Agenda and minutes

Peckham and Nunhead Community Council - Tuesday 15 November 2016 7.00 pm

Venue: St Mary's Church and Community Centre, 17 St Mary's Road, London, SE15 2EA

Contact: Beverley Olamijulo, Constitutional Officer on telephone 020 7525 7234 email 

Note No. Item


Introduction and welcome

    • Share this item


    The chair introduced himself and welcomed councillors, members of the public and officers to the meeting.


    The chair thanked representatives of St Mary’s Church for hosting the meeting.



    • Share this item

    To receive any apologies for absence.


    Councillors Sandra Rhule (vice-chair), Fiona Colley and Nick Dolezal had submitted their apologies for absence. Councillor Johnson Situ gave his apologies for lateness.


Disclosure of members' interests and dispensations

    • Share this item

    Members to declare any interests and dispensation in respect of any item of business to be considered at this meeting.


    There were none.


Items of business that the Chair deems urgent

    • Share this item

    The chair to advise whether they have agreed to any item of urgent business being admitted to the agenda.


    The chair agreed to accept as an late and urgent item the allocation of funding from the highways capital devolved budget for 2015-16 and 2016-17.


Minutes from the previous meeting

    • Share this item

    To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 21 September 2016.

    Supporting documents:




    That the minutes including the following amendment of the meeting held on 21 September 2016 be agreed as an accurate record and signed by the chair, including the following amendment: That Councillor Jasmine Ali’s apologies for absence be recorded in the minutes.


Matters arising from previous meeting

    • Share this item


    Council’s habitual complaints policy


    The clerk explained that the public question concerning the above which was raised at the previous meetings in June 2016 and September 2016 was rejected in accordance with community council procedure rule 7.3.4 (f). The question was ruled out of order, because the subject matter raised a grievance for which there are other established processes within the council for a resolution.


    Council’s commitment to honesty, openness and accountability


    The clerk explained that the public question concerning the above raised a grievance under community council procedure rule 7.3.4 (f), and therefore was rejected for the reasons outlined above.


    With the chair’s agreement, Councillor Livingstone suggested whether a written response could be provided before the next meeting. 


    The council’s response following the meeting:


    Community councils offer an opportunity for local people to engage with the democratic process and act as a focal point for discussion on matters that affect the area.  If you wish local councillors to comment on the matters you raise, I would recommend that you contact them individually; it would be inappropriate for the community council to comment on the actions of councillors and council officers.


    Members of the public can submit a complaint, if they believe that councillors were acting in a manner that was outside the code of conduct, and they could raise a complaint with the council’s Monitoring Officer.


    Link to the council’s website on how to complain:

7.10 pm



    • Share this item

    Deputation request from some Lane ward residents.


    Deputation request from some residents representing Bells Gardens Tenants and Residents Association (report to follow).

    Supporting documents:


    The community council received two deputation requests from local residents in Peckham and Nunhead.


Deputation request from the Lane ward residents

    • Share this item

    Supporting documents:


    The first deputation was presented by some residents of The Lane ward who were opposed to the council’s proposal to remove the “ability for residents to formally consider traffic management schemes at community council meetings.”


    The spokesperson, Alastair Roots addressed the meeting and outlined that local residents would like further clarification from the council that the traffic schemes would not be cut or reduced at community councils. The residents would like to ensure there was greater transparency with non–strategic schemes especially in relation to air quality.  Alastair said it was important for residents to comment on dropped kerbs and any decisions that would not hinder the process, but provide more clarity on traffic management schemes.


    Following the deputation, Councillor Hargrove addressed the meeting. He outlined that the community councils would continue to consult on traffic management schemes in the way it does now. 


    He explained that the consultation which was held last year resulted in proposals being made to make community council meetings and more community engagement focussed. He said it was also a way to improve community participation with the council and to ensure there was better engagement with local people. He confirmed that minor traffic decisions would not be considered at community councils.


    The meeting took on board the following comments after the deputation:


    The proposed changes would still include greater transparency in the decision making process to ensure that the council was consulting with the public.


    The overview and scrutiny committee could still call in the strategic (including larger schemes) and non-strategic items.


    Residents would still have an opportunity to have their say at the meeting on traffic management issues.


    Ward councillors would still have an opportunity to refer the matter to community councils, if they were concerned with a particular scheme.


    The community council could consult members and proceed to statutory consultation, if no formal objections were received.  If there were objections to a scheme, then the item would be presented to the cabinet member.


Deputation report Edwin House

    • Share this item

    Supporting documents:


    This deputation was presented by representatives of Bells Gardens Tenants and Residents Association and residents of Edwin House.


    The representatives stated that the purpose of their deputation was to start the process of allocating funding to the TRA so that a secure door entry system was installed at Edwin House.


    The deputation report outlines that residents of Edwin House had endured long standing problems with people from outside the area with people using the lifts and entrances of the block for anti-social activities.


    The spokesperson, Paul Wright addressed the meeting. He explained that Edwin House had been a focus of anti-social behaviour for a long time with complaints being received from residents on a regular basis. The matter had been referred to their local ward councillors and the police ward panel.


    Peckham ward councillor Councillor Soanes highlighted that Councillors Barrie Hargrove, Johnson Situ and herself had attended the estate and witnessed the end result of the anti-social behaviour problems residents experienced all the time. They attended the local tenants and residents meetings and were able to hear the residents concerns.  Councillor Soanes stated that the residents should not have to put up with this which was why ward colleagues welcomed the attendance of the deputation and the local petition which was presented to members at the meeting.


    Councillor Hargrove referred to the community wardens who had seen evidence of rough sleeping and other activities of a sexual nature at the entrances and stairway of Edwin House.  He emphasised that it was a very serious situation.


    The following motion was agreed at the meeting.




    1.  That the deputation from representatives of Bells Gardens Tenants and Residents Association be noted.


    2.  That the long standing problems with anti social behaviour at Edwin House be noted.


    3.  That consideration should be given for Edwin House block to be included on the entry door programme 2019/20, as it was the only block that did not have a secure entry system. The police inspector who was present at the meeting gave an undertaking that the police would write formally to the council about the on-going issues and the urgent need of a secure entry system at Edwin House.

7.20 pm


Community announcements and presentations

    • Share this item

    To receive any community announcements or presentations at this meeting.  This can include community events or matters of local interest.


    Post office, Peckham High Street


    The developers are working with Travelodge and the owners of the Post Office site on proposals for a new hotel on the site. The proposals will include new facilities for the post office. As part of the application process the developers would like to carry out a consultation of the proposal with local interest groups and the community council.


    Police updates


    To receive an update from the police on community safety matters.


    Crown Post Office, Peckham High Street


    Robert O’Hara, an architect, addressed the meeting on the above. He said he was acting on behalf of the developers who in turn were working with Travelodge and the current owners of the Post Office. He explained the proposals were to provide a new hotel on the post office site.  The proposed development would also include new facilities for the post office.


    Robert said the developers were consulting the community council and community groups e.g. Peckham Vision and Peckham Society about their plans.


    The plan would be to demolish the existing (1960s) post office building and provide a new build on the same location. Subject to planning approval the building works would start in 2017.


    In response to questions, regarding the timeline for the development; Robert confirmed that there would be no disruption to the service although he understood that due to the closure of the Rye Lane post office this created a knock-on effect at the post office in Peckham.  He acknowledged that the number of serving counters had to be addressed particularly during its busiest times.


    Following further questions, Robert responded by stating that the post office had always been a franchise. The hotel would benefit the community because it would create jobs.


    People wanted to know how the consultation would be relayed to the local community. Robert said anyone could raise any specific issues or questions through him and representatives from the post office.


    The chair thanked Robert for attending the meeting. He agreed to be available for questions during the break.


    Police updates


    Inspector Alex Ogilvie introduced himself as the new inspector for the wards covered by Peckham and Nunhead. Inspector Ogilvie had been in post for three weeks and was still getting used to some of the issues in the borough.


    Inspector Ogilvie reported on the crime statistics for the area and stated there had been increase in robbery offences particularly over the summer months. He said crime of this sort was mostly carried out by people using mopeds – usually from neighbouring boroughs.  In light of this, the police decided to increase their patrols. 


    He mentioned that a recent stop and search incident in Nunhead Green found several individuals were carrying knives. They were subsequently arrested and charged.


    In response to questions, each ward would be given an extra dedicated ward officer Inspector Ogilvie confirmed this would happen within the next few weeks. He said this would depend on the demands and what the issues were.


    Inspector Ogilvie gave a commitment to write formally to the council about the continued problems at Edwin House. He said he would speak to the night economy team and provide support whenever it was needed.


    Peckham Coal line


    Lesley Wertheimer briefly spoke about the Peckham Coal line project and its feasibility study. She said the project wanted to hear people’s views on proposals for a safe route from Peckham station to Queens Road.


    People were given the opportunity to participate in a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

7.35 pm


Theme for the meeting: Traffic, Transport and Road Safety

    • Share this item



    ·  Road safety: Local traffic routes, pedestrians, pedestrian crossings, buses, cyclists  and rat running


    ·  Safer routes in Southwark: School travel plan


    ·  Air quality and traffic pollution  


    ·  Making streets safer – physical measures, e.g. better lighting and tree cutting (including hedges) Parking control


    Officers and representatives


    Ernst Eramus, Southwark Parks and Open Spaces


    Stephen Inch, (GLA) London Assembly (air quality and traffic pollution)


    Bill Legassick, Southwark Environment Protection


    Yvonne Bastien, Grounds Maintenance Supervisor, Environment and Leisure


    Southwark officers from the Environment and Leisure department


    Representative from Transport for London (TfL)




    1.  Identify streets where lighting, hedges, overgrown trees, rubbish, that cause problems for pedestrians, push chairs, wheelchairs.


    2.  Identify rat running routes, or roads where speeding is a problem.


    3.  Identify schools where parking on zigzags etc. is compromising children’s safety.


    4.  Suggestions for improving safety/encourage cycling and walking/ car sharing etc.


    5.  Concerns about air pollution in your ward.


    6.  Report Potholes.


    7.  Driver education how to get the best from your vehicle driving in town.


    8.  How to get something done about road safety issues by Council/Police/TfL.


    The chair introduced the theme for the meeting which was on traffic, transport and road safety.  Officers from environment and leisure were available to address the meeting and to respond to questions.


    Matt Hill, Head of Highways responded to a question concerning the road closure at Camberwell Grove which was due to the repair works at the railway bridge. Matt mentioned that the council had been working with Network Rail to get the road re-opened in 2017. The council and TfL have to work on a design and check the availability of funding options from TfL.


    Air quality and traffic pollution


    Bill Legassick, Environmental Health Officer, spoke about the air quality and its strategy. He announced that the council would be carrying out a consultation in mid- December 2016 to the beginning February 2017 on the air quality action plan.  He said the council were continuously monitoring air quality around Elephant and Castle and Old Kent Road.


    Bill addressed provided visual displays by way of a PowerPoint regarding the levels of air quality and the safe levels of pollution in parts of the borough. He explained that Southwark had joined 11 other boroughs to participate in the anti-idling project.


    Anti-idling project:


    People were asked if they wanted to become a volunteer to help improve the local air quality.  More information was available at: or email


    Making streets safer


    Yvonne Bastien, Grounds Maintenance Supervisor, was available during the meeting to speak to local residents.


    Safer routes in Southwark


    Gary Douglas, School Travel Plans Advisor, spoke about his role which was to encourage schools to develop a school travel plan. This meant encouraging children to walk, cycle or ride a scooter to promote healthy living. Gary said the school travel plan was also designed to reduce congestion during school times. The council also encouraged more children to cycle or walk to school. It was noted that some schools in the borough were accredited to encourage pupils to walk or cycle. Gary referred to an initiative Bellenden School did which was “build a bike programme”. This enabled young people to build a bike from recycled bike parts and gave them the opportunity to keep the bike free of charge once it was built. Gary said it was important to keep people fully engaged and involved in order for everyone to remain healthy and safe.


    Southwark parks and open spaces


    Ernst Eramus, Arboricultural Officer presented information about the number of trees that are proactively managed by Southwark (57,000). He said the tree section manages trees on highways, housing estates and parks/cemeteries. Trees in Nunhead Cemetery are also managed on an adhoc basis.

    The council carries out a full visual tree assessment and survey of trees every 3 to 5 years recording the height, spread, condition, and hazards and recommending works.

    The council maintains approximately 300 trees in the borough through planting and providing support and advice to other council departments relating to trees.


    The reasons for removing a tree would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

8.25 pm


Community Council Question to Council Assembly

    • Share this item

    Peckham and Nunhead Community Council agreed to submit the below question to Council Assembly on 30 November 2016.


    “What further action could the council take to monitor as well as, boost the range and quality of apprenticeships on offer to young people in the borough?”


    The question was submitted to council assembly on the 30 November 2016. The response was noted below.


    Community council question


    What further action could the council take to monitor as well as boost the range and quality of apprenticeships on offer to young people in the borough?




    The Southwark Apprenticeship Standard was launched in March 2015 to underpin the

    council’s commitment to create 2000 apprenticeships with a clear message on quality.

    The Standard is comprised of four quality criteria which outline the key elements of a

    quality apprenticeship:


    ·  Minimum contract term of 12 months

    ·  Payment of the London Living Wage

    ·  Quality training provision (a further technical definition is provided)

    ·  Proper mentoring and support.


    There are currently 34 organisations signed up to the Standard as partners (meeting

    all the criteria), supporters (meeting at least 3 of the 4 criteria) and champions (organisations which do not directly employ apprentices but which work with employers

    to do so). See below.




    A J Morrisroe & Sons Ltd

    A&E Elkins Ltd


    Better Bankside

    Brigade and Beyond Food



    Harrow Green



    London South Bank University

    Lyndon Scaffolding Plc


    Norton Rose Fulbright




    Walworth Garden farm




    Ardmore Construction



    Everyone Active

    F M Conway


    Mondrian London

    Notting Hill Housing Group

    Suzanne James




    Blue Bermondsey

    Living Wage Foundation


    St Giles

    Team London Bridge


    Waterloo Quarter




    In addition to engaging employers through the Standard, the council is providing two target services to supplement existing business and employment support projects. A free business support service is available to all Southwark small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to help them create quality apprenticeships. This service is supported by a sales contract which is ensuring as many SMEs as possible are made aware of the service. To date 74 employers have been engaged through this service. A pre-apprenticeship service is available to all Southwark employers to help better connect them to the labour market. The service works with residents close to the labour market and has close ties with Southwark Apprenticeship Standard partners and supporters, connecting them to some of the best opportunities in the borough. In November 2016, a campaign targeting young, unemployed and low paid residents was launched. This campaign aims to raise awareness of, and interest in, apprenticeships among all residents. It has been developed in partnership with eight local employers:


    Greater London Assembly  Brigade and Beyond Food   Tideway

    Price Waterhouse Coopers   Barclays  Essentia

    Better Bankside   Better Bankside


    The Local Economy Team works closely with procurement colleagues to support the integration of apprenticeships in new contracts.


    To date the council has delivered 803 apprenticeships through a combination of direct delivery, contracting, commissioning, and business support and engagement.


    The council has also been awarded best borough by London Councils for supply chain and outperforms all London Boroughs in creating apprenticeships through working with business.

8.35 pm


Public question time

    • Share this item

    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.


    There was no formal public question time.


    Questions were referred to in the ward discussion when the themed part of the meeting took place during the workshops.

8.45 pm


Local parking and traffic report

    • Share this item

    Note: This is an executive function for decision by the community council.


    Members to consider the recommendations contained within the report.


    Supporting documents:


    Note: This is an executive function for decision by the community council.


    Members considered the recommendations contained within the report.




    That the following local traffic and parking amendments set out in the appendices to the report be approved subject to the outcome of any necessary statutory consultation and procedures:


    ·  Woods Road – to install new double yellow lines at the junctions with Burchell Road and Colmore Mews to maintain access for refuse and emergency vehicles.


    ·  Tower Mill Road – to install double yellow lines on junctions and adjacent to footway build outs to maintain access and to prevent obstructive and dangerous parking and to improve inter visibility at junctions for all road users.



Secure cycle parking (Cycle Hangar)


Highways Capital Investment for 2015/16 and 2016/17 (Late item)

    • Share this item


    Note: This is an executive function for decision by the community council.


    The item follows on from the local ward decisions that were taken on the 21 September 2016 when Members considered the Highways Capital Investment for 2015/16 and 2016/17.




    That the funding from the Highways Capital Investment for 2015/16 and 2016/17 be allocated to:


    Peckham Rye ward


    The pavement and the tarmacked area that runs along Peckham Rye Common on the southern side of East Dulwich Road – the tree sculpture sits on this stretch.


    As part of the improvements to the pavement area this would include funding from the cleaner greener safer (CGS) programme. If the CGS funding was approved the parks team would lead the project and use the allocated Highways funding as part of that.