Agenda and minutes
PDF 91 KBVenue: St James' Church, Thurland Road, London SE16 4AA
Contact: Gerald Gohler, Constitutional Officer Tel: 020 7525 7420, email: gerald.gohler@southwark.gov.uk
| Note | No. | Item |
|---|---|---|
|
Introduction and welcome
Minutes: The chair welcomed councillors, members of the public and officers to the meeting. |
||
|
Apologies
Minutes: There were apologies for absence from Councillors Columba Blango, Denise Capstick and Lisa Rajan; and for lateness from Councillors Catherine McDonald, Paul Noblet and Michael Situ. |
||
|
Disclosure of Members' interests and dispensations
Members to declare any interests and dispensation in respect of any item of business to be considered at this meeting.
Minutes: There were none. |
||
|
Items of business that the Chair deems urgent
The chair to advise whether they have agreed to any item of urgent business being admitted to the agenda. Minutes: The chair announced that he would vary the agenda as follows:
· Items 10 and 16 “Project bank updated/feedback” and “Community intrastructure project list report” would be deferred to the next meeting on 12 March 2013
· Items 8 and 13 “Workshop feedback” and “Riverside 20mph and Traffic Management report” would be taken together
· Item 14 “Local parking amendments” would be considered after item 8 and 13.
The chair also informed the meeting that SHP Tenancy Support had sent their apologies and were now scheduled to attend the March meeting.
|
||
|
Minutes
To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2012. Supporting documents: Minutes: RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2012 be agreed as an accurate record of that meeting, and signed by the chair. |
||
|
Deputations / Petitions (if any)
The chair to advise on any deputations or petitions received. Minutes: There were none. At this point, the chair took two announcements.
Canon Gary Jenkins welcomed all attendees to St James’ church, and introduced himself as the new vicar for St James & St Anne's, Bermondsey. He informed the meeting that St James’ churchyard was soon going to be renovated with the help of Southwark Council.
Southwark’s new borough commander, Chief Superintendent John Sutherland introduced himself, saying that he had most recently been Borough Commander in Camden, but had a South London connection, as he had been living in Lambeth for 19 years and had worked a sergeant in Peckham 16 years ago. Since starting in his new position, his first impressions of his colleagues and the council had been very positive. In terms of crime figures, violent crime, burglary and total crime had gone down. The police had, therefore, launched operation Trinity which was going to focus on violence among young people, knife crime and street robberies over the next 15-18 months. He added that times were challenging throughout the public sector and that the Metropolitan police had to save over £500m. This required changes, however, frontline service provision in Southwark was not going to be affected over the next few years. Rotherhithe police station was likely to close, as it was no longer fit for purpose and expensive to run. The police were, however, looking for a base in the area. The chair asked Chief Superintendent Sutherland to attend a future community council meeting to talk about the proposed closure of Rotherhithe police station. |
||
7.20pm |
Traffic and Transport workshops
Workshops around traffic and transport issues in Lower Road, Jamaica Road, London Bridge and the Old Kent Road.
Minutes: The meeting split into transport and traffic related workshops about the following areas:
· Old Kent Road · London Bridge area · Lower Road (and Jamaica Road) |
|
8.00pm |
Workshop feedback
Councillors to give feedback on the discussions in the workshops. Minutes: Old Kent Road Jeremy Leach, from Living Streets, fed back on the issues discussed in the Old Kent Road workshop. Some of these were:
The chair remarked that a hierarchy of quickly achievable goals could be established from this list.
London Bridge Councillor Mark Gettleson fed back on the items discussed in the London Bridge area workshop. Some of these were:
ACTION: Officers to come back to a future community council meeting with the results of the traffic survey.
Lower Road Councillor Anood Al-Samerai fed back on the items discussed in the Lower Road/Jamaica Road workshop. Some of these were:
ACTION: Councillors to write to the Chief Executive of London Borough of Lewisham about the issues around Lower Road.
ACTION: Officers to ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |
|
9.25pm |
Riverside 20mph Zone and Traffic Management Proposals
Councillors to comment on the recommendations in the report. Supporting documents: Minutes: This was formerly item 13.
The meeting heard that the proposals as outlined in the report were supported widely, and that this had been an issue local councillors had been campaigning about for many years. The meeting also heard that the enforcement of the 20mph zone was a police matter and may need to be discussed with the borough commander in the future. Views were expressed that 20mph was still too fast in places. There was agreement with Pottery Street being made one-way, and Wilson Grove made northbound only, however there were concerns about Cathay Street. The six-month monitoring period proposed was welcomed.
Simon Phillips said that he was going to be coming back to the community council regarding Lower Road in the future, and that a of list suggestions regarding moving bus stops, and regarding bus lanes would be forwarded to TfL.
RESOLVED:
1. That the community council agrees with the recommendations in the report:
a. That the introduction of the 20mph zone of the scheme outlined in the report is progressed to implementation (subject to statutory consultation).
b. That upon analysing the consultation responses from residents on directly affected streets surrounding the proposed traffic management options, option 1 is progressed to the implementation stage. This option will be implemented on a trial basis for 6 months, during which time further traffic analysis of volumes and speeds can take place to ascertain if the measures have been effective.
c. That following the trial period, the council re-consults residents to ask them if they would like to make the changes permanent.
2. That the community council asks for the results of the trial period and of the reconsultation to be reported back to a future community council meeting before they go for formal decision.
|
|
9.30pm |
Local Parking Amendments
Note: This item is an executive function.
Councillors to consider the recommendations contained in the report.
Supporting documents: Minutes: This is item was formerly item 14.
Note: This is an executive function.
Councillors considered the information contained in the report.
RESOLVED:
That the following local parking amendments, detailed in the appendices to the report, be approved for implementation subject to the outcome of any necessary statutory procedures:
· Bermondsey Wall East – install one disabled persons’ (blue badge) parking bay
· Thurland Road – convert two existing, unrestricted parking bays to G zone permit holder parking bays
· Rotherhithe Street – install double yellow lines at the following locations:
a. adjacent to the dropped kerb leading from the Swan Road Estate
b. adjacent to the dropped kerb leading to No.133, Hay’s Court
c. at the junction of Swan Road and Rotherhithe Street.
|
|
8.10pm |
Community Announcements / Community Safety updates
Supporting documents: Minutes: This item was formerly item 9.
Complaints about licensed premises The chair informed the meeting that several complaints had been made to councillors about licensed premises in the area. He advised residents that if they witnessed anti-social behaviour in the street, fighting, drinking, urinating etc. to report these to the Police at the time of the incident on:
999 – for serious incidents 101 – for minor or incidents that are likely to be of short duration.
Noise issues associated with the premises should be reported to the council’s noise service at the time of the incident on 020 7525 5777.
Residents were also advised to keep a diary or log of all instances and to call the appropriate service to ensure a complaint is logged. A response may be made on the night, however officers may follow up on calls at a later date where an immediate response cannot be made. This usually involved engaging with the premises to find a solution.
If the situation did not improve over time, residents were advised to apply for a review of the premises licence. The incident diaries and logged calls could be used as part of the evidence for the review.
Premises licence review forms were available online or from the licensing section. Licensing officers could offer residents guidance on the review process. Email: licensing@southwark.gov.uk, Tel: 020 7525 2000
Southwark Helping Hands Vera Keech told the meeting that the group had been founded in 1981, initially to allow disabled young people to experience more of the world. The group, which now also included some disabled adults, operated out of Wade Hall every Wednesday, put on events, arranged holidays abroad, and had recently organised a “mini-Olympics”. The group had 30 members and 14 volunteer helpers, and reflected the diversity of the area. It also trained volunteer helpers, but needed help with funding, because the young people’s contributions to the activities only went so far.
Grange Community First Bill Owen, from the Grange Community First board, informed the meeting that Community First was an England-wide programme, funded by the Office for Civil Society, on behalf of the Government. Grange ward had been successful in attracting some money from the Neighbourhood Match Fund, which was a £30m fund to encourage people to give time and expertise to local projects. The match-funding could be in in-kind donations - cash, services, free products or volunteer time. The aims of Grange Community First were, for example:
Community First grants ranged between £250 and £2500, and only one grant per year could be given to any one organisation. Projects were only allowed to last one year. All grants had to be matched in cash, or in kind (services or volunteer time). ... view the full minutes text for item 11. |
|
9.15pm |
Public question time
A public question form is included on page 49.
This is an opportunity for public questions to be addressed to the chair. Residents or persons working in the borough may ask questions on any matter in relation to which the council has powers or duties.
Responses may be supplied in writing following the meeting. Responses to queries raised at previous meetings can be found on page 50.
Supporting documents: Minutes: The following public
questions were submitted in writing: Boer War Memorial Responding to a written question about the Boer War Memorial, the chair informed the meeting that he had been given an update by officers. The design had been agreed with stakeholders in October 2012, and an architect had been commissioned to draw up final designs for the tender and works in November 2012. Officers were currently waiting for designs, and the remainer of the project was as follows:
w/c 4 February 2013 Tender sent to contractors w/c 25 February 2013 Deadline for tender returns, commission contractor March - April 2013 Off-site works (3 weeks) May 2013 Works on site at St James Church.
Canada Water Decathlon site Responding to a question about a possible planning application for the Canada Water Decathlon site, the chair said that no planning application had formally been submitted, but that one was likely to be submitted imminently. He advised the resident to check the council’s planning webpage. There, interested individuals could also sign up to automatic alerts about planning applications which had been submitted in their area.
Tourist Office In answer to a question about having a tourist office in the area, the chair explained that there had been a council funded tourist office in the London Bridge area, but there had been questions about whether it had provided value for money. The meeting heard that it would be good to signpost and enhance areas like the conservation area around Shad Thames, and that the council should look into providing tourist information in partnership with the management of the Shard, as this was predicted to attract 12 million visitors a year. The area was home to major tourist attractions such as Tate Modern and the Globe. The meeting heard that a new heritage cultural facility next to Potters Field would be created and that there may be some scope for a tourist information point as part of this facility.
Public Toilets In response to a question about a lack of public toilet facilities in the London Bridge and Tower Bridge areas, the chair told the meeting that the council had closed a number of public toilets in the area, because they had been difficult and expensive to maintain. Toilets in the area, and across the country, were increasingly provided by private businesses. There were public toilets at More London and in Potters Field, however, these could be sign-posted better. Councillors would raise this with the Potters Field management team. The new one-stop shop and the library in the Blue also had toilet facilities which could be made available to the public. Councillor Richard Livingstone said he was happy to follow up on this. The meeting also heard that Kingston council paid businesses a small amount of money to make their toilets available to members of the public, and that the problem was especially bad around Tower Bridge Road and Shad Thames. Councillor Richard Livingstone asked the person who had put the question to speak ... view the full minutes text for item 12. |
|
9.05pm |
Neighbourhood Forums
Councillors to comment on the reports below.
Supporting documents: Minutes: This item was formerly item 11.
The chair introduced the items by informing the meeting that the community council was being asked to comment on the Neighbourhood Planning reports, which had been circulated, as part of the consultation process. Two related to Bermondsey, and one to Bankside. These reports had already been considered by main planning committee. In addition to this, there was also a general consultation process which members of the public could feed into directly. All residents and businesses were free to contact the cabinet member responsible, as the consultation about the areas was open to all.
Juliet Seymour, Planning Policy Manager, outlined that the community council was being asked to comment on the proposed boundaries and make-up of the Bankside Forum, and to comment on the proposed boundaries only in relation to the two proposed Bermondsey areas.
Under the Localism Act 2011, residents could ask for the creation of these Neighbourhood Forums. Their purpose was to put together Neighbourhood plans, to run alongside the council’s development plans, which planning officers would refer to. Once the forums had put together their draft plans, there would be an informal consultation for six weeks. The results of this would be included in the plan, which would then be handed over to the council. After the full, legal consultation conducted by the council which followed this, the plans could not be changed anymore and would be checked by the planning inspector. The final stage was a referendum for residents and one for businesses, if applicable.
Areas, which had Neighbourhood Plans, would be able to retain 25% of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) generated by them, compared with the usual 15%. The council could change the boundaries of the proposed area, but not refuse applications for neighbourhood forums.
Responding to a comment from the floor, Councillor Mark Gettleson explained that these forums were planning forums and, therefore, different in scope from community councils. If people did not like the proposed neighbourhood plan, they could vote it down in the referendum.
Concerns were expressed about the repercussions for the areas which were not designated in a Neighbourhood Plan, and about the scope and cost of the referenda. Views were expressed that these forums should have been put in place earlier, as much of the regeneration and development of the area had already taken place. |
|
|
Bankside Neighbourhood Forum
Supporting documents: Minutes: Councillors discussed the boundaries and the make-up of the Bankside Neighbourhood Forum.
RESOLVED:
That the community council is happy with the composition of the forum, and with the western and southern boundaries of the proposed area. In terms of the eastern boundary, the community council suggests including both sides of Borough High Street in the area, as the street feels like it is part of the Bankside area.
|
||
|
Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum
Supporting documents: Minutes: The chair said that the discussion about items 13.2 and 13.3 would be combined as they overlapped.
The chair proposed to first discuss the boundaries which were broadly the same in both proposals, and said that following on from what had just been discussed under 13.1, the western boundary of the proposed area should exclude Borough High Street. By the same token, both sides of Tower Bridge Road should be included in the area. There was a discussion about the council estates on the eastern side of Tower Bridge Road, and about whether they should also be included in the area in full, in order not to exclude parts of these estates. There was a discussion about the inclusion of St Saviour’s estate and the Arnold estate. The meeting heard that care needed to be taken for the proposed area not to become unwieldy due to its size. A suggestion was made to call the area “West Bermondsey”, as it effectively ended east of Tower Bridge Road.
There was a discussion about the northern boundary of the area. The chair summarised that there were three possible northern boundaries: Tooley Street, the river or the railway line. There was a discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of the these options in terms of their impact on the consultation and the referenda. There was also a discussion about the impact of ward boundaries, whether the boundaries should be drawn at the centre of the roads, and about the reasons why the two groups had proposed their respective boundaries.
In terms of the southern boundary of the area, there was a discussion about whether a larger or a smaller scale area would be better, whether the areas covered in the two options faced common issues, and whether they had the same natural constituency. The meeting heard a suggestion that the proposed larger area could be split into a “northwest” and “southwest” Bermondsey neighbourhood. Juliet Seymour explained that this was not a proposal which had been submitted to the council. She explained that if there were two areas, they would both require consultations and referenda. This would probably double what the council had to spend on these. Responding to a question, Juliet explained that officers had been advised these referenda could not be tacked onto other, upcoming elections.
The chair reminded the meeting that the community council had been asked to submit comments only, and that the decision was to be taken by the cabinet member responsible.
RESOLVED:
That the following comments by the community council be relayed to the cabinet member:
· In terms of the western boundary of each of the proposed Neighbourhood Forum areas, this should run up to Borough High Street but not include it. Instead it should border the eastern boundary of the Bankside Neighbourhood Forum plan, which should include the eastern side of Borough High Street.
· That consideration be given to extending the eastern boundary of each of the proposals to include Tower Bridge Road, on both sides, with ... view the full minutes text for item 13.2 |
||
|
Bermondsey Village Action Group
Supporting documents: Minutes: See discussion and resolution under 13.2. |
||
9.35pm |
Community Council Question to Council Assembly
Each community council may submit one question to a council assembly meeting that has previously been considered and noted by the community council.
Any question to be submitted from a community council to council assembly should first be the subject of discussion at a community council meeting. The subject matter and question should be clearly noted in the community council’s minutes and thereafter the agreed question can be referred to the constitutional team.
The community council is invited to consider if it wishes to submit a question to the ordinary meeting of council assembly in March 2013. Minutes: Councillors discussed the question which they would like to put to the Council Assembly meeting on 27 March 2013.
RESOLVED:
That the following question be forwarded to the Council Assembly meeting on 27 March 2013:
“What can the council do to help Southwark Police with their front counter provision, in light of the proposed closure of Rotherhithe police station?“ |
|
8.45pm |
Project Bank feedback
Minutes: This item will be considered at the next meeting on 12 March 2013. |
|
|
Community Intrastructure Project List report
Note: This item is an executive function. Minutes: This item will be considered at the next meeting on 12 March 2013. |