance notice of a BBC Panorama programme investigating the violent deaths of two teenage boys in Woolwich, even though it heavily featured the Barnfield Estate, in Green councillor Rhymes’ ward.
A spokesperson for Greenwich Green Party said it had concerns over whether electoral law was being broken and had complained to the council officer in charge of elections, who has the power to refer breaches to the police.
“Our election agent has raised these concerns with the head of electoral services,” she said. “We have asked him to raise them, in turn, with the relevant authorities.”
Charlie Davis, the Conservatives’ deputy leader, said: “‘It’s clear the line between Greenwich Council and Greenwich Labour under the current leadership is more blurred than ever.
“While opposition councillors struggle to receive casework responses in time, unelected Labour candidates have unrestricted access to council policy and resources.
“It’s clear that after May 7 an internal review is desperately needed to stop this unacceptable abuse of power.”
‘Council is ‘politically neutral’
Greenwich Council said that all candidates could to ask for information on council policies, and said that while Barnfield Hub’s freehold was owned by the council, it was run by a community group on a commercial basis.
A spokesperson said: “The Royal Borough of Greenwich is a politically neutral organisation. Council officers may provide factual, non-political information about council services and policies to candidates of any party, upon their request.
“The council is not involved in briefings arranged by political parties or sitting councillors for their own candidates. This is for each political party to manage.
“The use of publicly-funded buildings for election activity is governed by the Representation of People Act 1983. This law requires councils to make rooms available for election meetings, subject to very strict conditions.
“Barnfield Hub is a council-owned building however it is currently leased and managed on a commercial basis by a local community group. The council has no role in the day to day use of the building or bookings. These are managed entirely by the group.”
📩 Follow The Greenwich Wire on Bluesky, Facebook, LinkedIn or Threads. You can also sign up for WhatsApp alerts – or subscribe to our emails through the blue box above.
You must be logged in to post a comment.