Agenda item

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 any necessary “kinks” to prevent the artificial splits in council estates that would follow by just having a rigid straight line.

·  In terms of the northern boundary, consideration of a third option, of simply adopting the railway line as the northern boundary, should be given.

·  In terms of the southern boundary, there was a straight choice to be made, between the benefit of having a relatively small “St Thomas Street-centric” plan, and the benefit of having a larger “West Bermondsey plan”. The community council believes that if the larger area is to be adopted, the area should be called “West Bermondsey”.