Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 168 KBVenue: Evelyn Community Centre, Kingfisher Square SE8 5TW
Contact: Sam Dias
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Welcome from the Chair 1. Welcome from Cllr David Michael, Chair of the Evelyn Assembly
1.1 Cllr David Michael, Chair of the Evelyn Assembly, opened the meeting, stating that the Assemblies primary objective was identifying and agreeing the priorities for the area and addressing them through the Action Plan.
1.2 Cllr Michael explained that the agenda had been compiled in consultation with the Assembly Coordinating Group with a view to ensuring that local matters of concern to residents were raised at the meeting. He asked the members of the Coordinating Group to make themselves known to the Assembly.
1.3 Cllr Michael stated that issues relating to casework would be addressed at the end of the meeting.
|
|
|
Planning and Section 106 Presentation Minutes: 2. Planning and Section 106 Presentation/Q&A Emma Talbot, Head of Planning London Borough of Lewisham
2.1 Emma Talbot’s presentation addressed five key areas:
2.2 Housing need
Emma explained that a need for 25,000 new homes across the borough by 2031 had been identified. Planning policy requires up to 50% to be “affordable”. This is subject to viability and is an approach that is set at the national planning level. She then covered key areas of planning and local information of particular relevance to Evelyn residents.
2.3 Deptford Regeneration and Growth Area
Emma explained that all policies relating to the regeneration of the area are in line with national and local planning policies. As background, she explained that in 2009 London Borough of Lewisham’s Planning Department had met with the local community to identify what they considered to be good and bad places. Information from this consultation had informed the approach to regeneration planning in Deptford.
She confirmed that plans were in train for the following building and regeneration works:
Convoys Wharf 3,500 units Deptford Wharf 1,132 units Plough Way Site 566 units Marine Wharf East 225 units Cannon Wharf 679 units Yeoman Street c. 100 units Other key sites New Bermondsey 2,400 units Bermondsey 199 units
When assessing impacts, these are looked at cumulatively.
2.4 Section 106
Emma explained the purpose of S.106 agreements as being legal contracts between the Council and developers through which contribute towards provision and facilities that offset the impacts of their development, secure affordable housing and capture the benefit of schemes.
For example, in the Convoys Wharf S.106, the developer is required to support the construction of a new school worth £6.9m.
2.5 Community Infrastructure Levy
For developments agreed after 2015, S.106 agreements will be largely superseded by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) - a setcharge to developers per square metre of development, aimed at supporting wider infrastructure, e.g. education or public health facilities. S.106 will still be used for affordable housing and for contributions which are not infrastructure. Most of the strategic sites approved within the Evelyn ward were done so before the introduction of the local CIL charge.
Emma explained that the Council was currently in the process of preparing an infrastructure delivery plan which will identify needs at a Borough wide level and will be subject to public consultation with local communities. Consultation on this front will start later in the year but communities will need to be aware that available funds are needed to support growth and there are many competing interests for what is a finite amount of money available .
Consideration was being given to the development of a community trust as a legacy fund for available community monies as well as a process for consulting with local communities on local priorities.
2.6 Questions following ... view the full minutes text for item 2. |
|
|
Sir Francis Drake - Basic School Build Plan 3.1 This item had been placed on the agenda as a result of concerns raised by the Evelyn Assembly Coordinating Group.
3.2 The concerns raised were around the basic build of the school and its ability to offer spaces to local children in the foreseeable future, with the cumulative effect of developments in the area meaning that an additional 6,000 homes would be created.
3.3 The process through which the permission for the school’s development had been granted was described. In August 2011, the DfE had undertaken a basic need allocation and an independent survey had been carried out. The Council had then been notified that its bid for funding had been successful, with the governing body responsible for facilities management.
3.4 Margaret pointed out that residents had already made their concerns known and these views had been presented to the Mayor, who had responded. She also highlighted that the Education Department works with other Council departments to plan local provision and that there was an expectation within the Council that queries relating to school places would continue to rise in line with the increasing need for school places over the coming decade.
3.5 Questions following the presentation:
A number of questions were asked and points raised by meeting attendees, including:
Q. Lack of consultation with parents, has the Council considered learning from methods used for consultation and local resident involvement in decision making in other boroughs, e.g. Southwark?
A. Margaret confirmed that her team had undertaken full consultation and had obtained a range of views from a diverse sample of local residents.
Q. Has consideration been given to removing existing children from the site during building works to reduce distractions presented by building works, e.g. could the children be decanted to the vacant site at the back of Grinling Gibbons?
A. With regard to questions relating to decanting pupils to alternative premises, Margaret confirmed that this was not possible but that a construction management plan was being discussed with the school and that heavy works would take place only during school holidays. Traffic management would be organised around Griffin Road with traffic planners and the school was confident that children would not need to cross the road except where there was pedestrian traffic only.
3.6 Residents expressed views regarding Deptford Park not being acceptable for the children to use as outside space, that feedback is not being listened to and that the planning should be put on hold.
3.7 It was suggested that the Council should await the remainder of the S.106 money that is outstanding and use this to contribute to the cost of improved design. This would allow further thought to be given to building the school with options for further expansion in the future as demand continues to increase. One attendee voiced the opinion that both central government and London Borough of Lewisham have their own agenda and that local people have no voice.
3.8 Margaret also confirmed that, in using public funding, the Council is ... view the full agenda text for item 3. Minutes: 3. Sir Francis Drake - Basic School Build Plan Margaret Brightman, Education Manager, London Borough of Lewisham
3.1 This item had been placed on the agenda as a result of concerns raised by the Evelyn Assembly Coordinating Group.
3.2 The concerns raised were around the basic build of the school and its ability to offer spaces to local children in the foreseeable future, with the cumulative effect of developments in the area meaning that an additional 6,000 homes would be created.
3.3 The process through which the permission for the school’s development had been granted was described. In August 2011, the DfE had undertaken a basic need allocation and an independent survey had been carried out. The Council had then been notified that its bid for funding had been successful, with the governing body responsible for facilities management.
3.4 Margaret pointed out that residents had already made their concerns known and these views had been presented to the Mayor, who had responded. She also highlighted that the Education Department works with other Council departments to plan local provision and that there was an expectation within the Council that queries relating to school places would continue to rise in line with the increasing need for school places over the coming decade.
3.5 Questions following the presentation:
A number of questions were asked and points raised by meeting attendees, including:
Q. Lack of consultation with parents, has the Council considered learning from methods used for consultation and local resident involvement in decision making in other boroughs, e.g. Southwark?
A. Margaret confirmed that her team had undertaken full consultation and had obtained a range of views from a diverse sample of local residents.
Q. Has consideration been given to removing existing children from the site during building works to reduce distractions presented by building works, e.g. could the children be decanted to the vacant site at the back of Grinling Gibbons?
A. With regard to questions relating to decanting pupils to alternative premises, Margaret confirmed that this was not possible but that a construction management plan was being discussed with the school and that heavy works would take place only during school holidays. Traffic management would be organised around Griffin Road with traffic planners and the school was confident that children would not need to cross the road except where there was pedestrian traffic only.
3.6 Residents expressed views regarding Deptford Park not being acceptable for the children to use as outside space, that feedback is not being listened to and that the planning should be put on hold.
3.7 It was suggested that the Council should await the remainder of the S.106 money that is outstanding and use this to contribute to the cost of improved design. This would allow further thought to be given to building the school with options for further expansion in the future as demand continues to increase. One attendee voiced the opinion that both central government and London Borough of Lewisham have their own agenda and ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|
|
Community information Minutes: Meeting closed with no declarations of interest.
Note: These are not verbatim minutes therefore questions and answers have been summarised.
|