Email from BVAG – consultation closes soon (24th April)

Update – Yesterday’s Meeting

Yesterday’s meeting with the three Council representatives, Mark Williams, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Transport, Simon Bevan, Head of Planning, and Juliet Seymour, Community Planning Decoy Officer, was as colourful as usual.

They had been on notice for several weeks that their ‘concerns’ about our application for a Neighbourhood Forum needed to be specified rather than couched in nebulous generalities – enabling them to pull an excuse for refusal out of the hat at the last minute without giving us a chance to respond. This has been their plan B. Plan A, indefinite stalling, became unlawful following central Government’s realisation that it was far too easy for local authorities to defeat localism by the naturally attractive option of doing absolutely nothing. As with their previous strategies they were not going to give up the latest without a fight. Hence our esteemed guests repeatedly tried to deliver tedious empty and endlessly rehearsed speeches professing their deep sincerity – and avoiding the issues. For once in our meetings an almost Council-like firm chairmanship was required to stop them squirming out of answering the questions demanding clarity on their position. With Williams floundering on the ropes our supporters landed a knock-out punch demanding a meeting for today in which a delegation from OBVF can attend the Council offices for a meeting with Juliet Seymour for her to be categorical about what in our present application could support a refusal to recognise us – and how any such defect can be remedied. Why this could not be done at the meeting itself was not clear but it was certainly clear that they had come under duress to furnish themselves with a defence against accusations of furtive efforts to defeat our application whilst being intent on avoiding disclosure of their hand. As a result our delegation will be in Tooley St this afternoon and it will be difficult for the Council to keep any cards up their sleeve without opening themselves up to a legal challenge if they rely on them to refuse our application.

Williams and Bevan were obviously coming to wonder whether they could make plan B stand up because they were already starting to clutch for a plan C. Their instinct here is obviously to profess such deep deference to the results of their ‘consultation’ that they can claim opposition to the OBVNF application does not allow them in conscience to approve it. They have of course certain tame organisations beholden to them (e.g. paid JMB staff, Team London Bridge) beholden to them for their existence because they control their purse strings. They will be confident of being able to use their influence to coax out of such people a ‘response’ to help support a refusal of our application.

Since the statutory consultation period ends today it will be helpful if our supporters can spare the time to put in some counter-balancing views. Group Treasurer Amy burnt the midnight oil after the meeting last night and has produced this to help:

——————————————————————————–

After five years of hard work trying to help local people to wield some democratic community power over the decisions that are made about the neighbourhood in which we live, we are about to jump the last hurdle in our long march to be designated as the neighbourhood forum for the area that the Council has decided on – ‘Area A’. We have put in an application as the Old Bermondsey Village Neighbourhood Forum, and any of you who live in Area A should have received a letter from Southwark Council asking you to make your comments by:

Deadline – Friday April 24th – that’s tomorrow!

You can email your comments on our application to planningpolicy@southwark.gov.uk or by post to Planning Policy, Chief Executive’sDepartment, FREEPOST SE1919/14, London, SE1P 5LX

We could do with a plentiful response. Of course, enthusiastic support for our cause and our work would be much appreciated (and if you have ideas and comments you want to add to the mix, please e-mail us or come to one of our meetings to have an impact). However, in the true spirit of democracy, you are of course free to write negatively about our application, and so the headings below have been designed to leave space for either opinion, although of course the tone is unavoidably leaning towards the optimistic!
For those of you who only have a few minutes to spare, we thought we might offer some headings which might help you get started composing a reply to the consultation:

LOCALISM and NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM CONCEPT

(Under the Localism Act a Neighbourhood Plan ‘could set out detailed planning guidance on issues such as housing, heritage, design, open spaces and local businesses’ (Southwark Council consultation letter)).
Do you think that local people should have a voice in which decisions are made about the area they live in? Would you like to be able to feed into a local community plan that can turn the priorities of the people into council policies?
Do you feel that a refusal of the OBVNF application will be harmful to the neighbourhood and the neighbourhood plan process?
MEETINGS and COMMUNICATION
Have you been to any meetings, are you on the mailing list, or have you become aware through posters and word of mouth, of the Old Bermondsey Village Neighbourhood Forum (until recently operating under the name of the BVAG – Bermondsey Village Action Group)?
Have you felt informed and included about the aims and work of the group? Do you feel that the group makes an effort to be open and inclusive? Do you feel OBVNF as a group has ample scope to actively engage with the larger community once approved? Whether OBVNF has the potential to be an effective representative group for the community?
‘AREA A’

(The boundary of the area has been decided by the council and is not up for discussion at the moment. The council believe that this is the correct and manageable are.)
Do you think that this group should have the chance to be voted in via a referendum to be the focal point for people’s ideas and hopes for the development of the local area?
There is no other application from a group on the table – would you prefer the status quo of the council’s approach and policies as they stand, or do you want a community group to try to build a representative plan for the area?
POLICIES
Community plan policies will not be decided until the group has been designated and had a chance to do the work of gathering a cross-section of local wishes for the Neighbourhood Plan, but are there any specific policies or issues that you would like local people to take a lead on?
OBVNF
Overall, do you support the application of the OBVNF to be the neighbourhood forum for Area A?

Please see here for further info and to submit your reply.

Many thanks for taking the time to consider this.

– The OBVNF organising team.

Email from BVAG: meeting, Wednesday 22nd April

top

Important meeting
Wednesday 22nd April 6.30pm Globe House

It is now only five weeks until Southwark run out of time for determining our application for NF status. Of course, our application was made some three years ago but the Council traded on the fact that there was no statutory time limit for determining applications until introduced by the Government in January to stop local authorities using the simplest method of avoiding meddling locals sticking their nose into the furtive and lucrative business of planning.

The Council have been reduced to contriving some basis for refusal. Rather clutching at straws they have come up with:
1.We are not representative enough
2. Our constitution is not good enough
3. We must think the Council’s own planning policy is incapable of improvement

After numerous invitations the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Transport, Mark Williams has agreed to attend our meeting, on Wednesday 22nd April, accompanied by Head of Planning, Simon Bevan, to explain what we will need to do to meet the Council’s high standards of community engagement and responsiveness.

Of course, if the meeting is unimpressed by the reasoning of Messrs Williams and Bevan – not an unknown reaction – it may come to them explaining how they are legally empowered to refuse our application.

Unless they can find the excuse they are looking for our application will have to be approved by 25th May 2015. Thereafter we will finally be able to get on with what we started three years ago and introduce some local wishes and initiatives to shape our immediate environment.

This meeting not to be missed. All welcome.

Email from Old Bermondsey Village Neighbourhood Forum.

Important Meeting
Old Bermondsey Village Neighbourhood Forum
Wednesday 22nd April 6.30pm Globe House

Following our invitation to Mark Williams, Council Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Transport to address an open community meeting we now have a response accepting the invitation for Wednesday 22nd April. The background to the invitation can be read on our website (link).

In brief:
Following our application for the Neighbourhood Area designated by Southwark Council themselves the Council find their options for refusing us dwindling. In an attempt to create some germ of a justification we received a letter essentially telling us that we fail to meet the high standards of democracy, openness, inclusivity and consultation with local people set by the Council themselves! Councillor Williams has been invited to explain how we can raise our game to the standards he expects. At the same time he has been invited to draw on his own fan-base to invite all those excluded constituencies that we cannot reach.

bottom

Manifesto for the Destruction of Council Estates

The prestigious institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) has published a policy paper that proposes the wholesale demolition of London’s council estates, in the name of regeneration and to allow for the creation of so-called ‘City Villages’.

The paper is the brainchild of New Labour peer Lord Adonis and includes a chapter by Southwark council leader Peter John.

Adonis was a Greek god who was the epitomy of masculine beauty; our Lord Adonis is a more mundane character, a Blairite zealot who fancies himself as London’s Deputy Mayor. He has gathered together a group of like-minded cronies including London borough council leaders and property developers to pen a policy proposal entitled “City Villages: More homes, better communities”.

The idea is simple: London needs lots of new homes; they could all be built on brownfield sites; council estates are on brownfield sites – so let’s demolish council estates. The land is worth a lot of money, so friendly property developers can be enlisted to help. Demolishing council estates would also get rid of that awful “mono-tenure” housing that breeds crime and anti-social behaviour.

His Lordship draws on various provocative examples to make his case, including the Heygate estate. Southwark council leader Peter John writes a chapter on this great success story, which our readers will know from previous blogs destroyed 1200 council homes, replacing them with 79 social rented units, plus 200 unaffordable ‘affordable’ units, ripping off leaseholders along the way – or, in Councillor John’s words creating “a genuine mix of private owned, private rented, shared ownership and social rented homes for people of all incomes.”

Councillor John further redefines the word success when he praises the Strata Tower’s “distinctive three wind turbines” , turbines which, as we have blogged about, do not turn, do not work and do not generate any electricity – a fitting symbol of the Elephant & Castle regeneration after all.

Lord Adonis laments the fact that only a “tiny fraction” of London’s estates are currently being redeveloped and cites amongst these the massive Earls Court redevelopment, which will require the demolition of the West Ken & Gibbs estate and of course our very own Aylesbury redevelopment

Both his Lordship and Councillor John acknowledge this can all be controversial and “redevelopment of estates is sometimes assumed to mean that existing tenants and residents will be displaced by wealthier incomers” but according to Lord Adonis “this need not, nor should it be the case” since redevelopment should offer ample opportunity for residents to remain in new homes once completed.

We beg to differ; estate regenerations over the past 10 years have provided double the number of homes, but they have also lost us 8,000 social rented units and the lessons that we’ve learned is that anyone who stands in the way of a regeneration – whether council tenant or leaseholder – is going to lose their home to make way for new homes that they are unlikely to be able to afford.

Courtesy of the 35% Campaign – Campaigning for a more affordable and inclusive regeneration.

Elephant Logo

@35percent_EAN

Email from BVAG re Neighbourhood Plan.

Neighbourhood Plan – Council start to wriggle

Confronted with new statutory obligations to process neighbourhood planning applications the Council can no longer rely on delay to stop us. Our new application, amended to take account of their ever growing and evolving demands, was submitted on 20th February.

We have now received the letter below in which they are clearly trying to carve themselves enough room to refuse the application. Also see our response below, inviting the Councillor concerned, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Transport, Mark Williams, to come and address an open meeting to make out his ‘concerns’ and hear our responses face to face.

The claim that we are not representative of the local community is pretty rich:
Whenever we have consulted locally on planning issues we have invariably attracted many times as many responses with negligible resources as the Council have with all theirs.

Equally unlikely to provide them with an excuse is the claim that we have insufficient support from the Estates: It was them who dictated the very substantial enlargement of our application area to include the large number of Estate blocks. We can hardly be expected to have invested heavily in publicity in an area introduced on their obstructive whim – especially as they have shown every intention of refusing our application if they can possibly find an excuse. As it happens, we have far more followers and members from the estates than they were able to interest in the paltry meeting they organised in February.

Their most desperate line is that neighbourhood planning groups must be adoration societies for their respective local authority planning departments:
What’s the point of the provision for a referendum in the Localism Act if differences between local plans and those of the local authority are not permitted?

e57da912-b946-454c-b807-e6abf777db20

06983c79-d642-4f4e-bba9-76a95b214b33

Has the public been deceived over affordable housing at Bermondsey Spa?

This is ‘The Exchange’ in Bermondsey, Notting Hill’s latest completed development in Southwark and part of the Bermondsey Spa regeneration scheme. All but three private and two shared-ownership units in this 205-home development have been sold and of those that remain the private flats are priced at over £1m and the shared-ownership flats require a minimum salary of £73,986 to qualify.

Demolition of 54 council homes on the siteThe development should also have had 44 social rented units, to replace the 54 council homes demolished to make way for ‘The Exchange’.

44 social rented units were duly proposed in Notting Hill’s planning application for the site and that’s what was confirmed in the planning officer’s report. Paragraphs 27 & 29 of the GLA planning report also confirmed that the development proposed 44 social rented homes. However, after approval was given Southwark Council and Notting Hill signed-off the s106 legal agreement with something completely different – 44 ‘affordable rented’ units (ie. up to 80% market rents) not 44 social rented units.

Officers report states 44 Social Rented homes but S106 Agreement says Affordable Rented units

The change in wording is subtle but the consequences aren’t; according to Southwark’s own figures, a 1-bed social rented flat in Bermondsey (SE16) costs an average £97 per week, compared to £273 per week for ‘affordable rent’ at 80% market rent.

More details here: http://35percent.org/blog/2015/03/18/stand-up-for-more-social-housing/

https://i0.wp.com/35percent.org/images/elephant35castle.png

Old Kent Road Community Forum – 26th March.

The first Old Kent Road Community Forum meeting was held on the evening of 11 February 2015.  It was very well attended and there was some lively and interesting discussion.  The notes of the meeting are available below. Regular forum meetings will help establish an inclusive community ‘voice’ which represents the interests of all of the community, identifying views, aspirations and concerns, and it will help enable the community to become equipped with knowledge and skills to contribute to planning future improvements and growth in the area.

Old Kent Road community forum – workshop notes 11 February 2015

The second Community Forum meeting is scheduled on 26 March 2015. Once again we are inviting a mix of residents, local organisations, tenants groups, churches, mosques and businesses from all along the Old Kent Road and the surrounding area.  The workshop will include community led discussions about the future of the Old Kent Road, including:

  • guest speakers
  • community mind mapping
  • local history and character identification
  • improving the appearance of Old Kent Road

Please register your interest in attending by contacting Claire Beswick at:

claire.beswick@southwark.gov.uk   or 020 7525 3217

Date: Thursday 26 March 2015 – 7pm to 9pm.

Venue: Pembroke House, 80 Tatum Street, SE17 1QR