Rotherhithe Community Council – Meeting and Planning Meeting
Main Agenda
Date: Monday 26th July 2004 Time: 7.00pm Place: Surrey Docks Watersports Centre, Rope Street, Plough Way SE16
***** SEE VENUE MAP INSIDE BACK PAGE*****
1. Welcome and introductions 2. Apologies 3. Notification of any items which the Chair deems urgent 4. Disclosure of Members’ interests and dispensations
Matters from the previous meeting
5. Minutes to be agreed from the meeting held on 28th June 2004
6. Update on issues raised previously
Main Business
7. Policing in Rotherhithe Update (7.10pm)
Sergeant Nick Govind to update residents on local police issues.
1 8. Cleaner, Greener, Safer Programme – Update (7.30pm)
Officers to update residents on last month’s exercise and the latest position.
9. Break (8.00pm)
Opportunity for members of the public to speak with Coucillors and officers. (Tea and coffee available)
10. Tourism (8.20pm)
Elsbeth Turnbull to give a presentation followed by questions from the floor.
11. Canada Water Supplementary Planning Guidance (8.40pm)
Officers to give a presentation.
Closing Comments by the Chair
Upcoming meetings:
Date Venue
Monday TBC 28th September 2004
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Rotherhithe Community Council Membership Councillor Lisa Rajan Chair Councillor Gavin O’Brien Vice Chair Councillor Columba Blango Councillor Jeff Hook Councillor David Hubber Councillor Jonathan Hunt Councillor Graham Neale Councillor Richard Porter Councillor Anne Yates
2
Carers’ Allowances If you are a Southwark resident and have paid someone to look after your children, or an elderly dependant or a dependant with disabilities, so that you can attend this meeting, you may claim an allowance from the Council. Please collect a claim form from the clerk at the meeting.
Deputations For information on deputations please ask the clerk for the relevant hand-out.
Exclusion of Press and Public The following motion should be moved, seconded and approved if the Community Council wishes to exclude the press and public to deal with reports revealing exempt information.
“That the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of information as defined in paragraphs 1-15, Access to Information Procedure Rules of the Constitution.”
Transport Assistance for Disabled Members of the Public Members of the public with a disability who wish to attend Community Council meetings and who require transport assistance in order to access the meeting, are requested to call the meeting clerk at the number below to give his/her contact and address details. The clerk will arrange for a driver to collect the person and provide return transport after the meeting. There will be no charge to the person collected. Please note that it is necessary to call the clerk as far in advance as possible, at least three working days before the meeting.
Wheelchair access Wheelchair access to the venue is via a ramp at the main entrance.
For further information, please contact the Rotherhithe Community Council clerk:
Tim Murtagh Phone: 0207 525 7187 E-mail: [email protected] Council Website: www.southwark.gov.uk
Language Needs If you want information on the Community Councils translated into your language please telephone 020 7525 57514
To inform us of any special needs or requirements, such as transport or signer/interpreter, please telephone 020 752 57514
3
Bengali
Kendi dilinizde Toplum meclisleri hakkønda bilgi almak için 020 7525 7514’nolu telefonu arayønøz. Özel gereksinimlerinizi bize bildirmek için 020 7525 7514’nolu telefonu çeviriniz. Turkish
Haddii aad doonayso warbixin ku saabsan qoraalka Kawnsalkada Bulshada oo ku turjuman af Soomaali fadlan tilifoon u dir 020 7525 7514 Si aad noogu sheegto haddii aad leedahay baahi gaar ama wax gooni kuu ah sida gaadiid, af celiyaha dadka indha la’ fadlan tilifooni 020 7525 7514 Somali
Chinese
Se voce quiser informações nos conselhos comunitários traduzidas em sua língua por favor ligue para 020 7525 7514 Para-nos informar de quaisquer necessidades especiais ou requisitos , tipo trasporte, linguagem dos sinais/ intérprete, por favor ligue para 020 7525 7514. Portuguese
Si vous désirer avoir l'information sur les Conseils de la Communauté (Community Councils) traduite en votre langue téléphonez SVP au 020 7525 7514 Pour nous informer de tout besoin ou condition spéciale, telles que le transport ou le signataire / interprète, téléphonez SVP au 020 7525 7514 French
4
Si precisa información sobre los departamentos sociales (Community Councils) traducida a su idioma, por favor llame al número de teléfono 020 7525 7514 Si tiene necesidades o requisitos específicos, como es transporte especial o un intérprete, por favor llame al número de teléfono 020 7525 7514 Spanish
5
Rotherhithe Community Council
Minutes of Meeting Monday 28th June 2004 Links Community Centre, 353 Rotherhithe New Road, SE16
PRESENT
1. Councillor Lisa Rajan – Chair Councillor Columba Blango Councillor David Hubber Councillor Jonathan Hunt Councillor Gavin O’Brien Councillor Richard Porter Councillor Anne Yates
INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME
2. The meeting commenced at 7:05pm.
3. Chair welcomed the public to the Rotherhithe Community Council Meeting and outlined housekeeping matters relating to the venue.
APOLOGIES
4. Apologies for lateness were received from Cllrs Hook, Hunt and Neale.
NOTIFICATION OF ANY ITEMS OF BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR DEEMS URGENT
5. There were none.
6 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS AND DISPENSATIONS
6. There were none.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
7. Paragraph 67 should read, …consult everyone North of Raymouth road…
8. Paragraph 81 should read, …it would go back to public access on the dock front.
9. The correct spelling of John Hellings was noted.
10.The Chair moved that the minutes of the Rotherhithe Community Council meeting of 28th June 2004 be confirmed as a true and accurate record, subject to the aforementioned changes listed.
GENERAL
11. Chair said that the new additions to the Minutes of Action and Decision Sheets were helpful.
12. Gill Davies reported that she was still working on the matter of a bicycle and trolley park and that she hoped to have something for the next meeting.
13. The Clerk said that he would look further into why some residents were not being informed in advance of meetings.
14. Pat Hickson asked that the flyers be sent out to residents one week earlier than in the past. The Clerk said he would follow this up.
15. Chair said that she had written a letter to Commander Thomas regarding the reopening of Rotherhithe Police Station and that a copy would be included in the next set of minutes.
Chair made the following announcements:
i) Liz Johnston-Franklin had provided an update on youth provision on the Silwood Estate The youth provision on the Silwood Estate is delivered by Lewisham Youth Service. The new community centre which will include space for youth activities has an estimated date of 2006 for completion. The Silwood Youth team are working 3 evenings per week undertaking
7 detached work on the estate in order to provided youth activities and trips for the young people.
In conjunction with Millwall FC the Silwood youth team will be running summer activities from 21st July to 20th August 2004. The programme will include dance, art, workshops, music & video and film work. There will also be various day trips during that period. Further information is available from the Cyber café on 020 7394 0923.
ii) Jackie Rose had asked for it to be declared that: The private resident sector election for the 2 Canada Water posts will be held on 21st July 2004 and anyone requiring information should contact her at –'[email protected]' Jackie could also help with anyone interested in taking part in the Rotherhithe Festival, Southwark Event or Bermondsey Carnival
POLICING IN ROTHERHITHE UPDATE
Sergeant Nick Govind updated residents on the latest events
16. Sgt. Govind said that regarding police confiscating motorbikes causing a nuisance, the public could provide evidence under s3 of the Road Traffic Act. Ultimately the bike could be confiscated.
17. He said that regarding safer neighbourhoods, residents in Surrey Docks should see an improvement.
18. Sgt. Govind said that on the Silwood Estate there had been drug problems and part of it had been closed.
19. Sgt. Govind reported that in the last few weeks 3 new Police Community Support Officers had been appointed and another one was due in July 2004. Further that new recruits from Hendon would also be coming.
20. He said that he would be available during the break.
21. Jeremy from the community asked that regarding cycle patrols, are there permanent ones within the peninsula ? He said that these were effective in countering anti-social behaviour.
22. Sgt. Govind said that Jeremy probably was referring to the TfL police unit who could have been in that area by chance. He added that there were
8 2 bicycle beat officers but it was probably not them that had been seen.
23. Jeremy said that the City of London police used bikes effectively. He added that it would be effective in this area and asked that it be given consideration.
24. Sgt. Govind said that he would take it on board and raise it appropriately.
25. John Hellings said that regarding writing to the borough commander it was a move that was roundly supported. He asked if new local police officers would welcome Rotherhithe police station being open on a 24 hour basis ?
26. Sgt Govind said that his personal view was support for the idea.
27. Cllr Hargove asked if mopeds could be chased by police in plain clothes and whether CCTV could be used in evidence to prosecute ?
28. Sgt. Govind said it was not that the police wouldn’t pursue, it was that they needed to do a risk assessment at the time and a stringent policy covered the issue. He added that CCTV was available but identification was a problem. Also, the mopeds are often stolen and plain clothes pursuits could be more dangerous than those by uniformed officers.
29. A resident enquired if there had been an increase in Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) during the last 2 months ?
30. Sgt Govind said that he could not give figures off the top of his head but work was being done.
31. A member of the community said that community wardens had made a welcome call and ever since then local yobs had called them a grass. They added that the wardens had not been asked in.
32. Sgt. Govind responded that if local youths were harassing the resident he would get more details and raise a crime report.
33. John from the community said that regarding the flasher with the knife in the park, he waited for one hour for the police to come following a recent incident. John said that he sent an email to two councillors but had yet to receive a response.
34. Sgt. Govind apologised for the slow response and added that he was not sure of what the demands of the police were at that time.
35. Gill Davies said that her colleagues were looking at anti-social behaviour. She added that she had sent something out via Kam in order to set up email
9 networks. The idea was a slower measured approach to encourage volunteer witnesses in the community to take a stand. We need to have people in place to support victims. We are trying to pool people in the local area to come together regularly and support anyone being abused.
36. Steve from the community asked how many flashers there were thought to be ? He wanted to know how the issue could be taken forward. He said that 90% of the incidents had been at Russia Dock Woodland and asked should we let local head teachers know the description of the suspects.
37. Sgt. Govind said that there had been a number of incidents in Russia Dock Woodland and that raising awareness would help. He said they were trying to go through the Southwark News but he saw no harm in letting teachers know. He said that he would speak to people about this.
38. Steve asked how far could they go in informing when we have a description of attackers ?
39. Sgt. Govind said it was a fine line and the police didn't want the public going too far. He added that people should notify the police.
40. A member of the community said that every afternoon youths about 16 years of age, were smoking drugs and causing problems. They said that they had spoken to PC Johnson and not seen any police officers.
41. Sgt. Govind said that he would get the details in the break and follow this up.
42. A member of the community described how they had been in a local newsagent (in Rotherhithe street) and witnessed incredible abuse against the shopkeeper. She added that she had reported that to local school
43. Sgt. Govind said that he would look into that.
NIKE 10K RUN
Paul Carrol gave a presentation
44. Paul said that the run would take place in Southwark on 28th November 2004.
45. Paul said that this was the fourth year of the run but it had not taken place since 2002. Nike had approached the Council with the idea of running it here this year.
10 46. Paul said that it had previously been run in Kew gardens and Richmond park and would now feature the GLA, Tower Bridge and finish in Southwark park.
47. Paul detailed the route and said it would start at 5pm, with staggered starts and run through that Sunday evening/night. Nike had wanted to create a unique event.
48. Paul said there would be an estimated 20,000 participants. Nike would be bringing a capital investment of about £200,000. That would include 4 multi-use games areas for basketball, football, tennis and cricket.
49. Paul said that the 20,000 places would be taken on the web site very quickly but 200 places were being set aside for members of the community.
50. Alan from the community asked what about people in wheelchairs ? He said that he was a carer and that there were no ramps and no facilities on roads or parks.
51. Paul said that improvements brought by Nike's investment would be accessible and incorporate disabled areas.
52. Alan said that the marathon was perfect but most of the time the disabled were not considered.
53. Paul said that he would go and find out what Nike's provision for the run was.
54. Cllr O'Brien said that the Water Centre operated facilities for the disabled.
55. Gill Davies said that there were targeted facilities in every leisure centre for disabled people and the provision was in the top quartile in London.
56. Michael asked if Nike would be giving something back and how much would the borough be spending ?
57. Paul said that the borough would not be spending money and that Nike were covering the costs.
58. Cllr Hubber said that people on the peninsula were cut off by the London Marathon each year but there were very few complaints. He added that such events were good and raised money for charities.
59. Cllr Yates asked what extra security for the park would there be, to stop people coming in ?
60. Paul said that there would be full consultation with the police about security. Security was a high priority and the police were aware of the problems
11 around Southwark park. He added that Nike would be paying for any extra policing required on the day.
61. Marion from the community asked if participants would be running with lights ?
62. Paul said that extra lighting would be brought in and some may bring light themselves.
63. A member of the community asked if 20,000 people in Southwark park would create a problem ?
64. Paul said they would not be there at the same time.
CLEANER, GREENER, SAFER PROGRAMME – PART TWO
65. Chair explained that residents should look at the Cleaner Greener Safer (CGS) lists.
66. Chair said that over 80 schemes had been proposed but it would be impossible to consider so many. Items were prioritised according to those which best fitted the CGS criteria. She added that there were 46 items for residents to consider which had been grouped into 4 main categories.
67. Chair said that residents would have six dots to put on the 4 maps and that a council officer would be next to the map to assist if necessary.
Gill then ran through a selection of the proposed schemes with photographs
68. Cllr Yates asked about locked gates on Lower road which residents had requested.
69. Chair said if it was not on the list it could be added if suitable.
70. A member of the community said that they would like to have seen better costings for proposed schemes.
71. Gill said that some sites were not goers and the ideas needed consolidating. Some for example would not get planning permission.
72. Gill explained that the list originates from the carried over list from last year. Added to the process had been 500 forms. In addition to CGS about £400,000 had been set aside for each housing neighbourhood and the housing department had asked us to check for schemes.
12 73. Chair said that every part of the community council area would benefit from the CGS budget. She would consider the geographical location of the preferred schemes.
74. Cllr Hunt said it was important to re-iterate that we need to agree and schemes need to be discussed. He asked about a motorcyle track for the youths in the area.
75. Gill said there were a series of youth facilities coming on line such as Mellish, St Pauls, Surrey Docks Centre. She added that some revenue bids will come back.
76. Cllr O’Brien asked that officers report back to the next meeting on the £400,000 housing schemes.
77. A member of the community asked if there was any money available from the London Development scheme.
78. Gill said that it no longer existed but that everything we could have had was claimed.
BREAK – 40 minutes
Members and residents took a long break to discuss issues but in particular to indicate their CGS preferences on Maps.
The Community Involvement Development Unit subsequently collated the results (see attached).
TOURISM
79. Chair said that this item would now be taken at the July meeting.
FISHING LICENCES REPORT
Gill referred those present to the fishing report (see attached).
80. Gill said it was self-explanatory and advised residents that they could contact the named officer at the end of the report.
81. Steve from the community said that he was very interested in the issue. He said that kids would not be able to afford rod licences and permits. He added that children should be educated on how to fish properly including the use of nets. That would protect swans and wildlife. Also we need to police it.
13 82. Gill said those were good ideas and that community wardens could be used to police fishing. She said she would add those proposals.
83. Barry from the community said that the problem was the depth of the water and that a club should be set up. The fish were being removed and the kids were being sold the wrong equipment. Signs should go up and there should be an age limit on the water.
84. Gill agreed with the ideas on signage and teaching.
85. Chair requested an update on the scheme and signage at a future meeting.
86. John from the community said that the water was 30 feet deep in parts and there should be warning signs. He said that before developers move in, under the Canada Water scheme, something should be set up. He said that a lot of the rubbish was from non-anglers and that there should be self-policing. Community wardens could play a part in policing too.
87. Chair said that the Council had reported that the litter had blown into the rushes and bushes. The idea of putting up a mesh fence to trap that litter was being considered.
88. Steve from the community said that it used to be cleaned out once a month.
89. Gill said that they were looking at moving the job of cleaning the water to a different department.
90. Pauline from the community said that the algae on Surrey wall was really bad.
OTHER BUSINESS
91. Cllr Neale said that in a rugby tournament between community council area schools, St Joseph’s school from Rotherhithe had won the fair play award. The school was congratulated.
92. The Chair thanked everybody for coming. She said that the next Rotherhithe Community Council meeting would take place on Monday 26th July 2004 at Surrey Docks Watersports Centre.
93. Details and the agenda would be available on the Southwark Council website: www.southwark.gov.uk.
The meeting finished at 9.12pm
14
Chair:
Dated:
15 FULL LIST OF CLEANER, GREENER, SCHEMES SUBMITTED FOR ROTHERHITHE COMMUNITY COUNCIL
No. Location Idea Approx Cost
Youth Projects
1= 23 votes Rotherhithe To have youth facilities 10 – 30K in Rotherhithe, with a view to setting up a Rotherhithe Youth Forum. These facilities may need to be temporary due to costs.
2 = 0 votes Rotherhithe Community centre for Approx 3m St & Canada Water young people plus revenue tube
3= 2 votes Salter Road – on the Up-to-date youth Approx 3m site of the former facilities plus revenue athletic club building
4= 0 votes St Pauls pitch Improve, higher fences, Approx 3m remove goal more into plus revenue the side
5= 0 votes Canada water Temporary youth Approx 3m under-ground – facilities plus revenue vacant land
6= 0 votes Brynnel Road/Salter A youth club Approx 3m Road plus revenue
16 7= 0 votes Salter Road area Youth club Approx 3m plus revenue
8= 1 votes Surrey Quays Skate board park Approx 3m plus revenue
9= 1 votes Ainsty Estate – area Football pitch 50k at back of Beach House
No. Location Idea Approx Cost
10= 1 votes Abbeyfield Estate BMX bicycle park 50-75k
11 =18 votes Hawkstone Estate Football/play cage area 50k
12= 1 votes Albion St – empty Youth facility or café and pub corner of maintain existing civic shopping parade centre
13= 0 votes Ainsty St, on the Children’s slide and 20-40k small site next to swing on the estate the big lawn on the estate against the back wall
14 = 1 vote Brunswick Quays More lighting on dark Up to 10k pathways
15 = 1 votes Brunel Road Improve street lighting 20k
Tackling Crime & Anti-Social Behaviour including Lighting
17 16= 1 vote Rope St, Canada Improved lighting, CCTV, Water station anti-climb paint entrance
17=1 vote Surrey Water area More CCTV and lighting
18=0 votes Kings stairs by Upgrade two lamp 10k stairs columns with vandal resistant lanterns and replace the once metre posts with illuminated bollards
No. Location Idea Approx Cost
19= 37 votes River walkway in Improve lighting and 8k (Please start front of Kings stairs planting with CCTV) Close 1 – 12 Would be great to close off the partk from 12.pm until 5 am each night)
20=1 vote Bombay Wharf - Install five wall mounted 5K Walkway leading lanterns from Elephant Lane to Rotherhithe St
21 = 0 votes Rotherhithe CCTV cameras 25k per fixed Peninsula camera plus revenue costs
18
22=10 votes Albion St CCTV outside shops Approx 3m plus revenue
23= 0 votes Pedworth Gardens CCTV cameras and 20-40k plus improved lighting revenue costs
24 = 0 votes Russia Dock Night vision CCTV in Up to 20k RDW and Mellish Fields
25=0 votes Rotherhithe St – end Security gates, fences 10-20k plus of the alleyway and CCTV revenue between Salter Rd, costs HA and the Hexagon Estate and Katherine Close
26= 0 votes Greenland Quay CCTV to be installed to 25k per fixed give surveillance of CCTV paths around the dock, camera. to help deal with ASB. Please remember that this will have revenue costs.
27= 10 votes Canada CCTV to detect/deter 50-100k – (Needs a Water,Albion vandalism and to protect depending on coordinated Channel, Surrey wildlife. number of approach Water cameras between decathlon, TFL and Surrey Quays)
Form No: Location Idea Approx Cost
28 = 2 votes Bus stop opposite Magnet for ASB - need to YHA design out
19
Parks & Green Spaces
Russia Dock Woodland
29= 2 votes RDW Inscribing names into 3k the timber of the woodlands six bridges
7k 30= 1 vote RDW Installing low visibility fencing to a corner of Stave Hill Ecological Park to provide a secure area for the new Ecology Centre
31= 3 votes RDW Replacing the defunct wind turbine at Stave Hill & installing a new efficient system to power the Ecology Centre & the water supply to RDW (50% funding)
32= 7 votes RDW Diverting water into 2k ponds A and B
33= 1 vote Russia Dock Relocating & restoring 2k Woodlands the compass fountain currently on the Downtown site (formerly Surrey Docks District Centre)
20 34 = 6 votes RDW/ Clean up and maintain 10 – 20k Lavender Pond RDW and Lavender Pond area
35= 1 vote RDW Improve lighting and 20 - 40k vandal resistant signage throughout park areas
Form No: Location Idea Approx Cost
Other green spaces
36 = 22 votes Time and Talents Lighting, environ-mental 50k Centre garden, pathways
37 = 7 votes Surrey Water Erect motor bike Garden prevention barriers; improve maintenance of walkways and the community green
38= 7 votes Albion public house Refurbishment of small Refurb 10 k; (opposite) green area with toilets toilets 80k plus revenue
39 Verney Road Improve/update facilities 50k = 22 votes on the Bramcoste play area and nature park
40=0 votes Rotherhithe Pearson’s park 80k street/Pearson’s park
41 = 1 vote Lower Road Create a green space between wall gardens and the
21 railway
The River
42= 1 votes Rotherhithe street To improve the riverside 20-40k between Bombay public space and Hope wharves
43= 6 votes River frontage of SDF Open up the Thames Walk
Form No: Location Idea Approx Cost Brunel Engine House
45= 9 votes Railway Avenue Re-landscaping of 10-20k Railway Ave with Railway St furniture, design on roadway, children mural, new and re-aligned cycle path at Toucan crossing, new celebratory signage to museum, path and conservation area
Landscaping with 46= 4 votes Railway Avenue wheelchair access and seating. Slopes for brick paved square outside Brunel Engine House Museum
22 OTHER SUGGESTIONS:
MORE RAMPS FOR WHEELCHAIRS ON PAVEMENTS ETC.
23 Progress Report- Permitted Fishing in Surrey Docks & Rotherhithe areas
1.0 Presently unauthorised fishing is occurring in water bodies around Surrey Docks and the Rotherhithe area except South Dock Marina and Russia Dock Woodland. Signs were originally erected around the water bodies indicating where fishing could not occur. Most of these along with other public warning signs have since gone missing or have been vandalised beyond recognition. This lack of public information along with a lack of enforcement powers has caused problematic angling in non-designated areas.
2.0 The idea of permit issuing and designating fishing areas has long been a contentious issue, however no formal arrangement has ever been reached.
3.0 Under the London Docklands Development Corporation (1994) bylaws, persons undertaking fishing must have “written permission from the Corporation (Council)”; and “no children under 16 to fish unless accompanied or supervised by a responsible adult.” These bylaws are regularly flouted and enforcement to date has been slack.
4.0 In 1999 the Southwark Fishing and Preservation Society (SFPS) mooted for exclusive fishing rights for the Surrey Docks and Rotherhithe water areas. Meetings were held and areas were earmarked where fishing could occur. The proposal was never established and the SFPS has disbanded.
5.0 Consultation Contact has been made with the following people to discuss the fishing issue:
5.1 Steve Cahalan- Burgess Park Manager Discussion regarding Burgess Park experience and implementation of permits. Use of annual permits and onsite bailiff. Enforcement undertaken by rangers/wardens and unofficially by annual permit holders.
5.2 Gary Bettesworth- Manager of South Dock Marina Discussed fishing in dock areas and his general view from an operational standpoint. Also discussed how the water wardens tackle non-permitted fishing.
5.3 Barry Duckett-Local figure and keen angler Site visit and walkabout looking at fishing and other issues around Canada Water. He would be keen on seeing a club established and areas formally designated for fishing. He also has concerns for the wildlife.
24 5.4 Tom Cousins- Environment Agency’s Fishery Officer Meeting has been arranged for next week with Tom and Alan Butterworth, theAgencies Urban Fisheries Officer, to discuss how the project could be best implemented.
5.5 Pauline Adenwalla – Canada Water Campaign Contact made and a site walkabout to discuss fishing and other issues to take place. Also has concerns about area maintenance and wildlife.
5.6 Steve Cornish- Friends of Russia Dock Woodland Contact made. Would really like something done soon and he does not want a cost attached to it nor too many rules and regulations as it may discourage youth from fishing. Regulars anglers at Greenland Dock may like to act as bailiffs.
5.7 Eric Peake- Brunswick Quay Residents Association Has concerns about people fishing at Redriff Road end of Greenland Dock causing a nuisance especially those undertaking night fishing. Would like to see a responsible and enforced system in place.
5.8 Roy Wayre- Rotherhithe Wardens / Principal Warden Discussion to occur on problems associated with fishing in the area. Enforcement procedures to be discussed.
6.0 Issues identified from site visit and consultation • Lack of formal designated areas (see map for possible sites) • Lack of informative signs • Distinct areas, Greenland dock and Canada Water may need different permit issuing methods. • A need for a system of permit issuing-options include: -Onsite bailiff -Decathlon -Ticket machine -Watersports Centre -Permits issued through Club or exclusive rights -Enforcement issues • Health& safety requirements- safety equipment, signs, state of pontoon, etc
7.0 Aspirations identified from consultation into the establishment of permitted fishing • Responsible permitted fishing • Preservation of wildlife and fish stock through proper angling practises
25 • Involvement of local youth • Reduction in antisocial behaviour and crime through presence of anglers • Elevated respect for the area and wildlife • Improved safety
8.0 Confirmation required on • Preferable method of permit issuing • Funding for signs, pontoon refurbishing: community grants, donations etc.
9.0 Key tasks for coming weeks 9.1 Continue consultation with interested parties in an effort to gain interest in establishing a club and /or a bailiff to issue permits. Will look at possibility of forming a working party out of interested people. Explore option of permit issuing from Watersports Centre for Greenland Dock and Club/Bailiff for Canada Water
9.2 Investigate sources of funding for preferred method of permit issuing, implementation of signs and refurbishment of pontoon.
9.3 Compilation of more in-depth report with recommendations.
10.0 For comments: Please contact John Cordner, Service Development Officer Ph: 0207 525 0877 Email: [email protected]
26
SOUTHWARK COUNCIL
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS ARISING
NAME OF MEETING: Rotherhithe Community Council
PLACE OF MEETING: Links Community Centre, 353 Rotherhithe New Rd, SE16
DATE OF MEETING: Monday 28th June 2004
The following is a summary of the actions arising (outside the formal decision making session) from the above meeting. The named Officer is the person responsible for the action required. If the incorrect officer has been assigned to an action, it is the named officer’s responsibility to advise Tim Murtagh.
All actions will be co-ordinated by Tim Murtagh and any clarification or queries should be raised with him on 020 752 57187.
ISSUE RAISED AND ACTION REQUIRED ACTION BY
Officers to send out flyers earlier to inform residents of Tim forthcoming meetings Murtagh
27
SOUTHWARK COUNCIL
SUMMARY OF DECISIONS
NAME OF MEETING: Rotherhithe Community Council
PLACE OF MEETING: Links Community Centre, 353 Rotherhithe New Rd, SE16
DATE OF MEETING: Monday 28th June 2004
The following is a summary of the decisions taken at the above meeting and identifies the actions arising. The first named Officer is the person responsible for initiating and co-ordinating the action required.
Clarification or queries on any points should be raised in the first instance with Tim Murtagh on 020 7525 7187.
ITE SUMMARY OF THE DECISION ACTION M BY NO. There were no formal decisions made.
28 ITEMS ON AGENDA OF THE ROTHERHITHE CC on Wednesday 28 July 2004
Appl. Type Full Planning Permission Reg. No. 04-AP-0238 Site Tesco store, Surrey Quays Shopping Centre and adjoining land, SE16. TP No. TP/468-1 Ward Rotherhithe Officer Adrian Dennis
Recommendation GRANT Item 1/1 Proposal Extension to the existing Tesco Stores to create a new sales, storage and ancillary offices (3463 square metres); new glazed canopy together with covered walkway. (Revised application)
PLANNING MEETING TO FOLLOW THE JULY COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEETING –
29
30 RECOMMENDATION
This document shows the case officer's recommended decision for the application referred to below. This document is not a decision notice for this application
Applicant Shopping Centres Ltd. Reg. Number 04-AP-0238 Application Type Full Planning Permission Recommendation Case TP/468-1 Number
Draft of Decision Notice
ERROR - cannot handle type/decision Extension to the existing Tesco Stores to create a new sales, storage and ancillary offices (3463 square metres); new glazed canopy together with covered walkway. (Revised application)
At: Tesco store, Surrey Quays Shopping Centre and adjoining land, SE16.
In accordance with application received on 12/02/2004 and Applicant's Drawing Nos. 10024/R/00/001, F/EXT/950-SK04 Rev A, SK08 Rev B; SK10 Rev.B. Transport Assessment report; Retail Appraisal report; Consideration of PPG6 sequential test report; Report on Environmental Amenity; and Urban Context Analysis study. Subject to the following conditions: 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the end of five years from the date of this permission.
Reason As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 The facing materials used in the carrying out of this permission shall match the original facing materials of the existing store in type, colour, dimensions, and in the case of brickwork, bond and coursing and pointing.
Reason To ensure that the new works blend in with the existing building in the interest of the design and appearance of the building in accordance with Policy E.2.3 'Aesthetic Control' of the Southwark Unitary Development Plan.
3 Detailed drawings of a landscaping scheme, including provision for the planting of suitable trees and shrubs, showing the treatment of all parts of the site not covered by buildings (including surfacing materials of any parking, access, or pathways) shall be submitted to and approved by the Council before the development hereby permitted is begun and the landscaping scheme approved shall thereafter be carried out in the first appropriate planting season following completion of the building works.
Reason In order that the Council may be satisfied with the details of the design and external appearance of the proposed development, in accordance with Policies E.2.3 'Aesthetic Control' and E.2.5 'External Areas' of the Southwark Unitary Development Plan and Policy 3.213 'Urban Design' of the revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan 2004.
4 Details of any external lighting [including design, power and position of luminaires] and security surveillance equipment of external areas surrounding the building shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any such lighting or security equipment is installed and the development shall thereafter not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with any approval given.
Reason In order that the Council may be satisfied as to the details of the development in the interest of the visual amenity of the area, the safety and security of persons using the area and the amenity and privacy of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policies E.1.1 'Safety and Security in the Environment' and E.3.1 'Protection of Amenity' of the Southwark Unitary Development Plan and Policies 3.14 'Designing Out Crime' and 3.2 'Protection of Amenity' of the revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan 2004.
5 Details of the glazed canopies adjoining the building and access road and bus stops shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work in connection with this permission is carried out and the development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with any such approval given. 31
Reason In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of the glazed canopies in the interest of the appearance of the building in accordance with Policy E.2.3 'Aesthetic Control' of the Southwark Unitary Development Plan.
6 Details of the proposed chiller units shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work in connection with this permission is carried out and the development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with any such approval given.
Reason In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of the chiller units in the interest of the appearance of the building in accordance with Policy E.2.3 'Aesthetic Control' of the Southwark Unitary Development Plan.
7 The machinery, plant or equipment installed or operated in connection with the carrying out of this permission, particularly the chiller units, shall be so enclosed and/or attenuated that noise therefrom does not, at any time, increase the ambient equivalent noise level when the plant, etc., is in use as measured at any adjoining or nearby premises in separate occupation; or (in the case of any adjoining or nearby residential premises) as measured outside those premises; or (in the case of residential premises in the same building) as measured in the residential unit.
Reason In order to protect neighbouring occupiers from noise nuisance thereby protecting the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy E.3.1: Protection of Amenity of Southwark's Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Guidance 24 Planning and Noise.
8 The extension hereby approved shall be used only inconnection with the existing store and shall not at any time form any separate units of accommodation.
Reason In order to ensure that independent planning units do not establish, as the impacts on the environment of a number of separate units on the site has not been assessed.
9 Prior to the new retail floorspace is operational, zig-zag parking restrictions need to be added to each side of the pedestrian crossing on the shopping centre access road. (This will also require a Traffic Managament Order to ensure that the restrictions are enforceable)
Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the pedestrian safety measures associated with this development. This is in accordance with Policy T.6.1 'On Street Parking Control' of the Southwark Unitary Development Plan.
10 Reasons for granting planning permission.
This planning application was considered with regard to various policies including, but not exclusively:
a] Policies E.1.1, E.2.3, E.2.5, E.3.1, R.2.1, S.1.2, S.2.2, S.3.1 and S.3.2 of the Southwark Unitary Development Plan 1995
b] Policies 1.8, 1.12, 3.2, 3.11, 3.13 and 3.14 of the Southwark Plan [Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan] March 2004.
c] Policies of the London Plan [February 2004].
d] Planning Policy Guidance Notes 6: Retail.
Planning permission was granted as there are no, or insufficient, grounds to withhold consent on the basis of the policies considered and other material planning considerations.
32
Item No. Classification Decision Level Date
1 OPEN Rotherhithe Community 28/7/2004 Council
From Title of Report
Adrian Dennis DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
Proposal (04-AP-0238 ) Address
Extension to the existing Tesco Stores to create a Tesco store, Surrey Quays Shopping new sales, storage and ancillary offices (3463 square Centre And Adjoining Land & Tesco metres); new glazed canopy together with covered Store SE16. walkway. (Revised application) Ward Rotherhithe
PURPOSE
1. To consider the above application
RECOMMENDATION
2. Grant permission
BACKGROUND
3. The Surrey Quays Shopping Centre was opened in 1988 and consists of a conventional indoor shopping mall with a Tesco superstore at the southern end and a smaller BHS store at the northern end, adjoining Canada Water. There is a large ground level open car park for over 1400 car spaces, including wider bays for disabled drivers and parents with children. There are a number of bus stops within the centre adjacent to the Tesco store, in Surrey Quays Road and at a bus station at Canada Water to the north. There is also a London Underground Tube station at Surrey Quays (Lower Road, to the south west) and at Canada Water.
4. A planning application was submitted in 2002 for the extension to the Tesco store. At the same time, but separately, three outline applications were also submitted for the redevelopment of the car parking areas and land to the north of the Surrey Quays Shopping Centre, together with Council owned land adjacent to Surrey Quays Road and the Canada Water bus and tube stations, for a large retail, office and residential development. These outline applications coincide with sites included in the Council’s own proposals for Canada Water and have not yet been determined. They have been held in abeyance at the request of the applicant and are likely to be soon withdrawn and replaced by an entirely new proposal.
5. The first Tesco application proposed the extension of the existing store by an additional 3,463 sq.m. (from 7,501sq.m. to 10,964sq.m., an increase of 46% in gross floorspace). This would have taken the form of a ground floor extension to the south of the existing store, in an area currently used in part for a pedestrian underpass access to Greenland dock, in part as a trolley and overspill car park and also some basic landscaping. It also proposed to 33 rearrange the pedestrian route as part of the application.
6. The planning application for the extension to the Tesco store was reported to this Community Council on 10th December 2003 with a recommendation to grant planning permission. The decision was deferred subject to further consultations to be carried out. In the meantime the applicants lodged an appeal with the planning inspectorate against the failure of Southwark Council to give notice of its decision. The appeal is planned to be heard at a Local Inquiry on the 10th November this year.
7. On 10th march 2004 Rotherhithe Community Council resolved that were the application still able to be determined by the local planning authority it would have been refused permission on the following grounds: 1. The proposed extension would result in a poor layout and arrangement that would be detrimental to the safety and security of pedestrians using the walkway between the shopping centre and Greenland Dock. 2. The proposal would result in the loss of a well designed public area, and its replacement by poor quality design for this part of the shopping centre, in particular the public areas.
8. A new application has now been submitted for an extension to the store which attempts to address the objections raised on the previous scheme, now at appeal. The current proposal differs from the appeal scheme by a change of layout which would result in a more direct route for the pedestrian walkway to Greenland Dock. The applicants have indicated that if this application is approved they would withdraw their appeal.
FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION
Main Issues
9. The main issues in this case are whether the proposed retail extension would have an impact on the retail functioning of the wider area, the likely effect on pedestrian, traffic and parking pressures and and the impact on the general amenities of the area. An important material consideration is whether the current proposal overcomes the objections to the previous scheme.
Planning Policy
10. Southwark Unitary Development Plan 1995 [UDP]: No shopping centre designation in the UDP but ground floor units in the centre identified as a Secondary Shopping frontages. Policy E.1.1 - Safety and Security: Complies Policy E.2.3 - Aesthetic Control: Satisfactory design and appearance Policy E.2.5 - External Space: Complies, satisfactory design and landscaping. Policy E.3.1 - Protection of Amenity: No adverse impact on area. Policy R.2.1 – Regeneration Areas: Complies with policy. Policy S.1.2 – Secondary Shopping Frontages: Compatible with policy. Policy S.2.2 – New retail units over 2,000sq.m: Not a new unit but entirely compatible with policy. Policy S 3.1 – Customer Facilities: Fully provided for by existing centre. Policy S.3.2 – Environment of Shopping Centres: Complies. Maintains most features and improves some pedestrian safety measures. 34
11. The Southwark Plan [Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan] March 2004 Policy 1.8 - Location of Retail Provision: Complies. New retail should be located in existing town centres. Policy 1.12 - Superstores and major retail developments: Complies. These are to be located only in major centres, including this one. Policy 3.2 - Protection of Amenity: No adverse impact on area. Policy 3.11 - Quality in Design: Satisfactory Policy 3.13 - Urban Design: Improved layout now satisfactory. Policy 3.14 - Designing Out Crime: Satisfactory safety considerations.
12. Other Plan Designations and Guidance: The Shopping Centre is identified as a District Shopping Centre in the Mayor of London's Spatial Development Strategy: 'London Plan'. The new Southwark Plan would need to be consistent with this designation. PPG1 - Complies. Development in district centre and at public transport node. PPG6 - Complies with location for retail development.
Consultations
13. Site Notice: 18/5/2004 Press Notice: 4/3/2004
Consultees: Canada Water Forum; Canada Water Campaign; Redriff T.A.; Wolfe Crescenet R.A.; Brunswick Quay R.A.; Flats in Lock Keepers Heights, Brunswick Quay; Flats in Burrhill Court, Cabot Court, Elbourne Court, Byards Court, Buchanan Court and Burrage Court Worgan Street; Flats in Raven House and Dunlin House, Tawney Way; 1 - 117 (odds) and 2, 4, 6 Brunswick Quay. 19 Ropemaker Road; BHS Ltd; SGP consultants; (207 consultees plus site notices.)
14. Replies from: 19 Ropemaker Road – These proposals are a massive improvement of the previous proposals and an improvement on the existing walkway under Redriff Road. Given this improvement, would like to see the work completed as soon as possible. Larger building will be noticeable but we want more shopping provision in Surrey Quays so is acceptable. 95 Brunswick Quay – Object: do not want this, in breach of shopping centre plans, makes a mockery of work done by Council and local groups. 109 Redriff Road – Query impact on local shopkeepers and promote ‘community’. What plans for alleviating traffic problems? W H Smiths plc have objected as they feel that 'it would result in a reduction in the sales spread of existing retail occupants and would detract from the retail offer in the area.' SGP Property Consultants objects as they consider that the extension would give rise to an over supply of retail floorspace, it would be detrimental to local amenities and businesses and is contrary to national planning policy.
Police Secured by Design Advisor: No issues of concern. Traffic Group - No objection to the extension to the store. Waste Management No objections. Existing refuse collection arrangements will not be affected.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
15. The proposed extension building would be located in the south east corner of the site next to where Redriff Road rises above the pedestrian underpass to Greenland Dock and the access road into the shopping centre. The building
35 would be to the same height as the existing store (3.2m to the overhanging canopy, 5.2m to the eaves and 9.2m to the ridge line of the roof) and constructed of the same materials. The walls would be clad in red facing bricks to match the existing store and the roof tiled to match the existing roof. The design fits in with that of the existing store, and is considered acceptable in visual amenity terms.
16. The proposed extension is to comprise 2,444 sq.m (nett) extra sales area and 1,718 sq.m of additional storage. The proposed total increase in floorspace is identical to that shown in the appeal scheme. The main difference between the proposals is the siting and layout of the extension and the realignment of the access road into the shopping centre. This now allows for a wide pedestrian and cycle path leading under Redriff Road to Greenland Dock, avoiding the narrow ‘dog-leg’ pathway proposed as part of the appeal scheme. Also, with a more straight and unrestricted view along the path, a much safer arrangement results. The proposal would, therefore be an improvement on the existing layout.
17. Some degree of surveillance for the walkway will be provided by windows to a staff reception area in the extension, facing the access raod, and an office close to the pedestrian underpass. A new canopy will extend over part of the paved area on the southern side of the store and extension. This will be 10 metres wide adjoining the existing store and 4m wide alongside the extension and extending more than half way along the pedestrian walkway.
18. For operational reasons the building would have its chiller units relocated to a roof top position close to the pedestrian route. It is proposed to impose a condition that requires these to be enclosed and/or attenuated so that no noise nuisance would occur for the nearest residential properties to this site, although there is a fair degree of separation which should ameliorate matters in any event.
19. The application for the proposed extension was accompanied by consultants' reports addressing the likely retail impact of the proposals, traffic impact and impact on the environment and amenities of the area. The reports suggest there would be minimal impact occasioned in all respects which is identical to the findings in respect of the appealed scheme.re the same.
20. The shopping centre was built with 22,450sq.m. of retail floor space and there was an expectation that the core population (of the immediate area) would increase from 30,351 persons in 1991 to 33,268 in 2016. In fact that population reached 34,810 by 1997, an increase of 15% in six years. The submitted study shows that similar increases also have occurred in the wide catchment area and are continuing to rise. There is therefore a growing retail demand locally arising from significant population increases in the area.
21. The majority of the new floorspace, which represents a total increase of 46%, would be given over to additional sales area which would increase by 2,751 sq. m. The remainderwould comprise of additional storage and ancillary facilities. It is not, however, envisaged that this would result in a 46% increase in turnover or customer. Tesco's experience is that a 100% increase in sales area would only equate to a 30% increase in turnover. By comparing this increase with average expenditure it is predicted that their extension will cater for an increase in expenditure of 4,385 persons by 2016. Surveys carried out to assess shopping patterns locally reveal that the increased turnover here will
36 not affect small local shopping centres but would be more likely to divert trade from other large food superstores located in the wider area, at Old Kent Road (Tesco), Whitechapel (Sainsbury), East Dulwich (Sainsbury), Lewisham (Tesco) and Isle of Dogs (Asda). There is also a possibility of some small increase in trade being drawn from Southwark Park Road which lacks such a store.
22. A traffic analysis shows that even if all the increased turnover resulted in extra customers, there would be negligible impact on the surrounding highways network with all junctions operating below 90% saturation levels. It is far more likely that the increased retail space will, by increasing choice of products, encourage shoppers to stay longer in the store rather than generate a proportionately high level of new trips to the store. No concerns have been raised by the traffic engineer about the new arrangements in terms of impacts on the local road network.
23. Having examined the studies and reports submitted in support of the application, it is considered that the impact on the retail functioning of the wider area, on pedestrians, traffic and parking, would not be significant.
24. As with the appeal proposal, the application plans shows that the zebra crossing on the access road, towards Surrey Quays Tube Station, will be raised (as a table) to make it more obvious for drivers and safer for pedestrians. The crossing is within the applicant's site so the required zig-zag parking restrictions can be added by condition. The path up from Lower Road is to be re-profiled to allow for a level waiting area next to the crossing. The path will be widened to allow for the level waiting area and there will be a new trolley park for the pedestrians. These details and changes to signage will be covered by conditions requiring submission of details later. All the land is within the applicants' control, and given that these improvements will enhance the shopping experience for customers (and will therefore ultimately be of benefit to the applicant as well as visitors to the store), it would seem appropriate to use conditions rather than a more onerous S106 agreement to achieve the outcomes.
25. In conclusion this revised proposal achieves the same volume of extension that Tesco require but with a reconfiguration that not only overcome the reasons for opposing the appeal proposal but will provide a wider and improved pedestrian route to Geenland Dock, with a new cycle route. The design is acceptable and minor matters such as noise from chiller units can be controlled by conditions.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IMPLICATIONS
26. The expansion of the Tesco superstore will inevitably provide a substantial number of extra jobs. These will be mainly local jobs and a significant number will be part-time of shift work of the type better suited to those wishing to fit work around the demands of their families and/or dependents.
LOCAL AGENDA 21 [Sustainable Development] IMPLICATIONS
27. It was determined that an Environmental Impact Assessment would not be
37 required as it would not have any significant environmental effects for the purposes of the EIA regulations. However, an informal study was submitted by the applicants which confirmed that the environmental impact, both during construction and after, would be insignificant. The expansion of retail choice at the Surrey Quays Shopping Centre will help retain shopping activity at the centre and not dispersed to other major superstores that may otherwise had great choice to offer. This concentrates potential traffic generating activities in one location, where access to public transport is very good.
LEAD OFFICER James F Sherry Interim Development and Building Control Manager REPORT AUTHOR Adrian Dennis [tel. 020 7525 5445] CASE FILE TP/468-1 Papers held at: Council Offices, Chiltern, [tel. 020 7525 5402] Portland Street SE17 2ES
38
39
MEMBERS & EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION LIST MUNICIPAL YEAR 2004/05
COUNCIL: ROTHERHITHE COMMUNITY COUNCIL
NOTE: Original held by Constitutional Support Unit; amendments to Tim Murtagh (Tel: 020 7525 7187)
OPEN COPIES OPEN COPIES
Councillor Columba Blango 1 EXTERNAL Councillor Jeffrey Hook 1 Pat Tulloch, S.A.V.O. 1 Councillor David Hubber 1 Cambridge House Councillor Jonathan Hunt 1 64 Camberwell Road Councillor Graham Neale 1 London SE5 0EN Councillor Gavin O’Brien 1 Councillor Richard Porter 1 Chief Superintendent Ian Thomas 1 Councillor Lisa Rajan 1 Borough Commander Councillor Anne Yates 1 Southwark Police Station 323 Borough High Street Councillor Fiona Colley (Labour Group) 1 London SE1 1JL
Libraries 6 Local Studies Library 1 Neil Gray, District Audit Commission 1 Press: 4th Floor Southwark News 1 Millbank Tower Evening Standard 1 Millbank Dulwich Guardian 819 London Road Cheam Surrey 1 London SW1P 4QP South London Press 1 TRADE UNIONS Southwark Chamber of Commerce 1 John Mulrenan, UNISON Southwark Branch 1 Nancy Hammond Roy Fielding, GMB/APEX 1 Room 33 Alan Milne TGWU/ACTS 1 West House Tony O’Brien, UCATT 1 Peckham Road NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSING OFFICES MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT Abbeyfield 1 Simon Hughes, M.P. 1 Lynton Road 1 Harriet Harman, M.P. 1 Cherry Gardens 1
Valerie Shawcross 1 GLA Building City Hall Queen’s Walk London SE17 2AA TOTAL DISTRIBUTION 165
Constitutional Support Officer 130 Dated: 20th July 2004
40