Canada Water Campaign Canada Water Campaign Logo
Canada Water Campaign Home
Bulletin 30 (10 December 2001) Bulletin 32 (4 February 2002)

MINUTES OF MEETING

CANADA WATER CONSULTATIVE FORUM

10th December, 2001

VENUE: ALFRED SALTER SCHOOL

ATTENDEES:

David Brunskill (DB) Lisa Hollamby (LH) Gary Glover (GG) Pauline Adenwalla (PA) Noel Ashton (NA) Peter Brooks (PB) Janet Hodge (JH) Simon Phippen (SIP) Stephen Platts (SP) Alistair MacAlpine (AM) Simon Hodge (SH) Danny McCarthy(DM) Cllr Steve Lancashire (CSL) Cllr Ann Yates (CAY) Dr Bob Muid (BM) Craig Rigler (CR) Jackie Rose (JR)

APOLOGIES: Cllr Derek Partridge, Cllr Columba Blango, Ian Owers and Conrad Hollingsworth

ACTION POINTS: SP to circulate Downtown Brief when available

PR to provide copy of Civic Trust report to Forum when available

DF to produce Topic Paper on environmental/green issues

SP to arrange for Canada Water Vision Statement to be included with the Development Brief, Topic Papers and any other relevant Council or external briefing papers as adopted by the Forum

PA to add sentence to Education Paper re future provision

1. Meeting opened by Chair 7.05pm

Meeting quorate –welcomed Craig Rigler of LBS who would take Minutes in conjunction with JR.

2. Minutes of last meeting:

Agreed unanimously with following correction - Dr Muid did attend meeting 17/9 and Simon Phippen did not).

3. Matters Arising:

LH asked if site visit was useful. Advised that the site visit did not take place - as not enough interest from Forum members.

4. Notes 19/11 meeting:

See 2 above.

5. Vision for Canada Water

JH proposed that the Vision for Canada Water be formally adopted as the measure for any development as it had the overwhelming support of all sections of the community. SP advised that the Forum could adopt whatever Vision and it will be included in the Development Brief (the "Brief") to developers but it cannot dictate. AM had no problem with the Vision statement. NA felt the Vision contained ambiguous phrases (Waterside Village Centre and high density town centre/mixed use) as it stands and would not get his vote. However, if slight modifications were made he would. DM advised that the statement was in line with government/Southwark policies and the Mayor’s plan for London. JH said she was not prepared to make any amendments and it was therefore put the to vote as follows:

Proposal to formally adopt the Vision Statement and paper to be included in the Brief:

Votes for: 6 Against: 2 Abstentions: 3

MOTION CARRIED

6. Topic Papers

DM happy with bullet point style of Topic Papers and together with Vision Statement should be given to developers as the Brief containing the wishes of the community. Moved that all 7 topic papers put forward as they stand.

Cllr Lancashire commented that reference to masterplan might be helped by map and any document referring to ‘several’ needs be more specific. DM suggested any specific issues be raised now before it moved forward. SP said these papers would highlight key issues for developers and he had no problem in issuing both the topic papers and vision statement as they stand. However, he advised that if the papers were submitted to Southwark to be included in the Brief they would be merged into a single document but he guaranteed that no changes would be made to the content.

Cllr Yates expressed concern regarding primary and secondary provision for the future given the huge influx expected to move to the area. There were already difficulties with many children being educated some distance from their homes, families having to move out entirely and even some children being educated outside the system. She stressed that some reference to future school provision should be made now. Cllr Lancashire confirmed that they were aware of this issue and were looking at future projections into the effects on transport, education, etc that new homes will have.

It was decided to add a sentence to the Education Topic Paper making specific reference to future needs. DM felt something like ‘there should be provision for current and future population’.

Built Environment Paper:

Paper not brought to the meeting but document almost completed. Many issues are tackled in other topic papers and these will also be referred to in the Built paper. DB was awaiting NA’s input before issuing the document in bullet point format. It will be circulated shortly to Forum members and any comments should be given to Noel. Cllr Lancashire advised that there will inevitably be changes once we engage with more local residents – these are clear markers to what is required and will progress the paper.

Transport:

PB whole-heartedly agreed with the Limehouse Link suggestion and asked if this too would go to a developer? SP said it was obvious one of the desires of the community but obviously would cost a huge amount.

PB asked if this could be rephrased/incorporated in the Brief so that developers could come up with proposals/radical solutions to take account of Lower Road etc traffic congestion. As Chair, DB pointed out that developers would normally just look at a plot of land and not look at transport problems as they were more interested in business opportunities. He hoped that the transport issues would go through to interested parties within Southwark and mentioned that this paper together with other matters covered by community input to the Canada Water Consultative Forum would be included as a formal submission to Southwark for inclusion in the Area 2 UDP proposals within the Southwark Plan.

Cllr Yates suggested we make contact with Transport for London who are in the process of consulting local communities. She too pointed out how much worse things will be with the introduction of congestion charging. The transport situation locally is already dire and with the influx of new homes and congestion charging it will deteriorate further. Public transport is dreadful and the lack of lifts/escalators at Canada Water makes the situation worse.

Daphne Ferrigan (observer – Surrey Docks Farm) felt it was important to take into account environmental issues and felt pressure should be brought to bear on developers to keep the wealth of green sites on Peninsula. She felt that there is a case for herself and The Pump House (Caroline Marais) to link education with environment and said money was needed to assist. Mayor Livingstone had already given money to assist City Farms suffering as a result of Foot & Mouth and believed that he supported the idea/work of City Farms.

Joel (observer) said it was not sufficient for just a commitment to reduce cars coming into the area; the paper did not refer to reducing car parking. Cllr Lancashire said the constraints would be flagged and developers will be asked to come up with radical solutions. Joel felt it needed to be rephrased but DM pointed out that a long term solution will need to be made by the government as every aspect of transport needed a shake-up.

Cllr Yates advised that 3m was being spent on Southwark Park which included cycle routes – she said that the Friends of Southwark Park were adamant that following investment/improvement to the facilities they would insist on the gates being closed at night.

Cllr Lancashire said green issues were not absolutely clear and thought it useful if Farm/other interested parties could produce topic paper specifically on environmental issues – as an additional paper. DF agreed that herself and Caroline (Pump House) would produce a paper early in the New Year (January).

Proposal to adopt all Topic Papers en block:

Proposed: DM

Seconded: various round the table, including GG.

Votes for: All in favour Against:

7. Development Brief Structure

Introduction:

Development context:

The proposed Brief will go to the Forum in early March and once agreed will be passed to the Council/Cabinet at the end of March for agreement – it will be issued to developers in April.

JH asked if the Brief would go to developers as a ‘competition’. SP agreed that it would but there would be a full consultation process, ie exhibitions, meetings etc with the local community. After considerable discussion it was noted that the different items from different plans could be chosen (mix & match) and the plans could be rejected altogether.

SP confirmed that the wishes would be built into the final version and introduced following negotiation/discussion. It was noted that there will be community input to ensure acceptable scheme(s) adopted. NA advised that Bermondsey Spa Regeneration had enabled the community to ‘cherry pick’ from different schemes .

DF asked if environmentally aware architects would be chosen. SP said it was a complex matrix but selection process had to meet several demands.

Development context: Agreed

Planning & Transport:

JH requested guidance as to which document is to be used; is the ‘current plan’ the existing one or the new one?

SP replied that plan is current UDP but Southwark Plan will replace UDP. Not intending to issue supplementary plan and guidelines will be issued at later stage site by site. He confirmed that under the existing plan ‘high density/high rise’ would not be appropriate. However, SP stressed that planning policies should drive developments and additional planning guidance will come out in connection with possible high rise in certain situations. It may be appropriate in certain locations.

GG asked who agrees this policy and SP advised the Council members. DM said developers will know exactly what is or is not in framework. NA pointed out that the UDP would have to comply with the Mayor’s prevailing policy. The UDP dates from 1995.

SP said that planners will take into consideration different factors such as sustainability, new jobs, etc – prime example of high rise is the tower proposed for London Bridge. Each application is looked at for a number of criteria and of course St Paul’s viewing corridor will have impact. Nothing can damage the strategic view of corridor across 90% of London- this would restricts height to 16 floors. JH pointed out that all new building throughout Borough appears to be low rise (in line with UDP) so why are the Canada Water sites being targeted for high rise?

Barry Newell (observer) asked if this meant that there were no guidelines to overrule the UDP in relation to site D? SP said that planners consider the UDP, issued by central government, also the Southwark supplementary planning guidance, various other documents all used by planning officers when determining project.

Without doubt affordable housing will affect residential development on the peninsula. The affordable housing circular is relevant.

Cllr Yates asked what type of ground, ie is it marshy. SP replied that it was marshy, possibly in-filled land and it may even have some contamination. In addition, the tube lines run underground and high rise could not be built on such land. Surveys will be carried out to determine exact nature.

(iv) Design Guidelines & sustainability:

Is there protection for Canada Water? Agreed that a sentence should be added which includes direct references to the Canada Water Consultative Forum’s Vision Statement and topic papers which set out the views of the community.

(v) Site ownership:

Agreed.

(vi) Selection Procedure & Timetable:

SP will prepare a diagram of actual program and identify where the Forum is to be consulted.

Appendices:

JH was surprised to see reference to Urban Initiatives – the draft development framework produced by Urban Initiatives was clearly and thoroughly rejected by Community at the Holiday Inn meeting. SP agreed that their name would be removed from the list within the appendix.

The appendices will now include:

Site and location plans Aerial photographs

Topic papers (now 8?) MORI survey

Services information Topographical information

LUL underground routes information Geotechnical information

Sustainability/design guide report Forum Adopted Vision Statement

Civic Trust Report (nb Urban Initiatives deleted)

PR will circulate the Civic Trust report when received (SP to chase). DF asked whether more information should be submitted and SP said ideas/comments were welcome and asked that they be sent to him direct.

8. Process & Timing:

An initial launch will take place mid/late January to market very brief version just referring to opportunity in London SE16. A detailed questionnaire must be completed and all applicants must comply with EU/other statutory requirements (ie health + safety, financial stability, quality of work, good track record, etc). 10-12 developers will be selected which will come down to 3 and they will be issued with the final development brief (agreed by Forum) towards the end of March then adopted by Forum members.

JH asked whether local elections will affect the decision making progress but it was generally accepted that consultation regarding the vacant sites would continue in any event. Cllr Lancashire said matters would move forward on a cross-party basis even if some individuals were not present after May. In terms of regeneration it does not depend on the personnel – doing nothing is not an option. GG agreed and NA pointed out that there were no fixed deadlines prior to May so process should continue.

 

9. Downtown discussion:

DM pointed out that we were promised a brief/report some time ago. Appears still not available. Cllr Lancashire advised that following a large public meeting, a development brief was taking shape which should surface in the New Year. He also advised that a Group was being formed.

GG pointed out that development of this area will impact on Canada Water sites. Even if a separate group is set up we may both need to debate/consider if they should link in. Cllr Lancashire agreed that there is a link between the 2 groups as each impacts on the other. DM reported that there had been some heated exchanges and answers were awaited. He felt a statement was needed as to what will transpire.

SP said that he hoped to have a Brief completed soon following negotiations with a local primary school. DM asked if the NHS were involved in discussions and SP advised that the NHS had taken the view that they had no desire to change. GG stressed that the Downtown Brief really needed to come back to the Forum for comments and that we would need to be brief on other local developers’ proposals.

10. Any other business:
DM thanked everyone involved with the Forum for the enormous amount of work put in.

11. Programme of meetings:

Monday, 4th February, 2001 at Alfred Salter School @ 7.00pm

Please ensure revised Topic Papers forwarded to JR by 18th January, 2002

Canada Water Campaign Home
Bulletin 30 (10 December 2001) Bulletin 32 (4 February 2002)