Venue: Council Chamber - Civic Suite. View directions
Contact: Timothy Andrew Email: (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2022 be agreed as an accurate record.
1.1 Councillor Adefiranye asked for a clarification of the record of attendees at the meeting on 18 January 2022.
1.2 Subject to the clarification on attendance – it was agreed that the minutes were an accurate record of the meeting.
1.3 Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2022 be agreed as an accurate record.
2.1 Councillor Ingleby declared an interest in relation to item four as the Chair of the Friends of Grove Park nature reserve (which lies within the proposed Grove Park urban district park).
2.2 Councillor Clarke declared an interest in relation to item four as a member of the Grove Park neighbourhood forum.
Resolved: The Committee recommended that further training for all members be provided on the contents of the plan. Members believe that consideration should be given to creating an easy read/accessible version of plan. It also recommended that the annual review of the plan should include the Chair of the Sustainable Development Select Committee.
3.1 David Syme (Head of Strategic Planning) introduced the report - setting out the process for preparing the plan, the changes that had been made and the relationship between this plan and the development of the Local Plan. The following key points were noted:
· The infrastructure delivery plan identified the strategic infrastructure required to support the level of growth anticipated in the borough. This included social infrastructure, green spaces, transport requirements and utilities.
· It focused on strategic requirements and did not capture all development needs. Local needs would be further considered as part of the assessment of major planning applications through the community infrastructure and section 106 processes.
· A range of partners were consulted on the development of the plan.
· Work had taken place with the Greater London Authority to determine the impact of the pandemic and Britain’s departure from the European Union on population growth. The population figures were not dissimilar from those used in the early versions of the plan.
· It is intended that the infrastructure delivery plan becomes a delivery document, in line with the Council’s capital programme.
3.2 David Syme and Emma Talbot (Director of Planning) responded to questions from the Committee and the following key points were noted:
· The annual infrastructure funding statement would detail all community infrastructure and section 106 spending.
· The Council had adopted a proactive approach to the co-location of public services.
· Further information could be provided about leisure facilities in Whitefoot.
· The Council’ regeneration and capital strategy boards prioritised spending on community infrastructure projects. Officers recognised the importance of green space.
· Consideration would be given to including additional information about the urban district park in the infrastructure delivery plan. Further work was taking place on mapping and assessing the potential for a district park in Grove Park.
· There had been some deregulation of planning classes – making it slightly more difficult to prioritise certain types of development.
· An amendment would be made to the description of youth services in Grove Park.
· Consideration would be given to the naming of the potential district park in Grove Park – whilst recognising the importance of using planning terminology and the wishes of the local community.
· A new air quality management plan was currently in development.
· It was recognised that there had been a focus on the north of the borough in previous local plans – because of the extent of development in the north of the borough.
· Consideration would be given to preparing an accessible summary document of the plan to be shared more widely.
· It was intended that the plan be regularly updated.
· There were requests from partner organisations that it would not be possible to fulfil. There would be ongoing discussions with stakeholders.
3.3 In Committee discussions the following key points were also noted:
· Members highlighted the perceived discrepancy between development in different areas of the borough (specifically the divide between north and south)
· Members would welcome additional financial information in the plan.
3.4 Resolved: The Committee recommended that further ... view the full minutes text for item 3.
Resolved: that the response from Mayor and Cabinet be noted.
4.1 Resolved: that the response from Mayor and Cabinet be noted.
Resolved: that the report be noted.
5.1 Zahur Khan (Director of Public Realm), Louise McBride (Head of Strategic Transport) and Paul Boulton (Head of Highways) introduced the report – outlining the achievements and challenges in delivering the transport strategy and local implementation plan. This included an overview of pressures on budgets, reprioritisation and the future of the healthy neighbourhoods programme.
5.2 Zahur Khan and Louise McBride responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:
· Data from Transport for London was used to determine the areas in which people were more likely to walk and cycle. It was recognised that consideration needed to be given to the demographics of local populations.
· It was recognised that consultations should consider people in areas surrounding proposed low traffic neighbourhoods – whist also being meaningful and manageable.
· Air quality monitoring was an important part of the assessment of health streets programmes.
· It was originally anticipated in the transport strategy that there would be two or three healthy neighbourhoods delivered each year – but this was dependent on funding being available.
· The future availability of funding from Transport for London was still unclear. Funding was an issue across London.
· Work was taking place with (and around schools) to support the schools streets programme.
· Work was coordinated between the Council’s transport, highways, cycling and healthy neighbourhoods initiatives.
· Creating an active travel fund would be a challenge due to the availability of funding. A number of projects were ready to begin but the funding was not yet available.
· Officers would welcome suggestions to improve options and opportunities for active travel.
· Officers would engage with Transport for London regarding the experimental traffic order (and the associated signage) on the A21.
· Officers would consider innovations and schemes in other boroughs for implementing active travel schemes.
5.3 In Committee discussions the following key points were also noted:
· Members would welcome the development of an active travel fund –for schemes that were ready to be delivered depending on available funding.
· The report that 70% of local implementation plan projects had been delivered with of half of the funding made available was welcomed and praised.
· The importance of improving air quality and local green spaces was emphasised.
· Deprivation should be one of the key measures used to determine the location of new healthy neighbourhood programmes.
· There might be novel approaches to accessing and creating funds for active travel schemes.
5.4 Resolved: that the report be noted.
Resolved: that the work programme report be noted.
6.1 The Committee considered the final work programme report for the 2021-22 municipal year. Members also discussed the 2022-23 work programme - the following suggestions for the programme were noted:
· The air quality action plan and flood risk management strategy for the Committee’s first meeting.
· 15 minute neighbourhoods
· The circular economy
· Food strategy
· The Council’s emergency planning and disaster recovery protocols
· The reopening of Council services
· Major planning developments
· Asset strategy and the commercial estate
· The regeneration of Catford Town Centre
6.2 Resolved: that the work programme report be noted.