The Londoner

All of our journalism is published via email and lots of it never goes online. So join our free mailing list to get great writing and investigative journalism about London in your inbox 📬 the-londoner.co.uk

Full piece: the-londoner.co.uk/a-council-cele…

We've spent the last week digging into the Aylesham Centre, and the controversial decision to block private developers building 867 homes on it. When the centre was built in 1988, London had only 6.4 million people living in it - the lowest figure ever recorded, and since when the city has added another 2.4 million people. In that time we've built only a few hundred thousand more homes and sold off council homes en masse. At its core, the debate was one about affordability. @Sam_Dumitriu and @rcolvile told us that, despite the scheme being criticised for having only 12% affordable housing, the expensive (700k+) flats in the scheme WOULD create more affordable housing further down the line. We looked into this, and found that: 1) the offer of 12% did not seem an overtly cynical move, given that Southwark's own financial assessment judged that the plan couldn't support any affordable housing. 2) there is solid evidence for moving chains, BUT they take time, and large housebuilding projects can raise rents in the immediate area. But none of that ended up mattering for the planning inspector. Despite so much of the debate online going towards affordability, the decision was ultimately denied due to concerns about heritage. Again, we dug into this. Rye Lane was given conservation status in 2011. But the Aylesham Centre was earmarked for a 20-storey redevelopment as far back as 2014 - with the council seemingly agreeing that here was as good a place as any to build a large amount of homes. None of the heritage features on Rye Lane would have been threatened by the development. In the end, the decision seemed to be more about vibes, about the ethos of the area and the view that the Aylesham Centre could have ruined it. That's understandable (who would honestly welcome huge blocks of flats popping up right next door?), and over 2,000 locals who petitioned the development clearly agreed. But on the basis of evidence, in a building crisis, it does look like these homes would have made the city more affordable.

Who’s right in the vicious row about the Aylesham centre: The YIMBYs like @Sam_Dumitriu and @tomhfh or the opponents of the scheme like @ACAPeckham and @Miatsf? @PeterCarlyon4 spoke to both sides and has written by far the best piece about the saga. the-londoner.co.uk/a-council-cele…

Our campaign to add 1,000 new members is live! And already they are flooding in... Pay what you like for two months and help us get there:

We've got papers. And we're not afraid to give them out in several places in Sheffield over the coming month

The moment Hammersmith Bridge came close to "catastrophic collapse"...

Hammersmith council had a legal obligation to properly maintain Hammersmith Bridge. But in the years before its closure in 2019 officials refused to, which has left taxpayers with a £300m bill. We asked the government if they would do anything about it.

Read the full story below: the-londoner.co.uk/why-did-hammer…

We’ve finally managed to discover the real reason that Hammersmith Bridge was closed. Back in April 2019, panicked engineers rushed into the office of Hammersmith council leader Stephen Cowan as he was midway through a meeting. Hammersmith Bridge was at risk of a "catastrophic collapse", and he had 30 minutes to decide if he wanted to close it to stop that from happening. He did, and it has stated shut ever since. At the time, they said unexpected cracks had appeared in the bridge’s pedestals, damage that was just an unforeseen result of its age but that now needed lots of work to fix. But in @AndrewKersley's new investigation published today, he discovered that wasn't the truth. In fact, he found out that in the years leading up to the bridge’s closure engineers working for the council were increasingly worried about its safety. As early as 2011, some were calling for the council to close it for urgent repairs. But the then leadership refused, citing, sources claim, the fact that closing the bridge to make those necessary repairs may worsen their election prospects. The ensuing eight year delay would badly worsen the damage to the bridge, and has left local taxpayers with a repair bill of over £350m to fully fix it. Local MPs like @PutneyFleur and @sarahjolney1 have spent recent months calling for that money to be spent to fix the vital artery between southwest and west London. In theory the council has a legal obligation under the Highways Act to properly inspect and maintain assets like Hammersmith Bridge. But, in what was one of the most infuriating parts of an already insane saga, the Department for Transport told us it was unable to enforce its own laws. In fact, instead of taking action over the council failures, they are now likely to give them £300m of money from a pioneering government infrastructure fund to pay to rectify their mistake.

EXCL: I finally got to the bottom of an eight-year mystery: the real reason for the closure of Hammersmith Bridge. Read my full investigation to find out how a series of council failures risked the catastrophic collapse of one of London’s oldest bridges. the-londoner.co.uk/why-did-hammer…

EXCL: Engineers wanted to close Hammersmith bridge for urgent repairs as early as 2011, but were ignored by the Tory council who feared it would lose them votes. The eight-year delay likely cost tens of millions of pounds. Read our full investigation: the-londoner.co.uk/why-did-hammer…

In today's Londoner, @joshi has written about the case and why the judge threw it out. the-londoner.co.uk/we-won-our-def…

We just won our libel case in the High Court As many of you know, an Italian businessman called Claudio Di Giovanni brought a defamation case against The Londoner back in October, pursuing us for £250,000 in damages after we exposed his property arbitrage scheme. The lawsuit had three targets: our parent company @millmediauk ; @Coramazov, the brilliant freelance journalist who wrote the story; and our founder @joshi. Di Giovanni had engaged in a sustained campaign of legal intimidation, at one point telling Cormac that he might end up in jail. At another point, he threatened us with “criminal proceedings” for harassment and malicious communications, “a custodial sentence in the event of contempt of court or criminal conviction”, potential asset freezes and personal accountability for legal costs. Over the past few months, @Coramazov and @joshi have sat in the ornate Court 13 at the Royal Courts of Justice, wondering nervously if the judge would rule in our favour. Then, a few days ago, we got a message from our solicitor, @anniemannion: “Great news!! The attached judgment was handed down this morning and we have won!!!” The High Court had decisively ruled in our favour and thrown out the two lawsuits brought by Di Giovanni. This means his High Court case against us is over. It also means the court has struck out the £10,000 county court judgment that Di Giovanni had illegitimately secured against Cormac, ending an incredibly stressful period for him. As @DanNeidle, @IndexCensorship and others have pointed out, the libel system in the UK is broken. It shouldn't take six months and £40,000 in legal fees to fend off a bad faith lawsuit like this. But we're delighted with this result, and extremely grateful for our paying members, whose support has allowed us to fight off this threat to our journalism.

As @joshi writes: "It’s taken a huge amount of money and energy to defend this case, but I’m absolutely delighted that the court has ruled in our favour. We always felt this was an abuse of the court process, and it’s good to see that confirmed in black and white from a high court judge." the-londoner.co.uk/we-won-our-def…

As @CharlotteTobitt reports for @pressgazette, High Court judge Mrs Justice Steyn said De Giovanni had brought his County Court case against @Coramazov “for the express purpose of imposing pressure” ahead of the High Court libel claim and that pursuing both claims was “plainly an abuse of process”. pressgazette.co.uk/news/mill-medi…

🚨We won our defamation case! Until a few days ago, we were facing a £250,000 lawsuit from Italian businessman Claudio Di Giovanni after reporting on his property schemes. The High Court has now judged in our favour, and Di Giovanni's case against us is over.

We welcome news that a judge has thrown out Claudio Di Giovanni’s lawsuit against @_TheLondoner. The libel claim was a clear abuse of the courts and should never have been allowed to proceed: the-londoner.co.uk/we-won-our-def…

Some great news to announce this morn😁: The case against us has been thrown out! However, its absurdity highlights the urgent need for the govt to stop talking about it and act on long promised reforms. A waste of time and energy for everyone involved pressgazette.co.uk/news/mill-medi…

'Thank God that’s over': A libel claim brought against local news outlet Mill Media has been thrown out as an 'abuse of process' as David Lammy promised action against such groundless lawsuits intended to silence public interest reporting pressgazette.co.uk/news/mill-medi…