Agenda item

This This item was taken after item 3.

The following public questions were raised:

1.  When are the pavements on Walworth Road being cleaned with water jets? None of the residents has ever seen this happen.

The following public questions were received in writing:

2.  “Please would the Council's Head of Highways outline what contact he has had with the City of London and with TfL with regard to the [proposed closure of Tower Bridge for around two months in October and November 2016,  with special regard to mitigation of the traffic chaos and polluting traffic back-ups that are likely to have a seriously adverse effect on the community council area, on the north of the borough generally, and on neighbouring boroughs, prolonging the misery and cost to the local economy currently being caused by TfL works in the Elephant and Castle area and elsewhere.”

3.  “Are there plans for income generating parking spaces at Burgess Park greater than the existing ones?” 

4.  “Are there any plans for parking areas in the elephant and castle project?”

5.  “Will there be permits needed for barbecues in Burgess Park?”

6.  “Toilets in Burgess Park are needed. Who will clean them?”

7.  “In 2016, Southwark Council will consult on the Burgess Park section of the Elephant & Castle to Crystal Palace Quietway (QW7). In the consultation documents for the two adjoining sections of QW7 (Falmouth Road to Albany Road and New Church Road/Edmund Street junction to Peckham Road) it is stated that the cabinet member for environment and the public realm will be making a formal decision on these two sections before the end of 2015. How can a consultation on the Burgess Park section of QW7 be in line with Table 7 of Southwark Council's Adopted Statement of Community Involvement and allow for a fair consultation with communities when a decision on the two sections either side will already have been made? If these two sections are indeed approved then how can the consultation possibly address where QW7 enters the park?”

8.  “It was mentioned at the Community Council meeting that there are plans to put two cycleways through Burgess Park — Quietway 7 and the Southwark Spine - and, as was pointed out by the Southwark Cyclists’ representative at the meeting, these will attract many commuter cyclists to the park. However –

1. A petition against the Southwark Spine running straight through the park was presented to Southwark Council, and had over 500 signatures.

2. There is already an acknowledged problem with speeding cyclists in the park. The quiet route running along the Surrey Canal Walk, for instance, has been taken over by commuter cyclists.

3. There are already roads through the park - Wells Way in particular - which could be improved to make the commuter links North and South without spoiling the peace, quiet and relaxation of other park users who wish to enjoy the vastly improved park environment.

4. Many if not most cyclists will expect that on a specified cycling route they can proceed at commuter pace. This will inconvenience if not endanger pedestrians.

One must ask, given the above: why Southwark Council is still wedded to these cycle routes? Secondly, and specifically, why - as a first step - couldn't Wells Way be used to improve the link from QW7, rather than sending cyclists from a designated cycle lane into the park, where they will be sharing a path with all sorts of park users?”

9.  “The speed limit of cyclists in Burgess Park should state a lower speed. I was almost killed by a cyclist who never even stopped to find if I was alright and I could even hear him shouting as he sped off. It’s a good thing I didn’t experience a heart problem.”

10.  “Southwark Park open air swimming pool – could we not have similar in Burgess Park?”

11.  “Why are the whole of the balcony lighting and the flood lighting, which lights the way into the blocks at:

·  Broomfield House SE17 1SY on the Congreve Estate and

·  Comus House on Congreve Street, SE17 1TG

on during daylight hours? How is this helping the blocks’ carbon foot print?”

12.  “Is there still compost containers available?”

13.  “Councillor Hargrove spoke about the cost of replanting trees lost to the redevelopment projects and other public works. Is it possible to require landowners/developers/investors to include funding for tree and green space replacement in the proposals they submit for regeneration projects? If it is not possible to require this, might they be strongly encouraged?”

At the invitation of the chair, Councillor Neil Coyle MP addressed the meeting, saying that Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy benefitted local green spaces, and that he would be opposing the changes to them proposed by central government. He encouraged people to join the Grow Elephant project for the bulb planting on Canterbury Place. 

The meeting heard that the “my favourite green space” item was going take place during the break. Residents were asked to share things they loved about their favourite green space, and things the council could do to improve it with the aid of post-it notes on boards.

The meeting adjourned from 14:35 to 14:45, for a comfort break and to give people time to participate in the item.

In response to a query around the process for responding to public questions sent in between community council meetings, the chair said that this would be looked into.