Lambeth Council needs an intervention. This petition is asking the Government to review the Council's compliance with its responsibility to be a ☆democratic☆ and well-functioning Local Authority. 

~ For many years Lambeth Council has operated as a virtual “one-party state", this contributes to an unhealthy complacency, a serious lack of scrutiny & challenge and frequent high-handed behaviour on the part of its administration. 

~ "First, do no harm” is a basic principle. We expect our Council at the very least, to not make life worse for us.

~ Councillors claim to have a “mandate” for the Council’s actions and impositions. (32% of eligible constituents voted in Lambeth's last Borough Council Election). 

~ The Council is over £1billion in debt and is not functioning effectively, by any measure. In what it describes as “the worst financial crisis Lambeth has faced”, the Council continues to cut millions from Basic Services (millions in “savings”). 
Statutory Guidance states that “financial failure is often a presenting symptom of broader failure".

~ In this challenging context, the Council has nevertheless pledged to become “net zero” by 2030 (two decades ahead of the national target). No doubt Covid era fast-track powers gave Lambeth Council a taste for a more immediate way of getting things done but - A self-imposed earlier Climate Emergency deadline cannot justify Lambeth Council behaving undemocratically, wasting or misdirecting public funds, imposing ideology, or neglecting Basic Services and those who rely on them. It is possible to work towards a sustainable future without riding roughshod over those that will live in it.

~ The Government’s 2024 Statutory Guidance explores what makes a good Local Authority. Chapt 4 outlines the practices which are “Characteristics of a well-functioning authority” and those which are “Indicators of potential failure”. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a Local Authority is failing to carry out its duties, Government has the power to intervene. It can direct a local inquiry, or review certain functions - to ensure a Council’s compliance with its responsibilities. 
It is not necessary to wait for a Council’s complete disfunction​, neglect, or financial collapse to do so. 

~ The Secretary of State wrote: “Local councils are the frontline of democracy. They play a vital role in our communities and are critical partners as we level up the nation. We need our councils to support everyone, including the most vulnerable. They must be able to make our towns, cities, villages and communities great places to live where every citizen, no matter their circumstances, can thrive. That means providing the effective and efficient local services – from schools, social care and waste collection – that people want and deserve. To do that, they must make the most of every penny they receive from taxpayers to achieve better results for the communities they serve”. This does not describe Lambeth Council.

PLEASE SIGN & SHARE THIS PETITION - thank you.

If you wish to read on :/

A supporting document will be sent with this petition. See current draft below.

Examples of Lambeth Council’s “Indicators of potential failure”

1. An undemocratic and authoritarian approach. People are excluded from many decision-making processes, resulting in disempowerment and disengagement.
2. A culture of denial, insularity and secrecy.
3. Key decisions often not effectively or honestly communicated to the public, or properly appraised or scrutinised.
4. A public sense of disconnect between huge (central government funded) sums being spent by the Council, for example on select “neighbourhoods” or infrastructure projects - while Lambeth is cutting significant millions from its most basic services.
5. Reactive campaigner-led (or funding motivated) interventions - instead of proactive data-led ones ie: projects which prioritise the greatest need. 
6. Absent, inadequate, skewed, or ignored consultations of residents & businesses.
7. Inadequate engagement with residents, businesses, stakeholders and schools, or outright refusal to engage when requested.
8. An unwillingness to acknowledge / failure to apologise for - objective errors. eg: The Council’s response to the widely accepted failure & 5 month disruption of the (suspended) Streatham Wells LTN, concluded that “the monitoring report makes it clear that the scheme met our objectives”.
9. A focus instead on misleading / incomplete public statements and positive “spin”.
10. A significant loss of stakeholder and public confidence and trust.
11. A failure to tolerate internal or external constructive advice or challenge.
12. Unjustified restrictions on deputations and petitions from the public, including removal of "live" petitions.
13. Published documents difficult for the public to access, or deliberately drafted to obscure or misrepresent content.
14. Poor quality public services that are not value for money and/or sufficiently effective. Data suggests poor performance & outcomes in most areas compared to similar local authorities. 
15. A high rate of upheld Ombudsman complaints. 
16. Poor quality financial management, (£1billion debt) eg: recent HRA £40m loan reprieve from Government. 
17. Excessive spending on consultancy, marketing, PR and non-priority contracts. 
18. Approach to procurement and contract management is opaque or secret.
19. Consistent overspends, including on failed projects. 
20. A failure to manage the risks associated with joint ventures. 
21. Political or ideological activity by officers, including that freely used to justify adhoc policy or spending.
22. A preoccupation by some councillors with political agendas &/or campaigning, or external paid roles, “networking” and career advancement.
23. Inappropriate involvement with & influence from external interest/lobby groups and external peers.
24. Leadership losing sight of the authority’s role and function, as *primarily* a provider or enabler of services to local residents and businesses. 
25. Transformation in name only - alleged improvement not assessed in a meaningful way. Data quality and quantity often unavailable, flawed or inadequate for properly informing decisions or conclusions. Inadequate or absent Key Performance Indicators.
26. A leadership focus instead on ideology, ideals and aspirations - action plans, marketing and PR.
27. Late publication of Statutory reports. 
28. Unusual or novel proposed solutions pursued lack rigour, legitimacy or adequate risk appraisal. eg:
    (i) the now common practice of use of ETO’s (experimental traffic orders) in lieu of prior consultation.
    (ii) the strategic monetisation of residents & businesses as a sustainable revenue stream, digitising streets as a Council asset, “from kerb to commodity”.
    (iii) Change of staff role (& emphasis) to "Income Maximisation Officers".
    (iv) the creation of private “arms-length” companies.
29. Inadequate /absent review of the effectiveness of long-standing interventions eg: The Council’s Parking Ticket revenue (£52.4m) is currently the highest in the country. 
30. An environment which allows for failure to follow due-process and the Council’s constitution.
31. Inadequate scrutiny.
32. A lack of appropriate response to complaints of, or instances of, officer breaches, or perceived breaches - of declarations of interest, or codes of conduct. eg (i) Decision making officers seeming to be living within their own LTNs. (ii) Rudeness and uncivil communications on social media or in Council Meetings. (iii) absentee councillors. *​  ** or (iv) An inadequately transparent public response to the arrest and departure of former CEO.
33. Etc. More example links will be added.