Agenda, decisions and minutes

That the minutes of the meeting of the Sustainable Development Select Committee held on the 26 November be agreed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

RESOLVED: That

the minutes of the meeting of the Sustainable Development Select Committee held on the 26 November be agreed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Councillor Hall declared a personal interest in item 3 as he was a Board Member of Phoenix Community Housing.

Councillor Walsh declared a personal interest in item 4 as he was a Rushey Green Ward Councillor and also lived in the Ward.

Councillor Hall declared a personal interest in item 3 as he was a Board Member of Phoenix Community Housing.

Councillor Walsh declared a personal interest in item 4 as he was a Rushey Green Ward Councillor and also lived in the Ward.

That the following be referred to Mayor and Cabinet: That

·         The questions tabled by Councillor Curran and interleaved with this agenda be referred to Mayor and Cabinet and officers be requested to ensure that their report to Mayor and Cabinet addresses these questions.

·         The additional information should be provided on the current contract with Glendale regarding the maintenance and management of the golf course, prior to a decision by Mayor and Cabinet. This was to to ensure that an analysis of the true profit potential could be made.

3.1       Councillor Curran introduced the item explaining it was in response to a petition to the Council of more than 5000 signatures. Councillor Curran reported that he has received some suggested questions from one of the Petitioners and he tabled these at the meeting, a copy of which will be interleaved with the agenda.

3.2       Alison Taylor, Project Manager, Capital Programme Delivery, introduced the report and highlighted the following key points:

·         The park represented 98 hectares of open space and was the largest part in the London borough of Lewisham.

·         The park had substantial heritage and character and included: ancient woodland; an eighteen century mansion and stable park; a café; gardens; and a golf course.

·         Usage surveys indicated that the park was underused compared with comparable parks.

·         Consultants carrying out usage analysis concluded that there were a number of barriers to higher usage namely: lack of key attractions; lack of investment meaning there was a “run-down” feel; large areas of the park feeling un-accessible due to the usage by the golf course.

·         The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) grant had been awarded on the basis of a master-plan which was shaped by substantial consultation.

·         Should the golf course be maintained this would represent a significant change to the proposal and a new bid would need to be made to HLF which was felt to be very unlikely to be granted.

·         Maintaining an 18 or 9 hole golf course had been ranked bottom of the prioritisation list during the consultation process.

3.3       Carole Hope, Andrew Tonge and Jenny Kay addressed the Committee regarding the petition and highlighted the following key points:

·         Beckenham Place Park had the only public golf course in inner London and provided a fantastic resource for the public.

·         The course had a diverse range of users and usage did not impact on attracting other park users to the park.

·         The proposed closure discriminated against the diverse group of users.

·         There was not a viable business case for the closure of the course and with good management it had the potential to be a profitable asset to the Council.

·         The contract with Glendale was seen to be a factor in the levels of subsidy that LB Lewisham were currently providing.

·         The course was 100 years old and therefore had its own heritage legacy which should be celebrated.

·         There were many positive aspects of the regeneration proposal and the Heritage Lottery bid, but to realise these, there was no necessity to close the golf course.

·         With good management the golf course could generate a substantial income for the Council.

3.4       In the discussion that followed, the following key points were raised:

·         Comparison between Ladywell Fields and Beckenham Place Park could be problematic as they had different levels of accessibility and proximity of local transport links and housing.

·         The current Council subsidy to golfers was approximately £10 per round of golf.

·         The demographics of the park users from sample surveys taken at different times of the day showed an under-representation of women,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

RESOLVED:

1)    That Ian Chalk be thanked for the work he had undertaken regarding Broadway Theatre.

2)    That the following referral be made to Mayor and Cabinet:

a)    That the Committee advised the Mayor and Cabinet: That

·         The Committee felt it was unfortunate that the options presented meant that it appeared that the Council was being offered a choice between additional housing verses smoother traffic flow and possibly better pedestrian provision.   

·         The Committee stressed the importance of making a decision on an option for the Catford Town Centre and noted that historic indecision was the major barrier to development of the area.

b)    That the Committee recommended: That

·         Any Option selected should be fully integrated including ensuring a thorough and well thought-out offer to enhance the street-scene for pedestrians.

·         The Mayor lobby Network Rail to prioritise improving the rail-over-road bridge on Catford Road to allow for better pedestrian and cycling provision.

·         That the presentation by Ian Chalk from Ian Chalk Architects be referred for information and consideration by Mayor and Cabinet and to the Broadway Theatre Working Party Group for consideration.

4.1      Tim Thomas, Growth Area Manager, Transport for London (TfL), gave a presentation to the Committee, highlighting the following key points:

·         TfL and London Borough of Lewisham had been looking at a range of options to improve the Catford road layout. These were: option 1 - a hybrid scheme, which diverted the South Circular behind Laurence House; and option 2 - a gyratory scheme which retained the current road layout and included localised improvements.

·         Neither scheme currently had funding secured.

·         The preferred scheme would form part of the Council Town Centre Regeneration Plan and a decision was needed to help progress this plan and secure funding.

·         Catford had significant transport challenges including: bus and traffic congestion; poor confluences; poor pedestrian provision; insufficient cycling provision; and public realm being dominated by highway requirements.

·         Key objectives of the schemes included: maintaining and improving journey times and reducing congestion; improving bus journey times and reliability; providing better cycle facilities; improving the pedestrian environment; and opening up investment possibilities.

·         Transport studies and cost implications had been drawn up to provide a comparison between the schemes. The hybrid scheme involving moving the A205 behind Laurence House was likely to cost £15 to £20 million for the purchase of land, relocating and property and building costs. The Gyratory Scheme was likely to cost in the region of £10 to £15 million.

·         Benefits of the hybrid scheme included: reduction in journey time for some bus routes; general improvements to traffic times; realignment of A205 out of the Town Centre; some improvements for pedestrians and the provision of 1039 homes. Benefits of the Gyratory scheme included: reduction in bus journey time on four routes; a slight improvement in traffic times; some improvements for pedestrians; and the provision of 1295 homes.

·         Currently neither scheme included substantial improvements for pedestrians. More could be done to improve these facilities once either scheme was chosen.

·         Replacement of the Network Rail Bridge over Catford Road would also provide improvement to the pedestrian and cycling offer in the area. Network Rail currently stated that this would not be done until 2019.

4.2       In the discussion that followed, the following key points were raised:

·         Indecision was a major obstacle to improvement and selecting an option would mean that work on Town Centre Improvements could proceed.

·         Both schemes aimed to improve signal timings and pedestrian provision but once a scheme was selected, more work could be done to ensure objectives for pedestrians and cyclists were delivered.

·         It was a difficult decision to choose a scheme and unfortunate that the same number of homes was not achievable with the hybrid scheme as with the gyratory scheme. 

4.3       Ian Chalk, Ian Chalk Architects, gave a presentation to the Committee and highlighted the following key points:

·         He had been working with staff at the Broadway Theatre over the last year to develop proposals to improve the building. There were significant challenges and any proposals would involve statutory consultees. Solutions proposed would be robust.

·         The current corner  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

That a report on streetlight dimming be added to the March work programme and that it be noted that a report only was sufficient and there was no need for a presentation on this item.

That following on from the referral the Committee made to Mayor and Cabinet on section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy, an additional report on a Lewisham Community Trust be presented to the Select Committee.

That as part of the response back to the Committee on the High Streets Review, information should be included on recommendation 5 regarding the creating of a Lewisham “meanwhile” (meanwhile.org.uk) system.

RESOLVED:

1)    That a report on streetlight dimming be added to the March work programme and that it be noted that a report only was sufficient and there was no need for a presentation on this item.

2)    That following on from the referral the Committee made to Mayor and Cabinet on section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy, an additional report on a Lewisham Community Trust be presented to the Select Committee.

3)    That as part of the response back to the Committee on the High Streets Review, information should be included on recommendation 5 regarding the creating of a Lewisham “meanwhile” (meanwhile.org.uk) system.

That the referrals as listed in items 3 and 4 be made to Mayor and Cabinet.