CANADA WATER CONSULTATIVE FORUM

8th July, 2003 @ 7.00pm
ALFRED SALTER PRIMARY SCHOOL, QUEBEC WAY , ROTHERHITHE

PLEASE NOTE THAT AS AGREED AT THE LAST MEETING, THIS MEETING IS SET ASIDE SPECIFICALLY TO DISCUSS THE VARIOUS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CANADA WATER

BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE DISCUSSIONS, IT WILL BE A CLOSED MEETING AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE EXCLUDED.

MINUTES AND ACTION POINTS WILL BE REVIWED AT THE NEXT PUBLIC MEETING. 

•  WELCOME AND APOLOGIES

•  SHORTLISTED DEVELOPERS' PLANS & OUTCOME FROM EXHIBITION

Decision: The Quality Panel recommended supporting the British Land consortium.

The Forum endorses the report of the Quality Panel and supports its recommendation of British Land as the preferred developer

The Forum supports further work on a community involvement structure and would want to be closely involved with all aspects of it's future development. Any selected developer should be required to present its consultation strategies at an early stage atgo the forum and other involved stakeholders.

•  FORTHCOMING AGM

•  ANY OTHER BUSINESS

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

MINUTES OF MEETING (CLOSED SESSION)

CANADA WATER CONSULTATIVE FORUM

Minutes: 20
Date: 8 th July, 2003
Venue: Alfred Salter Primary School , Rotherhithe

1. WELCOME & APOLOGIES:

CLR opened the meeting by welcoming Cllr Ian Wingfield (CIW) who will replace Cllr Fiona Colley. Grateful thanks were extended to Cllr Colley for her input and support. The Minutes of the previous meeting (12 th May) were not discussed (the meeting was to be in camera).

2. SHORTLISTED DEVELOPERS' PLANS AND OUTCOME FROM THE EXHIBITION

Before discussing the Quality Panel's report which was circulated at the meeting, BH outlined the background. He expressed concerns raised by the community regarding the designation of Canada Water. He felt that the perception of Canada Water needed clarification as it was seen by local people as an essential ‘district' shopping centre (as described in the GLA London Plan) and not an ‘action area' (Southwark UDP). A shared vision must be agreed upon by all parties to enable the process to continue. Failure to define the site may cause friction with Planning, etc at later date. The lack of SPG as a benchmark to measure the plan could exacerbate the situation. BH also made a plea for good community involvement with the Forum overseeing the process and stressed that the ‘vision' was crucial to achieving a waterside village.

BH advised that the QP (and the community) felt that none of the proposals were perfect. Two of the developers finished closely (Allied London/British Land) and the third (Urban Catalyst) was some distance behind. The successful developer was chosen because they had demonstrated a willingness to work with the community. It was felt that they had listened to the community's feelings and made changes – this attitude was considered essential to the success of the project.

Decision: The Quality Panel recommended supporting the British Land consortium.

DB thanked the QP on behalf of the Forum for their hard work and dedication. Cllr Wingfield asked if there was scope for further discussion and community involvement and SP confirmed that this was really the start of the negotiating process. AF advised that to-date 1137 feedback forms had been received from visitors to the Exhibition. 400+ local people had been interviewed by Mori and a debriefing report would be available on 14/7. DB was keen that more community involvement should take place and accepted that as a body, the Forum was not wide enough.

Discussion turned to the next stage and SP advised that a report will be put before the Executive on 29 th July with officers' recommendations. This report will include the results of the Mori poll, exhibition feedback, the QP's report and the view of the Forum. Whilst JH accepted that some aspects of the report should remain confidential (ie financial, legal, etc), she hoped that aspects that were not sensitive could be taken at open committee. SP hoped to circulate the report at the same time it was sent to the Executive on 21/7. JH asked what council advisers recommended? SP said that they were currently in the process of collating information but the 3 developers seemed ‘close'. JH felt quite strongly that the QP, Exhibition had clearly identified one as being at the bottom and this did seem important. SP said all aspects will form the recommendation. DB commented that a huge amount of preliminary data was being processed – the Forum was not privy to this information but Cllr Rajan would be. DB asked that Forum members be invited to the Mori Poll debrief (14/7).

CLR asked whether there was a system of weighting and SP confirmed that the QP, legal, financial, etc all have equal weighting. GG asked whether QP members could be involved in the final recommendation and SP advised that it was a matter of time constraints. GG stressed that to obtain the community's trust it would not be advisable to race ahead and make mistakes. For the sake of transparency, he felt the QP should be involved in the recommendation and possibly make a deputation. AF was unsure at this stage if the information being prepared (ie financial, legal, etc) would be ready. GG advised a precedent had been established with the tenants working with the council on the Elephant & Castle development. Obviously the QP must sign to say that they will not divulge confidential information – this would give the Forum and the community confidence on the decision. AF was concerned that ploughing through such a huge volume of data may result in a missed deadline. BH felt it crucial that council officers' reports be made available to Forum members and said that the Canada Water Campaign would doubtless ask to make a deputation in any event. AF suggested sending the document to the Executive and also the Forum if members agreed. SP advised that the Executive do not have to follow officers' recommendations and, indeed, parts could even be re-drafted on the night.

NA asked whether landowners have formally responded? AF advised that statistics can be viewed in a variety of ways, not just simplest form. JH felt that issues scored indicated one particular developer was clearly lowest and PR felt that data was best kept simple. JH stressed that if Urban Catalyst were recommended there would be ‘a war'. Politicians need to give the council and the community something it wants (like the swimming/diving pool) and she hoped the final decision was not based on who pays the most (ie highest, densist). BH felt that the community's vision was different from developers and planning colleagues. It is essential that the perception is clarified. He also said that high density does not necessarily mean high rise and again stressed the need to benchmark against the SPG.

SP agreed with JH that it is about delivery and he did not want to be at loggerheads with the community for the next 5 years. When asked if the scheme could be delivered by CP, all agreed it the project would become completely bogged down.

AM commented that it was a difficult for the QP to make their selection. The financial and legal appraisals were also of relevance. He advised that no one had yet contacted Shopping Centres to discuss matters which surprised him as there were a number of obstacles on what is a complicated site. AM confirmed that Shopping Centres would work with whoever is selected.

CLR advised that whilst politicians were concerned about financial and legal data, they are also keen to ensure that the Forum, Community and other groups' views are taken on board. JH was extremely concerned that any decision be determined simply on money and suggested obtaining independent legal advice as ‘best value' may translate into making the most from the project. SP advised that they were currently looking at the financial questions of delivering the project - with so many variables it was difficult and at this stage models and structure were important. SP stressed that the most appropriate financial decision would be made.

BM felt that the QP had found one developer to be some way off the mark and the other two extremely close. BH stated that none of the plans met their aspirations in total but he felt that on key issues one of the developers could be recommended. The QP felt it important that they could work with the suggested team and that they would listen/react to concerns. BH said that both the QP and the Canada Water Campaign would scrutinise all future plans. JR advised that voting on the plans displayed at Time & Talents showed British Land to be clear favourites whilst Urban Catalyst had not received a single vote.

The following motion was passed:

That the Forum endorses the report of the Quality Panel and supports its recommendation of British Land as the preferred developer.

Proposed: BH Seconded: GG Agreed

Abstentions: CLR CIW, SP, PR, AF, AM, PB, NA & LH*

*LH again asked whether she should vote as a ‘landowner' or a ‘local employer' – Harmsworth Quays were of course both and this issue would be raised at the September AGM.

BH was also keen that the community became more involved and felt that a mechanism for consultation should be introduced at an early stage. SP felt that all three developers lacked any strategy on this aspect and one needed to be agreed. Such a strategy may become part of the recommendation. The following recommendation was agreed:

Recommendation:

The Forum supports further work on a community involvement structure and would want to be closely involved with all aspects of it's future development. Any selected developer should be required to present its consultation strategies at an early stage atgo the forum and other involved stakeholders.

Proposed: GG Seconded: PA Agreed

Abstentions: CLR, CIW, AM & PB

BH/PR were keen to work on this aspect

The question of the SPG was raised and SP advised that Simon Bevan is prepared to attend and update the Forum. BH suggested a personal meeting may prove more useful and stressed that the correct perception of the site needs to be agreed by all parties. BH felt it would be helpful if the SPG in second draft form could be available by the end of 2003. It was understood that there were 300 objections to the SPG which will take some time to consider and it will then be sent out again for further consultation. Following discussion, the following resolution was passed:

The Forum resolves that the revised SPG for Canada Water should be available in second draft for consultation and report by the end of 2003.

The Forum further requests that there should be dialogue with a view to expediting the process.

Proposed: JH Seconded: TV Unanimous

DB will formally write to Simon Bevan and request his presence at the Forum meeting on October 13th and that of the new director of Regeneration.

3. FORTHCOMING AGM

BH advised that the forthcoming private sector residents' election (16/7) may be heavily contested. Cllr David Hubber had kindly agreed to Chair the meeting. DB reported that a new representative, Father Edward of St Peter and the Guardian Angels had accepted the post of Faith representative and will hopefully the next meeting. The Leaseholders representative, Theresa Cain had been co-opted and it may be necessary to change the Terms of Reference to formalise this appointment (this would require council approval) and DB did not envisage any problem. PR believed that Barry Albin-Dyer hoped to organise a meeting later in the year for Local business and hopefully build on the database PR/JR were compiling. PR hoped that the selection of the developer would provoke more interest. CLW asked if the Chamber of Commerce had been approached and JR confirmed that they had been contacted.

The issue of landowner representation was again raised and this item will be included in the forthcoming AGM. The number of interested parties requires clarification as to who exactly can vote (there are actually only 4 seats) – present landowners include: Shopping Centres, Conrad Phoenix, George Wimpey/Ampurius and Southwark Council. NA currently represents the Site E interests (Conrad Phoenix) and it was understood that this arrangement was acceptable to the previous owner of the site who was happy to operate through Conrad Phoenix. LH asked whether strictly speaking she was considered to be a landowner as the original role of a large local employer. SP agreed that this issue needs clarification.

Agreed: Landowner representation will be added to the next agenda

4. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Youth:

Karl Murray's programme for youth consultation was still awaited. PR was able to confirm that she had recently received a project plan for the summer based on a similar model used in Peckham. She hoped that Simon would be involved in training 5-15 volunteers and it would also allow him to nominate volunteers. More news was awaited. It was eventually hoped that the formation of a Rotherhithe Youth Council could run alongside the area's community council. CLR agreed to look into whether Karl Murray's recommendations would be available shortly.

Mori Poll: Informal Briefing

For those Forum members unable to attend the debrief scheduled for 14/7, an informal briefing would be held on 30/7.

Forum AGM (8/9):

Both CJH and CLR would be unable to attend the Forum AGM and presented apologies.

Bermondsey Carnival/Southwark Event/Rotherhithe Festival

Lastly GG reminded everyone of all the events planned for the coming weekend and asked those present to show their support. 150 local participants were involved and a great deal of hard work and planning had gone into make these events successful.

Programme of dates for 2003: