New Interim Director of Planning at Lewisham Council

Lewisham Council has appointed an Interim Director of Planning as Emma Talbot, the council’s longstanding lead planner is to leave her position shortly.

The news was revealed following a public question asked by the chair of the Bell Green Neighbourhood Forum, Julia Webb at the full council meeting on 12th July 2023.

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 26
12 July 2023
Question asked by: Julia Webb
Relevant Directorate: Housing, Regeneration and Public Realm
Member to reply: Councillor Brenda Dacres

Question
Given the departure of the Director of Planning while Lewisham is relying on delegated power, how will the new slimmed-down Planning Committee system cope? As there are vacant posts in the planning department, will an external and experienced acting director be appointed?

Reply
An interim Director of Planning has been appointed and is working alongside the current Director to ensure a smooth transition as she departs. There are no concerns about the ability of the Service to cope with making delegated decisions during this period.

Public Questions at Full Council meeting held on 12th July 2023

Ms Webb attended the meeting and Cllr Brenda Dacres, Deputy Mayor with responsibility for Planning said that Nick Fenwick had been working alongside the current director for “three weeks” and this was “a good overlap”.

Nick Fenwick is a well travelled and experienced local authority planner who has worked in many authorities including:

  • Director of Planning (Interim) Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Sep 2022 – Jul 2023, 11 months
  • Director of Place /Assistant Director – Planning and Placeshaping (Interim) Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Mar 2021 – Sep 2022, 1 year 7 months, Greater Manchester, England, United Kingdom
  • Director of Planning and Development (Interim) London Borough of Newham Mar 2020 – Dec 2020, 10 months
  • Planning Consultant Smith Jenkins Town Planning Sep 2019 – Feb 2020, 6 months, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
  • Deputy Managing Director and Director of Place Watford Borough Council Dec 2016 – Sep 2019, 2 years 10 months, Watford, United Kingdom

Nick Fenwick’s social media states he is now working for Lewisham Council.

“In Place of Profit” celebrates the NHS at 75

The Socialist Health Association has published a report, “In Place of Profit” to coincide with the 75th anniversary of the NHS.

“The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with faith to fight for it” ― Aneurin Bevan

The title is a play on words of the founder of the NHS, Aneurin Bevan seminal work, “In Place of Fear“.

Bevan understood the challenges in obtaining access to high quality health care, finding fulfilling work, the health benefits of leisure and sports and the need to remove the fear from not being able to access these. Generations grew up in fear as they could not afford to pay for medical attention. Bevan knew this fear. His father died of an industrial lung disease – although this wasn’t recognised at the time to be mining related, so no compensation was paid – he worked down the pit himself and lived amongst those who struggled to get healthcare in these challenging circumstances. The miners and their families had to co-operate together to pay for primary health services like a GP.

It is against this background that Bevan came up with his policies that led to the formation of the National Health Service. A service that depends on goodwill, on clinicians looking to the wider determinants of health like class, education, housing and poverty. He hardwired altruism in to the system.

It’s almost impossible to overestimate the benefits of that breathtakingly imaginative and generous political act. It’s so important to remember where the NHS came from and what it meant, although I fear that we are beginning to forget.

British Journal of General Practice 

However, Bevan was a realist and through his trade unionism he knew that a deal needed to be struck with the professionals, that is to say, the doctors and hospital consultants to make his vision of socialised medicine come true.

He did this “by stuffing the doctors’ mouths with gold.” Meaning he allowed some doctors and consultants to continue seeing private paying patients if they accepted NHS patients.

On this momentous 75th anniversary of the NHS, the Socialist Health Association documents the fragmentation of the NHS and the marketisation of the NHS.

“The law of the market is to create winners and losers. If you are working to contracts, then people are going to trim the services to make profits. Markets work against the interests of patients.”

Professor Allyson Pollock

The SHA argue that it is imperative to understand that the political panic button of
“austerity” is nothing but an excuse for corporate greed.

We need a publicly provided, complete health service operating in the context
of a functioning welfare state which holistically addresses the social determinants of health.

In Place of Profit – Socialist Health Association 2023

More preventative healthcare, investment in public health, proper social housing and an integrated social care system are needed now.

The full document “In Place of Profit” is below.

InPlaceOfProfit-Socialist-Health-Association-2023

New Parliamentary Constituencies for Lewisham

The three parliamentary constituencies for Lewisham are set to change. Their boundaries have been redrawn and final proposals by the Boundary Commission for England have been published on 27th June 2023.

Parliamentary constituency boundaries are set to change

The Boundary Commissions’ role is now complete. Their final recommendations will be implemented automatically. This is done by the Government submitting a single draft Order in Council to the Privy Council for approval by the King. Neither Parliament nor the Government can alter the Commissions’ recommendations.

The new boundaries will be used at the next general election after the Order in Council has been approved.

However, by-elections before the general election use the existing boundaries and until the approval is given, if a general election is called, this will be on the existing boundaries.

Secretary to the Commission, Tim Bowden, said: ‘The recommendations we have published today mark the end of a thorough and consultative process to build the new map of Parliamentary constituencies. We have taken into account over 60,000 public comments, travelled the country, and heard many passionate views about how best to reflect local community ties in our recommendations. We are confident that our final recommendations are the best reflection of the statutory rules Parliament has set us. We are incredibly grateful to everyone who has participated in the 2023 Boundary Review.’

The Boundary Commission have said that London currently has 73 constituencies. Of these constituencies, 20 have electorates within the permitted range [no smaller than 69,724 and no larger than 77,062]. The electorates of 20 constituencies were below the permitted range, while the electorates of 33 constituencies were above. Our proposals increase the number of constituencies in the region by two, to 75.

The changes to Lewisham’s parliamentary constituencies have been explained by the BCE when they say:

“When exploring sub-region arrangements for South London, we noted that it would be possible to consider South Central and South West London separately. However, our investigations showed that it was difficult to create a practicable scheme of constituencies in a stand-alone South Central sub-region without needing to split multiple wards. We therefore decided to treat the South Central and South West areas together to form a single sub-region consisting of the boroughs of: Croydon; Kingston upon Thames; Lambeth; Lewisham; Merton; Richmond upon Thames (that part which lies on the south side of the River Thames); Southwark; Sutton; and Wandsworth. This sub-region has an electorate of 1,538,390, resulting in a mathematical entitlement to 20.95 constituencies. We therefore allocated 21 constituencies to this sub-region.“

This has triggered a number of considerations and the final maps for the parliamentary boundaries covering the London Borough of Lewisham have been published. These have been named Lewisham East, Lewisham North, Lewisham West & East Dulwich.

Lewisham East consists of seven Lewisham wards, notably Bellingham that was previously in Lewisham West for many years, moves over to join Catford South, Downham, Grove Park, Hither Green, Lee Green & Grove Park.

Lewisham North consists of eight Lewisham wards, notably Blackheath that was previously in Lewisham East for many years, joining Brockley, Deptford, Evelyn, Ladywell, Lewisham Central, New Cross Gate and Telegraph Hill. Sadly, the historic name of Deptford is no longer included in a parliamentary seat. Interestingly, there has been a Member of Parliament for Deptford or Lewisham, Deptford since 1885. In 1906 – a significant date in the history of the Labour Party – trade unionist, Charles W. Bowerman was elected as the Labour Party Member of Parliament for Deptford, a post he retained until the 1931 general election and he lost to the conservatives, however, this was a one term defeat and since 1935 the Labour Party have retained the seat.

Lewisham West & East Dulwich consists of four Lewisham wards, Crofton Park, Forest Hill, Perry Vale and Sydenham with three Southwark wards these are Dulwich Hill, Goose Green and Peckham Rye.

Psephologists expect that these three seats will return Labour Party MPs. The loss of Penge from the current Lewisham West & Penge now incorporated in the new Beckenham & Penge parliamentary constituency means that this becomes a battleground between the Labour Party and the Conservatives. Time will tell who will win.

Charles W. Bowerman, veteran of the printing trade union movement. Delegate to the founding conference of the Labour party in 1900 and Labour MP for Deptford for almost 30 years. President of the Trades Union Congress.

Photo courtesy of Islington Council.

Lewisham Council changes Constitution – Planning Matters

The way Lewisham Council deals with planning applications has been changed. The number of objections required to trigger a public committee meeting has been increased from three to ten and the number of planning committees and their membership reduced.

Changes were made to Lewisham Council’s Constitution in relation to Planning Committees at the AGM of the full Council when a report on Wednesday, 29th March 2023 with wide ranging recommendations was agreed.

The constitution of a local authority is specific to that particular council and should abide by the law, reflect local demands and any issues that might be related to their geography or location. It states the governance arrangements: Lewisham Council has a directly elected Mayor who appoints a cabinet of executive members responsible for day to day decisions and there are non executive councillors responsible for formal scrutiny.

Interestingly, planning policy is an executive function, however the determination of planning applications is a function of the full Council – this includes both executive and non executive members. However, in practice, planning committees have delegated powers to exercise this functions on behalf of the 55 member council – all elected Councillors plus the directly elected Mayor – it is the sovereign body.

The new rules came into effect immediately and these have been published in the decision notice:

1.      The deletion of the current four committees and the establishment of two main planning committees of equal standing;

2.      The creation of a new Strategic Planning Committee, which only meets when an application falls within Parts 1-4 of the Schedule to The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.

3.      That the new Strategic Planning Committee be constituted as follows: –

a.      Chairs of the two Planning Committees;

b.      Vice-Chairs of the two Planning Committees;

c.      Two Cabinet Members nominated by the Mayor;

d.      One other member from each of the two Planning Committees.

4.      That the Chairs of both committees be paid a Special Responsibility Allowance of £10,216 (an amount equal to the current SRA payable to the Chair of Strategic Planning Committee) and the Chair of Strategic Planning Committee does not get a Special Responsibility Allowance;

5.      That each main committee has a membership of 8 councillors;

6.      That each main committee meets bi-monthly;

7.      That the threshold for referral to a main Committee be increased from 3 objections to 10 objections;

8.      That amenity societies must be formally constituted and meet the terms of the London Forum for Amenity and Civic Societies;

9.      That any objection from an amenity society is not automatically referred to a main committee but suitability for referral to committee is determined by the Director of Planning in consultation with the Chairs of both committees (or Vice-Chairs in their absence) in a Chairs’ Briefing.

10.   That the Chairs of Planning Committee A and Planning Committee B will be Chair and Vice Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee, alternating roles for each meeting.

Moved: Councillor Oana Olaru Seconded: Councillor Susan Wise

By agreeing these ten recommendations this means that Lewisham Council has:

  • Abolished one local planning committee with 100% non executive membership
  • Reduced the membership of the remaining two local planning committees from 10 members to 8 members
  • Reduced the membership and changed the terms of reference of the strategic planning committee – from 10 members to 8 members – but kept the number of cabinet members at two thereby reducing non executive influence
  • Removed neighbourhood planning from the terms of reference of the strategic planning committee
  • Removed the references to legal proceedings either in existence or contemplation from the strategic planning committee specifically
  • Removes a separate chair of the strategic planning committee, paid solely for that role

The preamble says that four planning committees have been deleted and replaced with two but the practical effect of the changes is to create two local planning committees for the whole borough of Lewisham, imaginatively called Planning Committee A & B and to recreate a Strategic Planning Committee with a reduced membership but maintaining two cabinet members on this. That makes three committees in total.

The chair of the strategic planning committee will be one of the local committee chairs, to be decided. It could be said that the chairs of the local planning committees are both responsible for strategic planning across the London Borough of Lewisham now. Either way, they will be chair or vice chair of that committee.

Changes have been made to the threshold of objections necessary to refer a matter to members – that is for a contested planning application to go to a hearing in public to be determined by councillors were made.

Now ten objections will be required, up from three beforehand.

Previously, an Amenity Society – like the Blackheath Society or Sydenham Society – could have objected as an organisation and this would have triggered a public hearing. However, these changes mean that this is not automatic but will be decided at a “Chairs’ Briefing” by the Director of Planning in consultation with the Chairs of both committees (or Vice-Chairs in their absence).

In answer to a Freedom of Information request, Lewisham Council confirms that there was no consultation about the changes to Amenity Society objections.

Lewisham’s amenity societies expressed their collective concern about the administration of the planning processes during the covid pandemic when they wrote on Tuesday, 15 Sep 2020 saying that they felt that their role in the planning process has become ‘increasingly marginalised’ and that this represented ‘a new low’.

It should be remembered that all local planning authorities including Lewisham Council must have a Scheme of Community Involvement in planning. This is a separate statutory requirement. The changes to the status of Amenity Societies will cut across the current Scheme of Community Involvement in Lewisham.

The SCI is a helpful document setting out how the public can get involved in the complexities of the planning process. Lewisham Council’s SCI is under review but the substantive document in still in place. It dates back to 2006 with some amendments.

ReportSCIfinalJuly2006

Including a “Chairs’ Briefing” in a legally binding constitution is problematic. By definition, the planning applications will be controversial or substantial. Constitutional arrangements do not operate outside the wider framework of public law and they will have to conform with all the tenets of natural justice. I would argue that these meetings are now formal meetings and should abide by the requirements applicable to all council meetings in an open and transparent manner but I am sure that this will be something for the lawyers to argue about in due course.

London City Airport Expansion Plans to be ‘refused’

Newham Council has written to commentators on the recent controversial London City Airport planning application and revealed that they intend to recommend refusal.

‘What a racket’ say residents

The detailed proposal seeks to allow up to 9 million passengers per annum – currently limited to 6.5 million – arrivals and departures on Saturdays until 18.30 with up to 12 arrivals for a further hour during British Summer Time – currently allowed until 12.30 – along with modifications to daily, weekend and other limits on flights and minor design changes, including to the forecourt and airfield layout.

Lewisham Council published a letter detailing opposition to any expansion of the London City Airport following a public question at the full Council meeting held on Wednesday, 28th September 2022. Residents had lobbied about environmental concerns including air quality and noise.

The application will be considered by Newham Council’s Strategic Development Committee at their next meeting on 10th July 2023.

The meeting starts at 2.00pm and will be held partially in person in the Main Hall, Old Town Hall, Stratford, London E15 4BQ, and also virtually via ZOOM and broadcasted live via the Council website link.


Officers have recommended to refuse the application and the full report can be read here

London-City-Airport-Newham-Council-Planning-Application-22.03045.VAR-Committee-Notification-Letter-to-commenters

Media Law – How to report a draft judgement – or not?

An interesting point of media law and local authorities has been clarified in the High Court. The case concerns the issuing of Confidential Embargoed Draft Judgements – CEDJ – and their wider circulation.

Mr Justice Fordham had sent a confidential embargoed draft judgment (CEDJ) of his decision in the planning case of Kinsey, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Lewisham [2022] EWHC 1774 (Admin) to the parties on 5 July 2022. This is also known as Mais House and remains a controversial planning decision.

This confidential draft embargoed judgement was given to eleven Lewisham Council staff and cabinet members on the basis that they “did ‘need’ to know in order to ‘prepare themselves for the publication of the judgment’, given their involvement with the case.” The cabinet members were Cllrs Paul Bell and Brenda Dacres.

However, the CDEJ was also shared with a press officer who was tasked with dealing with the public relations and media more widely once the judgement was officially made public or handed down.

The press officer mistakenly sent out a press release with Lewisham Council’s comments and reaction to the court’s finding before the judgement was made public. The judgement notes that the publication at 09:15 on 11 July 2022 was not to the public at large but to a portion of the press; that it was premature by 45 minutes; that it bore an ’embargo’ of its own, as to reporting to the public; and that there was no press reporting until after 10am – indeed not until 13:06 – on 11 July 2022.

The High Court has found a breach but it accepted that this was human error and stopped short of finding any contempt of court.

The Judgement will be useful for those with an interest in media law and anyone teaching or studying journalism.

It has been reported that there is concern among the senior judiciary about a spate of breaches of embargoes on draft judgments and that this has resulted in a clear warning in the updated King’s Bench Division (KBD) guide.

Assumptions for Catford Traffic published

Transport for London have released an important ‘Catford Town Centre Traffic Forecasting Report’ dated May 2021.

The AECOM report gives highway assignment forecasts for 2026, 2031 and 2041, both without and with the scheme. It explains the forecasting assumptions and presents the results from the ‘Without Scheme’ and ‘With Scheme’ forecasts.

AECOM make clear that this report does not focus on the assessment of bus or cycle impacts, or local access issues. These will be covered by operational modelling which is being undertaken in parallel. They say: “It should be noted that as this is a strategic model the analysis.”

Data gathered before May 2021 maybe questioned as this is the Covid and pre Covid period. Indeed, AECOM say: “Assume[d] growth according to London Plan 2016 and do not allow for changes in behaviour arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The wisdom of excluding local traffic movements when significant changes in population and density have been approved in strategic planning documents produced by Lewisham Council may also be questioned. An increase in local traffic movements to access residential developments will have an impact. These planned changes post date the London Plan 2016.

The experts’ report assumes that the Silvertown Tunnel is present in all forecast years.

The report’s conclusions include the fact that delays generally increase as a result of the scheme, however more efficient routeing for some traffic on movements such as the A21 southbound [towards Bromley] through the gyratory means that some trips are forecast to experience an reduction in journey time through the area. For other movements, such as the A21 northbound, the routeing impact is neutral.

Catford-Town-Centre-Major-Road-Network-traffic-report-May-2021-TfL-Part-of-Strategic-OBC

TfL say that they will undertake further modelling from June 2023 through the concept design stage. This modelling work will be updated along the evolution of the scheme. The modelling work should conclude and the concept design be finalised in the beginning of 2024.

Photograph credit to @Archoptical

Grove Park Library’s future uncertain

Following a successful ‘Save Our Libraries’ campaign in 2016, Lewisham Council adopted a community library model.

This leased buildings to voluntary sector bodies or external partners whilst keeping a core library service directly owned and run by the council in central venues like Lewisham High Street and Deptford.

Fears for the future of Grove Park community library emerged recently and it was reported that Lewisham Council was working with the leaseholder to ensure an adequate notice period, whilst exploring opportunities for other organisations and stakeholders to take on Grove Park Library before the end of the lease period of its current leaseholder, believed to be Eco Communities.

Following a meeting with library users and staff this week, Lewisham Council has issued a statement today, 16th June 2023:

“The current leaseholder of three of our local community libraries, Crofton Park, Sydenham and Grove Park, has issued notice to end the leases. We have a new provider in place already for Crofton Park and Sydenham community libraries and we are working very hard to explore opportunities with community partner organisations and stakeholders already supporting libraries in our borough to take on the opportunity at Grove Park.”

The future of Grove Park’s much loved and much needed library is in the balance.

Costs of Buying Back Council Homes in Lewisham revealed

Following an article in the specialist Inside Housing publication on 3rd May 2023, explaining that Lewisham Council has bid and received funding from the London mayor’s Right to Buy-back scheme but could not disclose their true cost for “commercial sensitivities” a Freedom of Information request was filed.

The costs for buying back 117 properties in Lewisham is given as total purchase costing £33,689,797 but this increases to £34,204,012 including professional fees and charges. The Freedom of Information response is dated 7th June 2023. The final costs may be higher as the fees are estimates, subject to change as the reconciliation of the accounts continues.

It is understood that Lewisham Council was the only London borough that refused to provide the details of the money in their press responses. It is should be noted that Lewisham Council will shortly dissolve their arms length management organisation, Lewisham Homes and return all their housing functions to the Council directly.


Residents ‘disappointed’ by Catford Town Centre roads’ consultation

The campaign group Catford Against Social Cleansing has exclusively released their response to Transport for London’s consultation on “Catford Town Centre, changes to South Circular Road” to this blog site.

In their letter campaigners criticise the proposals by questioning the lack of specific details like traffic flow data and maps, the omission of a retail park known as Halfords & Wickes and the loss of Metropolitan Open Land at the historic Catford cricket ground.

Catford Against Social Cleansing spokesperson, Cheryl McLeod said:

“Given that this is a consultation on changes to a nationally important road – the South Circular Road in London at Catford – I am very disappointed that Transport for London have failed to give us the details we need to scrutinise the proposals properly. Not only this, as Lewisham Council have helped shape this document, it is shocking that their own public plans for tall towers and demolition for more flats have been left out.”

“This isn’t a proper public consultation, it’s an insult to our intelligence.”

The full response by Catford Against Social Cleansing is reproduced in full below with their permission:

Thank you for your consultation on proposals to change the roads and traffic flows around Catford in South East London.

Unfortunately, there aren’t any specifics in this consultation about how the stated goals would be met.

In addition, a badly planned project may have unexpected consequences that would negatively impact Catford and the neighbourhood for years to come.

The fact that specific traffic flow maps and data is absent from the consultation leads us to conclude that this is not adequate and unlawful.

Please address the arbitrary exclusion of the Halfords & Wickes site. This is identifiable from Lewisham Council’s formal planning policies for Catford. It extends along the River Pool opposite Catford and Catford Bridge stations.

Catford Against Social Cleansing (CASC thereafter) asked where the taller buildings will be placed in June 2019 we can see from Lewisham Council at the planning committee  proposed plans the taller buildings will be allocated at Halford & Wickes site, this has been omitted from any illustrations.

The challenging junction at Ravensbourne Road should be included in any plans for change. All traffic – including service vehicles for Barratt’s Catford Green – use this route, moreover a few weeks ago there was not one but two stand alone traffic lights, which impacted entry into Catford, it was very problematic, hence your proposals do not fill this community with hope that any traffic issues will be solved, if anything this will heighten the issues further.  About the railway bridge that carries the Thameslink services and narrows the A205 South Circular Road to one lane in either direction: Why has this been excluded?

In order to make Catford  “greener”, TfL proposes removing Metropolitan Open Land at the Jubilee Ground. We cannot see any compensation or replacement proposed. Therefore, there is a failure to comply with planning policies including the Mayor of London’s Plan.

Finally, the proposed plantings do not constitute any meaningful improvements. This cannot replace the loss of mature trees. The shallow planting is quite simply superficial.

There are too many unanswered questions which have been outlined in the above response for this to be a proper and fair consultation process. Furthermore, not having illustrations to show residents of this borough how these plans will work is disingenuous.

The consultation is inadequate and can be viewed as an attempt to make an easier route for these plans to sail through without opposition contrary to best practices for public consultation.

Transport for London are accepting responses until midnight on Monday, 5th June by Email: haveyoursay@tfl.gov.uk

Photo credit for aerial photograph of Catford to Archoptical.