Venue: Committee room 2
Contact: Timothy Andrew Email: (email@example.com)
1.1 Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2019 be agreed as an accurate record.
1.1 Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2019 be agreed as an accurate record.
2.1 Councillor Krupski declared a non-prejudicial interest in relation to item five as a member of Lewisham Cyclists.
2.2 Councillor Ingleby declared a non-prejudicial interest in relation to item five as the Chair of the Friends of Grove Park nature reserve.
2.3 Councillor Curran declared a non-prejudicial interests as a trustee of the Baring Trust and as a Member of the Grove Park Neighbourhood Forum.
Response to the Committee’s referral on the Surrey Canal Triangle design framework (to follow)
3.1 The Committee recived the response to its referral as part of the consideration of item six.
Resolved: that the Committee would refer its views to Mayor and Cabinet as follows –
· The Committee believes that the climate emergency action plan should place a high level of emphasis on public engagement.
· The Committee wants to highlight the importance of tree planting and green infrastructure in: urban cooling; enhancing the thermal efficiency of buildings; improving the pedestrian environment and streetscape as well as sequestering carbon emissions from the atmosphere. It recommends that further consideration should be given to the importance of trees and green space in the climate emergency action plan.
4.1 Martin O’Brien (Climate Resilience Manager) introduced a presentation appended to the minutes, the following key points were noted:
· The report provided an update on the work the Council was carrying out in response to its declaration of a climate emergency.
· Work had been commissioned to assess the measures required for Lewisham to become carbon neutral by 2030.
· A number of authorities across the country had declared a climate emergency. 26 authorities in London had declared an emergency and 14 had set a target of becoming carbon neutral by 2030.
· Officers were working towards producing an action plan for presentation to Mayor and Cabinet before the end of March.
· The research commissioned by the Council helped to: define definitions; establish a clear baseline for future comparisons; determine the scale and the cost of actions needed to deliver on the Council’s ambitions.
· The research did not provide the details of the Council’s action plan, which would be agreed in due course.
· The report provided definitions of the key terms (including: ‘carbon neutral’, ‘carbon offsetting’ and the international greenhouse protocols for sources of emissions inside and outside of the borough). The terms ‘carbon emissions and CO2’ were used in the report to cover all greenhouse gasses (such as methane, amongst others), measured as carbon equivalents.
· The baseline for measurements was 2017-18. The target year for the action plan was 2030-31.
· The reduction in carbon emissions in Lewisham from 2005 to the present day was 38%, which was slightly higher than the London average (37%). Much of the reduction related to the decarbonisation of electricity supplied through the national grid.
· Emissions directly attributable to Lewisham Council amounted to slightly less than 3%.
· Domestic gas and electricity accounted for more than half of the borough’s carbon emissions.
· Transport was the next biggest source of emissions, together with gas and electricity used in housing the three amounted to three quarters of the borough’s carbon emissions.
· The research puts forward four scenarios for the future (baseline; core; radical stretch and systemic change). These took into account the projections for population growth as well as the plans for decarbonisation of the electricity grid.
· Actions had been developed for each of the scenarios.
· The four scenarios were complementary – the actions in each could be added to the actions from the previous scenario.
· Projections were made for the impact of each of the scenarios – with costs for carbon offsetting.
· There were significant costs associated with the delivery of each of the four scenarios.
· The Greater London Authority had produced an assessment of the costs of becoming carbon neutral by 2050. It found that the ‘do nothing’ option was not the cheapest scenario.
· The costs of some of the actions in the ‘systemic change’ scenario could not be accurately projected because they were so fundamentally different from current practice.
· One of the key unsolved problems was the carbon emissions from domestic heating.
· There were some sources of carbon emissions that could not be quantified locally (such as those ... view the full minutes text for item 4.
Appendices (including the draft plan) included as a separate item
Resolved: that the Committee would refer its views to Mayor and Cabinet.
5.1 The Chair thanked officers for the report and welcomed the level of engagement that had been carried out with councillors in the development of the draft plan.
5.2 Emma Talbot (Director of Planning) and David Syme (Strategic Planning Manager) introduced the report – the following key points were noted:
· Officers welcomed the level of engagement from Councillors. Consideration was given to involving Councillors and the public above and beyond the minimum requirements in the Council’s statement of community involvement.
· The report was still in draft form – and agreement was being sought for the next stage of consultation.
· The plan set out proposals for good growth and the development of strategic infrastructure.
· There were still a number of stages of preparation, decision making and consultation for the report to go through before it could be submitted for examination by the planning inspector.
· The draft plan brought together a number of previous planning documents, including: the core strategy, the site allocations plan, the development management policies and the previous local plan.
· Part one of the new plan set out the vision for the borough, this had been developed with the Lewisham’s mayor’s office to reflect the corporate strategy. This section also set out the strategic objectives (which had been agreed by all members).
· Part two of the plan set out the development management polices – which would govern the determination of planning applications in the borough. Members had previously received a briefing on key changes and the effectiveness of previous policy. Where possible, suggestions from Members had been incorporated into the new policies.
· The policies also had to align with national and regional policy changes.
· The policies strengthened Lewisham’s approach to climate change.
· Part three of the plan set out the approach to Lewisham’s neighbourhoods and places.
· The approach to neighbourhoods and places had been developed in line with the Committee’s recommendations – as well as consultation with local communities.
· Parts four and five of the plan contained technical information.
· The public consultation on the plan would build on best practice and experience from recent consultation exercises. The strategy for the delivery of the consultation was taking longer than anticipated.
· As proposed by the Committee, officers were developing an executive summary of the plan to make it as accessible as possible.
5.3 Emma Talbot, David Syme, and Eric Nilsen (Principal Planning Policy Officer) responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:
· Officers recognised the issue of people paving over their driveways with non-permeable materials – when combined with the impacts of climate change would increase the risk of flooding. However, permitted development rights allowed people to make a number of changes to their homes without applying for planning permission.
· There was a specific policy in the plan on sustainable drainage systems – which was part of the overall approach in the plan to climate change adaptation and mitigation.
· Where the Council had power to rule on a planning application (work not carried out under permitted ... view the full minutes text for item 5.
Draft SPD document included as a separate item.
Resolved: that the report (and the response from Mayor and Cabinet) be noted.
6.1 David Syme introduced the report (including the response to the Committee’s referral to Mayor and Cabinet) – the following key points were noted:
· As the Committee had been previously advised - consultation had been carried out on the draft supplementary planning document design framework.
· There had been relatively few responses to the consultation – particularly from members of the public (this was likely due to the industrial nature of much of the area covered by the plan).
· Amongst the responses that had been received – the common theme was that people wanted development to go ahead – so that they could benefit from the improvements and facilities that had been promised (such as the new station on the London Overground).
· Responses from statutory consultees had been incorporated into the plan.
6.2 David Syme responded to a question from the Committee – the following key point was noted:
· The Council supported the protection for the Lions Centre because of the valuable facilities it provided to the community. Any loss would have to be justified in policy – which would mean that the facilities needed to be re-provided on site. Suggestions in the consultation that existing protections should be removed had been dismissed.
6.3 Resolved: that the report (and the response from Mayor and Cabinet) be noted.
Resolved: That the Committee’s comments under items four and five should be referred to Mayor and Cabinet.
7.1 The Committee discussed the work programme and agreed that the following items should be on the agenda for the meeting on 10 March:
· Flood risk update
· Catford town centre regeneration
· Parks and open spaces strategy
· Parks management review final report
7.2 The Committee also agreed that it would receive an information item about the performance of the waste and recycling service.
7.3 Resolved: that the work programme be agreed.
Items to be referred to Mayor and Cabinet
8.1 Resolved: That the Committee’s comments under items four and five should be referred to Mayor and Cabinet.