Agenda and minutes
PDF 87 KBVenue: St Saviour's & St Olave's School, New Kent Road, London SE1 4AN
Contact: Alexa Coates Phone: 020 7525 7385 E-mail: alexa.coates@southwark.gov.uk
| Note | No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Welcome and introductions
Minutes: The chair welcomed councillors, members of the public and officers to the meeting. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apologies
Minutes: There were apologies for absence from councillors: Catherine Bowman, Dan Garfield and Darren Merrill. Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Adele Morris. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Disclosure of members' interests and dispensations
Minutes: There were none. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minutes
To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2012. Supporting documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2012 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the chair.
A resident raised an issue relating to the conditiion of the footpath on East Street and whether the contractor was paying for the repairs. The ward councillor present responded that the footpath was in a state of direpair due to a poor standard of work and that she would request a report back from officers. Councillors added that contractors were obliged to repair works which had not be completed a the required standard. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Items of business that the Chair deems urgent
Minutes: There were none. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Petitions and Deputations
The chair to advise on any deputations or petitions received. Minutes: There were none. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7.05 pm |
Community Announcements
If you have a community announcement please email details to community.councils@southwark.gov.uk before the meeting.
Minutes: The following community announcements were made:
Borough, Bankside and Walworth Youth Community Council Kirsty and Thamina from the youth community council attend the meeting to announce the projects there were recommending for funding from the community restoration fund (youth element). They had received 33 applications totalling £140,000 and had £23,000 to allocate. Kirsty and Thamina explained that this was the first task of the newly formed youth community council. The youth community council were making the following recommendation for funding:
Louise Doherty, Southwark Youth Service, encouraged young people to get involved with the youth community council which met every other Thursday at 5.30pm-7pm. She encouraged community council attendees to spread the word to any young people they knew who might be interested and she could be contacted by email louise.doherty@southwark.gov.uk
Community Streets Jack Ricketts, Transport Planner, informed the meeting of a public consultation for traffic improvements on Liverpool Grove which included proposals for a experimental road closure on Lytham Street. Jack had brought plans and consultation leaflets to the meeting and advised residents he was available to speak to in the break.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Juliet Seymour, planning policy, informed the meeting that the third stage of consultation on CIL was about to close. CIL was a new levy charged to developers for new homes and buildings which would replace Section 106. Juliet was available to speak to at the break if residents wanted more information.
Alcohol Anonymous (AA) Tom from AA asked residents if they knew of any notice boards in the community where AA posters could be displayed – he informed people he would be available in the break if people could help. Tom added that AA was a self supporting group which didn’t charge fees, there were approximately 28 meetings a week taking place in Southwark more information was available at www.alcoholics-anoymous.org.uk
East Walworth Neighbourhood Watch David Martin from the Peabody Estate off the Rodney Road asked councillors to request that funds from developers were made available to the estates impacted by developments to lessen the impact of construction works for example for double glazing for ground floor residents. David invited residents to attend a meeting on 21 March to discuss neighbourhood watch projects in the area.
Rev Graham Shaw The chair announced that Revered Graham Shaw would be retiring after 35 years service in the borough. He invited the meeting to thank Graham for all his hard work and wished him well in the future.
Safer Neighbourhoods Team Richard Barton gave an update on local policing teams – a new structure was planned which would potentially result in 8 officers in the area on 16 hour shift patterns working across the 5 wards in the community council area. The priorities across ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7.30 pm |
Liverpool Grove, Thrale Street, West Square Conservation Areas
To comment to planning committee on the proposals. Supporting documents: Minutes: Michael Tsoukaris, Design and Conservation Manager, introduced the report which contained additional information, specific to the West Square proposals, clarifying the purpose of a conservation area appraisal and the position of the ‘House Extensions in the Albert Triangle’ document 1986 which had been superseded by planning guidance on permitted development and new legislation. There was a discussion around mansard extensions and Michael explained that conservation area status does not preclude development and that any application for listed building consent would be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Residents from the Albert Square Triangle, situated within the West Square conservation area, raised concerns that officers considered the 1986 guidance issued was no longer relevant, which had been important in establishing the conservation area. There was also a discussion about the group listing of buildings and what the design aims for the entire block would be. Michael clarified that the listing of buildings in the Albert Triangle was as a result of a borough wide review in the 1970s and did not relate to the leaflet produced.
Councillors asked why a conservation area appraisal and a management plan were not considered together and if there was scope to do this. Michael explained that the two elements needed to be considered separately as the appraisal was about establishing the significance historical characteristics of an area and the management plan followed, as that addressed specific issues such as traffic management and public realm.
Local councillors suggested that in relation to the West Square Area appraisals the following paragraphs of the report were deleted: 1.8.1; 5.7.8; and 5.7.11.Councillors also questioned whether the level of detail in paragraph 5.7.17 was required in the appraisal or if this would be better suited to the conservation area management plan.
In relation the Thrale Street Conservation Area owners of the Menier Chocolate Factory Theatre expressed concerns about the impact of the conservation area on their plans to develop the theatre. Michael reassured the meeting that a conservation area does not preclude development but the aim is to manage change in an area with important historical features.
RESOLVED
That the comments made by Cathedrals Ward councillors, in relation to the West Square area appraisal, are put forward to planning committee by the community council as set out above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7.40 pm |
Welfare Reform
Information on the abolition of Council Tax Benefit and the introduction of a Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS). Supporting documents: Minutes: Councillor Neil Coyle, deputy cabinet member for welfare introduced the item by explaining that the Rightfully Yours Team helped navigate people through a complex benefits system to help them claim the benefits they were entitled to. Cllr Coyle explained that the government were making changes to tax credit which were about to come into force – these changes would have a significant effect on people in the borough.
From April 2013 changes to council tax benefit and the ‘bedroom tax’ would be introduced. People over 65 would not be affected by the changes. Cllr Coyle outlined that the council would help people affected by the changes where possible for example by: helping people to move into smaller properties. A hardship fund of £800,000 had been introduced by the council to assist residents.
Paul Edwards, from the Rightfully Yours team added that from April each council would be introducing their own council tax benefit scheme. Southwark would receive less support from government but had to provide the same level of support to the elderly, this meant that people of working age would have to pay for most of their council tax. Paul outlined that if people received certain benefits then they would receive discounts on their council tax – it was important that people were aware of the benefits they were entitled to claim. Paul also pointed out that it was worth requesting to pay council tax over a 12 month, rather than the usual 10 month period, this would help people to budget better.
Paul explained that the ‘bedroom tax’ would cut the amount of benefit people could claim if they were considered to have a spare room in their council or housing association home. Paul pointed out that a family with two boys under 12 were only deemed to require two bedrooms so if they were living in a three bedroom home they would be hit by the bedroom tax.
A benefit cap of £26,000 would also be introduced which would restrict the total amount of benefit an individual could receive. One key exception from the cap was for people receiving working tax credit, therefore the council was aiming to help people get into work. From April 2013 the social fund would be abolished which would effect people on very low incomes the council were given some money by government to provide some of the support previously provided by the social fund, through the Southwark Emergency Support Service, but the funding available was now less.
Paul highlighted that many residents in the borough would be effected by more than one element of the reforms introduced by government which would have a significant impact on their personal finances.
Kylie, from Rightfully Yours, explained the role of the team in helping people claim the benefits they were entitled to. Disability living allowance (DLA) was a key benefit as it was a passport to other benefits. DLA was under claimed in Southwark, Kylie encouraged people to get in touch with the team. ... view the full minutes text for item 9. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Community Council Fund 2013/14
Note: this is an executive function
To consider the allocation of community council funding for 2013/14. Supporting documents: Minutes: Note: This is an executive function.
Members considered the information in the report.
RESOLVED:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8.15 pm |
Public Question Time
A public question for is included at page 129.
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 chair invited attendees to submit any public questions in writing to the clerk.
The following questions were submitted:
Community Infrastrucutre Levy If there is to be the GLA CIL and Southwark Council CIL will they be the total charges related to a planning application?
At present the S106 can be made up from a number of areas such as education, transport etc. and there are special levy’s such as the TfL levy for road improvements round the Elephant & Castle that make up the charges on each site. Therefore the planning applications will only have the two charges with no breakdown or special charges?
East Walworth Green Links Programme The Council are undertaking works to the East Walworth Green Links Programme and although the outline proposals have been advertised other areas such as Bagshot Street have had detailed pamphlets setting out the proposed works - why were no detailed proposals provided to residents in the area of Sedan Way SE17?
The main issue is whether the mature beach trees and current grassed areas are to be preserved along Sedan Way from East Street to Surrey Square
A resident chased a response to a question submitted to the meeting on 10 October 2012:
There are confusing signs on Heygate Street onto Walworth Road stating end of 20 mile per hour zone which indicate Walworth Road is an 30 mile per hour road. Then under the railway bridge there is a sign end of 20 mile per hour zone which is conflicting information – can this be addressed?
To which a response had been provided:
As part of a recent signage review in the Walworth area, the signage in Heygate Street will be changed to reflect the 20mph limit in Walworth Road.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8.35 pm |
Bankside Neighbourhood Forum
The community council are asked to comment the application for a neighbourhood development area and also for qualifying body status by Bankside Neighbourhood Forum as set out in the report.
Supporting documents: Minutes: Juliet Seymour, Planning Policy Manager, introduced the report and outlined the neighbourhood planning process. In response to a questions from the floor Juliet explained that the report had been brought back to the community council as the questions and issued raised by councillors at the last meeting had not been answered. The Bankside and Bermondsey forums had been pathfinders which meant they had received funding from the council which had come from a government grant.
There was a discussion around the area proposed some members of the audience felt the area should not go west of Blackfriars Road as this would impact on the work of the South Bank Forum which existed in this area.
Tim Wood, the chair of the Bankside Forum addressed the representation issues which had been raised by councillors at the last meeting stating that the 21 members of the forum were from groups such as: businesses, residents and church representatives. He stated that the Localism Act which established the neighbourhood planning procedures required forums to reflect the community and to prepare a plan that understands and reflects the local community – the forums were not required to be completely representative in terms of membership.
In response to questions from councillors Juliet clarified that an area could only be included in one plan and that if the boundary was amended then the consultation process would need to begin again. Groups were now requested to provide information on how their membership reflects the communities in the area and that groups were being recommended to use Charity Commission guidance to develop their constitutions, this was in response to the questions raised by councillors at the last community council meeting. Councillors commented that they felt it was appropriate to include Borough High Street within the boundary of the area.
RESOLVED
That the community council is broadly supportive of the Bankside Neighbourhood Forum and the proposed area however the community council raises concerns about how far the group represents the area, in relation to the council’s duties under the Equalities Act.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8.30 pm |
Local Parking Amendments
Note: this is an executive function
To consider the local parking amendments set out in the report. Supporting documents: Minutes: Note: This is an executive function.
Members considered the information 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:
· Lorrimore Road - install one disabled persons’ (blue badge) parking bay.
· Lorrimore Road – extend permit holder (J) parking bays in the following locations:
o Outside No. 58 o Outside No. 73 o Outside No. 77 o Opposite No. 93 o Adjacent to No. 98.
· Congreve Street - install double yellow lines outside the entrance to garages adjacent to Barker House and extend the adjacent permit holder (M1) parking bay.
· Hopton Street - install a 20m new permit holder (C1) parking bay in proximity to Hopton Point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8.40 pm |
Community Council Questions 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.
Minutes: The community council decided not to put a question forward to the next council assembly meeting. |