Agenda and minutes
PDF 93 KBVenue: St Saviour's & St Olave's School, New Kent Road, London SE1 4AN
Contact: Gerald Gohler, Constitutional Officer
| 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 lateness from Councillor Catherine Bowman.
Councillor Tim McNally gave his apologies for having to leave the meeting early.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Disclosure of members' interests and dispensations
Minutes: The following member made a declaration regarding agenda item below:
19. Neighbourhood planning (formerly item 17)
Councillor David Noakes, non-pecuniary, as although he was a non-voting member of the Southbank and Waterloo neighbourhood forum's steering group, he would be speaking in his capacity as a ward councillor. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Items of business that the Chair deems urgent
Minutes: The chair agreed to accept the following items as urgent items:
13. Cleaner greener safer revenue 2014/2015 allocations (formerly item 18)
14. Community council fund 2014/15 allocations (formerly item 19)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2013 to be agreed as a correct record and signed by the chair. Supporting documents: Minutes: RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2013 be agreed as a correct record, and signed by the chair. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.05pm |
Borough, Bankside and Walworth Youth Community Council
Representatives of the youth community council to feed back on their recent activities including a community survey. Minutes: Members of the Borough, Bankside and Walworth Youth Community Council informed the meeting about some of their recent projects and activities. They said that they had input into allocations from the community restoration fund, and had done some work around employment and personal safety for young people. They had also conducted a survey on Walworth Road, and had found a lack of facilities for young people. Their plan was to set up a summer facility in the area, which would address these issues by offering outdoor activities and workshops. They also asked for volunteers to help with the running of this project.
Responding to questions from councillors and residents, the representatives of the youth community council explained that there were some services and clubs for young people at local schools, but that these were only aimed at the pupils attending those particular schools, rather than at all young people in the area. Volunteers could expect to work at the project some hours after school and on weekends. The project would be running for three to six months, and would be supported by officers from the youth service. The representatives of the youth community council reminded attendees that they had brought along survey questionnaires which they asked people to fill in. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.25pm |
Older persons' slot
The chair to feed back on issues raised at the previous meeting. Minutes: The chair said that feedback on this item would be given later in the meeting. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.30pm |
Petitions and Deputations
The chair to advise on any deputations or petitions received. Minutes: There were none. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.45pm |
Community announcements
Minutes: Youth project at Hankey Hall The meeting heard that there was a council-run youth project at Hankey Hall every Wednesday from 6pm onwards. More information was available from local councillors.
Better pedestrian crossings for Borough High Street The meeting heard that there had been a campaign for better pedestrian crossings on Borough High Street: one at Trinity Street, and one further north at John Harvard library. Funding for the crossings had now been secured from the council. The crossings were to be put in over the next 12 months, but pressure had to be brought to bear on Transport for London (TfL), because even though the council had allocated the funding, TfL’s agreement was required.
Regeneration and housing related news The chair informed the meeting that the council had appointed Notting Hill Housing Trust as its partner for the redevelopment of the Aylesbury estate. The redevelopment would provide a minimum of 50 per cent affordable homes, 75 per cent of which would be for social rent, and 25 per cent shared ownership or shared equity. The meeting also heard that that the council had agreed a 30-year housing strategy, which included the construction of 11,000 new council homes, as well as ensuring all council homes were fit for purpose and improving private sector. Council rents would not increase by more than the rate of inflation in the coming financial year. The council had also agreed the Blackfriars Road, Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
Health and wellbeing strategy consultation '1,000 lives' Adam Boey, senior strategy officer (Children’s and Adult Services), informed the meeting that the Health and Wellbeing Board was conducting a story-telling exercise, as part of its engagement programme. Patients and residents in general were encouraged to share their stories of using health and social care services, as well as their visions, with the board. The board which was composed of Southwark council, the clinical commissioning group, the public health part of the council, Health Watch, Safer Southwark partnership and representatives of carers’ groups. The exercise would be used to inform and revise the strategy to reflect the stories, experiences and needs of residents. As part of this, there would be events on 12 February from 11am to 5pm at the Employment Academy, 29 Peckham Road SE5 8UA, and on 25 February 11am to 5pm at InSpire, The Crypt at St Peter’s, Liverpool Grove SE17 2HH.
Elephant and Castle - northern roundabout consultation Emma Crittenden, from TfL’s consultation team, informed the meeting that from the end of February, TfL would be consulting on a new road layout for what was presently the northern roundabout at Elephant and Castle. She explained that the roundabout was currently one of the worst performing junctions in London, which saw a lot of collisions and had very limited cycling provision. The plans, which were being consulted on, included removing the roundabout and the subways, shifting the road north, adding cycling facilities and creating a large public space. The consultation ... view the full minutes text for item 9. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2.05pm |
Elephant and Castle shopping centre consultation
Representatives from Delancey to address the meeting. Minutes: Stafford Lancaster from Delancey introduced his colleagues Richard Chambers, development director, and Kim Humphreys, who is responsible for the consultation. The meeting heard that Delancey were London-based developer, long-term investor and the new owners of the Elephant & Castle shopping centre. The company also managed commercial premises such as the N1 shopping centre in Islington, as well as the former athlete’s village in the Olympic park, where they would be delivering 3,000 new homes for private lettings. In its rental property business, Delancey was focused on providing long-term tenancies, which were affordable to Londoners. A typical lease ran for three years, with rent increases in line with inflation. Delancey had starting developing space on the corner of Elephant Road and New Kent Road: 400 rental homes would be created there, which would be private rented, relevant to the London market. The space would also no longer be called “Tribeca Square”.
The plan was to demolish the shopping centre and to redevelop the area as a town centre with retail and residential space, including affordable housing. The Northern Line ticket hall and the train station would be integrated into the site. The company had started speaking to stakeholders, such as the traders, already and would start the formal consultation in late spring, with a view to submitting a planning application at the end of the year.
Responding to questions, Stafford explained that they would be happy to contribute to plans for Elephant Road, and would work with Lend Lease to improve that area, for example on the possible reinstatement of the cycle lane in Elephant Road. Delancey would also work with the neighbourhood forums, community groups and with Notting Hill Housing Trust, who had been named the council’s partner for the regeneration of the Aylesbury Estate. Delancey would also ensure the creation of jobs for local people, especially young people, in the redevelopment of the shopping centre, improved transport links and links with existing infrastructure like East Street Market. Later in the year, they would be speaking to the various stakeholders, and were already speaking to existing tenants and to the Latin American community, who had approached them.
The new development would include an interchange with the Northern Line only; the Bakerloo line entrance would be unaffected. In order to demolish the shopping centre, it had to be vacant. Delancey would provide support to traders and retailers to relocate, for example to the new market square on Elephant Road developed by them, or to the new retail units in the development by Lend Lease. The aim was to recreate an urban town centre and integrate what was there already. Delancey’s contractors would be using the local labour force, providing job opportunities for local people, especially young people.
The meeting also heard the following comments from the floor: that with the increased building density, fire safety would be an issue; Delancey should take care to acknowledge the value of the existing community and amenities; the flavour and mix of local businesses should ... view the full minutes text for item 10. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2.20pm |
Cleaner Greener Safer funding reallocation
Note: This is an executive function.
Councillors to consider the information contained in the report.
Supporting documents: Minutes: Note: This is an executive function.
Councillors considered the information contained in the report.
RESOLVED:
That a reallocation of £62,909 of available funding from the 2013-14 Cleaner Greener Safer programme to the 2014-15 Cleaner Greener Safer be approved. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2.25pm |
Cleaner Greener Safer 2014/15: capital funding allocation
Note: This is an executive function.
Councillors to consider the information contained in the report.
Supporting documents: Minutes: Note: This is an executive function.
Councillors considered the information contained in the report.
RESOLVED:
That the following allocations of funding from the 2014-15 Cleaner Greener Safer (CGS) capital programme be agreed:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cleaner greener safer revenue 2014/2015 allocations (formerly item 18)
Note: This is an executive function.
Councillors to consider the information contained in the report.
To follow.
Supporting documents: Minutes: Note: This is an executive function.
Councillors considered the information contained in the report.
RESOLVED:
That the following amounts of Cleaner Greener Safer (CGS) revenue budget be allocated:
Cathedrals ward
Chaucer ward
East Walworth ward
Faraday ward
Newington ward
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Community council fund 2014/15 allocations (formerly item 19)
Note: This is an executive function.
Councillors to consider the information contained in the report.
To follow. Supporting documents: Minutes: Note: This is an executive function.
Councillors considered the information contained in the report.
RESOLVED:
That the following amounts of Community Council fund budget be allocated:
Cathedrals ward
Chaucer ward
East Walworth ward
Faraday ward
Newington ward
The meeting heard that the process of allocating all the funding above had been difficult, as a large number of very good applications had been received, which had far outstripped the funding available.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2.35pm |
Local heritage buildings (formerly item 13)
Jeremy Leach (Walworth Society) to address the meeting. Minutes: Jeremy Leach from the Walworth Society addressed the meeting about the Victorian sorting office on Penrose St, which he said was under threat from demolition. The building, designed by architect Sir Henry Tanner, had been built in 1897, and had, until recently, been viably used as a recording studio. There had been a campaign by Walworth residents against the demolition, which had received local and national press coverage. He called on the community council to support local residents in their efforts to protect the building.
The chair took a sounding from the floor, which indicated that the large majority of the audience were in favour of protecting the old sorting office.
Members discussed issues around the building, including passing a motion on this, and the implications that such a motion would have for members who also sit on the main planning committee, and on planning sub-committees. A motion was tabled, seconded and agreed.
RESOLVED:
That this community council recognises the particular local heritage significance of the old Walworth sorting office on Penrose Street (acknowledged both by English Heritage and the Victorian Society), and desires to protect the building from demolition by developers.
Note: Councillors Neil Coyle, Rebecca Lury, Darren Merrill and Adele Morris abstained from the vote, and asked for this to be recorded in accordance with paragraph 9.4 of the community council procedure rules, as they are members or reserves on the planning committee, or a planning sub-committee. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2.50pm |
Local parking amendments (formerly item 14)
Note: This is an executive function.
Councillors to consider the information contained in the report. Supporting documents: Minutes: 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:
• Steedman Street – change single yellow line to double yellow line between Hampton Street and the railway bridge to remove risk of obstruction at weekends and overnight.
• Great Dover Street – designate all bays in Great Dover Street (where Southwark Council is traffic authority) as permit holder (D) parking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3.00pm |
Public Question Time (formerly item 15)
A public question form is included on page 38.
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 questions were posed at the meeting:
The following questions were submitted in writing at the meeting:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3.05pm |
Community Council Question to Council Assembly (formerly item 16)
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 on Wednesday 26 March 2014. Minutes: Following a discussion, the community council considered whether to submit a question to the Council Assembly meeting on 26 March 2014.
RESOLVED:
That the following question be submitted to the council assembly meeting on 26 March 2014:
“Given the recent closure of fire stations in the borough by the Mayor of London, will the council continue to pressure and lobby to regain more fire safety in the borough?” |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3.10pm |
Neighbourhood planning (formerly item 17)
Minutes: Note: Items 19.1 and 19.2 (formerly items 17.1 and 17.2) were heard together.
Juliet Seymour, planning policy manager, introduced the two reports, and explained that neighbourhood planning was an opportunity for local residents to put together planning documents, which the council would use when making planning decisions.
The area set out in the reports was partly in Lambeth and partly in Southwark. One part of it, north of The Cut, was also included in another neighbourhood area application - by the Bankside Neighbourhood Forum - which had previously been commented on by the community council. Members were now asked to comment on the options for dealing with the potential overlap:
Juliet explained that the Bankside group had had its forum and area agreed, and that maps for all the proposed neighbourhood areas were on the council’s website.
Mark Richards, chair of the proposed South Bank and Waterloo forum, explained that in the long term there were a lot of issues which concerned both groups, and on which they would cooperate. In the short term, however, his group felt that the contested area should be part of the South Bank and Waterloo neighbourhood forum (SBWNF).
In answer to questions from councillors, Mark Richards explained that the group had 230 members, with an even split between residents and businesses. The number of Southwark members was 67, also evenly split. The forum strongly wanted to be part of Southwark. He went on to say that neighbourhoods crossed borough boundaries, and that it was therefore important to have forums which span those boundaries, where appropriate.
Tim Wood, the chair of the Bankside forum, explained that should the boundaries be redrawn, this would mean the Bankside forum would have to put in another application, which would delay constituting the area. He went on to say that the groups would probably pursue similar aims.
Members then discussed the report and the issues raised by it.
RESOLVED:
That the official feedback of the community council to the cabinet member for regeneration and corporate strategy be as follows:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Application for a Neighbourhood Forum by South Bank and Waterloo Neighbourhood Forum (SBWNF) (formerly item 17.1)
Councillors to consider the information contained in the report. Supporting documents: Minutes: Considered under item 19. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Neighbourhood Planning - Application for a Neighbourhood Development Area and Business Area by the South Bank and Waterloo Neighbourhood Forum (formerly item 17.2)
Councillors to consider the information contained in the report.
Supporting documents: Minutes: Considered under item 19.
In reference to a discussion at the previous meeting, the chair informed attendees that the council had a single telephone for older residents who needed to contact the council’s adult services. This 020 7525 3324.
The chair thanked everyone for attending. |