 |
|
|||||
 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||||
|
|||||
Contents |
DOWNTOWN DEFENCE CAMPAIGN PUBLIC MEETING 25/06/09
Minutes of the Downtown Defence Campaign Public meeting held in Holy Trinity Church Hall
25th June 2009-06-27
Among those present & speaking were:
London Assembly member for Southwark Val Shawcross (Labour)VS
London Assembly member Andrew Boff (Conservative)AB
Surrey Docks Councillor David Hubber (LibDem)DH
Andrew Howard (Hardhat Communications, for Barratts Homes)Â AH
Simon Hughes MPSH
Southwark Councillor Chris Page (Labour)
DDC Committee
Chair - Steve Cornish SC
Vice Chair - Lorraine Smith
Secretary - John Wills
Treasurer - Sue Agnew
TOTAL ATTENDANCE: 103 PEOPLE
The meeting began at 19.08
1. Introduction
Val Shawcross as Chair opened the meeting and thanked the Rev. Andrew Doyle for making the hall available for the meeting. She then introduced those politicians present and the DDC committee. She said however that this was the people’s meeting. The Downtown development was an emotive issue but could have been solved at the start given willingness on all sides. She then introduced Steve Cornish.
2. The DDC
SC gave a brief history of the campaign to date and said that as an action group the DDC had been fighting for 8 years for sensible development on the site. He held up the current issue of Southwark News which had a 4-page Barratt’s wrap-around advertisement published the same day, 25 June 2009, but which he pointed out had nothing new concerning the development. The deadline for submissions to the new Planning enquiry is July 1st.
SC said that the campaign still had the backing of all political parties and had legal representation but that funds were needed in the form of donations. He was certain that Barratt’s will lose at appeal. He said that Nick Stanton (LBS Council Leader)Â would be held to his promise in the letter that he circulated to local residents that he would go back to the drawing board. The DDC was against inappropriate development but not opposed to development in itself. He said that 200 trees had been chopped down against the law. People liked where they lived and the Council needed to consult with them.
VS congratulated SC on his dedication over the years. She then invited David Hubber to address the meeting.
3. Southwark Council
DH said he had been elected in 2002 and had always supported appropriate development. He and the other Ward Councillors had objected to each of the planning applications. When the Southwark Plan was being formulated they had tried to have the whole area designated as suburban but had been unsuccessful but were trying to achieve this again. He said that each application had been edged down from oversized and over-dense. He said that a new health centre was needed as was affordable housing. The planning inquiry was pending and ward councillors will appear again so their position remained the same. His personal view was that the law was tilted in favour of the developer and as ward councillors their powers were limited. He was still waiting for a planning application that met the conditions previously imposed on Barratt’s and the land will not change hands until they have met them.
4. The Greater London Assembly
VS then invited Andrew Boff (GLA Member) to address the meeting.
AB said that in the past legislation was such that the Mayor could not intervene. This was not the case now and the GLA wants to force the Inquiry to respond to the objections to planning Application 3. The great irony of planning is that everyone is aware of the great need for housing and to reduce overcrowding but all developments seem to be just 1 or 2 bedroom flats. Local authorities are not being firm enough with developers because they are desperate for money and don’t stipulate that more family houses should be built. This means that communities were not being generated but just buy-to-let developments. VS asked DH if Southwark Planning had attached a planning brief to the sale of the land.
Chris Page (new Southwark Council Labour shadow spokesman for regeneration) addressed the meeting and said he was dismayed at the mess the site was now in. A plan was needed to implement a corporate strategy and the biggest problem was uncertainty.
5. Questions and Answers
VS then asked for questions from the floor.
- Is the freehold still owned by the LBS?
- Why have Barratt’s moved onto the site?
DH said that the site was still owned by LBS.
SC said that Barratt’s were allowed on site by Nick Stanton.
David Pilkington asked DH about the felled trees and the role of Councillor Paul Noblet in his role of responsibility for regeneration. It seemed local democracy was not working. DH relied that all 3 ward councillors deplored the cutting down of the trees. SC reminded the meeting that Barratt’s had been given permission by Nick Stanton who had taken on the role of regeneration at the time.
Can the hoardings be taken down?
SC said that what lay behind them now was quite horrific and it would be better to leave it hidden.
Charlie Smith asked why councillors were unable to influence Nick Stanton
6. Barratts
VS invited Andrew Howard from Hardhat Communications to address the meeting. (Hardhat is the PR Company for Barratt’s.)
AH said that he had received hardly any notice of the meeting and therefore had little time for preparation nor had he consulted with Barratt’s prior to the meeting. He maintained that the tree felling had been legally carried out. Barratt’s will be coming back with another planning application and this will be in the public domain and open for comment. Barratt’s had an agreement with the landowner and will be back. Kath Whittam from the floor asked why Barratt’s never seemed to learn from their mistakes. She asked why they would not ask local people what they would accept.
Â
Another local person said that the community should produce its own scheme. Another person asked if there was a termination clause in the agreement.
Lorraine Smith asked if the price was not too high. DH said that the council was obliged by law to ask a market price (best consideration).
SC outlined the cop out of the Community Hall and said that the price of the land was an important factor. He said that Barratts should come down and
consult with the immediate local community first and not other parts of Rotherhithe. AH said they would be doing this.
Alan Chadborn questioned the impartiality of planning officials and asked how councillors ensured this.
Another attendee asked why the council could not go back to the drawing board. VS replied that there could be penalties if they reneged on their agreement with Barratts.
Simon Hodge asked if now that the trees were gone wouldn’t this affect any objections on environmental grounds. SC replied that the DDC had asked for Elizabeth Fieldhouse to chair the Inquiry again and she had seen the site as it was and would have to treat the Inquiry with that in mind.
DH answered the impartiality question. He said that ultimately it was the elected Council Members on the planning committee that made the decisions.
Chris Page said that LBS needed to examine how they wanted the area to look.
7. The Member of Parliament Simon Hughes
Simon Hughes joined the meeting.
He said that he always took the view that an MP should not get involved in local planning applications; that was for councillors. There were exceptions: listed buildings or anything involving a world heritage site. He does however take an interest if matters go to appeal. One of the most frequent requests he receives is for more social housing so he always supported those developments that offered that and more family housing and the Downtown site was suitable for that. He had opposed Ruth Kelly’s view and would submit that Applications 1 & 2 were unsuitable. He was concerned that an applicant could start work on a site without full planning permission. Given the economic situation there had been a tailing off of affordable housing & in principal a developer like Barratt’s should be encouraged. AB asked SH if he was concerned with the quality of affordable housing. SH said that the post-war Parker Morris standards were the best and that LBS should negotiate with developers to achieve similar. A mixture of affordable and family housing was needed.
John Hellings asked SH for clarification that he would be opposing Applications 1 &2 by the deadline of July 1st.
SH said that he would be and would ask to appear at the inquiry. He said that the population of the UK was growing & the reality was more homes were needed. A lot of council housing stock had been lost.
SH then had to leave to go to another meeting.
8. Survey of opinion and Conclusion
VS asked the floor for a show of hands in favour of one of three preferred options for the site:
1. No development at all
2. Low rise development in keeping with the surrounding area
3. For planning application 3 to stand.
The results were:
1. 10
2. 92
3. 1
SC thanked all those who had attended for showing support. He thanked DH for his contribution and said that it was not easy being stuck in the middle. He also thanked Jenny Jones (Green Party) who was unable to attend put who had been consistent in her support from the very beginning. He reminded the meeting that money was needed to continue the fight and that at some stage we may be able to produce our own drawings but this, along with legal representation at the new Planning Inquiry, could only be achieved if we had a fighting fund.
Meeting closed 8.40 pm
|
DOWNTOWN DEFENCE CAMPAIGN MEETING 16/08/05
Thank you to those of you who joined us when we went to support our friends from the Downtown Defence Campaign (DDC) at Southwark Town Hall on 16 August 2005, when Southwark Council's Planning Committee thankfully rejected the application by Barratt Homes to build their proposed "Downtown Place" complex on the Surrey Docks Health Centre site. Shamelessly, though, Barratt have already begun the process of lodging an appeal with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister! Please see both our Yahoo! discussion group's page and the DDC's own website for updates:
(www.downtowndefence.org.uk).