Canada Water Campaign  
 
Latest News Home Page CWC Vision CWC Bulletins CWC Constitution Links to other websites
 
     
  Canada Water Campaign Bulletin12-05-2003  
     
 

CANADA WATER CONSULTATIVE FORUM 

MONDAY, 12 th MAY, 2003 @ 7.00pm
ALFRED SALTER PRIMARY SCHOOL , ROTHERHITHE

  

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

 

 
 

MINUTES OF MEETING

CANADA WATER CONSULTATIVE FORUM

Minutes: 19
Date: 12 TH May, 2003
Venue: Alfred Salter Primary School , Rotherhithe

FORUM MEMBERS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Brunskill

(DB)

P

Cllr Lisa Rajan

(CLR)

P

Cllr Fiona Colley

(CCF)

x

Cllr Columba Blanga

(CLB)

x

Cllr Gavin O'Brien

(CGB)

x

Cllr Jeff Hook

(CJH)

x

Pauline Adenwalla

(PA)

P

Brian Hodge

(BH)

P

Janet Hodge

(JH)

P

Alistair Macalpine

(AM)

P

Theresa Veith

(TV)

P

John Hellings

(JHs)

x

Simon Hodge

(SH)

x

Nick Dunne

(ND)

P

Lisa Hollamby

(LH)

P

Stephen Platts

(SP)

P

Pascale Rosenbloom

(PR)

P

Noel Ashton

(NA)

P

Barry Albin-Dyer

(BAD)

x

Gary Glover

(GG)

x

Peter Brooks

(PB)

P

Rev. Andrew Doyle

(AD)

x

Barbara Lawless

(BL)

P

Adam Faulkner

(AF)

x

Jackie Rose

(JR)

P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APOLOGIES:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cllr Jeff Hook

 

 

Cllr Gavin O'Brien

 

 

Cllr Columba Blango

Barry Albin-Dyer

 

 

Gary Glover

 

 

Dr. Bob Muid

 

 

Simon Hodge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GUESTS :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Richard Olsen

 

 

Orion Land & Leisure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 . WELCOME & APOLOGIES:

DB warmly welcomed everyone.

2. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING:

Agreed.

3. ACTION POINTS FROM PREVIOUS MEETNG (12/5):

Site D: Questions on designation of open space (1906) deals with planning issues not land ownership and these questions remain unanswered by Simon Bevan. SP agreed to ask SB to provide written response to (a) land ownership and (b) planning designation

SP/ SB

Mori: No news to report, PR expects Mori feed back early this week. It was agreed that details of how the Mori poll is conducted will be circulated, together with the proposed questionnaire to Forum members together with a recommendation on its appropriateness from Beatrice Leung.

PR/ RA

Health: (a) DB to formally write to Southwark Council regarding air quality as a consequence of Lewisham's incinerator, (b) Sue Perkins (PCT) to include amendments suggested in item 5 and (c) SP to look into why air quality readings no longer displayed at Surrey Quays.

DB/SP

Sue Perkins

S106: AF to revisit Planning Control to request re-alignment of the briefing note

AF

Site E: DB to formally respond to letter from Conrad Phoenix and circulate exchange of correspondence on this subject

DB

SPG: DB to formally write to Simon Bevan to express the Forum's concern that following detailed examination of SPG, the process may not now continue

DB

Elections: DB to look at minutes from previous private sector Resident Association meetings to establish terms of reference

DB

Youth: Use of professional agency to organise a ‘youth event', together with prizes, etc

SP

Master Plan Assessment: QP/PR to devise method of delivering report at 8/7 meeting

QP/PR


4. YOUTH

DB & Cllr Rajan, on behalf of the Forum, had met recently with Karl Murray (KM) Southwark Council's Head of Youth Services. They asked that he consider ways in which the Forum could engage local youth and obtain their views on the future development of Canada Water and what facilities would combat the rise in vandalism and crime on the peninsula (particularly Russia Dock Woodland area). KM gave an informative presentation which outlined the pitfalls and suggested different ways of engaging local youngsters in the consultation process. A Q&A session followed which highlighted a number of issues. Many felt that youngsters had been consulted on countless occasions and nothing is ever delivered. JH hoped a mechanism could be found where youth views could feed into the CWCF, perhaps via community councils. CLR was keen to consult with hard to reach group groups too. KM advised that an event was in the process of planning for Bermondsey and he hoped it could achieve the same success as those held in Peckham. He also hoped to work with the local voluntary sector (via BRDP) to deliver a variety of projects.

David Meagher (YHA Rotherhithe) asked whether progress had been made on the temporary use of the Brownfield sites? He had consulted local youth on the proposed plans and agreed with KM that it sends out the wrong message if nothing further happens as a result of that consultation. DM suggested involving more local schools in the necessarily target youngsters living on the peninsula as many did not attend Bacon. In particular a large section located in the centre of the peninsula may actually be excluded from consultation if only local schools were targeted. BH was also keen to ensure that there was no duplication of effort as many meetings he attended were all trying to solve the same problem. He asked whether it would be possible for the exhibition to be opened specifically for youth consultation on one day and possibly a youth focus group could be initiated. SP hoped that the exhibition could be opened up for youth and he would investigate whether it would be possible to bring in professionals to facilitate, possibly using cinema vouchers as an incentive.

RO kindly offered the opportunity for those who may be interested in architecture, planning, etc to spend a day in his office. Daphne Ferrigan (Surrey Docks Farm) thanked KM for his presentation and stressed the importance of the BRDP role via the local voluntary sector who could open up ways of getting youngsters involved. Steve Cornish (Russia Dock Woodland Group) stressed that many of the youngsters cannot afford bowling, swimming, watersports or gym fees as they are too expensive – this leads them to hang around and become involved with an older/anti-social peer group. KM pointed out that many were probably under 16 and statutory bodies therefore have no power to engage or rebuke them.

It was resolved:

  • Professional support should be found to organise a youth event within the forthcoming exhibition;

•  Liaise with the Forum regarding plans for a 'chill out' event to generate some initial views;

  • Request a mechanism for allowing the Community Council's Youth Forum to feed into the CWCF either

•  by direct representation or

•  by some other link-up

  • Support discussions between Youth Services in arranging other forms of events.

DB thanked KM on behalf of the Forum. The fact that the session lasted 1 ½ hours spoke for itself and it was agreed that much work has to be done.

5. HEALTH

The PCT health paper had been circulated at the previous meeting (v3) and an update had also been prepared to include additional information on dentist provision, etc. JH felt that the paper was excellent and her only suggestion was the question of respiratory problems (ie asthma, chest diseases, etc) be identified. She also asked for clarification on Lewisham's incinerator which is sited very close to Southwark's boundary and asked whether any project is in place to monitor its effect? Her concerns were:

•  What is it throwing out?

•  Why does this area have such high incidences of liver disease?

•  What effect is the incinerator having on air quality for the Canada Water area?

PB commented that the Surrey Quays Shopping Centre's digital display on air quality had not been working for possibly the past 3 years. He was not sure if Southwark Council were still monitoring air quality but if they were the information was not disseminated. Sue Perkins (Southwark PCT) was asked to include these additions in v5 of the Health Topic Paper. SP advised that Southwark Council were under a statutory obligation to monitor air quality and he would investigate the position regarding Surry Quays.

It was resolved:

•  That the Forum write formally to Southwark Council regarding local air quality as a consequence of the incinerator.

•  That the Health Topic Paper be adopted on the proviso that it included the above amendments and additions.

DB thanked Sue Perkins, Lesley Humber and their colleagues at Southwark PCT for the excellent work that have done on behalf of the Forum.

6. LEASEHOLDER REPRESENTATION

The Forum recommendation had specifically charged DB with the following:

“The Forum is minded to agree co-option of a leaseholder representative to the Forum but prior to this would welcome:

•  A meeting to be held with the Chair of the Forum who would subsequently make a recommendation regarding membership to the Forum;

•  That such member should be elected by those leaseholders resident within the Canada Water area and that the member should also be resident within the Canada Water area;

•  That the proposed member should attend the next Forum meeting (12 th May) for endorsement by the Forum.”

As a consequence, DB met with a delegation comprising of Peter Suthers (Chair), John Nosworthy and Theresa Cain and circulated a paper to Forum members advising that Theresa Cain had been nominated to represent Council Leaseholder interests. Both BH/JH were keen to ensure that every leaseholder on the peninsula were members of the group that Theresa represented. DB advised that geographically the group did cover the Canada Water area, similar to that covered by the Council Tenant representatives via Cherry Gardens (GG) and Abbeyfield (BL). It was understood that no other groups specifically represented Council Leaseholders. TC confirmed that she was willing to accept the invitation to participate in the Forum as co-opted Council Leaseholder Representative and DB expressed the thanks of the Forum.

The question of amending the Terms of Reference to include a representative on a long term basis was raised. Brian Hodge said that there may be some technical difficulties with this but it could be looked at.

Adopted: Motion to co-opt a Council Leaseholder Representative

7. MASTER PLAN SELECTION PROCESS

AF had circulated a paper outlining the proposed timetable and method of the selection process. PR explained that a structure needed to be in place to forward decisions of the QP and Forum to the Executive. BH asked whether the QP's decision should be kept confidential? Following deliberation this course of action was agreed and the QP report will therefore be dealt with in a closed session (8/7). SP confirmed that the Executive would make their decision after considering all the results. Information obtained via the exhibition would be sifted and presented by AF. RO asked whether the QP are required to select a scheme, if for example, they do not like any of them? SP confirmed that if this were to be the case, their decision would be reported to the Executive, however, Southwark reserved the right not to select. RO then asked the position if the QP, Forum, Landowners and public do not like any of the plans? SP confirmed that this decision would accordingly be reported to the Executive.

JH felt that landowners had expended considerable sums and time in submitting plans and therefore had legitimate expectations of their own. SP felt sure all short-listed developers would welcome feedback regardless of whether they had been selected. It was agreed that landowners' opinions were an important part of the decision making and that they should have the opportunity to make their views known given the impact it will have on their sites.

Agreed:

•  A closed session would be held on 8 th July to discuss the selection of the master developer.

•  The QP and PR would consider the precise format and how best to present it to the Forum.

S106

As requested at the previous Forum meeting, AF had contacted the relevant department and circulated a short briefing note regarding the background to S106 (Planning Gain). BH was extremely disappointed that to see that ‘all negotiations and agreements made under S106 are confidential and have no real public involvement'. He felt that Canada Water is a very large scheme and important to the area. It was essential that the community should know what projects are in the bank. SP advised that the criteria/format was not yet fully developed and Southwark colleagues were in the process of putting it together. He believed they had actually provided AF with the briefing note. BH said that many projects had already been identified by local forums/LSPs but these ideas need to be open so that objective judgments can be made.

It was agreed that AF would be asked to revisit planning control and seek re-alignment of the briefing note. The subject would also be discussed at the next Forum.

8. PLANNING PERMISSIONS & SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE

Site D:

SP advised that Wimpey have withdrawn their planning appeal regarding the health clubs' conditions of opening hours. The application for the 7 th block is also on hold and a revised design had been submitted to Southwark which bears no relationship to the other scheme. SP confirmed retention of Albion Way and it would involve a similar number of units. He is presently awaiting feedback from the Development Control officers. SP understood that Wimpey were not building on the gardens or path and the new design is a U shape, single building facing Albion Channel.

CLR had spoken to Graeme Dodds (Wimpey) regarding maintaining trees, wildlife, etc around the channel and he had confirmed that they had no plans to fell trees as they were considered an ‘amenity' for the development. CLR had asked for an undertaking that efforts would be made to ensure that wildlife was not affected by the building development. She also asked that the frontage be cleared up and if the fencing could be removed. Graeme Dodds advised that he is presently in discussions with Ampurius to see if the fencing can be dismantled. PA referred to the potential health hazard it posed in addition to being an eyesore and asked whether Ampurius still had an interest in the site. JH stressed that when any new plan is considered by Southwark, they must ensure that either by S106 or transfer of the land permanently, that this situation can never arise again. Southwark Council must ensure that the path is preserved permanently.

Site E

SP advised that a statutory consultation period is still in operation. Development Control officers will not look at anything in great depth until this consultation process has ended, therefore, no feedback to date. Members of the Forum expressed confusion at the dates publicised and BH confirmed that submissions from the CWC had been forwarded to Planning.

RO expressed a certain amount of disappointment and said that Conrad Phoenix would take these on board. DB advised that Neil Phoenix had written to CWC formally that DB would circulate their exchange to the Forum. DB stressed that CWC were committed on the change of use issue. RO said that the design criteria had been for mixed use but that they would look at possible adjustments that could benefit the scheme; he also stressed that that Conrad Phoenix were commercially committed to a change of use.

Roberts Close/Harmsworth Quays

LH provided an update on the fencing and spoil removal which she hoped that would be completed within 7-10 days working days and the camera operational. BH asked whether Associated Newspapers would be proceeding with car parking or any other plans. LH confirmed that they were not. Members of the audience expressed concern regarding bricks, rubble, etc and LH advised that they were concerned with debris inside the fence as the area outside was not their responsibility. PA pointed out the fire hazard and LH agreed to investigate, however, she understood that Associated Newspapers would only be removing the soil.

Mobile Phone Mast

PA advised that a planning application for the erection of a mobile phone mast was due before Committee the following evening. Wolfe Crescent RA and a number of other groups from the community had objections and a delegation from WCRA would attend the hearing.

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Although not included on the agenda, SP advised that following discussions with the GLA, it was unlikely that the current SPG will be adopted. It is expected that the Southwark Plan will incorporate additions around Canada Water as an action area – this will not happen immediately and SP offered to ask someone from Planning to attend the Forum. CLR said that the Master Plan covers a different area (ie not the leisure park). SP advised that this SPG could be issued but the initial SPG covers three areas as it will develop and in time incorporate the leisure park. BH voiced a number of concern on several items including the adoption of the master plan, designation of land, etc. The community has been asked to comment on the SPG and now those comments will not be accepted or go anywhere. He further expected that Southwark Council should at least formally respond to all those who submitted comments. JH feared that this course of action was a device for circumventing proper discussion on planning issues, etc and will enable planners to do what they like and avoid public enquiry – and was not acceptable. CLR asked whether other areas other than Canada Water were affected by these changes? SP was unsure at this point as it followed feedback from the GLA. BH asked what these comments were and SP felt that it was a method of shortening/simplifying the process. The Southwark Plan will go forward but without the SPG. BH was most unhappy and suggested that CLR and Cllr Bowman meet to discuss the details and effect of such a course of action. It was agreed that more information was required from Simon Bevan and the following was agreed:

Agreed:

The Forum will write formally to Simon Bevan expressing concern that after detailed examination and lengthy debate of the SPG, the process may not continue.

9. ELECTION

There was some considerable discussion concerning the method of election for private sector residents' elections . It was not possible to resolve a decision of the forum due to the meeting becoming inquorate. However, it was generally agreed that the CWCF Administrator would go back through the minutes to see what mechanisms had been used in the past and whatever had been felt appropriate in the past, as duly minuted, would operate for the forthcoming elections.

10. FUTURE PROGRAMME:

 

 

 

 

TUESDAY 8 th July (AGM)

7.00pm

Alfred Salter Primary School , Quebec Way, SE16

Monday, 8 th September

7.00pm

 

Monday, 13 th October

7.00pm

 

Monday, 24 th November

7.00pm

 

 

11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

The issue of landowner representation was also raised in discussion as there were only 4 places but at present up to 6 were attending Forum meetings and contributing to the debate. It was suggested that this item be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. The question was also raised as to whether landowner membership would require board approval, etc.

Agreed: Landowner representation will be added to the next agenda