Agenda item

7.1  Luke Miller, Friends of Nursery Row Park, addressed the committee.  He questioned the proposal to build a separate community facility replacing the church hall, and hoped that consultation would be carried out and include other sites where the hall could be built.  He also questioned the decision to remove Pocock Street and Welsford Street from the list of early housing sites and the impact of this on the proposed site for the hall.  Members clarified that no consultation had been carried out on the revised Stead Street plan.  The Elephant & Castle project director stressed that the full residue of the Stead Street site, including the hall, was necessary in order to meet the targets of the core strategy.

7.2  In respect of Nursery Row Park, the Elephant & Castle project director clarified that it was necessary for the council to negotiate with the owners of the church hall.  The hall currently had an entertainments license which the Roman Catholic Diocese was keen to retain and there would be problems with integrating this into a residential development.  The best solution would be a stand-alone site and the site identified was considered as best meeting the requirements.  The revised proposal excluded almost the entire park.  Future consultation would be at the stages of pre-planning application and formal submission of the planning application.

7.3  Gerry Flynn, Elephant & Castle resident, was of the view that Heygate tenants depended on the early housing sites to get any benefit from the regeneration scheme and that many of these tenants would not move into new homes.  He was not sure that the numbers of new socially rented housing units planned would be enough to replace the units lost through demolition of the Heygate.  He questioned the reduction in total number of units, the numbers planned for the core site and asked why only eleven sites currently had funding from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA).

7.4  Richard Lee introduced himself as an Elephant & Castle resident, a user of local parks and shops and a member of the Elephant & Castle Amenity Network.  He queried the amount of socially rented housing the council had asked the HCA for and whether the council had approached the HCA to ensure that socially rented housing was included on other private development sites.  Richard Lee indicated support for excluding the parade of shops on Rodney Road form the regeneration plans, commenting that they were all occupied, flourishing and meeting local need.  He also expressed the view that equality impact assessments were needed for each individual site.

7.5  Councillor Kim Humphreys, deputy leader, circulated tables showing projections of housing figures for the Elephant & Castle opportunity area and early housing sites.  He highlighted that the proportion of socially rented housing units on Elephant & Castle sites going forward had increased and that the number of sites in the Elephant & Castle area had increased.  The deputy leader was confident that the target numbers for socially rented housing would be met.  He and officers gave detailed clarification of the figures in response to Members’ questions.  The deputy leader also explained that intermediate housing provided an important element in the mix of housing, especially in providing the opportunity for people to invest and leading to a good mix of population in the area.

7.6  Some members questioned the reality of development on all sites set out in the tables, particularly those not in council ownership.  The deputy leader clarified that these sites had been identified through the strategic housing land availability assessment (SHLAA) process.  The planning policy & research manager explained that, as part of the core strategy process, all developers and land-owners had been contacted and comments on the sites invited.  In September information on all sites would be brought back to Members.  The council’s aim was to produce targets for 2011/2021 and it was required by statute to set further housing targets until 2026.  In response to members’ concerns, the deputy leader explained that detailed consultation on sites would happen at the later stages of planning applications.

7.7  In response to further questions, the Elephant & Castle project director explained that the figure of 45% social housing referred to at paragraph 7 of the report to the major projects board related solely to the Elephant & Castle housing programme.  The deputy leader stressed that affordable housing in Southwark was not only being built at the Elephant & Castle and that significant numbers of tenants were moving into the new development at Bermondsey Spa.  A number of tenants did not want to move into new housing because they wanted to remain council tenants; new properties were developed by registered social landlords (RSLs).  The deputy leader confirmed that tenants could accessnot just the elephant & castle housing sites but also potentially new RSL developments within the footprint of the existing estate when it is redeveloped.

7.8  Councillor Humphreys also drew attention to paragraph 14 of the report to the major projects board which clarified the decision to exclude 98-104 Rodney Road from the scheme.  Some members took the view that the row of shops was not the best use of space and that excluding the row at this stage meant that it would lose out on the opportunity for redevelopment and lead to a less satisfactory regeneration scheme.

7.9  Members were concerned that lessons could be learned from the experience of residents moved from the Heygate and suggested that  an independent survey be carried out.  The deputy leader responded that lessons had been learned and stressed the success of moves to new homes off the Old Kent Road or in the Bermondsey Spa area.  Less than one hundred families remained to be re-housed and at this stage no evictions had been necessary.  Unlike the Peckham Partnership development, there were no squatters on the Heygate and a lot had been done to counter fear of crime.  The deputy leader explained that the majority of tenants remaining were being re-housed by direct offers.  A significant number of leaseholders remaining were either becoming tenants again or were close to agreeing terms.

7.10  Members asked how much social housing grant the council had asked the homes and communities agency (HCA) for.  The deputy leader indicated that this went beyond the Heygate and included phases two and three of the Aylesbury estate.  It was necessary to identify schemes which fitted the various initiatives run by the HCA.  The elephant & castle project director reported that a three year funded programme across a wide number of sites had been discussed with the HCA.

7.11  Members also asked how mixed the community at the Elephant & Castle would be.  The deputy leader responded that the intention was to change the elephant & castle from only a major transport hub and into a destination, by providing things to attract people to the area.  The HCA had given the council ideas about the composition of blocks in terms of achieving a sustainable community which included private, intermediate and socially rented housing.

7.12  Members sought clarification of the position if the major project board’s decision was not taken.  The deputy leader explained that RSL partners would not be comfortable proceeding on this basis.  Specifically, the Elephant & Castle project manager stated that if the council were to proceed with Rodney Road and initiate a compulsory purchase order then potential partners would not want to indemnify the costs of this.  Members asked what would happen to Stead Street if the whole of Nursery Row Park were removed.  The Elephant & Castle project manager explained that, unless an alternative site for the hall could be agreed with the Roman Catholic diocese, in the range of thirty units would be lost.  In addition, it would be difficult to develop only the part of Harper Row in council ownership.  The Welsford and Pocock Street sites would be potentially valuable sites once the market developed.

7.13  Members debated whether or not to refer the decision back to the major projects board for reconsideration.  Some members took the view that targets could still be met without building on any of Nursery Row Park and that the major projects board could be asked to save the park in its entirety.  Other members were of the opinion that the decision of the major projects board allowed proper regeneration of the site.  After consideration it was

  RESOLVED:

  That the decision of the major projects board not be referred back and accordingly that it could be implemented with immediate effect.

7.14  The committee went into closed session in order to receive an update from the deputy leader in respect of ongoing discussions with Lendlease.  The deputy leader assured the committee that there would be an opportunity for the committee to challenge the process and that a report would be brought to a future meeting.