Agenda item

that the report be noted. It was also agreed that the Committee would request from officers a list of roles and responsibilities for development plans in Catford. In addition, it was noted that the following information would be shared: the slides from the presentation; the most recent update on the Building for Lewisham programme; the joint (Lewisham/LB Southwark/Transport for London) Bakerloo Line Extension engagement plan and information on the future operator for the CCC.

4.1    Charlotte Harrison (Head of Strategic Regeneration) introduced the report with a presentation (available alongside these minutes). Charlotte provided an overview of the key regeneration schemes in Catford as well as some timelines for their development.

4.2    Charlotte Harrison and Patrick Dubeck (Director for Inclusive Regeneration) responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         The report only provided an update on schemes that were in the Council’s control. This did not include the development on Catford Island (formerly referred to as ‘Plassy Island’ - but further information would be provided following the meeting.

·         The Thomas Lane Yard project fell within the remit of the ‘Building for Lewisham Programme’ and was being overseen by the Council’s Housing Directorate.

·         That information would be shared on the 2024 Bakerloo Line Extension engagement plan.

·         If the Bakerloo line extension went ahead it would utilise the national rail infrastructure beyond Lewisham.

·         A process was in place to appoint an operator for the Catford Constitutional Club (CCC). The Catford Regeneration Partnership would retain the freehold for the site.

·         The Inclusive Regeneration Division had oversight of the development taking place in Catford and coordinated work with officers across the Council. This would change over time – as the programme for Catford developed.

·         The Planning Team would be responsible for the coordination of planning applications from developers in Catford Town Centre.

·         Reliance on an individual person to coordinate the delivery of activity in Catford would not be desirable. The Council did not have all of the statutory powers to coordinate the delivery of all the work taking place in Catford.

·         Any questions or concerns about the delivery of projects in Catford should be directed to Patrick and Charlotte (or officers in their roles).

·         Officers were confident that the resources were in place to coordinate and deliver the programme for Catford.

·         The consultation carried out by Transport for London (TfL) on the road realignment included a question about perceptions of improvements to the town centre. The detail regarding these improvements was quite generic – which might explain the low rate of positive responses.

·         As improvement schemes came forward there would be additional consultations with residents.

·         There was a recognised gap between consultations on the proposals for Catford and the reality of delivery over an extended period of years.

4.3       In Committee discussion – the following key point was also noted:

·      Members would welcome a single point of contact for the delivery of works taking place in Catford. The point was made that a high level of coordination and integration was required to make the regeneration of Catford as successful as possible (and to minimise disruption for local people).

4.4    Resolved: that the report be noted. It was also agreed that the Committee would request from officers a list of roles and responsibilities for development plans in Catford. In addition, it was noted that the following information would be shared: the slides from the presentation; the most recent update on the Building for Lewisham programme; the joint (Lewisham/LB Southwark/Transport for London) Bakerloo Line Extension engagement plan and information on the future operator for the CCC.