To hear from community representatives and other community stakeholders within the borough in respect of regeneration.
A list of confirmed representatives will be made available closer to the meeting.
Minutes:
The committee heard from Ms Eileen Conn on behalf of Peckham Vision in respect of Regeneration in the borough.
Ms Conn addressed the committee on the need for regeneration led by re-use, the need to build houses in the borough, the need to transform the relationship between the council and community groups in relation to regeneration and redevelopment.
In relation to the need for regeneration to be led by re-use, Ms Conn cited a number of council plans over the last 15 years for Peckham town centre which all involved the complete demolition and redevelopment of the sites. She also felt that there had been ineffective community engagement, with the community having to campaign against these policies. In each case the community campaigns succeeding in reversing the policies.
Ms Conn considered that the lesson from this was that all development must start with an audit of the facts before any redevelopment plans are begun and verified with local stakeholders.
Ms Conn explained that across London, the demolition-led redevelopment approach to regeneration was the norm in the industry. Ms Conn stressed that carbon emissions from demolition and new construction were a significant contributor to the climate emergency. A preference for re-use was essential for consistency with the climate emergency policies.
Ms Conn explained that the new Development Charter now required a fact-based audit of existing assets and uses for any planning application for redevelopment, but that there was no guidance for its production or role in the planning process. Ms Conn advised that it needed to be used as a strong benchmark to ensure that the regeneration provided significant net benefits to the existing community.
With regard to building housing, Ms Conn expressed that the housing crisis in London was due to a lack of housing that most people can afford. Ms Conn stressed that planning policy of a minimum of 35% affordable in respect of new developments was failing to meet the need for housing – 35% seemed to usually became the maximum, and ‘affordability’ which can mean up to 80% of market rent was outside the means of most people. As a result, it meant that a minimum of 65% of new developments given planning permission were unaffordable. Ms Conn presented household income figures that supported this.
Ms Conn acknowledged the move to increase the minimum affordable housing threshold to 50% but as the vast majority of households could not afford market rates for sale or rent, it was still unsustainable and unviable to give permission for 50% which was still unaffordable. Ms Conn felt that the upper limit of housing which fell into this criteria should be 10-20%.
Ms Conn asked the committee to consider the following council actions which she felt would help to shift current thinking:
Bringing together and publicising annually:
· The income levels of the population in the borough
· The range of sale prices and rent levels across the borough, and
· A simple table showing the discrepancy between these.
Joining with community groups and others to inform, educate and engage the public about the inadequacies of the demolition-led redevelopment approach, and the search for alternative solutions.
Ms Conn highlighted that there were local people across the borough who take up local issues as they arise and develop links with each other and form important local networks. Ms Conn advised that in many cases these networks have a longevity and continuity of local knowledge which could be very valuable for planning and regeneration and stressed the need to develop ways to enable these networks to be accessible to policy makers. Ms Conn indicated that a key area here was the working relationship between the local ward activists and their ward councillors and the development of local ward networks bringing together those who take an interest in planning and regeneration and related matters.
The committee asked questions of Ms Conn, following her presentation. Questions and discussion were held around the following:
· Poor consultation processes and engagement with the community – Ms Conn felt that part of the problem was that the council kept wanting to improve existing consultation processes, where actually what was needed was a different approach. Ms Conn indicated that people were being engaged with too late, particularly in relation to big development schemes, but also small domestic schemes. Ms Conn felt that what was needed was a different way of understanding how people who live, work and run businesses in areas, and who are an integral to the fabric of the place can be helped to engage at the right moment with the people who want to do something with their property.
· The plans and planning guidance the council was required to operate in and deliver against.
· Delivery of affordable housing.
· Difficulty for the public in understanding and interpreting regeneration policy due to its complexity.
· The challenge for councillors working with genuine local community activists, and those activists representing their own self-interests, and the need to work with the whole community.
· Government white paper and the reform of S106 contributions.
The chair thanked Ms Conn for her attendance.