CANADA WATER CONSULTATIVE FORUM

MONDAY, 3rd MARCH, 2003 @ 7.00pm
ALFRED SALTER PRIMARY SCHOOL , ROTHERHITHE 

(prompt start please – photo shoot @ 6.30)

• WELCOME AND APOLOGIES

• MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (13/1)

• MATTERS ARISING

• ACTION POINTS & RESOLUTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING

• UPDATE ON SHORTLISTED DEVELOPERS

• MORI POLL

  • Presentation by Richard Abraham (Southwark Council – Consultation)

• BRDP S106

• TOPIC PAPER: Health Topic paper for consultation and approval

• PLANNING PERMISSIONS & SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE

  • Updates on: Site D

  • Sites C & E

  • Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)

  • Southwark Plan

• CO-OPTION OF ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIVE

• LEASEHOLDER REPRESENTATION

• ELECTION OF FORUM REPRESENTATIVES

• ANY OTHER BUSINESS

• FUTURE PROGRAMME OF DATES

Apologies: Jackie Rose
Tel: 020 7231 7845
Fax: 020 7252 2288
Email: canadawater@timeandtalents

MINUTES OF MEETING

CANADA WATER CONSULTATIVE FORUM

Minutes: 18
Date: 3rd March, 2003
Venue: Alfred Salter Primary School , Rotherhithe

1 . WELCOME & APOLOGIES:

DB warmly welcomed everyone

2. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (25/11)

Agreed (subject to correction that Cllr Colley had provided apologies).

3. MATTERS ARISING:

DB advised that detailed data had been supplied by AM Val Shawcross on the 381 bus and circulated to Forum members. Following introduction of a new timetable (expected within 7 days) an improvement was anticipated and of those present with instances of poor service were asked to write directly to TfL. Copy of the Minute to be forwarded to VS.

4. ACTION POINTS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS (3/3):

5. UPDATE ON SHORTLISTED DEVELOPERS:

The 3 shortlisted developers were now in the process of formulating their own Master Development Plan and DB hoped that this would govern development of a waterside village at Canada Water. SP asked whether the Forum wanted to meet with developers informally for a Q&A session to bounce ideas around? Forum members were keen that the public should be fully involved and DB suggested an intensive publicity campaign to advertise the event(s), including reference in the forthcoming newsletter and local press (Southwark News/South London Press). It was agreed that developers present their plans at a future Forum meeting (open) before they are opened up for full public consultation and participation. Forum felt that developers should be referred to the MDB as this document had taken a great deal of time and effort and reflected the view of the Forum and community. It was agreed that developers would be encouraged to consult with local groups (ie TA/RAs, BRDP, CWC, etc)

Sites C & E:

Not an agenda item. Richard Olsen, Jean Hyatt and Mike Crosby (new owners of Sites C& E) were present and DB warmly welcomed them to the Forum. NA presently represented the above sites on the Forum and it was agreed that future representation would be a matter for these parties to resolve.

Harmsworth Quays/Roberts Close :

PA had requested clarification of the current position as fly-tippers were again back along with anti-social behaviour. LH was able to report that due to the economic climate, future development is presently on hold and a decision was expected next month (April). LH hoped that fencing around the site would be erected within 6 weeks but realistically a decision on the future of the car park could be 6 months. DB advised that development of a proposed office block had been postponed; he pointed out that the barrier was blocking a public highway. LH would not comment on the barrier as it was a matter for Southwark Council as they had taken this action not Harmsworth. Both JH & PA were concerned that the area would become a dumping ground again which forced clean-up costs etc on to Southwark Council. They also stressed that under the terms of the planning consent,

Some of the plans are under review and there is major disquiet in the community about the site and clearly there is a need for something to be done.

6. MORI POLL

Richard Abrahams gave an informative presentation of how the first Canada Water Mori poll was conducted and provided hard copies of statistical data. He introduced Beatrice Leung, a local resident and member of the Canada Water Campaign who he will be working with closely. BL had been involved in the earlier poll by way of setting some of the questions and validating information gathering and reporting. It was hoped that over the coming months (May-July) Southwark/Mori would question and interview a cross section of the public ???? 400 interviews would be undertaken, selected at random from a list and additional groups would also be consulted (perhaps a further 100 each) such as youth, business, voluntary/community groups, etc and well as council tenants, leaseholders and private sector residents. It was also felt that long-term residents and senior citizens should also be targeted as there was a key difference. The difficulty in contacting youth was emphasised .

AM asked whether Shopping Centre Plans could be included in questions. SP felt such action may cause Southwark to be in breach of EU legislation.

Poll results will be reported to the Executive in selection of third partner. A meeting will shortly take place with DB, RA, BL, PR and JR and any points that the Forum would like raised can be included. thanked both RA and BL and advised that the earlier poll had been very successful and created a good deal of trust as stakeholders were all given the opportunity to get involved.

7. S106 CONTRIBUTION LIST

The Bermondsey & Rotherhithe Development Partnership (BRDP) manage the affairs of the voluntary sector. The BRDP has collated a list of projects that would benefit the community where S106 agreements are likely. JH felt that in the absence of planning applications or a third partner, it may be a little premature. She was also concerned that the immediate community must benefit from any planning gain.

PA asked for clarification on S106 awarded in respect of Roberts Close and LH advised that £6,000 would be payable (cheque to Southwark Council) on implementation of work.

Whilst it was agreed that this issue should be discussed at Forum on another occasion SP did point out that the BRDP S106 list could be deposited in the ‘project bank' immediately. Many Forum members were unsure of procedure and PR advised that a list of projects is registered with the Council so that council officers are aware of potential schemes which might benefit from S106 agreements. SP further advised that there can be a legal agreement to write in S106 usually on acceptance or completion of a scheme. It was agreed to discuss this item at the next Forum meeting and SP would provide guidance on S106 agreements. It was further noted that the BRDP S106 contribution list had been noted and the project list will be included on a future agenda.

8.TOPIC PAPER: HEALTH

Sue Perkins of Southwark Primary Care Trust had drafted a topic paper that had not been circulated. Forum members were given copies and asked to consider the paper for discussion at the next Forum. Copies would also be circulated to short-listed developers.

9. PLANNING PERMISSIONS:

Site D:

As the Planning officer is on leave this week and Cllr Bowman is on holiday the question of ownership of the land was not available. It is understood that key documentation may be missing from council files and it was suggested that this may still be available in LDDC archives. SP agreed to chase and email the Forum with the results of his investigation.

Albatross Way extension:

PA had voiced an opinion at an earlier Forum meeting stating that Eve Fawcett had written advising that Ampurius would not go ahead with the 7 th block on that site. EF later said this statement had not been made. PA has now provided a copy of the email dated August 2001 which states:

“The good news is that in response to the ongoing concerns the CWC have over block 7 adjoining Albatross Way , is that we have decided to omit this block from scheme. We are due to meet the planning officer Donald Hanciles today to formally submit amended drawings to show this block omitted and the vehicular access moved to Canada Street as per the drawings we showed you last week, the level of car parking on the site will also be increased”.

PA asked for clarification as to how long S106 agreements remain in position as the path was constructed following an S106 agreement. Was it until further planning permission is implemented. SP was not able to comment and agreed to investigate. SP was asked why enforcement action was not being taken and what are the Council's powers. The following resolution was agreed:

Resolution:

The Forum has requested that Southwark Council seek legal opinion as regards existing S106 agreement on that piece of land which is not negated by planning permission currently approved.

Sites C & E:

Richard Olson and Jean Hyatt, representatives of Conrad Phoenix (new owners of this site) were present. They had already met with some members of the Forum, local ward councillors to take note of their wishes and hoped to work with the Master Developer Partner. An application will be submitted for Site E on 24 th March. The development will be mixed-use mainly residential with some commercial. BH pointed out that this will require a change in zoning as it is presently classified as commercial.

RO hoped that the Forum would be the first to see the proposal at a special meeting to be held that night ( 7.00pm Neptune Hall , not Alfred Salter).

SP advised that the council will consider the application in conjunction with current planning statute; the UDP and SPG will be a material consideration too.

BH asked for clarification on the possible use of CP powers. SP advised that a report went to the Executive on 25 th February. This was done to show commitment to Canada Water and its legal advisers and provide a clear audit trail. SP felt that development control colleagues would make the appropriate adjustments and recommendations to deal with all the application currently submitted. SP also felt that any major site would need this and said it was not being sought now.

The Forum expressed concern about the provision of CP Powers at this stage.

PA asked whether it would be possible to use CP powers on Albatross Way and SP agreed it would.

Supplementary Planning Guidelines (SPG)

SP advised that consultation had been extended until 14 th March. PB asked whether council officers still wanted to use the Shopping Centre for consultation purposes during the week of 11/3 and PR advised that relevant officer was on holiday. PR agreed to pass on PB's offer.

CWC had circulated their comments on the SPG and the following was agreed:

The comments to the SPG recently circulated by the Canada Water Campaign were adopted by the Forum.

Proposed: JHs Seconded: JH

Southwark Plan

The consultation period has ended and council is now going through comments etc. A report will b e issued shortly and referred to the Scrutiny Committee. JH asked whether Simon Bevan had concluded his investigation into the position on re-designation of open space land (Open Spaces Act 1906)? SP agreed to chase Simon and revert.

10. CO-OPTION OF ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIVE:

A profile had been circulated to the Forum but Michael had not attended the meeting and it was therefore decided to hold debate over to the next Forum meeting. PR/JR would ensure that he was formally invited to attend.

11. LEASEHOLDER REPRESENTATION:

PR had received a second approach from Leaseholders for separate recognition on the Forum. She was concerned that they should not feel disenfranchised. In her view there were three quite distinct tenures. She was confident a representative could be nominated via a properly constituted process.

SP pointed that under the terms of their lease, council investment costs are passed to leaseholders. They do have very different issues to council tenants or private sector residents and there is a growing number of this group.

DB was aware of the situation and asked for Forum members' views on the matter. JHs expressed surprise that leaseholders brought concerns to SP/PR and would have expected them to raise issues via local ward councillors and at housing forums. Lengthy debate followed on this item and the following was finally agreed:

Agreed

12. ELECTION OF FORUM REPRESENTATIVES:

PR hoped to arrange an appropriate election mechanism for each representative that will be advertised to each household on the peninsula via a newsletter. It was felt that last year's election had achieved some success but it had been agreed at earlier Forum meetings that notifying each occupant was the best way. Lengthy and somewhat heated debate followed on the question of youth and PR expressed the view that this must be done by professionals. JHs felt that the meetings had been well organised and advertised and was wary of professionals trying to manipulate the outcome. He again expressed surprise that the public bring these concerns to SP/PR. BH asked for a meeting for local youth. DB suggested going via the Police Sector Working Committee (???) who plan to sponsor a youth event and both asked if this could be done via a newsletter. SP said this would require feedback from other agencies, including youth service. The following proposal was agreed:

•  Set out election process and dates for everyone except youth

•  Election returns should be back before 30 th June (Forum AGM)

•  Newsletter to be vetted by the Editorial Panel

13. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

1. Local business:

Barry Albin-Dyer was unable to attend the meeting but had circulated a report which was very helpful. I It included input for local business and update on the proposed development of Fisher Football Club.

2. Mobile ‘Phone Mast:

PA drew everyone's attention to an application for the erection of a temporary 18metre high telecommunications mast.

14. FUTURE PROGRAMME OF FORUM MEETINGS AND ELECTIONS: