Canada Water Consultative Forum
Minutes of meeting of 22nd April 2013
Held at Alfred Salter School, Quebec Way Rotherhithe London SE16 7LP
Forum (in attendance in bold)
P. Adenwalla (PA) K.Jassby (QWIE) (KJ)
K. Whittam (KW) Chris Horn (C&E) (CH)
Henry Neel (DMGT) (HN) Steve Cornish. (SC)
Miles Price (BL) (MP) Setura Mahdi (Hardhat) (SM)
Cllr F Colley (FC) Cllr J Hook (JHW) Cllr P Noblet (Cllr PN) Jarno Stet
Cllr W Nelson (Cllr WN) Cllr C Situ (Cllr MS)
Jeremy Hewitt (JHW) Lisa Heywood (DMGT) (LH)
In Attendance:
Kim Humphries, Simon Bevan, Elaine Tym, Chris Tym, Christine Jackson, Phillip Baker, Anastasia Cavouras, Andrew Shcherbakov, Agate Grabowski, Robert Greg, James Sa, Lee Harris, Anne Chadborn, Gary Jones, Phil Briscoe, Rosie Day, Alan McDermott, James Elliot, Zoe Fletcher, Nick Gordon Brown, Chris Horn, John , A Erman, Kelvin chen, Lin Wu, Georges Fouad
1. Welcome & Introduction
The Chair welcomed all present and outlined the full agenda.
2. Apologies / Approval / Amendments / Action from 18/2/13
Apologies Ian Moore
Amendments to minutes of 18th. February 2013 -
Item 4 para 2 The Decathlon site area should read : The Decathlon store area for which consent is being sought is up to 12,308sq.m Class A1 retail store, including 10,178sq.m (net) sales area, 745sq.m office accommodation (to be occupied by Decathlon as a UK Head Office) and 308sq.m café.
Item 4 para 2, line 11: should read SC applauded the presentation, not welcomed the proposals and re iterated the need for affordable local housing.
Item 4 para 4, line 4: should read JHW not Cllr JH
3. Lower Road Traffic
Tim Gould, LBS Group Manager, Development Control & Strategic Projects
TG outlined various proposals considered by LBS in order to simplify the local road network and ease congestion in the Canada Water/Rotherhithe area. Having considered various options, LBS were working in consultation with TfL, to achieve a solution that is in keeping with the CW AAP. Their key aspirations are to :
· Develop 2-way traffic movement in Lower Road, allow for better access to Plough Way & Rotherhithe,
· Encourage walking and cycling
· TfL Cycle Superhighway 4.
The four feasible options under consideration are:
· a cycle contra-flow on Lower Road,
· a bus contra-flow up to Redriff Road,
· 2-way traffic on part of Lower Road up to Redriff Road,
· full 2-way traffic in Lower Road.
Costs at this stage were unknown but LBS would apply for a contribution from the S106 Strategic Transport fund, TfL and London Borough of Lewisham (LBL), who would benefit from the road improvements. LBS had commissioned the first stage designs and would provide a report in 4 months with initial designs and costs for consideration.
SC questioned the width of the Superhighway 4 and the effect this would have on the useable space for other traffic. TG replied that they are not always 2 metres wide, this depends on the space available, and it may prove more viable to incorporate the cycle route in the bus lane.
SC reminded TG of the 2006/7 multi modal study which had been commissioned by LBS to review building developments in the area and their impact on traffic congestion. At that time it was estimated that 2,250 new flats would be built, but the figure is now three times that, with traffic increasing accordingly. With a 40% increase in population SC questioned whether the latest proposals would solve the major congestion in the area, and was sceptical about the feasibility of a two way traffic scheme in Lower Road. He pointed out that in addition to bus, cycle and car lanes, parking provision needs to be included for customer and delivery vehicles if local shops are to stay in business. He added that local shop keepers who would be affected by these proposals had not been consulted so far.
TG reiterated that LBS should have more answers in four months’ time once initial designs have been drawn up. He added that LBS were looking at proposals for junctions on Jamaica Road as the Cycle Superhighway would go through this route. LBS were also in discussion with TfL who have responsibility for the Rotherhithe Tunnel and roundabout, which contributes to Lower Road congestion problems.
JHW welcomed the study and asked that LBS works closely with LBL who have carried out their own investigations into traffic congestion along this route, which straddles both boroughs.TG confirmed that they are in consultation and was aware that the additional 20-25,000 flats being built at Greenwich would impact on congestion in the Rotherhithe area. He added that there was a general trend across London to reduce car ownership, although SC did not agree that this was the case in Canada Water/Rotherhithe since we fall outside of the congestion zone. JHW stressed that the A200 is a major traffic route and he was concerned about the accuracy of traffic projections. He pointed out that the DTI has such robust figures regarding increases in car ownership that he saw no sign of a decrease. Unlike King’s College (KC), other developers have made no commitments to actively reduce car usage, and he hoped LBS were taking a wide enough view in their analysis.
PA pointed out that Deptford has no tube / DLR station and asked if Surrey Canal station was still on the agenda. TG confirmed that this was part of the obligation which developers at the Surrey Canal Triangle site have to meet.
CW asked when we can expect changes such as the right hand turn into Surrey Quays road to be implemented. TG replied that this was all part of the wider road traffic schemes and Andrew Seaman (AS) said it would be included in the CW AAP inspector’s Phasing of Development.
4. S106/Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
Simon Bevan LBS
SB explained that as part of the planning process, the Council and a developer seeking planning permission may enter into a legal agreement that will set out the terms for the developer to provide or fund the provision of infrastructure or services on or off the development site. This agreement is referred to as a “Section 106 Agreement”. He confirmed that in addition to helping towards the cost of more schools, healthcare and transport, provision of affordable housing was also an obligation for developers under S106.
SB then outlined the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which will apply to most new developments in England and Wales. The Levy was introduced by government to ensure that the infrastructure requirements of a community are dealt with in a more structured way. The levy is designed to be fairer, faster and more transparent than the previous system of agreeing planning obligations between local councils and developers under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Local councils are able to set levies on different types of building in different areas of the borough, and LBS have been working on their rates for the past two years. Current rates range from £50 - £400 per sqm, depending on location. JHW asked if costings were based on sqm of ground area of site, to which SB replied that it was based on the net increase in floor space.
SB stated that initial consultations with developers had raised concerns that the levies being considered were too high, he stressed that it was important to set them at the right level in order to make developments viable. LBS will carry out investigations and make recommendations over the coming year based on the viability of sites and sales values, and will ensure that rates are sustainable. Evidence will be closely scrutinised and analysed prior to being presented to inspectors.
SB said that the revenue collected under CIL is expected to be in the region of £8-9m annually. John Stapler (JS) questioned where the money would be spent, asking is it the case that it could be used to benefit other parts of the borough? SB confirmed that this may happen depending on priorities; Local Authority’s need to spend 15% of the revenue collected in the local area, but this was still a matter for discussion. KW asked if previously agreed projects have been set aside now. SB replied that these were not prioritised lists, and added that to date some CIL money has been spent locally as has some of the revenue raised under S106. JHW added that a recent Cabinet report quoted a figure of £800m needed to meet infrastructure needs and questioned how the £8-9m CIL fund would impact on this.
Anne Chadbourne (AC) asked if CIL replaced S106. SB explained that the overall provision was covered by CIL but some items such as affordable housing were still catered for by S106. JHW was concerned that higher CIL rates in CW would deter developers from building affordable housing here when they could fulfil their obligations in other parts of the borough at a lower cost. He hoped LBS would be straightforward in their provision of affordable housing for this community. He stated that the rate charge for CIL for affordable housing will be lower in the central residential zone. SC supported this asking that housing be truly affordable, and not as at present where 1 bed flats start from over £300,000. SB responded by pointing out that CIL was not just intended to support affordable housing provision, and prices had to be agreed with developers and it had to be viable. He added that LBS were aware that if CIL levels were set too high this would impact on affordable housing. Despite grants being slashed and land values increasing, making it difficult to maintain levels, he hoped the new CIL viability assessment would help to set affordable housing levels.
5. BL SE16 Property Portfolio
Miles Price (Director British Land)
PA announced that this was to be Lisa Heywood’s last attendance at CWCF and presented her with flowers, thanking her for her support over the past twelve years.
MP gave a brief introduction to BL, whose key local interests are SQSC and the HQ site. BL recently acquired the 50% interest in SQSC from Tesco, making them the sole leaseholder. Planning permission to extend SQSC has been granted and pending the outcome of the JR, BL hope to start development on site in spring 2014. JS welcomed the development of SQSC by BL as he felt this was particularly dated now.
LBS agreed to the DMGT assigning their HQ lease over to BL. BL will take possession of the site in autumn 2013. BL hope to develop the site in collaboration with KC and LBS. They are currently waiting for the latest CW AAP draft revisions which are due in May. Once revised CW AAP adopted, BL will use this as the basis for their plans. The site will include provision for both business and leisure developments. SC felt it was important to bear in mind that the closure of the HQ also meant the loss of 200 jobs, many for local people. SC questioned BL’s commitment to the local community and asked that the company fully support local sustainable development. MP gave assurances that BL were committed to full engagement with the local community via consultations and sought to set up an umbrella group which would include representatives from different parts of the community. PA asked MP to expand on this idea of a forum for all user groups. MP replied that BL would start with CWCF and look to other interested stakeholders who might want to be involved. JHW felt that most local groups were represented by the CWCF and suggested BL use this forum for their umbrella group. MP said that he was aware of other interested parties and BL wanted to include them in the consultation process. They intended to run events with key bodies to form a liaison group using a Statement of Principles for the proceedings. JHW was apprehensive about BL making the same mistakes as in the past asked which bodies they were currently consulting with. MP said they did not have a fully defined list but interested parties they wished to include included: CWCF, local tenants associations, local disability groups, transport interest groups. SC suggested that BL asked other interested parties to join the CWCF and JHW agreed. There were concerns about fragmentation if too many different groups were consulted separately, and it was felt that BL should act with complete transparency if it wanted to rectify past mistakes and gain credibility. MP said BL were keen to regain trust and would assure transparency through their website which would contain full details of their plans.
SC reminded everyone of the BL master plan of 2003, and stated that they had not delivered anything that had been promised over the years since. Promises had been made to plant tree lined avenues, develop the shopping centre, keep building heights below 10 stories, and build a department store and aqua centre. SC said that the 6,000 children who live locally need a decent leisure centre and he would like to see BL finally delivering on their promises. KW reiterated the need for such a commitment from BL. MP said that BL would make a big effort to rebuild trust and pointed out that that they did have a proven track record of delivering housing, as was shown in their collaboration with Barratt Homes. SC pointed out that BL were involved in the CW library development which had cost double the original budget.
John Williams (JW) asked what percentage of HQ land KC intended to acquire from BL for their development, as an addition to the Mulberry site. KH replied that any additional space taken up would be used for lecture and sports facilities but these were still under discussion. JW voiced concerns that BL might hold up KC development. KH assured the meeting that there was full commitment to delivering the Mulberry scheme, irrespective of HQ developments. However they hoped to deliver here also with the backing of LBS. Anastasia Cavouras (AC) stressed the need for BL to deal fairly with KC who are a prestigious establishment.