Canada Water Campaign  
Latest News Home Page CWC Vision CWC Bulletins CWC Constitution Links to other websites
Meeting Dates Canada Water Consultative Forum Topic Papers Maps & Plans Planning Applications Feedback Form
  Canada Water Campaign Bulletin16-02-04  


16 th February, 2004 @ 7.00pm



FORUM 7:00pm Mon. 22nd March Alfred Salter

Quebec Way

7:00pm Mon. 17th May
7:00pm Mon. 12th July
FORUM AGM 7:00pm Mon. 13th Sept.

Apologies: Jackie Rose
Tel: 020 7231 7845
Fax: 020 7252 2288




Minutes: 24
Date: 16th February, 2004
Venue: Alfred Salter Primary School , Quebec Way, Rotherhithe SE16


David Brunskill (DB)


Cllr Lisa Rajan (CLR)


Cllr Jeff Hook (CJH)


Cllr Gavin O'Brien (CGB)


Pauline Adenwalla (PA)


Noel Ashton (NA)


Gary Glover (GG)


Brian Hodge (BH)


Janet Hodge (JH)


Lisa Hollamby (LH)


Dr Bob Muid (BM)


Stephen Platts (SP)


Jackie Rose (JR)












Cllr Ian Wingfield (CIW)


John Hellings (JH)


Barry Albin-Dyer (BAD)


Peter Brooks (PB)


Theresa Cain (TC)


Adam Faulkner (AF)


Simon Hodge (SH)


Barbara Lawless (BL)


Alistair Macalpine (AM)


Father Edward (FE)


Pascale Rosenbloom (PR)














Nigel Robinson (NR)


LBS (Strategic Development Manager for Sport)


David Meagher (DM)


BRDP Rep. (deputising for Theresa Veith)


Phil Lyons (PL)


George Wimpey (Business Development Director)


Jeremy Fraser (JF)


Four Communications


Andrew Mason (AM)


Andrew Malyon










Cllr Ian Wingfield


Barry Albin-Dyer


Peter Brooks


Adam Faulkner


Simon Hodge


Pascale Rosenbloom


David Taylor


Theresa Veith


Rotherhithe Police



DB welcomed Forum members, the audience and invited guests..


The Minutes of the previous meeting were adopted.


The following Motions were passed:

Sites D& E

This Forum requests that the Executive consider designating Sites D & E as ‘suburban' because of their location.


The Forum considers that in terms of the current UDP and the London Plant that proposals for the Downtown site need to be brought forward based on the site's PTAL index. Further, that proposals relating to planning gain should be open and transparent and agreed with the community. Accordingly, the Forum resolves that an SPG needs to be brought forward to cover the Rotherhithe Penninsula .

Surrey Docks Farm

This Forum rejects the suggestion that the City Farm move to the Downtown site against the wishes of the Farm and without consultation with the Farm's Trustees and Management Committee and the local residents.


Temp. Youth Facility

No progress to report and will update at the next Forum meeting. Suggest that Southwark Youth Council (SYC) be asked for input. See also Mellish/ St Paul 's Field item


Terms of Ref.

Youth: Circulate report from SYC Housing: Report for social housing not discussed (next Forum 22/3)


Mobile Phone Mast

Due to suspension of AC, no planning officers were present but it was hoped that an officer would be able to attend the next Forum 22/3



a) Draft letter to Mayor of London (circulate to Forum for comment)

b) Publish letter in local press, c) Contact Finnish and Norwegian churches to discuss concern/offer support and d) 1 st meeting of new sub-group to discuss current levels of crime


Site D

a) Investigate re-opening of public right of way (Southwark Legal/Wimpey)

b)Comparison of surrounding heights/densities to be available on request



Mellish Fields

Circulate Executive Report to Forum


St Pauls Fields

a) Contact SYC and suggest they become involved,
b) obtain views of Youth Council Group and seek views of those who use it most and
c) request that the Forum be involved in consultation process



a) Obtain information on proposed disposal of Met. Open Land , b) Invite Applicants to Forum to outline plans and c) provide indication of Notices


City Farm

Advise City Farm Management of Forum's motion of support


Mulberry site

Obtain information on application and stage of discussions



See Youth item below under Any Other Business



Prompted by considerable press coverage and public interest, DB had circulated the District Auditors’ report and a letter from Southwark Council’s Chief Executive giving guidance on how to deal with this issue. PA has written to Southwark Council on behalf of Wolfe Crescent RA expressing concern over the handling of planning permission for Site D and anyone interested in a copy should speak to her. JH outlined the background to the permission granted for this site and said she felt that Sites D &E were a) divided from the main plan and b) did not seem to fit in. In addition, if the peninsula is re-designated suburban at the forthcoming Executive Meeting (19/2), the proposals will not fit in with the surrounding area either logically or intellectually.

BH pointed out that as the result of the DA’s report, public confidence in Southwark’s Development Control officers was low and many of the decisions given on a variety of sites should be looked at very closely. Whilst no criticism of councillors was intended, he felt such a damning report needed to be looked at in detail. SP felt it would be more appropriate to follow the Council’s complaints procedures and Ombudsman rather than send open letters. SP also felt that there would be opportunity to raise objections as the UDP moves through the planning process. JH felt it was legitimate to request that Exc. consider all the facts when looking at changes and additions to the planning consents as they may be significant. CLR pointed out that Sites D & E are in the ‘action area’ along with Canada Water sites, Mast Leisure etc but there were overlaps. Some aspects have gone into the UDP but BH stressed that as the SPG has not been moved forward, technically the peninsula is without any. A formal motion was therefore proposed as follows:

This Forum requests that the Executive consider designating Sites D & E as ‘suburban’ because of their location.

Proposed: JH Seconded: PA Carried: (For: 9/Against: 2)

Representatives from Wimpey’s UK subsidiary met recently with the Canada Water Campaign Planning group and they had also been invited to give an outline of their plans to the Forum. PL introduced the Wimpey team and said that he had arranged for the rubbish to be cleared from Pauline’s Garden (twice) and was currently in negotiations to open up the footpath. He explained that although they owned the area of site for Block 7 they did not control it.

Wimpeys views were as follows

• the buildings did not relate to the canal or street frontages
• Wimpey agree with many that the existing design is not good and should be improved.
• Wimpey are keen to rework the idea and is looking at the site on it’s own merits and not in conjunction with the masterplan.
• Wimpey aim to preserve the character of the and quality of canal area
• Wimpey hope to create some kind of character for Surrey Quays Road (presently with none)
• Plan to ‘rescue’ Albatross Way as an important route -

He hoped they could produce a better environment with more landscaping, more sustainable, etc with appropriate vehicle access. It was hoped to get block 7 on to the site in a more appropriate form. Wimpey are hoping to arrange a consultation meeting on Saturday 13th March (possibly to be held at Alfred Salter Primary School). JF advised that 200 leaflets would be mailed shortly, together with advertisements in the local press.

DM thanked Wimpey for their efforts to clean up the garden and PA confirmed that she had seen gardeners at work. It was understood that Southwark;s legal department and Wimpey were currently discussing whether Pauline’s Garden could be re-opened and CLH agreed to investigate and provide feedback at the next Community Council meeting. Jezzer asked whether there would be incompatibility with the designation between suburban and what is proposed? JH&BH quoted extensively from the Mayor of London’s PTAL index and said that currently 242 units are planned. MW expressed surprise at the number envisaged on a site of 0.7 hectare. CWC Planning Group had undertaken extensive local research on heights and densities and a copy of their findings would be sent to Jezzer to provide a comparison. DB thanked Wimpey for attending the Forum.


A Motion had recently been circulated to Forum members and had been replaced. BH stressed that the UDP has failed the peninsula. This will have a detrimental effect on Downtown (and Quebec Way, the Mulberry site, the Fisher Athletic and other sites) and it is vital that an SPG is done quickly. Crucial statements contained in the UDP appear to be erroneous and they need to be corrected to protect local sites. JH felt that SPG for the area is crucial as the new plan is scant with little detail. CLR said that most local residents and the community are in agreement that the Downtown proposals constitute over-development. Local representatives have responded by seeking for re-designation of the area. JH was concerned that only two developers submitted proposals for Downtown and the panel were not happy with either. The Executive’s decision on re-designation is crucial as it will provide guidance. JH was greatly relieved that political commitment to the area would preserve the surrounding verges.

The following Motion was agreed:

‘The Forum considers that in terms of the current UDP and the London Plant that proposals for the Downtown site need to be brought forward based on the site’s PTAL index. Further, that proposals relating to planning gain should be open and transparent and agreed with the community. Accordingly, the Forum resolves that an SPG needs to be brought forward to cover the Rotherhithe Penninsula.’

Proposed: CLR Seconded: CGB Carried (For: 9/Abstentions: 2)

City Farm: A further cause of concern had been a ‘land swap’ between the City Farm and the proposed Downtown site. This had been the subject of extensive Email correspondence recently. The Farm currently sits on open land and is a site of nature conservation. JH spoke for many when she said any idea of this land swap was inconceivable. She was also concerned that the proposal to prevent development on the Downtown site and the possibility of social housing may have been behind the wish to move the farm to the Downtown site. Many were unhappy that the Farm could be ‘steam-rollered’ and it appears that the Farm’s Management Committee, staff and volunteers had not been consulted. JH also pointed out that Downtown has dismal transport links.

CGB agreed with JH and advised that he had spoken to the Chair of the Farm’s Management Committee. The Farm has experienced a year of turmoil, ie suspension and re-instatement of funding, etc and staff/volunteers are greatly alarmed at any idea to move the Farm. CGB felt a marker has been put down and to move the Farm was not acceptable.
NA was involved in the idea of a possible move and stressed that it was just a suggestion with no obligation. If the Farm or Council were not interested, they could send an email to that effect. CGB commented that the Farm should have been consulted at the outset. John Taylor (Redriff TA) advised that a TA meeting scheduled for the following evening would regard such a move as a non-starter. However, Marion Weatherhead (MW), local resident disagreed with the objections as she felt the idea had merit. In her view, new farm buildings, situated adjacent to Russia Dock Woodland and with an endowment plan for the future was logical but would need thorough investigation.

Finally, SC of DDC welcomed re-designation but was keen to hear what effect this would have on the current proposal? Green Issues were organising workshops and a consultation exercise and SC felt that if the area were to be re-designated, the process would be irrelevant at this stage. NA disagreed as he felt it would provide the developers with much-needed feedback and the Executive’s decision will be known by the time of workshops. SC was sceptical as he felt, once again, insufficient notice had been given. In addition, most local residents were under the impression that they could not discuss heights and densities (only aesthetics) and if this was the case, there was very little point in attending workshops as it left little else to discuss. NA pointed out that heights and densities can now be discussed. SC felt that this key reversal had not been widely publicised.

DM (as Chair of Friends of Russia Dock Woodland) advised that the developers had never spoken to their group and yet publicity intimated that they are part of the consultation process. Whilst he was happy to ‘take money from anyone’, DM wanted to clarify that the group did not agree with the current proposals. NA pointed out the RDW had been nominated to receive an allocation of planning gain monies and it would be for the group themselves to allocate spending. MW asked whether the amount of money awarded related to the number of units proposed? NA advised that the school would be getting a small amount of money and that a proposed community centre would get ‘3 or 4’ times as much as the school or RDW. He also advised that it was early days as contracts with Southwark had only taken place 3 weeks ago. After lengthy discussion, the following Motion was agreed:

‘This Forum rejects the suggestion that the City Farm move to the Downtown site against the wishes of the Farm and without consultation with the Farm’s Trustees and Management Committee and the local residents’

Proposed: JH Seconded: CLR Carried: (For: 9/ Absentions: 2)


St Paul’s Fields: NR gave an outline of early ideas for St Paul’s Fields, Salter Road . The site is designated Borough Open Land and Bacons CTC has a lease with approx. 10 years remaining. The proposal is to hand back the lease when the Mellish Field facility comes on line in 2005. Initial thoughts propose a facility that is widely accessible to the community (not just sport driven) which would include education.. JH stressed the need for a facility that offers youngsters a variety of affordable activities. However, JH was extremely concerned that the St Paul’s development was in some way connected with plans for Fisher Athletic. NR confirmed that development of the two sites (Mellish and St Paul’s) were NOT determined by Fisher Athletic/Barratt’s application and there was no financial relationship. NR also confirmed that external funding was well underway for Mellish (with some Council support) and he hoped to do the same at St Paul’s. As highlighted on many previous occasions, MW stressed that facilities for young people can be expensive and costs should be kept to a minimum. NR agreed and said that whilst he can provide no guarantees, he aims to minimise barriers. He is hoping for a mix of provision and a suggestion was to offer more expensive activities (eg a climbing wall) to enable the free provision of skateboard and cycle tracks. A feasibility study is to be commissioned and DB suggested that SYC be asked to contribute. CLR felt St Paul’s should ‘complement’ what is on offer at Mellish Fields and the following was agreed:
• Seek views of those who will use the site
• Plans to include a building that has ‘Management Presence’
• Look at possibility of ‘drop-in’ centre

NR agreed to keep the Forum updated on developments.

Mellish Fields: NR thanked the Forum for it’s significant input into the plans for Bacon’s. Terms of a management agreement had been recently agreed with Bacons CTC. It was confirmed that the new facility will include guaranteed access for non-sporting activities with flexible rooms and a range of community uses. A 2nd floor has also been included following consultation with the community. Of the 2000 leaflets circulated, only 1 objection had been received and the planning application received approval recently under delegated powers. NR will provide a copy of the Executive Report for circulation to Forum members. It is hoped that all-weather pitches will be ready in Summer 2005 and the natural turf pitch the following summer (May 2006). St Paul’s will operate concurrently until Mellish is fully operational. Whilst JH was delighted to hear the proposals for both St Paul’s and Mellish Fields, she felt that a proposed date of spring 2006 highlighted the need for temporary provision now. Given current consultation regarding Mellish/St Paul’s, SP felt money could be better spent on permanent sites rather than short-term. Forum noted his comment NR agreed to return to the Forum and provide an update.

Fisher Athletic/Barratts: Forum had recently learned of a proposal to sell Met. Open Land surrounding Fisher Athletic. JH raised concern at any such possibility and asked that information be provided on the disposal of Met. Open Land. JH understood that a planning application was submitted in December 2003 for a mix of housing, a school and low rise flats (203 accommodation units) on the site which she felt would not fit a suburban classification. No consultation or notices has taken place. In addition, trees screening the car-park had already been severely cut back. DM pointed out that the trees had been felled to reduce crime/vandalism and coaches using the YHA had already benefited. The following action was suggested:

• Obtain information on the disposal of Met. Open Land
• Request Southwark Council to go through a process of consultation on the possible sale of Met Open Land
• The Forum to request warning of any notices that are going to be issued
• Representatives of Fisher Athletic/Barratt to be invited to the next Forum meeting
• The Forum would formally request a) sight of the development proposals and b) a timetable for consultation and c) sale of Met. Open Land


BH stated that the 2nd draft UDP contained 2 pages on Canada Water and he felt the planners had not listened to our vision and have missed key points. Canada Water is a district, not strategic, centre and to avoid continued future conflict, the issue needs to be resolved.

The lack of SPG and the comments regarding the 2nd draft had been discussed at length under several items (Site D, Downtown, Fisher, etc) and


British Land: Discussions with British Land were proceeding and SP advised that the Terms were almost agreed. He also advised that Southwark Property/British Land were now concentrating on discussions concerning planning policy and getting the UDP through. SP agreed that the UDP needs to be in place for future decisions as soon as possible.

Tesco: DB had tabled a note on a recent meeting attended by Tesco representatives, MW and PA. DB expressed disappointment at the tone of that meeting and has written to Tesco expressing this view. Whilst the group had hoped to represent the aspirations of the community, it seems Tesco may only have been interested in showing that they ‘consulted the community’. DB further commented that the representatives had not done their homework and were only interested in discussing the planning application (the version submitted to Southwark in July 2003). As Forum Chair, DB had found it difficult to remain even-handed and was both disappointed and embarrassed to have to report this back to the Forum.

Mulberry site: The Forum had recently become aware that a planning application had been submitted on the Mulberry business site. SP confirmed that an application for mixed-use – predominantly housing – was submitted and that talks were in pre-application stage. SP was asked to provide details of who the applicant is for this site and the stage of discussions.

Mobile phone’ Masts:
Following the recent District Auditor’s Report, AC was currently suspended and therefore unable to report back. It is hoped that another member of the Planning Team would be able to attend a future Forum meeting.


Youth Consultation:
A presentation was given on 13th February by a group from Southwark Youth Council and which contained a number of young people who either lived or studied in Rotherhithe. The presentation was structured by youth workers and done in conjunction with NACRO. DB felt not only was it lively, extrovert and enjoyable but extremely informative too. It was apparent that a facility that enabled youngsters to meet inside, have access to a computer and provide a place for them to do homework with possibly a hot drink is initially what is required. Ideally, such a facility could lead to workshops on issues of concern (bullying, health/sex education, guns, drugs, etc). Two key recommendations emerged – (1) formation of a Canada Water Youth Forum and (2) some form of ‘drop-in’ centre. JR would mail copies of their report to those who did not attend the presentation. PA felt early action was necessary to capitalise on the youngsters enthusiasm and she very much hoped that a suitable building could be found on the peninsula. DM suggested using the Karrot bus but GG felt there may be a stigma attached as it was a police initiative. NA’s believed that Peckham Pulse had such a centre and suggested using Seven Islands Leisure for a similar scheme. GG commented that Seven Islands does have a large hall which is very under-used. DB was keen that youngsters make decisions; DB, CLR and PA were eager to get working on their suggestions. The following action would be taken:

• Send a formal note of thanks on behalf of the Forum
• Suggest a project to identify which site(s) might be suitable
• CJH would add this item to the next Rotherhithe Community Council meeting agenda (23/2)
• Forum and other agencies to work in conjunction with youth services
• Look at sources of funding
• Request Youth Group to negotiate any future structure

DM raised concern regarding attacks on his students. He felt the police were doing a marvellous job but that even with increased resources such as PCSO’s, mobile cctv and the new wall erected at the YHA, it can’t cope with hit and run attacks. Can the Forum help in any way? Lengthy debate followed and GG pointed out that cctv just moves offenders into a new area. Areas such as the housing estates and Albion Street in particular have huge problems and it is difficult to find solutions. PA advised that the Finnish and Norwegian churches were becoming increasing concerned for visiting students and their concerns may be taken to Ambassador level which would of course would be embarrassing and deeply disappointing for Southwark’s reputation. Both DM and DB felt that the Mayor Livingstone had been made aware of the situation both by letters and during his recent visit to Time & Talents yet our plight is not helped. BM hoped the matter was not reported in the press and felt developers should be aware of the crime issues. MW felt the matter was extremely serious and the Council, Mayor, Home Office, etc should all be encouraged to build up a scheme of cctv to cover a wide area. MW also suggested developers making monies available to protect areas. GG advised that his requests for cctv to cover the area surrounding Bermondsey Underground Station had fallen on deaf ears in spite of the number of attacks on pensioners. CGB/GG advised that 10 community wardens will be seconded in May in addition to the 4 specifically allocated to RDW and these foot patrols will be directed to hot-spots.

SC provided some good news in that the young man badly attacked in RDW was making excellent progress. The original prognosis had been dreadful but he has come out of his coma and after returning home will be visiting Rotherhithe shortly to meet with the residents who came to his aid and visiting him in hospital as well as sending flowers and get well messages.


The following action was agreed:

• DB to draft a public letter to the Mayor of London
• Circulate to the Forum for comment
• Publish in South London Press and Southwark News
• Make contact with the Swedish & Norwegian churches
• Discuss at first meeting of the new sub-group ‘Designing out crime’.

  Copyright © 2004 Canada Water Campaign
This page last modified March 17, 2004 by CWC Webmaster