Canada Water Campaign

Canada Water Campaign Home
Previous Steering Committee Bulletin 13 Next Steering Committee

CWC – STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Number 8 30/01/01 (third draft)

Canada Water Campaign
Steering Committee - : Meeting 8 30th. January 2001, 19.00hrs.
Venue : Alfred Salter School

Attendees : See Attached

Action List

1. In the absence of DB and JH , GG agreed to Chair and PA agree to take minutes.

2. A number of people present had not received minutes of 8/01/01.

3. Minutes of Steering Committee (No. 7) 8/01/01

Agreed with following amendments

i) Attendees to include Len Hatch

4. Matters Arising

GG stated that he and DB had written to LBS asking to be part of the interviewing panel for the community worker. Steve Lancashire had refused the request. It is understood – unofficially - that an appointment has been made and that the person may be in post from the end of February.

BL stated that she had received the draft 50 page report from Richard Abraham (LBS). Richard is intending to make a full presentation of the findings at the LBS –CWCF meeting 6/02/01. MORI had taken their sample from across the two new Wards, Rotherhithe and Surrey Docks. BL was seeking clarification of the profile of the sample MORI used. BL stated that the report indicated a significant number were satisfied with the shopping provision and facilities. However, some of findings were different in the two wards namely the use of open spaces and number and type of bars etc. The need for a secondary school was a stated priority. CWC awaits the full presentation of the findings 6/02/01

The Committee wishes to record its thanks to BL for all her hard work negotiating and liasing with LBS and MORI.

5. Constitution

EW stated that she and DB had drawn up the proposed constitution based on the one adopted by the Elephant & Castle.

There was much discussion regarding the proposed name change necessitated by the fact that the word Campaign has connotations which may prove a handicap in terms of receiving funding from LBS etc. The proposal was to change

From ‘Canada Water Campaign’

To ‘Canada Water Residents Regeneration Group’.

A number of people felt this was unnecessary as the CWC is now fixed in people minds. Also the word Regeneration also has connotations which are not necessarily applicable to the development of the land surrounding Canada Water tube station. Some people felt the word ‘Resident’ might preclude small businesses from participating. It was pointed out that LBS – CWCF has a section for business .

It was finally agreed that solely for the purposes of the constitution the organisation would be called ‘CANADA WATER GROUP’ However, it would continue to be known locally and in its publicity material as

Canada Water Campaign.

The draft constitution was studied line by line. EW noted the changes and agreed to bring a revised version to the next committee meeting for endorsement by everyone before it was presented to the public meeting.

6. PUBLIC MEETING

The format and purpose of a public meeting was discussed. The meeting was necessary to agree the constitution and keep up the momentum. It was considered essential that a ‘vision statement’ was made and people’s views sort via ‘Joanna’s questionnaire’ It was envisaged that the questionnaire could be made to fit onto one page and allow space for a section whereby people stated how they wished to be contacted and that they concurred with the aims of the organisation.

JD and GG to liase to produce 500 copies.

7. LBS – CWCF – TERMS OF REFERENCE

There was much discussion re. the Area of Consultation to be defined in the LBS - CWCF Terms of Reference which are due to be adopted 6/2/01 and the areas for consultation and membership for CWC. At the meeting 8/01/01, when JH reported on the meeting she, DB and GG had had with LBS 4/01/01, the fact that LBS had not attached a map was discussed and it was felt that maybe it was in everyone’s interest not to be too pro active in requesting the map.

BH felt that the boundary for LBS consultation should be as he had indicated in his proposals circulated over New Year ie Lower Road - only the geographic area Surrey Quays Peninsula. As he had had only two responses to his ‘New Year’ proposals hence he considered them the accepted view of CWC. The reasons for this were that he felt that as LBS has to spend all or some? Of the proceeds from the land sale in the area (Section 106) – if the area were larger the monies would be spent outside the peninsula.

PA stated she had been away over New Year and hence had not had an opportunity to respond to BH’s document. PA also reminded members that she had queried this boundary point at 8/01/01 as for LBS – CWCF to consult only on the peninsula for a development on its perimeter was curious. She felt she had been distracted by the decision to not actively seek the LBS map attachment. To date CWC has actively campaigned on the basis of approximately 1.5 mile radius around Canada Water tube which takes in Downtown to the north and Lower Road and Jamaica Road and Bermondsey all equi distance from the proposed development area. As to exclude these areas would endorse the Rubicon and unnecessarily aggravate an imaginary social divide. CWC has membership doted around within that defined circle. GG stated that SRTA have produced and distributed leaflets on that understanding.

PA asked for the minutes of JH / DB / GG meeting 4/01/01 with LBS – told they were on the web.

GG indicated unfortunately he had been unable to attend CWC steering meeting 8/01/01 otherwise he might have been able to alleviate some of these apparent misunderstandings. However, at his recent chance meeting with Steve Lancashire at an LBS ratification meeting he asked Steve if he was aware of the negations at the 4/1/01 meeting, he said it seemed that they went okay. He did not raise any concerns about the agreed structure of the CW forum or the consultation area.

DB also stated that it was unfortunate that he had been unable to attend the CWC meeting 8/01/01.

BH stated that he had had a discussion(s) with Steve Lancashire and that his(SL) view was that the boundary for consultation should be the Peninsula

The latest issue of Southwark Life which carried an article on the area shows an area including Southwark – almost but not quite the whole of Rotherhithe and Surrey Docks Wards.

It was agreed that JD would collect the proposes area map from T & T and deliver it to BH who would copy it and deliver to DB to circulate it to everyone before 6/2/01.

8. CWC MEETINGS

CWC Steering Committee Meeting 15th. February

CWC Public Meeting 13th. March

Attended Apologies

Pauline Adenwalla (PA) *

David Brunskill(Chair) (DB) *(from 20.00hrs)

Henry Bottomley (HB)

Hugh Closs (HC)

Claire Davies (CD)

Joanna Dawson (JD) *

Bruce de Sarem (BS)

Evert de Vries (EV)

Rev. Andrew Doyle (AD)

Samantha Giblin (SG)

Gary Glover(Vice Chair) (GG) *

Len Hatch (LH)

Brian Hodge (BH) *

Janet Hodge(Secretary) (JH) *

Bel Jacobs (BJ)

Beatrice Leung (BL) *

Kam Leung (KL) *

Danny McCarthy (DM)

Chris Potts (CP)

Ian Owers (IO) *

John Stevens (JS)

Martin Summerskill (MS)

Kevin Swindles (KS)

M..Swindles (MSW)

Emma Williamson (EW) *

 

Canada Water Campaign Home
Previous Steering Committee Bulletin 13 Next Steering Committee