Decision:
That the Committee would refer its views to Mayor and Cabinet as follows –
• The Committee commends the work carried out by officers. The Committee recognises the calibre and high quality of the work carried out and it recommends that the development framework is adopted.
• The Committee recommends that consideration be given to the future options for the framework to be strengthened through its adoption as a supplementary planning document.
• The Committee believes that officers should continue to work with Transport for London in order to ensure that collaboration, coordination and funding are made available to support the development of cycling and walking infrastructure along the A21.
Minutes:
4.1 David Syme introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:
· There had been changes to the funding arrangements for the delivery of the project, which represented a small risk for the Council.
· Some helpful input had been received from Transport for London (TfL) – particularly at the beginning of the project, however TfL staff working on these issues were furloughed during the development of the framework and were now assigned only to work on schemes that had been granted funding (which the A21 development framework had not).
· Lewisham Hospital had been working on options for consolidating their services – however this work was interrupted by the pandemic. Without clarity from the hospital about its future plans it was omitted from the framework. It could be added in the future.
· The development of the A21 framework was due to run alongside a pre-feasibility project with TfL led by the Council’s transport team. However, the status of this project was currently unclear.
· A number of sites were omitted from the development framework due to advanced pre-application discussions taking place.
· The guidance in the framework was in line with the requirements in the London Plan to redevelop underutilised retail spaces (such as large ‘box store’ type developments with large car parks) into mixed use and residential developments.
· Consideration could be given to site uses which might cause problems with access or traffic and officers would welcome further suggestions from members.
· A supplementary planning document (SPD) had a formalised and robust status in planning terms – whereas a framework (whilst a material planning consideration) did not.
· The framework could be upgraded (to an SPD) in the future. This would require additional policy work and resourcing.
· The framework document would help in future conversations about decision making and funding with TfL.
· Consideration would be given to including guidance on electric vehicle charging points in the framework.
· One of the principals in the strategy was to widen spaces for pedestrians where possible, whilst also accommodating space for cyclists, busses and cars.
· Consideration would be given to the impact of lighting on perceptions of public safety.
· Further thought would be given to the east west links in the framework.
· Densities on development sites were increasing – in line with policies for the effective utilisation of space. This would have an impact on the design of streetscapes – as taller buildings were incorporated.
4.3 Resolved: that the Committee would refer its views to Mayor and Cabinet as follows –
· The Committee commends the work carried out by officers. The Committee recognises the calibre and high quality of the work carried out and it recommends that the development framework is adopted.
· The Committee recommends that consideration be given to the future options for the framework to be strengthened through its adoption as a supplementary planning document.
· The Committee believes that officers should continue to work with Transport for London in order to ensure that collaboration, coordination and funding are made available to support the development of cycling and walking infrastructure along the A21.
Supporting documents: