Agenda, decisions and minutes

Resolved: that a note be added to the minutes highlighting that Members were keen to see the implementation of two hour controlled parking zones, wherever feasible. Subject to the amendment, Members agreed that the minutes of the meeting were an accurate record.

1.1    The Committee discussed the minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2018, the following key points were noted:

·         Officers had committed to considering the implementation of 2 hour controlled parking zones when reviews of parking zones were carried out.

1.2    Resolved: that a note be added to the minutes highlighting that Members were keen to see the implementation of two hour controlled parking zones, wherever feasible. Subject to the amendment, Members agreed that the minutes of the meeting were an accurate record.

Councillor James-J Walsh declared a personal interests as: a resident of Catford; as the founder of Bakerlooextension.com and as an employee of London South Bank University’s student union.

Councillor Mark Ingleby declared a non-prejudicial interest as a director of Lewisham Homes.

Resolved: that the response from Mayor and Cabinet be noted.

3.1    The Committee discussed the response from Mayor and Cabinet to its referral on the Local Plan and David Syme (Strategic Planning Manager) responded to questions, the following key points were noted:

·         That Members would welcome further opportunities for engagement.

·         A consultation and engagement strategy was being prepared. Officers were planning further all member briefings.

3.2    Resolved: that the response from Mayor and Cabinet be noted.

Resolved: that the report be noted. That officers should provide a written update about funding and projects taking place in Downham ward for Councillor Howard; that information be circulated to all councillors about small sums of funding available for footway improvements; that the ‘easy read’ version of the LIP be circulated to Councillors.

The agenda was changed. This item was considered after the Catford update.

4.1    Nick Harvey (Transport Planner) introduced the report, the following key points were noted:

·         The Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and transport strategy had been in development for a number of months. Consultation had been carried out (which included consultation with the select committee). The final report was due to be considered by Mayor and Cabinet on 6 February.

·         The Committee’s previous comments on air quality had been incorporated into the revised LIP.

·         Officers had considered the Committee’s comments on the air quality targets but considered that it would be preferable to retain achievable targets (based on those proposed by TfL) with the ambition to do better rather than to include stretching targets that might not all be reached.

·         The Committee’s comments on cycling provision on the south circular would be addressed in the upcoming revision of the cycling strategy.

·         There had been 280 responses to the consultation, which had been broadly positive.

4.2    Nick Harvey responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         Four Healthy Neighbourhood schemes along with one (TfL funded) Liveable Neighbourhood scheme (of 18) would be funded in the first two years of the LIP.

·         It should be possible (dependent on the individual requirements of the proposed schemes) to deliver a further four in the third year of the LIP.

·         A rigorous, data driven approach had been taken to prioritising healthy neighbourhood schemes. The immediate availability of funding from other sources had been taken into consideration in choosing some schemes.

·         Consideration had been given to the distribution of funding between the north and the south of the borough. The south circular provided a dividing line for the north and south of the borough, due this being the boundary of the proposed extended ultra low emission zone planned to come into force in October 2021. The Mayor of London also proposed that the ultra-low emission zone would finish at the south circular. In future years, two healthy neighbourhoods would be chosen from each side of the south circular.

·         A future change in the London Mayoralty would have an impact on the delivery of the LIP. However, it was unlikely that a future Mayor’s priorities would be radically different from the existing priorities.

4.3    In Committee discussions the following key points were also noted:

·         The Committee welcomed the report and commended officers for their work.

·         Members were concerned that there should be an equal distribution of funding and projects between the north and the south of the borough. However, there was a difference of opinion amongst the Committee about the perceived and actual levels of funding for projects in the north and the south of the borough.

·         Some members were concerned that distributing LIP funding too widely (especially given the significant reductions in funding over time) would result in reduced levels of impact.

·         The Committee noted that evidenced pre-existing levels of community support could be beneficial in the prioritisation of future healthy neighbourhood  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Officers will present an update at the meeting.

Resolved: that the Committee formally record the following comments for the programme team-

·         The Committee notes previous research and information from government, which shows that high density housing does not need to be high rise. Officers should revisit this work.

·         The Committee would welcome the development and presentation of options for the regeneration which include plans with and without the Bakerloo line extension. It believes that this work is essential to ‘future proof’ proposals for the town centre.

·         The Committee believes that the proposals for the redevelopment should include the best, most beautiful and highest quality of design.

·         The Committee will continue to closely scrutinise the development of the programme.

·         The Committee asks that plans for the redevelopment give due consideration to other development proposals in the borough, including (but not limited to) the plans for the A21 cycle route as well as other key transport links and the redevelopment of Lewisham town centre. It is concerned that there will be areas in between developments that do not receive sufficient attention.

·         The Committee would welcome the development of a civic strategy for the borough, which sets out the form and function of the Council in the town centre, as well as other civic organisations in the community sector and education.

·         The Committee recommends that consideration be given to the timing and implementation of other strategies and plans, including those belonging to the Council as well as other public sector partners (such as TfL).

·         The Committee notes the importance of economic development in the local area. It believes that the redevelopment should retain and enhance local businesses and employment in order to ensure that local spending benefits the local area.

The agenda was changed to consider this item first.

5.1    Tony Piggott (Development Advisor) provided a verbal update on the masterplanning process for Catford. The following key points were noted:

·         A workshop for all Councillors would be held on 13 February.

·         The workshop would be divided into two parts, the first would set out the context and the architects, engineers and urban designers would present the emerging framework for the Catford masterplan. In the second part there would be a discussion.

·         The Catford programme team intended that the workshop would be the first of a number of opportunities for the engagement of councillors in the development of the Catford masterplan.

·         The programme team and other relevant Council officers were working with Transport for London (TfL) to progress the plans for the realignment of the A205.

·         Proposals for the realignment would be presented at the workshop on 13 February.

·         Public consultation on the realignment was currently planned for October 2019.

5.2    Tony Piggott responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         The timetable for the programme had slipped. At the workshop on 13 February, officers would set out the amended timetable for the masterplan, as well as opportunities for ‘quick wins’.

·         The programme team welcomed input from the Committee and from Councillors in general.

·         There were a number of elements (including plans for housing and public space as well as the cultural offer and the civic strategy) that needed to be combined in order to make the development a success. There would be a number of future opportunities for members to be involved.

5.3    In Committee discussions, the following key points were also noted:

·         The Committee welcomed opportunities for consultation with all councillors but the Committee would continue to scrutinise the development of the programme at every meeting.

·         The Committee would welcome the presentation of different options for the regeneration at the workshop on 13 February. Members asked that this include options for different housing densities and tenures.

·         Further information should be made available about the ‘red line’ demarcating the masterplanning area.

·         Presentation of the ‘civic strategy’ for the regeneration would also be welcomed.

·         At the workshop, information should be provided which indicated the anticipated scope and scale of the redevelopment.

5.4    Resolved: that the Committee formally record the following comments for the programme team-

·         The Committee notes previous research and information from government, which shows that high density housing does not need to be high rise. Officers should revisit this work.

·         The Committee would welcome the development and presentation of options for the regeneration which include plans with and without the Bakerloo line extension. It believes that this work is essential to ‘future proof’ proposals for the town centre.

·         The Committee believes that the proposals for the redevelopment should include the best, most beautiful and highest quality of design.

·         The Committee will continue to closely scrutinise the development of the programme.

·         The Committee asks that plans for the redevelopment give due consideration to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Resolved: that the report be noted. That dates would be provided for the completion of documents for the evidence base. That a map would be provided which demonstrated the overlay of the ‘places’ identified in the characterisation study with Lewisham’s existing ward boundaries.

6.1    David Syme (Strategic Planning Manager) introduced the report, the following key points were noted:

·         The update provided further details about the development of the evidence base for the new Local Plan.

·         Most elements of the evidence base were at a final draft stage of preparation. The character study was in final draft form.

·         The Study was an update of the 2010 character study. It incorporated an update of the technical data – including the physical characteristics of the borough as well as data about Lewisham’s population.

·         It outlined information about Lewisham’s different places, in order to inform the ‘place based’ approach to growth.

·         The Study included a proposed framework for growth for each of the areas identified.

·         The Study would inform the spatial plan for the borough.

·         There had been a delay in the programme for the development of the new Local Plan due to: the uncertainty at the Greater London Authority about the draft London Plan; the additional requirements for the development and improvement of the evidence base for the new Plan – and - the high level of interest in the new plan from councillors, which required additional time for consultation.

6.2    David Syme responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         The Study was ready for consultation. The opportunity was now for councillors to make their views known.

·         The open space study for the evidence base quantified the amount of space in the borough and also included a qualitative assessment of Lewisham’s open spaces.

·         An update would be provided for the anticipated completion dates of documents for the evidence base.

·         Planning officers were working collaboratively on the development of the new Local Plan. This included officers in development management.

·         Officers met regularly with amenity societies and community groups. Groups had been involved in the development of the characterisation study and heritage groups were involved in the development of the heritage study. Officers would welcome more involvement from community groups.

·         It had been difficult to engage with community groups in the south of the borough.

·         Officers would welcome a meeting with councillors from the wards in the south of the borough.

6.3    In the Committee’s discussions the following key points were also noted:

·         The Committee welcomed the report and commended officers for its quality.

·         Some of the pictures in the characterisation study needed to be relabelled because they crossed the boundary of Hither Green and Lewisham.

6.4    Resolved: that the report be noted. That dates would be provided for the completion of documents for the evidence base. That a map would be provided which demonstrated the overlay of the ‘places’ identified in the characterisation study with Lewisham’s existing ward boundaries.

Resolved: that the report be noted. That a briefing on the Bakerloo line extension be shared with all members.

7.1    Claudette Forbes (Regeneration Advisor) introduced the report, the following key points were noted:

·         The extension was ‘not a done deal’. Part of the work being carried out was to raise awareness of the scheme and ensure that local support for it was well demonstrated.

·         TfL was carrying out detailed work on options for construction works sites, station locations Following this, further consultation was planned for the summer.

7.2    Claudette Forbes and David Syme responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         Officers had prepared an analysis of the benefits of the extension, which would be shared with the Committee.

·         The extension was closely linked with the proposed upgrade of the Bakerloo line. The combination of both would bring maximum benefits.

·         There were nine ‘opportunity areas’ (locations identified by the Mayor of London for housing and development) along the Bakerloo line, the growth objectives of which would be facilitated by an upgraded and extended line.

·         The extension would enable the development of thousands of homes along the whole length of the line for a fraction of the cost of the proposals for Crossrail 2.

·         Officers had been in contact with Councils in the north and west of London to emphasise the wider benefits of the extension and to gain support.

·         Officers were considering all the options for lobbying and gaining support for the extension.

·         There was provision for London Mayoral community infrastructure levy (CIL to be allocated towards other schemes. The delays on Crossrail 1 and the pressure on the Mayoral budget might be an opportunity for the Bakerloo Line Extension. The extension would provide significant benefits and make use of underutilised infrastructure for a fraction of the cost of Crossrail 2 – which was why lobbying and raising the profile of the Bakerloo line extension and its benefits to London as a whole was so important.

·         Some work had been carried out on other options for funding the extension, including analysis of the increase in land values that would result from the improvements in infrastructure.

·         The Council was preparing a New Cross Area Framework, which included a detailed investigation into the Hatchem Works (location of Sainsbury’s) and Goodwood Road sites as potential station locations. TfL had indicated that the Sainsbury’s in New Cross would be able to remain open during the construction of the proposed new station in the area.

·         There was increasing commitment from Network Rail to work with TfL to ensure that there was a consistent and collaborative approach to improving Lewisham station and its surroundings.

·         Officers were working together to ensure the safeguarding of land to enable the extension.

7.3    In the Committee’s discussions the following key points were also noted:

·         The Committee strongly welcomed the report and commended the approach being taken.

·         Members welcomed the energy and enthusiasm for the scheme demonstrated by officers.

·         The Committee wholeheartedly endorsed proposals to continue the extension beyond Lewisham onwards (including the options for the extension to Hayes).

·         The extension would maximise the benefits of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Resolved: that the report be noted.

8.1    Alison Taylor (Project Manager) introduced the report, the following key points were noted:

·         The redevelopment of the park was making good progress. The works would be completed in May (2019).

·         The improvements to the park were based on five themes: community; heritage; outdoor activity; habitat and relaxation & play.

·         More and more volunteers were becoming involved in projects in the park (including the community garden, woodland management and education initiatives)

·         Further information would be provided in the park about its heritage. A number of the historic features of buildings in the park had been uncovered and were being preserved.

·         It was Lewisham’s largest park – which made it a good location for running and cycling. It would also offer outdoor swimming.

·         Work was taking place to preserve and improve the natural habitats in the park.

·         There had been improved usage of the park from a wider demographic of local people, including families.

·         The intention was still to renovate the mansion house in the park. It was currently occupied by meanwhile users.

·         The Foxgrove required substantial investment to bring it back into use. Some discussions had taken place with potential occupiers but nothing had yet been agreed.

·         The Environment Agency had removed funding from the flood alleviation project that was proposed for the eastern side of the park. Options were being considered for the future development and funding in the eastern end of the park.

8.2    Alison Taylor responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         Plans were progressing for filling the lake and testing water quality to enable swimming.

·         There was a business plan for the park. A business development manager would be appointed to support future opportunities in the park.

·         Funding generated in the park would be used to maintain the park. Any surplus would return to the overall Lewisham parks budget.

·         The new car park would be larger than the existing car park but there would still be pressure on space.

·         Officers’ focus was currently on delivering the project taking place in the park. Once the project had been delivered additional attention could be given to securing funding for the eastern side of the park.

·         Further attention would be given to branding for the park (this would include a new website) and communicating its facilities to the community.

8.3    In the Committee’s discussions the following key points were also noted:

·         Members expressed concern about delays to the renovation of the mansion house and the Foxgrove.

·         There were mixed opinions about the plans for the eastern end of the park. Members noted that the Environment Agency were known for delivering projects that prioritised function over form and amenity.

·         The Committee highlighted its concerns about flooding in Catford town centre (and its surroundings), given the cancellation of the alleviation scheme.

8.4    Resolved: that the report be noted.

Resolved: that the report be noted.

9.1       Resolved: that the report be noted.

Resolved:

·         That items on fire safety in tall buildings; planning; the New Cross gate area study; home energy conservation; and the local plan would be considered at the meeting on 4 March 2019. It was also agreed that a written report on Catford would be received at the meeting but that it would not be discussed unless there had been significant progress on the regeneration programme.

10.1    The Committee discussed the work programme for the next meeting.

10.2    Resolved:

·         That items on fire safety in tall buildings; planning; the New Cross gate area study; home energy conservation; and the local plan would be considered at the meeting on 4 March 2019. It was also agreed that a written report on Catford would be received at the meeting but that it would not be discussed unless there had been significant progress on the regeneration programme.

There were none.

11.1    There were none.