CANADA WATER CONSULTATIVE FORUM 

17 th November, 2003 @ 7.00pm
ALFRED SALTER PRIMARY SCHOOL, QUEBEC WAY , ROTHERHITHE   

• WELCOME AND APOLOGIES

• YOUTH CONSULTATION
  (presentation by Southwark Youth Council/Canada Water Consultation Project)

• MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS (13/10)

• ACTION POINTS

• AIR QUALITY REPORT
  (presentation by Alan Blisset – LBS Noise & Air Quality Manager)

• UPDATE ON ROTHERHITHE TUBE

• MELLISH FIELDS AND LEISURE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CANADA WATER AREA
  (update by Nigel Robinson)

• SITE A (AF)

• CONSULTATIONS, STRATEGIES & PROCESSES:

  • Site C

  • Site D

  • Site E

  • Downtown

  • Mobile ‘Phone Masts
    

• UPDATE ON BRITISH LAND/CANADA QUAYS:

• UPDATE ON SLOUGH ESTATES/CONRAD PHOENIX

• ANY OTHER BUSINESS

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

MINUTES OF MEETING

CANADA WATER CONSULTATIVE FORUM

Minutes: 22
Date: 17 th November, 2003
Venue: Alfred Salter Primary School , Rotherhithe

1 . WELCOME & APOLOGIES:

DB warmly welcomed everyone.

2. YOUTH CONSULTATION

It was originally intended that a presentation from young people would be given at this evening's meeting. However, DB had met recently with Michael Connors who had advised that responses to questionnaires were outstanding and it was decided that the consultation paper would be circulated to the Forum by email as soon as it is available. The paper will set out the background to the consultation process, how the youngsters were recruited and what action has been taken. It was hoped that the Forum would be invited to a presentation by the group later in the year. Several members of the floor expressed comment, many on the issue of youth and crime. DB referred to the initiatives currently in hand to improve the situation and expressed sympathy for the young man badly attacked in Russia Dock Woodland last summer. John Taylor (JT), Redriff felt it best to wait for the report before discussing issues; David Meagher (YHA) advised that he had worked with the Youth Forum previously and looked forward to hearing their views

Further discussion on youth would be deferred until the paper is circulated and it was hoped that an invitation to Forum members to attend a presentation by the youth group would be sent shortly.

3. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING (17/11):

The Minutes of the previous meeting were adopted. The Crime report had not been attached to the Minutes (13/10) and would therefore be sent at a later date.

4. ACTION POINTS:

5. AIR QUALITY REPORT :

AB gave an extremely informative and illuminating slide presentation into the current situation covering a variety of issues, eg effects of congestion charging, increased buses, the nearby waste incinerator and the effects of new planning initiatives. The presentation was followed by a lively Q&A session. AB was asked whether road humps, slower speeds, queues of buses, etc contributed to higher levels of pollution and he replied that the ‘jury was still out'. On the positive side, he reported 12-15% less vehicles using roads; speeds have actually increased slightly which benefits cars by travelling more effectively at 30kmph. A number of the audience felt that buses were responsible for pollution and AB advised that 60% of buses meet EU targets. BH felt the public is forced to use cars because of the lack of investment in public transport and that attitudes will not change until this is corrected. He was particularly concerned at the high levels of unemployed males with chest and respiratory conditions and child asthma in this part of the Borough. AB was asked where pollution readings were taken from and he advised that the monitoring equipment is located in Old Kent Road – many felt that this would not provide indicative readings for the Peninsula . When asked if temporary equipment could be located nearer to Rotherhithe/North Livesey, AB advised this would not be possible primarily due to cost.

DB felt that a radical assessment of the transport issues in Lower Road Triangle/Rotherhithe Tunnel should be undertaken and that air quality should be a part of this.

6. UPDATE ON ROTHERHITHE UNDERGROUND STATION:

A decision will be taken shortly as to whether the East London Line Project will go ahead following a health and safety assessment. There is nothing further to report and DB hoped information would be available for the next Forum meeting and possibly a further presentation by Peter Boxell, if appropriate**.

**(URGENT NOTE) Subsequent to the Forum meeting a paper submitted by David Quarmby to the GLA has said that they cannot support keeping Rotherhithe Tube station open.

7. MELLISH FIELDS & LEISURE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CANADA WATER AREA

NR offered to meet with GG and others regarding RDW. He also confirmed that the Watersports Centre would be part of the strategy to improve sport and leisure.

The following was agreed:

• Traffic Impact Study would be circulated and based on the contents, a decision taken on whether NR should attend the 12 th January Forum meeting;

• NR to look at integration of Southwark Park , St Paul 's Fields, Seven Islands and the Watersports Centre in conjunction with Mellish Fields' development.

• Updated leaflet on Mellish Fields to be circulated shortly

8. SITE A:

Nothing much to report as more important issues currently under discussion with British Land .

9. CONSULTATIONS, STRATEGIES & PROCESSES:

PR circulated a paper outlining the future process for a consultation strategy between all those involved and the landowners. It was felt that this item should be viewed separately from updates on the various sites as it was actually a different issue. PR stressed that the paper may grow and adjust as the project develops. PR welcomed comments and feedback and DB suggested that JR be copied in. JT pointed out that many are unaware of the site in question and suggested that a map/plan of the area be available at future Forum meetings. JR agreed to look into obtaining one.

Site C:

AF was unable to report on the current situation, however, PA advised that details of a planning application for joining the two sites had been printed recently in Southwark News and giving 14 days to comment. PA found it particularly confusing as notices had not been posted. NA said as far as he was aware, the owners' had not given approval. Both DB and BH felt that the Forum should be given the facts as to where and when planning applications will be heard so that formal comment could be made. The Forum needed information and input from landowners, developers and council officers. It was agreed that as Cllr Rajan and Cllr Hook are notified of planning applications they should be watchful. It was further agreed that a direct link be established with Planning and that Jackie Rose should request that Andrew Cook keep us informed. Consequently, it was agreed that DB should write to Planning to achieve a mechanism for a) making sure that issues such as Site C are advertised in the proper manner and b) obtain more input. JT asked why this application was not part of the British Land development and DB explained that landowners were entitled to submit applications in their own right. It was hoped that all 3 landowners would work together in the future (British Land, Shopping Centres Ltd and Conrad Phoenix) in accordance with the Master Developer Brief. It was again stressed that the need for SPG guidelines to be in place to ensure appropriate development of the Canada Water area as a whole.

Site D:

AF reported that discussions were due to take place shortly to look at an alternative scheme. The existing shed had been demolished due to health and safety concerns although the fence remained. AF pointed out that the fence did come within the landowners' title; JH felt that as an act of goodwill opening the garden would be much appreciated. It was understood that an area of the footpath originally fenced off had been opened up.

Site E:

AF advised that Site E was being considered by the Planning Committee on 1st Dec with a favourable officer recommendation. LH (Harmsworth Quays) expressed surprise that the planning application had been accepted. She felt that a building with 10-13 floors would be severely impacted by noise from their plant and she anticipated receiving complaints from residents living within 20 metres as those resident within 110 metres had already complained. LH stressed that they did not feel a corridor wall facing HQ was appropriate. Of further concern was that noise readings had been taken at ground floor level and not where the noise actually occurs (nearer to roof level). JH expressed sympathy with HQ and felt that this site was utterly inappropriate for housing. Concern was also expressed that flats overlooking HQ would be allocated to social housing and the quality of life would not be good. JH stressed that she would support HQ against the complaints that would inevitably arise. NA felt that good design can help and the site was zoned in the UDP for business or housing – both JH & BH strongly disagreed. Lengthy debate on the issue ensued – NA felt that sites D&E should not be included in the master planner area. LH preferred that the area remain as an industrial zone which should minimise the impact of noise, etc. JT felt that members who represent the community should be kept fully informed by the council.

The following resolution was agreed:

The Forum recognises that this site is an inappropriate site for residential development. Any change of use or further use should be determined as part of the Master Planner process. All landowners should be urged to work within the planning profess and not submit ad hoc planning applications.

Downtown:

DB advised that their had been concern in the community for some time. He felt that the Forum was a ‘dispute resolution body' and anything north or south of Canada Water could have a significant impact. Primarily concern was being expressed over medical provision, the overall infrastructure of the houses and the retention of green space. However, genuine mutual concern regarding the heights, densities and massing proposed has been expressed by all interested groups. The Downtown community wanted to place issues of concern before the Forum to ensure that matters are discussed openly and minuted.

The item was debated passionately at great length. JH outlined the role of the DAAP and what achievements had been made, in particular a reduction in the amount of units per hectare. Kath Whittam pointed out the dangers facing the health-centre and the school if the site continued to fall into disrepair. She also outlined the benefits for the community with an improved Health Centre and Redriff school, ie crèche (revenue-generating), youth facilities, breakfast club, etc.

Concern over the revenue expected for the land was expressed and CLR confirmed that site value expectation had come down. It was further confirmed that future development will have to adhere to planning guidelines and CLR stated that she would support residents should they choose to object. Kam Leung Hong (KLH) voiced the fears of a group of local residents who felt that there had been flaws in the election process; some felt that not all of those elected were reporting back properly, views of local residents etc were not raised and generally that they had not been fairly represented. CLR agreed that the process had been flawed but had actually resulted in 8 panel members (as opposed to 3) and this has least ensured that all 8 views could be heard. PR felt that the criticism of the panel was unfair as the time and commitment given had been tremendous. KLH felt public discussion regarding the medical centre and the school should have taken place as it was his understanding that staff at the centre were unaware of their future. PR advised that the responsibility for the medical centre staff rested with PCT and Southwark would not be able to intrude. The Panel itself now feel it is timely for pre-planning consultation to take place on a wider scale and a meeting will be held shortly to develop a strategy. KLH was concerned as to exactly who would decide any future strategy and NA advised that the developers will propose the first phase. NA stressed that the developers wanted to hear everyone's views and he hoped to embark on the process in the New Year. KLH felt a broader form of discussion with the wider community was essential if the developers wanted the public's trust. PR finished by saying that a consultation process was under discussion and they were certainly aware of residents' views. Report back on the process of consultation. DB summarised by saying that CWCF cannot influence the development as it is for the people most affected to do so. All the Forum could do is to express it's concern and minute that there has been discussion. It was hoped that the situation would be clearer at the next Forum meeting.

Mobile ‘phone masts:

CLR provided the background. 0 2 had applied to erect phone-masts and a number of groups including herself objected on health grounds. Southwark Planning declined the application. 0 2 have appealed and submitted a plan seeking permission to upgrade the mast adjacent to Harmsworth Quays. CLR has had discussions and has been given to understand that they are appealing on the first application and may have problems with the site provider. She has suggested that they consider sharing the mast and has asked that they contact local ward councillors to discuss this possibility but so far no response had been received.

10. UPDATE ON BRITISH LAND/CANADA QUAYS:

AF reported that progress was looking fairly positive and Heads of Terms are still under negotiation .

11. UPDATE ON SHOPPING CENTRES LTD/CONRAD PHOENIX :

AM advised that Shopping Centres were currently in discussion with Conrad Phoenix as to how they might work together in the future working and possibly with British Land . Nothing as yet to report but they are looking at how the land could be developed under the umbrella of the MDB.

12. ANY OTHER BUSINESS:

AB was happy to meet with Forum members at a later date if a small group wanted to discuss noise issues.