Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings held on 21 February and 29 March 2023 be agreed as accurate records of proceedings.

1.1      RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings held on 21 February and 29 March 2023 be agreed as accurate records of proceedings.

None declared

2.1       None declared

RESOLVED: That the Select Committee work programmes for 2023/24 be agreed.

3.1       RESOLVED: That the Select Committee work programmes for 2023/24 be agreed.

RESOLVED: That the three proposed task and finish groups be established with the following memberships:

Improving Scrutiny

1.    Cllr Mark Jackson (nominated Chair)

2.    Cllr Sian Eiles

3.    Cllr Mark Ingleby

4.    Cllr James Rathbone

5.    Cllr Aliya Sheikh

Private Renters

1.    Cllr Will Cooper (nominated Chair)

2.    Cllr Bill Brown

3.    Cllr Jack Lavery

4.    Cllr Rosie Parry

5.    Cllr Sakina Sheikh

Youth Provision

1.    Cllr Edison Huynh (nominated Chair)

2.    Cllr Yemisi Anifowose

3.    Cllr Laura Cunningham

4.    Cllr Oana Olaru

5.    Cllr Hau-Yu Tam

4.1    RESOLVED: That three proposed task and finish groups be established with the following memberships:

Improving Scrutiny

1.    Cllr Mark Jackson (nominated Chair)

2.    Cllr Sian Eiles

3.    Cllr Mark Ingleby

4.    Cllr James Rathbone

5.    Cllr Aliya Sheikh

Private Renters

1.    Cllr Will Cooper (nominated Chair)

2.    Cllr Bill Brown

3.    Cllr Jack Lavery

4.    Cllr Rosie Parry

5.    Cllr Sakina Sheikh

Youth Provision

1.     Cllr Edison Huynh (nominated Chair)

2.     Cllr Yemisi Anifowose

3.     Cllr Laura Cunningham

4.     Cllr Oana Olaru

5.     Cllr Hau-Yu Tam

RESOLVED: That the following recommendations be made in relation to the good practice guide for developers for pre-application resident engagement, being produced by the Planning team:

1.     Equalities must play a central role in pre-application engagement.

·      The guide should set the expectation that proportionate EAAs should be carried out on the proposals.

·      The engagement plan should seek to ensure that the engagement reflects the make-up of the affected communities.

·      Seldom heard groups should be specifically consulted

·      The guide should ask developers to engage in equalities monitoring where it is possible, especially to ensure smaller working groups are representative

·         The Fairer Lewisham duty should inform equalities monitoring to ensure social economic background is considered alongside protected characteristics

·      Local organisations with specialised knowledge of the local area should be engaged to ensure participation is high quality and representative.

2.     The guide should ask developers to see themselves in partners in our aim to build community and empower residents with the skills, knowledge and tools which will enable them to take part in local decision making beyond the engagement process including understanding the planning framework and associated rules, which can be difficult to comprehend.

3.     The guide should make it clear that engagement has to be meaningful. Developers must be willing to allow residents to influence the application in a tangible way, and any developer ‘red lines’ should be clear from the outset.

4.     The guide should differentiate between different scales of development and different levels of impact; and suggest different levels of engagement based on scale and impact: with developers of larger, more complex developments encouraged to carry out larger, more in-depth engagement. The most affected residents should be engaged most intensively.

5.     The guide should articulate that engagement should be accessible to as wide a range of people as possible; aim to meet the engagement preferences of local residents; and not involve an onerous time commitment – consideration should be given to taking a creative approach.

6.     The guide should encourage developers to take a social value approach which asks open ended questions about what residents value and what they want, to help identify residents’ feelings and aspirations for their area.

7.     The guide should acknowledge potential barriers to engagement and suggest ways in which these might be overcome (e.g. digital exclusion, childcare/caring responsibilities, language barriers etc)

8.     The guide should include (a) template early engagement strategies which can be used by developers and (b) case studies showcasing successful pre-application engagements that have utilised a range of different engagement models with an articulation of their benefits.

9.     The guide should establish a framework for developers engaging with the planning team (and through them, other relevant council teams) and the council’s formal strategies and priorities, in order to gain both local and borough wide insights. The principle of “we come to you” in engagement is important, and Community Development Officers have valuable local experience and can highlight to the Planning team local organisations and groups, including the voluntary & community sector, who can  ...  view the full decision text for item 5.

5.1    The Chair introduced the item and reminded Members and guests that this item concerned resident engagement at the pre-application stage and that Lewisham hoped to produce a good practice guide for developers, with input from the Committee.

5.2    Emma Talbot, Director of Planning, was welcomed to the meeting and it was noted that Michael Forrester, Head of Development Management, and Nick Fenwick, Interim Director of Planning, were also in attendance.

5.3    It was noted that although the pre-application period was important and a point where consultation with residents could be particularly meaningful, there was no requirement on developers to carry out any engagement at this stage. It was hoped that the developer protocol would encourage meaningful pre-application consultation and provide a guide on how to do it well.

5.4    The Chair welcomed the following external guests to the meeting and asked each organisation to provide an initial introduction to the Committee on the aims of their organisation in this area:

·      Jon Watson and Kate Honey, Landsec

·      Rod Gongriip, Community Plan for Holloway

·      George Perfect, Terrapin Group

5.5    The following points were made by the guests

              Kate Honey

·      Landsec’s Community Charter outlines its commitment to residents (and employee bonuses are linked to demonstrating fulfilment of the charter)

·      Landsec wants to create places that people want to live in and use; and high-quality engagement and consultation at all stages is crucial to this aim

Jon Watson

·      Landsec’s Community Charter is being delivered in Lewisham and it is important that engagement considers breadth (enough residents engaged to produce meaningful data) and depth (quality feedback provided by specific cohorts of residents)

·      Landsec has a Design Champion group for Lewisham Town centre (there were 300 applications for 16 places) and these residents are paid for their input

·      Paying people for their time helps remove some of the barriers to participation (including paying for childcare and travel)

·      Using local partners is important in ensuring representation and making sure that feedback reflects the diversity of local communities

·      Understanding the demographics of a local area is very important including understanding any language or cultural barriers

Rod Gongriip

·      Community Plan for Holloway was set up to ensure that the redevelopment of the former Holloway Prison site took into consideration the needs of local residents

·      The closure of the site had created a big impact locally in terms of employment

·      Early engagement funded by the Centre for Crime and Justice reached 900 people via an online survey, door to door questioning and a stall at the local shopping centre – this revealed that the number one priority for the site was affordable housing, then green space, then services for women

·      Community Plan for Holloway is not a campaigning group but facilitates others in having their voice heard

·      It is funded from a variety of sources and employs three full time staff

·      The resulting engagement has had a significant impact on the proposals

·      The planning permission that has been granted involves 42% social housing on the site

George  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.