| Canada Water Campaign |  |
| Canada Water Campaign | |
MINUTES OF MEETING 3RD APRIL 2001
ATTENDEESJoanna Dawson (JD) |
Mark Cronshaw (MC) |
Pauline Adenwalla - Kevin Swindells attended as Reserve Representative
Introductions
DB was nominated by Gary Glover and seconded by Joanna Dawson as Chair
No other nominations
DB elected as Chair
CJH nominated and seconded as Vice Chair
CSL nominated and seconded as Vice Chair
Vote
CJH 8
CSL 9
CSL voted in as Vice Chair
JH raised issues with regard to the omission of certain Agenda items put forward by the Community Group under the Terms of Reference. These included Specific Discussion on the Community Group Vision Statement, City Academy discussion and Harmsworth Quays Planning Application. These items appeared on a previous Draft Agenda and were later removed; JH requested an explanation as to why these items were removed and under whose authority.
ChH responded and stated it was felt the Admin and Vision items could be incorporated into other Agenda items.
JH stated that items properly submitted for debate should not be removed or altered without agreement of those concerned.
CSL suggested The Forum should discuss how it wishes to consider planning applications generally.
IO suggested that Agenda items from now on should be submitted to the Chair and Vice Chair for consideration prior to meeting. Supported motion by CSL.
CSL – The Forum needs to establish procedures to provide for efficient decision making.
The meeting decided that the Admin support issues be covered in Item 5, the Vision statement required its own agenda item and the planning application and City Academy be discussed between items 8 and 9.
These were agreed.
CDP requested to know the outcome of the request for an observer in the interview process for the community worker position.
ChH replied that officers took advice and the advice was not to allow it. Officers are obliged to act under their advice.
DM/GG argued that there is a precedent for this type of arrangement, GG reported that tenant representatives observe interviews up to P03 level and this is encouraged.
Meeting agreed this was a ‘missed opportunity’ for open and transparent involvement and that the Council needed to learn from this in future.
Pascale Rosenbloom was introduced to the Forum and ChH explained her role as being focused on engaging the public in the consultation and to co-ordinate the process. She will be working on a number of projects in this regard.
CSL reported that she is working on both Bermondsey Spa and Canada Water regeneration schemes.
JH expressed the need for independent admin support for the community group and the reps on the Forum. She stressed the need for independence from LBS. It was noted.
DB outlined the Community Group resolution regarding the required support that was forwarded to LBS for consideration, but not circulated. It was specifically pointed out that the whole question of support for the community had been raised via the Canada Water Campaign letter to Councillors in September 2000 and on a number of other occasions. The community Group resolution suggested independent support facilitated by the Canada Water Campaign and based in Time & Talents premises. GG expressed support for the idea, suggesting it will be the best way for the Community to gel together and produce the best results from this exercise.
An observer from the floor, Kath Whittam, said that to ensure that the Public continued to trust the Council and that the Council really do want to consult the people of the area, then they should fund the administration involving the people.
A number of community representatives commented that procedures and systems for a good consultation process are now in place, but these demand substantial amounts of administration time because of the number of groups involved. Without administration support consultation would not be sustainable.
PB commented that administrative support for local business should also be included in any planning.
Concern was also expressed as regards drawing youth more closely into the process.
ChH stated that this is a different situation to other projects where SRB funding is involved. There is no budget for this and there would need to be a bid made to LBS requesting partial or total funding of this budget requirement.
The budget difficulties were fully understood by the meeting but it was pointed out that if funding for the community was available for a project such as at the Elephant – then it should be considered for Canada Water.
After lengthy discussion the meeting proposed that groups requiring support should prepare a description of duties and initial costing requirements for submission to the Council. It was decided a selected small group of Reps will work together with Pascale Rosenbloom and Adam Faulkner to produce such a submission.
CSL suggested the Forum needs an indicative timetable to work to, and needs to have goals and targets for issues to be agreed and finalised.
ChH - in response to a question regarding the existence or otherwise of time constraints for the development of the land – LBS are sitting on a development opportunity that can commence at any time, with the asset being wasted in its current state. The timetable must reflect the fact that LBS is keen to see something happen here.
DB suggested the Chair and Vice Chair need to clarify the timetable to assist with establishing processes accordingly.
Emma Williamson gave a brief outline of Planning for Real and why it is useful. Emma sought a commitment from the Council to the process of planning for real.
General discussion regarding Planning for Real, and preference was made to Bellenden Ward having a successful planning for real exercise, concerns from the floor regarding its effectiveness. The general feel from the meeting was that it is part of the process not the whole process, it will require a number of events to achieve the end and there is an acceptance that it will require a lot of work to get right. Part of Pascale’s role is to find out how best to engage the community. Reference was made to Elephant and Castle, and how the blank sheet approach had some drawbacks. It was felt that it is very important to set broad limits for the process to work within.
IO – Doing this process correctly is a commitment to time, once we have the development brief we can then look at the design contest side.
CDP – Need to agree a vision before we can start talking about design contests etc.
CD suggested using Southwark News and South London Press to inform and engage the area.
Introduction by DB
Following the DDF release, the Canada Water Campaign have been discussing what they really want for the area. It is a vision that they do not expect others to commit to at this stage, but it is important for the Forum to note the official view of the Community Group. They accept it is not perfect. It welcomes sustainable development, in keeping with the low-rise residential area, and seeks to ensure that the natural features of the area are retained and that issues of access and egress are properly dealt with. The Community Group strongly reject High Rise and High Density. However they respect the need for the landowners to make a reasonable profit, and the need to look how to achieve greater economic gain through other uses.
The meeting noted the Community Group’s Vision statement and representatives agreed.
CSL, acting as Chair, invited Forum members to clarify any aspect of the statement.
NA requested clarification on source of the vision statement. DB responded with the extensive debate and publicity given to the vision statement since November 2000 it’s endorsement by a general meeting of the Canada Water Campaign and the support for the statement from all sections of the Canada Water Consultative Forum Community Group
PB – asked whether there were any ideas as to what would be acceptable in terms of quantitative parameters. DB responded - there will be considerable debate in future but he envisaged that key worker accommodation, and some increases to shopping facilities would be supported. DB accepted that there will be compromises which is why the statement is kept broad and why planning for real will be so important, to establish acceptability.
ChH confirmed the term ‘area’ refers to the agreed consultation area. DB felt this was still under debate.
CSL requested that the Forum Note that the Vision, with the assumption that it will be taken away and discussed within the groups and brought back to the Forum for acceptance, must be kept broad but with some clear parameters.
LH sought clarity on ‘high-rise’, JH responded saying in her view it was above 6-7 storeys.
The Vision statement was noted by the meeting and it was agreed to forward to LBS as the Community Group view.
Regarding the Council’s obligations to develop, CSL confirmed there are covenants regarding timing and capital gain from such an opportunity, and a need to improve the area. ChH confirmed that the Council does not want to sit on this land - it is keen to get moving - and suggested the Forum look to having a clear idea as to what they want to achieve by the end of August.
It was suggested a working group be formed to look at a new Draft Development Framework for the Forum to work through. IO sought clarification regarding what the contents will be - the broad parameters or more detail on the shape of what is to come? ChH responded there need not be any limit, the Forum can decide how detailed they want to be.
CDP suggested a Cllr should be involved in that group.
The following Task Group Members were proposed and agreed:
Joanna Dawson
Allister Macalpine
Noel Ashton
Derek Partridge
Janet Hodge
Mark Cronshaw
LBS rep
The group should meet with a view to providing a draft for the next Forum meeting to consider.
JH proposed that a Youth representative should be involved, and they should decide on a representative at a later date. This was agreed by the meeting
LH expressed a potential conflict of interest – other reps felt no conflict existed
CSL wanted to clarify what the Forum was seeking to achieve in discussions regarding planning applications, based on a statutory framework, which could be used.
Following short discussion, the meeting decided that it should have regard to current planning applications in so far as how they affect what the Forum hopes to achieve in the area. Proximity to the site is the real issue with regard to which applications should be discussed and noted.
Recommendation by ChH to have regard to planning applications, to have it as a standing agenda item.
CSL - Concerns have been noted. LH agreed to provide contact details for their planning consultant and invited people to contact her for open discussion.
GG commented that if Harmsworth Quays worked with the Forum in an open dialogue then applications could be put forward with the support of the Forum.
ChH did not want to mislead as to what impact these discussions will have in the Planning Process, as the Forum has no status to affect an application as such.
DB resolved to welcome relevant planning applications for discussion but recognised the Forum will not necessarily get involved with the planning approval process.
CSL reported two possible sites are still under consideration by the Corporation of London. He made clear his personal support was for the Patterson Park site due to its geographical location.
JH referred to the MORI poll and the identification of a need for schooling. She wanted an assurance that the consultative processes in place will not ‘shackle’ the Canada Water site due to potential delays because of the general development.
CSL assured JH that the regeneration of the Canada Water area will not have an impact on the decision of location, it will be on the merits of each site in isolation of current developments.
CSL felt a newsletter to report facts on this and other issues to ease the mind of local parents who are concerned of the impact was necessary.
IO requested Topic Paper discussion be delayed until next meeting, along with anything else that is not essential.
CSL supported Topic papers as an early agenda item for next meeting.
DB – Website text – no problems – can go onto site – can always be changed later on.
JH questioned whether this was the best use of taxpayers money. Other comments made covered whether the sites initially proposed were relevant in the context of Canada Water
Agreed in principal – further input would be sought as regards destinations. Details would be discussed at next meeting.
Tuesday 15th May, 2001
Alfred Salter School – agreed in principal as venue.
Canada
Water Campaign Home
Bulletin
16