2.1 Planning issues Gavin Cooper
· The Greyhound
· Enforcement issues
· Progress on vacant sites
2.2 Highways issues Written reply
· Kent House Road
· Station Approach
· Footbridge on Dacres Road
2.3 Refuse issues Written reply
· Letters to residents and traders
· Jet spray high street
2.4 Skanska Streetlighting issues Paul Burman
· Heritage columns in Conservation Areas
Minutes:
2.1Planning Issues – The Greyhound
Gavin Cooper, from Lewisham Planning, provided an update on the Greyhound. Gavin, firstly provided a brief history: Lewisham Council granted permission for the re-development of the site to provide housing, a commercial element and a pub; the objective was to retain the Greyhound on that site. Due to the developer demolishing the Greyhound, this has resulted in the pub not being able to be delivered as part of the project. As a result Lewisham Council prosecuted the developer (Purelake) because of the unlawful demolition of the pub. A new planning application was submitted in September 2012, which was approved by the Planning Committee on 25 April 2013. As there is a new planning permission it means that the obligations relating to the pub from the original S106 agreement now need to be secured in planning conditions attached to the new permission. To implement this the Committee required a Deed of Variation to amend the original s106 planning agreement by removing the obligations relating to the public house before the new permission was granted. This involves all of the current parties to the original S106 agreement and includes the Housing Association, the tenants of the commercial units and any other parties who have a legal interest in the land.
In the Autumn there was a delay in all parties signing the agreement, due to a variety of commercial interests that needed to be worked through, and as a result it is still with the lawyers. Gavin explained that the Council is unable to force the signing of the legal agreement, but they are encouraging all parties and meetings are taking place between the main owners ofthe site. Once planning permission is issued then works to complete the pub can commence and a pub delivered for the community.
Comments from the Assembly:
· Assurance and regular communication - A lack of assurance as to what is going on from Planning - concern was expressed that at the time of the demolition, all communications were ignored by Planning and a failure to get to grips with control of the project occurred from the outset.
· Enforcement - legal high court judgement over the developer to rebuild – when is this going to be enforced? Could you serve a conservation and reporting notice where you can require the developer to come back to site and re-buildwhatever format you see fit.
· Physical condition of the building - the building is open to the weather, subsiding and gradually falling down
A I can assure you we were aware and the site was visited and served a temporary stop notice, and we did visit the site on numerous occasions to make sure that the building was retained.
The problem we have is that we cannot force the developer to sign the agreement, we can only take enforcement action where there is an element of harm that results from the building not being completed. All we could do is get it demolishedbut essentially the Council’s objective is to get the pub delivered on that site.
· Commercial interest for an economically viable pub
A The revised plan has an enlarged basement as well as a conservatory so most of the pub needs re-building including re-using the materials of the pub.
It is going to be cheaper and simpler to get some of the issues resolved by negotiation and to make sure the developer returns to site to rebuild an economically viable pub.
· Demolition of the pub – will the Council consider a community square instead of the pub on the site
A The planning permission was for the building of 40 homes, 2 commercial units and renovating the pub – there are conditions that need to be meet to secure the planning permission.
· Community campaign to encourage Purelake to rebuild the pub
A Resolving the rebuilding of The Greyhound is a priority for the Council – it is our highest priority in terms of our grading of 1-5. We are putting all our efforts into resolving this issue. The Head of Law and Head of Planning have spoken to Purelake to seek resolution and also express the strength of feeling from the community.
Cllr Chris Best added that we now have the strength of the Sydenham Assembly to add weight to the officers negotiations. Lewisham will take a dim view of other applications in the borough. Purelake are a large company and they have got other schemes on site within the borough. The community can start a high profile campaign to embarrass Purelake and we can make it difficult in terms of reputation to work in Lewisham.
Action: Sydenham Assembly Coordinators to consider the campaign and write to Purelake asking for their comments.
Enforcement of shop fronts
Gavin Cooper provided an update with regard to shop fronts:
In April 2013 the Council adopted an Enforcement Charter which sets out priorities for the council taking out enforcements and has five priorities. Shop fronts are category three in terms of taking action. 70 Sydenham Road has been issued an enforcement notice. However, the enforcement notice requires the shop front to be removed, currently in discussion with the owners to get a replacement that is acceptable.
If people do make a complaint with regard to shop fronts, it will be logged by the Council and although not high priority the council is visiting and taking action in due course.
Vacant sites
278 -280 Kirkdale is being built out by Tranquil Homes – a wine bar is proposed on the ground floor with 7 flats above.
22A-24 Sydenham Road – the developer is currently consulting on a pre-application scheme before submission.
2.2.Highways issues
Cllr Chris Best acknowledged the written reply available and attached to the minutes.
One request was for the plans for the footbridge on Dacres Road to be circulated and whether it will be possible to cycle over the bridge.
Action: MO to attach the plans and information on the footbridge with the minutes.
An update on the installation of the gismo from New Zealand to be circulated.
2.3.Refuse Issues
Cllr Chris Bestacknowledged the written replies from the Environment Waste Division with a redrafted letter for the residents and traders in the high street regarding putting out waste in orange and pink bags. Black bags will be treated as flytipping. There was a question about fly tipping on private land eg behind the Chinese restaurant. Cllr Chris Best explained that the landowners have a responsibility to clear their land to make sure there are no environmental health concerns.
A question was also raised with regard to the missing CCTV and the sign which states it is in operation.
Action: TB from Community Safety to take back concerns on CCTV and signage in the area.
Update: Cllr Chris Best carried our a walkabout with the Head of Refuse on 13 April to look at the cleansing, litter bins, refuse bins and flytipping along Sydenham Road
2.4.Skanska Streetlighting Issues
Cllr Best invited Paul Burnham from Skanska to update with regard to heritage lamps in Conservation Area. Paul replied that the only heritage lights that have come into this area are on Allenby and Garlies Road but more will be coming to The Thorpes Conservation Area.
An assembly member commented on installation of modern lamps and heritage lamps and how the number and choice of lamps can affect the atmosphere of an area. Paul Burnham explained that prior to the contract, Lewisham undertook a piece of work to assess the heritage nature of the streets. The Council then determined which streets had the characteristics to fit the criteria in order to have heritage style lighting. So far, two streets in Lewisham have had heritage style lanterns. The Thorpes, Blackheath and other selected areas will be getting heritage style equipment.
Paul explained that due to the long period of consultation with regard to heritage style equipment, this has slowed down the actual installation. However, there will be between 800-900 heritage style lanterns going into Lewisham. For the areas that have not been identified by Lewisham Council as receiving heritage lamps, they will be getting standard lanterns that have been specified by the Council.
Paul explained that the time scale for the lanterns being installed on the Thorpes was for April but there is a delay with the equipment suppliers.
In terms of placement there has been a walk around tonight and there will be further discussions on placement on the kerb site rather than the wall as the walls are a feature of the Conservation Areas.
Skanska have scoped the placement of the lights to ensure there are no gaps in light and therefore the lights may be in a different position to existing. Concerns were raised with the light entering the house and again Skanska can address this by putting on shields. Lewisham Council specifies the type of light and position.
Action: Cllr Chris Best to liaise with Lewisham Council regarding placement and timescale for the heritage lamps.
Update: Cllr Chris Best has spoken to both parties and an update is attached.