Click the BACK button on your browser to return to the previous page.

* Latest News *
Downtown Defence Campaign
 

16th December 2008

Email exchange re Barratt Homes responsibilities regarding Downtown site development

Subject: RE: Barratts next amended application?
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:27:20 +0000
From: Brett.Henderson@southwark.gov.uk
To: stevecornish49@hotmail.com
CC: Paul.Noblet@southwark.gov.uk; Lisa.Rajan@SOUTHWARK.GOV.UK;
David.Hubber@SOUTHWARK.GOV.UK; john.wills6@btopenworld.com;
lorraine.smith194@btinternet.com; sezagnew@aol.com


Dear Mr Cornish,
 
Thank you for your email [see below], I would like to advise you that no development shall take place on Block E and no demolition of the existing health centre on site shall take place until Barratt Homes have lodged an application to discharge the following condition:
 
Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved no development shall take place on Block E and no demolition of the existing health centre on site shall take place until a scheme for the internal layout of the health centre and the community centre has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall demonstrate that the community centre has been increased and is of a size capable of operating as a viable community centre subject to:

• the operational and financial viability of the health centre;
• the deliverability of the development as a whole.

Block E shall be built in accordance with the plans approved.
 
Reason
To ensure that the development provides a community centre of a suitable size that caters to a wide range of potential uses by the local community in accordance with policy 2.2, site specific policy 7P and strategic policy SP 9 of the Southwark Plan 2007.
 
Barratt's have indicated that they will be lodging this application soon, however they have not given me an exact date. I can confirm that when this application is lodged it will go out to public consultation in the same way as the previous applications. That is the same residents will be consulted as the last application that went to Planning Committee on 4 November 2008.  Furthermore, when this application is lodged it will be determined at Planning Committee by members.
 
I trust that this answers your query.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Brett Henderson
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Cornish [mailto:stevecornish49@hotmail.com]
Sent: 13 December 2008 17:44
To: Henderson, Brett
Cc: Noblet, Paul; Rajan, Lisa; Hubber, David; john.wills6@btopenworld.com; lorraine.smith194@btinternet.com; sezagnew@aol.com; stevecornish49@hotmail.com
Subject: barratts next amended application?


Hello Brett,


As discussed in telephone conversation with you some two weeks ago. Can you send me official confirmation that Barratt Homes are going to submit an amended application for the downtown site showing what they feel is adequate community space provision for the replacement Downtown Community Hall.
 
Can you also confirm that this will go out to public consultation in the same way as any other amended application.
 
Many Thanks.
 
Steve
 

15th December 2008

Rotherhithe planning update - email from Steve Cornish

Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 6:06 PM

Hello,
 
It is good to see that the Canada Water Area Action Plan and it's massive implications to the future of our area is being debated fully by concerned people. The main worry that I have is that this massive new document with it's 'options' and 'pick and mix' strategy will not get through to the vast majority of local people.
 
I was amazed at the way a so called consultation survey was carried out at last weeks Rotherhithe Community Council meeting. Members of the public (approximately 40) were given 'little red stickers' to place on the different options that were placed on the community hall wall.
 
I can see where this process works with getting local peoples opinions on, for example, where the Rotherhithe Cleaner Greener Safer funds should be spent, but this process at a few meetings that will get through to about 5% of the population of Rotherhithe is not good enough on its own. I think a full public meeting chaired by a totally independent person, should be number one priority.
 
Seven islands leisure centre is a prime example of what I mean. This is just a small part of the overall C.W.A.A.P but is a prime example of where this so called 'options consultation' will inevitably cause public anger.
 
Firstly it is vitally important that the general public are told the truth, and that they know for example that the land developers are seeking to acquire is not just the Seven Islands Complex, but also the considerable amount of land behind the swimming baths (shown on page 25 fig 9) that elder local people will remember as the 'fish farm'. This land is twice the size of the Seven Islands Complex and spans the whole length of Gomm Road to the East, and Ann Moss Way to the West. If I were a resident in either of these two streets I would be totally against a major change to the outlook of these areas, which are totally made up of two storey houses. The C.W.A.A.P (page 25) shows redevelopment of up to six storey's, and the Seven Islands 'SITE' going right back to Southwark Park which incorporates the 'fish farm land' that backs onto the two streets mentioned above . There are two points here (1) who owns the fish farm land and what status doe's it have, i.e. M.O.L or B.O.L.
 
(2) When are the residents of Gomm Rd and Ann Moss way going to find out about this part of the C.W.A.A.P. so that they can get involved with this process at the earliest possible stage. This is the type of information that the general public need to know before making an informed choice. I know people that live in Ann Moss way who are totally oblivious to what is happening on their own doorstep.
 
These are the two options as explained in the C.W.A.A.P.
 
OPTION (A) REGENERATION WITH A FOCUS ON HOMES
 
....The seven islands centre could be refurbished. The council will do it's best to keep the S.I.L.C. operating, at sometime the centre will require substantial investment which the council cannot presently afford and without which it may not be possible to keep the centre open.
 
....This option could bring some sports improvements to the area.
 
....Refurbishment of the S.I.L.C. would be expensive and the council would need to find additional funding which may take some time.
 
....A disadvantage would be that there would be significant disruption to services at S.I.L.C. while refurbishment was carried out, due partly to the difficult layout of the building.
 
OPTION (B) MIXED REGENERATION.
 
.....Leisure facilities including a new swimming pool would be provided. the S.I.L.C. site would be redeveloped for other uses
 
.....This option would enable improved leisure facilities with no temporary loss of services.
 
.....Selling the seven islands 'SITE' could help pay to provide new leisure facilities which could not otherwise be funded.
 
Question (option A) who allowed S.I.L.C. to fall into disrepair?
 
Question (option B)... Why should people believe that "selling off the S.I.L.C. Site to provide a new leisure facility" would be delivered, when they were promised a 'new state of the art olympic size swimming pool' in the Canada Water Master Plan that won the bidding process some three years ago, only to be removed from the plans at a later date.
 
This has caused a great deal of mistrust in the area, and needs to be addressed before we move on.
 
This new C.W.A.A.P. should have been carried out eight to ten years ago. ITS CALLED PLANNING.
 
Steve.. 
 

12th December 2008

Email from Steve re minutes of 4th November meeting about Downtown Site

For your information. We are still waiting for the official minutes of the downtown planning meeting that took place on the 4th november. We understand from the case officer that Barratts are to submit a ' NEW AMENDED PLANNING APPLICATION" showing what ' they feel' is adequate community hall provision. This will go out to the general public in the usual way. Lets hope that individual public objections. or recommendations, are accepted by the planning committee and not the 'block votes' from people who have never set foot on the downtown site.
 

7th December 2008

Email from Steve Sunday, Downtown site – more re development plans

There are a pair fishing the waterways of Russia Dock Woodland.The photograph attached is of the kingfisher in Downtown Pond which as you know is now only ten metres from the Barratts Development?.
 
Will they be our local residents this time next year when over three hundred trees will be felled within ten metres of this photo to make way for this inappropriate and out of character development. Only time will tell?.
 
I made contact with the downtown case officer (Brett Henderson) last week. He told me that Barratts are going to submit a new amended application containing what 'they feel' is "ADEQUATE COMMUNITY PROVISION" for the downtown site. He also stated that the legal officers report did not mention the 400 square metre community hall provision(25%) in block E.

We all heard the conditions loudly and clearly on the night, but apparently the legal officer (who was present) didn't. I asked officers Mr Henderson and Mrs Bridine O'connor whether their recollection was that of a 400 square metre community provision within Block E. and would you believe it, they both failed to recollect this being mentioned on the night. The wording on the other condition has remarkably changed as well. This condition, as you would have heard, was that the health centre (Block E) has to be built first on the first phase(there will be four phases)
This has now changed to " the new health centre will be built before the old one is demolished" which is a total play on words. Looking back at all the other previous applications, the new health centre was always going to be built before the old one was demolished so how can this be a new condition.
 
Mr Gordon Nardell (planning committee member) on the night, stated quite clearly his condition for having the health centre built 'first' on the 'first phase'. It was because of past experiences where developers have built their 'money making flats' on the first three phases, only to pull out of the 'non profit making' final phase, for whatever reason. He stated that this had happened on several other occasions.
 
I was told that Barratts new amended application with (THEIR ADEQUATE COMMUNITY PROVISION) will be sent out to the people of Rotherhithe in the same way as any other application. "this will be in about 2-3 weeks" (brett henderson).. I am fully aware that this could be a stalling tactic, so will be seeking further confirmation in writing from the case officer to this effect tomorrow.
 
I am still seeking official confirmation from our local councillors as to the reasons why the chair of the planning committee refused to hear our request for a deferral of the November 4th planning committee meeting. If we don't get an answer within the next 48 hours I will use the freedom of information act to get an answer.
 

9th November 2008

Six years later - Downtown development gets go ahead (By Gavriel Hollander)

The request for a deferment of the Downtown planning application meeting was rejected, and the meeting went ahead as planned in spite of complaints which have been documented and covered in earlier posts on this page.

Southwark News has covered the Downtown planning application meeting (6th November 2008, Issue 882). Members of the committee unanimously approved the Barratt Homes plans after a four hour meeting despite objections from local residents. However even with this approval there are still hurdles for Barratt Homes to overcome in the form of a series of conditions which have been imposed by the committee. these centre on the community space which along the site of the expanded health centre.

Gavriel quoted Steve in his story: “The DDC were unhappy that our request for a defermnet was not even heard by the committee . . . . They dismissed our claims out of hand, so we had a situation where the developers were privy to information that was denied to us as ordinary members of the public”.

DDC achievements include limiting the hight of new buildings to four storeys.
 

Southwark Council’s Planning Committee Meeting and Decision, 4th November 2008, Kam Hong Leung’s personal account and comments directed to local media

Many thanks to Kam, as usual, for copying me in on this letter so that I could publish it here.

Dear Editors of Southwark News, South London Press and Dockland News
 
As requested by Downtown Defence Campaign (DDC), Cllr. Lisa Rajan (Surrey Docks Ward Councillor & Southwark Council's Executive Member for Children's Services and Education) has requested the chair of the meeting, Cllr. James Gurling, to defer the meeting for the reasons like that stated in DDC's letter as attached herewith to Cllr. Paul Noblet (Surrey Docks Ward Councillor & Southwark Council's Executive Member for Regeneration) of 26-10-2008 @ 23:47 (Web Link to Source Document). Lisa's request was rejected outright.
 
Southwark Council's Planning Committee Members have unanimously decided to APPROVE Barratt's planning application on the condition that it will be a "Phased Development" that starts with "Site E" which will incorporate the new "Health Centre" and "Community Centre" with the latter that has to be substantially increased in floor space by cutting back on what was planned for the former.  Much discussions have taken place with some committee members stating publicly that most proposed developments would involve an increase in "community benefits" but the proposed "Downtown Site" offers a net reduction in the combined floor space of some 25% or 500 square meters for the new "Health Centre" and "Community Centre" when compare to that of their predecessors. An increase of floor space for the new "Community Centre" from some 45 square meters to about 400 square meters has been discussed but the Committee has chosen not to fix its dimension in the "condition" which in my view is a very weak condition if it can be called a condition at all.     
 
There has been significant discussions on "Road Traffic" concerns, including severe traffic congestions during morning peak hours that the Rotherhithe Peninsular already suffers from even before a big influx of new residents, visitors and their motor cars as well as the inadequacy of car parking space in the proposed development that will cause an overspill of car parking in neighbouring streets that can cause serious problems for both the inhabitants and visitors alike. I have seen none of the Committee Member making good use of and specific reference to the findings and recommendations of what many Rotherhithe Residents deem to be a very costly and highly controversial "Rotherhithe Multi-Modal Transport Study".  Instead,  the Committee Members seemed happy to rely on the "oral reassurance" from one Southwark Council Officer at the meeting that all the concerns will be addressed via the "Traffic Plan" which I have no idea how it will work and I am not convinced that the Committee Members know, much less care, how the concerns of many Local Residents like myself will be satisfactorily resolved in their apparent haste to approve Barratt's latest planning application.
 
My biggest surprise and disappointment came when "Item 148 : Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum (RAHF)" in the attached document titled "file_38909" (Web Link to Source Document :  http://www.southwark.gov.uk/uploads/file_38909.pdf) which formed part of the 59-page Planning Committee Meeting Document was highlighted which according to Bridin O'Connor (Southwark Council's Officer) was provided by RAHF's Chair, Barry Duckett, who claimed that RAHF represent 14,034 tenants and residents in the Rotherhithe area and are in favour of this development. Kathy Hennessey, Chair of Hawkstone Tenants & Residents Association was invited to addressed the Planning Committee in public who unreservedly challenged the validity and legality of this alleged "Block Vote" by RAHF for the development. The Planning Committee Members did not demand at the meeting for an investigation of Kathy's public allegation of "fraud" and "misconduct" by Barry Duckett.  The Planning Committee's Vice Chair, Cllr. Toby Eckersley, made a public statement near the end of the meeting that although he does not know Barry Duckett, he seemed like an important person and he agreed with what Barry Duckett claimed in the above-mentioned statement despite of  Kathy Hennessey's public complaint regarding Item 148 : RAHF which is a serious cause for concerns for the likes of Kathy and myself.
 
Please find attached a group photo of some meeting attendees that was taken during the first and only 5 minutes break at 10:25pm, three and a half hours after the meeting that started at 7pm.  The facial expression of most people in the photo was probably a good reflection of how many of us felt about the meeting :  "Local Democracy" has suffered a fatal blow that caused a loss of "Public Trust" in Southwark Council's "Planning Process" and those who have been entrusted to deliver this important "Public Service". 


All best wishes

Kam Hong Leung

Founder, Owner & Manager
Rotherhithe Community Safety Forum (RCSF)
Email Address :  kam@khleung.fsnet.co.uk  
Public Information Website : http://rotherhithe.spaces.live.com/
Public Photos Collection Website: 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16999050@N00/sets/72157604053249144

Downtown planning application and Hawkestone TRA

I have simply copied this communication in full here, to keep a complete record of the topics described, although it deals with two different topics. It was written to Kam and Steve by Jerry Hewitt, Secretary T&RA, Delegate Rotherhithe Area Forum:

Dear Kam & Steve,

I apologise that I could not make it to the Town Hall, as you know the Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum clashed.

At last night's Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum, taking place at 7pm and delayed by one week, delegates had the first opportunity to approve the minutes of the meeting help on 29th July 2008. The relevant approved minutes are transcribed below: please compare and contrast the minutes to comment 148. As previously reported to the Council by this T&RA the Forum delegates made no collective resolution on the matter nor was the Chair or Vice Chair authorised, or empowered, to write correspondence (of this nature) on this specific matter as far as we are concerned. It is also important to note that at last nights meeting neither the Chair, nor Council Officers, informed of any correspondence written nor received by the Chair (or vice Chair) on this matter.

I conclude that rather than representing the views of thousands of residents, or even delegates, the individuals who submitted comment 148 were representing themselves for their own benefit and interest. The matter of correspondence from the RAHF Chair to the Conservative Party (and replies) is still with the Council and so I am not commenting on that. However, it may be that had a motion/recommendation been put to the Forum on the 29th July delegates might have “supported” the development rather than merely enjoyed a presentation: who knows! However, it would not have been unanimous and negative comments were made in some detail.

Hawkstone T&RA Officers, committee and residents are deeply upset and disturbed by this whole matter, and not for the first time.

As for the reported comment by Toby Eckersley I have not spoken with Kathy about this however Kathy is an extremely well respected member, influential and important member of the Rotherhithe Community and her comments with the evidence provided below, together with evidence that is currently with the Council, is quite enough for serious doubts to be raised about the claimed “support” of the RAHF for this particular application.

The Forum will no doubt sort this matter in its own way.

Best regards.
Yours sincerely
Jerry Hewitt
Secretary T&RA, Delegate Rotherhithe Area Forum


If you did not get Kam's email that this replies to please contact Kam or Steve and request it.


Minutes of RAHF meeting held 29th July 2008 approved by delegates on 04th November.

Extract, Agenda Item / point 5.0,  from pack provided to delegates: (errors in original)

“Item 5: Presentation – Canada Water (Down Town Development) – by Mr Howard for Barratt Homes

5.1 The Down Town Development is a joint venture project between the Council and Barratt Homes. The site on which this development would be built is owned by the council.

5.2 35% affordable housing is expected from this development with high levels of three, four and five bedroom family homes.

5.3 The health centre with the area will be upgraded and will be 65% bigger than the current provision.

5.4 Enhanced public spaces will also be provided. There will be the creation of an ecological habitat and the area will be landscaped to reflect the natural beauty of the surrounding environment.

5.5 The roads leading into the development has been designed to encourage walking and cars will have to drive slowly within the area because of the how the road layout is designed.

5.6 Post development – A management company will be put in place to manage thing like trees, open spaces and the general well being of the area.

5.7 Concerns were raised about the quality of houses built by Barrat Homes. The Bonamy estate was sited as an example, which was built by the company about 12 years is now having a lot of structural issues”.

END

Item No. 6.1 Planning Document under “Supporters” 148 Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum – We represent 14,034 tenants and residents in the Rotherhithe area and are in favour of this development. The Planning Committee should take into account that there is a great need for development in the area as we have a major problem with a shortage of rented and intermediate affordable housing.  As Southwark Council can not build new properties the only way to provide affordable housing is to get the developers to build it so we get a percentage of the development registered as social housing.  We the forum delegates have seen a breakdown in communities through families having to move out of the area the reason being the lack of rented, affordable accommodation; we fight hard to sustain our communities and need local development to provide what the Council can’t. The large percentage of family accommodation proposed can only be an asset as we are so short of family accommodation in this area. The proposed children’s playground will be an asset to the area as there is not enough child play area in this part of Rotherhithe. The new health centre, which is something that has been needed for years, as we have a shortage of medical provision in the area with doctors complaining about the number of people on there lists and also tenants/residents say that they have to travel too far for treatment.  The S106 money that is proposed is a great asset, which allows further investment in the area, which can only be a good thing for local tenant/residents. The Forum delegates unanimously agreed that they would like to see this development go ahead. 
 

8th November 2008

Request for Deferment from Lisa Rajan, 4th November 2008

Email sent to James Gurling, November 4th, with the Grounds For Postponement document attached:

Dear James,

I am writing to you on behalf of Surrey Docks residents who have concerns about the consideration of the Downtown/Barratts application at Planning committee this evening. I understand that Cllr Noblet has already discussed the matter with you and has forwarded to you the concerns that local residents have about the availability of information regarding the application, and its accessibility to all parties. I attach the document to this email, although I believe you have already been forwarded it by Cllr Noblet.

I have been asked to draw your attention to this at the start of this evening's meeting, but I am aware of the quasijudicial nature of planning committee meetings and the need to conform to the approved structure for meetings. I am therefore asking, ahead of the meeting, whether you would draw committee members attention to the concerns of local residents and ask that they (and yourself) are satisfied that processes have been followed correctly and that all parties have had equal and timely access to all the relevant documents, particularly the report on the transport aspects and impacts of the development, which resulted from the application of the Rotherhithe Multi-Modal Model. To preclude me asking this from the floor at the start of the meeting, I would be most grateful if you could consider discussing the deferment request with other committee members and take any necessary advice from officers before moving any further into the formal business of the item. The local community are very concerned that they have had insufficient time to respond on this application, and feel that a deferrment is warrranted if they are to be able to adequately present their arguments and objections. I am mindful of the long history and strength of feeling about Downtown and would ask that you give respectful consideration to this request.

I appreciate this may not be possible, but if there is also any chance that we could have an indication of your and the committee's view ahead of the meeting, that would be very useful for the local community in that I can advise them as to whether the significant numbers expected need to come to Peckham or not this evening to make their representations.

Best regards,

Cllr Lisa Rajan

Executive Member for Children's Services and Education

Liberal Democrat Member for Surrey Docks ward

Offer of representation from Jenny Jones and reply from Steve Cornish, 4th November 2008

Councilor Jenny Jones, Green Party Group, very kindly offered to speak on our behalf re the request for the deferment in the event that no other councillor had offered to assist. Here is Steve Cornish’s response:

Hello Jenny,
 
Our local councillor Lisa Rajan is going to ask for a deferment along with the D.D.C.s request. We have been told that she can 'table a deferment' through the chair which will then go to a 'show of hands' in full view of the general public, so we can see who is 'for' and who is 'against' on the planning committee. We are still awaiting a reply from Lisa to our request to 'table a deferment' she has just mailed me to say she will do this later today.
 
If our local councillors and the general public request a one month deferment and it is denied, then we can only assume that local democracy is just a word used by politicians to further their careers, but has no place in reality.
 
We are being told that the council are worried that Barratts could Take the council to court for what's called 'non determination' which means that the application has not been seen within the legal time frame permitted. This of course is just a threat so that we the general public rush our objections through without the same rules afforded to Barratts consultants.
 
We have put our 'factual reasons' for a deferment to the planning committee. One month for 'purdah' in the recent local bye election + no access to the multi modal study etc, etc.
 
We are confident that common sense will prevail. But we are also realists and know that common sense is a rare commodity these days.
 
I now understand that you have a long standing commitment for tonight and cannot make it. We will contact you tomorrow to let you know the outcome.
 
Many thanks for your continued support
 
Steve 
 

4th November 2008

Southwark Friends Of The Earth - new objection letter re tonight’s meeting

From: Stephanie Lodge (Southwark Friends of The Earth)
To: Sally.Crew@southwark.gov.uk (Southwark Council - Principal Transport Planner in Transport Planning)
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:23 PM
Subject: Making MMS Transport Modal Study available to Developers before local community
 
 
Dear Miss Crew,
 
It has been drawn to our notice that the above document has been made accessible to Barratts, the developers for the Downtown Road Application long before the local Downtown Defence Campaign even though it appeared to be incomplete at the time.
 
We are most concerned that Barratts had access to it about 4th October, and yet the above group only had access to it on the 24th October, leaving virtually no time at all to go through 3 huge volumes and present their case to the Planning Committee on Tuesday 4th November, this really is very unfair of the Council to do this, it amounts to social exclusion rather than inclusion.  There leaves the question of whether it complies with what we started off the new planning law process, the Statement of Community Involvement, and as far as we're all concerned, this does not comply with the Statement of Community Involvement at all.
 
Objective 3 - Promote and inform people about Council Services.
 
Use the full range of communications tools available to give all part of the community equal access to information about Council Services - when they want it, where they want it, and in the way they would most like to receive it.
 
You may be aware of this section of the Best Value Final Consultation document, you may like to read it as this has not been adhered to in this case.
 
As it is so unfair, the item: Downtown Road, 08-AP-1563 should be withdrawn from the agenda so that the local community can be given exactly the same time as that given to Barratts, which should have happened in the first place.
 
Yours sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. W. J. and S. M. Lodge

Also available in PDF format here.

3rd November 2008

Downtown Defence Campaign - New objection letter to the Head of Development Control for Southwark Council

Please see the latest email and accompanying letter to Gary Rice. below.
 

DOWNTOWN PLANNING APPLICATION 08-AP-1563
 
Hello.
 
Please see following the D.D.C.s objection letter to Gary Rice (head of development control) for Southwark Council.
 
We have been working on this for over a week, after receiving a copy of the addendum to Barratts latest application.
 
This is despite not having all the information available to make an informed objection to this inappropriate development.
 
However Barratt Homes have been privy to the very information that we the general public need to make an informed objection.
 
We have therefore requested a deferment of the Downtown Application at tomorrow nights 4/11/08 planning committee meeting.

Unfortunately we will not find out whether our request will be granted until tomorrows meeting.
 
Local people have always attended such meetings in huge numbers to show Solidarity, and Strength.
 
We would like you to do this once more, but it must be realised that this maybe deferred until December.
 
Please come along and support us once more. But bare in mind that you may be told that this has been deferred
 
The planning meeting is at Peckham Town Hall, starting at 7.00pm.
 
        
Many Thanks for your continued support
Steve Cornish
 

You can download the letter in MS Word format, or PDF format.  You can also read it below (minus the proper formatting):

The Downtown Defence Campaign

A non-political neighbourhood self-help group to safeguard the best interests of the Rotherhithe Community

Planning Reference 08-AP1563
Land at Downtown Road and Salter Road London SE16 6NP ( as amended)

 

Dear Mr Rice

We wish to object to the above application on the following grounds:

Buffer Zone
(Page 12: 2.29)

We welcome the extension of the buffer strip from the previous application for this site, but the general consensus of local wild-life photographers, nature lovers, ramblers, woodland users  is that this is still not enough given the massive enhancement of that particular area of Russia Dock Woodland (e.g. Downtown pond, now the home of a varied wildlife - some rare in Inner London, such as the Kingfishers now using the pond) since the original proposals for development in 2003.
The amended drawings at this point show us that the buffer strip between blocks A & B and the Downtown pond will be an enclosed private area rather than a continuous open flow into the woodland.


Environmental
(Page 13: 2.32)

Barratt’s claim an extended habitat survey has been carried out and that there have been no significant changes since 2004. We agree with Barratt’s in 2.33 where they state that “it was noted that the Downtown pond and the associated water course now supports a more diverse range of flora than previously recorded”. However, we strongly challenge the supposed habitat results because our own recorded research (Friends of Russia Dock Woodland and Trust for Urban Ecology in mid August 2008) shows that there is a greater bio-diversity of fauna and flora than in 2004. This is commonly known to be the case and even Southwark Council’s Ecology Officer will concede this.

As an example, in 2.38 (p14), Barratt’s state that in order to provide a more robust assessment of the use of the site by bat species, Scott Wilson are currently undertaking a combined bat emergence and activity survey within the site. “This survey will be completed over the next two weeks”. Our ongoing  research, completed ahead of Scott Wilson’s, show that there are three different species of bat in and around the Downtown pond area which are Daubenton, Pipistrelle & the Soprano Pipistrelle , the latter of which has been noted for the first time this year. This has been confirmed by The Trust for Urban Ecology’s twice-yearly bat survey, the last one being as recent as August 2008. It is worth noting that neither T.R.U.E. nor the Friends of Russia Dock Woodland have been contacted by Scott Wilson as has been the case in previous applications.


Community Facilities
(Page 7: 2.9 ~ 2.14)

The grounds for Ruth Kelly’s decision to override the recommendations of her own Inspector were that the community benefits provided (i.e. Community Hall, Breakfast Club and crèche) far outweighed the Inspector’s recommendations for the refusal of planning permission.

We welcome the community play space but this has been achieved at the expense of losing our stand alone community hall of 1,000 sq.meters rather than the loss of any units by Barratt’s.

In 2002, 250 seated people met in the then 20 year old Downtown Community Hall. The amended drawings show 16 chairs round a table. The proposed replacement for the community hall   is now merely a room of 45 sq.meters shared with the health centre. This so called Community ROOM, by adding on the Health Centre’s kitchen and toilets to try to double the size of this community area, is an insult to the community & its intelligence. We therefore conclude that the new community room is over 2,000% smaller than that which the community had in 2002. This is an undeniable material consideration that cannot be challenged. ALL other previous applications have included the re-provision of a stand alone Community Hall. This has been taken away to meet a reason for refusal set by Southwark Council in November 2007, but the community has suffered for it together with the loss of the breakfast club and crèche.


Affordable Housing
(Page 10: 2.20)

Affordable Housing should not suffer the brunt of previous mistakes by Barratt’s. The developer is planning to cut affordable housing from 35% to 33%. Therefore we feel that it is the private sector housing that should be reduced and affordable housing should stay at 35%.


Car Parking and Circulation
(Page 16: 2.46)

Barratt’s claim (p8:2.14) that “the new health centre, including the shared community facility space will now be 76% larger than the existing facility” yet parking for staff is less and there is now only 10 visitor parking spaces. At the existing health centre there are 24 authorised car parking spaces for staff and additionally 20 more spaces for general use making a total of 44. “The 10 visitor spaces for the health centre have been rearranged to incorporate 1 wheelchair spaces. It is proposed that these spaces would be managed by the health centre and would incorporate drop-down bollards with visitors having to obtain a key from the health centre reception to use these spaces” (Page 16,2.48)

This is obviously totally inadequate and will not work. Being that the site is officially within a PTAL index of 1-2, many people, especially the elderly, disabled and infirm will find it necessary to use their vehicles to access the health centre and will find this arrangement impractical, totally unworkable and time consuming.

Although not yet part of the equation, the CWAAP states on P7 that “a new Children’s Centre is being built at Redriff Primary School”. The applicant has reduced school drop off spaces to 14 at the request of TFL. We are concerned that when the Children’s Centre is built, with the subsequent inevitable increase in traffic, this provision will not only be inadequate but will lead to an unacceptable increase in the level of traffic within the development and surrounding roads.

In conclusion, although a 76% bigger facility, parking has been reduced from 44 to 24 a 45 % reduction.


Circulation & Servicing.
2.55

The council has raised the need to provide stopping places for refuse vehicles. Barratt’s response is that these are not needed. They have advised that as refuse collection is anticipated to be once during the week, stopping places are not necessary for the following reasons: refuse vehicles will not be on site for a considerable period of time and collection is usually outside the peak periods. They go on to state that the level of traffic generation for the site does not exceed 66 movements and that this traffic will disperse when it enters the site to access various car parks. We challenge this for these reasons: in practice the refuse vehicle will be on site for a considerable time, as it has to service 212 units, plus refuse collection is exactly the same time as the peak school period. To say that the traffic will disperse into the various car-parks sounds good on paper but is naïve will not happen in practice.

Page 18, 2.56
The Rotherhithe Multi Modal Study. Overriding all of this, we now see the new CWAAP options that completely cancel out all previous applications on environment, health transport, and bio diversity. The whole ball game is about to change and the proposed development needs to be considered in the context of any future change to the area master plan. (CWAAP).


Sustainability
(page 18, 2.58)

Code for Sustainable Homes BREAM rating.
Council officers previously advised to get “Excellent” rating for the Health Centre (2.59) but in 2.60 it is stated that Barratt’s are aware the Council’s draft SPD requires that the commercial buildings  above 1,000 sq m’s achieve a BREAM rating of Excellent. In 2.63 Barratt’s claim that only a “Good” rating is now possible. It is unclear if a Very Good rating is technically possible.” This will allow the developers to build a sub-standard health centre under current building standards (BREAM) which will not meet the building standard requirements for a 21st century modern health care provision. 2.62 Barratt’s state “there is no flexibility” on this.
 


Yours sincerely
Steve Cornish
Chairman
 

2nd November 2008

Response to request for postponement by Downtown Defence Campaign

Councillor David Hubber has emailed in response to yesterday’s letter (below) to let Steve know that Councillor Lisa Rajan will be attending the November 4th meeting and will be able to put the DDC’s request for a postponement of the Downtown discussion to the committee. Paul Noblet cannot take part as he is a school governor of Redriff School and David Hubber is himself restricted as he is a member of the planning committee. He will not be attending the meeting but Cllr James Barber, his reserve, will be there instead.  David Hubber says that Cllr Barber is familiar with the site and the application as he was on the committee when it was last debated.
 

Letter from the Downtown Defence Campaign to Southwark Council

Many thanks to John Wills for copying me on an email which had the following letter attached, sent to James Gurling, Brett Henderson, Paul Noblet and Gary Rice.
 

Address by the Downtown Defence Campaign to Southwark Planning Committee 4th November 2008

First of all, we would like to thank those members of the planning committee who made a visit to the site on Wednesday 29th and also to members who have visited the site in the past. We consider it vital that they should see that, although classified as a brown field site, it is in fact more green than brown.

We wish to raise our serious disquiet regarding the procedure that has led up to our appearing before you tonight to make this address.  Barratt’s the developer have had access to information denied to us, even though all parties have known for months that knowledge of the contents of the Multi Modal Study was vital to us as objectors. This has given them an advantage over us in what should be a level playing field.

The study has been requested many times in the last 4 months and at the Canada Water Forum as recently as 20th October when we were told it was not finalised. The Head of Regeneration now tells us in an e-mail this week that it has been available since mid-September. This has put us at a serious disadvantage.

Since then the draft Canada Water Area Action plan has been placed in the public domain, with its major, major implications for the whole area including the Downtown site.

By any democratic standards, tonight’s decision-making process should therefore be deferred until December’s planning committee meeting.

Objectors to the Development will then have had the time to make an informed judgement on the amended application in the context of the MMS & the basic proposals in the new extensive options of the CWAAP and its subsequent changes to the overall area master plan.

This, together with the other massive proposals for Canons Wharf Deptford, being made by Lewisham council, which our ward councillors are opposing, and its resultant traffic effects, gives us serious anxieties that if these get the go-ahead, there will be massive implications for the cumulative traffic flows into the overall local traffic volume.

We urge you in the name of fairness and local democracy to defer any decision on the Downtown site tonight to a later date.
 

You can also download a copy in PDF format by clicking here or in MS Word format by clicking here.

31st October 2008

A let-down from Southwark Council

Thanks to Jenny Jones for lending her support to our request for a deferment of the new Downtown application.  She says that she fully supports what Steve is saying on behalf of the Downtown Defence Campaingn.  She goes on to say in an email to Paul Noblet that “this is a very sensitive and important topic for the people living locally, and has been a strain on them for many years. It's utterly frustrating to feel so powerless when they have worked so hard”.  She adds her hope that he will do what he can to delay the application until next month.

Unfortunately Councillor Paul Noblet has now spoken to the Chair of the planning committee in charge of the Downtown application.  He says that a decision to defer cannot be made before the committee meeting on Tuesday and he was unable to gain any indication about whether the committee will decide to defer on the night. Paul Noblet says that he is very sympathetic to the arguments and  that if we  need more time to get your objection in he will ask the committee. Small crumbs.

Steve has made the point to Paul Noblet that asking local residents to yet again turn up once again to the immmensely inconvenient venue of Peckham Town Hall, knowing that they could be told on the night that the Downtown application is deferred is simply unreasonable. It also means that we will then have the task of emailing and leafleting the area all over again to keep people up to date. Steve has highlighted to Paul that we have until 5pm tonight to get our 'speech' not 'objection' together for the 4th which has to be submitted to the Chair. It remains to be clarified if our objections will be taken into account right up to the day of the planning committee meeting.
 
As Steve says, residents are feeling really let down by this whole saga of events that are forcing us to rush things together without all the information that the Council has provided to Barratt Homes.

Steve also highlights that it has been have proven beyond doubt that the threat of non determination that Paul mentioned last week is not an issue, for the reasons we have given.

Councillor Paul Bates (Labour, Housing & Regeneration) has also emailed with his concerns as follows:

How are the DDC and residents meant to make a substantive objection to an application for which they have not had all the details and only the minimal amount of time to prepare?

As a ward councillor you can table a deferment in any submission you give. I would hope that following your welcome comments in today's 'Southwark News' that you might consider this?

Planning committee is run as a quasi-judicial body and follows rules of transparency and natural justice.  I would argue that's not been followed here. It would seem that undue haste and a degree of unfairness towards the objectors may well result in an appeal to Planning Inspectorate should this application go ahead as timetabled currently.
 

It is clear that Paul Noblet shares many of our frustrations but is unable to influence matters in the favour of what seems to be our very rational position. I’ll leave the last words with Steve.  Here is his most recent email, which says it all:

Ok, it's obvious that we are banging our heads against a brick wall here. We have tried to get some justice. We have also given our detailed reasons to the the council why we need more time. I will not be wasting any more of my time on this issue. we have a lot of work to do.
 
We appreciate some of the planning committee attending the site yesterday. Which means this application is taken very seriously indeed. At least some of them will know know what we are fighting for. You cannot look at three hundred trees which will lost to this development if it gets the go ahead, and not be affected. Lets hope it has the same affect on the planning committee as when the Planning Inspector (Eelizabeth Fieldhouse) recommended planning refusal when she visited the site.
 
 I am now on my way around to our secretary's house to put our speech together. If we cannot get it completed and sent to the chair in time for tonight's deadline, then so be it. We are not going to send in a half baked speech. That would be meaningless.  Steve.
 

The latest reports in Southwark News re the Downtown Site

Southwark News has been keeping tabs on the problems being experienced by residents regarding the Downtown site and it is good to know that they are ready to publicize some of the frustrations of local people.

In the article Administration calls its own plans for Rotherhithe peninsula “unacceptable” (by Gavriel Hollander” Councillor Paul Bates says that the “Downtown is a case in point” regarding schemes being allowed to run away with themselves without the backing of local people. He says that it is “a scandal that the planning decision will be made before local people have had a chance to put forward their views on the Area Action Plan and the entire direction for the regeneration”.  Paul bates is Southwark Labour’s housing and regeneration spokesman. 

A second article, Anger over new Downtown plan, highlights the objections of local residents to Southwark Council’s plan to allow the amended planning application for the Downtown site to be heard by the concil next week before residents have had a chance to review the revised application and raise an objection.  The article explains that the Downtown Defence Campaign (DDC) have said that the November 4th date for the hearing is unfair because of a recommendation that all parties should be given fourteen days to respond to a revised planning application.  the DDC has only had access to crucial information which is pertinent to the application since last Friday. Councillor Paul Noblet is quoted in the same article saying that he sympathises with the DDC’s objections but worries that if the law is not followed “in terms of dealing with the application, Barratt could appeal on the grounds that we have not dealt with it in a  proper manner.  it would then be in the hands of the planning inspector, not the committee”. 

29th October 2008

Planning Meeting visit to the Downtown Site

This evening Steve reported the good news that some of the planning committee members visited the Downtown site this afternoon. They covered all of the site, and took a considerable amount of time discussing drawings and papers etc. The Downtown Case Officer, Brett Henderson, and the Head of Development Control,  Gary Rice, were also in attendance.

It is hoped that this will be appreciated by the local community who may now feel that certain members of the committee will have a much better feel for the surrounding area and will perhaps now appreciate why we are fighting so hard to keep our area “Low, Clean, and Green”.

Steve has repeated his request, posed both by email and in person at last night’s  Rotherhithe Community Council Meeting that Paul Noblet make it a matter of urgency that we have an answer from the Committee Chair  by this evening if human possible for our request to postpone next Tuesday’s meeting until next month. The general public would then feel that there is a level playing field in respect of council information being available to the public as well as developers. That feeling is certainly absent at the moment.

Paul Noblet responded later on to say that he would try to contact the Chair for a response this evening but could not promise that they would be able to catch up with each other due to meetings which coincided.

I’ll update this page again when I hear some more news.

27th October 2008

Letter requesting postponement of Downtown planning application

Steve Cornish has written a document which has been sent to Paul Noblet requesting a postponement of the most recent Downtown planning application, giving his reasons for the request in detail. The document is entitled Reasons for postponing a decision on the Barratts Downtown planning application at 4 Nov 08 LBS Planning Committee meeting. A copy of Steve’s document, in PDF format, can be downloaded by clicking here.

More dialogue re the traffic survey and the meeting of the 4th November

Paul Noblet has responded to the concerns expressed by Steve Cornish and Kam Hong Leung as follows:

I attach a report prepared for planning committee using the MMS to assess the impact of the proposed development on the local road network.

Having checked with officers, if the planning committee do not consider this application on November 4th then the applicants would be well within their rights to appeal for non determination, which means that the decision is taken away from the planning committee and will limit our input as local residents into the decision on the application.

I have further been advised that I cannot remove the item from the planning committee’s agenda, although I can make a representation as a ward councillor to the committee.

A further letter from the Mayor of London’s office is expected next week as to whether following their first letter the amendments that have been made to the plans are now in conformity with the London Plan.

I have asked for legal advice as to whether the absence of the multi modal study from the consultation documents could make unsafe a decision by the committee, be it for or against.

I will raise the issue about the need to update the web pages.

I have also made representations to the committee to ensure that as many members as possible visit the site ahead of the application being considered, be it on the 4th or at a later date.

As ever I will update as soon as I find out more information,

Paul

To see the document, Technical Note - Rotherhithe Model Results, click here to download it in PDF format.  It is a large document (2.83 MB and 28 pages long). For those who don’t have the time or bandwidth to download it and read it, here’s the summary of the report’s findings.  They obviously had a different experience of the junctions under discussion than those that I have in my car: 

The results from the Rotherhithe model indicate that the Downtown Road/ Salter Road junction, and St Olav’s roundabout operate within capacity during the “Do Minimum” scenario. The Lower Road/ Bestwood Street junction is over capacity for the “Do Minimum” scenario in the 2011 and 2021 case. With the additional development traffic generated by the Downtown development proposals, the Downtown Road/ Salter Road and St Olav’s junctions still operate within capacity. There is a slight increase in the v/c ratio for the Lower Road/ Bestwood Street junction in the 2011 PM case, however this is not considered to be significant since the increase is only 1% and the junction still has a v/c ratio of less than 100%. Therefore, it is clear that the development proposals do not have a significant traffic impact, and the increased traffic can be accommodated on the local highway network.

The report is accompanied by an appendix which demonstrates traffic flow at the junctions under discussion.

Southwark Council web page re Downtown site planning application updated

At long last Southwark Council have updated their web page re the Downtown site so that it now shows the correct date for the planning meeting which is scheduled for 4th November 2008, although the Downtown Defence Campaign have put forward a strong case for the postponement of the meeting (see above news post).  To see the web page for the application go to:
http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9529094 or

http://tinyurl.com/6blwfo

Downtown Defence Campaign - new domain name, same location

For anyone wishing to add a web address which contains an element of the DDC name I have registered the domain www.downtown.ukfriends.com. this points to the Friends of Russia Dock Woodland home page, from where one click will take visitors to the DDC pages. Obviously the Friends web address works just as well, but doesn’t contain any mention of the DDC in the address which seemed a little counter-intuitive.

26th October 2008
 

Downtown site information consolidated on the Rotherhithe Community Safety Forum (RCSF)

http://rotherhithe.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!FC4C191A8F51F272!1060.entry

Many thanks to Kam Hong Leung for letting me know that he has updated the RCSF website with an index page at the above address, which is dedicated to archiving the key communications which make up the history of the Downtown site.

The Downtown site has been the subject of dispute since Southwark Council began to consider proposals for the site’s development by property developers. The disputes lie mainly in the precise nature of the plans being proposed by developers, some of which have been completely inappropriate. As a result there has been a long history of planning proposals, meetings, successful challenges to proposals and appeals.

These activities are easy enough to track in real time if you are a member of the Friends of Russia Dock Woodland’s email group, but untangling the history is less straight forward. A good summary exists on this website, on the Downtown Defence Campaign Page, but if you want to see an archive of emails, newspaper articles and official documents then the best place to go is definitely Kam’s newly indexed archive, which consolidates exactly this type of data.  Kam has separated the archive into two main sections, both of which can be accessed from the Index page.

Sincere thanks to Kam for going to the trouble of assembling this valuable resource. I can guess how long it took him to do.
 

October 25th 2008

Communications with Paul Noblet re Multi Modal Study and the Canada Water Area Action Plan

Below is the email response from Councillor Paul Noblet to Kam Hong Leung regarding Kam’s message about concerns over the Multi Modal Study and the CWAAP (see earlier posts on this page if this does not appear to make sense). Thanks to Paul Noblet for copying the Friends of Russia Dock Woodland on that email - much appreciated.

Hi Kam,

Apologies for copying everyone in but given the importance of this issue I thought it best to do so.

I have asked officers to send copies of the MMS to interested parties asap as it has been used in drawing up the report for the committee, and so I agree that both ward cllrs and residents should have the information too.

On the issue of CW AAP, many of you will know that the Executive did not agree the document that was on the website as we felt that some of the options were unacceptable.  We will be drawing up a different version of the issues and options paper over the coming weeks.

I have also asked planning and transport officers to begin drawing up schemes to cut congestion in the area, and more importantly how much they will cost - as the viability of any road improvements will depend on how much money is available from any land sales generated at Canada Water and section 106 agreements.

I will update everyone as I hear more on the MMS.

Best wishes,

Paul
 

In reply, Steve Cornish has emailed Paul Noblet to say that, on the behalf of the members of the Downtown Defence campaign, and indeed the wider Rotherhithe Community we are demanding that as our Local Coucilllor and head of Regeneration, he withdraw the Downtown Site Planning Application from the November 4th agenda.

24th October 2008

Update re Rotherhithe Multi-Modal Traffic Study and planning applications

Thanks to Kam Hong Leung for copying me in on an email concerning various planning applications and their impacts on the local community. 

Apparently, according to Cllr Lisa Rajan, Southwark Council's Planning Committee's Meeting on Downtown Site has been rescheduled for Tuesday 4 November 2008.  There are two issues which need to be addressed before the meeting takes place.

1) Barratt Homes has reportedly referred to the content of the Rotherhithe Multi-Modal Traffic Study in support of their case for Downtown Site. However, this “Study” is not available to the public.  Steve Cornish reports that many attendees at the Canada Water Consultative Forum's Meeting on Monday 21 October 2008 were very unhappy that in spite of promises from Cllr. Paul Noblet the Study is still not available to the public.

2) It is entirely possible that the Canada Water Area Action Plan may require residents to revisit the planning application for the Downtown Site, due to the potential impact on the whole Rotherhithe Peninsular of the combination of these development projects.

Should the meeting go ahead, there will not be sufficient time for local residents to make an informed assessment of the new proposals, and this seems counter the interests of Rotherhithe.  Kam has made a request to local politicians to request a postponement of the meeting.

12th September 2008

Concerns re Southwark Council purdah impacts on Downtown planning application

Councillor Lisa Rajan has asked Steve Cornish, via email, to inform local residents that following concerns raised at Monday's Canada Water Consultative Forum about the Downtown application being heard by the Planning Committee just ahead of the Rotherhithe by-election, she made enquiries of Gary Rice and Paul Noblet, and has been informed that the application will now be heard at the November 2008 meeting of Planning Committee, instead of on October 7th.

Here’s Steve’s reply to Lisa Rajan’s email (sent to Lisa and copied to a number of other parties including the Canada Water Consultative Forum)

Hello Lisa,
 

Thankyou very much for the quick response below. I will email all the people on our contacts list to let them know. There are however some more questions that were raised at the Canada water Consultative Forum meeting that remain unanswered.

(1)...how can the general public contact the case officer if he is on vacation for the duration of the objection process. It is easy just to say that extra time will be allowed after the 18th, but of course the general public will not know this.

(2) ...how on earth can the general public take on board the 18 page report issued to  barratts previous application when they are unaware of the report or it's content in the first place. most people will think that this is a good will gesture from the developer and not as a result of the mayors office involvement.

(3)..the people of Rotherhithe have just recently sent in several hundred objection letters opposing the previous 213 application. If you visit the councils planning website you can see everyone of the scanned responses. I have taken the time to read everyone. Only 3 out of several hundred are for development in it's present form. Over 95% of all the objections point to the fact that this development is totally out of keeping with the immediate area and will have an adverse effect on the woodlands. They have made their statements and to burden them with another slightly different application for them to respond yet again in just ten working days is quite frankly an insult. We the D.D.C are once again putting out all the relevant information through our website, leafleting , or through the Southwark news. people are contacting me constantly asking ' what is this new application, it looks exactly the same as the last one'.  They are also saying that their last objection letter remains the same on this application. Therefore the D.D.C will be responding on behalf of all their members.
 
Regards
 
Steve Cornish
 

Canada Water Forum:  news re Frogmore and Barratt Homes planning applications

Thanks to Steve for a great summary of the recent Canada Water Consultative Forum, where Steve and others were able to raise our serious concerns re the recent amended application by Barratt Homes for the Downtown site.  Steve explained to our councillors the anger that residents felt when receiving an amended application last Friday for the Downtown site so soon after the mayors planning department picked massive holes in the Barratt Homes application. He also demanded that this application be stopped from going before the planning committee on the 7th October for three reasons;
 
(1)..the 14 day window for people to object is not long enough
 
(2)..the case officer for the Downtown site is on vacation for the next two weeks, so no members of the public will be able to contact him for an answer to whether this amended application has fulfilled the criteria set out by the mayors office.
 
(3)..and if purdah means that because of the local bye election taking place, that the council cannot make any decisions then this should also apply here.
 
The objections were fully backed by the Canada Water Consultative Forum who have sent in their objection.

7th September 2007

Letters of Objection to Downtown planning proposals on Southwark Council website

Thanks again to Kam Hong Leung who has pointed me at a file on the planning section on Southwark Council’s website which has published some of the letters of objection received by them so far.  You can see the page by clicking here.  It is in PDF format and takes quite a long time for the page to load (53.31 MB, 200 pages).

Kam has also pointed out that both Southwark News and The Doklands 24 have updated their websites with online copies of their stories about the Mayor’s Office report about the Barratt Home plans for the Downtwon site:

Deputy Mayor of London report - Blow for Downtown Plan

Boris questions plans for docks

6th September 2006

Update re revised planning application

Thanks to Kam Hong Leung for the information that he has (and presumably other residents in the immediate area of the Downtown location) has received a letter a letter from Southwark Council dated 4-9-2008 which invited written comments of objection or support for the revised Barratt Homes planning application to be submitted within 14 days, before which time no decisions will be made.  Responses should be submitted to:

Case Office: Brett Henderson
Email Address: planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk
Telephone: 020 7525 5521

The case number for the planning application is 08/AP/1563. Details of this can be found on the Southwark Council website by clicking here.  The page gives summary details of the application, its history and current status.  The top-level description reads as follows:

Demolition of existing health centre and the construction of 213 new dwellings including affordable housing, in 2 part one, part four storey residential buildings with undercroft car park (Blocks A/B and G); 1 part two, part four storey residential building with undercroft car park (Block C); 2 four storey residential buildings (Block D and F); 2 part one, part two and part three storey terraced housing buildings (Block H); 1 part one, part four storey health centre (1425.5 sq ms), community (40sq ms) and residential building (Block E), together with associated car parking, a new children's play area, landscaping and infrastructure works.

There are two other tabs on the page - Documentation and Consultation.  The Documentation tab provides just what it says on the tin - links to all the main documentation surrounding the application. There’s some fascinating stuff in there.  The Consultation tab is divided into two sections:  Internal Consultees and Neighbours Consulted.  Thanks very much to Kam for bringing these pages to my attention.

The illustration above was taken from the Landscaping and Open Space Statement (dated 3rd July 2008), available in PDF from the Documentation page by clicking here (23.83 MB, 38 pages and it takes a considerable time to load, even on broadband).

22nd August 2008

Report blow for Downtown Plan

Gavriel Hollander has reported in Southwark News that “Controversial plans to develop the land around Rotherhithe’s Surrey Docks Health Centre have been dealt a potentially fatal blow by a damning City hall report” (p.3). He goes on to explain how the report put together by the Deputy Mayor of London last week advised that the Barratt Homes proposal for the redevelopment of the Downtown site does not comply with Mayor of London’s plan for the London area. The report suggested some amendments which could be made to ensure that it would comply, but local groups who have been campaigning against the development for five years believe that it could be the “final nail in the coffin for Barratt’s plans in the area”. Steve Cornish was quoted in the article, saying that the Downtown Defence Campaign welcome the “timely intervention by the Mayor’s office” and that the report “proves beyond doubt” that the application is “fundamentally flawed”.  See the Southwark News article for the full story.

28th August 2008

Boris questions plans for Docks development

It is good to see that The Docklands (the 27th August edition) has picked up on the fact that Boris Johnson’s office “has expressed serious reservations about a new housing development in Surrey Docks”. The item goes on to report that “Giles Dolphin, deputy mayor and head of planning decisions, said that the plan for the Downtown site ‘does not comply with the London Plan’.”

20th August 2008

From John Willis, Secretary of the Downtown Defence Campaign - A Summary of the main implications of the Mayor of London Report

Great news for those of you who are DDC supporters or  everyone who cherishes their environment and open green spaces.

The mayor has dropped the threshold on where he can get involved on individual sites by a massive 50%.

He can now be involved with the Downtown Health Centre Site and  has responded immediately with a substantial report on Barratt's proposed development. 

The GLA's Head of Planning decisions(Giles Dolphin) has stated that the "the Deputy Mayor considers that the that the Downtown application does not comply with the London plan" & there are numerous reasons why this is.

You can see the full 18 page report by clicking on the Friends of Russia Dock Woodland link below. Then click on Downtown DefenceCampaign,& then scroll down to 'Mayor of London's report re Downtown Site' dated 15th August. (It's in in pdf format)

Don't forget Barratts also have to address the three grounds for refusal recieved at last year's planning failure.

This is a massive boost for the DDC and could not have come at a better time. The DDC gives full marks to the Mayor for honouring one of his election pledges to act as a"green" mayor in acting so quickly on something we all know is wrong.

John Wills
Secretary, Downtown Defence Campaign

15th August 2008

Mayor of London report re land at Downtown Road

Please see an extract, below, from a letter from the Mayor’s office regarding the Downtown site. This is very good news for the Downtown Defence Campaign:

Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, Land at Downtown Road, planning reference 08-AP-1563

I refer to the copy of the above planning application, which was received from you on 8 July 2008. The Mayor has delegated his planning function to his Deputy Mayor, Government Relations, and on 13 August 2008 the latter considered a report on this proposal, reference PDU/221S/0l. A copy of the report is attached, in full. This letter comprises the statement that the Mayor is required to provide under Article 4(2) of the Order.

The Deputy Mayor considers that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 86 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 88 of this report could address these deficiencies. The application represents EIA development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The environmental information made available to date has been taken into consideration in formulating these comments.

If your Council subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, it must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order and allow him fourteen days to decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application.

The full letter and the accompanying report can be viewed here (15 pages in PDF format).

5th August 2008

Val Shawcross objection to revised Downtown planning application

Thanks very much to Kam Hong Leung for forwarding the letter from Val Shawcross which puts forth her objections to the revised Downtown planning application.

You can download it from this link, in PDF format.

4th August 2008

Latest News re development of the Downtown Site

1) Members of the Friends hand delivered over 300 objection letters to the council’s planning offices last week where they were all stamped and approved. This is clearly a massive number of objections.  Once again local Downtown Defence Campaign supporters have put time aside to help our cause by knocking on doors and collecting their neighbours’ objection letters. Well done and thanks to them.
 
2) All three of our local councillors accepted a Friends invitation to meet as a matter of urgency, and the meeting took place on site last Thursday, 31st July August. It the first meeting to take place on site with the local councillors. Steve and Friends senior members have now met representatives from all four major political parties. they are:

• Jenny Jones (Green Party & London Assembly Member)
• Valarie Shawcross ( Labour Party & London Assembly Member)
• Andrew Boff (Conservative Party & London Assembly Member)
• Lisa Rajan, Paul Noblet, & David Hubber, (our three local Surrey Docks councillors.)

We talked about the latest application from Barratt Homes and whether it addresses the three grounds for refusal received at last years planning failure. It would be fair to say that all agreed that there are still major issues with the removal of the community benefits i.e.

• community hall re-provision
• breakfast club and creche
• failure to address the poor urban design and poor traffic flows through the new proposal
• the size of the new 'buffer zone' extension' that has been achieved by removing the above.

The best thing to come from the meeting was that our councillors are going to request that the planning committee visit the Downtown site to take a closer look for themselves in order to assess the physical reality of site, and the proximity of the “buffer zone” to the  Russia Dock Woodlands ponds and waterways.

28th July 2008

Downtown Site update

Steve and other volunteers spent over two hours with Andrew Boff, walking all around the Downtown Site, as well as other parts of Russia Dock Woodland and Stave Hill Ecological Park. Everyone agreed that it was amazing to think that the Downtown site came under the heading of a “brownfield” site. Andrew Boff has promised to bring this to the attention of Boris Johnson as a matter of urgency. Steve has explained to him that other assembly members such as Valarie Shawcross, and Jenny Jones, have opposed this development from the very start.

Good news is that Steve was able to hand in 251 individual objection letters to the planning department last Friday afternoon. We still have more to deliver over the next couple of days.

The local public have responded to our call for help once again.

18th July 2008

Help required

Steve Cornish and the DDC need as much help as possible this coming weekend:

We now have a couple of hundred downtown site objection letters printed. We now need some help to knock on a few doors this Saturday/Sunday to get local residents names, and addresses, plus post codes, put on the letters, which will then be hand delivered to the planning office by the end of next week. Please let Steve know if you are available to help this coming Sat/Sun. you can get anyone to fill in the objection letters. It’s all about numbers. if you need some please contact Steve direct on telephone
 
0207 237 7586 or 07947 275386
 
or collect at

5 Somerford Way, off Downtown Road.

9th July 2008

Information and objection package

Please be aware that the DDC team have been working hard on getting an overall information and objection package together for the general public to take on board, in order to make a judgment on the new application.

The DDC has also put together a letter to the supporters of the DDC.  Please view it on this site.

Our  objection letter for the general public will be finalised and printed by this weekend and we will be knocking on their doors for members of the public to put their names and addresses down if they agree that this application still does not go anywhere near satisfying the people of Rotherhithe.

As Chairman of the DDC Steve Cornish has written an objection letter, which may be viewed here.

5th July 2008

Jenny Jones letter re proposed Downtown Development

A letter to the South London Press from Jenny Jones, from the Green Party Group, London Assembly, has raised some of the concerns about the Barratt Homes Downtown development proposals. She writes:

With Southwark Executive's decision to grant Barratt Homes a "new contract" for the sale of the Downtown site in the north of Southwark, who have moved a step close to losing public land, plus its valuable 300 mature trees. Whilst most people accept that some development is necessary, it seems unwise to do this now, in a time of falling prices and unresolved planning applications with Barratt Homes.
 

4th July 2008

Thanks very much to Steve Cornish, Chairman of the Friends of Russia Dock Woodland, for the following email, received this morning:

The application for full planning permission landed on local residents doormats this morning. The 21 day consultation period started from the 1/07/08. So we now only have 19 days to object to the latest proposal. Will the council ever learn. I sometimes wonder who's side they are on.

   The new application remarks on the 'new children's play area' which Barratts had to address because of the last applications failure to provide amenity play space. But in no way whatsoever do they mention that to make way for this 'new children's play area' they have taken away the Downtown Community hall re- provision that has always been part of the plans from day one, six years ago. In effect to address this ground for refusal from the previous application Barratts have taken away a large part of the community benefits along with Redriff Schools creche, and breakfast club. Removing these community benefits also helps to address Barratt Homes’s other grounds for refusal 'poor urban design'. . . the planning committee stated that the school drop off point would be a disaster with only 15 spaces available to park while the entire school, plus the youngsters at the new creche/breakfast were being taken into the school by their parents. Removing these facilities has created a win, win, win, situation for Barratts and a lose lose lose situation for the people of Downtown.

   Ruth kelly's reasons for overruling her own planning inspector were "that the community benefits outweigh the dis-benefits". We must remind ourselves that southwark council unanimously decided to challenge her decision at judicial review. So I am now completely lost. We have gone full circle.

   We will of course be knocking on doors once again to canvas peoples views on whether this application is in anyway acceptable to them. Early opinion is much to be expected. This new application gives slightly with one hand, while taking massively with the other. with some members of the public stating 'this is now an insult to the local community'. . . .

   We will be drafting our objection letter over the weekend so that local people can fill in their names addresses, post code, then we will hand deliver them to the planning dept.

   If anyone wishes to look at the new proposals and drawings, they can do so by visiting;

   REGENERATION AND NEIGHBOURHOODS
   COUNCIL OFFICES
   CHILTERN
   PORTLAND ST
   LONDON SE17 2ES

   Between the hours of 10:00 & 4:00, Monday to Friday

 

25th June 2008

On the 24th June 2008 Southwark Council’s Executive Committee decided to grant Barratt Homes a 'new contract' for the sale of the Downtown site. The Downtown Defence Campaign put its case to the executive but they decided to go with the Planning Department recommendation to delegate the power of sale to an un-elected council officer. One executive member stated “How do you think we will get the pot holes in our roads repaired if we don’t get the money in capital receipts from this type of development?”.
 
Barratt Homes will now put in their revised application some time in September 2008. If this gets the nod then the 300 + trees on the downtown site will be cut down before Christmas 2008. Its now down to you, the local public, to make your voices heard loud and clear.
 
We will be holding our D.D.C AGM very shortly (before September) to decide on on our future plans. All is not lost, Barratts still have to address the three grounds for refusal received after the last planning failure.

Please see the deputation presented by Steve Cornish on behalf of the Downtown Defence Campaign on the next page