Agenda and minutes
PDF 87 KBVenue: Lewisham College incorporating Southwark College – Bermondsey Centre, Keetons Road, London SE16 4EE
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 David Hubber and Lisa Rajan (both due to other council business), and from Councillors Linda Manchester and Wilma Nelson. There were also apologies for lateness from Councillors Catherine McDonald, Denise Capstick and Mark Gettleson and Paul Noblet. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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: Councillors made the following declarations in relation to:
Agenda item 9: Proposed new community infrastructure project list (CIPL) to guide S106 and CIL expenditure in each Community Council replacing the community project banks
Councillor Nick Stanton, non-pecuniary, in relation to the Reverdy Road project which is listed, but not recommended for inclusion, as his property backs onto this piece of land.
Agenda item 14: Edward III's Rotherhithe Conservation Area
Councillor Anood Al-Samerai, non-pecuniary, as she is a member of the Alfred Salter statue campaign.
Councillor Richard Livingstone, non-pecuniary, as he is a member of the Alfred Salter statue campaign.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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: There were none. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minutes
To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 30 January 2013. Supporting documents: Minutes: RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 January 2013 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7.10pm |
Community Announcements
Supporting documents: Minutes: Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) Updates
Safer Neighbourhoods Officers from Grange and from Surrey Docks wards were in attendance and fed back on the priorities of Grange, Surrey Docks and Rotherhithe wards:
Grange: Anti-social behaviour (especially by young people) around the Neckinger and Spa Road area, recovering stolen goods, for example mopeds, vagrancy/rough sleepers around the Leathermarket area
Surrey Docks: Anti-social behaviour by young people on the Osprey Estate, cycle thefts around Rotherhithe Street, robberies in and around Greenland Dock
Rotherhithe: Drugs (dealing and using), robberies around Canada Water, and cycle thefts.
Responding to questions from the floor, the officers explained that the term “robberies” referred to muggings and thefts of personal property, mostly mobile phones. He reminded attendees to call 999, if there was a present danger, and 101 at all other times, and encouraged people to keep an eye out for anything unusual. A resident remarked that officers from Livesey SNT did not seem to attend this community council, the officers responded they would feed that back.
Alfred and Ada Salter Statues Gary Glover informed the meeting that the statues project was progressing well, and that an artist had been commissioned to replace the statues at the original location along the river. He encouraged people to donate to the campaign on its website, emphasising that Southwark council would match contributions by the public. The campaign had so far attracted more than £15,000 in donations meaning that including the match-funded contribution from Southwark council this amounted to £30,000. The project target was £100,000 target. The project included installing CCTV and other security measures to ensure the statue was not stolen again. He encouraged people to log on to the website to make donations or to find out more about the project: www.salterstatues.co.uk
Street Leaders Dave Morrison explained that Street Leaders were ordinary residents who were given special phone numbers to ring or email addresses to write to, in order to report environmental issues in their neighbourhood or across the borough. He told the meeting that it was a worthwhile and satisfying thing to do which made a real difference to one’s area.
The meeting heard that a link between different groups such as Street Leaders and other groups such as Safer Neighbourhood panels was needed. Street Leaders also used to be supported by street wardens, which was now no longer the case. Views were expressed that there was not enough information about the street leaders scheme and that the council was not promoting it enough.
Big Local Project Anne Clayton, from the Big Local, informed the meeting that the organisation had grown out of the South Bermondsey Partnership whose board continued to operate, and which had successfully applied for a grant from a lottery fund for community engagement activities. 26 smaller groups had got together, and Bede in partnership with Time and Talents had led on the bid from the lottery fund. Over the last two years, the constituted group had been working on six estates in the ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7.20pm |
Feedback from traffic and transport workshops
For discussion.
The feedback for Lower Road/Jamaica Road will be circulated at the meeting. Supporting documents: Minutes: The chair announced that items 8 and 9 would be heard together. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7.35pm |
Proposed new community infrastructure project list (CIPL) to guide S106 and CIL expenditure in each Community Council replacing the community project banks
Note: This is an executive function.
Councilllors to consider the recommendations contained in the report.
Zayd Al-Jawad, Section 106 Legal Agreements Manager
Supporting documents: Minutes: Note: This is an executive function.
Zayd Al-Jawad, Section 106 Manager, introduced the report explaining that the projects in the appendix were meant as a sign-post for local preferences.
The chair proposed that a revised list be brought back to a future meeting to include feedback from the recent traffic and transport workshops. Responding to questions, Zayd explained that the strategic CIL objectives were being consulted on at the moment, and that guidance on what constitutes a local area in terms of CIL would be issued by the Government in the next few months.
Members made suggestions for amending the list of projects in Appendix 1, as outlined below.
The meeting heard that Rotherhithe residents may also want to consider applying to form a neighbourhood forum, and to speak to their local ward councillors for advice around this.
RESOLVED:
That officers are requested to produce a further report for a future community council meeting, with a revised list of projects which:
1. includes the additional comments and suggestions made at the meeting: · taking out the Old Kent Road / Glengall Road item · adding provisions about enhanced security to the Surrey Docks Farm suggestion · consolidating the two Dockley Road items · adding an item regarding the Shad Thames conservation area
2. includes the relevant items from the transport workshops and the strategic CIL details.
Note: The chair invited councillors and residents to submit further items to officers. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7.50pm |
Cleaner Greener Safer Projects overview
Update and overview of past and current CGS projects.
Public Realm Projects Team Minutes: The chair informed the meeting that lists of potential Cleaner Greener Safer (CGS) projects were on display in the hallway, for attendees to indicate their preferences on with the help of sticky dots.
Matt Hill, Public Realm Programme Manager, gave a presentation outlining past and current Cleaner Greener Safer (CGS) projects. Since 2003, there had been 323 Projects approved in the area, which equated to £6.4 million invested in capital improvements. Of these projects, 298 had been completed, leaving 25 remaining live projects. In the past three years (2010-2011 to 2012-2013) there had been 76 projects approved and £1.3 million awarded. Of these 76 projects, 54 had been completed. Matt went on to present some examples of the projects improving the public realm, e.g. in terms of lighting, streetscapes and greening. For the 2013 – 2014 programme the total funding available was capital £89,523 per ward and (£44,762 Livesey). Revenue £20,000 per ward (£10,000 Livesey). 84 applications had been submitted.
Responding to questions, Matt explained that the number of live projects would fall to 19 by the end of the financial year. A resident complained about the St. Helena & Millender Community Gardens project, which she said seemed to have stalled and the organisation which had been awarded the money did not respond to residents telephone calls. The chair said Matt would talk to the resident in the break.
ACTION: Councillors asked for the list of live CGS projects to be circulated to members, and to be included in the agenda pack for a future meeting. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8.05pm |
Community Assets Register
Ian Brinley, Community Buildings Officer
Minutes: Ian Brinley, Community Buildings Officer, informed the meeting of the new “community right to bid” and the related community asset register. These derived from the Localism Act 2011. Under the act, local community groups had the right to nominate assets to be put on the community assets register, for which they could then bid if they came up for sale. To qualify, the assets needed to foster community wellbeing by providing future cultural, sports or recreational use to the community. Communities had the right to purchase the freehold or a 25-year lease at market value. The following could nominate: parish council, neighbourhood forum, any group of at least 21 people on the electoral roll, and other organisations with a local connection such as business associations. Currently, a panel of officers decided on the merit of the nominations, but this arrangement was being reviewed. The list of successful and unsuccessful nominations would be published on the council’s website. Furthermore, there was an appeals process for the owner of the asset, but not for the community group nominating. Listing effectively acted as a 6-months moratorium on the sale of the asset, giving the community group time to raise the funds required. The seller was under no obligation to sell to the community group, or at less than the market rate. After the 6 months the seller was free to sell to any interested party they chose. There was, also a compensation scheme in place for landowners, to compensate for costs or losses incurred.
The chair reiterated that listing community assets on the register would not block the sale of such assets, merely delay the sale. Assets people may want to list included allotments and pubs. Southwark had been one of the first authorities in the country to list a community asset – a pub in Nunhead.
Suggestions were made to look into putting Rotherhithe police station and Tower Bridge Magistrates Court on the register.
Note: There followed a 15min break. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8.30pm |
Section 106 Report - Sands Film Cinema Club / Rotherhithe Picture Research Library
Councilllors to consider the recommendations contained in the report.
Zayd Al-Jawad, Section 106 Legal Agreements Manager
Supporting documents: Minutes: Zayd Al-Jawad, Section 106 Legal Agreements Manager, introduced and set out the proposals in the report. Olivier Stockman from Sands Films explained that this money would help give the charity side of Sands Films (the library and film club) security of tenure.
Councillors considered the information outlined in the report. Some commented favourably on the proposal, and thanked Olivier for the work he put into the project.
RESOLVED:
That the community council supports the recommendations contained in the report, and invites main planning committee to release the funding. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8.45pm |
Community Council Fund
Note: This is an executive function.
Councilllors to consider the recommendations contained in the report.
Gill Kelly, Community Council Development Officer
Supporting documents: Minutes: Note: This is an executive function.
Councillors considered the information presented in the report.
RESOLVED:
That the following amounts of Community Council Fund 2013/2014 be allocated to:
Councillors explained that in some wards, there had been more applications than there had been money to allocate. Furthermore, some wards had transferred part of their budgets to wards, in which had been oversubscribed with applications.
The meeting heard that Jean Douglas, from Hyde Housing, who had done a lot of community engagement work in Grange and Riverside wards for Hyde, was leaving her post. Councillors expressed their thanks to Jean for the work she had done in the community. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8.55pm |
Edward III's Rotherhithe Conservation Area
Councilllors to consider the recommendations contained in the report.
Supporting documents: Minutes: Councillors considered the recommendations outlined in the report.
RESOLVED:
That the community council endorses the recommendation contained in the report. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9.05pm |
Traffic management on Shand Street and Magdalen Street
Note: This is an executive function.
Councilllors to consider the recommendations contained in the report.
Supporting documents: Minutes: Note: This is an executive function.
Councillors considered the information contained in the report.
The meeting heard that the measures proposed were important for cyclists safety.
Resolved:
1. That the community council gives approval to advertise the relevant Traffic Management Order (TMO) and implement the proposed one-way operation on Shand Street and closure of Magdalen Street; subject to objections received being duly considered.
2. That an update about Magdalen Street and Shand Street, particularly in relation to the possibility of imposing width restrictions, be brought back to a future community council meeting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9.10pm |
Public question time
A public question form is included at page 114.
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.
Supporting documents: Minutes: The following public question was submitted in writing before the meeting:
“Could the community council please explain why the Council’s management of the Greenland Dock marina has not made a full planning permission application for the recent 25% increase in the numbers of berths in Greenland Dock, preventing environmental and amenity issues being considered and contrary to the promise that any further marina development in Greenland Dock would be subject to a full planning application?”
The chair said that a formal response would be sought, and brought back to a future meeting. |