Agenda and minutes

To follow

That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 April 2016 be agreed as an accurate record subject to the following amendment:

That “Apart from where the TfL Quietways scheme was being introduced, many roads in the borough did not seem to have been adjusted to accommodate cyclists apart from white lines being added” be added to paragraph 4.2. 

The following non-prejudicial interest was declared:

Councillor Walsh lives within Catford Town Centre, and is the founder of bakerlooextension.com

3.1       Martin O’Brien (Asset Management Planning Manager) introduced the report. The following key points were noted:

·           In 2015 a report had been presented to the Committee which presented a proposal for variable street lighting.

·           In November 2015 a pilot had been conducted where in every electoral ward the street lights of three streets had been dimmed. No feedback had been received from residents following this pilot. A similar pilot had been conducted in Croydon, where no feedback had been received either.

3.2 Martin O’Brien answered questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·           Every street light in the borough could be operated independently, so the dimming of street lights could be implemented flexibly. The strength of an individual street light could be adjusted by 1% at a time. Street lights on junctions were one the locations were an exemption to overall policy of dimming lights would likely be applied to ensure road safety.

·           There was no hard evidence available that the dimming of street lights had led to impacts on crime or road safety. However its impact on feelings of safety may be different.

·           The figure of 20% mentioned in the report as the maximum number of street lights that could be exempt from the overall policy would not be fixed target but an estimation of the number of exemptions and therefore of the costs savings that the policy would achieve.

·           Councillors had not all been notified about the trial taking place, partly to avoid influencing the results but an email had been sent to the relevant Cabinet Members and the Chair of this Committee to notify them.

3.3 The Committee made a number of comments. The following key points were noted:

·           Some residents may have noticed and found it difficult that streets had become darker but not enough to contact the Council. The fact that no feedback had been received did not necessarily indicate that people felt neutral or positive about the change.

·           The trail seemed to have taken place in individual streets instead of intersecting ones. If lights were dimmed in intersecting streets than this may lead to a cumulative impact on visibility. It would be good it this was tested before implementation across the borough.

·           The Committee welcomed the opportunity for the Council to make a budget saving in this area as well reducing light pollution.

·           The Committee felt that a variable street lighting policy should be applied sensitively, with recognition of the circumstances of the specific streets and lights, and not be implemented to achieve a cost saving at all costs.

3.4 RESOLVED: That the report be noted, and that the following views of the Committee be referred to Mayor and Cabinet:

The Committee commented that although a trial of dimmed lights had taken place, the streets in this trial did not seem to intersect. This meant that any cumulative impact of light dimming in a large number of intersecting streets at the same time could not be adequately assessed, although this would probably  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Item 5 is restricted – part 2

5.1 Gavin Plaskitt (Senior Programme Manager) introduced the report to the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·           Housing Zones were an initiative from the Greater London Authority (GLA) to accelerate the development of schemes scheduled to deliver more than 1.000 homes. Catford Town Centre had now been designated as a Housing Zone, and would therefore receive funding from the GLA to support the building of affordable housing and infrastructure. The houses would need to be delivered by 2026.

·           A report had been submitted to Mayor and Cabinet to agree to bid for Housing Zone funding. The bid had been submitted in February and the results had been announced in March.

·           A detailed report was due to be presented to Mayor and Cabinet before the summer to agree the details of the Housing Zone agreement.

·           There had been a discussion with Transport for London in January at this Committee to discuss the road network in Catford. A decision on whether Transport for London would relocated the South Circular (A205) was expected after the results of the Mayoral election for London. There was also an ongoing conversation between officers and TfL around the plans for the extension of the Bakerloo line.

5.2 Gavin Plaskitt, Kplom Lotsu (Project Manager), and Emma Talbot answered questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·           The boundaries of what is considered Catford Town Centre are defined in the Council’s Core Strategy. The area considered for the Council’s Catford Regeneration Programme was smaller than the town centre  though. The planning application for Former Catford Greyhound Stadium, Adenmore Road SE6 4RH was considered as part of the town centre, but was not a part of the Council’s regeneration programme.

·           Officers were in conversation with the GLA about the specific conditions for the awarded funding for providing affordable housing.

·           One of the aims for the regeneration programme was to mitigate against the current segmentation of the town centre by railways, roads and buildings.

·           The density of housing for buildings and approved planning applications for Catford falls within the limits of the London Plan for town centres. Catford is identified as an opportunity site in the London Plan. Plans for the town centre have also been incorporated in the Council’s Local Plan which had been extensively consulted on.

·           A high density of housing would not automatically mean lots of towers. The housing present in Victorian terraced housing with multiple flats in a single house could be quite dense.

·           A report was due to be presented to Mayor and Cabinet with an update on the terms of the Housing Zone funding, to present a updated vision for Catford Town Centre and a programme for the next steps in the regeneration programme including consultation.

5.3 The Committee made a number of comments. The following key points were noted:

·           A Catford Town Centre Local Plan had been developed and consulted on, but this had been withdrawn before being agreed.

·           There was a need for a clear vision for Catford Town  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

6.1 Simone van Elk (Scrutiny Manager) introduced the report. The Committee discussed the report and decided that:

That a report containing an update on the Catford regeneration programme being prepared for Mayor and Cabinet should be added to the Committee’s work programme for 29 June meeting and that the Cabinet Member for Growth and Regeneration be invited to attend for this item.

6.2 RESOLVED: That the report be noted, and that the work programme be agreed subject to the discussed amendments. 

To follow

4.1 Emma Talbot (Head of Planning) introduced the report. The following key points were noted:

·           Section 106 and CIL funds are held by the Council’s planning department. Other Council services would make formal applications to receive a portion of these based on projects being managed in those services.

·           Each section 106 agreement had specific conditions for how this funding could be spent. The CIL Infrastructure List, also known as the 123 List, sets out the types of infrastructure that CIL funds can be used for. A council had more flexibility in what was included in this list.

·           Section 106 funds were no longer being accrued for infrastructure because the Council had been applying CIL since 1 April 2015.

·           A process was needed to ensure further public and Member engagement in the allocation of section 106 and CIL funds. This process would need to fit national planning guidance and legal advice would be needed in its development. The aim was to achieve transparency and accountability while fitting within a complex legal framework. Once proposals had been developed, consultation would take place.

4.2 Emma Talbot and James Lee (Head of Culture and Community Development) answered questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·           The CIL 123 list had been consulted on as part of the formal plan preparation process. The CIL charging schedule including this list had been approved by Full Council on 25 February 2015. CIL was only payable on commencement of a development, so although it had been applied since April 2015, few CIL payments had been received so far.

·           The level of involvement for members of the public in the allocation of CIL funds would likely differ for different types of infrastructure on the CIL 123 List. The plan would be to use existing networks and groups to consult with when allocating the neighbourhood element of CIL funds. Officers were investigating how to engage with local assemblies in this context. The locations for the previous trials were decided on the basis that section 106 funding would be available in those areas for allocation.

·           The section 106/CIL Overview Group was chaired by the Head of Planning, and a legal officer and the relevant section 106 officer were also members. Applications for funding had to/have to meet very detailed standards to ensure they meet the terms set out in the relevant section 106 agreement. The priorities for spend set out in section 106 agreements were determined by the needs arising from the development, which had been consulted on as part of the plan making process and for the application itself. The head of terms of a section 106 agreement were agreed as part of a planning application for a development and ward councillors were involved in that process.

·           The planning department produced monitoring reports to outline how the funds had been spent. The legislation around CIL required an annual monitoring report from the Council’s planning department. 

·           Officers had attended a meeting of the Evelyn ward assembly to discuss the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1 RESOLVED: That the Committee’s views under items 3, 4 and 5 be referred to Mayor and Cabinet.