Canada Water Campaign

Canada Water Campaign Home
Bulletin 7

MINUTES OF MEETING MONDAY, 4th SEPTEMBER 2000
LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK OFFICERS
AND CANADA WATER CAMPAIGN

Abbreviations used:

CWC: Canada Water Campaign

DDF: Draft Development Framework

LBS: London Borough of Southwark

PRESENT:

LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK

CANADA WATER CAMPAIGN
Richard Abraham LBS

Leah Levane LBS

Stephen Platts LBS

Adam Faulkner LBS

 Pauline Adenwalla CWC

David Brunskill CWC

Hugh Closs CWC

Gary Glover CWC

Brian Hodge CWC

Ian Owers CWC & Time & Talents

Emma Williamson CWC & Willowbrook Centre

SUMMARY:

Action Required
(Minute paragraph reference)

By

Target Date
Minute para 3. Give indication as to whether CWC wishes to work in partnership with LBS or independently. CWC Report view of 11th September General Meeting. (no target date discussed but will try for 14th September).
Minute para 8. Send draft of Newsletter to CWC & CWC to respond LBS Target end of week beginning 4th September.
Minute para 13. Send draft of paper setting out proposed consultation arrangements to CWC LBS Draft to be sent to CWC by 22nd September.

 

MINUTES: (FINAL DRAFT AS AGREED WITH LBS)

  1. Representatives of CWC met LBS officers at Canada Water Tube Station at 19;00 hrs. After a 45 minute tour of the area showing LBS the various aspects of the Surrey Peninsula, everyone adjourned to Time & Talents premises for preliminary discussions on the future consultation process, regarding the development of the lands surrounding Canada Water.
  2. LBS questioned whether CWC wanted to work with LBS in partnership or as an independent body . CWC agreed to inform LBS regarding this matter after it had consulted its members.
  3. LBS gave unequivocal assurances that there would be fully inclusive participative consultation.
  4. Discussed the DDF. The CWC suggested that it should be placed aside if not completely forgotten due to community reaction. LBS agreed to place it aside and begin a bottom up approach, but that the CWC must accept that the asset needs to perform for the council. LBS suggested that the DDF was simply to make developers and the community aware of the potential scope of the development and to effectively start the process rolling. LBS agreed that nothing is set in stone.
  5. LBS informed CWC that Local Government had a statutory duty to maximise valuation according to Section 123 of the Local Government Act. However, at the same time LBS wanted to develop CW as a regional hub to interface and complement other South Bank Developments. The impact and implications on other initiatives currently ongoing in the wider community namely, Education Action Zone and Health Action Zone must also be addressed.
  6. LBS indicated that it aimed to submit a development document to the Council in Summer 2001.
  7. LBS also informed CWC that they had scheduled a meeting with Ward Members to discuss Canada Water development issues on 18th September 2000
  8. LBS agreed to draw up a draft document on the proposed consultation process to present to CWC by 22nd September 2000. CWC would therefore have the opportunity of commenting on the consultation process before it was submitted. It would be helpful if the document could be endorsed by both LBS and CWC.
  9. CWC asked LBS for all reports on the Canada Water Project. LBS stated that they would supply the full LSE report. They also confirmed that there were no other reports on the subject except the glossy DDF, which was already with CWC. They also stated that they had had only two meetings with Shopping Centres Ltd., and were hoping to have a meeting with the new Danish owners of the land presently occupied by Decathlon.
  10. Various discussions were held on the dissemination of information to members of RAs, TAs, and other organisations, who should disseminate the information and how questionnaires should be developed. The whole matter was left for discussion at a future meeting.
  11. Funding of the campaign was also discussed. LBS anticipated appointing a community worker. CWC expressed concern. CWC felt that this would add to the distrust the people already felt towards the Council – since it would not be an independent post. CWC made the point that transparency and independence in appointing and managing staff involved in the consultation process could go a long way to rebuilding trust in the community.
  12. Other funding streams for the regeneration project such as SRB bids were debated.
  13. The planned "Newsletter" was discussed. LBS acknowledged CWC’s letter in respect of the ‘Information Item’, but felt that they had to honour their undertaking to inform people. CWC reiterated their belief that if LBS issued the newsletter based on the DDF or continued to promote the DDF, it would increase the wrath of a very disgruntled electorate who had overwhelmingly rejected the DDF and its High Density Town Centre vision both at the public meeting and via membership of CWC.. CWC requested sight of the Information Item and Questionnaire before deciding whether they wished CWC details or comments to be included. LBS agreed to this request.

Meeting adjourned at 21:30.

Canada Water Campaign Home
Bulletin 7