Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1    Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 11 September be agreed as an accurate record.

1.1    Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 11 September be agreed as an accurate record.

2.1    Councillor Suzannah Clarke declared a non-prejudicial interest in relation to item four as member of an organisation that bids for funding to hold events in local parks.

Resolved: that the Committee would refer its views to Mayor and Cabinet as follows –

·      The Committee recommends that the proposed policy for pubs in the upcoming local plan should be strengthened.

·      It is recognised that proposals from officers would be an advance on the previous position regarding local pubs – but there is concern that the intended presumption against development does not specify the types of pubs that should be protected.

·      Members believe that historic (20 century and earlier) purpose built pubs- especially those that served as landmarks and key locations on high streets- should receive additional protections.

3.1    The Committee discussed the responses from Mayor and Cabinet – the following key points were noted:

·         Members believed that the suggested policy for pubs should be strengthened.

·         It was recognised that the policy would be an advance on the previous proposal – but there was concern that the presumption against development did not specify the types of pubs that should be protected.

·         Members believed that historic (20 century and earlier) purpose built pubs- especially those that served as landmarks and key locations on high streets- should receive additional protections.

·         Members welcomed the response on the redevelopment of Catford – however concerns were reiterated about the necessity for new infrastructure (including transport and services) to enable any new development (and serve existing communities).

·         Members also reiterated their request for a ‘civic strategy’ for Catford – to recognise the town centre’s importance as the civic centre of the borough.

3.2    David Syme (Strategic Planning Manager) responded to a question from the Committee - the following key point was noted:

·         Modelling had been carried out by the Greater London Authority which indicated that 2600 homes could be delivered in Catford within the existing capacity of the transport network.

3.3    Resolved: that the Committee would refer its views to Mayor and Cabinet as follows –

·      The Committee recommends that the proposed policy for pubs in the upcoming local plan should be strengthened.

·      It is recognised that proposals from officers would be an advance on the previous position regarding local pubs – but there is concern that the intended presumption against development does not specify the types of pubs that should be protected.

·      Members believe that historic (20 century and earlier) purpose built pubs- especially those that served as landmarks and key locations on high streets- should receive additional protections.

Resolved: that the evidence for the Committee’s review be noted.

4.1    Jon Kanareck (Director of Resident Service, Lewisham Homes) and Martin Ryan (Head of Environmental Services, Lewisham Homes) were invited to address the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         Lewisham Homes brought its services back in-house from Glendale in 2015.

·         The process had been successful and customer satisfaction had increased by 20%. However – there were cost implications as a result of bringing the service in-house.

·         Work had taken place with community organisations to increase access to green spaces for Lewisham Homes’ residents.

4.2    Jon Kanareck and Martin Ryan responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         Lewisham Homes maintained the quality of its in-house service through a rigorous programme of inspections.

·         Employee conditions and pay had improved as a result of bringing services in-house. This had led to in improvement in motivation of staff and the quality of their work. However – this had also resulted in increased pension and overhead costs.

·         Refuse collection services could not keep up with the volume of waste being produced on housing estates – which meant it frequently overflowed into green spaces.

·         It was hoped that there would be some benefits from the Council’s parks services being brought in-house. It might enable the sharing of facilities and services – as well as the maintenance of some spaces that currently fell between the care of Lewisham Homes and the parks service.

·         Residents had expressed a preference for colourful planting in the summer – so the service had started annual planting (rather than perennials) – it was recognised that this was not as sustainable. Further discussions would be carried out with residents regarding sustainability and the climate emergency.

·         Lewisham Homes only provided green spaces management and maintenance to Lewisham Homes stock – the Brockley PFI had its own arrangements for maintenance and management.

·         The development of the ‘bee corridor’ was in early stages. The service had consulted colleagues in the council’s green spaces team when devising plans for the corridor. It also benefitted from the expertise and knowledge of its own staff.

4.3    Tony Leach (Parks for London) was invited to address the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         Parks for London was set up in 2002 in response to a Mayoral investigative committee findings about greenspaces in London.

·         It was recognised that London’s parks and green spaces were fragmented – and that services were being delivered in 33 different ways by London boroughs, which stifled innovation and collaboration.

·         Parks for London worked with local authorities and independent entities (such as park trusts and the Royal Parks) to share knowledge and good practice.

·         Three years ago, the first ‘Good Parks for London’ report was published – which looked most closely at the delivery of services by local authorities and focused on improving quality.

·         There was concern that services had sustained cuts of a number of years.

·         Lewisham was previously at the top of the ‘Good Parks for London’ report. In this year’s report it was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Resolved: that the report be noted.

5.1    Christopher Howard (Senior Environmental Protection Officer) introduced the report – the following key points were noted:

·         There was a legal requirement to provide a status report to the Greater London Authority (GLA on the implementation of the air quality action plan.

·         The GLA had approved the report (which covered activities in 2018) and was happy with it overall. In particular, the integration of different groups and various strands of work had been welcomed.

·         The main focus of the report was on transport – and a number of actions related to the management of vehicle emissions.

·         The main purpose of the air quality action plan was to draw together the different pieces of work that were taking place across the Council.

·         The air quality working group met regularly to support this work – as did the strategic air quality board.

·         The number of monitoring locations in the borough had been increased to more than 50 – with a number being located near to schools. The ‘super site’ in Honor Oak Park was also monitoring air quality in the borough. It was one of only three locations in the country that had been chosen for this investment.

·         There were future proposal to create a monitoring site in Deptford to measure levels of PM2.5 and NO2.

·         A number of the actions in plan required funding to carry out – and the Council had been successful in accessing external funding for new projects.

·         A successful bid had been made to Kings College London to take forward some work on the accuracy of air quality sensors.

·         Future work would be carried out to review the air quality action plan to ensure it stayed in line with the approach from the GLA.

·         The intention would be to prioritise the actions in the plan to make it more accessible. There would also be an increased focus the actions that residents could take to improve air quality.

·         One of the most significant future developments would be the expansion of the ultra-low emission zone. Consideration would be given to the mitigating factors required for the areas around the south circular that were not due to be included in the zone.

·         One of the key messages from Transport for London was that people would need to use their cars far less – and that there would need to be a greater shift to other forms of transport.

5.2    Christopher Howard and Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Director for Public Protection and Safety) responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         The issue with personal air quality sensors was that they were only indicative of air quality. However – one of the benefits of personal air quality sensors was that they could be used for comparisons before and after interventions.

·         The air quality monitor project would help people to better understand the appropriate uses and reliability of residents monitoring air quality.

·         There was a variety of different air quality monitoring equipment being used by residents – some people  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1       This item was deferred to the December meeting.

The full draft SPD (appendix 1) can be viewed at the link:

https://we.tl/t-EoxTfQzeRF

Resolved: that the Committee would share its views with Mayor and Cabinet as follows –

·         The Committee welcomes the advances in discussions between all parties regarding the future development of Surrey Canal Triangle.

·         The Committee is concerned about the lack of any new analysis[1] regarding the needs of existing and potential future communities in Surrey Canal Triangle and it recommends that Mayor and Cabinet should seek assurances that further detailed work will be carried out to assess local need for social and physical infrastructure (for both new and existing communities).

·         The Committee broadly welcomes the draft supplementary planning document. However, it believes that the ‘D1’ planning designation for community uses should not at this stage refer to any sub-category of usage.

·         The Committee notes that there are a number of issues surrounding any future planning applications that other Council committees will need to address. In addition, the Committee recommends that the Housing Select Committee should consider the developing SPD in relation to issues of affordable and social housing.

The Committee also made a number of general comments about any future development in Surrey Canal Triangle:

·         The Committee heard that alternative sources of funding had been secured for the development of a new train station to serve Surrey Canal Triangle – and that developer contributions were no longer required. Therefore, the Committee recommends that proper consideration be given to using this funding for the delivery of additional affordable housing.

·         The Committee also believes that any future development in the vicinity of Millwall football club should consider the potential benefits to the local community.

·         Members of the Committee highlighted councillors’ previous questions about the viability of Renewal – and urged that consideration should be given to any future due diligence necessary to assure working relationships with developers.

7.1    Viv Evans (Head of Programmes) introduced the report – the following key points were noted:

·         The report and its appendices were part of the new approach to the comprehensive redevelopment of Surrey Canal Triangle.

·         Over the past 18 months the Mayor and officers had brought together the two principal parties (Millwall football club and Renewal) to explore how they could work together and collaborate with the Council.

·         The Council and the two principal parties had agreed some key objectives in order to: facilitate the delivery of a comprehensive development of high quality; deliver a significant uplift in genuinely affordable housing (from that which was previously agreed through the outline planning permission for Renewal); enable the Millwall football club to have a secure long-term future in the borough; deliver a mixed use community in the Surrey Canal Triangle.

·         The report was a key part of achieving these key objectives.

·         The Surrey Canal Triangle was currently an allocation in the statutory core strategy for the Council – as strategic site allocation three (SSA3).

·         Agreement had been reached between the Council and the principal parties that the best way forward would be for the Council to set out its key objectives and elaborate on the allocation of SA3 in a strategic design framework (which is what the Committee was being asked to consider).

·         Mayor and Cabinet had agreed to terminate the previous land sale agreement.

·         The SPD had been developed in consultation with the two principal parties.

7.2    Viv Evans and David Syme responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         The Council granted an outline planning permission in 2011 (which was still in existence and could still be implemented) for Renewal – however – it required the transfer of three pieces of land to facilitate.

·         The Council had previously entered into a compulsory purchase indemnity agreement for land in Surrey Canal Triangle to enable the development. This would have ensured that the cost of the compulsory purchase would have been covered by Renewal – should the purchase have been required.

·         The Council agreed that it would continue to work with Renewal on a varied compulsory purchase indemnity agreement – in case there was a requirement for other pieces of land to enable the development, which the company could not acquire through negotiation with landowners.

·         The Council agreed with principal parties that it would own the strategic objectives for the Surrey Canal triangle and that both parties would be free to submit applications to enable the redevelopment of the area.

·         Any planning application would be assessed against the strategic plan for the area.

·         If the decision was taken by Mayor and Cabinet to carry out consultation on the plan – then the intention would be to bring a final version to the Committee’s meeting in January 2020 – in advance of formal adoption by Mayor and Cabinet.

·         The SPD had to be in line with the existing core strategy allocation – it did not set any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Resolved: that the report be noted

David Syme introduced the report – the following key points were noted:

·         The Council was in the advanced stages of developing the new local plan.

·         Four member briefings had been held to update councillors on progress.

·         At the first session (July 2018) – the challenges and opportunities arising from the new plan were presented; the second session set out the direction of travel for the new plan - as well as generally setting out the strategic objectives for the new plan; in the third session, strategic objectives were agreed and in the final session (July 2019) members were presented with the draft development management policies and draft site portfolio work.

·         Officers were conscious that there was lots of information for members to take on board as well as lots of changes in comparison to the previous development management policies.

·         Not as much feedback from councillors had been received as had been anticipated.

·         A review of ‘metropolitan open land’ was currently taking place – this was not with the intention of building on metropolitan open land. It was a standard review, in line with the review of the local plan.

·         The infrastructure delivery plan was also being reviewed. This would set out the parks, schools and transport infrastructure that needed to be delivered in order to facilitate the implementation of the local plan. Departments across the Council would be involved in the development of the plan.

·         A viability study was also being carried out. Fifty sites across the borough would be ‘tested’ for their viability for development. In particular, it would review the viability of sites to support affordable housing.

·         The plan was in an advanced stage. It was proposed that a draft of the plan would be presented to the committee in December 2019 – before approval for consultation by Mayor and Cabinet in the spring of 2020.

8.2    David Syme responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         It was a difficult time to prepare a local plan – given the level of uncertainty in a number of areas – and in particular the challenges to the assumptions in the London Plan.

·         Inspectors proposed that the number of small sites for housing delivery being proposed in the local plan should be reduced by half – which in turn – reduced the overall amount of housing proposed in London by 20% (over the lifetime of the Plan).

·         The Council had taken legal advice on the development of the local plan, which clearly stated that Lewisham could not pause preparation of the plan in light of the questions around the London Plan. However, this was complicated by the fact that the London Plan would be assessed for conformity with the old national planning policy framework and Lewisham’s local plan would be assessed against the new national planning policy framework.

·         The figure for small sites in Lewisham per annum based on the original London Plan assessment was for the delivery of 800 homes a year on small  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.1    The Committee discussed the work programme for its December meeting and agreed to make space for the draft local plan by moving back its final evidence session on parks management.

9.2    The Committee also discussed the evidence it had gathered for the parks management in-depth review - the following key points were noted:

·         That the Committee would make note of some draft recommendations for the parks review:

o   The Council should develop a play strategy for parks that includes a plan for accessible play.

o   That planning policy should be reviewed to ensure that play facilities for children were close to proposed developments.

o   That further work should take place to map out the contribution of parks user groups – and that the new parks service should develop a model for engagement with and support of user groups. This should also include support to enable continuity of user groups in the event that there are changes in key members.

o   That there should be additional work carried out to develop monitoring protocols for parks – and that this might include work with parks user groups.

o   That the playing pitch strategy should work in combination with the Council’s approach to bio-diversity.

o   That planting should be carried out - where possible - to support bio-diversity.

o   That consideration should be given to the development of an integrated pest management policy.

o   That the Committee would welcome further information about national capital accounting.

o   That there should be recognition of the social value of cafes in park and that the management of cafes should be linked with the Councils broader policy objectives.

o   That the Council should carry out a review of historic features, memorials and special areas of planting in parks and open spaces when it took on the management and maintenance of parks and open spaces.

o   That there should be renewed cooperation between Lewisham Homes and the insourced parks service.

9.3    The Committee agreed all of the components of its referral on the draft SPD (7.4).

Resolved: that the Committee’s comments under items three and seven be referred to Mayor and Cabinet.

10.1  Resolved: that the Committee’s comments under items three and seven be referred to Mayor and Cabinet.