MINUTES OF MEETING MONDAY, 4th
LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK OFFICERS
AND CANADA WATER CAMPAIGN
CWC: Canada Water Campaign
DDF: Draft Development Framework
LBS: London Borough of Southwark
BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK
Richard Abraham LBS
Stephen Platts LBS
Adam Faulkner LBS
Pauline Adenwalla CWC
Hugh Closs CWC
Gary Glover CWC
Brian Hodge CWC
Ian Owers CWC & Time & Talents
Emma Williamson CWC & Willowbrook Centre
(Minute paragraph reference)
Minute para 3. Give indication as
to whether CWC wishes to work in partnership with LBS or
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
Target end of week beginning 4th
Minute para 13. Send draft of
paper setting out proposed consultation arrangements to
Draft to be sent to CWC by 22nd
MINUTES: (FINAL DRAFT AS AGREED WITH LBS)
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.
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
LBS gave unequivocal assurances that there would be fully
inclusive participative consultation.
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.
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.
LBS indicated that it aimed to submit a development
document to the Council in Summer 2001.
LBS also informed CWC that they had scheduled a meeting
with Ward Members to discuss Canada Water development
issues on 18th September 2000
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.
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.
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.
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.
Other funding streams for the regeneration project such
as SRB bids were debated.
The planned "Newsletter" was discussed. LBS
acknowledged CWCs 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